Question for the catholics on the forum...

[Guest]

c_yeager, there is nothing to see here.  Put your anti-Catholic rhetoric down and slowly step away.

Compelling. I see that you are making with the typical "if you have to ask you wouldnt understand" defense. For the record I was a practicing Catholic from birth to the age of 19, it isnt rhetoric, its observation. Observation which has been confirmed by your own statements by the way.

One of my biggest problems with the Church was its tendancy of closing down debate in the face of any criticism. I see that some have been well trained in that doctrine.

[thebaldguy]

The Catholic church is why I'm a "recovering" Catholic. My sisters and girlfriend are "recovering" as well.

[cosine]

I fully believe that unity of words ensures unity of understanding.

Would that it were so!

How is it endangering his parishioners' souls?  Directly, it's not.  However, just the existence of this thread is an indication that what this priest has done has caused confusion.  Confusion about what one believes and how they practice their faith drives people away from attending Church which in turn endangers their souls.  Besides, you can bet that if his vows mean so little to him that he would be willing to break them for what we all agree is a minor issue then there are probably a lot of other abuses going on in his parish.

Some good points.
One thing:

Confusion about what one believes and how they practice their faith drives people away from attending Church which in turn endangers their souls.

Might it not be confusing to one who subscribes to the Catholic faith that they must use the translation as defined by ICEL - who in your opinion generally tend to muck things up - simply because "what they say goes"?

Personally, one thing that always turned me off of Catholicism was the idea that one was expected to obey - not the perfect teachings of a perfect diety - but an imperfect governing body of humans who you have to depend on to tell you what those teachings mean, how to go about following them and so forth.  Of course, this is present in other churches to different extents.

Worship in many Catholic churches HAS been watered down.  When Christ established the Church He did so intending for it to be 'one'.  That is why He established the papacy, to assure oneness within His church.  Unless rules are established and then followed oneness goes away very quickly.

I was under the impression that the papacy was established by Emperor Phocas in the early 600s AD when the term "pope" was first used, or at the earliest when the title Vicar of Peter was changed to Vicar of Christ by the Roman Synod in 490-something AD.  As to the primacy of Peter ... well ... I'm undecided on that.  While I've studied the history of the early Christian church, I see a huge gap between the New Testament and the office of the Pope today.

Inclusive language doesn't sound bad on the surface but it resides right at the precipice of a very slippery slope.

How is changing "men" to "people" as using "inclusive" language?  Isn't it simply an entirely accurate, alternate translation?

I think I could answer some of those questions for you, cordex, if you want me to, unless those question are directed towards MaterDei. (they are quotes of his posts)

[cordex]

I think I could answer some of those questions for you, cordex, if you want me to, unless those question are directed towards MaterDei. (they are quotes of his posts)

Sure.

[cosine]

Might it not be confusing to one who subscribes to the Catholic faith that they must use the translation as defined by ICEL - who in your opinion generally tend to muck things up - simply because "what they say goes"?

I can't comment about the ICEL because I am not familiar with their work, or their contributions to the Catholic Church.

Personally, one thing that always turned me off of Catholicism was the idea that one was expected to obey - not the perfect teachings of a perfect diety - but an imperfect governing body of humans who you have to depend on to tell you what those teachings mean, how to go about following them and so forth.  Of course, this is present in other churches to different extents.

That is not quite entirely correct. In the Catholic Church one is to obey the perfect teaching of a perfect diety interpreted by a governing body of humans who have the assurance of Christ Himself that their interpretations pertaining to matters of faith and morals will be infallible.

I was under the impression that the papacy was established by Emperor Phocas in the early 600s AD when the term "pope" was first used, or at the earliest when the title Vicar of Peter was changed to Vicar of Christ by the Roman Synod in 490-something AD.

I have understood that the term "pope" has been used since the time of St. Peter and his successors to refer to the head of the Church, and that the papacy was established by Christ. Could you provide some reference to where you have seen it said Phocas established the papacy and the where term "pope" was first used?

As to the primacy of Peter ... well ... I'm undecided on that.  While I've studied the history of the early Christian church, I see a huge gap between the New Testament and the office of the Pope today.

Could you explain in what do you see a gap between the New Testament and the office of the Pope today? Do you mean you see a gap in the list of popes since St. Peter in the New Testament and his successors?



As I started writing this post, I guess a few questions were raised myself.

[cordex]

That is not quite entirely correct. In the Catholic Church one is to obey the perfect teaching of a perfect diety interpreted by a governing body of humans who have the assurance of Christ Himself that their interpretations pertaining to matters of faith and morals will be infallible.

Ah ... I see.
Christ has not made the same assurance to me.  

I have understood that the term "pope" has been used since the time of St. Peter and his successors to refer to the head of the Church, and that the papacy was established by Christ. Could you provide some reference to where you have seen it said Phocas established the papacy and the where term "pope" was first used?

My sources say that in 607, Emporer Phocas officially gave the title Universal Bishop to Boniface III by stating "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches" to settle a disagreement between Boniface III and Cyriacus, Bishop of Constantinople, but that the title had been previously used by Pope Celestine I (which slightly predates the Roman Synod's offical change of the title from Vicar of Peter to Vicar of Christ, I suppose).
Phocas' decree appears to extend Justinian I's position that Roman See is the highest ecclesiastical authority.

Could you explain in what do you see a gap between the New Testament and the office of the Pope today? Do you mean you see a gap in the list of popes since St. Peter in the New Testament and his successors?

I don't see the ability to trace organizational lineage as having much meaning, but the Catholic church certainly appears to be able to do so.

No, the gap I see is more one of structure and teaching.  But if one is of the opinion that any structure and teaching made by a given organization is automatically unquestionable and holy no matter what (I still see that as putting faith in man, not God), then that gap doesn't have much meaning.

[cosine]

Ah ... I see.
Christ has not made the same assurance to me.  

Okay, we have two different beliefs, I assume we can rest that point.

My sources say that in 607, Emporer Phocas officially gave the title Universal Bishop to Boniface III by stating "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches" to settle a disagreement between Boniface III and Cyriacus, Bishop of Constantinople, but that the title had been previously used by Pope Celestine I (which slightly predates the Roman Synod's offical change of the title from Vicar of Peter to Vicar of Christ, I suppose).
Phocas' decree appears to extend Justinian I's position that Roman See is the highest ecclesiastical authority.

I guess I don't see any inconsistancy between this and the lineage of the papacy of the Catholic Church since Peter, but we already have established differences in our beliefs.

I don't see the ability to trace organizational lineage as having much meaning, but the Catholic church certainly appears to be able to do so.

No, the gap I see is more one of structure and teaching.  But if one is of the opinion that any structure and teaching made by a given organization is automatically unquestionable and holy no matter what (I still see that as putting faith in man, not God), then that gap doesn't have much meaning.

Well, any teaching made by the Church would be unquestionable and holy because Christ assured that it would be holy. Christ didn't give the assurance that the men of the organization would be holy, but that the orgainization, its structure, and its teachings would be holy. We again have two different beliefs, I think we may be able to rest this point also.

[Werewolf]

That is not quite entirely correct. In the Catholic Church one is to obey the perfect teaching of a perfect diety interpreted by a governing body of humans who have the assurance of Christ Himself that their interpretations pertaining to matters of faith and morals will be infallible

Well - I must say that guaranteed infallibility is sooooooooo convenient.

[cosine]

That is not quite entirely correct. In the Catholic Church one is to obey the perfect teaching of a perfect diety interpreted by a governing body of humans who have the assurance of Christ Himself that their interpretations pertaining to matters of faith and morals will be infallible

Well - I must say that guaranteed infallibility is sooooooooo convenient.

