Print Page - Question for the catholics on the forum...

So today was the first day I went to mass in about a year (lost my faith somewhere in college) and realized that the Nicene creed (you know the We believe in one God, etc) was changed from the way it was when I was growing up. Now this might be because I grew up in a very conservative diocese (still does not allow alter girls). During the prayer instead of saying "for us men and for our salvation" they said "for us people and for our salvation" Also they skipped the word catholic in the "We believe in one, Holy Catholic apostolic church". Is this the norm today? or is this church just very PC? I do not see how Catholic can offend anybody since Catholic is actually a synonym for universal. Apostolic is actually the limiting term.

Now,I don't even pretend to be religous but crap like this is part & parcel of the problem.
http://armedpolitesociety.com/viewtopic.php?id=2021

God forbid that somebody gets offended. Wink

Regarding the word men. Why can't folks understand that man is a generic term for humans. God made man and He made them male and female. To substitute another word exhibits overwhelming ignorance and displays the innanity of PC.

Sorry Uvakat for the grouchy comment.

Probably you were at a PC church. I don't know for sure though, since I quit being Catholic years ago, when I became a catholic Christian.

As a former Catholic, fallen away Catholic, sinner, or what the hell ever I am, PCness is really beginnig to burn my a...after-parts! Actually, I was raised CAtholic but went through a divorce: "Sent $500 and we'll look at annulment". Now attend/belong to Lutheran church. Biggest complaint is that they really try not to offend anyone. They haven't made the changes of which you speak, though.

Stay safe.
Bob

Quote

Why can't folks understand that man is a generic term for humans.

Trouble is the touchy PC crowd is trying to change that usage.

Greek has two words translated as man. Aner (someday I'll have to figure out how to do Greek script in a web board context) is man, in contrast to woman or boy. Anthropos is man (meaning human). Without having the original handy, and my Greek skills being many years rusty, my guess is that the original was anthropos, and this is a modern PC but accurate translastion of the Nicene Creed.

The gender-neutral thing can get weird sometimes. Back ten-ish years ago we were scouting out churches in this town. At one Presbyterian church (PCUSA, naturally) the Lord's Prayer started out "Our Father and Mother in Heaven". Sorry. Beyond the pale! We didn't go back.

uvakat,

I posted here the other day, and decided to reply to your question as I was browsing tonight. (I'm Catholic, btw) The official Nicene Creed of the Catholic Church has not been changed. The creed still says "for us men and for our salvation," not "for us people and for our salvation." Also, the Nicene creed still says "We believe in one, holy, Catholic, apostolic church." The word Catholic is still part of the creed. The individual parish that you attended Mass at changed the creed themselves to make it more PC. I'm sorry to say that there are many liberal parishes and priests in the Catholic Church of the United States that do not always follow the official rubrics of the Roman Catholic Church.

//quote
I do not see how Catholic can offend anybody since Catholic is actually a synonym for universal. Apostolic is actually the limiting term. //quote

So true!

Hope this clears up any confusion you may have experienced!

Tan

My church still uses "Holy, catholic and apostolic church" and "for us men and our salvation".

I have heard of churches that are in such (minor) states of schism, too bad the bishops arent as rigid as they should be on such matters.

The Nicene Creed hasn't changed since the council of Nicea established it in the year 381. If you're going to a so-called catholic church that is butchering it you need to do three things.

1. Let the pastor know in no uncertain terms that if he wants to be something other than Catholic then he needs to go somewhere else because he is doing nothing in his current position but endangering peoples' souls, especially his own.

2. Report this blatant abuse to your bishop.

3. Go find a church like the one you grew up in and shake the dust off your sandals of that sorry excuse for a parish you are currently attending.

Have hope though! Our Church is improving, one vocation at a time. The liberal priests of the 60s and 70s are thankfully dying away and being replaced by younger more orthodox priests. I know MANY young priests and seminarians who would absolutely blow their tops if they had seen this post.

btw, welcome home!

I believe that the "modern" wording is an acceptable variation of the "original" translation. The modern version is actually a more accurate translation of the text which runs afoul of some excentricities of the English language. The use of the word "catholic" in the older translation is a bit confusing to the modern reader as it actually refers to "all churches as a whole" rather than specifically to the "Catholic Church". