Really, NOT so feebly, juliane. It was your earlier posts that led me to:newidea:
That is the direction I was (feebly) trying to go in. The starting point is not papal infallibility, the starting point is contraception. The rest is twisting around that one point.
If GOD says that we are not to contracept, then if I am going to argue with that, I am going against GOD Himself. (lots of people do that, not sure they realize what they are doing.)
But if THE POPE says we are not to contracept, then if I prove the Pope not to be infallible, I can contracept with a clear conscience, because The Pope could be wrong.
I have seen many arguments in favor of artificial birth control, and the twists and mental calisthenics the posters do…well I’d say it is entertaining but it really isn’t.
This is a really inappropriate attack on me. It really is. It doesn’t have anything to do with contraception. That is another issue I have, but it has nothing to do with what I am saying here. These kinds of attacks are why so many in America have left the Church…so many Catholics act in this arrogant attitude that really destroys honest attempts to find the truth. I am trying to see it the way the Church does, but the answers to my questions are not being presented. Some are trying and some of you are acting like children.Really, NOT so feebly, juliane. It was your earlier posts that led me to
look at the OP’s initial posts and yes, all are about contraception. It
seems as if how dare the Church offer any rules to him? He will decide
what is worthy and what is not worthy. If he needs to split hairs about the
teachings of the Church then the most certain way is to deny infallibilty in
the teachings of the Church. It’s terribly sad and a jail with no key to get out.
And by the way, all are about contraception??? Really??? I believe I started ONE thread about contraception…nearly every other thread has been about something completely different.Really, NOT so feebly, juliane. It was your earlier posts that led me to
look at the OP’s initial posts and yes, all are about contraception. It
seems as if how dare the Church offer any rules to him? He will decide
what is worthy and what is not worthy. If he needs to split hairs about the
teachings of the Church then the most certain way is to deny infallibilty in
the teachings of the Church. It’s terribly sad and a jail with no key to get out.
Apology accepted. I realize you are overwhelmed here. I hope my approaching this from a different direction will help.Kay-Cee, please know I apologize for not directly answering your question that was posted previously. I honestly did not see it. As you can see from this thread’s history, I have been sent hundreds of posts and have responded to nearly every single one. It is difficult keeping up with all of that! I am, after all, only one person!
With that said, to answer your question…Truthfully, I don’t know. But that’s sort of like asking why would a loving God put suffering in the world? There are certain mysteries of faith that can’t be answered. Just because it would be better for there to be a Church with all the answers doesn’t mean there is one. It would be better to have a world without suffering but we don’t have that. Neither to me is a reflection of God’s love for us.
Interesting attack by YOU.This is a really inappropriate attack on me. It really is. It doesn’t have anything to do with contraception. That is another issue I have, but it has nothing to do with what I am saying here. These kinds of attacks are why so many in America have left the Church…so many Catholics act in this arrogant attitude that really destroys honest attempts to find the truth. I am trying to see it the way the Church does, but the answers to my questions are not being presented. Some are trying and some of you are acting like children.
I think you make an excellent point here, I really do. But, I think that it is a mistake to say that God didn’t give us all we need through the teachings of Jesus and through the apostles. If you take everything Jesus said and was recorded and everything the apostles said that was recorded, don’t you think we have enough to learn from there?Apology accepted. I realize you are overwhelmed here. I hope my approaching this from a different direction will help.
Actually, this is not like asking why would a loving God put suffering in the world. For one thing, God didn’t put suffering in the world. We managed to do that ourselves. He only allowed it. If your response is “Why would an all-loving God allow it?” the answer is that it is best for us to have free will, for without free will we cannot choose to love.
You, I’m afraid, are stuck with a contradiction. There are two parts to our salvation. There’s what God did to open the pathway to salvation (suffering, dying, rising from the dead). And then there’s what we must do to obtain this salvation. We agree that God loved us enough to do the first thing. Yet there is great disagreement about the second thing. If you are correct that all of us of us are fallible, ***there is no way short of direct divine revelation to each individual person that we can have any guarantee that we are doing the correct thing to obtain salvation. ***And I haven’t seen any evidence that God is giving this information directly to each and every one of us.
So God loves us enough to suffer and die for us (which cost Him dearly), yet not enough to ensure we have a way to know for certain what we must do to be saved (which costs Him nothing). No greater love is there than a man dying for his friends. He will give us the greater love . . . but not the lesser one? How can it not be a reflection of God’s love to ensure we can find out what we need to know to be saved, especially when salvation–which you agree is the most important thing–is at stake?