Guaranteed infallibility be may convenient, but its purpose is to ensure the truth, accuracy, and continuity of the faith and moral teachings of the Church. Those reasons are why Christ promised infallibility to the bishops of the Catholic Church when they teach about matters pertaining to faith and morals.

[Guest]

That is not quite entirely correct. In the Catholic Church one is to obey the perfect teaching of a perfect diety interpreted by a governing body of humans who have the assurance of Christ Himself that their interpretations pertaining to matters of faith and morals will be infallible

Well - I must say that guaranteed infallibility is sooooooooo convenient.

Guaranteed infallibility be may convenient, but its purpose is to ensure the truth, accuracy, and continuity of the faith and moral teachings of the Church. Those reasons are why Christ promised infallibility to the bishops of the Catholic Church when they teach about matters pertaining to faith and morals.

Additionally the guarantee of infallibility is not a foreign concept to many big "C" christian churches, as much as they pretend it is. When the preacher has been given an instruction from Jesus himself, questions are not appropriate. This at least has been my experience in exploring numerous ministries after I left the Catholic church.

I have been chastized in the past simply for asking why the minister feels its appropriate to purchase a new Caddy every two years out of the tithes, the answere was that it wasnt any of my business because the minister had the holy ghost and everything he did was in accordance of the wishes of God. Tirany from the pulpit is not at all unique to the Catholic church.

[cosine]

Additionally the guarantee of infallibility is not a foreign concept to many big "C" christian churches, as much as they pretend it is. When the preacher has been given an instruction from Jesus himself, questions are not appropriate. This at least has been my experience in exploring numerous ministries after I left the Catholic church.

The Church never believes that questions are inappropriate. One can ask questions if one doesn't not understand something the Church is teaching. One simply needs to understand that if the matter being taught is one of faith or morals, the pope or bishops of the Church cannot teach it incorrectly.

I have been chastized in the past simply for asking why the minister feels its appropriate to purchase a new Caddy every two years out of the tithes, the answere was that it wasnt any of my business because the minister had the holy ghost and everything he did was in accordance of the wishes of God. Tirany from the pulpit is not at all unique to the Catholic church.

The Catholic church does not teach that everything the priest does has the approval of the Holy Spirit or is in accord with the will of God. Priests and bishops, as people, can do wrong. Infallibility is often mistaken to mean that priests and bishops will never do wrong. Infallibility only teaches that bishops cannot teach a concept or clarify a matter of faith or morals incorrectly or teach in error about such a matter.

[Werewolf]

Additionally the guarantee of infallibility is not a foreign concept to many big "C" christian churches, as much as they pretend it is. When the preacher has been given an instruction from Jesus himself, questions are not appropriate.

A much nicer way of saying what I was saying. Infallibility is a control issue and it is difficult to control those who question. The CHURCH is all about control. If one is a true believer then it is very difficult to question that which must by definition be truth. We have a couple of poster children for that concept right here in this thread.

And therein lies the universal truth of religion at its very heart. It exists to control the masses by providing a moral foundation that provides stability within society. They're all the same be they hindu, christian, buddhist or even communist - control the sheep and provide stability. The fact that the shamans prosper at the same time is just gravy for the shamans.

[cordex]

Okay, we have two different beliefs, I assume we can rest that point.

But we knew that from the start.  
I haven't looked into the infallibility doctrine much.  What is the scriptural basis for it?

I guess I don't see any inconsistancy between this and the lineage of the papacy of the Catholic Church since Peter, but we already have established differences in our beliefs.

The inconsistancy I see is that the Roman See appears to me to have developed from simply the leadership of the early Christian church in Rome to attempting to assume control over all Christianity.  Early Popes who claimed the title Vicar of Peter as opposed to Vicar of Christ didn't seem to be proclaiming ownership and sole leadership of the entire Christian faith as would appear to have developed later in the Church's history.  Nor do I see Peter occupying a Papal position in the Bible.  All of that appears to me to be a later development.

Well, any structure and teaching made by the Church would be unquestionable and holy because Christ assured that it would be holy. Christ didn't give the assurance that the men of the organization would be holy, but that the orgainization, its structure, and its teachings would be holy. We again have two different beliefs, I think we may be able to rest this point also.

Do you have a practical limit as to what you would accept from the Catholic Church?

I've heard about the doctrine of infallibility, but I haven't really taken it seriously because I've never gotten a good treatment of the basis of it.  To me, if someone is less than devine, they can make mistakes - even those who make decisions for the Catholic Church.

When someone tells me, "What the Catholic Church says, goes." I tend to wonder "Well, what if they said to __________________" and I think of some absurdly awful thing.

[cordex]

Infallibility only teaches that bishops cannot teach a concept or clarify a matter of faith or morals incorrectly or teach in error about such a matter.

How does the concept of Infallibility deal with internal disagreements?  When two Bishops (or Popes) disagree on a teaching or matter of faith or morals, how does that work out?

Or has that never happened?

[Matthew Carberry]

In the center of the Vatican lies.....

Thunderdome

Two Bishops enter, one Bishop leaves.



I too have a problem with a authoritarian heirarchy arising from what was fairly clearly a loose association of independant churches led by elders shown in the NT.

Even in the days of the early church fathers the fact that more and more doctrinal formality and codification was necessary to counter heresy and corruption should not have necessarily led to the papacy.

But I'm a dirty Protestant.

[cosine]

Okay, we have two different beliefs, I assume we can rest that point.

But we knew that from the start.  
I haven't looked into the infallibility doctrine much.  What is the scriptural basis for it?

I guess I don't see any inconsistancy between this and the lineage of the papacy of the Catholic Church since Peter, but we already have established differences in our beliefs.

The inconsistancy I see is that the Roman See appears to me to have developed from simply the leadership of the early Christian church in Rome to attempting to assume control over all Christianity.  Early Popes who claimed the title Vicar of Peter as opposed to Vicar of Christ didn't seem to be proclaiming ownership and sole leadership of the entire Christian faith as would appear to have developed later in the Church's history.  Nor do I see Peter occupying a Papal position in the Bible.  All of that appears to me to be a later development.

Well, any structure and teaching made by the Church would be unquestionable and holy because Christ assured that it would be holy. Christ didn't give the assurance that the men of the organization would be holy, but that the orgainization, its structure, and its teachings would be holy. We again have two different beliefs, I think we may be able to rest this point also.

Do you have a practical limit as to what you would accept from the Catholic Church?

I've heard about the doctrine of infallibility, but I haven't really taken it seriously because I've never gotten a good treatment of the basis of it.  To me, if someone is less than devine, they can make mistakes - even those who make decisions for the Catholic Church.

When someone tells me, "What the Catholic Church says, goes." I tend to wonder "Well, what if they said to __________________" and I think of some absurdly awful thing.

Regarding infallibility, here is a good primer about it, along with a basic explaination of the scriptural basis of the doctrine of infallibility. http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/questions/isthepopeinfallible.asp

As you can see, the are very strict limits upon what can be proclaimed under the assurance of infallilbility. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about infallibility. http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=infallibility&s=SS (read the search results) Especially note result number three, which describes the limitations of infallibility. The Church never taught that infallibility would prevent someone who makes decisions for the Church from making mistakes in those decisions, or that infallibility means that "whatever the Church says, goes." For example, infallibility would mean that a bishop could proclaim without error that Christ died on a Cross to save us from sin, and that Catholics were required to believe so. However, his infallibility ends there. If he were to say the same but add that it was upon an oak cross the Jesus died, the part about the oak cross cannot be proclaimed infallibly, and would not bind the belief of the faithful.

[cosine]

I guess I don't see any inconsistancy between this and the lineage of the papacy of the Catholic Church since Peter, but we already have established differences in our beliefs.

The inconsistancy I see is that the Roman See appears to me to have developed from simply the leadership of the early Christian church in Rome to attempting to assume control over all Christianity.  Early Popes who claimed the title Vicar of Peter as opposed to Vicar of Christ didn't seem to be proclaiming ownership and sole leadership of the entire Christian faith as would appear to have developed later in the Church's history.  Nor do I see Peter occupying a Papal position in the Bible.  All of that appears to me to be a later development.

Firstly, in the early Church, as well as in the Church today, the Pope does not have sole leadership of the entire Christian faith. (remember, the pope is a bishop) The Pope shares his leadership with all the rest of the Catholic bishops around the world. Bishops are responsible for faith, morals and spiritual leadership of their individual dioceses. The pope does not tell each bishop how to run his diocese. What bishops do is submit themselves in obedience to the authority of the pope, promising to take into account the teachings and direction of the pope in their leadership of their dioceses.

Now if we think of the Apostles in the Bible, Christ obviously put Peter in charge of the Apostles. (He tells Peter to "Feed my sheep," Peter directs the Apostles in the Acts after Christ ascends into Heaven) But the rest of the Apostles also made decisions on their own. This parallels almost exactly the relationship betwen the pope and the bishops today. Think of Peter being the Pope, and the Apostles being bishops. Peter was more of an overseer of the Apostles than a sole leader. It is the same today. The pope is an overseer of the entire group of bishops, there to gently guide, hold together, and ensure unity among all the bishops. The pope is not a sole leader of the Catholic Church, but leads the Church in agreement and with the help of all the bishops in the Church. (Think about it: infallibility applies to both the Pope and bishops. If bishops are infallible too in matters of faith and morals besides the pope, then bishops must have leadership and authority too, which argues against the pope have sole leadership in the Church.)

So, the Roman See (the pope) is more like an overseer of the Church, than the sole leadership of the Church. What happened around the time period in question is that the bishop of Constantinople wanted to have the position of "overseer" himself, (he wanted it to be more like he was sole leader of the Church) instead of taking part in the deliberations of all the bishops together under the "recommendations," (notice I said recommendations, not orders) of the pope.

Finally, because the early Church understood the early popes position as "overseer" it used the title "Vicar of Peter" because Peter was the first "overseer." As the Church grew, generations after Christ it made more sense to clarify the title "Vicar of Peter" and change it into the title "Vicar of Christ," to more clearly illustrate the position of "overseer" that the pope occupies. (Christ in a sense is the "overseer" of the Church from Heaven, and the pope, following in his footsteps, is His embodiment of "overseer" on earth, a physical reminder of Christ the "overseer" in Heaven."

In the Church described in the NT, most of the individual churches are those groups of people led by bishops. Those churches in the NT are more like the dioceses of the Catholic Church today, than what we think of as churches today.

I hope you an understand what I am trying to say; I'm doing this in the middle of the night and am so tired it's hard to think clearly.

[cosine]

Infallibility only teaches that bishops cannot teach a concept or clarify a matter of faith or morals incorrectly or teach in error about such a matter.

How does the concept of Infallibility deal with internal disagreements?  When two Bishops (or Popes) disagree on a teaching or matter of faith or morals, how does that work out?

Or has that never happened?

See my posts above. Infallibility has very strict parameters. It does not refer to all that the popes and bishops say, do, teach, and tell parishoners to do, only to matters of faith, (who, what, when, where, and why Christ is) and morals (what are injustices towards God and fellow men). (This argues against Werewolf's arguement that infallibility is a control issue. Infallibility in an accuracy issue. Its purpose is only to ensure accuracy in what the Church teaches, so that it may not lead its people into error and away from Christ.) Because both the pope and bishops are infallible when teaching of matters of faith and morals, and because they work together and together can determine what consists of matters of faith and morals, there cannot be disagreements in the Church once it is determined that in teaching about those matters the teachings will be infallible.

[cosine]

In the center of the Vatican lies.....

Thunderdome

Two Bishops enter, one Bishop leaves.



I too have a problem with a authoritarian heirarchy arising from what was fairly clearly a loose association of independant churches led by elders shown in the NT.

Even in the days of the early church fathers the fact that more and more doctrinal formality and codification was necessary to counter heresy and corruption should not have necessarily led to the papacy.

But I'm a dirty Protestant.

See post #44 for an explaination of the authoritarian heirarchy and what consisted of the loose association of churches in the NT.

It is true that "more and more doctrinal formality and codification was necessary to counter heresy and corruption" in the Church but that did not lead to the papacy. The papacy was already there, as the "overseer" of the bishops of the Church, and that "overseer" (The Vicar of Peter/Christ) was, as had always been, the pope.

[cordex]

Regarding infallibility, here is a good primer about it, along with a basic explaination of the scriptural basis of the doctrine of infallibility. http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/questions/isthepopeinfallible.asp

As you can see, the are very strict limits upon what can be proclaimed under the assurance of infallilbility. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about infallibility. http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=infallibility&s=SS (read the search results) Especially note result number three, which describes the limitations of infallibility. The Church never taught that infallibility would prevent someone who makes decisions for the Church from making mistakes in those decisions, or that infallibility means that "whatever the Church says, goes." For example, infallibility would mean that a bishop could proclaim without error that Christ died on a Cross to save us from sin, and that Catholics were required to believe so. However, his infallibility ends there. If he were to say the same but add that it was upon an oak cross the Jesus died, the part about the oak cross cannot be proclaimed infallibly, and would not bind the belief of the faithful.

Hmm ... I see.
So, the basis for the Catholic leadership is the account given in Mathew 16:15-19 and the idea that because Peter was given authority, any who followed him are given equal authority?  Wasn't that same authority given to all the Apostles in Mathew 18:18?

It still isn't particularly clear to me as to what can be infallible and what can't.  How do you address the case of Pope Honorius I, who was anathematized 40 years after he died for his teachings about faith that attempted to repair the rift between the Monophysites and the Catholics?

So, the Roman See (the pope) is more like an overseer of the Church, than the sole leadership of the Church. What happened around the time period in question is that the bishop of Constantinople wanted to have the position of "overseer" himself, (he wanted it to be more like he was sole leader of the Church) instead of taking part in the deliberations of all the bishops together under the "recommendations," (notice I said recommendations, not orders) of the pope.

If a bishop refuses the "recommendations" of the Pope or other Bishops, what happens?  Didn't this whole thread come about because a Bishop wasn't listening to the official "recommendation" of how to translate the Nicene creed and thus was violating his vow to obey?  If to deny a recommendation is to break a vow, the recommendation ceases to be simply that and becomes a command.

In the Church described in the NT, most of the individual churches are those groups of people led by bishops. Those churches in the NT are more like the dioceses of the Catholic Church today, than what we think of as churches today.

Actually, many of those individual churches developed separately from the central church.  For instance, the church in Antioch mentioned in Acts 11:20-26.

Also it struck me that many of the rites and titles and such associated with the Catholic leadership would seem to go against Peter's plea in 1st Peter 5:3.  How is that reconciled?

[cosine]

Hi cordex,

I don't have any time right now to answer your latest questions, I'll try to do so after Christmas. I'll make a recommendation though; if you can, find the book "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" by Karl Keating and read the chapters entitled "Peter and the Papacy" and "Infallibility of the Pope." (I'm not implying that you're a fundamentalist, that's just the name of the book.) Those two chapters are very relevant to our discussion, but I don't have time right now and won't for a couple of days to answers your questions myself and also paraphrase what is said in those two chapters of the book.

Cheers.

cosine

[cordex]

Thanks for the recommendation.  If I get a chance to hit the library, I'll see if they have a copy.