What Catholic teachings do I object to?

[PRmerger]

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

You won’t get banned if you model your posting style after some non-Catholic Christians who have been here awhile and typically post with charity and decorum.

You know who they are. They are able to present their objections to Catholicism in the same way that they would posit a question to Christ: “Lord, I don’t understand why you say…”

 

[grannymh]

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.

Protocol pertains to the operations of the visible, physical society of living members of the Catholic Church.

Infallibility is not attached to financial and scientific theories.
In the current cases where a scientific theory collides with a Catholic Doctrine, the Catholic Doctrine is affirmed and thus it remains intact.

Visible, physical protocol which living members of the Catholic Church use when preparing for a major Ecumenical Church Council begins with an agenda of sorts which normally includes issues of public revelation. First there is intense study of Scripture, including the traditional teachings found in the letters of St. Paul and others. Every written, pertinent word, for and against the issue is studied in depth. For a list of these sources, please refer to the Index of Citations, page 689 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Note: A similar protocol is used when considering the rules (canons or laws) which provide the norms for good order in the visible society of the Catholic Church. The Glossary, found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, page 864, gives three uses for the word “canon”. They are Canon Law, Canon of the Mass, and Canon of Scripture.

To be continued.

 

[guanophore]

I would certainly agree that Jesus was speaking to the twelve, and it’s probably why some of us Lutherans are eager for the East-West schism to resolve as it would allay most of our problems - in that we’d be comfortable with the heirs of the twelve pronouncing dogma, and not just one of the twelve.

This is very encouraging Ben. I have also heard the Orthodox say that, if the CC were to reconcile with the spawn of Protestantism it produced, then they would also be able to unite. It seems that everyone is able t look beyond the divisions to see unity. May God bring us into that which He has already declared us to be.

You make a good point that Peter never made any pronouncements in a vacuum, or without his apostolic brethren. They functioned as a unity, and when there were disagreements, they met till they settled them.

I m curious, though, how it is that Lutherans such as yourself still disagree on aspects of the faith that both Catholics and Orthodox have preserved together coming from the Apostles. 7 sacraments, and apostolic succession (holy orders) being among those.

 

[guanophore]

 Itwin already said where the bible claims its infallibility with "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16).  A discussion of the canon of the bible, of course, is a worthwhile and valid discussion, though.

This is an erroneous application of the concept of infallibility. Infallibility requires 1) The ability to act 2) the capacity to be fallible.

These two characteristics are not possessed by writings, however Holy. This is why we refer instead to the Scriptures as inspired (God Breathed) and inerrant.

The formation of the canon, on the other hand, does reflect the gift of infallibility.

 Papal infallibility has bothered me as well.  Not so much the idea of a man being able to be infallible in certain circumstances, but that I don't see a biblical basis for it.

This makes sense. People reading the Bible with anti-Catholic glasses often do not “see” within it the things that Catholics see.

While catholic teaching holds that the bible alone is not the source of all truth, and that's fine I suppose, I find the explanation of the papal office to be a glaring omission from scripture when it details the responsibilities of elders and deacons so specifically.

I am curious how you understand the specific gifts and responsibilities that Jesus gave to Peter. We call these the Petrine gifts, and among them 1) Confirm the brethren in the Truth 2) Feed and guide the flock of God 3) Not allow himself to be distracted by what God has called others to do, but to follow Christ Himself.

What did Christ mean by telling Peter to feed and care for the sheep?

I would have no problem accepting apostolic tradition myself if the bible created a basis for it, but those verses about "whatever you hear by word or letter" and such don't hold much weight for me because there is nothing to suggest that the early traditions were not something later recorded.

You probably don’t realize how absurd this sounds to those who have preserved the Apostolic traditions that were brought by word of mouth. I suggest you look into the Orthodox communion, if you think this is peculiar to Catholicism. One cannot look at their liturgy and think that “everything was preserved in Scripture”. I realize that the Reformers had no experience with the Eastern Church, and were reacting to Romanism, but the preservation of the Apostolic Sacred Tradition is not something confined to Catholicism.

 Likewise, we all know that the early church functioned differently than it does today. The amount of spiritual gifts directly passed on through the laying on of hands just doesn't happen today.

Perhaps in your communion it does not, but it does in all those churches founded by the Apostles.

