Serious questions requiring sophisticated answers

[SoMissCatholic]

You’ve found the bone I have to pick. There were some fairly evil men who served as Pope here and there. Is what such a person said ex cathedra binding upon God, even if in his own soul there was great sin or apostasy? They weren’t all Bl. John Paul II, as you well know. Am I denying the ability of the Holy Spirit to influence the minds of people? OH NO because I have been so influenced and it’s an amazing experience. My question is: of all the rules, the regulations, the Catechism (which in its girth rivals the Talmud!) WHO TOLD GOD what He could do, should do, would do? Can it ALL be right? Doesn’t feel so, not to me. Ergo: this post.

There certainly have been popes in the past that, to put it charitably, did not live the life of holiness to which God calls all humans to live. However, these men’s personal failings had no bearing on the validity of the Papal office. Jesus acknowledges this concept in the Gospel of St. Mattew
Matthew 23:1-3:

Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.”

(emphasis mine). Here we see Jesus recognizing the pharisaical authority by nature of the fact that they “sat on Moses’ seat,” (i.e. they occupied an office that held teaching authority) despite their personal failings to live in accordance with the standards they taught. Jesus condemns their actions, but still commands the faithful to be obedient to their teachings.

We see the same situation presenting itself in the situation you describe. These past popes “sat on the chair of St. Peter” and therefore had authority to teach and bind the faithful even though they did not practice what they preached. Having said that though, I’m not sure that any ex cathedra, infallible statements were actually declared by any of the popes you refer to.

 

[ellzeena]

No where? Saying that what you bound on earth will be bound in heaven and what is loose on earth is loose on earth contradicts what you claim.

Roman Catholicism interprets this to mean that everything comes under the jurisdiction of the apostles and their successors: large matters of faith down to the tiniest matter of faith. Protestantism holds that this statement of Jesus means something quite different and pertains to sin and bondage.
http://pulpit.biblecommenter.com/matthew/18.htm

Please cite the ex cathedra statements that these popes declared that binds God. Of course you can’t because there are none. There are none because Jesus said He would protect His Church. How could you trust His Church if it could be fallible?

There MUST be some because every Pope CAN speak ex cathedra and at some point DOES and in that speaking is deemed “infallible”. (See: “The Bad Popes”, Russell Chamberlain) Jesus said He would be WITH His church until the end of the age. “Protection” is not explicitly stated but implied and this would mean that He would have to remove/expose any “infallible” statement upon its being made. That would cause chaos in the universe which functions autonomously (free will). ? To say there “are none” is to suggest that the “bad” Popes never made any ex cathedra statements. Now, while this might be true of one, can it be true of all? Doesn’t make sense, logically, since most Popes have made such statements.

It does appear that in matters of faith (e.g., indulgences) the Church makes statements on behalf of God and that does attempt to bind God, to me anyway. One other poster mentioned that the Catechism explicitly directs us on what we can and cannot believe regarding the origins of Humanity. Doesn’t that bind God, as well? Now, I don’t for one second even remotely suggest that aliens “seeded” the earth with intelligent life BUT, had that been part of God’s plan, it certainly could have happened. “We” are not “allowed” a great many thoughts and questions. There are those who will say I am sinning merely for having this conversation. It certainly is not my intention.

 

[adf417]

Sorry, I have lost track. What have I failed to demonstrate a grasp of?

I can’t see anything you have failed at. Your demonstration was very thorough. As a matter of fact if you were any more “fluid” in your explanation I would be drowning.

Thanks for the lesson,
Peace!!!

 

[ellzeena]

Part of your difficulty in harmonizing with the teaching authority of the Church may stem from the Bible translation you are using. The NIV is a protestant translation of scripture using a dynamic equivalence translation method. (See this CA Bible Translations Guide for more on dynamic vs. literal equivalence translation methods.) Also, since it is a protestant translation, it does not include the books of the deuterocanon, which protestants, during the reformation, rejected as being inspired. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with the NIV simply by it being a protestant translation (besides the fact that it does not include the deuterocanon), but consider the following from the above cited tract:

And since yours is a “study bible,” I would think the tendency to insert doctrinal views would be even stronger in its commentary on scripture passages since the commentary is nothing more than the author’s/editor’s/translator’s interpretation of the meaning of such passages. So even though there are many areas of belief in which protestants and Catholics agree, I suspect that there are probably portions of your NIV Study Bible that appear to implicitly or directly contradict the Church’s teaching on an issue that protestants disagree with. This perceived contradiction in turn gives rise to the impression that scripture and the Church’s Magisterium are in conflict with each other. Finally, since God is truth and truth cannot contradict itself, a false dichotomy is set up in which God’s authority must rest either in scripture or in the teachings of the Church, but not with both.

I say all that to say this: switching to a study bible using a Catholic translation, such as the Ignatius Study Bible, may help you with some of the issues you are struggling with.

