 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 7th, 2007 01:41 pm |
|
While I recognize that there have been many holy and godly popes, there have also been the opposite. I will quote from a source that I had to read in my Middle Ages course in college, "Medieval Europe" by C. Warren Hollister and Judith M. Bennett, "But as popes such as Innocent III, Gregory IX, and Innocent IV became increasingly absorbed in power politics, the papacy slowly lost its hold on the hearts of Christians. By the second half of the thirteenth century, popes often seemed less like pastoral leaders and more like worldly monarchs." (pg. 264)
First, let me preface by saying that the authors of this work do not write with an obvious anti-Catholic bias. What their personal attitudes about Catholicism are, I don't know. However, their source documentation is reliable. What I mean to say here, is that they acknowledge that history shows there were indeed both good popes and bad ones as well. And many of the chapters speak well of the godly saints.
With that said, I have been thinking about this. In my inquiry on this road to the Catholic Church, I have come to realize just how much papal authority is a stumbling block to Protestants. And why is this? Is it because Protestants just do not desire to be under any authority, that they are rebels at heart? Perhaps some are. But there are many who cannot reconcile the claim that the Catholic Church is the church Christ founded on St. Peter the Rock which claims papal infallibility, and the dreadful accounts in her history of outright unbiblical, unholy acts committed by the Catholic Church, and supported and perpetrated by irreligious, ungodly popes. When a church claims, as the Catholic Church claims, that within her alone dwell the "fullness of the truth" then truth must be her anchor and foundation. It must always be the determining factor, the impetus that compels her. Yet the Catholic Church's history shows that this love of and for the truth, which is in Jesus Christ, was not always her M.O. (mode of operation). Now this is a history in which, I believe, the Catholic Church must reconcile. How does the Catholic Church, or a Catholic for that matter, debate, discuss, defend Catholicism with this eyesore in its history? It is, as I see, incumbent upon her to address this matter and not sweep it under the rug. It is incumbent because Catholics claim that the Catholic Church is the visible church Christ founded, without spot or blemish; the one, holy, apostolic Church of which Christ claimed, "And the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."
Referring to my quote in the first paragraph, it was because of these bad popes that had a greed for power, that the Catholic Church lost its grip on many Christians. Her history does not always show a bright and shining city upon a hill. Her history is at times, littered with the blood of precious martyrs, selling indulgences, involvement in worldly and political conquests, just to mention a few. Sad as this may be, it is the truth.
Why do I bring this up, you might ask? Certainly not to condemn the Catholic faith. But for me, this is an issue that hits home. I have been confronted with this matter many times both when I was a staunch Evangelical, and now that I am on my way toward Rome. I am not quite sure how to reconcile this matter of the Catholic Church's bloody and shameful past. But I do know that I must face this matter head on or other wise it will continue to raise its head over and over again.
One way not to reconcile this matter is to point fingers at the Reformers or Protestants. For that still leaves the unanswered questions, well, unanswered. Holy Mother Church has a history that is both glorious and not so glorious. And one who is seeking the truth as I am, must be able to truthfully debate this issue both to answer questions inside myself, as well as those of my Protestant brethren. To ignore the past is to ensure that the past will repeat itself again, in deference to that old addage.
So how does a Catholic address this issue, both inwardly when questionings and conflicts arise within the soul, and with those who attack the Church's shady past? Have any of you dealt with this issue while on your faith journey to Catholicism? If so, how did you resolve it? Do any of you deal with this controversial matter now and if so, how do you resolve it?
I need hard answers, convincing answers, not pat answers. BTW, how does/has the Vatican dealt with this matter of the Catholic Church's past? Please help me out here folks, cuz this is just another leg of the journey with which I am wrestling.
I ask that you would please anwer charitably, as I present these questions with a desire to arrive at the truth. I look forward to your responses.