When someone with a gift of prophecy was speaking it was more expected that their words were worth heeding than someone writing an opinionated essay about the new testament.

My dear sibling in Christ. This is exactly what the NT IS! It is essays on the Teachings of Jesus, which were preserved infalibly through the Sacred Tradition.

You accept without question much of Sacred Tradtiion, not knowing the source, perhaps. The canon of the NT is probably the most common, but the Trinity, hypostatic union, and Sunday observance are also Catholic Sacred Traditions that are not found explicity in Scripture.

 

[grannymh]

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.

Continued from post 61.

In general, with a few exceptions such as “protocol”, there is nothing essentially wrong with the approach of post 59.

However, from reading CAF posts with questions about infallibility of Catholic doctrines, my sincere suggestion is that the “nothing basically wrong approach” needs to be upgraded to the proper application of the designation of infallible plus the requirements for infallible doctrines.

In my humble opinion, one of the exceptions with this very brief selective approach is that protected teaching normally follows the established context of a properly defined and duly declared Catholic doctrine. The reason that these teachings can be protected as being true is that these teachings are repeating what is specifically taught in the designated doctrine.

Regarding the term “papal infallibility”. From reading CAF posts, this term leads to too much confusion due to the fact that many, not all, people are not familiar with how the visible Church on earth operates. Nor do many, not all, people understand that the Pope, as well as all Catholics, is entitled to free speech. In my humble observation, the term “papal infallibility” leads non-Catholics to assume that every word out of the mouth of a Pope, including the [scientific]weather report, is papally infallible.

Regarding the “charism” connected to the infallibility of Catholic doctrines. This charism of anointing of the Holy Spirit is considered a passing manifestation of the power of God used for discernment (testing the spirits). In other words, the charism is not automatically permanent which would imply that it is used for every utterance, including the [scientific] weather report.

In my humble opinion, brief one-liners about infallibility are used – but – the essential information regarding infallible doctrines should also be included at some point in response to sincere questions.

 

[guanophore]

I believe the Holy Spirit still guides the church. I’m not exactly sure how this relates to the pope though?

Do you believe Jesus had any point in charging Peter with certain duties after His resurrection?

Why do you suppose that the powerful Jesus we see speaking in Rev. 2-3 was incapable of correcting Peter, if he made a mistake in his understanding of Apostolic succession?

Why did Jesus so quickly abandon His Church, that He allowed Peter to fall into the error of believing he should pass on the responsibilies given to the Apsotles to Bishops?

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

This is a very good question. Sacred Tradition is the Word of God placed in the Church by the Apostles. It is part of the once for all divine deposit of faith. Like the Scriptures, nothing can be added or subtracted.

It is al that which is contained in what the Apostles commanded us to preserve.

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.

Peter made an ex-cathedra pronouncement on the replacement of Judas. The Scriptures illustrate how this works, in unity with the Apostles. Today, the same gift of infallibiity operates in the Pope, in unity with the successors of the Apostles. We see how necessary this gift has been when we see how far off track those have gone who do not accept the products of that gift, such as the Trinty and the hypostatic union.

 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.

Yes, this is one of the standards that was used. Those documents that later became part of the NT were those which were preserved in Sacred Tradition, primarily through reading at the liturgies. However, there were over 300 books in common use, and other documents such as the letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas that were also read at liturgy but eventually did NOT make the NT canon, so we know that this was not the only standard used.

 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.

Yes. This well defines an infallible act. The HS, acting through the Church, to bring about authentic truth. This is why we say that those who accept the Bible have already accepted Cathoilc Sacred Tradition.

Such a reading does make sense if you assume Apostolic Succession.

I agree. Not everyone who says “thus sayeth the Lord” is speaking on behalf of the Lord.

But you reach this conclusion by appealing to Apostolic Succession.

Yes. Apostolic succession is part of Sacred Tradition. We do not “assume” it as much as “receive” it.

2 Thess 2:15
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.

It is part of the traditions that were taught by the Apostles.

1 Cor 11:2-3

2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

Paul delivered that which he had also received. This is how the Sacred Tradition has been preserved.

Surely you don’t think that Paul was commending and commanding that human traditions be preserved!

1 Thess 2:13-14

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Basically it boils down to whether you believe that the Word of God is more powerful than the human persons to whom it was entrusted. Those who reject the Word of God in the Church (Sacred Tradition) believe that the fallibility of man is more powerful than God’s Word. They reject what Scripture says about God’s Word:

Isa 55:8-11
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
and return not thither but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11 **so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and prosper in the thing for which I sent it. **

Those who have kept the Apostolic command to preserve the Sacred Traditions just as they were delivered to us accept that God’s Word,where He placed it in His Church, will accomplish the purpose for which He set it there.

Those who deny the Sacred Tradition believe that the sins of men are stronger than the Word of God, and that God failed to preserve His Word where He placed it.

 

[po18guy]

Itwin already said where the bible claims its infallibility with “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). A discussion of the canon of the bible, of course, is a worthwhile and valid discussion, though.

The bible describes some of the qualities of scripture. What it does not do, and cannot do, is examine writings and decide their inspiration. The bible does not, and cannot, tell you what the “sacred table of contents” should be. The Church had to do that. It took hundreds of years to settle.

Papal infallibility has bothered me as well. Not so much the idea of a man being able to be infallible in certain circumstances, but that I don’t see a biblical basis for it.

I have found that, this is usually because one is simply not looking for it in earnest. Each of us tends to seek the defense of our own opinion, as that is simply human nature. There is a mountain of scriptural evidence for Peter’s primacy and leadership. But, you have to read it anew with this in mind. One must look for it and not re-interpret it to fit their notion of “Church” or view it with a jaundiced eye. It must be placed in historical context.

While catholic teaching holds that the bible alone is not the source of all truth, and that’s fine I suppose, I find the explanation of the papal office to be a glaring omission…

Catholics often quote the “protestant pope” (Paul), because alarmingly often, no one else will be listened to. Did Paul claim infallibility? If we listen to him, what he said must have had infallibililty at some point. If not, why read it?

Paul, as inspired as he was, still deferred to the Church on doctrinal issues and to make certain that his Gospel did not conflict with that of the twelve.

As well, do you forget the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Lutherans and the Anglicans (among others), who also have creeds or confessions that are derived from the bible, but also from tradition? Those creeds and confessions, which were inspired by the bible, were completed by men outside of the bible.

The amount of spiritual gifts directly passed on through the laying on of hands just doesn’t happen today.

I must point out that the bible does not say this, but you do. You have thus made an “infallible” proclamation.

The problem with bible Christianity is that it relies on the incomplete written tradition. Man must, therefore, fill in the blanks. This is why we have almost as many denominations as McDonald’s has hamburgers.

What we do know is that scripture alone is a foundation of sand, since all scripture is subject to twisting and distortion - 2 Peter 3:16 - that’s biblical truth. What is needed, and what is demonstrated in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, is the very apostolic succession that you appear to deny. Without that succession, you would have no bible. Without that successive authority, your bible has no authenticity.

 

[grannymh]

Do you believe Jesus had any point in charging Peter with certain duties after His resurrection?

Why do you suppose that the powerful Jesus we see speaking in Rev. 2-3 was incapable of correcting Peter, if he made a mistake in his understanding of Apostolic succession?

Why did Jesus so quickly abandon His Church, that He allowed Peter to fall into the error of believing he should pass on the responsibilies given to the Apsotles to Bishops?

Interesting questions. And I suppose that somehow they relate to the infallible Catholic doctrines.

What is also interesting is that infallibility is freely applied to all kinds of concepts.

I withdraw my earlier observation that there was nothing essentially wrong with the approach of post 59. This is because I now see that this approach belongs within this group of posters who freely use the word infallible universally.

This is a very good question. Sacred Tradition is the Word of God placed in the Church by the Apostles. It is part of the once for all divine deposit of faith. Like the Scriptures, nothing can be added or subtracted.

For an explanation of Tradition as the transmitted teachings of the Gospel found in the New Testament letters, Patrick Coffin, host of Catholic Answers Live writes: “In other words, Scripture is part of the greater Tradition. Scripture is Tradition, its written part. If we turn to Scripture, particularly in the writings of St. Paul, we find that it means nothing more and nothing less than the ‘handing on’ of the contents of the gospel message, the ‘ordinance or teachings as delivered.’ So here are ten scriptural pointers to Tradition:” (source: How to Get Started in Apologetics by Patrick Coffin, Catholic Answers Magazine, January-February 2013)

Peter made an ex-cathedra pronouncement on the replacement of Judas. The Scriptures illustrate how this works, in unity with the Apostles. Today, the same gift of infallibiity operates in the Pope, in unity with the successors of the Apostles. We see how necessary this gift has been when we see how far off track those have gone who do not accept the products of that gift, such as the Trinty and the hypostatic union.

The replacement of Judas would be part of “canon law” which does not require infallibility. For further information, please refer to “Canon Law”, page 869 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Yes. This well defines an infallible act. The HS, acting through the Church, to bring about authentic truth. This is why we say that those who accept the Bible have already accepted Cathoilc Sacred Tradition.

Authentic truth, which is also known as Public Revelation, has been completed. For further information, please read the Catechism’s section "Christ Jesus – “Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation” CCC 65 - 67. Please note that CCC 20-21 explains the significance of smaller type used within this section.

While technically the Holy Spirit acts through Catholic Church protocol (discernment of spirits) to bring about authentic truth, it should be clarified for non-Catholics that this is not a totally new truth. From CCC 66: “Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.”

Please note that “protocol” pertains to the operations of the visible, physical society of living members of the Catholic Church on earth. For additional information, please read post 61.

 

[grannymh]

On another thread PRmerger asked me “what teaching do you object to?” in reference to the Catholic Church. The question was sort of off topic, but I did want to provide an answer so I started this thread.

Off the top of my head, I told PRmerger that I disagree with papal infallibility and the exclusivist claims of the CC.

When I first answered you, I thought that everyone was on the same page regarding infallible Catholic doctrines. Since I have discovered how wrong I was about agreement over infallible doctrines, I would like to start over with answers to your valid objections. Only this time, would it be possible to discuss infallibility of Catholic doctrines first before we start discussing individuals such as popes or Scripture characters? My guess is that you probably meant infallible doctrines?

If papal infallibility is still your first choice for discussion, I can deal with that by asking – Infallibility in which area? I really doubt that any Catholic would consider that every word out of the mouth of a pope is automatically infallible. So, what would be considered matters for a pope’s papal infallibility?

 

[po18guy]

When I first answered you, I thought that everyone was on the same page regarding infallible Catholic doctrines. Since I have discovered how wrong I was about agreement over infallible doctrines, I would like to start over with answers to your valid objections. Only this time, would it be possible to discuss infallibility of Catholic doctrines first before we start discussing individuals such as popes or Scripture characters? My guess is that you probably meant infallible doctrines?

If papal infallibility is still your first choice for discussion, I can deal with that by asking – Infallibility in which area? I really doubt that any Catholic would consider that every word out of the mouth of a pope is automatically infallible. So, what would be considered matters for a pope’s papal infallibility?

Excellent observations. Here is the Catholic Answers definition of Papal Infallibility, which includes some explanations, clarifications and a refutation of a common attack against infallibility.

catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .I would be VERY curious to know which statements you are referring to. I am currently under the impression that you have absolutely no idea (without looking it up on Google in order to form an intelligible response to my point) which statements have been made ex cathedra. I am, in fact, very confident in this because you seem to think there are countless statements being made ex cathedra by His Holiness every day that are questionable. Please help me understand where you are coming from here. . . . .

KLJM12,

I know your response was to Itwin. So, please pardon my jumping in.

As far as Ex Cathedra teachings, I am only aware of two: The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and her bodily Assumption into heaven. If there are more, listing them would be helpful.

It is my understanding that there are infallible teachings beyond Ex Cathedra; but they are not always so easy to pin down. A list would be nice. If there is such a list, I’d love the link or source to it.

According to DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH LUMEN GENTIUM, Catholics must submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra. So, the expectation of submission runs deep in the Catholic faith.

---

The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals

The article speaks of some Catholic writers who disregard and even oppose certain statements in papal encyclicals—adopting the attitude that much of the material, presented in the encyclicals, does not come from the Holy Father with an absolute guarantee of infallibility.

The article also says that these **Catholic writers have forgotten that the “internal and sincere assent due to teachings presented even in a non-infallible way by the supreme teacher and ruler of the Church militant is definitely and seriously obligatory.” **

Ironically, the article goes on to say the “obligation holds until the Church might come to modify its position on some particular portion of the teaching contained in the encyclicals, or at least until the time when very serious reasons for such modification might become apparent.”

