My Main Problem With Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Juxtaposer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Juxtaposer

Guest
Is the infallibility of the pope…

I know the textual and logical arguments for the infallibility of the pope, however, I’m still reluctant to accept it as fact. My reason for this? It seems as though that the Catholic Church’s teachings have in fact changed over time. Here are a few things that I can’t find any evidence of in the Catholic Church’s teaching before the Council of Trent:
  1. Baptism by Desire
  2. Actual AND Sanctifying Grace
  3. The last sentence of article #1128 in the New Catechism
  4. The concept of an “invisible Church”
Numbers 1, 2, and 3 destroy the concept of sacramental realism, which I think needed to be destroyed (if it ever existed). However, I haven’t seen anything to prove that these things were always taught.

Number 4 goes against the doctrine of there being no salvation outside the Church, which was illustrated in Pope Boniface VIII’s bull Unum Sanctum. One could argue that Boniface WAS talking about the invisible Church, but let’s look at what was actually said:
Code: 
  " Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the
  Roman pontiff,—this we declare, say, define, and pronounce
  to be altogether necessary to salvation."
If you’re subject to the Roman Pontiff (aka being Catholic) you’re in the visible Church. Therefore, Pope Boniface VIII said that all who are not in the visible Church do not have salvation. Then you have the Catechism saying that Muslims share in God’s plan for salvation in article #841. Since Muslims aren’t in the visible Church ( not subject to the Roman Pontiff) the New Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to contradict Pope Boniface VIII. That means that Vatican II contradicts Pope Boniface VIII. Contradictions such as this don’t look very good for the concept of the infallibility of the pope.
 
In the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Baptism”, in the section on “The Baptism of Desire”, St. Augustine and St. Bernard are cited as witnesses to baptism of desire. ()

In addition, I think I’ve found an even earlier reference to a form of baptism of desire (namely, those who lived and died in the Church but whose baptism was later determined to be invalid) by Cyprian of Cathrage, in his letter to Jubaianus, concerning the baptism of heretics. (newadvent.org/fathers/0506.htm)
For most of the letter Cyprian expresses his opinion that the baptism administered by heretical sects is invalid and heretics entering the Church must be re-baptized. In part of the letter quoted below, Cyprian considers the situation of those heretics who entered the Church and died without being re-baptized.

“But some one says, ‘What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism?’ The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who by simplicity were admitted into the Church, and in the Church have fallen asleep. Nevertheless it does not follow that, because there was error at one time, there must always be error; since it is more fitting for wise and God-fearing men, gladly and without delay to obey the truth when laid open and perceived, than pertinaciously and obstinately to struggle against brethren and fellow-priests on behalf of heretics.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle LXXII, To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, para. 23, A.D. 255, emphasis added)
 
Dear Juxtaposer,

First, let me say that I have enormous respect for you and your approach to these questions; they are “real” questions, and I hope we are offering “real” discussion and clarification for you.

The “problem” with respect to “realism” of Sacraments revolves around the absolute freedom of God to act outside the “corporation.” This is not a problem for the Church; the Church does not “own” God, she is His instrument. The Sacraments are the assured and ordinary (well, miraculous but still “ordinary”) means of the graces they bestow. But God “is always working,” and is always free. I am fond of saying that God is not circumscribed, even by Himself.

Evangelicals often cite the “good thief” on the cross, who is promised paradise (mind you, this may not be heaven), as indicating that baptism is not efficacious, despite Jesus’ warning in John 3:5 that “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Again, I see Baptism as the way in which the Body of Christ, according to His desire, provides the ordinary means of grace – through the Sacraments – while God may, in his freedom, operate outside them as He apparently does with the thief.

On a personal note, the question for me came down to this: Why would I presume upon the extraordinary and (to our human understanding) uncertain operation of God when He has given us – by his own hand – the sure and certain means of grace in the Church, His Body?
 
Boniface: one historical point is that when he was writing, the entire known world had already been evangelized. It was assumed that no one was in a state of “invincible ignorance.”
 
Juxtaposer said:
3. The last sentence of article #1128 in the New Catechism.
Click to expand...

Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
1128. This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the
sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the
action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ,
accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought
by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the
power of God.” From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in
accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his
Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of
the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on
the disposition of the one who receives them.
Click to expand...

The last sentence is: The fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

Let’s consider one of the fruits of baptism. One of the fruits of baptism is that God gives the baptized sactifying grace, which, among other things, enables “them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues” (CCC, 1226). When someone is baptized does he automatically possess perfect faith in God, perfect hope in God, and perfect love of God? It is possible, if he is perfectly disposed; there have probably been some saints who acquired the perfection of these virtues at their baptism. However, I think it fair to say, generally speaking, that one is usually imperfectly disposed at his baptism and that the faith, hope and love of God he acquires in the sacrament will only grow to perfection over time, as he becomes more perfectly disposed. In 2 Thes 1:3, St. Paul says, “We are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, as is fitting, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing.”

