As I see it, if they're so disinterested or willing to learn that they walk away disgusted, it's their problem...and their loss.

 

C'mon BF, where's the luv for lost souls?

5W,

 

I have not forgotten, nor am I ignoring your earlier epistle. I promise to address it as soon as I can. But, when I do, I want it to be clear, and not create more confusion.

 

To address your questions about the Pope:

 

1) The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

 

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

 

An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

 

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

 

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

 

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

 

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

 

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

 

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.

 

 

2) Our outward signs of respect for him are tradition. There is no "scriptural" requirement, simply a long, rooted tradition. We are a heiarcheal institution, as Hearsay alluded to above.

I think it's far too complex of a subject to be explained by just a few quotations.

 

Sure, you can go deep into the theology of much of the Bible, but there is nothing in the Bible that leads me to a conclusion anywhere remotely close to what the Catechism says about Mary.

 

969 ...by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.

 

There is no scripture to support the idea that Mary is our intercessor or that she is responsible for any part of our salvation.

 

969 ...Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.

 

These are titles generally reserved for Jesus and the Holy Spirt (advocate, helper, mediator). There is no scriptural support for placing Mary on this level.

 

966 ...Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of orginal sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things...

 

493 Refers to Mary as All-Holy and sinless her whole life...

 

First of all, how can the conclusion that she was free from the stain of original sin be reached? Second, how can we conclude that she is the queen of all things? Third, All-Holy seems to place her on the level of God. These doctrines just seem fabricated to me.

 

460 ..."For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

 

It's a stretch, IMO, to make the statement that we become God and that men are made gods.

 

1129 says the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.

 

Can't find that in scripture.

 

 

Ultimately, I'm with Hearsay in that the teaching that faith in Christ is necessary is the most important thing. But, I just can't agree with these assertions. As I said, some are a stretch to me....but others just seem to come from way out of left field. I just don't understand how these conclusions could be reached, nor how people who are knowledgeable on the Bible could believe them to be true.

If nothing else these discussions have lead to a greater understanding of Catholic rituals which to those of us on the outside had the appearance of being much more sinister than what they really are. Would you (Catholics) like to ask about aspects of certain Prostestant beliefs that you find confusing?

 

(if you do, don't ask me. I nominate Fastbreak) :lol:

If nothing else these discussions have lead to a greater understanding of Catholic rituals which to those of us on the outside had the appearance of being much more sinister than what they really are. Would you (Catholics) like to ask about aspects of certain Prostestant beliefs that you find confusing?

 

(if you do, don't ask me. I nominate Fastbreak) :lol:

 

I second that. What problems/questions do any Catholic members have with anything about the Baptist faith?

5W,

 

I have not forgotten, nor am I ignoring your earlier epistle. I promise to address it as soon as I can. But, when I do, I want it to be clear, and not create more confusion.

 

To address your questions about the Pope:

 

1) The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

 

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

 

An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

 

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

 

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

 

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

 

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

 

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

 

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.

 

 

2) Our outward signs of respect for him are tradition. There is no "scriptural" requirement, simply a long, rooted tradition. We are a heiarcheal institution, as Hearsay alluded to above.

 

I'm sorry, and I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but that reads like some sort of legal contract. Almost as if they have revised and refined what infallibility means throughout the ages to cover all the bases. Now, that may or may not be the case, but I'd love to see the church's definition of "infallibility" at various points throughout history.

 

In any case, I guess my question on infallibility would be has an "infallible" declaration by a pope ever been called into question, changed, or corrected?

If nothing else these discussions have lead to a greater understanding of Catholic rituals which to those of us on the outside had the appearance of being much more sinister than what they really are. Would you (Catholics) like to ask about aspects of certain Prostestant beliefs that you find confusing?

 

(if you do, don't ask me. I nominate Fastbreak) :lol:

 

I would, but I've been fortunate to not only have the opportunity to study different religions, but be a part of a family that includes a Southern Baptist Minister, a strict Pentecostal, a Methodist, a person who doesn't believe in organized religion at all, Church of Christ, and even some Jehovah Witnesses, and several others.

 

That's not to say I understand everything about all of them. Some things I can't wrap my mind around (ie Fundamentalism, for instance). I always learn new things.

 

However, I do not reject any of the beliefs others have. I simply have faith in the teachings of MY Church, and in the way of the Catholic faith. I'm proud to say I've never judged anyone's eternal soul based upon their choice of faith.

 

I appreciate the challenge of defending my faith. I feel that if I can in any way open some eyes to the facts of the Catholic Church, I'm doing something good to dispel the lack of understanding that exists.

 

What upsets me the most are not the people who ask questions, but those who refuse. People who ask questions have at least a token desire to know the truth.

I'm sorry, and I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but that reads like some sort of legal contract. Almost as if they have revised and refined what infallibility means throughout the ages to cover all the bases. Now, that may or may not be the case, but I'd love to see the church's definition of "infallibility" at various points throughout history.

 

In any case, I guess my question on infallibility would be has an "infallible" declaration by a pope ever been called into question, changed, or corrected?

 

Yes. See, Martin Luther, 95 Theses, October 31, 1517

Interesting. Is Hearsay's use of the word disgusted what prompted such a blunt statement?