The article refers to a large number of prominent theologians who, in regards to encyclical letters, consider only those truths proposed by the Holy Father solemni iudicio as infallibly defined, to the exclusion of those truths which he sets forth ordinario et universali magisterio.

The article mentions another “very imposing group of theologians” who explicitly list papal encyclicals as non-infallible documents. However, they maintain that “the faithful are bound in conscience to accord these letters not only the tribute of respectful silence, but also a definite and sincere internal religious assent.” An “internal mental assent” is also demanded.

The article continues saying, "The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.”

So, if I were Catholic, I would have to submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra; and give full assent to his teachings that may, at a later date, be modified or even discovered to be erroneous.

When I look back through history and consider the actions and teachings of some previous Popes; it becomes a bit scarey. Papal history cannot escape its past of inquisitions, torture, executions, and scandals. To be fair, there is plenty of all that in non-Catholic history–but there is a difference in the idea of submission and infallibility.

My question to Catholics is, how far would you follow your Pope?

 

[grannymh]

Excellent observations. Here is the Catholic Answers definition of Papal Infallibility, which includes some explanations, clarifications and a refutation of a common attack against infallibility.

catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

At last. Someone who uses the word “prerogative”. The following quote from link illustrates the difference between the very wide use of the “infallible” word presented in some of the posts and my position that infallibility is attached to the doctrine.
Please note that I have never denied that the pope could use the charism of infallibility to “proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly.” For me the operative word is doctrine.

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly.”

Another quote. Please notice the ending reference to some doctrine and notice the word “when”.

"Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.”

Another quote.

“Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined.”

When one uses the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, one can easily check the footnotes for when and where a particular doctrine was declared. There is a companion book to this Catechism which includes the actual wording for most of the citations.

See section titled “Peter Not Infallible”. Quote from this section.

"As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals."

Please notice that faith or morals appears three times in the above. Given the date of this article, I wonder why the difference between natural science theories and faith or morals is not addressed. Judging by the faith/science threads and the Catholic objections to the reality of two sole parents of humankind, the difference between the material/physical realm of science and the spiritual realm of God the Creator is key. This is the century which demands that Catholics be taught what happens when natural science theories collide with fundamental Catholic doctrines.

Also the concept of ex cathedra seemed to melt into papal infallibility when it should have been made very clear. Quote referring to ex cathedra.

“What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.”

The operative words solemnly and formally are used when declaring a Catholic doctrine.

In my humble opinion, the last sentence above about the pope who has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position." takes the prize for underestimation of the preparation for ex cathedra.

My nitty-gritty analytical remarks come from experience with contemporary objections to any kind of infallibility. And I am sure that I have not seen all the objections.

Actually, I would like to be quoted as being very grateful for such an informative article.

 

[grannymh]

KLJM12,

I know your response was to Itwin. So, please pardon my jumping in.

As far as Ex Cathedra teachings, I am only aware of two: The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and her bodily Assumption into heaven. If there are more, listing them would be helpful.

It is my understanding that there are infallible teachings beyond Ex Cathedra; but they are not always so easy to pin down. A list would be nice. If there is such a list, I’d love the link or source to it.

According to DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH LUMEN GENTIUM, Catholics must submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra. So, the expectation of submission runs deep in the Catholic faith.

---

The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals

The article speaks of some Catholic writers who disregard and even oppose certain statements in papal encyclicals—adopting the attitude that much of the material, presented in the encyclicals, does not come from the Holy Father with an absolute guarantee of infallibility.

The article also says that these **Catholic writers have forgotten that the “internal and sincere assent due to teachings presented even in a non-infallible way by the supreme teacher and ruler of the Church militant is definitely and seriously obligatory.” **

Ironically, the article goes on to say the “obligation holds until the Church might come to modify its position on some particular portion of the teaching contained in the encyclicals, or at least until the time when very serious reasons for such modification might become apparent.”

The article refers to a large number of prominent theologians who, in regards to encyclical letters, consider only those truths proposed by the Holy Father solemni iudicio as infallibly defined, to the exclusion of those truths which he sets forth ordinario et universali magisterio.

