What do I do? I don't have a spiritual home anymore.

[jinc1019]

The matter of papal infallibility is stressed because the pope (as successor of Peter, and as chosen by the act of the Holy Spirit) is the head of the church, and so he should have a major say in infallible doctrines. The Cardinals as a body can also issue infallible doctrines. Since the Holy Spirit and Christ are ever active and present in our church and through the pope, we believe the Spirit can move him to re-affirm doctrines as infallible. Not everything he says is infallible, but only when he specifically states that a certain doctrinve is infallible, when the Holy Spirit has moved him. I don’t see it as that big of an issue. If you truly believe that the Spirit is active in the church, you should trust that God would not let the pope just declare some random nonsense as infallible. But that’s just my opinion (no offense meant, I’m just trying to say express my thoughts on the matter).

I understand your position and certainly do respect it! Thanks for your posts.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Jinc, I’ve been scrolling through your thread and one thing is continuing to bother me.

You seem to be connecting papal infallibility to the Church’s teaching on contraception. But the Pope or Popes were not responsible for that teaching. In fact, that comes directly from God. “Go forth and multiply,” was God’s commandment that we are still to honor.

What part of God’s law about not interfering with what He intends is hard for you to understand?

 

[jinc1019]

Please show me in any Church documents that say infallibility is transmitted from bishop to bishop. It’s not that I am wrong, it’s that you are disagreeing with the Church. You are reading the Bible and coming to your own conclusions. The bible never says the apostles and their successors will be infallible. I don’t know where you are coming up with this.

Then you admit IF Church infallibility exists, then it was broken because of the East West Schism. What you fail to see is that the Church still exists, even if it is in schism.

I am not able to see where your difficulty really lies.

I agree the Bible never says the successors of Peter and the other apostles will be infallible…That’s basically my point. I don’t think any of them have infallibility.

You are saying apostolic succession is not related to infallibility, but that is completely false…because infallibility belongs to the Pope, according to your argument, correct? And how does a Pope get his power as a bishop? By apostolic succession. You can’t separate the two doctrines because the Pope is promised infallibility BECAUSE he sits in Peter’s seat and how do we know who sits in Peter’s seat? Because of apostolic succession!

 

[jinc1019]

Jinc, I’ve been scrolling through your thread and one thing is continuing to bother me.

You seem to be connecting papal infallibility to the Church’s teaching on contraception. But the Pope or Popes were not responsible for that teaching. In fact, that comes directly from God. “Go forth and multiply,” was God’s commandment that we are still to honor.

What part of God’s law about not interfering with what He intends is hard for you to understand?

You are right, go forth and multiply! But multiply every single time you have sex? How often should we be having kids? How young? How old? These OTHER things are determined by the Pope. It’s not that I think it’s good to NEVER have kids.

 

[catharina]

Jinc, I’ve been scrolling through your thread and one thing is continuing to bother me.

You seem to be connecting papal infallibility to the Church’s teaching on contraception. But the Pope or Popes were not responsible for that teaching. In fact, that comes directly from God. “Go forth and multiply,” was God’s commandment that we are still to honor.

What part of God’s law about not interfering with what He intends is hard for you to understand?

You are right, go forth and multiply! But multiply every single time you have sex? How often should we be having kids? How young? How old? These OTHER things are determined by the Pope. It’s not that I think it’s good to NEVER have kids.

I’m still waiting for any response from you regarding the long-held fact
that Catholic teaching depends on both Scripture and Tradition. Yet in your
mind what it depends on most of all is YOUR OPINION.

So I ask again, why do you think it’s reasonable to call yourself Catholic
if, in fact, you decide to accept some teachings and reject others.

It makes no sense to me.

 

[jinc1019]

I’m still waiting for any response from you regarding the long-held fact
that Catholic teaching depends on both Scripture and Tradition. Yet in your
mind what it depends on most of all is YOUR OPINION.

So I ask again, why do you think it’s reasonable to call yourself Catholic
if, in fact, you decide to accept some teachings and reject others.

It makes no sense to me.

I actually did respond and you didn’t read or accept what I said. Either way, I made it clear that tradition does not uphold the idea that the apostles taught their successors would have papal infallibility.

The majority of Catholics do not accept all Catholic teachings. I accept far more than most. A significant portion of Catholics do not even accept papal infallibility and LITERALLY hundreds of millions of people in the Orthodox Church do not believe in papal infallibility and they themselves have a tradition dating back to the apostles! Yet, their tradition disagrees with yours, so you ignore it!