Yes, well I knew as soon as I hit “enter” that someone would point out the NIV is not “Catholic” in its contents. But this Bible has no political agenda; it notates irregularity of translations which are crucial to understand since even a mistranslation of one word can change the intention of a scripture. It speaks of the social environment at the time Jesus walked among us and when His apostles went out into the world following His ascension. Yes, there are books not in it. That doesn’t make it any less worthy. I think it helps to understand the differences between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, actually. Thank you for your suggestion.

 

[adrift]

www.integralscience.org/ConsciousQM.html‎

Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics

Copyright 1988 Thomas J. McFarlane

www.integralscience.org

Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics

This link works

 

[adrift]

Roman Catholicism interprets this to mean that everything comes under the jurisdiction of the apostles and their successors: large matters of faith down to the tiniest matter of faith. Protestantism holds that this statement of Jesus means something quite different and pertains to sin and bondage.
http://pulpit.biblecommenter.com/matthew/18.htm

Your link is not to the verse in question but this is
It is an interesting read and quite balanced in its presentation.
To statements

And the Lord here promises Peter a certain pre-eminence in the government and organization of the Church, and that the rules which he ordained and the sentences which he should pass in the due exercise of his apostolical authority, should be ratified and confirmed in heaven (Burgon).

The fuller consideration of this sphere of the subject belongs rather to the historian and the polemist than to the expositor, and to such we leave it, only adding that, in his peculiar privilege, Peter stands alone, and that in his extraordinary power he had, and was intended to have, no successors

It isn’t surprising that the authority of the Church is disputed now is it.

There MUST be some because every Pope CAN speak ex cathedra and at some point DOES and in that speaking is deemed “infallible”. (See: “The Bad Popes”, Russell Chamberlain)

But you can’t name any? This speaks volumes in your misunderstanding of what ex cathedra is. You also make the assumption that because someone is bad that they can’t do any good. Not one instance in history does a Pope teach something that is wrong on faith and morals. If you are making a claim otherwise than it is your claim that must be substantiated with facts not “There Must be” You are making the claim, you must provide verifiable evidence.

Jesus said He would be WITH His church until the end of the age. “Protection” is not explicitly stated but implied and this would mean that He would have to remove/expose any “infallible” statement upon its being made. That would cause chaos in the universe which functions autonomously (free will). ? To say there “are none” is to suggest that the “bad” Popes never made any ex cathedra statements. Now, while this might be true of one, can it be true of all? Doesn’t make sense, logically, since most Popes have made such statements.

What doesn’t make sense is to make a statement without facts. What you haven’t proven is that any Pope made a statement that was heretical about faith and morals. You are again assuming that because someone is bad they cannot speak the truth.

It does appear that in matters of faith (e.g., indulgences) the Church makes statements on behalf of God and that does attempt to bind God, to me anyway. One other poster mentioned that the Catechism explicitly directs us on what we can and cannot believe regarding the origins of Humanity. Doesn’t that bind God, as well? Now, I don’t for one second even remotely suggest that aliens “seeded” the earth with intelligent life BUT, had that been part of God’s plan, it certainly could have happened. “We” are not “allowed” a great many thoughts and questions. There are those who will say I am sinning merely for having this conversation. It certainly is not my intention.

God gives the authority how is that binding Him. When He gave the authority, He didn’t know what would be done? Indulgences is an interesting subject
Myths about Indulgences
Primer on Indulgences

The pious use of indulgences dates back into the early days of the Church, and the principles underlying indulgences extend back into the Bible itself. Catholics who are uncomfortable with indulgences do not realize how biblical they are. The principles behind indulgences are as clear in Scripture as those behind more familiar doctrines, such as the Trinity.

---

 

[adrift]

Yes. You are ver wrong in believing this.

No, you are not correct (did you bother to read the Catholic Answers tract that I have cited twice in this thread).

The tract you cite does not dispute that it must be believed that we only have one set of original parents.

Given the evidence for evolution, are Catholics required to believe Adam and Eve existed?

In an encyclical issued in 1950 Pope Pius XII stated,

When there is a question of another conjectural opinion, namely, of polygenism so-called, then the sons of the Church in no way enjoy such freedom. For the faithful in Christ cannot accept this view, which holds either that after Adam there existed men on this earth who did not receive their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all, or that Adam signifies some kind of multiple first parents; for it is by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the magisterium of the Church teaches about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own. (Humani Generis 37)

 

[ellzeena]

It isn’t surprising that the authority of the Church is disputed now is it.

I was told by a member of my parish that a priest once told her “There is no more power in the Church, it died with the Apostles.” How’s that? From a priest?

Regarding my statement about ex cathedra statements from “bad” Popes (pardon the fact that this multi-quoting this is really clumsy for me to use):
You said:
But you can’t name any? This speaks volumes in your misunderstanding of what ex cathedra is. You also make the assumption that because someone is bad that they can’t do any good. Not one instance in history does a Pope teach something that is wrong on faith and morals. If you are making a claim otherwise than it is your claim that must be substantiated with facts not “There Must be” You are making the claim, you must provide verifiable evidence.
End your quote

This is not a court of law. The burden of proof is not solely upon me. I was raised a Roman Catholic and attended twelve years of Catholic school. I have studied other religions and, although I am far from an authority as some of those on these forums, I do know the RC church. Yes I know what an “ex cathedra” statement is. For me to exposit all ex cathedra statements made by Popes of questionable character would most likely require hours of research. I’m certain there are other forum members here with sufficient sophisticated knowledge to point out at least one such. If a sitting Pope is unworthy (and before his election, Benedict XVI said, in an interview, that the Holy Spirit didn’t “always control” the selection process), then one must study his possible motivations when making such statements that bind the faithful which requires further study into social and political dynamics of the era. It stands to reason that one such “unworthy” (and you must admit, there apparently have been “unworthy”) Pope has made at least one ex cathedra statement (unless his tenure was incredibly short). I think that’s a reasonable assumption.

Your quote in answer to my suggestion that rules and regulations made by men are attempting to bind God:
*“God gives the authority how is that binding Him. When He gave the authority, He didn’t know what would be done?”
*

I don’t mean to be argumentative and I very much respect your position. However, yes, I feel that making rules and regulations is an ATTEMPT to bind God. No, God cannot be bound. Jesus, Himself, detested the many rules put upon His people by leaders who knew full well these rules were almost impossible to follow, and did not follow themselves, remember? So here we are doing it again. How do you know that “God gives the authority” for such rule making, that God agrees with the regulations regarding indulgences (for instance, many others of course exist)? If Benedict XVI is correct, and in fact the Holy Spirit does not always influence the election of a Pope (I’ve frantically looked for a cite but can’t find it, however I clearly read it at some point prior to the election of Pope Francis), then the Holy Spirit does not necessarily agree with everything this Church says God desires, condemns, allows, etc. God “allows” many things: the Holocaust, the death of my daughter; does this mean He intended them, that He deliberately inflicted agony on the innocent? No. It means that the world is autonomous (free will), that He allows things for His own reasons and is able to use even the worst events (genocide, murder, suicide, etc.) for His purpose and ultimately for good.

My question still is: who “told” God? Who told God that missing Mass is a mortal sin? Who told God that, if I do this, that and the other in a certain manner, I can hope to obtain a plenary indulgence? Where do you see these things spoken of by Jesus and his apostles? Does “the keys of the kingdom” give the successors of Peter the right to speak on God’s behalf and, what if He doesn’t agree? Just sayin…

 

[adrift]

Does “the keys of the kingdom” give the successors of Peter the right to speak on God’s behalf and, what if He doesn’t agree? Just sayin…

The answer is YES. Do you think God doesn’t know the future? When He gave the keys God didn’t know what would be done His name? Of course God did so to say He didn’t agree is to say that God didn’t know what He was doing when He gave the Keys.

You seem to ignore some points when it comes to infallibility.

1. You are the one who is making the charge therefore you are responsible to provide proof. Even one example would suffice.
   2.NEVER has there been a Pope who has proclaimed a heresy to be believed infallibly. You can not even give one example.
2. A bad Pope does not make everything he does bad.

 

[Gorgias]

Hi, ellzeena! Mind if I join the conversation?

I was told by a member of my parish that a priest once told her “There is no more power in the Church, it died with the Apostles.” How’s that? From a priest?

Three thoughts: first, you don’t have a statement from a priest – you have it from a ‘member of the parish’. This person may or may not have understood or remembered the claim from the priest correctly. Second, even if they did, who’s to say that the priest is correct? We hope that he is, and we expect that (based on his education) he will be, but sometimes, even priests get it wrong! Third, this statement – coming from you, as it does – confuses me a bit: there can be ‘bad popes’, but not ‘bad priests’?
elzeena:

But you can’t name any? … Not one instance in history does a Pope teach something that is wrong on faith and morals. If you are making a claim otherwise than it is your claim that must be substantiated with facts not “There Must be” You are making the claim, you must provide verifiable evidence

.

This is not a court of law. The burden of proof is not solely upon me.

You’re right, this isn’t a court. Yet, you’re making a claim, and others have asked you to provide evidence that your claim is reasonable. Yes, there are others with a bit more thorough education in the subject. But, you can’t just make a claim that seems reasonable to you, unless you’re willing and able to back it up with some sort of basis for it, can you?

For me to exposit all ex cathedra statements made by Popes of questionable character would most likely require hours of research. I’m certain there are other forum members here with sufficient sophisticated knowledge to point out at least one such.

Those of us who have studied theology can answer you: there aren’t any. But, before you respond, let me explain, using something else you’ve mentioned:

If a sitting Pope is unworthy (and before his election, Benedict XVI said, in an interview, that the Holy Spirit didn’t “always control” the selection process), then one must study his possible motivations when making such statements that bind the faithful

This might be the sticking point that others have called you on: there’s a difference between an ‘ex cathedra’ statement and a statement that is ‘binding on the faithful.’ For instance, when the Church declared that it was necessary to abstain on every Friday, that was binding on the faithful; however, it was neither doctrine nor dogma, and it was not ‘ex cathedra.’