Let’s consider one of the fruits of Confirmation. One of the fruits of Confirmation is the confirmed are given “a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witness of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross.” (CCC, 1303) Although some may experience this strength immediately, for others, this strength of the Holy Spirit may only gradually grow as one becomes more properly disposed. I have heard it said that some confirmed may experience a profound growth in this strengh after years of seeming dormancy, when they became more perfectly disposed, in the so-called “baptism in the Holy Spirit” experience.
 
Hi Juxtaposer,

I don’t understand what is your problem with actual and sanctifying grace. Can you expand on this point?

Regards,
J.C>
 
Just a minor note, if you have a problem with the Catechism, then you are the one in trouble, as the Church is the one endowed with the charism of infallibility with regard to faith and morals, not the individual Christian. This is called “testing your faith” because what the Church teaching is clashing with your perspective. IN this regard, you are, as a matter of faith, required to submit your opinion to the teaching authority of the Church. Its okay to question it to gain greater understanding, but it is never okay to openly condemn an official teaching. That is called heresy, if you are a baptised Catholic. If you dissent out of ignorance, that is called material heresy. If you dissent out of obstinence, that is formal heresy.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Boniface: one historical point is that when he was writing, the entire known world had already been evangelized. It was assumed that no one was in a state of “invincible ignorance.”
Click to expand...
That is a possiblity but we cant presume to know what what Boniface assumed. We CAN know the intent of the Bull. The Bull addresses the issue of those ALREADY members of the Church who then leave the Church or fall into Heresy. It doesn’t address any other issue. In otherwords, the Bull cannot be used to discount either Baptism of Desire or Invincible Ignorance simply becuase it does not address those issues.

" Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the
Roman pontiff,—this we declare, say, define, and pronounce
to be altogether necessary to salvation"

What he says is correct. Every Human Creature IS infact subject to the Pope. This Bull doesnt address the ACCEPTANCE of that authority but rather the knowing rejection of it. Catholics who willfully and knowingly reject the authority of the Pope is the subject of the Bull.
 
With respect to actual and sanctifying grace, it is helpful to keep in mind that these are two entirely different things.

Sanctifying grace is the life of God, the indwelling of the Holy Trinity, living in our souls.

Actual grace is simply a help from God, which may come in answer to a prayer, in response to a need, or as a sacramental grace. If we simply call it “God’s help,” it might be less confusing.

JimG
 
A bloated self-serving hierarchy that has lost contact with its roots!
 
40.png
hermit:
A bloated self-serving hierarchy that has lost contact with its roots!
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think some of the “roots” have decided to graft themselves into a different tree.
 
40.png
Apologia100:
Just a minor note, if you have a problem with the Catechism, then you are the one in trouble, as the Church is the one endowed with the charism of infallibility with regard to faith and morals, not the individual Christian. This is called “testing your faith” because what the Church teaching is clashing with your perspective. IN this regard, you are, as a matter of faith, required to submit your opinion to the teaching authority of the Church. Its okay to question it to gain greater understanding, but it is never okay to openly condemn an official teaching. That is called heresy, if you are a baptised Catholic. If you dissent out of ignorance, that is called material heresy. If you dissent out of obstinence, that is formal heresy.
Click to expand...
Where did that come from? I’m not Catholic, and I refuse to submit to the teachings of the Catholic Church simply because she thinks she’s right. Call me whatever you want. Heritic, fool, anathema, whatever. I can’t force myself to agree with Catholic teaching, however, I do agree with a lot of it.
 
I recommend that you read John Henry Cardinal Newman’s “Apologia Pro Vita Sua” (don’t worry, it’s in English–Apology for My Life).

And it would probably be helpful for you to find any of Bishop Fulton Sheen’s talks or books. Also, I think you should examine the works of Hillaire Belloc. They are 19th and 20th century Catholics who really knew their Catholicism. Cardinal Newman was an Anglican convert.

It would probably also be helpful for you to read St. Therese of Lisieux’s “Story of a Soul”.
Though he can be somewhat problematic in his more “Eastern” works, Thomas Merton’s “The Seven Storey Mountain” is a classic.

It sounds to me as though you’ve been sifting (or someone has been sifting for you) all the reasons AGAINST Catholicism.

Therefore, I believe it would be most helpful for you to consider seriously all the reasons FOR Catholicism. These people are some of the best reasons–and reasoners–for Catholicism.

Have you ever considered the notion of the self-fulfilling prophecy? If you LOOK for contradictions, you’ll find them. Are you, can you be impartial, or is there within you the seed of doubt that “anything good can come out of Nazareth”, so to speak?

Finally, does your faith depend on relatives or absolutes? On men or God?
 
