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

[jinc1019]

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.

I think you are treading in dangerous waters by going in this direction. After all, before Jesus, there was no infallible source people could go to with their problems, does that mean God didn’t love those people? Does God not love people in places where they don’t know about Jesus because God hasn’t given them access to the Church? You can’t say there must be an infallible source because a loving God would do that because now you are stepping into a position where you are judging what God should or should not do to prove love.

 

[jinc1019]

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”.

• 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?

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.

All of the things you have listed that the Orthodox Church have abadoned are the same! It’s all infallibility! The point I made was that you don’t need infallibility to protect sacred truths, a point many of you disagreed with, and my point was that the Orthodox Church has essentially done this even in your view, because virtually everything they say, the Catholic Church agrees with. Then, to prove me wrong, you point to infallibility? That makes no sense. Infallibility is the whole basis of the point I was making! My argument was infallibility is not needed to protect other truths so you can’t point to infallibility to say, “Well, here is a truth they don’t subscribe to!” They don’t believe infallibility is real!

 

[jinc1019]

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.

I read the article you cited and I don’t see anything that disproves my point.

Look, this is very simple. Someone should show me where the Church gets its belief that the apostolic seats, other than Peter’s seat, are only promised infallibility when Peter’s seat agrees. Where did Jesus say that? Does the Catholic Church teach that there is a tradition that Jesus said that? No. They don’t. There is no scripture or tradition that teaches that Jesus said the protection of infallibility promised in Mathew 18 is dependent on Peter’s seat agreeing. If it does exist, show me.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

Once again, no one said anything about sola scriptura. I don’t believe in that belief system! My point is clear: Where does the Catholic Church get the idea that Jesus said the infallibility protection promised in Mathew 18 to the apostles is contingent on Peter’s seat agreeing? Where does that exist? In what tradition? There is none. In neither scripture nor tradition does there exist evidence that Jesus said that.

 

[jinc1019]

Once again, no one said anything about sola scriptura. I don’t believe in that belief system! My point is clear: Where does the Catholic Church get the idea that Jesus said the infallibility protection promised in Mathew 18 to the apostles is contingent on Peter’s seat agreeing? Where does that exist? In what tradition? There is none. In neither scripture nor tradition does there exist evidence that Jesus said that.

If I am wrong about this, show me the tradition or scripture that says otherwise…that says Jesus said the bishops are infallible but ONLY when in agreement with Peter.

 

[jinc1019]

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

I don’t believe that we as followers should throw it all out, or even anything out! I am merely saying the Church should prove it. If they are going to say that they are infallible, I have a right to question where they get that. And when they provide it, I have a right to question their explanation if it has a flaw to it and I believe their explanation does as I have explained COUNTLESS times on the forum thus far. If I am wrong, I will happily admit it. I want to be wrong. I just want proof that will make me believe that…and nothing here is being presented.

 

[jinc1019]

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 will not argue the points on infallibility as you seem convinced that based on your personal study and research it something you absolutely cannot accept. I am neither a learned theologian, skilled debater, or qualified apologist so I’m sure I’d never move you from your current intellectual position. But I do beg you to consider a few salient points with regards to the paradoxical circumstance you now find yourself in.

First, to be in communion with the Church we must be;

• in agreement with the Church’s magisterial teaching,
• in agreement with long-held traditional teaching, widely held as correct by leading Church authorities.

Clearly, given your stance on infallibility you do not presently meet that criteria. It does seem somewhat unfair that one who accepts all of the magisterial teachings and the Traditional teachings widely held by the Church but refuses to accept one point only, such as infallibility, should be excluded from full communion with the Church. Unfortunately, however, we do not have the option to pick and choose. Thus, by your stubborn refusal to accept infallibility you have excluded yourself from communion and have effectively excommunicated yourself. You have set your own wisdom above the collective wisdom of the Holy Catholic Church. Thus, as you observed, you definitely should not be receiving the Eucharist because it would be a grave and mortal sin.

