Does the Catholic Church have no authority?

[CatholicConvert]

I never said they did. I am just wondering if the church has any authority to stop this kind of stuff. Evidently the answer is no.

Oh, they do. The problem is that either they do not understand what authority is, how to use it, or they have some kind of mush headed idea that it is not "loving" to discipline people. I have heard this idea more than once from Catholics and every time it makes me wince.

These people hold the same office that St. Paul did -- the office of an apostle -- with all the power available that Paul had. Wanna see what St. Paul said?

1Co 4:18 Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.

19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord
will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.

20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

WOW!!!

Do you see what Paul is doing there? He is telling them that he is tired of hearing the bragadacio of those who THINK they have power and he is saying he is a-comin' to town and there is gonna be a SHOWDOWN!!!

Whoaaaaaa Nellie!!

Would that we had bishops with this kind of attitude and power today!!

Brother Ed

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Eladar:
From your definition of excommunication, you were incorrect in saying that those outside the teachings of the church automatically excommunicate themselves. They continue to receive the sacraments.

Yes, that may be true. But to continue to receive the sacraments, the Eucharist for example, is a grevious sin. They are not improving the situation by doing so. They will be accountable to God.

Lets face it, there is no ID check at the door of any church, Catholic or oterwise. The Church can only teach, and if an individual chooses to disregard or defy those teachings they will have to give an accounting to God ultimately.

 

[Eladar]

Lets face it, there is no ID check at the door of any church, Catholic or oterwise. The Church can only teach, and if an individual chooses to disregard or defy those teachings they will have to give an accounting to God ultimately.

This is very true. The problem is that it isn't just heretics who quietly attend mass. As Mike has pointed out, "Catholic Universities" are teaching herecies. The heretics are not sitting there quietly. They are being allowed to speak out without any action being taken. The result is that the Catholic Church is a unified church in name alone.

The evil of personal interpretation of scripture has crept into the church. I believe you have made comments about how personal interpreation has led to a great many different protestant denominations which is a bad thing. Yet that very same problem is running rampant in your church. Perhaps not your local congregation , but in your church all the same.

 

[trying2understand]

Eladar, it occurs to me that you are trying to equate the exercise of authority with the holding of authority.

The two are not the same.

One who holds authority may also have discretion in the exercise of that authority.

For example, a judge may sentence someone to probation or a lengthy period of imprisonment at his discretion.

That the Church chooses to exercise it's authority in a different manner at different times and under different circumstances, does not negate the underlying authority.

 

[Eladar]

Eladar, it occurs to me that you are trying to equate the exercise of authority with the holding of authority.

The two are not the same.

They may not be the same, but the net result is the same.

That the Church chooses to exercise it's authority in a different manner at different times and under different circumstances, does not negate the underlying authority.

True, but since it is not willing to exercise its authority, it might as well not have it to begin with.

I don't know why the church leadership is so timid about doing anything about this situation. Perhaps the reason is economic. Perhaps the reason is political. What I do know is the net result, which you appear to be side stepping: personal interpretation.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Eladar:
The evil of personal interpretation of scripture has crept into the church. I believe you have made comments about how personal interpreation has led to a great many different protestant denominations which is a bad thing. Yet that very same problem is running rampant in your church. Perhaps not your local congregation , but in your church all the same.

For a second I was going to agree with this, but then I realized it was wrong. The evil the Church is experiencing is not mainly personal interpretation of an inerrant bible, but personal interpretation of whatever they want the Church to become. I don't believe most of them have much respect for the bible as the Word of God, unlike all the people, Catholic and non-Catholic, here on this forum. I think that they (the current batch of Catholic heretics) don't truly believe many of the most basic tenants of Catholic Christianity.

 

[Eladar]

I don't believe most of them have much respect for the bible as the Word of God, unlike all the people, Catholic and non-Catholic, here on this forum. I think that they (the current batch of Catholic heretics) don't truly believe many of the most basic tenants of Catholic Christianity.

The same could be said about a large batch of Protestant heretics. The difference I see is one of power structure. Protestants, especially Baptists, don't have a power structure that is supposed to prevent this kind of stuff. Therefore Protestants don't have the mechanism to officially deal with these people. The Catholic church does and hopefully one day it will.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Eladar:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I don't believe most of them have much respect for the bible as the Word of God, unlike all the people, Catholic and non-Catholic, here on this forum. I think that they (the current batch of Catholic heretics) don't truly believe many of the most basic tenants of Catholic Christianity.

