L
Loboto-Me
Guest
I’ll pray for them.
- Status
S
SSTeacher
Guest
Your directness and honesty is refreshing. Perhaps you can help me out.
In your opinion would I be wrong to conclude that although a veneer of infallibility covering everything inside the Catholic Church from the get–go has been suggested by Catholic clerics, teachers and apologists since 1870 no Catholic can actually know for sure if any Catholic doctrine carries with it the weight of infallibility since inside Catholicism there exists a variety of different opinions as to which doctrines (if any) the “infallibility stamp” supposedly applies? In other words, when it comes to doctrines, Catholics do not in reality have any kind of guarantee of infallibility and therefore they believe whatever they might believe by faith just like the rest of us?
Cordially,
Mick
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
Hi Mick…I speak to all here, and your appearance as 3rd person is not a slight toward you. I think your recent post is typical of a common misperception though about infallibility which you seem to represent above. I hope my explanation is clear enough.
First, I would concede though that I believe the Catholic Church definitely taught papal infallibility in 1870 without spelling out what makes a document or statement within a document “ex cathedra”. It seems that we have certainty about some statements, while others must remain debatable, such as Humanae Vitae, John Paul’s statenment against women priests, and the Bull Unam Sanctum. That is not to say that only infallible statements reflect church teaching. In my opinion, Humanae Vitae comes very close to being a truth of the natural order, which isn’t even dependent upon faith for our knowledge of it. I tend to put Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (women priests) in the infallible camp and Unam Sanctam as fallible. But it is just speculation. We just don’t always have equal clarity on when a pope intends to be speaking “from the chair”. I don’t see infallibility as a necessarily huge obstacle to reunion with the East because of this perhaps fortuitous and providential ambiguity. It seems to me that both Catholics and non-Catholics, but especially the latter, have an exaggerated view of papal infallibility that is unjustified.
I also take issue with the notion that believing in infallibility somehow precludes that it is by an act of faith that we arrive at infallibility. Mick, who is Orthodox asks:
Rory
First, I would concede though that I believe the Catholic Church definitely taught papal infallibility in 1870 without spelling out what makes a document or statement within a document “ex cathedra”. It seems that we have certainty about some statements, while others must remain debatable, such as Humanae Vitae, John Paul’s statenment against women priests, and the Bull Unam Sanctum. That is not to say that only infallible statements reflect church teaching. In my opinion, Humanae Vitae comes very close to being a truth of the natural order, which isn’t even dependent upon faith for our knowledge of it. I tend to put Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (women priests) in the infallible camp and Unam Sanctam as fallible. But it is just speculation. We just don’t always have equal clarity on when a pope intends to be speaking “from the chair”. I don’t see infallibility as a necessarily huge obstacle to reunion with the East because of this perhaps fortuitous and providential ambiguity. It seems to me that both Catholics and non-Catholics, but especially the latter, have an exaggerated view of papal infallibility that is unjustified.
I also take issue with the notion that believing in infallibility somehow precludes that it is by an act of faith that we arrive at infallibility. Mick, who is Orthodox asks:
It seems to me that Mick is confusing “ecclesiastical infallibility” in which I believe by faith, with “individual infallibility” which I disbelieve by both faith and reason. The mode of belief in infallibility is faith. I could not arrive at this doctrine through natural revelation. I could be wrong about what God has revealed, since I am fallible, but by faith I believe in infallibility, not reason.
Rory
T
tweetymom
Guest
Praying and God’s mercy
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Prayers going up for you and your family, hon. . . God keep them and you in the palm of His hand, in the shelter of His Heart.
B
benidict
Guest
hmmm. what the Bible say? there is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end leads to destruction…:bigyikes: how can you be secure in something, that your not sure is 100%? thats like saying im secure in my marriage because my wife/husband is 70 to 99% faithful. there is no way, you can be sure, you were taught the truth about faith. because in your view, there is no one who has a 100% of it. i think id be an agnostic, if i held this view. Peace
B
benidict
Guest
will be praying for your dil, and grandbaby. just saw this post. Peace and grace to them and you.