It grieves me that one who seems to believe in all the right things yet refuses to believe one thing is in the predicament you now find yourself. It is difficult for me to imagine what could happen in a person’s life that would provoke them to decide that they would simply choose not to believe something that is actually very fundamental to the Catholic faith. I know there are many today who are doing so based on disagreement with other parts of Church doctrine so I’m not trying to single you out. I’m only sharing my own feelings of dismay that one would choose infallibility, or any other issue as their own personal “hill worth dying for.”

With regard to your question about receiving the Eucharist at another church, I don’t think that would be effective. It seems clear that you know you belong in the Catholic Church. The Church as Paul the Apostle taught, is the body of Christ and we are but parts of the body. If I were to voluntarily severe my right hand, the hand could not survive or function on its own having been separated from the remaining members of my body. Thus, one who severs themselves from the Church, from the body of Christ, I think cannot then presume that they can serve Christ outside the Church.

I will pray for you my friend in hopes that you will at some point accept that you cannot substitute your own wisdom for the collective wisdom of the Church and will soon return where you belong. I think that is the only remedy for what you face.

Pax

I appreciate your civil response and kindness. I would like to point out though that I am not “CHOOSING” not to believe anymore than I am CHOOSING to believe the grass is green or 2+2 equals 4. I am simply stating that the evidence I have seen has led me to this conclusion. If it led me to infallibility, that’s where I would be. It’s not a choice to believe something…you belive something genuinely based on the evidence you have before you…that’s true belief and that’s what I have here. I will absolutely and gladly believe in Church infallibility as soon as a point is presented that disproves it. I will be meeting with a priest soon on the matter and hopefully this will all be resolved.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

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.

I would guess that because the Church doesn’t use Matthew 18 as the sole basis of Apostolic Succession. No paragraph is an island.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the reasoning I laid out earlier explains the interpretation of those sorts of passages fairly well: Apostles had infallibility, infallibility is necessary to run the Church, so the Church must still have infallibility in some form (since Christ made the Church to last). If the method by which the Church still has everything that it needs to survive involves intrusting such things to its leaders through ordination, which appears to be the case since, than infallibility and the rest must rest, in some form, in those ordained. But it is still a property of the Church, so to speak, because it exists to preserve the Church. And the Church is where Rome is. Thus: infallibility exists within the Roman Church.

And each assertion above does not rely merely on what I think makes sense, but is supported by scripture, councils, and/or Early Church Fathers, not to mention the constant belief of the Catholic Church itself.

 

[catharina]

I would guess that because the Church doesn’t use Matthew 18 as the sole basis of Apostolic Succession. No paragraph is an island.

Exactly. Within the Church we rely on Scripture and Tradition.
I can think of nothing that rests solely on Matthew 18. Why would it?

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the reasoning I laid out earlier explains the interpretation of those sorts of passages fairly well: Apostles had infallibility, infallibility is necessary to run the Church, so the Church must still have infallibility in some form (since Christ made the Church to last). If the method by which the Church still has everything that it needs to survive involves intrusting such things to its leaders through ordination, which appears to be the case since, than infallibility and the rest must rest, in some form, in those ordained. But it is still a property of the Church, so to speak, because it exists to preserve the Church. And the Church is where Rome is. Thus: infallibility exists within the Roman Church.

And each assertion above does not rely merely on what I think makes sense, but is supported by scripture, councils, and/or Early Church Fathers, not to mention the constant belief of the Catholic Church itself.

 

[Usagi]

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.

The Church doesn’t interpret the passage that way because her Tradition, as passed down since those words were spoken and later written, does not include that interpretation of Jesus’ words. No Christian writer argues that the specific sees the Twelve initially founded, or those they occupied at their deaths (if different), possess an infallibility common to them all but denied to all other sees. They are among the oldest and most honored sees in the world, and I’m sure a bishop is proud to be the newest occupant of a see founded by one of the Twelve, but historically they are not recognized as having special powers. Even the Patriarchates largely sidestep the sees of the Twelve. Rome and Antioch are both credited to Peter, but Alexandria is Mark’s (an evangelist but not of the Twelve), Jerusalem is James the Just’s (sometimes equated with James the Less, but more likely a different guy from either Apostle James), and Constantinople only became “the new Rome” long after the apostolic era. Meanwhile, John’s Ephesus doesn’t get that honor, and Thomas’ successors in India were forgotten by the rest of the Church for ages.

The Church’s notion of apostolic succession, in the sense of the passing down of episcopal power, relies not on who sits in what city, but on the passing on of Holy Orders by the laying on of hands. That’s why every bishop is equal in the dignity of his ordination, whether he’s chosen to lead a diocese with roots in the first century or one that was created yesterday. The role of the magisterium and the conditional infallibility that goes with it come with ordination to the episcopate, not with assignment to any particular historic see.

As you will note, the papacy is something of an exception. It is an office tied to the see of Rome, and passed on by election to that chair, with no connection to the chain of ordination. And yet we in the Catholic Church do believe that the papacy carries with it special powers not granted to every bishop, and specifically tied to the office’s connection to Peter. All I can say is, whereas we have no historic Tradition of special powers tied to the other apostolic chairs, nor even to Peter’s earlier see at Antioch, we do have quite a strong one (though not a perfect one, since the Orthodox dispute it vigorously and much of the evidence can be read their way) stating that Rome is special.

When interpreting the words of Jesus, the Church is always going to go with the reading that matches the historical understanding and practice of Christians as far back as we can get, and not one that seems obvious to a modern reader but would make the entire history of the Church seem ludicrous.

Usagi

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t believe that we as followers should throw it all out, or even anything out! I am merely saying the Church should prove it. If they are going to say that they are infallible, I have a right to question where they get that. And when they provide it, I have a right to question their explanation if it has a flaw to it and I believe their explanation does as I have explained COUNTLESS times on the forum thus far. If I am wrong, I will happily admit it. I want to be wrong. I just want proof that will make me believe that…and nothing here is being presented.

It would appear to me that sufficient proof has been presented to you in this thread that your issue should be resolved.

Since you sound so much St. Thomas, I would hope that at this point your response would be the same as his.

 

[LilyM]

I think you are treading in dangerous waters by going in this direction. After all, before Jesus, there was no infallible source people could go to with their problems, does that mean God didn’t love those people? Does God not love people in places where they don’t know about Jesus because God hasn’t given them access to the Church? You can’t say there must be an infallible source because a loving God would do that because now you are stepping into a position where you are judging what God should or should not do to prove love.

Firstly - God made Himself personally present to the Israelites many times and in many ways - the burning bush, the pillars of cloud and fire, the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy of Holies. In being personally present, of course He gave them the most infallible of sources.

Finally, God loved them enough to send Jesus, THE infallible source, to save them. Scripture indicates that He preached to those ‘in prison’ (ie limbo, where the souls of those who lived before Christ were awaiting salvation) after His death and before His resurrection. In doing so He gave them exactly the same infallible teaching He gives to us.

So to say He gave them no infallible source is completely wrong.

 

[tafan]

I don’t believe that we as followers should throw it all out, or even anything out! I am merely saying the Church should prove it. If they are going to say that they are infallible, I have a right to question where they get that. And when they provide it, I have a right to question their explanation if it has a flaw to it and I believe their explanation does as I have explained COUNTLESS times on the forum thus far. If I am wrong, I will happily admit it. I want to be wrong. I just want proof that will make me believe that…and nothing here is being presented.

Yes, and your pride does not seem to end. I say this with all charity. You are not open to arguments, you have demonstrated that countless times. No proof will satisfy you. You ask for a proof analogouse to 2+2=4 or the grass being green. Do you have that type of proof for Christ’s resurrection? For the existence of God? For days you would only focus on two bible passages, if those two passages did not provide the proof, it did not exist. You need to take a step back, a deep breadth, and consider your approach to the question.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I think you are treading in dangerous waters by going in this direction. After all, before Jesus, there was no infallible source people could go to with their problems, does that mean God didn’t love those people?

As LilyM has pointed out, you need to read the Old Testament more carefully.