The same could be said about a large batch of Protestant heretics. The difference I see is one of power structure. Protestants, especially Baptists, don't have a power structure that is supposed to prevent this kind of stuff. Therefore Protestants don't have the mechanism to officially deal with these people. The Catholic church does and hopefully one day it will. </font>[/QUOTE]No disagreement there! I think the following analogy might be useful: The Catholic Church struck a great iceberg in the '60s. At first everybody just thought "Oh good, free ice chips for our drinks!" and everybody was happy. Then some of the ship's crew saw the incredible amount of damage that had been done and started to work to keep the ship afloat. In the meantime the rest of the crew was on deck collecting ice chips, and busily celebrating their newfound freedom to have all the ice they wanted as the ship settled beneath them. Some of the crew is even cutting new holes in the hull to have access to even more ice!

We're still in the "keep it from sinking" stage (especially with the new rips that just appeared [Boston, etc], but which were caused by the original damage), but we've also started to move to the "repair the damage" stage, and from then we can move to the "improve the design" phase. But on a great ship like the Catholic Church, things move slowly.

[ September 19, 2003, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: MikeS ]

 

[CatholicConvert]

The same could be said about a large batch of Protestant heretics. The difference I see is one of power structure. Protestants, especially Baptists, don't have a power structure that is supposed to prevent this kind of stuff. Therefore Protestants don't have the mechanism to officially deal with these people. The Catholic church does and hopefully one day it will.

You have just hit the nail squarely on the head. The Church was infiltrated by Her enemies in the 20th century. For instance, at Vatican II, there were 6 Protestant heretics there advising the council. Since when do those who do not believe in Catholic doctrine and morality have anything to say to what the Church believes?

That was simply UNTHINKABLE!!!!

Yet it was allowed and what they did in Vatican II was to not only WRECK THE MASS, but open the doors for all manner of strange and wierd practices. The seminaries became sodomite boarding houses and nothing was done, even though the "bishops" (so called) knew about it.

One wonders how much longer this lamentable situation will go on. But one day --

KAPOWIE!!!!

And all those in the Church who have been Her enemies are going to GET THEIRS -- BUT GOOD!!!

 

[Eladar]

For instance, at Vatican II, there were 6 Protestant heretics there advising the council. Since when do those who do not believe in Catholic doctrine and morality have anything to say to what the Church believes?

Someone within the church had to make that decision. Was it the pope?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
Jesus said to the infallible pope a few verses later in Mattthew 16:23, "But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."

Of all the apostles, who get's chewed-out more them Peter? Only Peter, so far as I can see!

Peter is always sticking his neck out, often getting it cut off figuratively by Christ Himself. And even while it is recorded that Petet denied Him three times, Jesus nevertheless seems to have Peter in mind for something important. Matthew 16:18-19 is future tense, and I must note that the quote of "get thee behind me, Satan" comes soon after that! But it comes before Peter's denial, and the marvelous discourse, Jesus has with Peter and Peter alone in John 21:15-17.

Jesus knew who Peter was, his frailties and all, yet only Peter did He choose, finally, to Feed my sheep in the final comissioning of Peter before He ascended to the Father in heaven!

Peter is a sinner like all of us are sinners, and we see ample evidence of it in scripture, don't we? Yet despite this, Jesus gives him the helm of the "barque of the church" just as he said in Matthew 16:18-19.

Can you imagine the humility in Peter as Jesus does this to him in the John quote, knowing full well how be betrayed Him? Denying Him three times, he is forgiven three times, given the charge to feed His sheep. Peter is called upon by Christ, his "faith will strengthen his brethren" in Luke 22:32.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis! </font>[/QUOTE]I could have not said what you did any better. When you take into acount what you said how do you support papal infallibility? I think what Peter did shows that every man is a sinner and is not infallible. Just because a man becomes a pope he does not go from being a sinner to infallible.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
Jesus said to the infallible pope a few verses later in Mattthew 16:23, "But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."

That's funny because he wasn't Pope then. I think I read earlier today in Catholic Encyclopedia that John 21 (feed my sheep) was the actual commissioning. Or perhaps at Pentecost since infallibility is a charism of the Holy Spirit. If he were actually satan then it would seem that you should probably rip those two books out of the Bible. Your arguement is as much of a problem for you as for us it seems.

Blessings </font>[/QUOTE]So are you saying that the church preceded Peter? The idea that Jesus had established the church before Peter. If that is the case wouldn't that make Jesus the first pope?

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by gb93433:
I could have not said what you did any better. When you take into acount what you said how do you support papal infallibility? I think what Peter did shows that every man is a sinner and is not infallible. Just because a man becomes a pope he does not go from being a sinner to infallible.