The article mentions another “very imposing group of theologians” who explicitly list papal encyclicals as non-infallible documents. However, they maintain that “the faithful are bound in conscience to accord these letters not only the tribute of respectful silence, but also a definite and sincere internal religious assent.” An “internal mental assent” is also demanded.

The article continues saying, "The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.”

So, if I were Catholic, I would have to submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra; and give full assent to his teachings that may, at a later date, be modified or even discovered to be erroneous.

Not exactly. Not speaking Ex Cathedra can cover teachings from the Birth of Christ to the amount of genes in the human genome. The difference in topics has to be taken into consideration.

When I look back through history and consider the actions and teachings of some previous Popes; it becomes a bit scarey. Papal history cannot escape its past of inquisitions, torture, executions, and scandals. To be fair, there is plenty of all that in non-Catholic history–but there is a difference in the idea of submission and infallibility.

My question to Catholics is, how far would you follow your Pope?

Answer.
Personally, I would follow the Pope to his summer residence or wherever he goes to relax for a bit.
Seriously, as a Catholic I accept Catholic doctrines regardless of what the Pope does and despite how many people object to them or want to update them. To me, and one other person, Catholic theology as expressed in doctrines is logical.

 

[joe370]

ltwin;10173132]

As a Pentecostal, I continue to believe that God continues to speak to and inspire people. John 16:13 says, "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth,

Do these words apply to both you and me, and every other Christian?

While the canon is closed, revelation continues because the need to be guided into all truth did not end with the closing of the canon.

How does the HS continue to guide Jesus’ church into all truth?

The problem comes when we want to know how to test revelation. For Pentecostals, we discern what the Spirit is saying to the Church by referring to what the Spirit has always been saying to the Church as contained in Holy Scripture. There is no warrant in Scripture for ascribing infallibility to any office.

Infallibility simply means that the HS continues to infallibly guide Jesus’ church, (comprised of all fallible leaders) into all truth, and you just said: While the canon is closed, revelation continues because the need to be guided into all truth did not end with the closing of the canon. How does the HS infallibly guide Jesus’ church into all truth?

I have no doubt that the Lord has used many Popes, and I’m sure that at times they have spoken prophetically to the benefit of their flock.

Of course we both agree that all Popes were (and continue to be) fallible men. The infallible power, (you are rock and on this rock…) in terms of doctrinal preservation, comes from God alone.

However, I find it odd that when some of the less reputable Popes in history are brought up, Catholics say things like “Yes, this person was immoral and corrupt but the office of the Pope is divinely protected so anything they said ex cathedra can be trusted.”

So God could not prevent a bad Pope from altering His divine plan, in terms of doctrinal preservation?

How can anyone make such blanket statements like that? So, one issue I have is the assigning of infallibility to an office irrespective of the spiritual state of the person holding that office.

You essentially said that infallibility exists somewhere, via the power of God when you said: “revelation continues because the need to be guided into all truth did not end with the closing of the canon.” The holy Spirit can guide infallibly - correct?

The other problem I have is the lack of accountability. The Scriptures say that the spirits should be tested. When Popes make definitive rulings on matters of faith and claim that they are divinely protected from error where is the accountability and the discernment? And how should accountability be measured? By Scripture or a vague and undefined sacred tradition?

People have been deferring to sacred scripture to hold other people accountable and those people simply tell the plaintiff(s) that they are accountable to no person; only scripture. With this sort of system in place no one is accountable to anyone. Got any ideas on how to hold people accountable?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If there are more,** listing them would be helpful.**

It is my understanding that there are infallible teachings beyond Ex Cathedra; but they are not always so easy to pin down. A list would be nice. If there is such a list, I’d love the link or source to it.

To be fair, there is plenty of all that in non-Catholic history–but there is a difference in the idea of submission and infallibility.

My question to Catholics is, how far would you follow your Pope?

Anna,

I’ve searched far and wide. I have not seen such a list.

Ex-Cathedra statements were not defined until 1870 (Vatican I). Retro-Active application, in my humble opinion, is a moot point. It didn’t need to be there for 1,800+ years and I honestly think that there is no need for it either. It creates more division than anything else. It shuts the door for dialogue and reason because it simply appears to say: “Because I say so”. That is precisely why there is no such a list. Any one person in his right state of mind and in his right state of humbleness would dread to make such a statement.