Does God not love people in places where they don’t know about Jesus because God hasn’t given them access to the Church? You can’t say there must be an infallible source because a loving God would do that because now you are stepping into a position where you are judging what God should or should not do to prove love.

I am not judging God at all. I am merely pointing out that His all-loving nature means He wouldn’t love us enough to give us one part of our salvation without loving us enough to give us certainty about the other part. You already agreed God is all-loving, or have you changed your mind about that? Do you think He left us orphans, despite His promise not to do so?

***Are you actually claiming He doesn’t provide a means for us to have certainty about what we need to do to be saved? ***This is a yes/no question, so please answer either yes or no.

 

[mdcpensive1]

jinc1019

Interesting in that St. Thomas had some concerns also for a while. You may be in good company but only searching.

mdcpensive1

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t believe that we as followers should throw it all out, or even anything out! I am merely saying the Church should prove it. If they are going to say that they are infallible, I have a right to question where they get that. And when they provide it, I have a right to question their explanation if it has a flaw to it and I believe their explanation does as I have explained COUNTLESS times on the forum thus far. If I am wrong, I will happily admit it. I want to be wrong. I just want proof that will make me believe that…and nothing here is being presented.

Jinc… many here are trying to love you. We say this to you because we love you.

Faith comes before understanding. Step out in faith. God will do the rest. Only God himself can prove it to you. God will do it, but you have to act first. You have to step out into a darkness where you can’t see anything, and trust God. He will do it.

If you want to be wrong then pray for the strength to make a concious decision to believe.

-Tim-

-Tim-

 

[mdcpensive1]

I think you are treading in dangerous waters by going in this direction. After all, before Jesus, there was no infallible source people could go to with their problems, does that mean God didn’t love those people? Does God not love people in places where they don’t know about Jesus because God hasn’t given them access to the Church? You can’t say there must be an infallible source because a loving God would do that because now you are stepping into a position where you are judging what God should or should not do to prove love.

If you recall in the Old Testament there was a place where they Hebrews could get answers and there was authority. It was called the “seat of Moses”. Then in Matt 23:2 Jesus says that the Jewish leadership was now in that place. So this means the Jews had an authoritative body that led them in their faith.
mdcpensive1

 

[steve_b]

All of the things you have listed that the Orthodox Church have abadoned are the same!

No they are not the same.
j:

The point I made was that you don’t need infallibility to protect sacred truths,

Really?
j:

a point many of you disagreed with, and my point was that *the Orthodox Church has essentially done this even in your view, because virtually everything they say, the Catholic Church agrees with. *

As I said, and listed, they have NOT maintained every single teaching.

• They are not in union with the chair of Peter, ( that alone is a major violation of scripture AND Tradition) ) because as you surely know, scripture condemns division, "***Watch out for those who cause division, they don’t serve our Lord but their own selfish appetites [Rm 16:17-18] & ***The acts of the sinful nature are these, … division, dissent…I warn you as I have done before, those who live like this won’t inherit the kingdom of heaven. [Gal 5:19:17…]
• They continue to remain divided from the chair of Peter by choice inspite of much efforts by popes and council, to reunite them. As you surely know, their actions go directly against the very prayer Jesus prayed, ***Jn 17: *****21] that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, ****so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." *Also ask yourself, how is Peter to strengthen his brothers, (a command btw, Jesus gave to Peter in the upper room, in front of all the apostles, without an expiration date tied to it *[Lk 22:32] ) *if certain brothers have not remained in union with Peter?
• All I can say, I’m feeling blessed that I’m not looking at those warnings and consequences for myself.
• bottomline, they really DON’T believe in “virtually everything” the CC believes.

j:

Then, to prove me wrong, you point to infallibility? That makes no sense. Infallibility is the whole basis of the point I was making! My argument was infallibility is not needed to protect other truths so you can’t point to infallibility to say, “Well, here is a truth they don’t subscribe to!” They don’t believe infallibility is real!

Infallibility on matters of faith and morals DOES protect truth.