Pretty much so. I don't see why anyone should be "disgusted" just because a faith that's been around for 2,000 years can't be explained in a few words. There's a lot of tradition and a lot of doctrine that can develop in two millenia. But I wasn't meaning to be harsh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_95_Theses

I saw the verses on Marriage and I agree with them, but Divorce is the question and what did Jesus say about it the chapter I brought up.

 

Matthew 19:7 Why then they (Disciples) asked him did Moses command us to give divorece papaers and to end her away?

Jesus said "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because the hardened of your heart..As I tell you ever divorces his wife, except for SEXUAL IMMORALITY and marries again commits adultery.

 

The word annulment is found nowhere...who is using their "think so's" and avoiding scripture.

 

AllTell, how come you want to look what I say by using scripture, and say I'm using my sayings? If youn want a full system Bible study on here say the word man. Not once have I condemed anything anyone has said, but look at the posts concerning my scripture based comments.

 

You have the right to choose any Religion you want, but there are errors in your church (Others have said that themselves) just like they are in mine. I said that. A church is made up of people, and people make mistakes. The closest true church is the church of the Amish. They are almost perfect with the real true church but I would still tell them they also do things in error, becaus ethey do.

Lets talk about Mother Mary. I will love to.

 

I'm taught to show error through scripture, and I can and will, but I don'y want to have hurt feelings about me.

 

Nice job 5wide...You should be here with these kids.

I'm sorry, and I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but that reads like some sort of legal contract. Almost as if they have revised and refined what infallibility means throughout the ages to cover all the bases. Now, that may or may not be the case, but I'd love to see the church's definition of "infallibility" at various points throughout history.

 

In any case, I guess my question on infallibility would be has an "infallible" declaration by a pope ever been called into question, changed, or corrected?

 

The infalliblility refers to the doctrine and dogma. Those are unchanged and unchallenged, as far as I'm aware.

 

The Eucharist is still Transubstantiation

Marriage is still binding

We still believe in baptising infants

We still believe in reaffirming our faith through confirmation...

 

The fact that the pope is human, and makes mistakes is not the same as his violating or somehow evidence of his fallibility

Pretty much so; but I wasn't meaning to be harsh. I just don't see why anyone should be "disgusted" just because a faith that's been around for 2,000 years can't be explained in a few words. There's a lot of tradition and a lot of doctrine that can develop in two millenia.

 

Of course, I wasn't disgusted. Some unbeliever might be, though, at the thought of having to read so much to understand for himself. "Dissuaded" would probably be a better term.

I saw the verses on Marriage and I agree with them, but Divorce is the question and what did Jesus say about it the chapter I brought up.

 

Matthew 19:7 Why then they (Disciples) asked him did Moses command us to give divorece papaers and to end her away?

Jesus said "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because the hardened of your heart..As I tell you ever divorces his wife, except for SEXUAL IMMORALITY and marries again commits adultery.

 

The word annulment is found nowhere...who is using their "think so's" and avoiding scripture.

 

AllTell, how come you want to look what I say by using scripture, and say I'm using my sayings? If youn want a full system Bible study on here say the word man. Not once have I condemed anything anyone has said, but look at the posts concerning my scripture based comments.

 

You have the right to choose any Religion you want, but there are errors in your church (Others have said that themselves) just like they are in mine. I said that. A church is made up of people, and people make mistakes. The closest true church is the church of the Amish. They are almost perfect with the real true church but I would still tell them they also do things in error, becaus ethey do.

Lets talk about Mother Mary. I will love to.

 

I'm taught to show error through scripture, and I can and will, but I don'y want to have hurt feelings about me.

 

Nice job 5wide...You should be here with these kids.

 

Noone should be getting their feelings hurt in this thread. This is a discussion, and a good one. If you believe that a Church teaches a false doctrine, then say it and identify what you believe is false, and also identify why you think it is false. Unless you present it in an accusatory manner, noone should be getting their feelings hurt.

I would, but I've been fortunate to not only have the opportunity to study different religions, but be a part of a family that includes a Southern Baptist Minister, a strict Pentecostal, a Methodist, a person who doesn't believe in organized religion at all, Church of Christ, and even some Jehovah Witnesses, and several others.

 

That's not to say I understand everything about all of them. Some things I can't wrap my mind around (ie Fundamentalism, for instance). I always learn new things.

 

However, I do not reject any of the beliefs others have. I simply have faith in the teachings of MY Church, and in the way of the Catholic faith. I'm proud to say I've never judged anyone's eternal soul based upon their choice of faith.

 

I appreciate the challenge of defending my faith. I feel that if I can in any way open some eyes to the facts of the Catholic Church, I'm doing something good to dispel the lack of understanding that exists.

 

What upsets me the most are not the people who ask questions, but those who refuse. People who ask questions have at least a token desire to know the truth.

 

I do appreciate you Rockmom...as I'm pretty sure we've discussed a little bit about this before. You're always polite and informative, and I hope I am the same. At least, I try to be. Obviously, there are things I don't agree with within the Catholic church, but what I hope is to get a better understanding from someone who knows firsthand and perhaps clarify the things that I've been misinformed on and the things that I genuinely don't agree with.

 

Like you though, I do not reject other's beliefs, but I am confident, secured, and assured of my own. Also, I agree that judgemen is reserved for God. I do, however, believe the Bible clearly states that faith in Christ is essential for salvation, and by stating that, I fear it sometimes comes off as judgemental and condemning. That's not how I intend it. I'm simply 100% confident in that aspect of my belief and I want to relay that to people who are asking questions in these religious discussions.