Love in Christ,
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 200 |
| First Name: | Jeff (you can call me "japhy" | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 7th, 2007 02:51 pm |
|
Darlene wrote: With that said, I have been thinking about this. In my inquiry on this road to the Catholic Church, I have come to realize just how much papal authority is a stumbling block to Protestants. And why is this? Is it because Protestants just do not desire to be under any authority, that they are rebels at heart? Perhaps some are. But there are many who cannot reconcile the claim that the Catholic Church is the church Christ founded on St. Peter the Rock which claims papal infallibility, and the dreadful accounts in her history of outright unbiblical, unholy acts committed by the Catholic Church, and supported and perpetrated by irreligious, ungodly popes. When a church claims, as the Catholic Church claims, that within her alone dwell the "fullness of the truth" then truth must be her anchor and foundation. It must always be the determining factor, the impetus that compels her. Yet the Catholic Church's history shows that this love of and for the truth, which is in Jesus Christ, was not always her M.O. (mode of operation). Now this is a history in which, I believe, the Catholic Church must reconcile. How does the Catholic Church, or a Catholic for that matter, debate, discuss, defend Catholicism with this eyesore in its history? It is, as I see, incumbent upon her to address this matter and not sweep it under the rug. It is incumbent because Catholics claim that the Catholic Church is the visible church Christ founded, without spot or blemish; the one, holy, apostolic Church of which Christ claimed, "And the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."
Why do I bring this up, you might ask? Certainly not to condemn the Catholic faith. But for me, this is an issue that hits home. I have been confronted with this matter many times both when I was a staunch Evangelical, and now that I am on my way toward Rome. I am not quite sure how to reconcile this matter of the Catholic Church's bloody and shameful past. But I do know that I must face this matter head on or other wise it will continue to raise its head over and over again.
So how does a Catholic address this issue, both inwardly when questionings and conflicts arise within the soul, and with those who attack the Church's shady past? Have any of you dealt with this issue while on your faith journey to Catholicism? If so, how did you resolve it? Do any of you deal with this controversial matter now and if so, how do you resolve it?
I need hard answers, convincing answers, not pat answers. BTW, how does/has the Vatican dealt with this matter of the Catholic Church's past? Please help me out here folks, cuz this is just another leg of the journey with which I am wrestling. First of all, the Church has never said it is not an institution of sinners. We agree with Paul on that regard: But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we ourselves were found to be sinners, is Christ then an agent of sin? Certainly not! But if I build up again those things which I tore down, then I prove myself a transgressor. (Galatians 2:17-18) In other words, no sin I commit as a Christian can ever besmirch the name of Jesus. And what holds true for me holds true for all Christians, the Pope included.
So then, what do we make of these Popes who acted terribly? Let us not forget, first of all, that Jesus chose Peter to shepherd his flock (cf. John 21)... the same Peter who walked on water and then sank, the same Peter who professed Jesus as the Christ and Son of God and then rebuked him, the same Peter who declared he would die with Jesus and then denied him. The same Peter who "flip-flopped" on whether or not it was "ok" to eat with Gentiles (cf. Galatians 2:11-14), the same Peter whom Paul confronted on the matter and corrected. The Pope is a sinner. It goes with the territory (being human, I mean).
But Peter's private action was not a basis of a doctrine; rather, as Acts 15 recounts, a council was held to determine what was expected of the Gentile Christians. There was a debate, and then Peter stood to make an announcement, and all were silent. Then Paul and Barnabas spoke; afterwards, a letter was drafted announcing the doctrine of the Church concerning the Mosaic Law and the Gentiles. That was infallible. Peter's private sin was not. That is what most people don't understand about the infallibility of the Church: it is not the impeccability of the Pope (or any Christian), it is the assurance that the doctrinal declarations of the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals will not stray from God's Truth. Disciplines of the Church may change (such as who fasts and when they fast, or whether priests and bishops may be married), but not dogmas.
I am sorry there have been such heinous public sinners as Popes in the past, but I cannot change that. The "problem" is indeed that Catholics believe the Church remains steadfast and infallible despite these sinners; the New Life Church in Colorado didn't have to close up shop because Ted Haggerty's sins were exposed, because no one thinks they're "infallible". But people expect the Catholic Church to fold and crumble when it's revealed there are sinners in it, at the heights of its hierarchy. That won't happen; Jesus promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church.
I hope that helps. Let me know how else to respond. I'm sure "the fullness of Truth" works into the answer somehow. If there's a church with the fullness of Truth (and Catholics believe there is) then should not God ensure that Truth is never clouded by error?