40.png
metal1633:
What he says is correct. Every Human Creature IS infact subject to the Pope. This Bull doesnt address the ACCEPTANCE of that authority but rather the knowing rejection of it. Catholics who willfully and knowingly reject the authority of the Pope is the subject of the Bull.
Click to expand...
If every human is subject to the Roman Pontiff, why say that that’s necessary for salvation? Your view doesn’t exactly fit in the context of a Bull of excommunication, either. It seems like the pope was trying to scare the excommunicant back into the Catholic Church.
 
40.png
Juxtaposer:
If every human is subject to the Roman Pontiff, why say that that’s necessary for salvation? Your view doesn’t exactly fit in the context of a Bull of excommunication, either. It seems like the pope was trying to scare the excommunicant back into the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
And if it is true that an excommunicant has placed his soul in mortal peril of eternal damnation, ought not that excommunicant be scared? And if the excommunicant did not know that he should be scared, ought not someone warn him of the danger?

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Juxtaposer,

You said part of your problem is that the church has not always seemed to teach certain things. While the church maintains that all new REVELATIONS from God ceased with the death of the last apostle, new UNDERSTANDING of that which has already been revealed is still going on today. It is an important point to take into consideration.

Soccer practice awaits!

God Bless,

Maria
 
As an aside:

Generally, councils were called to address specific problems that needed clarification. Also, same with encyclicals. They were written to address some issue that needed clarification. In fact, that also explains why the Paul, Peter, et al wrote the letters of the New Testament. Just because a belief was not identified in writing until some Council or encyclical does not mean that it wasn’t part of Church teachings previously.

Hope this helps.

Peace,
Linda
 
Juxtaposer, you have put the burden upon yourself to now prove that two infallible teachings of the Church actually contradict each other. So far you have not done that. Remember we are looking for contradictions, where it is that both teachings cannot be true at the same time.
 
40.png
martino:
Juxtaposer, you have put the burden upon yourself to now prove that two infallible teachings of the Church actually contradict each other. So far you have not done that. Remember we are looking for contradictions, where it is that both teachings cannot be true at the same time.
Click to expand...
Dear martino,

First, I understand there are only a very few teachings that are actually considered “infallible” or “ex cathedra.” I was looking at the Catholic Encyclopedia but only found rules for making ex cathedra statements. Do you know where there is an index of all the teachings that are considered infallible?

Also, does that mean that anything NOT considered infallible is up for debate?

Alan
 
40.png
Juxtaposer:
Is the infallibility of the pope…

I know the textual and logical arguments for the infallibility of the pope, however, I’m still reluctant to accept it as fact. My reason for this? It seems as though that the Catholic Church’s teachings have in fact changed over time. Here are a few things that I can’t find any evidence of in the Catholic Church’s teaching before the Council of Trent:
Click to expand...
Catholic teachings can be summed up in the following 3Ds
  1. Discipline can change
  2. Doctrine develops
  3. Dogma is unchangable
So it helps to identify what teaching is being spoken of
40.png
Juxtaposer:
  1. Baptism by Desire
  2. Actual AND Sanctifying Grace
  3. The last sentence of article #1128 in the New Catechism
  4. The concept of an “invisible Church”
Numbers 1, 2, and 3 destroy the concept of sacramental realism, which I think needed to be destroyed (if it ever existed). However, I haven’t seen anything to prove that these things were always taught.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read all the posts. Did anyone give you the definitions of sacrament and the types of grace?
40.png
Juxtaposer:
Number 4 goes against the doctrine of there being no salvation outside the Church, which was illustrated in Pope Boniface VIII’s bull Unum Sanctum. One could argue that Boniface WAS talking about the invisible Church, but let’s look at what was actually said:

" Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the
Roman pontiff,—this we declare, say, define, and pronounce
to be altogether necessary to salvation."

If you’re subject to the Roman Pontiff (aka being Catholic) you’re in the visible Church. Therefore, Pope Boniface VIII said that all who are not in the visible Church do not have salvation. Then you have the Catechism saying that Muslims share in God’s plan for salvation in article #841.
Click to expand...
#841 says

“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day”

You ask yourself how this is possible that the plan of salvation includes the Muslims? The answer comes from Paul. “God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth” [1 Tim 2:4] That doesn’t mean except Muslims.

Neither does it mean they WILL be saved, it means God desires that they will be saved. They worship the God of Abraham. So do we. Therefore the plan of salvation includes them.

But don’t stop reading at section #841. This section on the Church starts in section #836 and concludes in section #848. If you take 1 text out of context, and exclude the context being developed, you’ll misrepresent and mischaracterize the Catholic position.
40.png
Juxtaposer:
Since Muslims aren’t in the visible Church ( not subject to the Roman Pontiff) the New Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to contradict Pope Boniface VIII. That means that Vatican II contradicts Pope Boniface VIII. Contradictions such as this don’t look very good for the concept of the infallibility of the pope.
Click to expand...
The reason you come to the wrong conclusion is because you took text out of context and created your own pretext.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top