 

[JNdoum]

There are two major reasons why the Church has it’s teachings on contraception:
1- Many forms of contraception are really just early abortions: they irritate the womb lining (I can’t think of the word right now) so that the egg can’t implant.
2- When it’s being used, it’s generally being used in the form of a sin against chastity. The church never says that you must be trying to have kids every time you have sex. Pope Benedict XVI actually said that male prostitutes in the Phillipines or something should be allowed to use condoms to stop the spread of STDs. It’s mostly oral contraception the Church opposes to. Things like condoms in the cases of sex outside of marraige and such. And I do not believe that the church has ever said that its teachings on contraception were infallible.

As for infallibility in general, I suppose it’s something we must take on faith, once more. I believe the pope has supremacy simply because someone has to. It’s truly impossible to have a total democracy. Look at Poland. It was totally incapable of becoming a world power for centuries because it had a government system in which all members had equal powers. Any man, no matter how politically insignificant, could smash any and all proposals simply by saying “I object!” For this reason, I think God only showed good common sense by having someone to have final say in everything, and choosing him himself each time. If any bishop could say infallible statements, then it would probably produce countless conflicting statements, all declared infallible.

Besides that, the fact that infallibility has been sole power of the pope (as you’ve described it, not literally but in a sense) it has gotten a lot of dignity. As you can observe, it isn’t used much: that’s because it’s such a monumental and serious thing to do, a sort of sacred duty, like the button the president has that blows up Pluto. It isn’t toyed around with, as it would doubtless be if anyone could just do it. So in the end, it’s all about trust, in God and in the Church.

As a final note, the fact that so many people hold on to Church infallibility as necessary is because generally, it’s taken as an absoloute truth. If someone tried to tell me that 2+2= 234,564,098.34, then I would not even entertain the possiblility of that being true, and would plead that if it were true, then all other logic must be faulty. Just because it seems ridiculous for it not to be.

 

[jinc1019]

There are two major reasons why the Church has it’s teachings on contraception:
1- Many forms of contraception are really just early abortions: they irritate the womb lining (I can’t think of the word right now) so that the egg can’t implant.
2- When it’s being used, it’s generally being used in the form of a sin against chastity. The church never says that you must be trying to have kids every time you have sex. Pope Benedict XVI actually said that male prostitutes in the Phillipines or something should be allowed to use condoms to stop the spread of STDs. It’s mostly oral contraception the Church opposes to. Things like condoms in the cases of sex outside of marraige and such. And I do not believe that the church has ever said that its teachings on contraception were infallible.

As for infallibility in general, I suppose it’s something we must take on faith, once more. I believe the pope has supremacy simply because someone has to. It’s truly impossible to have a total democracy. Look at Poland. It was totally incapable of becoming a world power for centuries because it had a government system in which all members had equal powers. Any man, no matter how politically insignificant, could smash any and all proposals simply by saying “I object!” For this reason, I think God only showed good common sense by having someone to have final say in everything, and choosing him himself each time. If any bishop could say infallible statements, then it would probably produce countless conflicting statements, all declared infallible.

Besides that, the fact that infallibility has been sole power of the pope (as you’ve described it, not literally but in a sense) it has gotten a lot of dignity. As you can observe, it isn’t used much: that’s because it’s such a monumental and serious thing to do, a sort of sacred duty, like the button the president has that blows up Pluto. It isn’t toyed around with, as it would doubtless be if anyone could just do it. So in the end, it’s all about trust, in God and in the Church.

As a final note, the fact that so many people hold on to Church infallibility as necessary is because generally, it’s taken as an absoloute truth. If someone tried to tell me that 2+2= 234,564,098.34, then I would not even entertain the possiblility of that being true, and would plead that if it were true, then all other logic must be faulty. Just because it seems ridiculous for it not to be.

I appreciate your thoughts on infallibility…but once again, I feel uncomfortable getting into the whole “What makes sense for God to do” thing.

As for your contraception information…This thread has nothing to do with that and is not really relevant, but I appreciate your thoughts on it. Thanks for taking the time.