Papal Infallibility: A Symbolic, Yet Problematic, Term

Although papal infallibility is commonly found in popular conversation, how well the term is understood is another matter. One of the most entertaining discussions of the issue is found in a pub-scene in James Joyce’s Dubliners, where a group is stoutly discussing and strenuously defending the infallible teaching of the pope. In Joyce’s story, Mr. Cunningham summarized the doctrine with Hibernian exuberance: ‘But the astonishing thing is this: Not one of them (the popes), not the biggest drunkard, not the most . . . out-and-out ruffian, not one of them ever preached ex cathedra a word of false doctrine. Now isn’t that an astonishing thing?” ²

Cunningham went on to claim that one of the two prelates who voted against Pastor Aeternus at the Council was a German Cardinal, by the name of Dowling—presumably meaning Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger (1799-1890), a German priest-professor at the University of Munich, who was not at Vatican I, but was excommunicated in 1871 for refusing to accept its teachings about infallibility. ³ Although Cunningham and companions can be credited for knowing the essentials of the doctrine, their theological method makes historians and theologians wince—at least if they know anything concerning the history and teaching of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) about “infallibility.” As John Tracy Ellis once remarked: “It is doubtful that any event in the history of the modern Church ever gave rise to a greater flow of misinformation than the [First] Vatican Council.” ⁴

Unfortunately, Ellis was all too right. First of all, contrary to popular belief, Vatican I did not really define “infallibility,” at least, not in the sense of stating precisely what infallibility is. Rather, the Council described how infallibility is operative. What the Council actually did was to specify the conditions required for pope to exercise this authority of infallibility. He must: (1) Rely on the divine assistance promised to Peter; (2) Act as pastor and teacher of all Christians; and, (3) Invoke his supreme apostolic authority. In addition, the Council limited the type of teachings that can be taught infallibly to matters of faith and morals, held by the whole Church. Only if all these conditions are fulfilled, does the pope “enjoy” the infallibility given by Christ to the Church. Then, and only then, can such papal definitions be deemed “irreformable.” ⁵

Although the First Vatican Council did not give a precise definition of the nature of infallibility, its operative description suggests that the Council understood it to be an endowment or charism given by Christ to the Church, which can only be exercised by the pope under specific conditions. A charism ensures that the teaching of the pope, in a particular instance, is immune from error. In describing this divinely given gift of infallibility, the Council’s list of conditions serves a double purpose. First, the list specifies the conditions which must be fulfilled (i.e., if a pope truly wants to mandate a particular doctrine by using the charism of infallibility). Secondly, the list of conditions enables Christians to recognize when a particular teaching is being infallibly taught.

The fact that the vast majority of Church teachings are not taught under this charism does not mean that such teachings are unimportant. They do not have the same importance as teachings deemed infallible, which have a greater binding force, precisely because they are closely connected with the essentials of revelation. ⁶ Moreover, while teaching the Gospel is a daily responsibility of the Church, only rarely has the Church invoked infallibility in fulfilling its teaching mission. In fact, since Vatican I’s declaration on infallibility in 1870, there is only one clear-cut instance where a pope has taught infallibly: Pope Pius XII’s 1950 proclamation of Our Lady’s assumption. ⁷

Meaning of Infallibilitas
What is absolutely crucial to any discussion about “infallibility”—but all too often overlooked—is what the term actually means. In English, “infallibility” has simply been taken from the Latin, infallibilitas, without specifying its meaning. ⁸ As a result, many people use the term in a rather elastic sense—often meaning “immunity from error” or “inability of making fundamental mistakes in religious matters.” While such casual explanations may suffice for popular understandings, they have the potential for creating misunderstandings, among Catholics and other Christians.

In contrast, German-speaking theologians have tried to translate the term. The most common translation has been Unfehlbarkeit—“inability of erring.” However, this term is not completely satisfactory, since it can have a pejorative connotation. Unfehlbar can describe a person who thinks that he is incapable of making mistakes, which is obviously not the case here. Accordingly, unfehlbar can make the not-too-subtle suggestion that it is humanly impossible for anyone, including the pope, to claim to exercise “infallibility.” Such a dismissive connotation underpinned Hans Küng’s attack on “infallibility” on the centennial of Vatican I in 1970. ⁹

Some German-speaking theologians, such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, have opted for other understandings of infallibilitas, such as Letzverbindlichkeit, implying that a definitive response can be given to a specific doctrinal question. He states:

Heinrich Fries’ suggestion of Verbindlichkeit (binding power), which “at the highest level can become an ultimate binding power” (Letzverbindlichkeit) seems to me certainly worth considering. ¹⁰

The merit of interpreting infallibility as “ultimate binding power” or “judicial finality” is that a doctrinal decision pronounced under infallibility is final—at least, here and now, for this specific question, unless, and until, new questions are raised.