Our all-loving God doesn’t love us enough to ensure us the truth about what we must do to obtain the most important thing of all: our salvation?
That’s just not logical. It makes no sense.
And that is why I cannot accept that God does not provide at least one infallible person we can go to for guaranteed answers about faith and morals.
There wasn’t an attack, I just pointed out you acted inappropriately by attacking me based on your own false presuppositions which ignores the HUNDREDS of posts already in this thread that are ON TOPIC and say NOTHING about contraception. And I said you are acting like a child because you are…instead of debating on a substantive point, you are trying to bring this conversation into the gutter.Interesting attack by YOU.
The fact is that accepting teachings of the Church is an act of faith.
No one pretends it’s easy. It’s simply the way to achieve peace
(that surpasses all understanding."
There is no need for you to be granted “special” answers
as opposed to all who accept on faith. Wish you could accept that fact!
Speaking of acting like a child (a-hem)There wasn’t an attack, I just pointed out you acted inappropriately by attacking me based on your own false presuppositions which ignores the HUNDREDS of posts already in this thread that are ON TOPIC and say NOTHING about contraception. And I said you are acting like a child because you are…instead of debating on a substantive point, you are trying to bring this conversation into the gutter.
Your first post:
Nov 27, '10, 9:34 am
jinc1019
Junior Member Join Date: November 26, 2010
Posts: 343
Religion: Catholic
Problems With the Bible-Nativity Story
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**One of the many roadblocks for me becoming Catholic is the church's teaching on infallibility.** My future father-in-law, who turned me on to this website a short while ago, constantly tells me that the Church has never made a mistake on issues of "faith and morality".Ah. I think I see part of the problem here.I never said that Mathew 18 gives those apostolic seats infallibility INDIVIDUALLY, I acknowledge that in the Bible itself it says 2 or 3 must agree. So 2 or 3 is the answer to that portion of the question.
And, I can’t answer your question because your second choice is ALSO mischaracterized. According to the Bible, 2 or 3 of the apostolic seats must agree for their to be infallibility, or of course, Peter’s seat alone. So, if 2 or 3 of those apostolic seats agree on something and Peter’s seat disagrees (which is exactly what exists today) than it shows infallibility does not exist and was ONLY meant or those people Jesus was talking to, not their apostolic seats. That is the premise for my entire argument. So, is the Bible wrong? No. My argument is that Church interpretation of that Biblical passage is wrong because they add the idea that those 2 or 3 bishops only are protected infallibly when Peter’s seat agrees when that doesn’t appear in the Bible. Or maybe it does, but I can’t find it anywhere! Can someone point to a spot where it says the protection of the Holy Spirit granting infallibility to the bishops only applies when Peter agrees? I can find it in the Catechism but nowhere in the Bible.
[22] Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company, and to send to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren. [23] Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch, and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting. [24] Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment: [25] It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men, and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul:
[26] Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. [27] We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things.
Ambrose of Milan
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
I suppose that you could (and would have to in order to claim that it does not exist) argue that infallibility is not truly necessary to run the Church. If you make this argument, I would simply invite you to look at what happens to groups that deny it - you can find a protestant denomination that believes nearly anything, and some of the differences are extremely substantial. Clearly, that model of running things doesn’t work.“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
Not according to you.I think you make an excellent point here, I really do. But, I think that it is a mistake to say that God didn’t give us all we need through the teachings of Jesus and through the apostles. If you take everything Jesus said and was recorded and everything the apostles said that was recorded, don’t you think we have enough to learn from there?
Ah. I think I see part of the problem here.
Apostles and Bishops are not exactly the same thing.
That is, conditions can be present on bishops that were not present on apostles, bishop is a lower office. I cannot find a single passage that spells it out, but there are many passages that contain part of the story. A list is linked below.
Here are some resources. I have tried to summarize and have provided two relevant passages that support the position.
Apostle vs Bishop archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp. (I have to admit, this page corrected some thoughts I had.)
Supporting Scripture passages, scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html
General the Church is where Peter is stuff: catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope
A short form: Peter is above the other apostles. Peter’s successor is above the successors of the other apostles. Successors (bishops) were given all of the power, through ordination, necessary to run the Church. The ability to know whether or not they are teaching the truth is necessary. Non-apostles (and bishops are not apostles) need authority from the Church to go out and preach (see scripture passage below). If Peter is truly above the other Apostles, and hence his successor above the other successors, then the Church must be where Peter’s successor is (supported below).