:grouphug:
S
SSTeacher
Guest
Thank you, Rory. I don’t at all mind being a third person. Indeed, I look foward to the time when I’m able to go forth as that sounds biblical.
Well, I’ve immediately run into the same problem yet again. You state that “we” have certainty about some statements while others remain debatable. However, gurneyhalleck1 has already posited that there is no consensus of opinion about any of this inside the Catholic Church. There is no “we.” That’s my main point. You are therefore giving me your opinion but another Catholic might have a completely different opinion. Therein lies the difficulty. Do you follow my drift?
What I am suggesting is that as far as Catholics are concerned all Catholic doctrine is promulgated in fallible statements since no Catholic knows for sure which teachings might be categorized as infallible. There is no internal mechanism inside the Catholic Church for that situation to be rectified, is there?
You’re doing that “we” thing again, Rory, which gives the impression of a consensus which does not apparently exist. There is no “we.”
Perhaps you’re right that Non–Catholics including Orthodox have an “exaggerated view” (not sure what that means, exactly, so I can’t very well object to it) but I will respectfully suggest that papal supremacy and papal infallibility constitute huge obstacles for Non–Catholics.
Am I confused? Possibly. Here’s a view of papal infallibility from a Non–Catholic perspective that may help:
The above viewpoint is based upon Non–Catholic presuppositions. Given Non–Catholic presuppositions, it’s a perfectly reasonable point of view. However, if one assumes a post–1870 notion that papal infallibility is biblical, that the Church Fathers believed it, and that it is only a case of showing those outside the Catholic Church that this is so, then one will have adopted Catholic presuppositions.
You start from Catholic presuppositions, Rory. That is, I suppose, why you think I am confused. You are failing to appreciate Non–Catholic presuppositions. Once you get past that obstacle you’ll perhaps begin to realize that Non–Catholics are not confused about this issue. They simply do not and cannot adopt Catholic presuppositions.
Does any of this post make sense to you?
Curiously,
Mick
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
Mick,
I don’t believe the Church Fathers taught papal infallibility as it was defined at Vatican I. I don’t think there is enough evidence to substantiate a consensus of the Fathers. That is not my Catholic presupposition. I think it is a legitmate development that took history and heresy to refine. Someone objects because the Church took a long time to arrive at the definition of papal infallibility. What was the Holy Ghost doing they ask, waiting so long. The Orthodox are not in an very good position to be accusing Catholics of delay in defining truth when centuries rolled by before the first seven councils were completed. It would be too time consuming to write about the historical backdrop that caused the 19th Century to be the moment for a certain Marian teaching, as well as the doctrine of papal infallibility. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches seem committed to the notion that the Apostolic teaching grows and progresses in history. In my opinion, if we may only believe that which was explicitly believed in the days of St. Ignatius of Antioch, we will be hard-pressed to locate two natures in Christ and a host of other teachings that were delayed for a time and a season.
When I explained my perception of ambiguity about some matters, I would not have imagined that it would be received negatively by someone who opposes papal infallibility.
As for the Church saying *“You can trust me because, in my own estimation, I’m trustworthy and that means I can guarantee that I won’t lead you astray,” ***
The Church is speaking to her own children who already have implicit trust in Her. That saying doesn’t capture at all how Catholics must approach the question. It is the estimation of the faithful, that the Church founded by Christ has the ability to allay any doubts about what she officially teaches. There is no turning back form the infallible teachings of councils, or the necessarily emphatic words of pope who have on at least two occasions, spoken for the Church, from the chair of St. Peter.
I think any institution or individual has the ability to infallibly define what it believes or stands for. In the case of Catholics who think the Church is founded on Christ and that He is continuing to provide and guide the Church, this also implies that the teaching is true. I don’t expect non-Catholics to think that what the Church teaches infallibly is true, but I don’t see why it is so hard for them to accept that there are certain teachings of the Church, which because of the way they have been promulgated, rise to a level of official acceptance, that there is no turning back for the Catholic Church. These would be the teachings of the Church about which there can be no debate. They are without possibility of repenting, the permanent teachings of the Church.