 

[catharina]

I actually did respond and you didn’t read or accept what I said. Either way, I made it clear that tradition does not uphold the idea that the apostles taught their successors would have papal infallibility.

The majority of Catholics do not accept all Catholic teachings. I accept far more than most. A significant portion of Catholics do not even accept papal infallibility and LITERALLY hundreds of millions of people in the Orthodox Church do not believe in papal infallibility and they themselves have a tradition dating back to the apostles! Yet, their tradition disagrees with yours, so you ignore it!

Your source for such a statement?

Also what did you do in the years when you were OUT of the Church? Relevant?
Other religions? No religions? What?

 

[steve_b]

I believe in

1. 
   *]apostolic succession (except for infallibility),
   *]Church authority,
   *]the divinity of Jesus,
   *]the Nicene Creed,
   *]the gospels,
   *]the Catholic teaching on justification,
   *]and virtually every other teaching of the Church except those taught based on Papal infallibility.
   
   For instance, I believe
   1. 
      *]*the Church has the authority to teach that contraception for married couples is correct, but they do not have the authority to declare that infallible…*since I don’t believe they have infallibility and since Jesus did not directly address that issue and it cannot be inferred directly from his teachings.
      *]in Church authority, but not infallibility, except on issues where it is clear from the gospels or the teachings of Jesus that something has been handed down to us and is infallible.

1. 1. 
      In the 1st section, 1-7, if there is no infallibility regarding faith and morals, why do you accept any of that list? What if there are major mistakes in your belief because all those points you make, had big errors in them? How do you prove or disprove any of your faith?
      
      Did you mean to say in the 2nd section, #1, that the Church has the authority to condemn artificial contraceptuion in marriage?
      
      Re: #2, second section, As Augustine said, “I wouldn’t believe the gospels if not for the authority of the CC” He said that because the gospels as all the NT were written in, by, and for the CC. As for the exceptions re:" infallibility" you make, you’re in effect, sawing off the very branch you sit on.
      j:
      

      But this isn’t really the point, the point is…because I believe what I have just stated, I cannot have the Eucharist, I cannot be a full-fledged member of the Church, and as a result, I cannot live the life I believe Jesus wanted me to live. So what do I do? I don’t want to disrespect the Church and just ignore their authority by taking communion and pretending to be in full communion with the Pope…but I don’t know what else to do.
      
      Please help.
      
      But before you do, please understand that I have already had extensive discussions on Papal infallibility and I cannot accept it in good conscience, so I don’t want this post to become a debate on that…I just need to know what I should do…How can I live a life the way Jesus wanted if I truly believe Papal infallibility to be false? What do I do? Should I be attending another Church in an attempt to receive the Eucharist?

      Maybe you really don’t believe what you say you believe. You’re really not accepting Jesus on His terms but your terms.

 

[jinc1019]

Your source for such a statement?

Also what did you do in the years when you were OUT of the Church? Relevant?
Other religions? No religions? What?

I was never out of the Church…I just stopped going frequently…There were stretches I would go each Sunday and stretches I wouldn’t go for months. In the mean time, I read numerous books, articles, etc. for years…most of which written by Catholics. In fact, the most influential books I read were Scott Hahn’s Lamb’s Supper and Brent Pitre’s new(er) book about the Eucharist. I believe it is called Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, although I cannot remember exactly what it is called. I am not at home to check.

My source?
Here is one poll: religionnews.com/politics/government-and-politics/poll-catholics-dont-see-contraception-mandate-as-threat-to-religious-freedo

And another saying something similar by USA Today: content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/02/contraception-catholic-bishops-obama-hhs/1

And another poll, this one from Ireland but still shows my point: catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13983

And another poll, this time from England and the UK: independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/most-uk-catholics-support-abortion-and-use-of-contraception-2083291.html

And another poll about Americans from USA Today: usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-04-13-catholic-poll_N.htm

 

[jinc1019]

In the 1st section, 1-7, if there is no infallibility regarding faith and morals, why do you accept any of that list? What if there are major mistakes in your belief because all those points you make, had big errors in them? How do you prove or disprove any of your faith?

Did you mean to say in the 2nd section, #1, that the Church has the authority to condemn artificial contraceptuion in marriage?

Re: #2, second section, As Augustine said, “I wouldn’t believe the gospels if not for the authority of the CC” He said that because the gospels as all the NT were written in, by, and for the CC. As for the exceptions re:" infallibility" you make, you’re in effect, sawing off the very branch you sit on.

Maybe you really don’t believe what you say you believe. You’re really not accepting Jesus on His terms but your terms.

Yes, you are correct about my statement about contraception. I meant to say the Church has the authority to teach that married couples must NOT use contraception…but they do not have the authority to teach that is infallible.

I reject this idea that Catholics put out there that if the Catholic Church is fallible, then nothing it says has any value and the whole thing has gone to hell. I think that is crazy. Just because the Catholic Church can make errors does not mean it often does or that it’s wrong about everything or even that it could be wrong about anything at all!

The Greek Orthodox Church has been around since the church in Rome, and it has not abandoned the teachings you say will be abandoned if infallibility is thrown out. The Orthodox Churches prove that the truth can be passed down without infallibility.

 

[Usagi]

You are right, go forth and multiply! But multiply every single time you have sex? How often should we be having kids? How young? How old? These OTHER things are determined by the Pope. It’s not that I think it’s good to NEVER have kids.

The Pope has never issued a statement on how often a couple should produce children, nor at what ages. Indeed, even in Humanae Vitae (the most explicit writing by a Pope on the subject, and even then not an ex cathedra definition), those decisions are specifically left to the prayerful choice of the couple.

Of course, the Church does teach that certain methods of rendering the sexual act unfruitful are immoral and forbidden, but it’s not as though that hinges on the personal infallibility of the Pope. That goes back about as far as we can get. It’s not directly addressed in the New Testament, but the teaching has the near-universal support of Christian writers after that, up until very recent times when most of the non-Catholic segments of Christianity changed their minds.

The only time papal infallibility comes close to being engaged on the contraception issue is with the aforementioned Humanae Vitae – not because the document itself contains an ex cathedra definition, but because Paul VI surprised everyone by reaffirming the age-old doctrine instead of attempting to change it. In some Catholics’ eyes, that fact itself might be seen as a minor example of the infallibility protection. (As you know, infallibility doesn’t give the Pope the power to make up new stuff; it’s a promise to the rest of us that even with his considerable authority to teach and make rules – which you agree he has – he will not be permitted to screw up the whole enterprise that is the Church.)

Usagi

 

[catharina]

I was never out of the Church…I just stopped going frequently…There were stretches I would go each Sunday and stretches I wouldn’t go for months. In the mean time, I read numerous books, articles, etc. for years…most of which written by Catholics. In fact, the most influential books I read were Scott Hahn’s Lamb’s Supper and Brent Pitre’s new(er) book about the Eucharist. I believe it is called Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, although I cannot remember exactly what it is called. I am not at home to check.

My source?
Here is one poll: religionnews.com/politics/government-and-politics/poll-catholics-dont-see-contraception-mandate-as-threat-to-religious-freedo

And another saying something similar by USA Today: content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/02/contraception-catholic-bishops-obama-hhs/1

And another poll, this one from Ireland but still shows my point: catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13983

And another poll, this time from England and the UK: independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/most-uk-catholics-support-abortion-and-use-of-contraception-2083291.html

And another poll about Americans from USA Today: usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-04-13-catholic-poll_N.htm

So you feel you can reassure yourself that
you are part of a majority of dissenting Catholics?

Were you never taught in childhood or adulthood that FAITH is
a supreme gift from God to us, that our task is to cherish it and
nourish it? I asked that before and you gave no answer. What is
your answer - that for you faith is a pick-and-choose event?

Ordinarily, these days, that approach is known as cafeteria catholicism.
I deeply pity anyone who has rejected their spiritual home in the Church.
As Peter said to Our Lord: “To whom shall we go? YOU have the words of eternal life.”

 

[jinc1019]

The Pope has never issued a statement on how often a couple should produce children, nor at what ages. Indeed, even in Humanae Vitae (the most explicit writing by a Pope on the subject, and even then not an ex cathedra definition), those decisions are specifically left to the prayerful choice of the couple.

Of course, the Church does teach that certain methods of rendering the sexual act unfruitful are immoral and forbidden, but it’s not as though that hinges on the personal infallibility of the Pope. That goes back about as far as we can get. It’s not directly addressed in the New Testament, but the teaching has the near-universal support of Christian writers after that, up until very recent times when most of the non-Catholic segments of Christianity changed their minds.