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 282 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 7th, 2007 03:23 pm |
|
Hey Darlene,
yea. what Japhy said. The Catholic Church is an organization of sinners. Those that are already 'saved' need to apply elsewhere.
Maybe it would help to separate the human being from the office?
When a man sins, he does so personally, not as a representative of what the Church believes and teaches.
For example, a priest still has his Office of Priest even when he chooses sin. He doesn't stop being a priest, and this doesn't cause the Church to stop existing. Although he shouldn't sin, and needs to go to confession like the rest of us, he is still a priest.
There are many questionable, even evil, actions that members of the Church have committed. These actions were done as choices of personal free will, not actions of the Church itself.
In spite of some really rotten people, the Church still is visible and still stands after 2,000 years. How's that help?
Have i made the confusion worse? what else?
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 852 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 8th, 2007 05:35 am |
|
I have wondered things like this myself. But I find it similar to the query of people who say that they will not consider Christianity because Christians seem to be hypocritical or something. Now, of course it is tragic anytime that someone gives false witness to the truth by their actions, but it does not change whether or not what that person stands for is true. It just shows that it has not been as true for that particular individual as it shoud be. If one is to reject Christ they ought to know who He really was. Not how we misrepresent Him. I hate to think some perhaps do not give Him a chance by deliving headfirst personally into the gospels with a prayerful attitude. People should get to know Christ's claims before writing him off or accepting him. They should know Him for who He was. How can they reject Him if they do not even know Him.
Now, on to the church. People can see all the evil that the church has done and not listen to what it is at its core as well. It is sad some of this is directly the fault of leaders and popes, but the fact is that the truth remains despite what has happened. Do you think that the few priests who have been guilty of scandal make the priesthood a bad idea. Or the protestant pastors who have done the same things make pastors a bad idea? No something must be judged as good or evil for what it is at the heart of the matter. For what it can be at its best in both theory and practice.
The Catholic Church is full of sinners and a history with some trouble, but where else can one look for the truth and authority. Either Christianity has succeeded and we can participate joyfully, or the whole thing fell apart and now the truth is each person for themself. Either we always were intended to be bound together as a family, or God really did not care how unified we would remain.
Now I know you may say, well Jesus says we know a tree by its fruits. Well, if we want to go that route, lets try to loook at it from both sides. Now, have their been problems, and sin? Yes. But as said by others some of this is to be expected when human beings are involved, plus we are all sinners and there is the whole element of spiritual warfare which you know would do all it could to attack what people need for salvation. But now for the positive. I think no organization in the history of the world has done so much good for civilization as the Catholic Church. Universities, art, hospitals, technologies, the development of charitable institutions in ways that were unheard of. Look at both sides. The Catholic Church gets a bad rep in so many peoples minds who think religion only leads to biggoted hatred and killing. Now I do not deny that there is some reason for these claims, but if looked at as a whole one should end up being so thankful for the church. You might want to look into the book "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Thomas E. Woods Jr. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260387/lewrockwell/
But it might be helpful just to read the reviews of his book from that link that give you some idea of just how much good the church has done.
Now to answer your question as to how the church faces up to its negative historical aspects. We repent. We admit it. We do want to learn our history well enough so that we are not duped into apologizing for some things that are maybe misunderstood. But when mistakes are made we must acknowledge it, learn from it and move on. Did you know that John Paul II called for a scholarly study to try to uncover all the terrible things that the church has ever done so that he could persoanlly apologize to the world and those we offended and asking forgiveness? This included things like poor treatment of Jews, the Inquisition, and parts of the crusades among others. What an example! Now we do not think this in any way, means that the church is not the truth, but we acknowledge what has been distorted. Our leader actually apologized for 2,000 years of sin calling us to purity and a new life. I think you know a man more by how he responds to his errors sometimes than by the errors themselves. This is what separates Peter from Judas.
I think that the problem in history may have to do with power and politics. And sometimes I get nervous about the idea of falling back onto such a place. But I think we are in a much different place now, and that the pontificate of the last several popes and the papacy as a whole has spoken a great witness overall to the validity of the church.