Is your claim, then, simply that some popes have made statements that were binding on the faithful but were not up to the standard of infallibility? If so, then you’re right, and no one here should doubt that claim. However, if that’s your claim, you’re talking about impeccability, not infallibility – and definitely not about ‘ex cathedra’ statements.

It stands to reason that one such “unworthy” (and you must admit, there apparently have been “unworthy”) Pope has made at least one ex cathedra statement (unless his tenure was incredibly short). I think that’s a reasonable assumption.

Not to be rude… but no, it’s not a reasonable assumption – like I said, if you’re talking about ‘binding’ statements, then yeah, you’re right. However, the number of ‘ex cathedra’ statements is amazingly small. That’s why it most certainly is not the case that even “one … ‘unworthy’ Pope has made at least one ex cathedra statement.”

ellzeena:

*“God gives the authority how is that binding Him. When He gave the authority, He didn’t know what would be done?”
*

I don’t mean to be argumentative and I very much respect your position. However, yes, I feel that making rules and regulations is an ATTEMPT to bind God.

Hmm. Not sure how you can say that. Let’s take an example: I point you toward a pile of cash that is mine (and only mine). I tell you, “you have the right to spend this cash however you wish – whatever you do with it, I’m good with.” So, you spend it on something of your choosing, using your own judgment. How might a person say that you have ‘bound’ me into doing something against my will? It was my will that you spend it according to your decision. How can that be trumped?

(Add to that the point that Jesus promised that the He would send the Holy Spirit – and that the HS would be the protection that the Church wouldn’t do exactly what you’re claiming it’s done – and it seems really difficult to make the case you’re attempting to make… )

My question still is: who “told” God? Who told God that missing Mass is a mortal sin? Who told God that, if I do this, that and the other in a certain manner, I can hope to obtain a plenary indulgence?

That’s what a proxy is all about: the person granting the proxy, by definition, doesn’t have to be the one to make the statements. Rather, the person (or organization) to whom he grants the proxy makes the statements by his authority. When you tell a baby-sitter to watch your children for the evening, and the baby sitter says “no more TV for you!”, it’s authoritative by virtue of the authority you gave her, even if you didn’t say “no more TV after 8pm”…!

 

[ellzeena]

Hi, ellzeena! Mind if I join the conversation?

You’re right, this isn’t a court. Yet, you’re making a claim, and others have asked you to provide evidence that your claim is reasonable. Yes, there are others with a bit more thorough education in the subject. But, you can’t just make a claim that seems reasonable to you, unless you’re willing and able to back it up with some sort of basis for it, can you?..

Is your claim, then, simply that some popes have made statements that were binding on the faithful but were not up to the standard of infallibility? If so, then you’re right, and no one here should doubt that claim. However, if that’s your claim, you’re talking about impeccability, not infallibility – and definitely not about ‘ex cathedra’ statements.

Hmm. Not sure how you can say that. Let’s take an example: I point you toward a pile of cash that is mine (and only mine). I tell you, “you have the right to spend this cash however you wish – whatever you do with it, I’m good with.” So, you spend it on something of your choosing, using your own judgment. How might a person say that you have ‘bound’ me into doing something against my will? It was my will that you spend it according to your decision. How can that be trumped?

Suppose I purchase a weapon with which to kill you with that money? Or pay someone to burn your house down? Or do something equally vile and personally devastating to you or to those whom you love? Bad analogy. Back to the point, I did some homework:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.” (See INFALLIBILITY; POPE.)"

This is self explanatory and it is written in the context of Roman Catholicism which is rather like preaching to the choir or asking the President whether or not he should have been elected. Do you expect any other answer?

Two recognized cases I could find of a Pope speaking ex cathedra, one involving the Immaculate Conception (Pius IX) and the other Her assumption (Pius XII). There are no functional “lists” of Pope, or Pope in conjunction with Cardinals (Magisterium), so I would pretty much have to read every single statement made by every single Pope throughout history, which is impossible. And I’m not in a Ph.D. program in theology. You want me to defend my thesis but really I have not made one, I’ve simply asked a question.

My question is very, very simple and the answer cannot be turning to the source of the question. In other words, if A + 1 = A1, it logically follows that B + 2 = B2; but, in my personal scrambled inability to do higher math (lol) I may very well theorize that A + 1 = A1 so therefor A + 2 = AB. I can defend my incorrect theory because it is my own and makes perfect sense to me as you tear your hair our in frustration in an effort to prove me wrong. Because a statement is made: this is the formula for gaining a plenary indulgence which you may, or may not, actually get - does this mean the formula is correct and the “answer” is correct, also? By what authority? By the authority of those who proposed the question and created the answer. Now, that authority is claimed to be from God (the “keys” of the kingdom, etc.) but…how do we know that God agrees? How?

I don’t think this is a question with an answer. I don’t expect priests to be perfect, or bishops, or cardinals or popes. I don’t expect perfection from anyone. At this point, I don’t expect anything at all from anyone. But I do expect things from God: steadfast mercy and justice; love beyond all measure known to humans; absolute inerrancy; and a good sense of humor.

If one uses one’s own theorems to prove one’s own problem, and those theorems are fundamentally flawed and yet they produce an actual answer (this is what happened to me in Infinity Calculus LOL), then the entire thing “appears” correct to the uninitiated but is absolutely wrong. It’s a very clumsy analogy I admit but I just can’t think of another. I can’t “prove”, I can only ask. Fundamentally, it bothers me constantly (and always has) that rules and regulations are made on behalf of God and then enforced with threat of eternal punishment and I don’t see or hear God weighing in on any of this. Suppose you’re WRONG? Suppose God isn’t quite what you believe Him to be? Isn’t there any room for Him to be Himself? Doesn’t He have the absolute freedom and power to be, do, act with no restraints except those He places on Himself?

 

[ellzeena]

The answer is YES. Do you think God doesn’t know the future? When He gave the keys God didn’t know what would be done His name? Of course God did so to say He didn’t agree is to say that God didn’t know what He was doing when He gave the Keys.

You seem to ignore some points when it comes to infallibility.

1. You are the one who is making the charge therefore you are responsible to provide proof. Even one example would suffice.
   2.NEVER has there been a Pope who has proclaimed a heresy to be believed infallibly. You can not even give one example.
2. A bad Pope does not make everything he does bad.

Dear Adrift: God knows the future and He allows, for whatever reason that is totally inaccessible to us, that future to involve horror, agony, cruelty: the smashing of infant’s skulls on pavement by the SS. So: did God know what “He was doing”?

I’m not making any charge I’m asking a question. A “bad” pope may very well be a great saint compared to me. I think the huge fly in this ointment is the insistence on infallibility and the circular reasoning to prove it: point to infallibility in order to prove it. God “allows” many things that go against His intentions for us and His creation; that is not to say He agrees with them. FREE WILL.

 

[Gorgias]

Suppose I purchase a weapon with which to kill you with that money? Or pay someone to burn your house down? Or do something equally vile and personally devastating to you or to those whom you love? Bad analogy.

No… good analogy, but like all analogies, it must break down somewhere.

In the analogy, I talked about actions; in reality, we’re talking about doctrinal definitions. The question that you’re asking, then, comes down to this: can the exercise of infallibility mean that the Church can declare to be doctrine something that (using your words) is “vile or devastating” to the Church?

And that’s why I added the caveat that this is what Jesus meant when He said that he would send the Holy Spirit to protect the Church. By definition, then, and from Scriptural authority, we have Jesus’s mandate (‘act in my name’) and his guarantee of protection. So, on the face of it, there’s no issue.

This is self explanatory and it is written in the context of Roman Catholicism which is rather like preaching to the choir or asking the President whether or not he should have been elected. Do you expect any other answer?

To be honest… yes! In the quote you provided, you identified infallibility as having to do with doctrine; but, in your original post, you mentioned errors of different sorts: Sheen’s “error based on scientific knowledge” and “error based on his interpretation of certain things”, Augustine’s notion of the fate of unbaptized children, and “rules and regulations arrived at by supposed infallibility.” All of these are not part of the notion of infallibility. So, honestly, yes – it seems to me that either you’re confused about what infallibility means, or at the very least, you are ascribing to things the label ‘infallibility’ when it doesn’t apply to them at all! Moreover, none of the sources you mention are even sources that are capable of exercising infallibility in the contexts you point out: an individual bishop writing on his own; a Church Father, in the course of his development of theological discovery; rules and regulations (i.e., discipline, not dogma). On both counts (i.e., statements and their sources), you’re conflating ‘ex cathedra’ pronouncements with statements of a different sort!

Of course, you might simply be letting your mind wander: “if they’re wrong about this, why can’t they be wrong about that, too?” That’s a good question, and the answer, of course, is “Jesus promised us that it couldn’t happen!”

Two recognized cases I could find of a Pope speaking ex cathedra, one involving the Immaculate Conception (Pius IX) and the other Her assumption (Pius XII).

Exactly the point. ‘Ex cathedra’ statements are rare, indeed.

There are no functional “lists” of Pope, or Pope in conjunction with Cardinals (Magisterium), so I would pretty much have to read every single statement made by every single Pope throughout history, which is impossible.

No – you would have to read only those things that are formally stated as dogma or doctrine. These and only these are the domain of infallibility. With this in mind, can you think of a doctrine of the Church that illustrates your point, then?

Fundamentally, it bothers me constantly (and always has) that rules and regulations are made on behalf of God and then enforced with threat of eternal punishment and I don’t see or hear God weighing in on any of this.

See why I’m saying that you’re conflating issues? In this very post in which you assert that infallibility deals with doctrine and dogma – period! – you later mention ‘rules and regulations’ which, of themselves, aren’t in the same ballpark as infallible statements! You’re mixing and matching ideas, here, and attempting to make a claim that doesn’t hold up!

***For the sake of clarity, then, could you provide an example of a ‘rule’ or ‘regulation’ which is representative of your claim? *** Mind you – I’m not asking for you to show me one which you assert is wrong, just one that is representative of the class of things that concerns you as being the type of thing that might be wrong.

Doesn’t He have the absolute freedom and power to be, do, act with no restraints except those He places on Himself?

Yes! And He exercised that freedom with Jesus’ proxy and with the promise that the Church wouldn’t make a dogmatic statement in error! That’s the ultimate in freedom and power!

 

[steve_b]

I go to Mass because I meet the Lord there in His flesh and blood, not because I fear the condemnation to hell imposed upon me by some human, somewhere, some time. Our love for Him does not make us “safe”, there is no “safety”. Our love for Him does not make us rich, happy, secure, healthy…we live in this world, we are subject to its vicissitudes. Our love for Him makes us His disciples, and perhaps we will be martyred in many ways, and even die physically because of it.

I question not the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ; I question the right of humanity to put limitations on God and to judge one another when there is no true understanding of the other. We don’t all follow the yellow brick road. In some of our paths, there is true horror. Horror beyond belief. Let us remember that.

Jesus spoke/taught more of hell in scripture than anyone else. Even though God will judge us, that doesn’t mean we don’t make judgements along the way about matters in our lives. We just don’t judge another person’s eternal destination. Yes In the end, a person’s eternal destination is up to God. But in the mean time, He’s tells us how He will judge our actions. THAT’s real handy to know…agreed? He is the one, who has put limitations on us. And as we know, a source for that knowlege we need to know, is scripture, which is inspired by God and is hugely profitable for training and to pay particular attention to 2 Tim 3:16] (paraphrased )

For Example:

• Titus 3: 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is )perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
• Ephesians 5: 3-5 fornication, covetousness……5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
• Hebrews 10:25-26 missing mass deliberately, no sacrifice for sin for THEM but a fiery judgement that consumes the adversaries of God.
• Hebrews 12: 16 - 17 immoraliy, is selling your inheritance
• Galatians 5: 19 - 21 sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven
• Romans 16:17… dividers don’t serve our Lord but themselves. Stay away from them. Satan will soon be crushed under your feet
• Colossians 3: 5-6 immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry, …rath of God is coming
• 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10 no sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders ,ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoitēs] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
• Matthew 15: 19 - 20 murder, adultery, false witness, slander…defile a man

That’s A list of mortal sins. How do we know they are mortal? Look at the consequences if one dies in these sins…Hell. That’s by definition a mortal sin. There’s nothing more serious than going to hell

Just to be clear. To respond to your point above, these teachings and warnings do not originate from a mere human being. A human being isn’t making that judgement. These warnings and consequences originated from God. God is telling us through those writings, how He will judge those actions. Yes human beings may have passed them on to us via letter, or Gospel, but they originated from the one who will judge everyone who will and has ever lived. i.e. they came from Jesus [John 14:25-26 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 14) , [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16) Since God wants all to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, we obviously need education in that truth so their is no misinformation or guess work on our part. Our consciences then are formed in truth not nonsense, and we use our free will properly so we inherit heaven someday and avoid hell. Therefore, we have examples above so we know specifically what God wants us to avoid, because of the dire circumstances those behaviors produce in our soul. This is not invented in the mind of a human, it comes from God [2 Tim 3:16]

 

[ericc]

There are no functional “lists” of Pope, or Pope in conjunction with Cardinals (Magisterium), so I would pretty much have to read every single statement made by every single Pope throughout history, which is impossible.

Actually you don’t have to put in that kind of effort to find out whether any Pope has declared any heresy ex-cathedra. The Prostestants would have found it long time ago if any exist. They would love to demolish the Papacy. So far, they haven’t have much luck because there isn’t any heresy taught ex-cathedra.

Because a statement is made: this is the formula for gaining a plenary indulgence which you may, or may not, actually get - does this mean the formula is correct and the “answer” is correct, also? By what authority? By the authority of those who proposed the question and created the answer. Now, that authority is claimed to be from God (the “keys” of the kingdom, etc.) but…how do we know that God agrees? How?

God appointed his earthly representative to feed his sheep 2000 yrs ago. What you are saying is that the sheep is questioning God’s choice and decision? Actually I am not surprised. As time passes, certain types of people like to find loopholes for cumbersome laws and the best way out is to question history which of course you couldn’t get an answer from dead people. Many would wish they could question the Apostles or writers of the books of the bible exactly what they meant so that they can bypass the Pope or Church. The authority has been given to Peter 2000 yrs ago. If you would ask God today, he would still refer you to his appointee.

But I do expect things from God: steadfast mercy and justice; love beyond all measure known to humans; absolute inerrancy; and a good sense of humor.

Why should your sense of what God should be carries any weight? I don’t dare to tell God he should be like this, act like that etc. We only have limited glimpses of his nature, I have not reach the level or permission where I can buddy and kid around with God. I have no idea what a heavenly dose of humor is like up there.