Can Orthodox Christians turn away from the Council of Nicea and declare that the Son of God was a creature begotten in time? I don’t think so. You are in the same boat as the Catholics for all practical purposes. Do you think that perhaps the Orthodox Christians can one day deny the teachings of the Council of Nicea? Why not, if NIcea is fallible?
Everybody has their pope and uses certain mechanisms to insure that if a particular teaching disappears or is changed, that future generations may know that this particular community has abandoned its traditions and failed to hand down what has been infallibly proclaimed as the teaching of that community. Why or how can anyone be lawfully disciplined for failing to uphold the official teachings of any particular church or groups of churches? It is only just if there are certain teachings which are with unfailing certainty, the teachings of that church, and therefore infallibly held to be true by members of the same. All church discipline rests on the assumption that a community has the ability to infallibly define for itself what it believes while invoking certain minimum standards upon its members for belief.
Apparently it belongs to the Catholic Church alone to admit to this ability to define its own teachings. But for all practical purposes, no communuity can survive without changing unless it possesses certain permanent teachings which act for all practical purposes as though they are infallible. I do not see what is to be gained by disciplining someone and saying maybe we don’t teach this that we are excommunicating you for and maybe it isn’t true.
Regards, and thanks for your comprehensive response to my earlier post.
Rory
I don’t believe the Church Fathers taught papal infallibility as it was defined at Vatican I. I don’t think there is enough evidence to substantiate a consensus of the Fathers. That is not my Catholic presupposition. I think it is a legitmate development that took history and heresy to refine. Someone objects because the Church took a long time to arrive at the definition of papal infallibility. What was the Holy Ghost doing they ask, waiting so long. The Orthodox are not in an very good position to be accusing Catholics of delay in defining truth when centuries rolled by before the first seven councils were completed. It would be too time consuming to write about the historical backdrop that caused the 19th Century to be the moment for a certain Marian teaching, as well as the doctrine of papal infallibility. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches seem committed to the notion that the Apostolic teaching grows and progresses in history. In my opinion, if we may only believe that which was explicitly believed in the days of St. Ignatius of Antioch, we will be hard-pressed to locate two natures in Christ and a host of other teachings that were delayed for a time and a season.
When I explained my perception of ambiguity about some matters, I would not have imagined that it would be received negatively by someone who opposes papal infallibility.
Sure I follow. Why does it pose a problem for you that there have been very few infallible defintions given by popes apart from a council of the world’s bishops?
There is no putting aside the Councils, nor is there any putting aside of at least two ex cathedra dogmas of the popes. Further, through another council or papal definition, speculative teachings that permit competing schools of thought can be narrowed or clarified to a single teaching.
As for the Church saying *“You can trust me because, in my own estimation, I’m trustworthy and that means I can guarantee that I won’t lead you astray,” ***
The Church is speaking to her own children who already have implicit trust in Her. That saying doesn’t capture at all how Catholics must approach the question. It is the estimation of the faithful, that the Church founded by Christ has the ability to allay any doubts about what she officially teaches. There is no turning back form the infallible teachings of councils, or the necessarily emphatic words of pope who have on at least two occasions, spoken for the Church, from the chair of St. Peter.
I think any institution or individual has the ability to infallibly define what it believes or stands for. In the case of Catholics who think the Church is founded on Christ and that He is continuing to provide and guide the Church, this also implies that the teaching is true. I don’t expect non-Catholics to think that what the Church teaches infallibly is true, but I don’t see why it is so hard for them to accept that there are certain teachings of the Church, which because of the way they have been promulgated, rise to a level of official acceptance, that there is no turning back for the Catholic Church. These would be the teachings of the Church about which there can be no debate. They are without possibility of repenting, the permanent teachings of the Church.