Do not ignore these issues, but also, do not let it cloud the reality that the Church truly is who she claims to be. It is not he faith of corrupt men we uphold, but the apostles themselves. We see that we believe today the same things that were believed all along. The fact that this is true even after all the corruption speaks so much to my heart that the Holy Spirit truly must have been guiding us depsite our attempts to ruin things from time to time.
hope that helps somewhat. your question and concern is a good and valid one, and one that kept me more distrustful of the church for a while myself before I tried to look at it from the Catholic perspective years later.
Brian
Last edited on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 05:38 am by brian
|
|
|
NanaR
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 175 |
| First Name: | Ruth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Born JW, born-again Catholic (Tiber Swim Team 2008) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 8th, 2007 08:31 am |
|
Hi Darlene,
I'm not yet Catholic (still working toward that goal). I have given a LOT of thought to the question you ask.
Here's how I resolved it in my own mind and heart:
The Church is to be the "pillar and support of the truth". The Church preserves apostolic succession. The manuscripts that have now been translated into modern language copies of the Bible were preserved in monasteries and copied over and over with great care by Catholic monks. The great truths still taught by the majority of Christian religions (the Holy Trinity, for example) were defined and defended against heresy by the Catholic Church.
But but but, people will say, what about the Inquisition, what about the really bad Popes of history, what about the modern-day problems with pedophilia etc.?
I say, look at the Jewish nation over her history until the time of Christ. God set that nation apart, gave them the ten commandments and the law, gave them the Bible. He even, for a time, gave them his OWN PRESENCE in the Ark of the Covenant and the Shekinah light. He sent prophets to them over and over to BRING THEM BACK TO HIM -- why did he have to do that? Because in the midst of that nation and priesthood that was serving as his VESSEL FOR SALVATION (to bring us to Christ in the flesh) were wicked men. Some of them were Kings. Some of them were priests, even high priests. Even so, the lineage of King David was preserved -- so Christ would be born of David. The lineage of high priests was preserved -- so that when he arrived there would be a temple and a "people for his name". Priestly and kingly succession and sacred writings and tradition were passed flawlessly through a very flawed nation. "Very flawed", because the only earthly vessels available for use are sinners -- then or now.
I came to the conclusion that God can use anyone for the furtherance of His will and purpose -- even wicked men. If we can believe -- and most Protestants and other fundamentalists do -- that the Old Testament came to us intact and perfect through the vessel of the nation of Israel, and if we can believe -- and most Protestants and other fundamentalists do -- that the New Testament came to us intact and perfect through the vessel of the Christian Church (which for over 1000 years was the Catholic Church), then we should be able to accept that the Holy Spirit and Holy Tradition and Teaching Authority that was passed in apostolic succession through the Popes WAS NOT TAINTED by the vessels through which it passed.
When I look at the fruits of the Catholic Church today, I see an international family of Christians who are receiving and living bountifully "in the Spirit". They are NOT perfect; I am certainly not perfect. Grace makes up the difference.
That is how I have reconciled it.
Blessings,
NanaR
____________________
When you bend down to help someone up, that is the best exercise for your heart. -- Fr. Noe, 2007
http://nanaruthann.blogspot.com
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 665 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 8th, 2007 08:32 am |
|
I didn't have time to more than skim over the other responses (I'm supposed to be waking kids up so we can grocery shop, yay) anyway . . . .
I remember, for myself, that God deals with weak and imperfect humans. Popes are no different than us. We may hold them in high esteem, but they are still (occasionally) weak and imperfect humans. God is perfect, no one can live up to his rules. IA with you that there have been awful Popes, and those are the ones that get all the attention. So, IMO, God does the best he can with what he has available to him. I'm sure each of those men were there for a reason. One *we* may never know, but surely God knows.
Facts and history can get so distorted over time. Only the bad tends to be focused on, after all look at our evening news of today, that's what everyone wants to hear. So that's what we have been given. Whose life, though, did one of those "evil" Popes make better because of their station? What peasent did they bring to Christ? That's not in the history books.
Besides, with a history as long and as rich as the Catholic church, surely the good way outnumbers the bad. Right? But again, we don't hear about those ones, do we?
JMHO.