Thus, those who go out and preach, bishop or not, but are not sent by the Church, which is where Peter is (see below and pope link), are quiet capable of “troubl[ing] you with words, subverting your souls” (scripture below). Clearly, infallible teachings do not subvert souls, so those who break from the Church and teach without her permission cannot be infallible.
I suppose that you could (and would have to in order to claim that it does not exist) argue that infallibility is not truly necessary to run the Church. If you make this argument, I would simply invite you to look at what happens to groups that deny it - you can find a protestant denomination that believes nearly anything, and some of the differences are extremely substantial. Clearly, that model of running things doesn’t work.
Wonderful posts.Not according to you.
You see, we might think we know the right answer, but because we are fallible, we could be wrong. Scripture, as we know, not only can be misinterpreted but often is. If we are all fallible, you have no infallible source you can go to in order to guarantee you have the right answer.
In other words, you are left with nothing more than your ***best guess ***about obtaining eternal bliss in heaven and avoiding eternal torment in hell. Isn’t salvation infinitely important, far too important to be left up to your best guess?
And it gets even worse. You will have to admit God doesn’t love us enough to give us any guaranteed certainty to the right answers about the most important issue of all. You will have to conclude He loves us enough to die for us but not enough to guarantee us correct information.
when you saidFirst, 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! *
Well, you seem intent on proving infallibility compoletely through Scripture, you will entertain no argument based on Tradition. So yourstatement that you have no Sola Scripture attitude or believe does not match your actions.As I have stated previously, I DO NOT have a sola scriptura attitude or belief. I BELIEVE the Bible is fallible, created by fallible men. I also believe it is extremely accurate and true, but that there are errors within it. So to paint that picture of me is totally false. Obviously if I believe the Church is fallible, I must believe the Bible is capable of error as well since the Church brought it together. It is POSSIBLE there are errors in the Bible.
But you don’t have the luxury of making that argument. You are compelled to believe the Bible is completely true. So if it is completely true, how can you say the Church is right on this issue? You are basically just saying “I trust the Church,” but that isn’t a compelling argument! The Church approved this document that says the apostles have authority and infallibility! Where does this document say otherwise?
FURTHER, and this is important, are you suggesting the Church teaches that an oral tradition has been passed down from the apostles that says the apostles are only infallible when in communion with Peter? Because I don’t see that anywhere either! The Church says it is true, says it is what has always been taught, but it NEVER says that the apostles said that they had to be in communion with Peter to have infallibility. It is not present in the oral traditon either! The only thing present in Church tradition is that the Church has been teaching this for a long time…not that is based on something the apostles actually said. The Church doesn’t teach “the apostles told us this was true.”
:clapping::clapping::clapping:when you said
“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”.
Your arguments and mindset are really coming from a non Catholic direction, so I can see why you feel you don’t have a spiritual home in the CC.
- that IS a mischaraterization of infallibility
- For your information, they have NOT maintained every single teaching.
- They are not in union with the chair of Peter,
- and as you surely know, scripture condemns division,
- PLUS they continue to remain divided from the chair of Peter by choice.
- As you surely know, that also goes against the very prayer Jesus prayed, “that they may be one as you Father and I are one.”
- How is Peter to strengthen his brothers, (a command btw, Jesus gave to Peter in front of all the apostles, without an expiration date tied to it) if certain brothers have not remained in union with Peter? That’s already a major violation
- ergo, my question back to you Re: your opinion, How do you know what Jesus will say to all those who broke union with the chair of Peter and/or refuse to reunite?
YES.Well, you seem intent on proving infallibility compoletely through Scripture, you will entertain no argument based on Tradition. So yourstatement that you have no Sola Scripture attitude or believe does not match your actions.
I say this with all good intent: Humble yourself, loose your pride. No matter how this issue ends up, that is very important.
And to answer your question in the last paragraph,that is what I am saying. The Council of Jeruselem detailed in Acts is a prime example. There are certainly examples of this from tradition. I refer you again to the article on infallibility in the old Catholic Encyclopedia (newadent.org). You will see this presented in tradition.
Well, you seem intent on proving infallibility compoletely through Scripture, you will entertain no argument based on Tradition. So yourstatement that you have no Sola Scripture attitude or believe does not match your actions.
I say this with all good intent: Humble yourself, loose your pride. No matter how this issue ends up, that is very important.