Can Orthodox Christians turn away from the Council of Nicea and declare that the Son of God was a creature begotten in time? I don’t think so. You are in the same boat as the Catholics for all practical purposes. Do you think that perhaps the Orthodox Christians can one day deny the teachings of the Council of Nicea? Why not, if NIcea is fallible?
Everybody has their pope and uses certain mechanisms to insure that if a particular teaching disappears or is changed, that future generations may know that this particular community has abandoned its traditions and failed to hand down what has been infallibly proclaimed as the teaching of that community. Why or how can anyone be lawfully disciplined for failing to uphold the official teachings of any particular church or groups of churches? It is only just if there are certain teachings which are with unfailing certainty, the teachings of that church, and therefore infallibly held to be true by members of the same. All church discipline rests on the assumption that a community has the ability to infallibly define for itself what it believes while invoking certain minimum standards upon its members for belief.
Apparently it belongs to the Catholic Church alone to admit to this ability to define its own teachings. But for all practical purposes, no communuity can survive without changing unless it possesses certain permanent teachings which act for all practical purposes as though they are infallible. I do not see what is to be gained by disciplining someone and saying maybe we don’t teach this that we are excommunicating you for and maybe it isn’t true.
Regards, and thanks for your comprehensive response to my earlier post.
Rory
P
PRmerger
Guest
Prayers going up right now!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Haha! Very witty!Thank you, Rory. I don’t at all mind being a third person. Indeed, I look foward to the time when I’m able** to go forth **as that sounds biblical.
Regarding Church infallibility: our obedience to Christ’s teachings, as manifested by the CC, is not based on infallibility, but on authority.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Here’s an excellent post from itjustdave1988 that sums up what exactly we Catholics are bound to believe regarding: obedience and Church infallibility:
Ask your Protestant friends if they believe it is God’s will that a child obey his parents. Is so, why? Are the parents infallible? Or is it because all authority comes from God, and that the authority possessed by the father as superior to the son is God-given? And disobedience to God-given authority is not in accord with God’s will, not in accord with the virtue of charity?
Thus, if a son is bound to obey his father who is always fallible, then why is it that we presume we can disobey our lawful pastors simply because they are not ALWAYS defining things infallibly?
Sometimes we suffer the wrongs imposed upon us by authority, out of charity. Jesus did that, right? Didn’t Jesus even tell his disciples to do as the fallible Pharisees taught, but not to do what they did? Even though the Pharisees were not infallible, they sat upon the seat of Moses (cf. Matt 23:2). Thus, by that authority, they were to be obeyed, until such time that God established his eternal Church upon the rock of Peter (cf. Matt 16:18)
As for the Truth…it is Christ. We follow the Truth when we follow Him. He is the one who tells us to obey our fallible leaders which He himself empowered. Our response out to be “faith that worketh through charity.”
Heb 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
I really don’t think enough people prayerfully reflect upon the above passage, especially Americans, who often think they are not obliged to submit to anyone.
Now, it is true that we must reconcile Heb 13:17 with the other Scripture passages, such as this one…
Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than men.”
Thus, St. Thomas Aquinas states that there are two reasons why one is not bound to obey their lawful superior: 1) they command something outside the scope of their lawful authority, and 2) they command something contrary to higher authority.
Thus, we are bound to the lawful commands of lawful superiors, so long as they act in accord with their God-given authority, whether we agree with them or not.
As a military man, I have no difficulty submitting to very stuped superiors. I understand that they are my superior, not because they are always right, but because they were commission and appointed by lawful authority. I often suffer to submit to the will of another, even though I believe they are wrong. Being wrong is not the same as being contrary to God’s will.
For example, wasn’t Moses often going the “wrong” direction, away from the promised land while wandering in the desert? There were many who didn’t want to submit to him anymore (Korah, cf. Num 16). Yet, even though Moses was headed the wrong way, he was being navigated by God every step of the way. We cannot always understand why God navigates his holy people in divergent directions. But the response of the faithful is the “obedience of faith” spoken of by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, even if we can’t understand why.
