What Catholic teachings do I object to?

[PRmerger]

Please explain what you meant by this sentence. “The similarity is this: God used a sinful man (David) to write infallibly (the Psalms).”

David, the author of Psalms, was a fallible man who wrote theological treatises that are without error.

To wit: “Be my rock of refuge,
a stronghold to give me safety.
You are my rock and my fortress;
for your name’s sake you will lead and guide me.”
(from today’s responsorial psalm).

God’s revelation comes through the mouth/hands of David, a sinful man. Yet a man was able to write infallibly.

Just like our Magsterium.

 

[grannymh]

Dear Itwin,

I think it important to keep John 16:13 in its proper context. We must remember to whom Jesus was speaking.

John 16 is part of the Last Supper Discourses. Christ had just instituted the Holy Eucharist and empowered those at the Last Supper to convert bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Living son of God. Christ was speaking to the very first Priests, Bishops, if you will, as these 11 (Judas had already left) would be the LEADERS of Christ’s Church.

So it seems clear Christ was speaking to the original Church Leaders and NOT directly to you or me but only to the Leaders of His Church. We are given a record of these discourses in John Gospel so that we may TRUST that the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, will indeed guide Christ’s Church until He returns.

Christ did not make this promise to just anybody nor to those who came along centuries later in time in protest to the Catholic Church. He gave it only to His Apostles at the Last Supper. That promise - the trust worthy guidance by the Holy Spirit - extends to those to whom it has been handed down. We also see elsewhere in the New Testament that the Apostles, and even St Paul, always looked to Peter to make the call. See Peter’s authority from Christ at Matthew 16 13-19.

It is not a promise just anyone can claim. Anyone can dress up as a General and act like a General, but is no real general unless he have been properly commissioned, regardless of how much he may love the mission and want to lead it.

So who should we trust in matters of Faith and Morals? Ask them just how they got their Commission from Christ. Unless they have a clear line back to Christ and the Last Supper Discourses, they cannot be fully trusted. But if they do have that clear line of authority, they can be fully trusted in discourses on Faith and Morals.

John 16: 13 is a continuation of John 14: 26.

 

[guanophore]

No one is impeccable.

Except Theotokos.

 I do see where you are going. Impeccability is not the standard. David had many shortcomings, as do we all, but one thing that Scripture makes clear is that David walked close to the Lord and was "a man after God's own heart." And is David even analogous to the Papacy? God used David, **but that didn't mean that God spoke infallibly through all the Kings of Israel**, even the one's who worshiped Baal.

Yes. We do not see any promises like this prior to those made by Jesus to His fledgling Church. The Jews experienced the HS upon them, and with them, but it was something new for Him to be IN them. The ability to have the “mind of Christ” was a gift of the New Covenant.

I made no such claim to infallibility. Neither did I make the claim that the Bible is free from error. That claim was already being made when I was born in 1989. I simply receive it and accept it in light of God's word, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16).

Yes, but I think we will all agree that the HS would not be leading faithful Christians into opposite directions. Therefore, though we agree that Scripture is inspired and inerrant, obviously we are not on the same track with regard to understanding it.

Once again, it's not a claim I make. It's not up to me to decide such things.

To some extent, such a responsibility falls to all who use Scripture to “discern” or “hold accountable”. This is an exercise of judgment that requires a will, and the ability to be wrong. Scripture does not have these abilities, which is why we say that those who use it as the “final authority” are actually making themselves (or how they understand what is written) the “final authority.”

Is that a bad thing? Perhaps the different churches are right on somethings and wrong on others. We can be witnesses to each other of the full gospel. Some ambiguity will always exist.

Scripture is very clear that such ambiguities should NOT exist!

Off the top of my head, Mary's Immaculate Conception, but its not that I don't like what the Pope says in as much as I do not find the principle of papal infallibility persuasive from a biblical, historical, or practical standpoint.

You have already stated that you do acknowledge the gift of infallibility with regard to the authoring of the Scripture. You accept the NT canon, discerned using the same gift.

You have also said that impeccability is not related to the gift of infallibility, since the peccable can perfom infallible acts.

