The infallable pope

[Peter_J]

Oh, OK! Doctrine, belief, dogma, whatever you want to call it is fine; but it was stated above a few posts ago by a Catholic forum member as fact that because Peter was crucified, that this somehow indicates Peter’s status within the Body of Christ, such as the Catholic dogma of “in Christ’s stead.”

Hmm … doctrine … belief … dogma … ah, I’ve got it! We should call it “something that one Catholic said”. freesmileys.org/smileys/happy035.gif

 

[Good_Fella]

Back in those days; many were crucified for believeing in Jesus; this certainly was not unique to Peter; in fact Peter was crucified upside down; showing that there is a difference between looking to man for salvation and looking to Jesus as Savior. This is poor “evidence” to show Peter’s “status” in the Church.

Among the apostles, not among all believers! Whether Peter chose to be hung upside down is irrelevant.

 

[elts1956]

I’ve been trying for a couple of weeks on this forum and one other catholic forum and catholic.com & ewtn.com to get a vatican approved list of infallible statements but I am told it doesn’t exist. The one I’m really concerned with is the one about when the Pope said there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I remember that one when I was in Catholic school. I have friends and family members who are Protestant. Are they going to hell? Vatican II says no. There is the contradiction. Did it ever occur to you that taking in only Catholic information is also biased?

Read Ut Unam Sint written by Pope John Paul II.

 

[Good_Fella]

I’ve been trying for a couple of weeks on this forum and one other catholic forum and catholic.com & ewtn.com to get a vatican approved list of infallible statements but I am told it doesn’t exist. The one I’m really concerned with is the one about when the Pope said there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I remember that one when I was in Catholic school. I have friends and family members who are Protestant. Are they going to hell? Vatican II says no. There is the contradiction. Did it ever occur to you that taking in only Catholic information is also biased?

The web sites you refer to are inaccurate and misleading. For example, they fail to inform the reader that papal encyclicals under the Ordinary Magisterium contain non-infallible teachings of popes. Thus, what is taught can be further clarified and reformed.

The encyclicals you refer to, such as Pope Pius’ ‘Quanta Cura’ (condemning modernist errors) of 8 December 1864, are documents of the pope’s ordinary magisterium. In this capacity the pope does not exercise his charism of doctrinal decision. A pope teaches infallibly only when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ (from the chair of Peter) under the Extraordinary Magisterium. Encyclicals like the ones mentioned in your previous post are not ‘ex cathedra’ documents. There are only seven such papal documents in the history of the Church. And the teachings in these documents are irreformable and irrevocable: for instance, the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Now the Holy Father does have the authority to speak in doctrinal matters without using his charism of infallibilty. And since what the pope teaches is non-infallible under the Ordinary Magisterium, there is room for further clarification and reform. The Code of Canon Law states explicitly that “nothing is understood to be declared or defined dogmatically unless this be manifestly certain,” and what is stated only in encyclicals under the OM is not manifestly and certainly defined as dogma.

But this is beside the point, since Pope Pius did not unqualifiably condemn all freedom of thought and expression. He targeted liberal theologians and thinkers who opposed the orthodox teachings of the Catholic Church. The same goes with the other instances you drew our attention to. One has to keep things in their proper context at a given period of time in history. I suggest you read Pope Pius’ encyclical yourself rather than accept the distorted views of anti-Catholics who deliberately try to misinform and mislead people. I don’t have time to treat all the other examples, but I hope you get the message.

PAX

 

[Peter_J]

Read Ut Unam Sint written by Pope John Paul II.

 

[rinnie]

Jesus did miracles. The apostles had the same power to heal and do miracles. Peter walked on water. I know they are called by God for that very serious leadership role but I don’t see any Popes doing that kind of stuff.

But if Jesus gave the same power to the Apostles and Peter how could you say they dont have the power than to also pass on. Again where did Jesus say the power will end with you Apostles. That is not what Jesus said he said ALL that my Father has given me I now give to you. He also said his Church would prevail, now how do you think his Church would prevail without the Power, which you seem to think ended. If what you say is true and the Power ended than what about the Eucharist, because if the power ended how do they have the Power to change the bread and wine into the living Christ. Are you saying we dont receive the Living Christ in the Eucharist. Because if what you are saying is true why go to a Catholic Church because that is the only Church that I was taught has the power to consecrate bread and wine.

 

[ron77nyc]

But if Jesus gave the same power to the Apostles and Peter how could you say they dont have the power than to also pass on. Again where did Jesus say the power will end with you Apostles. That is not what Jesus said he said ALL that my Father has given me I now give to you. He also said his Church would prevail, now how do you think his Church would prevail without the Power, which you seem to think ended. If what you say is true and the Power ended than what about the Eucharist, because if the power ended how do they have the Power to change the bread and wine into the living Christ. Are you saying we dont receive the Living Christ in the Eucharist. Because if what you are saying is true why go to a Catholic Church because that is the only Church that I was taught has the power to consecrate bread and wine.

What I meant was if the successors to Peter had all his powers they would also be doing miracles and physical healings and casting out demons just as Peter did. I didn’t mean to say they had no power.

Luther was a Catholic priest. Does he have apostolic succession? Was he consecrating the Eucharist? Did he pass that apostolic succession to his priests? The Orthodox Church is older than Catholicism. They also have a priesthood but they didn’t join up with Rome and they are still in existence today. Don’t they have apostolic succession and the Eucharist?

 

[ron77nyc]

The web sites you refer to are inaccurate and misleading. For example, they fail to inform the reader that papal encyclicals under the Ordinary Magisterium contain non-infallible teachings of popes. Thus, what is taught can be further clarified and reformed.

The encyclicals you refer to, such as Pope Pius’ ‘Quanta Cura’ (condemning modernist errors) of 8 December 1864, are documents of the pope’s ordinary magisterium. In this capacity the pope does not exercise his charism of doctrinal decision. A pope teaches infallibly only when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ (from the chair of Peter) under the Extraordinary Magisterium. Encyclicals like the ones mentioned in your previous post are not ‘ex cathedra’ documents. There are only seven such papal documents in the history of the Church. And the teachings in these documents are irreformable and irrevocable: for instance, the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Now the Holy Father does have the authority to speak in doctrinal matters without using his charism of infallibilty. And since what the pope teaches is non-infallible under the Ordinary Magisterium, there is room for further clarification and reform. The Code of Canon Law states explicitly that “nothing is understood to be declared or defined dogmatically unless this be manifestly certain,” and what is stated only in encyclicals under the OM is not manifestly and certainly defined as dogma.

But this is beside the point, since Pope Pius did not unqualifiably condemn all freedom of thought and expression. He targeted liberal theologians and thinkers who opposed the orthodox teachings of the Catholic Church. The same goes with the other instances you drew our attention to. One has to keep things in their proper context at a given period of time in history. I suggest you read Pope Pius’ encyclical yourself rather than accept the distorted views of anti-Catholics who deliberately try to misinform and mislead people. I don’t have time to treat all the other examples, but I hope you get the message.

PAX

**This is a lot of complicated legal mumbo jumbo that people use to avoid an issue. At one time not too long ago the Catholic Church said you had to be Catholic to be saved. Today the Church says you don’t have to be. Is that a contradiction or not? **

 

[ron77nyc]

I hope somebody can express this more eloquently than I can.

I think you’re totally wrong to equate the ‘miracles’ done by Jesus and the apostles into the criteria by which we can judge how ‘Christian’ a person is. . .“Good” if he can do miracles, “No good” if he can’t.

Miracles come from God. God does not ‘have to’ give people power to perform miracles. Further, miracles don’t have to involve ‘physical healing’. Or ‘superpowers’. And God doesn’t need to do the ‘same thing’ for every age. In an age like ours in which people (for the most part) are not facing the types of diseases and ills that faced people in 1st century AD life, the type of ‘physical’ miracles that Jesus and the apostles did might not be needed. When was the last time you met a leper? Further, if “raising from the dead” was so important that St. Peter could do it the way you imply, practically on demand, why didn’t St. Peter raise St. James from the dead when St. James was martyred? Why didn’t St. John raise St. Peter and St. Paul? Surely he COULD have–as a good Christian and apostle he must have been a MIGHTY miracle worker. Why didn’t he? See the errors you can fall into when you take one aspect of apostolic work and attempt to make it into the ‘most important’ aspect?

Also, in 1st century AD, to ‘raise a person from the dead’ was indeed a miracle. Today it may be–but it may also equally be a result of the non-miraculous use of scientific equipment (defibrillators et. al) or the results of human procedures such as the Heimlich maneuver or CPR. How do you know that people aren’t performing equally amazing miracles in having come up with the technology that helps people to survive who would not have done so without that technology? How do you know that people aren’t performing equally amazing miracles in Internet ‘conversations’ and in establishing places like this website in which people are given the treasures of the Faith, the knowledge of Christ and His salvific actions, such that these people are having their souls ‘saved’? Isn’t that miraculous?

Finally, where do you get the idea that Jesus’ telling us that we would do ‘greater work than His’ met ONLY doing physical miracles? Do you think He thought that His physical miracles in raising the dead were the most important part of His work on earth?

I never said physical healings were the most important. You read that into what I said. I was only saying that if they had all his power they would be doing everything he did.

 

[Good_Fella]

**This is a lot of complicated legal mumbo jumbo that people use to avoid an issue. At one time not too long ago the Catholic Church said you had to be Catholic to be saved. Today the Church says you don’t have to be. Is that a contradiction or not? **

The point is there is no issue. Is the existence of the senate and congress in the US government a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo or an established functional institution? It’s a question of whether legislation has been passed.

That non-Catholics cannot be unqualifiably and individually saved has never been decidedly and irrevocably taught as a dogma by the Magisterium. Meanwhile you fail to understand what the Church means by “No salvation outside the Church”. It doesn’t mean what you think it does or what anti-Catholic web sites make it out to mean. Of course you subscribe to these slanderous sites because they accommodate your own prejudice against the Catholic Church. Are you one of those disgruntled ex-Catholics who create such sites?

PAX

 

[elts1956]

**This is a lot of complicated legal mumbo jumbo that people use to avoid an issue. At one time not too long ago the Catholic Church said you had to be Catholic to be saved. Today the Church says you don’t have to be. Is that a contradiction or not? **

What Ut Unum Sint basically says is that to be saved one must be a member of the “Church” and the Mystical Body of Christ. “Some” churches have part of the truth, but not the whole truth." Even having part of the truth makes them members of the Roman Catholic Church, but incomplete members. Pope John Paul II also said that those congregations and those identified as “churches” have never left the Roman Catholic Church. As I understand it, to be deemed a “Church” some beliefs must be the same as the Catholic Church, ie. Triune Baptism, Bishops ( I think there is study going on as to which of these Bishops could be designated heirs of the Apostles. Don’t ask me about that, because I don’t know.) There are many other qualifications necessary before it is accepted that any other church belongs to the Mystical Body of Christ in any fashion.

There is much more which you will have to read, but the doctrine of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” has NOT been contradicted.

 

[Good_Fella]

What Ut Unum Sint basically says is that to be saved one must be a member of the “Church” and the Mystical Body of Christ. “Some” churches have part of the truth, but not the whole truth." Even having part of the truth makes them members of the Roman Catholic Church, but incomplete members. Pope John Paul II also said that those congregations and those identified as “churches” have never left the Roman Catholic Church. As I understand it, to be deemed a “Church” some beliefs must be the same as the Catholic Church, ie. Triune Baptism, Bishops ( I think there is study going on as to which of these Bishops could be designated heirs of the Apostles. Don’t ask me about that, because I don’t know.) There are many other qualifications necessary before it is accepted that any other church belongs to the Mystical Body of Christ in any fashion.

There is much more which you will have to read, but the doctrine of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” has NOT been contradicted.

Nor has any official infallible teaching been revoked by a later Council, which is what Ron is contending.

PAX :harp:

 

[elts1956]

Nor has any official infallible teaching been revoked by a later Council, which is what Ron is contending.

PAX :harp:

I’m pointing fingers, but it seems that not only do I have a lot of reading to do, but Mr. Ron does too. It is true that reading what has been written regarding Church Doctrine and the Doctrines themselves are very, very confusing. One needs to be a very educated theologian to understand them. I was fortunate in getting help from one regarding Ut Unum Sint. Now I am going to have to badger him to help me with many, many more understandings.

 

[Cinette]

Just more semantics.

***:extrahappy: :extrahappy: What else can we expect from SIA!!! You ran away from questions in another thread and now you come here to play Devil’s Advocate.

Go ahead!:clapping: ***

 

[Cinette]

***I found this thread today and have been enjoying it very much. Then I noticed a couple of little “thorns” came on board!!