The problem is that many people aren’t really obeying God when they enter into homosexual relations, or appreviate the Bible and start their own church like Luther did. They aren’t really applying Act 5:29, but instead obey their own faulty understanding rather than the submitting to the Church, what Scripture calls “the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)
Everyone needs limits and correction from lawful authority, because we have a tendancy, as individuals, to go faster than the speed limit, for example, and otherwise rationalize our unlawful actions, pretending that God wants me to do X, despite the norms established by lawful authority.
By doing so we make our faulty self the de facto pillar of truth, which is certainly contrary to God’s will. It is certainly contrary to Christ’s affirmation that the final arbiter is the Church (see Matt 18:15ff). We are commanded by Scripture to “listen to the Church.” All the evil in the word can be attributed to a failure to do so. How are we to responsond “if he refuses to listen even to the church” as the final arbiter of truth? And make no mistake, heresy and dissent from the teachings of the Church is certainly a sin against Christ’s brethren. Scripture is quite clear in this regard.
Ask your Protestant friends if they believe it is God’s will that a child obey his parents. Is so, why? Are the parents infallible? Or is it because all authority comes from God, and that the authority possessed by the father as superior to the son is God-given? And disobedience to God-given authority is not in accord with God’s will, not in accord with the virtue of charity?
Thus, if a son is bound to obey his father who is always fallible, then why is it that we presume we can disobey our lawful pastors simply because they are not ALWAYS defining things infallibly?
Sometimes we suffer the wrongs imposed upon us by authority, out of charity. Jesus did that, right? Didn’t Jesus even tell his disciples to do as the fallible Pharisees taught, but not to do what they did? Even though the Pharisees were not infallible, they sat upon the seat of Moses (cf. Matt 23:2). Thus, by that authority, they were to be obeyed, until such time that God established his eternal Church upon the rock of Peter (cf. Matt 16:18)
As for the Truth…it is Christ. We follow the Truth when we follow Him. He is the one who tells us to obey our fallible leaders which He himself empowered. Our response out to be “faith that worketh through charity.”
Heb 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
I really don’t think enough people prayerfully reflect upon the above passage, especially Americans, who often think they are not obliged to submit to anyone.
Now, it is true that we must reconcile Heb 13:17 with the other Scripture passages, such as this one…
Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than men.”
Thus, St. Thomas Aquinas states that there are two reasons why one is not bound to obey their lawful superior: 1) they command something outside the scope of their lawful authority, and 2) they command something contrary to higher authority.
Thus, we are bound to the lawful commands of lawful superiors, so long as they act in accord with their God-given authority, whether we agree with them or not.
As a military man, I have no difficulty submitting to very stuped superiors. I understand that they are my superior, not because they are always right, but because they were commission and appointed by lawful authority. I often suffer to submit to the will of another, even though I believe they are wrong. Being wrong is not the same as being contrary to God’s will.
For example, wasn’t Moses often going the “wrong” direction, away from the promised land while wandering in the desert? There were many who didn’t want to submit to him anymore (Korah, cf. Num 16). Yet, even though Moses was headed the wrong way, he was being navigated by God every step of the way. We cannot always understand why God navigates his holy people in divergent directions. But the response of the faithful is the “obedience of faith” spoken of by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, even if we can’t understand why.
The problem is that many people aren’t really obeying God when they enter into homosexual relations, or appreviate the Bible and start their own church like Luther did. They aren’t really applying Act 5:29, but instead obey their own faulty understanding rather than the submitting to the Church, what Scripture calls “the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)
Everyone needs limits and correction from lawful authority, because we have a tendancy, as individuals, to go faster than the speed limit, for example, and otherwise rationalize our unlawful actions, pretending that God wants me to do X, despite the norms established by lawful authority.
By doing so we make our faulty self the de facto pillar of truth, which is certainly contrary to God’s will. It is certainly contrary to Christ’s affirmation that the final arbiter is the Church (see Matt 18:15ff). We are commanded by Scripture to “listen to the Church.” All the evil in the word can be attributed to a failure to do so. How are we to responsond “if he refuses to listen even to the church” as the final arbiter of truth? And make no mistake, heresy and dissent from the teachings of the Church is certainly a sin against Christ’s brethren. Scripture is quite clear in this regard.
