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

[steve_b]

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 theydo not have the authority to teach that is infallible.

Since the Church DOES teach against artificial birth control infallibly, the teaching will never be eliminated. It will never be okay to use. That’s the value of infallibility. Knowing a truth will never be an untruth. That’s what Jesus meant when He gave the keys of heaven to Peter saying, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…” Jesus gurantees the promises He gave to the Church…particularly infallible teaching of truth on faith and morals WHEN a teaching is so identified.
j:

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!

You mischaracterize infallibility.
j:

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.

How do you know what Jesus will say to all those who broke union with the chair of Peter or refuse to reunite?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

jinc1019:

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.

Your difficulty is of your own making:

You deny that all infallibility proceeds from the Holy Spirit to the Church. Even that is not a good way of saying it, since infallibility is a negative charism. It is a safeguard, NOT A POWER. You INSIST that it is a power that flows through apostolic succession which it DOES NOT. You are wrong to think it does. Your view that infallibility flows through apostolic succession is at the root of all your difficulties.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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.

Gee, and I thought God was responsible for deciding how often I should have kids!!!

NOW you tell me it’s the Pope!



Pretty sure none of the Popes have said how often, how young, or how old we should be to have children. Tell me where you found that in the CCC.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Firstly - the Apostles did NOT agree on whether Gentiles should be bound to the Jewish law. That is why they needed a council. Peter spoke, and even those who disagreed with him listened and obeyed. .

Not only Peter spoke. James the Just was leader of the church in Jerusalem and he made the decision with the concurrence of those present. My point being no one “obeyed” Peter, here.

 

[AnneElliot]

You are wrong. The Catholic Church does teach the other apostles were given infallibility in Mathew 18…You are COMPLETELY misinformed on this issue. I posted a video earlier of a Catholic Answers session where they explained this. The difference between my view and the Church’s view is not that I think the apostles were given infallibility and they don’t (we both do), it’s that the Church teaches that infallibility only works when in communion with Peter and I am pointing out that nowhere in Mathew 18 does Jesus make that a requirement. He never says, “By the way, you have to be in communion with Peter for this to work.” If that’s what He intended, why didn’t He just say it?

It’s my fault for only posting a quick reply… I think there have been some mutual misunderstandings… but anyway…

I think the real heart of your problem is that you are overlooking the KEY difference between Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 (like that pun? ). St. Peter was given something the other Apostles were not-- the “keys to the Kingdom…”. That is, St. Peter then held the office of a steward–he was to be the ‘ruler’ while the Master was out. So, in a certain sense, Our Lord did say that they needed to be in communion with St. Peter-- it would’ve been understood in the bestowal of the office…

 

[Julia_Mae]

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!

But all the other Catholics who don’t accept all teachings aren’t posting on CAF and having essentially pointless arguments which seem to be you trying to get everyone else to agree with you.

I ask again what I asked before: why are you here?

Just go to Mass like all the others who decide what to believe, and keep your opinions to yourself.

This seems unacceptable to you. I don’t care what you believe about infallibility, personally. You came and started a big argument about it for the purpose of…???.

What is it you want from the forum? I’m seriously asking and would like an answer.

 

[jinc1019]

Your difficulty is of your own making:

You deny that all infallibility proceeds from the Holy Spirit to the Church. Even that is not a good way of saying it, since infallibility is a negative charism. It is a safeguard, NOT A POWER. You INSIST that it is a power that flows through apostolic succession which it DOES NOT. You are wrong to think it does. Your view that infallibility flows through apostolic succession is at the root of all your difficulties.

I appreciate your substantive argument…but you keep characterizing my problem as an apostolic succession one…So let me be very, very clear. I do understand that infallibility comes from the Holy Spirit…I understand that is the teaching. I get it. I am not here to dispute it in the way you are suggesting.

You are, however, separating apostolic succession from the infallibility and that is flat out wrong. It’s very simple: According to Catholic teaching, the Holy Spirit protects the seat of Peter from teaching fallible teachings and the person who occupies the seat of Peter is there BASED on apostolic succession…every single Pope occupies the seat of Peter based on apostolic succession…so yes, you are right in that the Holy Spirit is where infallibility comes from, but you are wrong to say apostolic succession is not involved. The Holy Spirit ONLY protects the seat of St. Peter, according to your own theological stance, thus making apostolic succession VERY important to all of this. My point is, the Holy Spirit was also promised to the OTHER apostolic seats as well…or possibly ONLY to all the seats together. But either way, Rome doesn’t have it on its own based on what is in Mathew 18.

 

[jinc1019]

It’s my fault for only posting a quick reply… I think there have been some mutual misunderstandings… but anyway…

I think the real heart of your problem is that you are overlooking the KEY difference between Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 (like that pun? ). St. Peter was given something the other Apostles were not-- the “keys to the Kingdom…”. That is, St. Peter then held the office of a steward–he was to be the ‘ruler’ while the Master was out. So, in a certain sense, Our Lord did say that they needed to be in communion with St. Peter-- it would’ve been understood in the bestowal of the office…

But what does this have to do with infallibility? Authority maybe but infallibility? And by the way, I don’t deny Peter was inallible, I deny the Holy Spirit continues to be there for Peter’s seat…I think it was promised to Peter, not to Peter’s successors.

 

[jinc1019]

Gee, and I thought God was responsible for deciding how often I should have kids!!!

NOW you tell me it’s the Pope!



Pretty sure none of the Popes have said how often, how young, or how old we should be to have children. Tell me where you found that in the CCC.

You are very right! I didn’t mean it in the way it appears. I didn’t mean the Pope has declared how many kids you should have or when you should have kids…What I meant is that all of that is being controlled by denying contraception. That was a poor choice of words though as I did not make it clear. The Pope says married couples cannot use artificial contraception…that was my point.

 

[jinc1019]

Since the Church DOES teach against artificial birth control infallibly, the teaching will never be eliminated. It will never be okay to use. That’s the value of infallibility. Knowing a truth will never be an untruth. That’s what Jesus meant when He gave the keys of heaven to Peter saying, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…” Jesus gurantees the promises He gave to the Church…particularly infallible teaching of truth on faith and morals WHEN a teaching is so identified.

You mischaracterize infallibility.

How do you know what Jesus will say to all those who broke union with the chair of Peter or refuse to reunite?

First, I have no idea what you mean by I “mischaracterize infallibility.” The passage you quoted before saying that was not characterizing infallibility at all! Second, I don’t know what Jesus will say. I wasn’t saying I did and never implied it either! I was responding to comments which said that if there was no infallibility, the Church would be broken and in disunion and bishops would be doing whatever they heck they want! I was saying that is NOT true, because look at all those Eastern Orthodox Churches who have maintained virtually every single teaching without an infallible Pope at the Church’s head. You are misquoting me completely and not reading me in context, probably because you haven’t taken the time to read every post from the beginning.

 

[jinc1019]

Not only Peter spoke. James the Just was leader of the church in Jerusalem and he made the decision with the concurrence of those present. My point being no one “obeyed” Peter, here.

I agree with everything here!

 

[jinc1019]

But all the other Catholics who don’t accept all teachings aren’t posting on CAF and having essentially pointless arguments which seem to be you trying to get everyone else to agree with you.

I ask again what I asked before: why are you here?

Just go to Mass like all the others who decide what to believe, and keep your opinions to yourself.

This seems unacceptable to you. I don’t care what you believe about infallibility, personally. You came and started a big argument about it for the purpose of…???.

What is it you want from the forum? I’m seriously asking and would like an answer.

Please go read the bottom of the first post. Then read the ENTIRE series of posts that follow. I didn’t start talking about this. In fact, I said from the beginning I did not want this to turn into a discussion on this point. That was NOT the purpose of this. I didn’t turn it into this, I have just defended my position. Every single post about infallibility was in response to someone else’s post. Before you speak so poorly of me, you should read what was actually said.

And further, your attitude is pretty ridiculous. I doubt Jesus would have such an attitude. I am not disrespectful to you and yet you, because you don’t like what I have to say, have chosen to attack me. I guess this forum should only be for people who agree with you? I think Jesus wants an open discourse where people can learn, myself included, from other believers. I doubt He wants a Nazi regime where no one gets to talk except those who agree in lockstep with the Church. And by the way, the Church doesn’t want that either! They want people talking about faith, discussing the issues, and figuring out problems that exist. Would they rather I just say, “Screw the Church!”? No. Of course not. But obviously you would. If it bothers you so much, don’t post. Don’t read what is written here. No one is forcing you!

 

[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.

The teaching is understood to be infallible, yes, but not because of any exercise of the Pope’s personal infallibility. Indeed, I’m pretty sure it’s never been formally defined by an act of the extraordinary magisterium (the Pope, a council, or some other manifestation of the bishops collectively). Like the limitation of the priesthood to males, it’s so old and near-universally accepted that there was never any major dispute (at least until recently) that required such a formal definition. It’s infallible by the “ordinary and universal magisterium,” which basically means the general consensus of the Church as a whole, over the millennia. And while they may not use the same terminology I just did, I’m almost certain even the Orthodox believe in that form of infallibility.

Usagi

 

[jinc1019]

I want to thank everyone who added to the discourse here and helped me, especially those of you who disagree with me! I really do appreciate it.

Unfortunately, this has digressed into something I really don’t want it to be. For that reason, I am not going to continue with this thread. It seems clear to me that many of you are very willing to help and provide guidance but that a certain segment of you only want to engage in unhelpful and disparaging remarks. It is PERFECTLY acceptable to disagree with me…I welcome that! But this has turned into something worse than that for some posters and I just don’t want to continue engaging in that kind of dialogue. Thank you again to all of you who, quite frankly, tried to help me and have!

 

[jinc1019]

The teaching is understood to be infallible, yes, but not because of any exercise of the Pope’s personal infallibility. Indeed, I’m pretty sure it’s never been formally defined by an act of the extraordinary magisterium (the Pope, a council, or some other manifestation of the bishops collectively). Like the limitation of the priesthood to males, it’s so old and near-universally accepted that there was never any major dispute (at least until recently) that required such a formal definition. It’s infallible by the “ordinary and universal magisterium,” which basically means the general consensus of the Church as a whole, over the millennia. And while they may not use the same terminology I just did, I’m almost certain even the Orthodox believe in that form of infallibility.

Usagi

Ultimately, all infallibility stems from the idea that Peter was givent that authority…and anything the Church declares to be infallible, must be done in communion with the Pope, precisely because of that infallibility.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

You are very right! I didn’t mean it in the way it appears. I didn’t mean the Pope has declared how many kids you should have or when you should have kids…What I meant is that all of that is being controlled by denying contraception. That was a poor choice of words though as I did not make it clear. The Pope says married couples cannot use artificial contraception…that was my point.

You are a stubborn person, do you know that?

The Pope does not tell us not to contracept, GOD tells us! The Pope merely emphasizes what God has already told us to do, or not to do. You are giving the Pope a lot of power that he doesn’t really possess. He doesn’t outrank God, you know.

 

[jinc1019]

You are a stubborn person, do you know that?

The Pope does not tell us not to contracept, GOD tells us! The Pope merely emphasizes what God has already told us to do, or not to do. You are giving the Pope a lot of power that he doesn’t really possess. He doesn’t outrank God, you know.

I am well aware yes! I appreciate the effort though, however hopeless I may be

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Ultimately, all infallibility stems from the idea that Peter was givent that authority…and anything the Church declares to be infallible, must be done in communion with the Pope, precisely because of that infallibility.

Another excellent example of your view that infallibility is connected with the Pope and apostolic succession.

Once again: All infallibility proceeds from the Holy Spirit upon the Church. The Church means the Pope, the Magisterium and the Faithful. Everyone is protected by infallibility, meaning the Pope, the Magisterium and the Faithful.

Infallibility does not stem from the Pope, or from Apostolic succession. The protection of Infallibility is manifested in various ways at various times by the Holy Spirit through the WHOLE CHURCH, meaning the Pope, the Magisterium and the Faithful.

Only the Pope has the protection of infallibility as a single person, and only when teaching on matters of faith and morals, and only when speaking ex cathedra. It is not a power, or a perk, or anything else connected with the Pope. It is a protection by the Holy Spirit, in the here and now, with respect to a specific sort of teaching.

If you could just separate the concept you have of infallibility being something that flows through the pope or bishops you could grasp the Catholic doctrine of infallibility.

Look at it this way. Pope Benedict was infallible (in a sense --sensus fidelium) when he was just a young layman like many of us. Then he was infallible as a Bishop when he was teaching in union with the Magisterium. Now he is infallible as the Vicar of Christ, the Pope with the SAME infallibility that he had when he was a layman. That is, the protection of the Holy Spirit. His infallibility never changed, just the occasions and contexts when he taught changed. As a layman, his infallibility was protected when he was in union with the “listening Church.” The Listening Church is in union with the Magisterium and the Pope in their teachings.