Do you think that Peter’s judgment of Ananias and Sapphira was an infallible act?

We find a model of the gift of infallibility in Acts:

Acts 15:28
28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…

When the successors of the Apostles meet together with the HS, the HS protects their actions from error. It is this divine element of the decision making process that makes the result infallible, not the human part. Infallible decisions are those made by what seems good “to the HS and to us”. Decisions made otherwise are not necessarily protected by that gift.

So, how do we know which decisions are those that “seemed good to the HS and to us”?

How could any human being even write a statement like that, without divine assurance?

 

[PRmerger]

(“He” is a “She”)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

No one is impeccable.

Jesus was

I do see where you are going. Impeccability is not the standard. David had many shortcomings, as do we all, but one thing that Scripture makes clear is that David walked close to the Lord and was “a man after God’s own heart.” And is David even analogous to the Papacy? God used David, but that didn’t mean that God spoke infallibly through all the Kings of Israel, even the one’s who worshiped Baal.

Don’t you think a Pope walks close to God? How about Pastors that walk close to God? How about layperson that walk close to God?

Does that mean they can write Scriptures?

However, God appointed some to write Scriptures. And how are we to determine who are those persons? Well the Holy Spirit did guide a group of men. Can we agree on that?

Then, if we are not sure that these writings are infallibly selected as Scripture, How are we to know what is infallibly true about these writings? Did Jesus exist? Did Jesus have 2 natures? Is there such a thing as assurance of salvation? How can you be sure of something that has error and it has not been infallibly declared? Further, under what authority is that declaration coming from?

You see, if you claim assurance of salvation. You are claiming an infallible statement, whether you realize it or not.

When you claim that 2 Tim 3:16 says that ALL SCRIPTURE is breathed out by God…, you are claiming that that verse is infallible, whether you realize it or not.

Further, How can a book validate itself? Does it not need the Holy Spirit’s guidance to an outside agent (men) to do so?

I made no such claim to infallibility. Neither did I make the claim that the Bible is free from error. That claim was already being made when I was born in 1989. I simply receive it and accept it in light of God’s word, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16).

I’m not saying you made those specific claims, but you believe in Christ, and you believe the Bible to be inspired by God and I am pretty positive you don’t think there is error in your beliefs. Or do you think you err in your belief of Jesus and that of Scripture?

Further, if you believe the Bible has errors, what are they?

Once again, it’s not a claim I make. It’s not up to me to decide such things.

Agreed! Not to me either.

Is that a bad thing? Perhaps the different churches are right on somethings and wrong on others. We can be witnesses to each other of the full gospel. Some ambiguity will always exist.

All in moderation. We (Catholics) have 23 different rites (Mostly branching out of 4 main rites as I remember). However, when numbers start to go well beyond the 100s then I have to scratch my head and realize there is something just not right here.

And yes, ambiguity has existed since the Apostles themselves! That is precisely why we need an authority to Oversee them.

Off the top of my head, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but its not that I don’t like what the Pope says in as much as I do not find the principle of papal infallibility persuasive from a biblical, historical, or practical standpoint.

History is in a way against you on this. What do you think the Councils claimed when they defined matters of the Faith? When they declared “anathema” other ambiguities? Infallibility! They left no doubt that what they were proclaiming had any margin of error. In fact, I have not read anything about any ecumenical council retract from anything in matter is the faith.

 

[grannymh]

The similarity is this: God used a sinful man (David) to write infallibly (the Psalms). God also uses sinful men (the Magisterium) to write infallibly (ex cathedra teachings).

If you can accept the former, why can’t you accept the latter?

Please explain what you meant by this sentence. “The similarity is this: God used a sinful man (David) to write infallibly (the Psalms).”

David, the author of Psalms, was a fallible man who wrote theological treatises that are without error.

To wit: “Be my rock of refuge,
a stronghold to give me safety.
You are my rock and my fortress;
for your name’s sake you will lead and guide me.”
(from today’s responsorial psalm).

God’s revelation comes through the mouth/hands of David, a sinful man. Yet a man able to write infallibly.