You simply don't understand infallibility. It's a beautiful concept, really, and a pure gift from God. And it has nothing to do with being a sinner. It simply means that the pope, when exercising his teaching authority as head of the Church, cannot teach error. That is because the pope (and the bishops, acting together) have inherited the promise of Christ that whatever they bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever they loose on earth is loosed in heaven. Heaven, of course, can never be bound to untruth, so therefore the Church can never bind untruth on earth. The Church is prevented from doing so by the Holy Spirit.

If I didn't dot my theological i's correctly I know all my Catholic bretheren will clean up my explanation! Just understand that Christ has kept His promise, and has left a means for each of us to be guided into all truth.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by MikeS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
I could have not said what you did any better. When you take into acount what you said how do you support papal infallibility? I think what Peter did shows that every man is a sinner and is not infallible. Just because a man becomes a pope he does not go from being a sinner to infallible.

You simply don't understand infallibility. It's a beautiful concept, really, and a pure gift from God. And it has nothing to do with being a sinner. It simply means that the pope, when exercising his teaching authority as head of the Church, cannot teach error. That is because the pope (and the bishops, acting together) have inherited the promise of Christ that whatever they bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever they loose on earth is loosed in heaven. Heaven, of course, can never be bound to untruth, so therefore the Church can never bind untruth on earth. The Church is prevented from doing so by the Holy Spirit.

If I didn't dot my theological i's correctly I know all my Catholic bretheren will clean up my explanation! Just understand that Christ has kept His promise, and has left a means for each of us to be guided into all truth.

</font>[/QUOTE]So are you saying that the Catholic Church is the only church that has correct teaching because correct doctine comes from the pope and his college and that makes for perfect doctrine.(Luther disagreed and had no intention of starting a movement). So if that's the case perhaps you should read about what happened around the time the doctrine of indulgences came about especially the pope of the time. The doctrine of induilgences was not for purgatory but rather about raising money for Rome. I am sure you are also aware in history there was a time when three popes were elected at the same time. The doctrine of papal infallibility did not come until 1870. If this is the case why was papal infallibility never mentioned before.

From what I see of the RCC and its additional doctrines it kind of reminds me of the same kinds of explanations among Mormons. The Mormons would say that they have a head prophet and he can't make mistakes either. But we all know different. So how is the RCC any different?

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by gb93433:
I could have not said what you did any better. When you take into acount what you said how do you support papal infallibility? I think what Peter did shows that every man is a sinner and is not infallible. Just because a man becomes a pope he does not go from being a sinner to infallible.

The answer is very simple:

Infallibility is not impeccability. And we both agree that Peter was not impeccable, not only before he was made the human leader of the Church, but most probably afterwards as well!

Also, infallibility is much understood by those outside of Catholicism. It is a very limited charisma the pope has, and in fact, is seldom envoked by a pope. Papal infallibility is applicable only when he speaks "officially" as pope on a matter effecting faith and morals. We say that he defines a doctrine or dogma "Ex Cathadra" (or "from the chair" (of Peter) ) that it cannot be a declaration that is in error, else the Church could fall into error.

We Catholics believe that the Church is infallible, else Christ would go back on His promise of Matthew 16:18 whereby He declares "...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (church)." In other words, the Church must be protected from error, also shown in the last sentence of Matthew of Matthew 28:20: "...And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (Catholic NAB)

Now if the Church is infallible, so also the pope who is the human head of the Church. Here is a good link to the subject:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Do the popes sin? Oh, absolutely, especially about 6 scoundrels I can think of off hand! But out of those 6, look at the list of the hundreds of good and holy popes who were faithful to the Lord. They were sinners also, as we are all sinners.

So, in ordinary things, the pope is a sinner like all men are sinners, and, as a matter of fact, in normal matters, is as fallible as we all are!

But to be infallible, an extraordinary thing must be in play - the solemn definition of a dogma or doctrine that effects faith and morals.

Oh, I almost forgot. Did you know that the pope goes to confession to a priest just like all of us Catholics? He sure does now! And the priest, I understand is a very holy man, of a religious order such as the Franciscans, and I am sure, of near equal age as the pope.

I Hope all this helps...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeS:
You simply don't understand infallibility. It's a beautiful concept, really, and a pure gift from God. And it has nothing to do with being a sinner. It simply means that the pope, when exercising his teaching authority as head of the Church, cannot teach error. That is because the pope (and the bishops, acting together) have inherited the promise of Christ that whatever they bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever they loose on earth is loosed in heaven. Heaven, of course, can never be bound to untruth, so therefore the Church can never bind untruth on earth. The Church is prevented from doing so by the Holy Spirit.