Infallibility is a grace and a promise. It’s not a power or something ‘owned’ by anyone.

Peter was also given power and authority by the Lord. That is something entirely different. That does flow through apostolic succession. Infallibility is something EVERYONE in the Church enjoys, not just the Pope. But you have to remember, that the Faithful are not the teachers of the Church, the Magisterium is. Therefore the Faithful INFALLIBLY hear the Truth from the Magisterium. Those who are unfaithful, or who are not obedient to the Pope and the Magisterium, are NOT protected by infallibility.

 

[LilyM]

Absolutely not. You are citing the wrong verses. It’s Mathew 18:15 (I believe, you will know it when you see it). You have the wrong chapter completely though.

Ultimately, all infallibility stems from the idea that Peter was givent that authority…and anything the Church declares to be infallible, must be done in communion with the Pope, precisely because of that infallibility.

That doesn’t mean the Pope is the sole (or even the main) source of infallible teaching.

It means that through him comes the ‘deciding vote’, if you like, in cases of uncertainty. Nothing the Church does can go contrary to what he determines, true. This doesn’t mean that his express permission and endorsement is necessarily needed, say, if a Council comes up with a unanimous teaching that he doesn’t specifically comment on or endorse.

We have situations, as with Humanae Vitae, where a particular Papal document is in fact explicitly said to not in itself be infallible teaching, but in expressing universal and consistent teaching down the ages nonetheless contains it. In the same manner that a letter or book of your or mine might contain it if it said the same things.

Church teaching on contraception is infallible BECAUSE it was universal and consistent teaching through the ages, not really because the Pope taught it in Humanae Vitae. And it was so long before HV was written and would be so even if it never had been. Does that make sense?

So I really don’t see where you are coming from in saying that Church infallibility is based on Papal infallibility. The Pope has the casting vote if such is needed, but often enough it isn’t.

 

[jinc1019]

Another excellent example of your view that infallibility is connected with the Pope and apostolic succession.

Once again: All infallibility proceeds from the Holy Spirit upon the Church. The Church means the Pope, the Magisterium and the Faithful. Everyone is protected by infallibility, meaning the Pope, the Magisterium and the Faithful.

Infallibility does not stem from the Pope, or from Apostolic succession. The protection of Infallibility is manifested in various ways at various times by the Holy Spirit through the WHOLE CHURCH, meaning the Pope, the Magisterium and the Faithful.

Only the Pope has the protection of infallibility as a single person, and only when teaching on matters of faith and morals, and only when speaking ex cathedra. It is not a power, or a perk, or anything else connected with the Pope. It is a protection by the Holy Spirit, in the here and now, with respect to a specific sort of teaching.

If you could just separate the concept you have of infallibility being something that flows through the pope or bishops you could grasp the Catholic doctrine of infallibility.

Look at it this way. Pope Benedict was infallible (in a sense --sensus fidelium) when he was just a young layman like many of us. Then he was infallible as a Bishop when he was teaching in union with the Magisterium. Now he is infallible as the Vicar of Christ, the Pope with the SAME infallibility that he had when he was a layman. That is, the protection of the Holy Spirit. His infallibility never changed, just the occasions and contexts when he taught changed. As a layman, his infallibility was protected when he was in union with the “listening Church.” The Listening Church is in union with the Magisterium and the Pope in their teachings.

Infallibility is a grace and a promise. It’s not a power or something ‘owned’ by anyone.

Peter was also given power and authority by the Lord. That is something entirely different. That does flow through apostolic succession. Infallibility is something EVERYONE in the Church enjoys, not just the Pope. But you have to remember, that the Faithful are not the teachers of the Church, the Magisterium is. Therefore the Faithful INFALLIBLY hear the Truth from the Magisterium. Those who are unfaithful, or who are not obedient to the Pope and the Magisterium, are NOT protected by infallibility.

Ok…I understand what you are saying (I think), and I appreciate you adjusting the way in which you explain it, because it has definitely helped…So let me try to explain it to ensure I have it right.

You are saying the entire Church is protected with infallibility…meaning everyone in the Church…and the infallibility protection comes from the Holy Spirit, right? But, the only single person who can teach with this infallibility is the Pope and everyone else (the college of bisops, the magesterium, etc.) must be in communion with the Pope, right? So if the college of bishops get together and discuss something, the Pope can still come in and make an infallible pronouncement that trumps everyone else…right? S