S
SSTeacher
Guest
Neither do I.
I agree.
Fair enough.
I have indeed stated that this is a difficulty encountered by those who look at this Catholic teaching through a Non–Catholic lens.
Huh? Where is this coming from? You’ve completely changed your stance. I pointed out that it was a difficulty. You translated that into an objection and now suddenly: “The Orthodox are not in a very good position to be ACCUSING Catholics of delay in defining truth when centuries rolled by before the first seven councils were completed.”
Yes, it would. I applaud your swift return to thoughtful and cautious commentary.
Does this really seem the case to you, Rory? If you’re trying to suggest that Orthodoxy understands the development of Christian doctrine in the same way that the Catholic Church understands it (cf. the essay by Cardinal Newman) then I think I’ll reserve the right to disagree with you.
Cordially,
Mick
S
SSTeacher
Guest
Have I suggested any such thing? Frankly, I don’t think there is anything to be gained by pursuing this line.
Because that so evident lack of application raises the whole question of its raison d’être. If the papacy really is endowed with the gift of infallibility apropos pronouncements upon matters pertaining to faith and morals and the Holy Spirit really did reveal this to the Catholic Church in 1870 then papal infallibility is in reality a gift of the Holy Spirit. And so emerge the obvious questions: Why, then, is this gift from God not being used to greater effect? Why the obvious reluctance to employ this God–given tool?
I acknowledge your logical Catholic stance. But I would respectfully suggest that until that stance is modified the possibility of unity between the Catholic Church and any faith community inside Non–Catholic Christendom including the Orthodox is probably out of the question.
If you’re suggesting that the pope could infallibly define and thus clarify for all time and in all places on earth what Catholics are supposed to believe and what they’re not supposed to believe then you are stating what many Non–Catholics see to be perfectly obvious. But am I not correct in thinking that the Catholic Church already has a procedure for dealing with speculative and wayward ideas that arise within Catholicism? I was under the impression that if a prominent Catholic theologian promulgated ideas that were controversial those ideas would be debated and discussed and, eventually, if the ideas did not meet with Vatican approval, the Vatican would censure the theologian concerned. That theologian’s fellow theologians would probably then try to champion the censured theologian in the name of “academic freedom” following which the theologian would declare himself or herself to be “in dissent” with Catholic officialdom. And that’s when the official procedure kicks in. Am I correct?
Amiably,
Mick
S
SSTeacher
Guest
I don’t think many people would disagree with the idea that the doctrine of papal infallibility, as far as Catholics are concerned, allays doubts. But Non–Catholics perceive papal infallibility not as a helpful assurance but as an obstacle to unity. Perhaps this is something that ought to be emphasized, as doing so might well help us all to better understand each other?
If you take out the word “infallibly” from your sentence (especially since it intrudes as a split infinitive
) I’ll be able to agree with it. The Catholic Church is alone in positing its own infallibility. To the best of my knowledge no other institution or individual does this.Indeed. And if it were simply an implication it would cause no controversy.
Your expectation seems reasonable. And if the Catholic Church simply stated its doctrines as non–negotiable i.e. one had to believe them in order to become and remain a member of the Catholic Church, then I think that would be a lot easier for Non–Catholics to accept. It is the “infallibility” label that causes the difficulty.
Right. From whence comes the need to go beyond that and state that the teachings are infallible? Why not just declare them to be “non–negotiable” and leave it at that?
Convivially,
Mick
S
SSTeacher
Guest
OK.
What has this question and assertion to do with papal infallibility?
Despite the fact that I’ve done my best throughout my posts addressing this issue to categorize my questioning stance under the heading of “Non–Catholic” you still insist upon focusing on Orthodoxy. Well, that’s allowable, I guess. Let’s focus on it.