If I didn't dot my theological i's correctly I know all my Catholic bretheren will clean up my explanation! Just understand that Christ has kept His promise, and has left a means for each of us to be guided into all truth.

So are you saying that the Catholic Church is the only church that has correct teaching because correct doctine comes from the pope and his college and that makes for perfect doctrine.
</font>[/QUOTE]No, I'm saying that only the Catholic Church is guaranteed that it cannot teach false doctrine.

(Luther disagreed and had no intention of starting a movement). So if that's the case perhaps you should read about what happened around the time the doctrine of indulgences came about especially the pope of the time. The doctrine of induilgences was not for purgatory but rather about raising money for Rome.

What was the false doctrine taught by the Church in this case? (Big Hint: there was no false doctrine taught by the Church in this case) Does that mean that nobody got carried away with zeal, fervor, etc? Uh, no.

I am sure you are also aware in history there was a time when three popes were elected at the same time.

No, I am not aware of that. I am not aware of that because it is impossible. When a pope is in power it is impossible to select another pope. Oh, people can go through the motions, but they have not selected another pope. They have merely selected a pretender. One pope, two pretenders.

The doctrine of papal infallibility did not come until 1870. If this is the case why was papal infallibility never mentioned before.

Why wasn't every single aspect of the faith, including the entire New Testament, fully revealed at Pentecost? I don't know (but God does).

From what I see of the RCC and its additional doctrines it kind of reminds me of the same kinds of explanations among Mormons. The Mormons would say that they have a head prophet and he can't make mistakes either. But we all know different. So how is the RCC any different?

Because the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ on earth, and the Mormon Church isn't. Sometimes things really are very simple!

 

[CatholicConvert]

I could have not said what you did any better. When you take into acount what you said how do you support papal infallibility? I think what Peter did shows that every man is a sinner and is not infallible. Just because a man becomes a pope he does not go from being a sinner to infallible.

Honestly, do you Prots ever THINK about what you say or do you just spew out the same old tired nonsense?

THINK MAN!!

WHEN was Jesus talking to Peter, before or after the Crucifixion? Was the New Covenant even in effect yet? Was there even an office of bishop at the time Jesus rebuked Peter?

Peter was not the leader of the Church until the Church was established as the New Covenant Body of Christ replacing the Jewish nation. And yes, when a man enters the office of the papacy, he DOES go to being infallible in matters of DOCTRINE AND MORALITY. This is because the same Holy Spirit who calls sinners to Christ protects the Church from error. That is a promise of Jesus Himself given in Matthew 16. If the Church could be brought into error, then Jesus could not keep His word, could He? This is why for 15 centuries, ALL decisions of eccumenical councils were sent to the Holy Father for final imprimateur. It wasn't until the sixteenth century and the humanist arrogance of the Protestant Reformers that men started to think that their own ideas and interpretations of Scripture were more correct and binding than that of the Church.

And finally, even the pope will admit that he is a sinner. That is why he, too, goes to confession on a regular basis. The difference is that when he acts in an official capacity as the leader of the Church, the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error. That is why the few morally corrupt popes were not allowed to change the teaching of the Church regarding their immorality and make it "not a sin" to have mistresses on the side.

And as for indulgences, remember -- the abuse of a doctrine does not mean that the doctrine itself is wrong. Try to figure that out in your spare time.

 

[Ray Berrian]

This statement,'Infallibility is not impec-cability.'

This means double-talk.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Wasn't it St. Peter's Cathedral in the Vatican that was built by keeping the people of God guessing whether or not they would be saved. Tetzel used to say, 'As soon as coin in coffer rings, the soul from Purgatory springs.' Catholic leadership likes to keep salvation in the faith works mode so they can pump some more dollars out of the people through their 'Prayers for the Dead.' It's a beautiful thing.

Christ gives His gift of salvation as His gift to us when we have faith in Him. [John 3:16] Everlasting life is not when we get to Heaven; we have it right now. [I John 5:11 & 13] This is quite a difference from salvation by human works or achievements practiced and taught by the papal chair.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
This statement,'Infallibility is not impec-cability.'

This means double-talk.

Well then through out 1st and 2nd Peter because Peter certainly couldn't have written "infallible" (by your definition, I prefer inerrant) words as he sinned. And the all of Pauls books are alot of nonsense because he said "the good that I would do, I do not, while the EVIL that I would not I do".). Sorry bud but you have the same "double talk" in your system of beliefs. Of course you won't acknowledge it.

By the way ray, how was pastoring a liberal Church like the UCOC for 23 years?

Blessings.

[ September 20, 2003, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]