Replies

For example, he questions whether Christ founded his Church on Peter -- a direct attack on the very foundation of the Church.

He doesn't. He questions the idea of the papacy as a monarchy, which the Pope was; for centuries he headed a civil state. Did Jesus intend for the Pope to head a state?

Vatican II wrestled with the place of the Pope and came up with the term collegiality, with the Pope as first among equals.

He also attacks Papal infallibility.

Papal infallibility has been exercised three times: the dogmas of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary were defined infallibly, but had been held by Catholics for nearly 2000 years. So, these definitions were a bit redundant.

The third time it has been used was in 1870, when the dogma of Papal infallibility itself was defined.

Popes themselves are reluctant to invoke it; Paul VI specifically crossed out the word "infallible" in Humanae Vitae, and John Paul II has not formally defined anything infallibly either.

If you find yourself agreeing with this article as you read it, you have no idea what the Catholic Church is all about -- just like the author.

I do find myself agreeing with the author's historical perspective of celibacy because, in fact, it is correct.

Well, I certainly have a different take on this article than you. While it is on the face a discussion of celibacy and does contain some facts, it seems clear to me that the article is intended to be an attack on Church doctrine in as many ways as the author could fit into a brief article.

He doesn't. He questions the idea of the papacy as a monarchy, which the Pope was; for centuries he headed a civil state. Did Jesus intend for the Pope to head a state?

From the early days the Church used the monarchical form for its organization structure. Whether the Pope is a head of state has nothing to do with it. According to Church teachings, Jesus did intend the Pope to be the head of his Church. Given that the normal form of organization structure at the time of Jesus was the monarchy, it's a safe bet Jesus had a monarchy in mind. Also, it's hard to refute that the organization structure of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a triune monarchy.

I read the author's intent to be an attack on the foundation of the Church by attacking its organizational structure.

Papal infallibility has been exercised three times: the dogmas of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary were defined infallibly, but had been held by Catholics for nearly 2000 years. So, these definitions were a bit redundant.

I'm not sure how your comments about Papal infallibility are relevant. However, I had the impression that when the concept of Papal infallibility became dogma, it was intended to apply retroactively to past Papal dogmatic proclamations. It has been my understanding, however, that confusion arises because the Church has not specifically declared which past proclamations are infallible.

I do find myself agreeing with the author's historical perspective of celibacy because, in fact, it is correct.

One of the oldest tricks in the book is to throw some facts with which a reader will agree into what is in essence a diatribe.

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but would I be correct in recalling that on other threads, you have supported the end of celibacy?

Papal infallibility has been exercised three times: t

Papal infallibility is exercised every time the Holy Father says it is, which is frequently, with encyclicals, etc.

It is also exercised every time the Holy Father declares someone a saint.

Sinkspur, some Catholics pride themselves on their differences with the rest of christianity--celibacy being one of the most obvious differences. No amount of history, no amount of talk of discipline instead of dogma, will convince them otherwise. They would rather drive to a church 100 miles away to "receive the sacraments" than be ministered to by a married shepherd of the flock who lives among his people and knows them.

And that's what they're going to get if things don't change.