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

[catharina]

The President of the United States has the authority and power to do many things, but that doesn’t mean he or she will always make the right decision. This is how I see the Pope.

If you insist on rejecting Catholic teaching,
then why do you consider yourself to be Catholic?

 

[AnneElliot]

I think you should go back and read everything I have written thus far before asking these questions because I have answered nearly all of them…and to answer your question on the councils: I do believe in much of what is in them but not all.

I did read your replies. I was simply stating how they come across. You are free to correct my misconceptions.

The President of the United States has the authority and power to do many things, but that doesn’t mean he or she will always make the right decision. This is how I see the Pope.

I see.

You started off this thread by saying you just didn’t believe this “one teaching” (i.e., Papal Infallibility), but the more you reply to others it seems like there is more than one teaching you disbelieve…

You said you believe the Nicene Creed. Do you therefore accept the Council of Nicea? Where does your “break” with the Church begin?

 

[catharina]

Really good point.

And how do you discern which apostolic authority is without error?

Which begs more questions:

What exactly is considered without error in the Roman Rite?
Only what is included in the Catechism 2nd edition?

The biggest argument for Catholicism is Reason. Faith without reason is credulity.
Do we act credulously when we are given yet another law to abide to? Instead of reasoning it. And while we reason it, are we banned from partaking in the Lord’s Supper?

Sounds like being “forced” into a dogma/doctrine if you want to partake in the Lord. All the while installing mortal fear in the heart of the follower.

Since you are defining your religion as:
Religion: Católico, Apostólico y Romano. In that order.;
do you deliberately break with the Nicene Creed as a true part of tradion?
(one, holy, catholic and apostolic)

What “reasoning” leads you to that definition?

 

[catharina]

The President of the United States has the authority and power to do many things, but that doesn’t mean he or she will always make the right decision. This is how I see the Pope.

So you make no distinction between
the natural realm and
the supernatural realm.

How did you spend your many years away from the Church?
I ask because it’s obvious to me that Faith must be nourished,
in fact, both cherished and nourished.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The President of the United States has the authority and power to do many things, but that doesn’t mean he or she will always make the right decision. This is how I see the Pope.

Sorry but this is an unfair comparison.

The Pope seats in the chair of Peter and his life has been surrendered to Christ and to the service of Christ’s Church. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is responsible to feed and to tend to us. However, the Pope (like us) is a mortal and imperfect man. He is not always considered to be infallible. Only when he speaks in matters of Faith.

It is always easier to point the frustration to a single person of authority (Like the President, although he doesn’t know half the things that really happen and as such is is not culpable for those things).

Do not let your anger take the best out of you. As you give into your anger you will inevitably lose your ability to reason.

This is an internet forum and as such it is incredibly faulty and not the ideal forum for such deep internal struggles of the faith. However, it is a great instrument for references and guidance if used correctly.

Most importantly, find peace in your heart and partake communion with the Lord in the intimacy of your prayers as you discern these issues. And find a Priest that likes coffee and donuts and a good honest conversation, your treat first of course .

May His Peace and Grace be with you.

 

[Julia_Mae]

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?

I don’t understand the purpose of the thread. You have decided on your own that the Church is wrong about something and you don’t want to discuss it. Why would you accept anyone saying you shouldn’t be Catholic or receive the Sacrament?

All you had to do was be quiet and go to Mass like everyone else does who receives sometimes with far less belief than you have.

I just am not sure what you are asking for and more, I don’t know why. If you want to live your life as Jesus wanted, go see what He said about living your life and do that. If you want to go to Mass, who is stopping you? Are you positive your conscience is so totally clear about this decision?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Since you are defining your religion as:
Religion: Católico, Apostólico y Romano. In that order.;
do you deliberately break with the Nicene Creed as a true part of tradion?
(one, holy, catholic and apostolic)

Seeing you are a forum master I have to understand that you are not going “ad hominem” on me.

As for religion, it is put there to express that I am still struggling in matter of faith and that I understand that I am:

1. Universal
2. Desire to follow the Apostles’ examples and teachings
3. The only Catholic Rite I have practiced is Roman. Since I have not changed into a different rite and I have not given up my membership card I still hold to that rite.

How is my religion statement “deliberately breaking” with the Nicene Creed?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Sorry, I meant no for the last one.

Yeah, I kind of thought you meant “no”!

Okay, here’s where I run smack into a dilemma. (I’ve shown this dilemma to Protestants before, and none had an answer for me. Perhaps you will.)

I think you are absolutely right that fallibility leads to uncertainty. When you think about it, where else could it lead? Fallibility means a person could be wrong. He may think he’s right, but there is always a chance he could be wrong. And that means he is left with uncertainty.

If all of us are fallible, we are all in this same boat of uncertainty. And that means all doctrines are uncertain. We cannot be certain we have the right interpretations of scripture or even that we have the right books in the Bible. Since all of us are fallible, we could be wrong!

But nothing is more important than our salvation. Certainly God sees it as important, important enough that He came down from Heaven, was scourged, crowned with thorns, and hammered to a cross. What great love our all-loving God has!

Yet . . . yet . . . God elected to leave us in uncertainty? He left us not knowing what true doctrine is, left us with no way of possibly finding out what it is? He left us a Bible but left us uncertain what that Bible means? Hey, salvation is at stake! What kind of God loves us enough to suffer and die for us but not enough to give us some method of determining true doctrine? If He truly is all-loving, and salvation is the most important issue, why couldn’t He love us enough to bother ensuring we can find out for certain what we need to do to be saved?

Do you see my dilemma? If all of us are fallible, we might be wrong on what we need to do to be saved! And we have no way of determining for certain what the right way is!

Surely salvation is far too important for us to give it our best guess.

So, can you solve this for me?

 

[LilyM]

Obviously you are refusing to really read what I am saying. It is a very straightforward argument, even if you don’t agree with it. You keep speaking in generalities about not following the Church but you fail to point to the specific part of my argument that is wrong and why it is wrong. It seems clear to me that Mathew 18 gives infallibility to the other 11 apostles as well as Peter and the Church agrees. So, explain WHERE in Mathew 18 it says that they must be in communion with Peter. If you can’t explain that, then you really need to examine your beliefs on this issue.

It’s not in Matthew 18, it’s in Acts.

The Apostles disagree on whether Gentile converts should be made to adhere to the Mosaic law. Rather than considering themselves to be individually infallible and going their separate ways on the issue, they see the necessity of doctrinal unity and meet in council, in Jerusalem, to come to a consensus. Peter is very much the prominent voice at this meeting. And ultimately his view is accepted by all, no matter what their initial opinion.

My point would be - this is also what happened at Vatican I. The bishops could not agree on various doctrinal issues, among them Papal Infallibility. They met in council at the Vatican to discuss and come to an agreement. They came to the consensus that the Pope was indeed infallible.

Regardless of the whole ‘in union with the Pope’ issue, why is the fact that the successors to the Apostles came to consensus that the Pope can speak infallibly not enough for you, if the fact that the Apostles came to consensus that Christians didn’t have to circumcise and the like IS enough?

 

[catharina]

Seeing you are a forum master I have to understand that you are not going “ad hominem” on me.

As for religion, it is put there to express that I am still struggling in matter of faith and that I understand that I am:

1. Universal
2. Desire to follow the Apostles’ examples and teachings
3. The only Catholic Rite I have practiced is Roman. Since I have not changed into a different rite and I have not given up my membership card I still hold to that rite.

How is my religion statement “deliberately breaking” with the Nicene Creed?

It is not breaking with it if you say it isn’t.
It is a re-phrasing and re-ordering of it and that is unusual.

I appreciate your very honest answer.
Thank you so much.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

catharina:
10-4

You are welcome

 

[maryj]

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.

Let’s look at a someone who accepted first without understanding. Let’s talk about Peter. John 6 The Bread of Life discourse…Jesus tells the disciples what? “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood, has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day” Yeah they murmured…“this is hard, who can except it”
And MANY walked away from Jesus!! What does Jesus ask the twelve?
“Do you also want to leave?” Oh and who answers Him… but Peter
“Master to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life”
Peter and the other 11 had no idea what Jesus was speaking of, no comprehension of the Eucharist. Can you just imagine being told you had to eat His flesh and drink His blood, just imagine that!!
Here’s my advice…Pray to St. Peter, ask him to intercede for you, I think You’ll be pleasantly surprised at the answer you get.
Master to whom shall we go? YOU have the words of eternal life!!

 

[catharina]

Let’s look at a someone who accepted first without understanding. Let’s talk about Peter. John 6 The Bread of Life discourse…Jesus tells the disciples what? “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood, has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day” Yeah they murmured…“this is hard, who can except it”
And MANY walked away from Jesus!! What does Jesus ask the twelve?
“Do you also want to leave?” Oh and who answers Him… but Peter
“Master to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life”
Peter and the other 11 had no idea what Jesus was speaking of, no comprehension of the Eucharist. Can you just imagine being told you had to eat His flesh and drink His blood, just imagine that!!
Here’s my advice…Pray to St. Peter, ask him to intercede for you, I think You’ll be pleasantly surprised at the answer you get.
Master to whom shall we go? YOU have the words of eternal life!!

Wonderful post.

 

[Allegra]

I want to be clear on this…I do disagree with certain Church teachings that have been determined based on the doctrine of infallibility, such as contraception for married couples.

Then I think the only thing you can do is continue to pray and ask God to guide you to the real Truth.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I do not believe infallibility has been transmitted through apostolic succession period, so that would include Church infallibility as well I suppose. That does not mean they can’t teach infallibly, only that their infallibility is limited to those things given to them by the apostles and Jesus, both of whom are infallible sources.

You seem ambivalent about Church infallibility.

You are right, infallibility has NOT been transmitted through apostolic succession. Infallibility is a Charism of the Church, which is shared by the Pope, the Magisterium and the Faithful. Infallibility is transmitted by the Holy Spirit to the Church. Apostolic succession is another matter. It does determine who are the Magisterium, or the “teachers” of the Church. The Faithful are the “listeners.” The Pope is a special case, and is also infallible in his teachings on Faith and morals. But it is not TRANSMITTED through apostolic succession. It is transmitted by the Holy Spirit.

 

[davidv]

Really good point.

And how do you discern which apostolic authority is without error?

All apostolic authority is without error. Those in positions of authority who depart from the Deposit of Faith no longer have apostolic authority. When individuals attempt to teach things contrary to the Catechism, creeds and official documents of the Church, it is clear they are longer speaking with apostolic authority.

Which begs more questions:

What exactly is considered without error in the Roman Rite?
Only what is included in the Catechism 2nd edition?

The biggest argument for Catholicism is Reason. Faith without reason is credulity.
Do we act credulously when we are given yet another law to abide to? Instead of reasoning it. And while we reason it, are we banned from partaking in the Lord’s Supper?

What is the purpose of laws, particularly moral laws? They meant to protect us from error. Doing the wrong thing isn’t freedom, its slavery.

Sounds like being “forced” into a dogma/doctrine if you want to partake in the Lord. All the while installing mortal fear in the heart of the follower.

When was the last time that the Vatican police knocked on your door to force you to follow some teaching. Force? I don’t think so?

 

[jinc1019]

Let’s look at a someone who accepted first without understanding. Let’s talk about Peter. John 6 The Bread of Life discourse…Jesus tells the disciples what? “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood, has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day” Yeah they murmured…“this is hard, who can except it”
And MANY walked away from Jesus!! What does Jesus ask the twelve?
“Do you also want to leave?” Oh and who answers Him… but Peter
“Master to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life”
Peter and the other 11 had no idea what Jesus was speaking of, no comprehension of the Eucharist. Can you just imagine being told you had to eat His flesh and drink His blood, just imagine that!!
Here’s my advice…Pray to St. Peter, ask him to intercede for you, I think You’ll be pleasantly surprised at the answer you get.
Master to whom shall we go? YOU have the words of eternal life!!

If Jesus walked up to me and told me that the Pope was infallible, I assure you I would believe it. The comparison is not even close to the same.

 

[jinc1019]

You seem ambivalent about Church infallibility.

You are right, infallibility has NOT been transmitted through apostolic succession. Infallibility is a Charism of the Church, which is shared by the Pope, the Magisterium and the Faithful. Infallibility is transmitted by the Holy Spirit to the Church. Apostolic succession is another matter. It does determine who are the Magisterium, or the “teachers” of the Church. The Faithful are the “listeners.” The Pope is a special case, and is also infallible in his teachings on Faith and morals. But it is not TRANSMITTED through apostolic succession. It is transmitted by the Holy Spirit.

I know it is transmitted by the Holy Spirit…but according to Mathew 18, it is transmitted to the Eastern Orthodox churches as well as the Catholic Church, and because they are all in disagreement with eachother over, of all things papal infallibility, then papal infallibility cannot be true. If it were true, none of the churches that have a seat going back to an apostle could disagree on a matter deemed infallible.

 

[LilyM]

If Jesus walked up to me and told me that the Pope was infallible, I assure you I would believe it. The comparison is not even close to the same.

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 all the bishops agreed on Christ’s nature during the Arian controversy. So a council was called, again. The majority of attendees concurred with the then Pope that bishop Arius was wrong. Some, including Arius of course, didn’t. The disagreement of some of the successors of the Apostles didn’t mean that the issue was unresolved, it was resolved. It meant that those who disagreed with the Pope and those bishops who were in communion with him were wrong.

By the way, Jesus didn’t walk up to you and say ‘Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are
inspired scripture. In particular Matthew 18 reports my words exactly, so believe in them implicitly. The Gospel of Thomas, the Protoevangelion of James, the letters of Clement … well, some in the early church will consider them scripture, but they’re not, so feel free to ignore them.’

No. He said to the Apostles ‘what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven’, and more
significantly ‘he who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects me.’ He gave them full authority to determine the Canon of that scripture you love so much.

Why on earth do you think that we can have a functioning church with a bunch of Appstles or bishops all holding equal sway and equal weight? Even if there were only two, they would be bound to disagree on something important. Result? Chaos. The split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism was chaos, as was the Reformation and everything that has happened outside of Catholicism since.

Jesus told Peter - no-one else - that Satan especially wanted his soul, that Perer had been specially prayed for, and that it was Peter’s role, no-one else’s, to ‘strengthen your brethren’. This clearly shows a very special leadership role for Peter and his successors that none of the other Apostles had - one where he was the final go-to person intimes of doubt or trouble, including disputes about the faith.

 

[davidv]

If Jesus walked up to me and told me that the Pope was infallible, I assure you I would believe it. The comparison is not even close to the same.

Are you sure? Peter said a similar thing about always following Jesus. Later he denied him three times?