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

[davidv]

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

That language is more clear than anything in Mathew 16 regarding protecting the apostles from teaching in error.

Why do you equate “binding” with teaching? What do you think “binding” and “loosing” are?

I don’t believe either of these verses are addressing the subject of teaching which is the only subject to which infallability applies.

 

[jinc1019]

Also, to be clear…If all the apostles were granted infallibility, then all of their subsequent churches have it as well and cannot be in conflict with the Catholic Church based on that doctrine, but they are. The Church argues that the apostles ONLY were given infallibility when in communion with Peter, but nowhere in Mathew 18 does it say anything about them having to be in communion with Peter; nor does it at any point imply that.

 

[jinc1019]

Why do you equate “binding” with teaching? What do you think “binding” and “loosing” are?

I don’t believe either of these verses are addressing the subject of teaching which is the only subject to which infallability applies.

They absolutely are. The preceeding paragraphs set the context well. The apostles ask Jesus what they are to do if they see someone doing something wrong. This is, in part, how he answers.

 

[jinc1019]

Also, it’s not “binding and loosing” that is the focus, it is the following sentences that promise that whenever 2 of the apostles agree on anything, it will be done in heaven.

 

[TimothyH]

Thank you again for your kind words and for the passage…I agree with this. I do believe I should be allowed to take the Eucharist and be apart of the Church, but the Church disagrees with this apparently, and out of respect for them, I won’t violate their decision.

The authority to allow or withhold the Eucharist is the Bishop’s. It is the Bishop’s decision to make and you should talk first with someone who works for and reports directly to the Bishop - priest or deacon. Or write to the Bishop.

There are a lot of knowledgeable people here but we are not qualified to determine if you can recieve or not. It’s not a matter of what you believe or what we believe, but what the Church teaches, and the best place to find that out is the Church herself. Talk to your parish priest first.

-Tim-

 

[jinc1019]

Also, in this video, “binding and loosing” are outlined in clear terms by Catholic apologists and it does in fact relate to teaching because it relates to authority…the purpose of which is to teach.

catholic.com/video/infallibility-of-the-pope

 

[jinc1019]

The authority to allow or withhold the Eucharist is the Bishop’s. It is the Bishop’s decision to make and you should talk first with someone who works for and reports directly to the Bishop - priest or deacon. Or write to the Bishop.

There are a lot of knowledgeable people here but we are not qualified to determine if you can recieve or not. It’s not a matter of what you believe or what we believe, but what the Church teaches, and the best place to find that out is the Church herself. Talk to your parish priest first.

-Tim-

I will check with them.

 

[catharina]

I recently started a thread about accepting communion despite the fact that I believe with all my heart, having studied and read the Catholic teaching very carefully, including the catechism, that Papal infallibility is false.

From some of the information I received there, especially writings from Vatican I, I have learned that I really should not be taking the Eucharist. In addition, I really cannot, according to the Church, be a truly practicing Catholic…including doing the very things Jesus clearly outlines in the gospels as proper ways to live, such as taking the Eucharist, confirmation, etc.

I have been in the Catholic Church my entire life, and have come back to the Church after years of being away, but now that I have studied the issues very carefully, and can’t accept this one Catholic teaching, I am left without a spiritual home. I believe in 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 that 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. I believe 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. 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?

Wow. It seems that you are ONE of a number of very recent posters who
seem to believe that they must grasp/understand/approve a teaching before
they will accept/support it.

WRONG.

We are to submit our intellect and will to the will of God.
We learn God’s will for us by acceptance of the teachings of the Church.

Really, I don’t understand how anyone can or does expect to grasp, intellectually,
profound and holy teachings before they accept the teachings. How did you ever
get such an idea?

Now, regardin the bolded above:

If you left the Church for many years, one must point out that
the Church has not changed re infallibilty but it’s likely you have changed.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Jinc1019,

Are you going to answer my yes/no question? Here it is again, in case you didn’t see it:

That’s all you have to go on? So you are left with uncertainty? (Just verifying )

 

[jinc1019]

Wow. It seems that you are ONE of a number of very recent posters who
seem to believe that they must grasp/understand/approve a teaching before
they will accept/support it.

WRONG.

We are to submit our intellect and will to the will of God.
We learn God’s will for us by acceptance of the teachings of the Church.

Really, I don’t understand how anyone can or does expect to grasp, intellectually,
profound and holy teachings before they accept the teachings. How did you ever
get such an idea?

It makes no sense to me at all that I should accept something before understanding it. You wouldn’t do that in any other area of life. You wouldn’t vote for a candidate before knowing what that candidate supports.

I respect people who have faith without having to understand, but I am not one of those people. Instead of trying to pretend that I am, I am being honest with myself, with my Church, and with God. That’s all I can do. To pretend otherwise would be very dishonest. To say, “I don’t understand this” is one thing, but I do understand it; I just don’t accept it.

 

[jinc1019]

Jinc1019,

Are you going to answer my yes/no question? Here it is again, in case you didn’t see it:

With all due respect, I did answer the question very clearly. But asking someone to answer questions “yes” or “no” is setting an unfair trap whereby you can lead someone to the conclusion of YOUR choice rather than get at the heart of the issue. I answered your question very clearly. I do NOT believe I am infallible. That was your question and I answered it.

 

[jinc1019]

With all due respect, I did answer the question very clearly. But asking someone to answer questions “yes” or “no” is setting an unfair trap whereby you can lead someone to the conclusion of YOUR choice rather than get at the heart of the issue. I answered your question very clearly. I do NOT believe I am infallible. That was your question and I answered it.

Additionally, I also answered that I am not 100% certain (since I am not infallible) of my belief on papal infallibility, but I am as certain as I can be given the information I have before me.

 

[catharina]

It makes no sense to me at all that I should accept something before understanding it. You wouldn’t do that in any other area of life. You wouldn’t vote for a candidate before knowing what that candidate supports.

I respect people who have faith without having to understand, but I am not one of those people. Instead of trying to pretend that I am, I am being honest with myself, with my Church, and with God. That’s all I can do. To pretend otherwise would be very dishonest. To say, “I don’t understand this” is one thing, but I do understand it; I just don’t accept it.

Correct - in that “every other area of life” rests in the natural.
The Church, her teachings, the life of grace and faith rests in the supernatural.

Apples and oranges.

PS - I added to the post you’ve quoted.

 

[davidv]

It makes no sense to me at all that I should accept something before understanding it. You wouldn’t do that in any other area of life. You wouldn’t vote for a candidate before knowing what that candidate supports.

I respect people who have faith without having to understand, but I am not one of those people. Instead of trying to pretend that I am, I am being honest with myself, with my Church, and with God. That’s all I can do. To pretend otherwise would be very dishonest. To say, “I don’t understand this” is one thing, but I do understand it; I just don’t accept it.

But you are one of the “those peple”, unless you also reject the, Incarnation of Jesus, or the Trinity, or the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. All of these are mysteries of the Church and cannot be fully understood.

 

[jinc1019]

Correct - in that “every other area of life” rests in the natural.
The Church, her teachings, the life of grace and faith rests in the supernatural.

Apples and oranges.

PS - I added to the post you’ve quoted.

I agree to some extent. I don’t understand many of the things I believe about God…but that doesn’t mean I should blindly accept things which appear to be clear contradictions either. You are essentially ignoring the evidence before you completely because of a belief you already have. That, in my humble opinion, is not healthy faith.

 

[davidv]

I agree to some extent. I don’t understand many of the things I believe about God…but that doesn’t mean I should blindly accept things which appear to be clear contradictions either. You are essentially ignoring the evidence before you completely because of a belief you already have. That, in my humble opinion, is not healthy faith.

Frankly, you have not presented anything that is clearly contradictory about infallability. Given that official Church documents have been presented which lay out a logical explanation of why infallability exists, it appears that it is you who is ignoring the evidence.

 

[jinc1019]

But you are one of the “those peple”, unless you also reject the, Incarnation of Jesus, or the Trinity, or the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. All of these are mysteries of the Church and cannot be fully understood.

Those things you referenced are teachings which have been substantially backed up by the scriptures, whereas in this case, there is evidence that I believe proves the opposite of what the Church is teaching on infallibility. That is the ultimate difference. As I clarified in a subsequent post to the one you cited, there are elements to my faith that I do not fully understand, of course, but that doesn’t mean I should ignore what I see as a clear contradiction. Jesus is very clear in Mathew 18: “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

How can anyone say this passage doesn’t grant infallibility to the apostles? It clearly does. In fact, the Church AGREES WITH ME that it does, they just say that it only does so when the apostles are in communion with Peter, something that doesn’t appear anywhere in Mathew 18, something I believe the Church has erred on.

 

[Kay_Cee]

With all due respect, I did answer the question very clearly. But asking someone to answer questions “yes” or “no” is setting an unfair trap whereby you can lead someone to the conclusion of YOUR choice rather than get at the heart of the issue. I answered your question very clearly. I do NOT believe I am infallible. That was your question and I answered it.

That’s not the question I asked, and I am not trying to trap you. I am trying to get at the truth, which is what I would hope you are after as well.

I did not ask again if you are infallible. I asked if you are left with uncertainty. Uncertainty and infallibility are not the same thing.

 

[jinc1019]

Frankly, you have not presented anything that is clearly contradictory about infallability. Given that official Church documents have been presented which lay out a logical explanation of why infallability exists, it appears that it is you who is ignoring the evidence.

Please explain to me where in Mathew 18 it says that the apostles must be in communion with Peter to be infallible. Please show that to me. Because the Church has already stated that this passage is about infallibility; they just argue that the apostles have to be in communion with Peter to have it…something which I cannot find anywhere in those verses.

 

[jinc1019]

That’s not the question I asked, and I am not trying to trap you. I am trying to get at the truth, which is what I would hope you are after as well.

I did not ask again if you are infallible. I asked if you are left with uncertainty. Uncertainty and infallibility are not the same thing.

I am obviously uncertain yes.