The only time papal infallibility comes close to being engaged on the contraception issue is with the aforementioned Humanae Vitae – not because the document itself contains an ex cathedra definition, but because Paul VI surprised everyone by reaffirming the age-old doctrine instead of attempting to change it. In some Catholics’ eyes, that fact itself might be seen as a minor example of the infallibility protection. (As you know, infallibility doesn’t give the Pope the power to make up new stuff; it’s a promise to the rest of us that even with his considerable authority to teach and make rules – which you agree he has – he will not be permitted to screw up the whole enterprise that is the Church.)

Usagi

Perhaps I am wrong, but my understanding is that the Church teaches that their teaching on contraception is infallible. If I am wrong, it doesn’t change anything about what I am saying here…but if the Church doesn’t teach this, then I can accept their teachings on contraception completely, because it is based on their authority, not on their infallibility. But I do believe the Church has declared their teachings on contraception infallible.

 

[jinc1019]

So you feel you can reassure yourself that
you are part of a majority of dissenting Catholics?

Were you never taught in childhood or adulthood that FAITH is
a supreme gift from God to us, that our task is to cherish it and
nourish it? I asked that before and you gave no answer. What is
your answer - that for you faith is a pick-and-choose event?

With all due respect, you are way, way, way off track. As I stated before, I agree with more fundamental teachings of Catholocism than most Catholics. That’s why I made the statement, which you then disputed and said was untrue and required sources. So I then provided sources and you accuse me of thinking something I already stated I oppose. You either need to pay attention or stop accusing me of CLEARLY false things.

 

[catharina]

With all due respect, you are way, way, way off track. As I stated before, I agree with more fundamental teachings of Catholocism than most Catholics. That’s why I made the statement, which you then disputed and said was untrue and required sources. So I then provided sources and you accuse me of thinking something I already stated I oppose. You either need to pay attention or stop accusing me of CLEARLY false things.

I’ve paid very close attention and I recognize you
ignored at least three of my posts that held questions for you.

Still, that’s to be expected considering all you’ve said in you past
posts as listed in your public profile - so knowing that you continue to
rely on your own circular thinking and that it holds no truth for me, I say:

BYE.
God bless you.

 

[catharina]

With all due respect, you are way, way, way off track. As I stated before, I agree with more fundamental teachings of Catholocism than most Catholics. That’s why I made the statement, which you then disputed and said was untrue and required sources. So I then provided sources and you accuse me of thinking something I already stated I oppose. You either need to pay attention or stop accusing me of CLEARLY false things.

I have now read many of your earliest posts and see that you do state
that a number of your dissenting opinions do keep you from “Being Catholic”

 

[jinc1019]

I’ve paid very close attention and I recognize you
ignored at least three of my posts that held questions for you.

Still, that’s to be expected considering all you’ve said in you past
posts as listed in your public profile - so knowing that you continue to
rely on your own circular thinking and that it holds no truth for me, I say:

BYE.
God bless you.

I am sorry you feel that way. As I stated in my first post, which was very clear, I didn’t intend to get into all of this again because I have already talked about this with forum members, but still, people like yourself have chosen to bring it up again. And, as always, I have been accused of being a heretic, it has been suggested I should be excommunicated, and the list goes on. It was a very sincere question. I had hoped someone who provide Church policy on what I should do. Instead, the only good advice I have received is that I should go see a priest, which I will try to do. Other than that, very few posts have explained the Catholic position on what a person in my position should do.

 

[jinc1019]

I have now read many of your earliest posts and see that you do state
that a number of your dissenting opinions do keep you from “Being Catholic”

No, I have made it very clear. It’s pretty much papal infallibility. The other issues all stem from church infallibility. I don’t have anything to hide.

 

[catharina]

I am sorry you feel that way. As I stated in my first post, which was very clear, I didn’t intend to get into all of this again because I have already talked about this with forum members, but still, people like yourself have chosen to bring it up again. And, as always, I have been accused of being a heretic, it has been suggested I should be excommunicated, and the list goes on. Yet I have said nothing of the kind - as you know. It was a very sincere question. I had hoped someone who provide Church policy on what I should do.** Instead, the only good advice I have received is that I should go see a priest, which I will try to do.** Of course that is what you should. Other than that, very few posts have explained the Catholic position on what a person in my position should do.

 

[catharina]

No, I have made it very clear. It’s pretty much papal infallibility. The other issues all stem from church infallibility. I don’t have anything to hide.

The Holy Spirit inspires the Church in its teachings even today.
As I’ve said (three times?):

The Catholic Church depends on both
SCRIPTURE
and
TRADITION.
Instead you want “explanations” just for you.
That will not be happening.

Best to you.