Just like our Magsterium.

Thank you for your explanation.

Now I understand that people use the generic version of infallibility (without error) to praise something that is well written. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the OP is looking for something deeper which is connected to the inner workings of Catholicism. Please note that generic is a good description. The difference is that the original had years of research before being formulated.

The designation of infallible as used in regard to the Catholic Deposit of Faith, is not exactly attached to a particular theological treatise by David. It is the reverse in that theological treatises are often used as part of the discernment process which the Catholic Church uses before a [doctrine] presentation at a major Ecumenical Church Council. One might describe this process as lifting the universal truths out of a particular treatise.

To understand how Psalms have been used in both discerning Divine Revelation and in support of declared doctrines, please go to the Catechism’s Index of Citations. Read how this index is used on page 689 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Then go to page 693 which has a list of various Psalms and verses and in which paragraph they are cited.

 

[grannymh]

The ability to have the “mind of Christ” was a gift of the New Covenant.

For an example about how the Church, which has the mind of Christ, is used, please see CCC 389.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you for your explanation.

Now I understand that people use the generic version of infallibility (without error) to praise something that is well written.

No. It is in the context of God’s revelation to which we are attaching the concept of infallibility.

Not in the context of something that is “well written”, as in, “I just love the infallibility of what is written in this poem”:

I do not think
I will ever see
a poem as beautiful
as a tree.
For a poem is made
by a fool like me.
But only God
can make a tree.

:nope:

 

[grannymh]

No. It is in the context of God’s revelation to which we are attaching the concept of infallibility.

Not in the context of something that is “well written”, as in, “I just love the infallibility of what is written in this poem”:

I do not think
I will ever see
a poem as beautiful
as a tree.
For a poem is made
by a fool like me.
But only God
can make a tree.

:nope:

Now I understand that you are looking at “context” and not at a Catholic doctrine per se.

By the way, the context of the poem by Joyce Kilmer does refer to one of the first Catholic doctrines which is the beginning of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed professed at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. However, within Catholicism, there is a big difference between a reference to a doctrine and an actual doctrine per se. God not only can make a tree, but, in addition, He is the “maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.” (Source: Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed)

 

[PRmerger]

Now I understand that you are looking at “context” and not at a Catholic doctrine per se.

By the way, the context of the poem by Joyce Kilmer does refer to one of the first Catholic doctrines which is the beginning of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed professed at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. However, within Catholicism, there is a big difference between a reference to a doctrine and an actual doctrine per se. God not only can make a tree, but, in addition, He is the “maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.” (Source: Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed)

Well said! And what you say is even “infallible”…

in the generic sense.

Not in the sense to which we as Catholics address the OP in an attempt to provide apologia for the Catholic teaching on papal infallibility.

 

[grannymh]

Well said! And what you say is even “infallible”…

in the generic sense.

Not in the sense to which we as Catholics address the OP in an attempt to provide apologia for the Catholic teaching on papal infallibility.

With that good goal in mind, would you please provide apologia for the Catholic teaching which explains the protocol for obtaining “papal infallibility” plus what “papal infallibility” actually does?

My apology for this weird question, but I am having difficulty understanding what “papal infallibility” is used for, how it is used, and just as important what it is not used for.

 

[batman1973]

What Catholic teachings do I object to?- What answers won’t get me banned?

 

[benjohnson]

But, no Pope has ever declared doctrine in a vacuum. It is always in unity with the college of Cardinals.

Add the Orthodox bishops, and I would agree.

 

[po18guy]

Add the Orthodox bishops, and I would agree.

But, the Orthodox are not unified! If they return to communion, it will be Patriarch by Patriarch, not en bloc. Frankly, I see the LCMS as far closer to re-entering communion, and I will shed tears of joy on that day.

But, the myths and suspicions regarding Papal infallibility must be dispelled first. You do realize that no ex cathedra statement has been issued in our lifetimes? Not by Pius XII. Not by John XXIII. Not by Paul VI. Not by John Paul I. Not by John Paul II, and not by Benedict XVI.