Ali
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 8th, 2007 09:10 am |
|
God's peace. Darlene, I get hit with this challenge at least once a week by my Protestant colleagues at the school where I teach. I truly believe that it is a paper tiger, since anyone using it is willfully ignorant of the truth: all institutions where humans are found will have a mixture of good and bad. Our Lord alluded to this in several parables, notably the parables of the good and bad fish and the wheat and tares. Failure to understand this is proof to me that these people do not understand the nature of sin and the saving operations of grace, which require the cooperation of men to work. They also fail to understand our Lord's promise to Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church--not that they wouldn't try!
As far as the responses we can make, consider the source of the challenge first. I rarely waste time responding to atheists, since they have no intention of listening. However, if the challenge is a question clothed as a dispute by a seeker, or one who I think is confused (most young people  ), I will give a short reponse to see if I can engage them further. Examples:
Q: How can you justify being a Catholic when so many of your popes and other prelates were corrupt?
A: Did God command them to be corrupt, or did they freely choose to be corrupt? God gives us this freedom, and judges us accordingly. But look: with enemies both within and without, the Church is still here after 2,000 years and it's still teaching the same doctrine. What more justification do I need to be Catholic?
Q: How can you send your kids to a Church with all those "pedophile priests?"
A: What statistics have you been reading? The most dangerous place for a kid today is in a public school, not the Catholic Church. You need to get your numbers straight.
Q: What about the Crusades? The Inquisition? etc.
A: What about the Salem witch trials? Cromwell's "Hell or Connaught" campaign against the Irish? Which of these was launched by the Catholic Church?
I could go on, but this might serve as a starter. One other thing: A charming custom of the Methodists is the weathercock on the top of their meeting-house steeples, to remind us of Peter's about-face at cockcrow. Our Lord started the Church with his personal choice of this man as the first pope! Do you think He knew what He was doing? Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
Last edited on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 09:15 am by Br_Carlo
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5457 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 8th, 2007 11:51 am |
|
Br_Carlo wrote: Q: How can you send your kids to a Church with all those "pedophile priests?"
A: What statistics have you been reading? The most dangerous place for a kid today is in a public school, not the Catholic Church. You need to get your numbers straight.
Don't forget Scout troops and similar organizations (campfire, etc.), youth athletic programs, and Protestant church youth programs, all of which have a statistically greater incidence of abuse than the Catholic Church. And then there is the place with the highest incidence of all, the family home.
A child is much more likely to be abused by a close male relative (uncle, cousin, sibling, father) or close family friend than by a priest. Priests just get a lot more publicity because the Church has "deep pockets" and is a prime target for lawsuits.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
feetxxxl
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| First Name: | john | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | cradle episcopalians |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10th, 2007 06:35 pm |
|
| thank you for your understanding. so what you are saying is that the infallibility decree that is in the catholic faith, is not about the pope. but is about the magisterium. how do you differentiate when a decree is a personnal act of the pope and part of the magisterium? Last edited on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 06:39 pm by feetxxxl
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5457 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10th, 2007 08:35 pm |
|
First of all, John, welcome to the Coming Home Network and to the Catholic faith. All questions are welcome here, as long as they are sincerely asked. We're happy to have your participation, and look forward to hearing your faith story when you are ready to share it.
feetxxxl wrote: thank you for your understanding. so what you are saying is that the infallibility decree that is in the catholic faith, is not about the pope. but is about the magisterium. how do you differentiate when a decree is a personnal act of the pope and part of the magisterium?
The conditions for infallibility on the part of the pope are quite specific. Catholics United for the Faith have a Faith Fact on papal authority. From that article:
When, in exercise of the solemn Magisterium, the Pope speaks ex cathedra, the faithful are bound to accept the teaching with divine and catholic faith and must avoid any doctrines that are contrary to these truths. The exercise of the solemn Magisterium by the Pope occurs when he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is infallible teaching. This infallibility derives from the authority Christ entrusted to His Church, and extends as far as the deposit of faith itself, as well as to doctrinal elements needed to preserve, expound, or observe this deposit and the precepts of the natural law (cf. 1 Tim 6:20; Catechism, nos. 2035-36, 2051).
'Ex cathedra' means "from the head" or "from the chair" and means when he speaks as head of the Church. So in order to lift a teaching from doctrine to dogma, it must be a matter taken from the Deposit of Faith handed to us from the apostles; it must not contradict any prior doctrine; and it must be on a matter of faith or morals. Furthermore, it must state that it is a definitive matter of Christian faith, and that all are bound to believe it.