The understanding of “infallibility” as “judicial finality” has sometimes been popularized in American catechetics, comparing doctrinal declarations to decisions of the Supreme Court: whose decisions are judicially final as there is no higher court to which an appeal can be made. So, too, decisions under infallibility are ecclesially final, as a pope, or an ecumenical council, teaching with infallibility, has the definitive word about the specific doctrinal matter under discussion, with no further appeal possible. Nonetheless, change is possible in the future, that is, a new legal question may arise, resulting in the Supreme Court modifying a previous decision. Similarly, a new doctrinal question may be posed, resulting in a new doctrinal decision—not one contradicting the previous teaching, but one amplifying and developing it.¹¹

In other words, just as “judicial finality” does not preclude the possibility of the Supreme Court modifying a previous Supreme Court decision, infallibility does not exclude the possibility that a later pope, or later council, might amplify and develop it further, and in that sense, change the doctrinal decisions of their predecessors. In this respect, the answer to one doctrinal question sets the stage for further questions, and for further doctrinal decisions in the future. For example, the responses of the ecumenical councils of the early church to a series of Trinitarian and Christological controversies may be seen as instances of this continual dynamic of definitive decisions, followed by new doctrinal developments and consequent clarifications. 12

Papal Infallibility
While papal infallibility is routinely used, not only in common conversation, but also among theologians, it should be emphasized that the First Vatican Council did not use the term. In fact, Vatican I deliberately changed the heading of the fourth chapter of Pastor Aeternus. The original draft read: “the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff,” which was changed to: “the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.” The importance of this terminological shift is two-fold. First, it avoided the implication that the pope possesses infallibility in such a personal way that all his statements come under infallibility. While Catholics generally take this for granted today, at the time of the First Vatican Council, there were people who felt that any and every doctrinal statement by the pope was a matter of infallibility. The English theologian, W. G. Ward (1812-1882), for example, was famously reported as desiring a daily exercise of infallibility by the pope: “I should like a new Papal Bull every morning with my Times at breakfast.” 13

Secondly, the reason for preferring the term “infallible magisterium” is that infallibility can be exercised not only by the pope, but also by the college of bishops in union with him; as the Second Vatican Council taught:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. ¹⁴

Accordingly, just as Vatican I specified a list of conditions that the pope must follow in order to exercise the Church’s “infallible magisterium,” Vatican II indicated the conditions that the bishops must follow if their teaching is to be considered a collegial exercise of the Church’s “infallible magisterium.”

Infallible Statements
Another term, routinely used in discussions about infallibility, is the expression: “infallible statements.” Again, one must emphasize that this term was not used by Vatican I; rather, the Council used the term “irreformable definitions.” Many commentators on infallibility have ignored the difference, or have even claimed that the two expressions are equivalent. However, in addition to the need to respect the Church’s official terminology, a casual mixing of terms entails a number of philosophical and theological difficulties. For example, to speak of “infallible statements” suggests that such statements are absolute. In contrast, most philosophers insist that all statements are historically and culturally conditioned—expressions delimited by a particular time and place, and so not absolute, but relative. Similarly, many theologians today do not want to speak of “infallible statements” in order to avoid the doctrinal equivalent of “biblical literalism”: if God did not dictate the Bible word for word, why should one suggest that God dictates doctrinal decisions word for word?

Using terms, like “infallible statements” or “infallible teaching,” risks making the doctrine of infallibility both philosophically, and theologically, indefensible. It becomes an easy target for rejection. In effect, defenders of infallible statements, with the best of intentions, can inadvertently become the doctrine’s enemies, just as defenders of biblical literalism can unwittingly destroy the credibility of the Bible. In contrast, the expression “irreformable definitions” harmonizes readily with interpreting infallibility as “judicial finality” or “ultimate binding power” (Leztverbindlichkeit), as proposed by Hans Urs von Balthazar. ¹⁵ Key to this interpretation, however, is the meaning of “irreformable definitions”—which, at first glance, would seem to have the same meaning as “infallible statements” and, therefore, sharing the same philosophical and theological problems.