 

[grannymh]

The first person to be infallible is Jesus Christ because He is True God.

 

[po18guy]

Add the Orthodox bishops, and I would agree.

The Orthodox Patriarchs and Metropolitans do not agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son (Nicene Creed) - only that He proceeds from the Father through the Son. How on earth are they to be added with that fundamental difference in belief? Indeed, some are reputed to believe that Catholics are heretics and that Catholic Sacraments are invalid. Lutherans are far closer. Yet, talks continue with both communions.

 

[po18guy]

What Catholic teachings do I object to?- What answers won’t get me banned?

State them in a charitable manner and you are in no danger amongst your brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[KLJM12]

What I mean is how is sacred tradition determined? How do we decide which traditions are sacred tradition and which ones are just manmade? .

The Traditions that were passed along by Jesus Christ himself are safe-guarded by the Roman Catholic Church. We do not get to pick and choose. Otherwise we make ourselves infallible by deciding which Tradition we want to discard.

I’m not an expert on Catholicism. I’m still learning a lot (which is one reason why I’m on “Catholic Answers”). I do know that ex cathedra statements are rare. However, its not frequency that I have a problem with. My hesitations are on principle. .

First off, “rare” is an understatement.

Second, I would like to point out that you have no problem with this principle. Who founded your denomination? That individual man picked which traditions to maintain and which to discard. What allowed that one individual to be correct? Why is he correct and the founder of messianic judaism incorrect? Why is he correct and Martin Luther wrong?

And also, why are you so infallible that you get to decide who is and is not guided by the Holy Spirit?

Actually they did. The books that now make up the Bible were in circulation throughout the ancient world. The books that became the canon became the canon because they were already in use by Christian communities. .

Incorrect. Before approx. 400AD there was no collection of books (which we both agree with). So Christian communities had to make due with the writings that they possessed. Not all communities had copies of scripture. And before 70AD there was no gospel yet written. So how did the Christians exist and sustain themselves before this time? Obviously they had to utilize Tradition. It is foolish to say that the earliest Christians had any New Testament writings whatsoever.

I’m pretty sure it was the Holy Spirit that gave us the Bible, and it was the Holy Spirit that guided the men who compiled the canon and the criteria they used to determine authenticity.

The Holy Spirit did not hand us the Bible. Men wrote the Bible and then different men compiled the books to be included in the canon. And that criteria are Tradition. I ask you, who are you to decide that the men were only correct in determining the canon, but beyond that they were incorrect regarding the other Tradition? The Holy Spirit indeed guided them, and continues to guide the Roman Catholic Church to this day, just as It did in 400AD.

Sola scriptura is nowhere in the Bible. The closest verse that can be proof-texted to say that the scripture is sufficient alone is 2Tim. 3:16, but really the verse says that it is useful and profitable for teaching and instructing not that scripture is all you need.

2 Thessalonians 2:15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

John 21:25: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Clearly not everything was written down. And that is because the Christian faith was never intended to rely solely on writings. If we were, then it would not have taken 1500 years after the death of Christ for Christians to develop the idea of sola scriptura.

Take a long look at the traditions of your ecclesiastical community/denomination. Every protestant denomination uses traditions of their own. I would recommend investigating the founder of your own denomination.

 

[grannymh]

What used to be known as the Epistles (letters of St. Paul,etc.) contain the actual tradition of Christ’s teachings.

 

[PRmerger]

With that good goal in mind, would you please provide apologia for the Catholic teaching which explains the protocol for obtaining “papal infallibility” plus what “papal infallibility” actually does?

My apology for this weird question, but I am having difficulty understanding what “papal infallibility” is used for, how it is used, and just as important what it is not used for.

What papal infallibility is used for is this: to prevent Christ’s church from teaching as true that which is false. It is a charism that protects the pope (and the bishops in union with him) from teaching error.

It gives Catholics the assurance that what we proclaim has been immune to human manipulation.

Regarding “protocol” to receive papal infallibility: it is received through the anointing of the Holy Spirit, through the succession of the chair of Peter.