Infallibility is also vested in the bishops of the Church teaching in union with the pope (the Magisterium). A council cannot teach a matter of doctrine that the pope does not accept, but the pope cannot teach a matter of doctrine that is not univerally held by the faithful, either.
The actual decree of the First Vatican Council that defined the concept of Papal Infallibility can be found here. It reads in part:
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
Please let us know if you have any more questions, and welcome once again to the Coming Home Network.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
feetxxxl
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| First Name: | john | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | cradle episcopalians |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10th, 2007 10:05 pm |
|
| thank you for your answer. the universal church is the body of believers, the bride of christ, followers of christ's teachings, who worship and testify that christ walked this earth, and died for their sins. how does the catholic church differeniate themselves from other believers of this body? Last edited on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 10:07 pm by feetxxxl
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 200 |
| First Name: | Jeff (you can call me "japhy" | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10th, 2007 11:43 pm |
|
feetxxxl wrote: thank you for your answer. the universal church is the body of believers, the bride of christ, followers of christ's teachings, who worship and testify that christ walked this earth, and died for their sins. how does the catholic church differeniate themselves from other believers of this body? WHICH teachings of Christ? All of them? Or some of them?
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5457 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11th, 2007 12:29 am |
|
feetxxxl wrote: thank you for your answer. the universal church is the body of believers, the bride of christ, followers of christ's teachings, who worship and testify that christ walked this earth, and died for their sins. how does the catholic church differeniate themselves from other believers of this body?
The word "catholic" means "universal". The Universal Church is the Catholic Church, which in our belief includes the Orthodox Churches. Other Christian communities are imperfectly united to the universal Church because they do not completely accept Christ's teachings. Just as Catholics who reject some of the Church's teachings are not fully united to the Catholic faith, so other Christians who do not fully accept Christ's teachings are not fully united to the Catholic faith.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
AD
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| First Name: | AL | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist Pentacostal Non Denominational |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23rd, 2007 09:52 pm |
|
I would like to ask a question about the universal church. A short answer would be fine. Even as short as yes or no, (lol)
Does the Messianic church community, (jewish belivers who have accepted Yeshua as Messiah) accept the Authority that the Roman catholic church says it has and do they accept the Pope as the present day leader of the church? Thanks
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5457 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23rd, 2007 10:21 pm |
|
AD wrote: Does the Messianic church community, (jewish belivers who have accepted Yeshua as Messiah) accept the Authority that the Roman catholic church says it has and do they accept the Pope as the present day leader of the church?
My guess would be no, but it's only a guess. I don't believe they accept the writings of the New Testament either, but I really don't know that much about them.
Messianic Jews seem to be quite different in their beliefs from congregation to congregation.. Some believe that Jesus is Divine, and some do not. Some believe in the Trinity, and some do not. Some baptize in the name of the Trinity, and some do not. Based on what little I could find, there is no clear distinction of what they believe and what they don't, although certainly if they accepted the authority of the pope and the doctrines of the Church, they would be Catholic.
The best information I could find on Messianic Judaism came from the web site of The Association of Hebrew Catholics.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
AD
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| First Name: | AL | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist Pentacostal Non Denominational |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23rd, 2007 11:07 pm |
|
Thanks for the link Rick, I will check it out. Yes, the Messianic Community I am refering to accepts the new testament writtings. They believe Yeshua is the Messiah and their link to the New Testament church is unbroken from the days when Yeshua walked on the earth. Some might even have blood lines back to the 12 who Jesus picked.
David H Stern wrote a translation of the New Testament. Its called
Jewish New Testament----- A translation of the New Testament that expresses its Jewishness
For out of Tziyon shall come forth Torah and the Word of Adonai from Yerushalayim
Praised are you Adonai our God, King of the universe, who gives the Torah of truth and the good news of salvation to his people Israel and to all the peoples through his son Yeshua the Messiah, our Lord
He also has done the complete Bible, not just New Testament
Last edited on Sat Jun 23rd, 2007 11:11 pm by AD
|
|
|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 85 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24th, 2007 11:13 pm |
|
This issue of authority has been coming up a lot lately. My fiance says that one of the Popes claimed, during or right before one of the Crusades, that if Christians killed a Muslim during a Crusade, that they would be guaranteed a place in heaven. Is this true?