Why did the First Vatican Council use the term “irreformable definitions”? Apparently, the Council used this term as a way of rejecting Gallicanism—the seventeenth century doctrinal claim that all papal decisions are subject to the approval of local churches. According to the its proponents, no Vatican ecclesiastical decision could be considered authoritatively final unless, and until, it received the official approval of the Church in France. When Pastor Aeternus is read in the context of Gallicanism—an ecclesiological position well-known to the participants at Vatican I, though not so familiar today—the Council is effectively stating that definitions enunciated by the pope, when exercising infallibility, are not subject to any further approval or appeal. ¹⁶ In sum, “irreformable definitions” are not definitions that are philosophically “immutable” or theologically “unchangeable,” but decisions that are “judicially final.”

Lessons from History
The axiom that: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” has been repeatedly exemplified in the numerous discussions about infallibility in the half-century since Vatican II. There is not only a vast amount of material on the teaching of the two Vatican Councils about infallibility, but, unfortunately, many writers on infallibility have discussed what they presume the Church teaches, rather than carefully examining what the Church actually taught. ¹⁷ Sadly, there is a great deal that has been written about infallibility showing little or no familiarity with, much less critical analysis of, the texts of the two Vatican councils. Surprising as it may seem, some commentators have proposed interpretations about infallibility without analyzing the conciliar texts, much less studying the history of the Councils.

This failure to do the essential historical-theological homework means that many discussions of infallibility are like the conversation in Dubliners—eloquent and entertaining but exaggerated and often erroneous—leading some people to find “infallible statements” everywhere, while leading others to reject “infallibility” out of hand. Neither an outright denial of infallibility, nor an exaggerated extension of it to all church teachings, really serves anyone well. In effect, the many misconceptions about infallibility effectively distort the Church’s teaching, confuse believers, repel prospective converts, and create unnecessary ecumenical difficulties. ¹⁸

Pastoral Suggestions
Admittedly, changing terminology is always a difficult task. Like overcoming an addiction, one keeps falling back into accustomed habits of speech. Yet “papal infallibility” is one of those theological terms that has been misinterpreted so often that it might well be worth the effort to replace it with the terminology that Vatican I actually used: “the infallible magisterium of the pope.” Admittedly, this substitution requires a few more words, and people might be puzzled by the seemingly new terminology, but that reaction might be beneficial. This historical version might succeed in drawing people’s attention to what the two Vatican Councils actually taught, rather than what many people presume the Councils taught.

In addition, terms like “infallible statements” and “infallible teaching” might well be replaced with terms like “irreformable definitions” or “teachings of the Church’s infallible magisterium.” Again, such substitutions involve a few more words, but their use might prompt people to reflect on what the Church’s teaching really is. Last but not least, in explaining the doctrine of infallibility, it would seem not only appropriate, but extremely beneficial to use the short and succinct description of infallibility found in the Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church whereby the pastors of the Church, the pope and bishops in union with him, can definitively proclaim a doctrine of faith or morals for the belief of the faithful.” ¹⁹

Danny Garland, Jr., “The Development of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review 111/9 (June/July, 2011): 48-54, at 50; hereafter cited: Garland, HPR 111/9. ↩
James Joyce, Dubliners (New York: Penguin Books, 1967), 168. ↩
Dubliners, 169-170. For a comparison of the views of Döllinger and Newman on infallibility, see Wolfgang Klausnitzer, Päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit bei Newman und Döllinger: Ein historisch‑systematischer Vergleich, Innsbrucker theologische Studien 6 (Innsbruck‑Vienna‑Munich: Tyrolia, 1980). ↩
John Tracy Ellis, “The Church Faces the Modern World: The First Vatican Council,” in The General Council, edited by William McDonald (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 113‑145, at 135. ↩
The First Vatican Council described conditions for papal infallibility in Pastor Aeternus, in Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum §3073-3075 at: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1957,_denziger,_enchiridion_symbolorum lt.pdf For English translation: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm: “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 (mores) to be held (tenenda) 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 (pollere) 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.” ↩
Although the prelates at Vatican I acknowledged that infallibility had been previously exercised by various popes, the Council did not provide a list of such teachings; accordingly, theologians differ about which papal decisions prior to Vatican I should be considered exercises of infallibility; for example, theologians disagree whether Unam Sanctam (1302) of Pope Boniface VIII should be considered an exercise of infallibility or not. ↩
Although some theologians in the past considered canonizations an exercise of infallibility (e.g., Francis Kieda, “Infallibility of the Pope in His Decree of Canonization,” The Jurist 6 (1946): 401‑415), few do so today; this view in no way diminishes the importance of canonizations, but it does emphasize that the exercise of infallibility is limited to essential matters of Christian faith. ↩
In fact, many theological terms in English have a Latin background: revelation, Trinity, magisterium, etc., however, if the meanings of revelation and Trinity are clear, some Latin terms, such as magisterium, have a spectrum of meanings in English. ↩
Hans Küng, Infallible? An Inquiry, translated by Edward Quinn (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971); unfortunately, the English translation did not always capture all the nuances of the German original. Among the numerous critiques of Küng’s Infallible?, see: Walter Brandmüller, “Hans Küng and Church History, Some Critical Observations on ‘Infallible? An Inquiry’,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review 72 (1972): 10‑24. ↩
Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church, translated by Andrée Emery (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 221-222, cited by Garland, HPR 111/9: 52; the theological problem of translating infallibilitas into German is an often over-looked factor in the “infallibility debate” initiated by Hans Küng in 1970. ↩
Like every comparison, this one has limitations; for example, Supreme Court decisions may effectively revoke laws (e.g., laws that formerly permitted slavery); in contrast, a new dogmatic decision can not contradict previous decisions, although it may significantly reinterpret previous doctrinal decisions. ↩
John Henry Newman discussed the relationship between doctrinal continuity and change in his seminal work, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (18461; 18783); for a comparative study of the differences between the first and third editions of Newman’s Essay, see: Gerard H. McCarren, “Development of Doctrine” in The Cambridge Companion to John Henry Newman, edited by Ian Ker and Terrence Merrigan (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 118-136. ↩
Wilfrid Ward, Life of Cardinal Newman 2:213 (available at: http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter27.html ). ↩
Lumen Gentium § 25 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html . ↩
Again, see Garland’s citation of von Balthasar, HPR 111/9: 52. ↩
For a detailed study of the Gallican background of the First Vatican Council, see Richard F. Costigan, The Consensus of the Church and Papal Infallibility: A Study in the Background of Vatican I (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005). ↩
See the now-dated survey of John T. Ford, “Infallibility: A Review of Recent Studies,” Theological Studies 40/2 (June, 1979): 273‑305. ↩
See John T. Ford, “Differences about infallibility . . . too significant to be brushed aside as inconsequential,” in Church and Theology: Essays in Memory of Carl J. Peter, edited by Peter C. Phan (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1995), 111‑160. ↩
Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church, at: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.shtml#I This description refers to §891 of the Catechism, and adds: “This gift is related to the inability of the whole body of the faithful to err in matters of faith and morals” (§ 92). ↩

To: presently no screen name; daniel1212

I don’t think it was from this forum.

As I understand it it was *Catholic Answers Forums*.

They didn’t like someone defending Evangelicals against attacks on Evangelicals by Catholics.

281 posted on 05/17/2012 11:50:39 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)

To: presently no screen name; daniel1212; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; ...

They are whining the same thing the Mormons do. Post the truth about them, using their sources, and suddenly you’re a *hater* or an *anti-*.

For some reason this country has turned into a bunch of whiney cry babies who can’t distinguish between disagreement with something and *hate*, so instead of actually engaging in debate or discussion, cry *hater* or *anti-* and ban the person as a troll.

282 posted on 05/17/2012 11:54:39 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)

To: metmom; boatbums; caww; smvoice; presently no screen name; Quix; wmfights; Forest Keeper; ...

We cannot diminish the torment which the Scriptures warn await the lost who die in their sins. And which description is merely a negative one, that of separation from God, which the lost know now, nor even the privation of anything positive, which helps pacify our carnal man (but gives us occasion us to praise God by the Spirit).

Rather, while the Lake of fire that of totally negative privation of good things, it is also a realization of the wrath of God in the positive sense, that of weeping and gnashing of teeth, (Mt. 8:12) and longing for one drop of water, which the rich man in the true story the Lord told yet does. (Lk. 19:16-33) Thus the devil, who is quite separate from God already, shall be tormented day and night forever, shall all those who died believing his deceptions, in accordance with the grace they spurned, and the degree of sinfulness. (Rv. 20:10-15; cf. Lk. 12:48)

“And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” (Revelation 14:11)

But i need not see Jesus as suffering the equivalent of eternity in Hell, nor that the scapegoat and sacrifice of the yearly atonement of the O.T. (Lv. 16) did so either, but as becoming sin for us and making the atoning sacrifice by which God could justly yet mercifully forgive us our innumerable sins. Thanks be to God.

“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;” To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” (Romans 3:25-26)

As concerns fear of eternal torment and its nature, it is incontrovertible that the appeal to fear is a valid one, else the Lord Jesus would not have warned the impenitent of the fire that is not quenched, and required crucifying what causes us to sin in heart or deed, (which is ultimately the “old man,” and i need to yet be better engaged daily i that endeavor, and to overcome evil with good).

However, that means of persuasion, while it is graciously provided in appealing to the self-preservation instinct of carnal man who is dead in his sins, is not to be the real or prime motivation for service, but while it typically begins there, grace is purposed to bring about obedience motivated by the love which is of and for God, which has the happiness of its Object as its motivation, and thus it also seeks to love His brethren as well as the lost.

In fact, in so doing, the believers motivation is not to be primarily to save souls from Hell, though compassion is a Christian virtue, but to see them repent and live a life of faith obedience to the glory of God.

Fully mature, the Christians only motivation is this love, for,

“There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.” We love him, because he first loved us.” If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.” (1 John 4:18-21)

“But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.” (1 John 2:5)

“No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.” (1 John 4:12)

Now to live it, which gap needs closing.

283 posted on 05/17/2012 12:35:40 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)

Metmom...that is spot on! Actual debate on these threads is a such rare thing that I can only suppose that the majority don't know how or don't want to debate, discuss or reason together.

Calling another poster a liar, heretic, cultist, drunk, bigot, X-basher or some other personal insult ends the discussion and turns it into a childish game of “can you top this?”

Who needs it!

284 posted on 05/17/2012 1:17:04 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)

To: count-your-change

"Actual debate on these threads is a such rare thing that I can only suppose that the majority don't know how or don't want to debate, discuss or reason together."

These threads are not debates, they are discussions and arguments (not to be confused with quarrels). Debates are games with strategies, tactics, teams, rules and human judges. Arguments are about revealing the truth. You ought to be lamenting the absence of logic and reasoning in these arguments instead of the "high-fiving" of gotcha comments and falsehoods. When it is the truth that wins, we all win. When the truth is the victim we all lose.

285 posted on 05/17/2012 1:42:12 PM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)

As in the past....I’ll continue to ignore your posts to me.

286 posted on 05/17/2012 2:07:56 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)

NL:”I invite you to provide your definition of “almost all” for me. I have gone back through your entire posting history since the first of the year. I have seen hundreds of posts that about the Catholic Church (RCs, RCC, “they, etc.) While I have seen hundreds of posts that I find to be dismissive, disdainful, rude, insulting, and completely fallacious about Catholics, the Church and its doctrines, the one thing I did not see was any citation of the Catechism or references to it. “

**************************************************************************************

The source I overwhelmingly use to support myself is Scripture (which FWIW, the RCC itself claims to have written) and I post those in blue and/or red for ease of identifying. I have used the Catholic Bible on occasion and any site I use for Catholic doctrine has overwhelmingly been vatican.va. There have been a few other sources that I’ve used which I’ve seen Catholics themselves reference.

I do not and never have posted from sites listed on the RM’s homepage as banned.

Here’s one post where I quoted the CATHOLIC Bible.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2871838/posts?page=92#92

Here’s a post from a Catholic site...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2841954/posts?page=191#191

Here I posted canons from the Council of Trent at hanover.edu.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2841259/posts?page=237#237
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2828283/posts?page=269#269
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2825733/posts?page=475#475

Here is a post to a FR thread posted by a FRoman Catholic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2834651/posts?page=1066#1066

Here are posts citing several different Catholic sources...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2833447/posts?page=226#226
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2833447/posts?page=74#74

If you did not see any citations or references to the CCC perhaps you need to look harder. The above links support my claim.

287 posted on 05/17/2012 2:24:24 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)

To: metmom; daniel1212

288 posted on 05/17/2012 2:25:52 PM PDT by presently no screen name (God First!! VAB: Voting Against Both---> Romney and Obama.)

Post the truth about them, using their sources, and suddenly you’re a *hater* or an *anti-*.

So nothing has changed. They simply hate The Truth - there is a reason, they don't consider God's Holy Spirit inspired the Final Authority and they embrace man-made teachings/doctrine, i.e., the catechism or koran.

Yep, the thin skin set - more so, when The Truth gets to be too much for them. They wallow in deception so they are only 'at ease' with deception.

289 posted on 05/17/2012 2:38:21 PM PDT by presently no screen name (God First!! VAB: Voting Against Both---> Romney and Obama.)

How often have we seen that happen? Information from Catholic sites is accused of being from an anti Catholic site. I’m almost embarrassed for them at times.

290 posted on 05/17/2012 3:08:29 PM PDT by CynicalBear

"If you did not see any citations or references to the CCC perhaps you need to look harder."

You claimed to "almost always cite the Catechism. You have answered my question; for you "almost always" means nine out of over six hundred. Thank you.

Peace be with you.

291 posted on 05/17/2012 3:25:14 PM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)

To: presently no screen name

NO, not from here, which does not operate out of the hyper protectionist mode in religious discussions, where atheists even remained after blatant attacks on God, the Bible, and especially evangelicals, but on Catholics answers. I would be glad to send you the exchange.

292 posted on 05/17/2012 3:36:53 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)

NO, not from here, which does not operate out of the hyper protectionist mode in religious discussions where atheists even remained after blatant attacks on God, the Bible, and especially evangelicals,

I know, how could they discuss the issues? More like coming here to unload their backpack of venom.

but on Catholics answers. p That's the part that stumped me, since when do Catholics have answers, answers to what? Seems it always deny deny deny or you don't understand, not taught properly.

I would be glad to send you the exchange.

Thanks but no thank you.

293 posted on 05/17/2012 3:56:32 PM PDT by presently no screen name (God First!! VAB: Voting Against Both---> Romney and Obama.)

I quoted from these sites, often as examples of prayers to saints that Catholics deny they pray. For teachings about Catholicism, I use primarily the CCC.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM
http://www.history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/
http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?s=31
http://www.marypages.com/PrayerstoMary.htm
http://www.catholic-saints.info/catholic-prayers/prayer-to-saint-christopher.htm
http://www.ourcatholicprayers.com/prayers-to-st-anthony.html
http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu67.htm
http://www.turnbacktogod.com/should-we-pray-to-virgin-mary/

Six hundred?

Here. You might find this link helpful.
http://www.math.com/school/subject1/lessons/S1U1L4GL.html

And of course, we’ll just ignore the fact that I refuted your contention that I didn’t use the CCC after you basically accused me of lying about using it.

Not.....

294 posted on 05/17/2012 4:03:57 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)

"I quoted from these sites, often as examples of prayers to saints that Catholics deny they pray."

My dear Sister in Christ, I can only go by what you post, not what you intend. "Almost always", "Often"? You cited the Catechism nine time times by your own count from a time frame in which you posted about 600 posts related to the Church. I will concede that the number is greater than 0, but it would appear that it isn't my math skills that are in question. Perhaps we can both agree that your "almost always" and "often" are text book examples of hyperbole.

I don't expect you to adhere or approve of all Catholic doctrine, that is your prerogative. I simply ask that your criticisms and disagreements be based upon actual Church teachings. I am not defending or proselytizing Catholic doctrines, only correcting their representation in these forums. I'm sure you will agree that not every anti-Catholic is inerrant in their interpretation of Scripture so how can we expect them to be inerrant with respect to Catholic doctrine and Apostolic Tradition.

Peace be with you.

295 posted on 05/17/2012 4:45:18 PM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)

I think those of us who post frequently on the Religion Forum know good and well that no matter where our sources come from, if they go against the perceived "infallibility" of the Catholic Church it will be dismissed as semantics, hate, anti-Catholic, dismissive, disdainful, rude, insulting, and completely fallacious about Catholics, the Church and its doctrines. What I have learned over these years is that some adherents are incapable of believing anything negative regardless of how well sourced a comment may be.

I thank God that He opened my spiritual eyes and allowed me to escape from the false and accursed gospel and into the light of the truth. All we can do is to continue to speak the truth in love and give the glory to God when the Holy Spirit turns a heart of stone into a heart of flesh. One plants, another waters, but God gives the increase. Amen!

296 posted on 05/17/2012 5:21:47 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)

To: boatbums; metmom

"I thank God that He opened my spiritual eyes and allowed me to escape from the false and accursed gospel and into the light of the truth."

How can you complain about being dismissed as "hateful, anti-Catholic, dismissive, disdainful, rude, insulting, and completely fallacious" and then in the same post make a statement like that? If you expect Catholics to cheerfully accept the kind of ridicule and abuse that is poured out on them on a daily basis you don't understand human psychology any better than you understand Catholic theology.

The Church does not teach that Salvation cannot be achieved by non-Catholics, but only through those things provided by the Church. The Church does not, cannot and never has claimed the ability to condemn anyone to hell. The Church does not deny that evil deeds have been done by those claiming to be Catholic or acting in the name of the Church but the Church itself and its doctrines is not evil or accursed. The repeated accusations that it is evil and accursed are what damages your credibility and precipitates the kind of response you are complaining about. So, in the name of God whom we both claim to serve and worship, let's be honest about what the Catholic Church is and is not and what your church is and is not.

May God continue to Bless you.

297 posted on 05/17/2012 6:06:44 PM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)

When I post a source to support comments about Catholic doctrine, I go to the CCC first.

It is the one I am most likely to use.

You were pwnd.....

No amount of twisting stats is going to help bail you out of that one. It’s there for all to see.

298 posted on 05/17/2012 6:25:30 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)

"You were pwnd....."

If you want to believe that 9/600 is proof of "almost always" and "often" who am I to argue. It certainly isn't the most bizarre thing I have been asked to believe on these threads. PWND-on in the joy and love of Jesus.

299 posted on 05/17/2012 7:41:36 PM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)

It wasn't addressed to any Catholic, was it? It was my own PERSONAL feelings and I hardly think you are the one to be castigating another for being honest! I read the comments from those in your group and no more than a smidgen have any compunction at all with being condemning, rude and hurtful and insulting. I'm sorry if you were offended by my honest comment but it was not directed at you personally and it reiterated what I had already said in an earlier post where Paul clearly states that any other gospel that is not what he had preached is accursed by God. I reject the Gospel the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

The Church does not teach that Salvation cannot be achieved by non-Catholics, but only through those things provided by the Church.

The Roman Catholic Church may not now teach that salvation cannot be achieved by non-Catholics, but they certainly DID at one time state that and there were more than a few "ex-cathedra" bulls and statements WITH anathemas along with them by more than a few "infallible" Popes. How many "heretics" were sent to their ruin and/or death because they refused to obey those edicts? Even now, the wording of the latest edict (Vatican II - Lumen Gentium) hedges around the same sense when it says:

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)

You say, "The Church does not, cannot and never has claimed the ability to condemn anyone to hell.", yet it is plainly stated in past and present doctrines that it is only through the Catholic Church that anyone CAN be saved. Rather than preach what Scripture does, that we are saved by grace through faith in the work of Jesus Christ for us and by receiving Him as Savior we are adopted into the family of God which IS the church (small 'c'), the Catholic Church insists that the physical organization headquartered in Rome is the "Church" (capital 'C') and no one can be saved outside of "her". It is only through "her" sacraments that one can be in union with God in a "state" of grace.

Though the documents of Lumen Gentium state the desire for "unity" of the Body of Christ, they really intend for ALL professing Christians to be under the Pope of Rome and participating in all the same activities and doctrines. The unity of the Body of Christ that Scripture speaks about already IS unified because we are all members of the one spiritual community, one spiritual house of God, indwelled by the Holy Spirit. I do not disagree with everything your church teaches and I have said this before many times. But on the most critical doctrine of all, salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ alone, I will continue to defend. My intent is not to injure but to speak the truth. Sometimes truth hurts.

300 posted on 05/17/2012 8:41:56 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794