It has been said that “missionaries of the 21st Century are the Laity” and I think this is so true. Reading your posts is a delight and every now and then punctuated with snide remarks by “thorns”. One gets annoyed but then we must not forget that these “thorns” create tension and tension is extremely good and beneficial to us.

I have to go out now but will continue later. Good thing that I am in the southern hemisphere so I can read the posts while you sleep otherwise I will never catch up.

I think I have much to learn here.:yup: :yup: :extrahappy: ***

 

[Cinette]

**Your words! ** Show us then where the scriptural warranty comes from for the Papacy! If it please you?

 

[Cinette]

==============================================
The term Roman Catholic, I was taught, stems from the defection of the Bishop of Rome from the Catholic Church at Trent. At this false Council the Bishops of Northern Europe abandoned their responsibilities on to the shoulders of the papacy at the behest of their political masters . It wasn’t that they abandoned the medievalist accretions that had entered the Church during the preceding ages or their Catholic Orders. It was that they had set up a new organisation at the top of the pyramid. In fact, the Romans and their followers had simply ignored the Holy Tradition of some 800[1000 yrs. For this reason many simple souls recoiled with horror and it was the Bishops of England who impressed on everyone that though Rome was schismatic it was still,( just,) within the Catholic Church. (Laud and Dean Thorndyke,).

In England, the term came in to being, again, from the injunction from the New Church of Trent, (John Evelyns Diary,) where the author refers to this new participant on the stage. The injunction was that supporters of the papacy refrain from receiving at English Altars. Hither to there had only been one Church in England,the One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Donatists disliked being refered to as a sect or papists so the name Roman or Romanist was given them. Later their very negligble numbers were increased after a plea from the pope to join him. This was in the Bull, where the pope gave permission for dissenters to kill Eliza. In 1791 the Roman leadership in Britain refered to themselves as, **'Protestant Catholic Dissenters

,’ in a letter to the House of Lords? The question has to be asked were they telling the truth and what did they mean?

Refering to the, ‘Catholic Romaine,’ this was the term used by a Roman Priest in a letter in the 16th, Cent. For spelling mistakes blame him.

***I am commenting as I read the posts so my posts are going to come one after the other! sorry! It is just that I need to make a small comment.

I cannot find the actual reference but I am SURE that it was either Clement of Rome or Ignatius of Antioch who first called the church the Catholic Church towards the end of the 1st century - certainly the name Catholic was NOT something that emanated from the Council of Trent. If I find the ref. I will revert! ***

 

[Cinette]

The first infallible papal declaration was made by St. Peter:

He said to them, " But who do you say that I am ?" Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, " Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Matthew 16, 15-19

The words of Jesus Christ and your view of St.Peter “seem to be two different views on authority.” It would appear you criticize all our popes in your “disillusionment”.

Don’t confuse infallibilty with impeccabilty. :nope:

***BRAVO!!! ***

 

[Cinette]

mercygate;4137536:

================================================
Mercygate!

The magisterium of the Catholic Church is the Holy Ghost working through Scripture and the Councils. There are Seven Ecumenical Councils and Vatican 1, is no more than a Latin General Council, as is Vatican 2. Rome is a Catholic Sect and its Councils are no more than shams!

*** “The aim of argument is differing in order to agree. The failure of argument is when you agree to differ”

Reading the posts of SIA and nonjuror I get the feeling they are not here to argue and debate. Rather, they come on these forums to snarl and ridicule. :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

It is a great pity. I come here to learn. I don’t learn from them although I concede that sometimes they cause a reaction from which I do learn.

It would be nice thought if they were gracious and loving.

---

 

[Cinette]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIA View Post
Does Scripture not mean anything at all to you? The popes of today are lavished in wealth, Peter was a poor fisherman. Popes who speak in ex-cathedra are infallible. Peter wasn’t even all that smart and many times wrong when speaking.

***Yes Peter did on occasion open his mouth and change feet! It occurred to me though that Peter did these things when he was still a mere fisherman.

After Pentecost Peter changed radically and became rather smart I would say!

You talk about the present day Popes being “rich” - here you are totally wrong. Over the ages many people of means left riches to the Church and continue to do so. Michalangelo painted the Cisteen Chapel (spell??) and so on. The Pope lives in an apartment in the Vatican and never stops working. The Pope is a man totally decidated to the Church and does not live it up. Let me add that no other organization on this earth has ever done more for humanity than the Catholic Church***

:yup: :clapping: