What Catholic teachings do I object to?

[grannymh]

This thread has been very informative, and makes me wonder if I should not have used some broader term than “papal infallibility” when describing the Pope’s authority or that authority of all the bishops gathered together?

As for the link, I’ll check back after reading it.

When you get a chance, would you let me know if this sentence from another poster – I don’t want to get too far afield of Itwin’s OP, because he already agrees that the Holy Scriptures are a product of infalliblity, so his issues relate to other matters – is what you currently believe.

Here is what your post 1 says: “We agree that the writers of Scripture were protected from error under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Though, I would not say that they were always and at every moment protected from error, though they definitely were inspired when writing scripture.”

This cranky (feminine of snarky) granny has a problem with applying “infallible” to any kind of written literature. In my mind, lots of things could be protected from error; but that does not automatically make them a Catholic infallible doctrine. Spell check protects from error.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There have been exactly two ex catherda pronouncements. 1870 and 1950. The Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

Exactly 2 in 1979 years. Yet, the Popes did not make these pronouncements from the Batcave, or by surprise, or during a hissy fit. They simply set in concrete beliefs that were long held. Had they been held all the way back to the first council? Of course not! The Trinity was not even establsished at that point, from all avaiable evidence.

As to a listing of all available infallible infallible teachings, here is a link. If the Holy Spirit indeed guides the Church in her teaching, and Christ bestowed the teaching authority upon His Church, then, by definition, all that the Church has defined and teaches is without error. And, so it is. All teachings from the “normal Magisterium” of the Church may be considered to be infallible.

If your Church’s teachings are not guaranteed infallible by the Holy Spirit, why belong?

Is that Catechism the same for all Catholics in the World?

If not, why not?

And, has this Catechism been the same from the beginning or has it gone through changes?

And, has the Church declared the Catechism as infallible?

I think we must be careful in the way we “throw” infallibility around.

 

[po18guy]

When you get a chance, would you let me know if this sentence from another poster – I don’t want to get too far afield of Itwin’s OP, because he already agrees that the Holy Scriptures are a product of infalliblity, so his issues relate to other matters – is what you currently believe.

Here is what your post 1 says: “We agree that the writers of Scripture were protected from error under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Though, I would not say that they were always and at every moment protected from error, though they definitely were inspired when writing scripture.”

This cranky (feminine of snarky) granny has a problem with applying “infallible” to any kind of written literature. In my mind, lots of things could be protected from error; but that does not automatically make them a Catholic infallible doctrine. Spell check protects from error.

Peter tells us that the unlearned twist and distort the scriptures. Clearly, this twisting applied both to those who twisted it as well as to their hearers. If they did this almost 2,000 years ago, how much twisting is occurring today? So, one must wonder just how God’s revealed truth is preserved from error? Since there are innumerable alleged versions of it, all cannot be true. Do not logic and reason tell us that the oldest, the unchanged is the most likely to have been preserved without error? Ah, but we humans seek novelty. New tastes. New colors. New styles. But, none of it is ultimately pleasing, as fashion is an ebbing and flowing stream, when the spirit seeks the placidity of a lake.

 

[ltwin]

When you get a chance, would you let me know if this sentence from another poster – I don’t want to get too far afield of Itwin’s OP, because he already agrees that the Holy Scriptures are a product of infalliblity, so his issues relate to other matters – is what you currently believe.

Here is what your post 1 says: “We agree that the writers of Scripture were protected from error under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Though, I would not say that they were always and at every moment protected from error, though they definitely were inspired when writing scripture.”

This cranky (feminine of snarky) granny has a problem with applying “infallible” to any kind of written literature. In my mind, lots of things could be protected from error; but that does not automatically make them a Catholic infallible doctrine. Spell check protects from error.

I believe that writers of Holy Scripture were protected from error when they wrote Scripture. And I believe that the church was guided by the Holy Spirit in identifying those books that it did as inspired.

However, in that case, the church was only recognizing what was already the case. The Scriptures are inspired, and the church recognized this by examining the texts used accepting what was inspired and rejecting what was not. Tradition is not inspired. Tradition helps us make sense of the gospel, but tradition should never be raised to the level of a matter of faith. The church can only recognize what it knows as a certainty. And what is certain is what has been revealed in Scripture. Things outside of Scripture may be convincing and helpful, but it isn’t solid enough to raise to a requirement of faith.

When someone proclaims something that should be believed by the whole church universal, its not good enough to say “a lot of people have said this over a long period of time”. Such action causes confusion and doubt and disunity. When you say, “this is a matter of faith” but it cannot be clearly shown from scripture, there will be people who cannot subscribe to it. Nevertheless, because it has been made a mandatory belief they either must follow the certainty of Scripture or the uncertainty of the majority or those in power. Either way, unity is broken, and the church has gone beyond the warrant of what it knows to be without error.

 

[joe370]

ltwin;10179946]I believe that writers of Holy Scripture were protected from error when they wrote Scripture. And I believe that the church was guided by the Holy Spirit in identifying those books that it did as inspired.

However, in that case, the church was only recognizing what was already the case.

Just curious: are you are suggesting that six NT books were never disputed in certain areas of the Roman Empire, which was what led the CC to finally step in and resolve the matter via the codification of scripture?

The Scriptures are inspired, and the church recognized this by examining the texts used accepting what was inspired and rejecting what was not. Tradition is not inspired.

Seriously, sacred tradition was the benchmark by which those disputed books were eventually embraced and others jettisoned. It surprised me too as a former protestant.

Tradition helps us make sense of the gospel, but tradition should never be raised to the level of a matter of faith.

The practice of scripture alone is a man-made tradition, found nowhere within the pages of sacred scripture.

The church can only recognize what it knows as a certainty. And what is certain is what has been revealed in Scripture. Things outside of Scripture may be convincing and helpful, but it isn’t solid enough to raise to a requirement of faith.

You believe that the CC in the 4th century deferred to sacred scripture to determine what should be included in sacred scripture?

When someone proclaims something that should be believed by the whole church universal, its not good enough to say **“a lot of people have said this over a long period of time”. **Such action causes confusion and doubt and disunity.

 

[pablope]

QUOTE=Anna Scott;10177435]KLJM12,

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

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.

Well…Anna…how can you be sure there are no teachings that may be declared erroneous or modified later in the church where you are now? Can you be absolutely 100% sure?

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?

All the way…to the best of our ability and conscience.

 

[po18guy]

Is that Catechism the same for all Catholics in the World?

If not, why not?

And, has this Catechism been the same from the beginning or has it gone through changes?

And, has the Church declared the Catechism as infallible?

I think we must be careful in the way we “throw” infallibility around.

You can take up that “throwing infallibility around” with Fr. John Trigilio, PhD, ThD, and Fr. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD. They wrote the following in Catholicism for Dummies. I quote, from page 70: “When the Church teaches on faith and morals, she is infallible (free from error). The Church’s teachings are infallible, but that doesn’t mean that the Church never updates or refines the explanations of dogmas and doctrines so Catholics can understand them better”

I consider myself to be a Dummy, so I bought the book. I wish that all Christians had a copy of it.

If you go to the Vatican website, it is clear that the entire world can view the universal catechism.

 

[po18guy]

Well…Anna…how can you be sure there are no teachings that may be declared erroneous or modified later in the church where you are now? Can you be absolutely 100% sure?

The ordination of women to the clergy is one such.

All the way…to the best of our ability and conscience.

Saint Francis of Assisi vowed slavish loyalty to his Bishop in all things save for sin.

 

[Nicea325]

Itwin:

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?

You confuse infallibility with impeccability. Where is the accountability and discernment for the canon of Scripture? Please show us the chapter and verses used to measure the 27 book NT canon? Do you consider Apostolic Traditions undefined and vague?

 

[joe370]

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

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.

Well, if the CC had in fact changed their defined doctrines, (as opposed to developing said doctrines over time, so that a fuller understanding of the original meaning could be realized in the face of changing times) then I would certainly understand your reluctance and suggest that you attempt to find the true church founded by Jesus circa AD 33 that is forever guided by God, into all truth, where such hypocritical modifications, (as opposed to insightful developments found in the CC) would not take place. Certainly seems reasonable…

 

[ltwin]

Just curious: are you are suggesting that six NT books were never disputed in certain areas of the Roman Empire, which was what led the CC to finally step in and resolve the matter via the codification of scripture?

I’m saying that the church distinguished between those books that were inspired and those that weren’t. I’m aware that there were books under dispute, and that the inspiration of some books were easier to discern than others.

Seriously, sacred tradition was the benchmark by which those disputed books were eventually embraced and others jettisoned. It surprised me too as a former protestant.

I’m not denying that the church has traditions, history, and a historical memory. The church drew on the information that it had on the different books it had available to discern if they were inspired or not. And I have faith that they were led by God.

The practice of scripture alone is a man-made tradition, found nowhere within the pages of sacred scripture.

And yet you feel it is ok to bind all Christians to believe in doctrinal elaboration deriving from “sacred tradition” even if such doctrinal elaboration cannot be clearly evident in what we all know to be inspired scripture?

You believe that the CC in the 4th century deferred to sacred scripture to determine what should be included in sacred scripture?

No. I think the church, guided by God, investigated the authenticity of books to judge which ones were inspired by God and without error. I don’t see the Catholic Church adding new books to the Bible, so I assume that it doesn’t think it appropriate to expand the canon. However, it seems to think it appropriate to bind all Christians to what is not explicitly in the canon.

 

[joe370]

ltwin;10180070]I’m saying that the church distinguished between those books that were inspired and those that weren’t. I’m aware that there were books under dispute, and that the inspiration of some books were easier to discern than others.

If you don’t mind me asking: How did the CC distinguish between those books that were inspired and those that weren’t?

And yet you feel it is ok to bind all Christians to believe in doctrinal elaboration deriving from “sacred tradition” even if such doctrinal elaboration cannot be clearly evident in what we all know to be inspired scripture?

Oh no! Just Christians belonging to the CC. By the way sacred scripture is derived from sacred tradition.

No. I think the church, guided by God, investigated the authenticity of books to judge which ones were inspired by God and without error.

So we can trust the CC (guided by God) in terms of investigating the authenticity of the books in the bible?

I don’t see the Catholic Church adding new books to the Bible, so I assume that it doesn’t think it appropriate to expand the canon.

People like my sister insist that the CC added doctrines such as purgatory etc. so how can a sola scriptura proponent like her know for sure that the CC did not add books that should not have made the proverbial cut? Well, that was the question that changed my way of thinking as a former protestant.

However, it seems to think it appropriate to bind all Christians to what is not explicitly in the canon.

That’s just it, sola scriptura advocates such as yourself, and me long ago, don’t even agree on the teachings and interpretation of the canon so how can anyone expect to bind all Christians to what is in the canon…all Christians to be held accountable to scripture alone, when scripture speaks different things to different folks?

 

[grannymh]

Is that Catechism the same for all Catholics in the World?

If not, why not?

And, has this Catechism been the same from the beginning or has it gone through changes?

And, has the Church declared the Catechism as infallible?

I think we must be careful in the way we “throw” infallibility around.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, is the universal catechism for everyone in the whole world. The official Latin version was translated into various languages. The English Second Edition includes improvements on the translation. There are no changes in Catholic doctrines.

Yes. I am very concerned about the way some Catholics throw “infallibility” around. It is almost a game of one-upmanship. Even if the usage of infallible is technically correct, the concern it causes is not worth it in my humble opinion–especially when speaking with Christians other than Catholics.

And, has the Church declared the Catechism as infallible?

While this is an honest question, it is also another example of some, not all, people not really knowing what is an infallible Catholic doctrine. My copy of this Catholic treasure (universal catechism) has 904 pages plus the beginning pages i - xvi.

With the word infallible being tossed about, it is believable that some person somewhere in the world wants to know if all these pages of the Catechism have been declared infallible by the Church.

 

[grannymh]

. By the way sacred scripture is derived from sacred tradition.

 

[ltwin]

If you don’t mind me asking: How did the CC distinguish between those books that were inspired and those that weren’t?

By looking at authorship for one. Also consistency with the rest of what was regarded as scripture, etc.

Oh no! Just Christians belonging to the CC.

Wait a minute now. Doesn’t the Catholic Church believe that all baptized Christians, no matter if they be presently separated from the Catholic Church, are in a real yet imperfect sense part of the one church. And, doesn’t the Catholic Church believe that for me to be in complete communion with Christ’s one true church, I must reconcile with the Catholic Church. So in a real sense, the Catholic Church is binding all Christians to what it thinks its sacred tradition mandates. So, am I not, according to Catholic teaching, rebelling against the authority of Christ by refusing to conform to Catholic doctrines even if they are not clearly evident in scripture? Correct me if I’m wrong?

By the way sacred scripture is derived from sacred tradition.

So we can trust the CC (guided by God) in terms of investigating the authenticity of the books in the bible?

Whatever Christians were involved at the time. I’m sure the Eastern Orthodox had their (name removed by moderator)ut.

People like my sister insist that the CC added doctrines such as purgatory etc. so how can a sola scriptura proponent like her know for sure that the CC did not add books that should not have made the proverbial cut? Well, that was the question that changed my way of thinking as a former protestant.

Well, luckily “my way of thinking” isn’t your way of thinking. I don’t think the Catholic Church is a nefarious Whore of Babylon evil Davinci Code conspiratorial secret cabal. I consider you brothers and sisters in Christ. I think the Pope and your bishops are awesome, just not error proof.

That’s just it, sola scriptura advocates such as your self, and me long ago, don’t even agree on the teachings and interpretation of the canon so how can anyone expect to bind all Christians to what is in the canon…all Christians to be held accountable to scripture alone, when scripture speaks different things to different folks?

Yes, we are divided. It’s sad and unfortunate. Making obligatory what is not explicit, however, in no way helps the situation. Things like Real Presence can be argued from Scripture. The Immaculate Conception, however, is just well not there. That doesn’t mean it should be completely erased from all mention of history, only why be so dogmatic about it? Why not let individual Christians freely debate the merits of such a belief without it being made a requirement to believe?

 

[Nicea325]

Itwin:

And yet you feel it is ok to bind all Christians to believe in doctrinal elaboration deriving from “sacred tradition” even if such doctrinal elaboration cannot be clearly evident in what we all know to be inspired scripture?

I beg your pardon? Doctrinal elaboration? Do you bind all Christians to the Trinity? Incarnation? Jesus Hypostatic Union? All of these were and are part of Tradition and believed and taught long before anything was penned.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You can take up that “throwing infallibility around” with Fr. John Trigilio, PhD, ThD, and Fr. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD. They wrote the following in Catholicism for Dummies. I quote, from page 70: “When the Church teaches on faith and morals, she is infallible (free from error). The Church’s teachings are infallible, but that doesn’t mean that the Church never updates or refines the explanations of dogmas and doctrines so Catholics can understand them better”

I consider myself to be a Dummy, so I bought the book. I wish that all Christians had a copy of it.

If you go to the Vatican website, it is clear that the entire world can view the universal catechism.

Ok… I’m laughing and crying, please don’t take it as offensive but I just find it too funny.

The only place where the Catechism is declared as infallible is in a Dummy series book?

I mean, I am a dummy as well but there has to be an Official source!

BTW, I love the Catechism so there’s no need to hit me in the head with it,

 

[ltwin]

I beg your pardon? Doctrinal elaboration? Do you bind all Christians to the Trinity? Incarnation? Jesus Hypostatic Union? All of these were and are part of Tradition and believed and taught long before anything was penned.

All that can be based IN scripture.

 

[po18guy]

However, in that case, the church was only recognizing what was already the case.

Is there any other authority which also recognized “what was already the case”? Who else told mankind that it was already the case? No one but the Church did! No one else on earth, not even the noble Bereans, had any clue as to what was inspired and what was not. All had opinions, but only the Church had the authority to declare for all time that this collection of writings was inspired by God.

There is a school of thought that the bible was inevitable, and that the means of its arrival is immaterial. It was not immaterial to God! God in Christ founded a Church, gave it all authority, power over sin, the power to test and canonize scripture, and the responsibillity to maintain that truth until He returns in the flesh.

When someone proclaims something that should be believed by the whole church universal, its not good enough to say “a lot of people have said this over a long period of time”. Such action causes confusion and doubt and disunity.

You are ignoring Luke, I think. If we read the prologue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4), we see in that inspired, infallible, and perfect four verses that Theophilus learned nothing - zero, zip, nada, from Luke’s Gospel. Luke wrote it only to confirm the “what someoone said” (Apostolic teaching) that Theophilus had already received. That Apostolic Church is the “someone” that you refer to.

Rather, confusion and disunuty is created only - solely - when individuals depart form the truth, lead by the spirit of division. Genesis 3! There is no other cause.

 

[po18guy]

All that can be based IN scripture.

Arius and his followers for several hundred years took exception to your opinion. How can you declare them wrong? They were using the same scriptures.