Fundamentally, it bothers me constantly (and always has) that rules and regulations are made on behalf of God and then enforced with threat of eternal punishment and I don’t see or hear God weighing in on any of this. Suppose you’re WRONG? Suppose God isn’t quite what you believe Him to be? Isn’t there any room for Him to be Himself? Doesn’t He have the absolute freedom and power to be, do, act with no restraints except those He places on Himself?

Isn’t that second judging God’s judgement in his appointing of his earthly representative? You don’t trust his CEO and you want to go straight to the Board and ask the Board “Are you sure?” Now perhaps you may even want to ask God “are you what you claim to be?” The questions will never end. If you trust God’s “judgement”, then you must accept his choice of his earthly representative aka Pope and that the Pope will feed his sheep/lambs and not lead them astray. The other alternative, is you trust your own judgement and you do it your way.

 

[adrift]

Actually you don’t have to put in that kind of effort to find out whether any Pope has declared any heresy ex-cathedra. The Prostestants would have found it long time ago if any exist. They would love to demolish the Papacy. So far, they haven’t have much luck because there isn’t any heresy taught ex-cathedra.

This is a salient point. They usually confuse impeccability with infallibility or point out things that are not infallible statements.

One thing that I have been considering is why. Why do people object to infallibility? It is logical to me that God would want us to be sure of teachings. How would we know what scripture is true? How would we know that any of the dogmas are true? It has been my observation that their objections are really based on something the Church teaches that they don’t want to believe.

 

[ellzeena]

***For the sake of clarity, then, could you provide an example of a ‘rule’ or ‘regulation’ which is representative of your claim? *** Mind you – I’m not asking for you to show me one which you assert is wrong, just one that is representative of the class of things that concerns you as being the type of thing that might be wrong.

The Doctrine of indulgences (and yes, it is a doctrine). And yes, I know what an indulgence (plenary or partial) IS and I understand its point of origin (early Church for those awaiting execution or imprisonment for being Christian).

WHO told GOD that we must do A, B, C in a specified manner in order to obtain X? This is not an “infallible” teaching yet it is certainly represented as an absolute truth. I have never heard any priest or nun say that it’s church “opinion” or church “guess” - I have heard it and seen it taught as actual truth, absolute and guaranteed. By what authority?

Look: it bothers people when someone shakes their tree, especially when that someone is a member of their tribe. These are legitimate questions. There is no way to defend any answer because we are not privy to an answer. We can go around in circles for days with me asking, “But how do we KNOW” and you or others answering “Because the keys of the kingdom were given to Peter…“that which is bound on earth”, etc…because Jesus promised us…” It’s been well over 2000 years since Jesus’ voice was heard by the multitudes. In that time, the unwieldy power of the great machine of Roman Catholicism has turned in many directions which He would have found anathema. Yet, God did not STOP it, He allowed it. Why? If I knew the answer to that, I would be the most sought after Human in the world right now (thank God I’m not!)

This doesn’t intend to imply that I do not love the Lord, that I do not serve Him, that I do not have an awareness that my substantial suffering on this earth can be used for others. This doesn’t in any way negate my absolute belief in the Presence in the Eucharist; this doesn’t interrupt my personal relationship with the Blessed Mother, a few saints in particular, and the Lord God Himself. These are legitimate questions from someone who will not be brain washed into believing something because someone, somewhere, made up a rule and all rules must be followed or else. No one can say what hell is, nor paradise; no one can say what souls “go” to either place, or why. Only God. Such is the nature of the terrible divide between Catholicism and Protestantism: their Sola Scriptura belief is an attempt to prevent any teaching from influencing them other than that which came from Jesus and the exhortations of the NT made by His apostles. I think they’re wrong. I think we’re wrong, too.

 

[ellzeena]

As time passes, certain types of people like to find loopholes for cumbersome laws and the best way out is to question history which of course you couldn’t get an answer from dead people. Many would wish they could question the Apostles or writers of the books of the bible exactly what they meant so that they can bypass the Pope or Church. The authority has been given to Peter 2000 yrs ago. If you would ask God today, he would still refer you to his appointee.

Why should your sense of what God should be carries any weight? I don’t dare to tell God he should be like this, act like that etc. We only have limited glimpses of his nature, I have not reach the level or permission where I can buddy and kid around with God. I have no idea what a heavenly dose of humor is like up there.

Isn’t that second judging God’s judgement in his appointing of his earthly representative? You don’t trust his CEO and you want to go straight to the Board and ask the Board “Are you sure?” Now perhaps you may even want to ask God “are you what you claim to be?” The questions will never end. If you trust God’s “judgement”, then you must accept his choice of his earthly representative aka Pope and that the Pope will feed his sheep/lambs and not lead them astray. The other alternative, is you trust your own judgement and you do it your way.

Well, perhaps God is so distant and huge and unapproachable to you that you dare not share a sense of humor with Him. I do not experience Him in this way. I have a running conversation with God throughout the day. That is called a personal relationship. And yes, sometimes I can and do see His sense of humor. I guess that makes me a heretic or a lunatic, to you. Well, so be it, I am neither.

I don’t know what you mean by “certain types of people”, I take objection to that categorization. I am not a deliberate sinner; you know nothing about me. I am not covetous, I am not materialistic, I am chaste, I pray for others and care about them, I try to see Jesus in other people (very, very, very hard) and I go to confession once a week! I’m not “certain types of people” trying to circumvent “rules” to suit my purpose. YOU threw that stone, not me.

I’m not second guessing God in anything, I’m questioning the right of anyone to make absolute statements that aren’t found in the WORDS OF JESUS HIMSELF. Not Peter, not Paul, JESUS. I’m not going willy nilly against the church. I don’t rob a bank on Saturday and receive the Eucharist on Sunday. I live by the ten commandments and the two great commandments Jesus gave us. When you speak of hell, you mean “Hades”. This is a reference to a physical location used in parable to teach a lesson that the people around Him would understand. We don’t know what hell is, where it is, how it is experienced. Oh yes, certain seers have been “shown” it and reported this, but again: is their witness infallible?

You know what? I don’t think there’s any resolution to this problem. I wish there were but, ultimately, face to Face, we will all get the answers.

 

[adrift]

The Doctrine of indulgences (and yes, it is a doctrine). And yes, I know what an indulgence (plenary or partial) IS and I understand its point of origin (early Church for those awaiting execution or imprisonment for being Christian).

WHO told GOD that we must do A, B, C in a specified manner in order to obtain X? This is not an “infallible” teaching yet it is certainly represented as an absolute truth. I have never heard any priest or nun say that it’s church “opinion” or church “guess” - I have heard it and seen it taught as actual truth, absolute and guaranteed. By what authority?

Why to you ask a question when you know the answer. The authority is Jesus given to His Church.

Look: it bothers people when someone shakes their tree, especially when that someone is a member of their tribe. These are legitimate questions.

I am not bothered by honest questions which you ask. I am bothered when you are given an answer and you ignore it. I am bothered when you are asked question that you ignore.

There is no way to defend any answer because we are not privy to an answer. We can go around in circles for days with me asking, “But how do we KNOW” and you or others answering “Because the keys of the kingdom were given to Peter…“that which is bound on earth”, etc…because Jesus promised us…” It’s been well over 2000 years since Jesus’ voice was heard by the multitudes. In that time, the unwieldy power of the great machine of Roman Catholicism has turned in many directions which He would have found anathema. Yet, God did not STOP it, He allowed it. Why? If I knew the answer to that, I would be the most sought after Human in the world right now (thank God I’m not!)

I have the feeling the problem is you don’t want an answer. No matter what well reasoned explanation is given to you, you will ignore and ask why? as if no reasonable explanation is given. The best you can do is veiled unproven remarks.

“He would have found anathema?”

Now you speak for God? By what authority?

This doesn’t intend to imply that I do not love the Lord, that I do not serve Him, that I do not have an awareness that my substantial suffering on this earth can be used for others.

 

[adrift]

Well, perhaps God is so distant and huge and unapproachable to you that you dare not share a sense of humor with Him. I do not experience Him in this way. I have a running conversation with God throughout the day. That is called a personal relationship. And yes, sometimes I can and do see His sense of humor. I guess that makes me a heretic or a lunatic, to you. Well, so be it, I am neither.

I am not a deliberate sinner; you know nothing about me. I am not covetous, I am not materialistic, I am chaste, I pray for others and care about them, I try to see Jesus in other people (very, very, very hard) and I go to confession once a week! I’m not “certain types of people” trying to circumvent “rules” to suit my purpose. YOU threw that stone, not me.

The only way you can commit sin is to be deliberate, sin is not accidental. We are all deliberate sinners.

Isn’t that second judging God’s judgement in his appointing of his earthly representative?

I’m not second guessing God in anything, I’m questioning the right of anyone to make absolute statements that aren’t found in the WORDS OF JESUS HIMSELF. Not Peter, not Paul, JESUS. I’m not going willy nilly against the church. I don’t rob a bank on Saturday and receive the Eucharist on Sunday. I live by the ten commandments and the two great commandments Jesus gave us

.
Where is it stated by Jesus that we are to follow the written word only? Jesus word actually said nothing about writting anything down. What it did say was to go out into the world and** preach**. The Words of Jesus as you already know state that He gave His Church the Keys to bind and loosen which you seem to dispute

When you speak of hell, you mean “Hades”. This is a reference to a physical location used in parable to teach a lesson that the people around Him would understand. We don’t know what hell is, where it is, how it is experienced. Oh yes, certain seers have been “shown” it and reported this, but again: is their witness infallible?

You know what? I don’t think there’s any resolution to this problem. I wish there were but, ultimately, face to Face, we will all get the answers.

What does Jesus say about hell

Mark 9

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire.

45

And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna.

47

And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna,

48

where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’