If it is true, was it said ex cathedra, or was it said as a personal statement by one of the bad popes? Or has this been slightly misconstrued?
I have made the claim to him, that regardless of what sins a pope committed, he has never, through all the history of the Church, said something ex cathedra that was not true. My argument has been, that while the Church is compiled of sinners, that God used the Church to preserve the Scriptures, and Tradition, and through the Magisterium and the Pope, has preserved Dogma.
Last edited on Sun Jun 24th, 2007 11:17 pm by Daffodil
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5457 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25th, 2007 12:41 am |
|
Daffodil wrote: This issue of authority has been coming up a lot lately. My fiance says that one of the Popes claimed, during or right before one of the Crusades, that if Christians killed a Muslim during a Crusade, that they would be guaranteed a place in heaven. Is this true?
It is very difficult to know every word spoken by every pope over 2000 years of Church history. Certainly many of the popes were corrupt, especially during the times of the crusades.
If it is true, was it said ex cathedra, or was it said as a personal statement by one of the bad popes? Or has this been slightly misconstrued?
There have been only two official ex cathedra statements by popes. The first declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the second declared the doctrine of the Assumption.
The conditions by which a pope makes an infallible statement on his own authority are very strict. Much more common is for a pope to restate existing doctrine that is an infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which he states in union with and on behalf of the bishops and the faithful of the Church. And such pronouncements can only be on doctrines of faith and morals. A statement like this, even if it had been officially pronounced, would not qualify as matters of faith or morals and would fail the test of infallibility on that regard.
Popes are entitled to express their opinion. Some popes, such as John Paul II and Benedict XVI, are very learned theologians and their opinions are of tremendous value. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of popes have fallen into this category. But some of the popes were political hacks and their opinions are worthless.
I have made the claim to him, that regardless of what sins a pope committed, he has never, through all the history of the Church, said something ex cathedra that was not true.
That is true. It's also true that no pope has ever made a definitive statement on doctrine on matters of faith or morals that has ever been reversed. Church doctrine has never changed.
My argument has been, that while the Church is compiled of sinners, that God used the Church to preserve the Scriptures, and Tradition, and through the Magisterium and the Pope, has preserved Dogma.
That is also true. But not every statement made by every pope has been infallible, impeccible, or even accurate. And when he is not making official pronouncements on matters of faith and morals, he is no more protected by the Holy Spirit than you or me.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 731 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25th, 2007 03:15 pm |
|
I reconciled this in a manner similar to Ruth.
The matter of infallibility is why Popes are very careful to say very few things ex cathedra. That is why so much has been made of Benedict XVI's new book on Jesus being written by himself as a scholar and not as Pope. He doesn't want people to think anything he wrote in the book is to be taken as infallible.
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
hpj0828
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 144 |
| First Name: | Henry | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Messianic Jewish believer, Hebrew Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25th, 2007 07:10 pm |
|
Hello AD,
I am a Messianic Jewish believer. I have attended a couple of Messianic synagogues in the Phila area over the years. I have also attended a UMJC (Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations) yeshiva conference in Orlando, FL a couple of years ago, meeting rabbinical students from many different congregations across the country. I have an evangelical Protestant seminary training from Princeton Theological Seminary and have served as a youth pastor mostly in Korean Presbyterian churches (my wife is Korean) over the last decade. I have many Messianic Jewish friends in my home town. So, I have some breadth of experience with which to answer.
There are basically two main Messianic Jewish associations (they do not have enough structure to qualify as congregations) in the US. The aforementioned UMJC and the MJAA (Messianic Jewish Alliance of America). The MJAA is a looser organization and includes Messianic synagogues, as well as individual believers who may go to a Catholic or Protestant church which is not specifically geared to a Jewish background. You can look to their respective websites for more info.
The UMJC is developing a MJTI--Messianic Jewish Theological Institute--a fledgling seminary/yeshiva in Michigan.
Jewish authority has been rooted for centuries in the rabbinical discussions recorded in the Talmud. Halakah (Hebrew&n | | |