Having said that, I perceive that the fear of “Infallibility” is because of what it might entail, instead of what it has proclaimed. It is a lot harder to trust a person than it is to trust a book. People change and hurt you, books are inanimate objects that just lay there until you pick them up and read them. However, books contain words that have meaning and present ideas and declarations.

Now imagine how the Church was before there was such a book. Imagine having to trust someone to bring you the Words of Salvation by word of mouth. No Canon, no list of books, just pieces of letters and translated papers from hundred of years away from their original language. Do you think those people in the early Church were saved? I believe they were.

There was no Fox News, no NBC news, no ABC news, CNN news, etc. to report all the crazy and sinful people that were preaching one thing and doing something different from that preaching. Imagine that!

While the Holy Spirit can help me (no doubt) with the life application of Holy Scriptures in my life. It is necessary for me to submit myself to those the same Holy Spirit has chosen to actually define what those Holy Scriptures really mean and not what they “think” it means. One Universal Truth.

While I don’t understand several teachings of my Church, I submit myself to the main teachings and authority and then study and ask questions about things that are really “adiaphora” in regards to my soul.

I don’t like to “throw” infallibility around. I understand its meaning in the general sense and unless a Pope invokes something to be Ex-Cathedra and/or infallible, I don’t have to listen to anyone else’s idea of what it can be applied to. My obedience and submission are still required.

As to how far would I follow the Pope?

As far as the Church as a whole does.

God Bless.

 

[joe370]

KLJM12,

My question to Catholics is, how far would you follow your Pope?

Keeping in mind that a catholic ecumenical council and the bishop of Rome would always work collaboratively, even in a case where the bishop of Rome might speak from the chair. The Pope would never make a declarative decision without first convoking, as was the case with the IC and the assumption of Mary. Since I believe that God will always guide the CC into all truth, in terms of doctrinal matters e.g. the Trinity, IC, Theotokos etc., I would never stop following the CC leadership, with the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, for the simple fact that the God is the infallible guider.

My question to protestants, regardless of denomination: who do you follow as your infallible guide, regarding doctrinal truth? I know it’s not the church leadership, regardless of denomination.

 

[PRmerger]

Since I believe that God will always guide the CC into all truth, in terms of doctrinal matters e.g. the Trinity, IC, Theotokos etc., I would never stop following the CC leadership, with the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, for the simple fact that the God is the infallible guider.

Indeed.

And it’s irrelevant whether the Pope is speaking infallibly, or is simply proclaiming a teaching that may be leading us in the wrong direction.

For does not the Bible tell us that our leaders are to be obeyed even when they are leading us in the wrong direction?

Was not Korah slain for his disobedience of Moses (who, incidentally, was leading the Chosen People in the wrong direction)? (See Numbers 16).

Incidentally, are children not to be obedient to their parents, even if they may be prone to error?

Thus, if we are to obey our parents, who aren’t infallible, how much more ought we obey our Bishops, who have been given the charism of infallibility??

 

[batman1973]

This topic is kind of a dead horse. It’s been hashed over and over again. Neither side is gonna give. Certainly there are other topics worthy of our time?

 

[PRmerger]

So, if I were Catholic, I would have to submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra; and give full assent to his teachings that may, at a later date, be modified or even discovered to be erroneous.

Yes, indeed, Anna.

Just like your children need to give their obedience to you, even if you are not infallible.

How much more do we need to follow our shepherd, even if he may be leading us in the wrong direction. For we trust that he will be guided, in the end, by the Good Shepherd.

 

[PRmerger]

What we do know is that scripture alone is a foundation of sand, since all scripture is subject to twisting and distortion - 2 Peter 3:16 - that’s biblical truth. What is needed, and what is demonstrated in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, is the very apostolic succession that you appear to deny. Without that succession, you would have no bible. Without that successive authority, your bible has no authenticity.

Indeed. It has been posited by someone smarter than I that almost all ancient (and current) heresies are spawned by the “alone” mentality: Scripture Alone. Faith Alone. Science Alone. Man Alone.

Truly, the only “ALONE” that humanity ought to embrace is this: we are saved by Christ ALONE.

And even that mantra must be understood with some nuance. For Christ ALONE (without His Body, the Church) is a bodyless Head with no means of proclaiming revelation.