And to answer your question in the last paragraph,that is what I am saying. The Council of Jeruselem detailed in Acts is a prime example. There are certainly examples of this from tradition. I refer you again to the article on infallibility in the old Catholic Encyclopedia (newadent.org). You will see this presented in tradition.
A good point that no one expresses better than John Martignoni in his 2 Minute Apologetics MP3s.YES.
Being Catholic means to accept all the teachings
of the Church, based on both Scripture and Tradition.
Reliance on sola scriptura is related to Protestant belief systems.
Two-Minute Apologetics MP3If you want to call yourself Catholic, but you want to pick and choose for yourself which of the Church’s teachings to accept and which to reject, you give everyone else who calls themselves Catholic the right to do the same thing. For example, you believe women should be priests…in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1577 states, “Only a baptized man validly receives ordination…For this reason the ordination of women is not possible!” You don’t believe that…well, that’s fine…[RIP] just tear that page out of your Catechism…you just made it a Catechism of your Catholic Church…not mine.
But remember, if you can throw doctrines out, so can everyone else who calls themselves Catholic. That gives Joe Parishioner over at St. Doubting Thomas Catholic Church the right to throw out the Church’s social justice teachings…he doesn’t feel like feeding the hungry, caring for the poor, and all that other “bleeding heart” stuff - Paragraphs 2401 -2463 [RIP]…he just made it a Catechism of his Catholic Church…not mine and not yours.
You believe contraception is okay? Paragraph 2370 says contraception is intrinsically evil! [RIP] Joe Parishioner doesn’t like what the Church teaches on the death penalty - Paragraphs 2266-2267**[RIP]**. You don’t like what it teaches on pages 55-60 [RIP]. He doesn’t like what it teaches on pages 128-140 [RIP]
Can you see what’s happening? I heard it said once that there is a shortage of vocations to the priesthood in the United States, but no shortage of vocations to the Papacy! If we don’t believe in all of it, if we each appoint ourselves Pope and throw out a doctrine here or a doctrine there, then our faith is no longer Catholic.
Terrific quote from Martignoni.A good point that no one expresses better than John Martignoni in his 2 Minute Apologetics MP3s.
In this case he says…Two-Minute Apologetics MP3
First of all, my heart goes out to you because it seems you do love the Church and are distraught over the fact that you are no longer able to receive the Eucharist.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?
I appreciate the efforts here…and I understand the hierarchy of apostle and bishop quite well. My point is that the Church says that when Jesus spoke to the apostles in Mathew 18, he was actually saying the Holy Spirit would protect all of the bishops, including those who hadn’t been selected yet, infallibly as a group so long as the Pope agrees. I understand this…but what doesn’t make sense to me is why the Church chooses to interpret it this way. Why don’t they interpret it to mean those apostolic/bishop seats will be protected with infallibility? Jesus is, after all, only talking to those specific apostolic seats/bishop seats.Ah. I think I see part of the problem here.
Apostles and Bishops are not exactly the same thing.
That is, conditions can be present on bishops that were not present on apostles, bishop is a lower office. I cannot find a single passage that spells it out, but there are many passages that contain part of the story. A list is linked below.
Here are some resources. I have tried to summarize and have provided two relevant passages that support the position.
Apostle vs Bishop archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp. (I have to admit, this page corrected some thoughts I had.)
Supporting Scripture passages, scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html
General the Church is where Peter is stuff: catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope
A short form: Peter is above the other apostles. Peter’s successor is above the successors of the other apostles. Successors (bishops) were given all of the power, through ordination, necessary to run the Church. The ability to know whether or not they are teaching the truth is necessary. Non-apostles (and bishops are not apostles) need authority from the Church to go out and preach (see scripture passage below). If Peter is truly above the other Apostles, and hence his successor above the other successors, then the Church must be where Peter’s successor is (supported below).
Thus, those who go out and preach, bishop or not, but are not sent by the Church, which is where Peter is (see below and pope link), are quiet capable of “troubl[ing] you with words, subverting your souls” (scripture below). Clearly, infallible teachings do not subvert souls, so those who break from the Church and teach without her permission cannot be infallible.
Supporting passages:
I suppose that you could (and would have to in order to claim that it does not exist) argue that infallibility is not truly necessary to run the Church. If you make this argument, I would simply invite you to look at what happens to groups that deny it - you can find a protestant denomination that believes nearly anything, and some of the differences are extremely substantial. Clearly, that model of running things doesn’t work.