Let me state firstly that inside Orthodoxy there is no doctrine of papal infallibility and, secondly, that Orthodoxy doesn’t change. There were two councils of Nicea, if you recall. They were the first and seventh ecumenical councils. After the Second Council of Nicea in 787, the Eastern Orthodox doctrinal case is set in stone. As you may know, the Eastern Orthodox Church is even sometimes referred to as “The Church of the Seven Councils.” Why would any Eastern Orthodox Christian have reason to question any of the first seven ecumenical councils within those parameters? If the Eastern Orthodox Church “developed” doctrine in the same way that the Catholic Church has insisted upon doing then I suppose the Eastern Orthodox Church would have run into the same problems. But that hasn’t happened. So I am definitely not “in the same boat as the Catholics for all practical purposes.” Indeed, when I consider the burdens under which Catholics have to labor I feel like I’m walking on water!
By the way, the Second Council of Nicea dealt with the iconoclasts and approved the veneration of icons. What did you Catholics do with all your icons?
No, Rory, everybody doesn’t have their pope and to the best of my knowledge no community outside of the Catholic Church feels any need for infallible proclamations to endorse its teachings.
Affably,
Mick
S
SSTeacher
Guest
Well, you’ve answered your own question and in doing so provided possible insight into the way Catholics think. Infallibility equals unfailing certainty. The other faith communities within Christendom neither desire nor permit such a prop. The very essence of faith is that it must coexist with occasional doubt. I suppose such an idea is alien to the Catholic mindset. Why, not only do you have a Catechism of the Catholic Church that’s over 800 pages long, you even find it necessary to have a commentary upon that Catechism! It seems to me that for Catholics everything has to be reasoned, analyzed, debated, explained and then, finally and most importantly, proved. It’s easy to alight upon the source of the Catholic craving for unfailing certainty and infallible proof. It lies in your modus operandi.
If you take out the word “infallibly” from your sentence I’ll be able to agree with it. The Catholic Church is alone in positing its own infallibility. To the best of my knowledge no other institution or individual does this.
Indeed. The Catholic Church alone needs this “infallibility ability.”
Now, here would have been an ideal opportunity for you to focus upon the Eastern Orthodox Church – but you missed it. The Eastern Orthodox Church has survived without changing. It possesses certain permanent teachings and refuses to develop them. Moreover, it totally and completely rejects the idea of papal infallibility and/or its attendant veneer.
I appreciate your taking the time, Rory, to adduce the case for the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. I reject that doctrine but I accept that you believe it and obviously with much intensity. I daresay this is the most controversial of issues but your approach has been most reasonable. In fact, it is my considered (but not infallible
) opinion that you have conducted yourself with dignity and courtesy and that you’ve set a good example for both Catholics and Non–Catholics. I commend you for your graciousness. And I should like to add that I think you are a credit to yourself, your Church, and the LORD you serve. I’ve no further comments on this issue so if you wish to address or correct anything in any of my posts feel free to do so. I’ll let you have the last word. May God grant you many years!Respectfully,
Mick
S
SSTeacher
Guest
Thank you, PR. I found the purple print a bit much but it seems to constitute a credible reassurance for Catholics.
Appreciatively,
Mick
P
PJM
Guest
The first point of clairification is painful for non-Catholics. One cannot correcty accuse “Catholics,” or even the CC; because it is Christ Himself sharing the teaching through the medium of Catholics and His Church.
John 14: 16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, [The Holy Spirit] to be with you for ever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you."
John 17:14:19 I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.*** 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. ***
The answer to your question is that The Catholic Church is the Voice of Christ on Earth on all matters of Faith and Morals. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." /COLOR]
Love and prayers
P
PRmerger
Guest
That is a peculiar objection, IMHO, in light of the fact that most of these Objectors believe in the dogma of the Trinity, which the Church also “took a long to to arrive at the definition of”.
Our understanding of the Trinity comes not from the Scriptures, but from the Church. The Holy Spirit chose to reveal and refine the “definition” of the Trinity after “a long time” not to the Apostles, but to the Church.
- Status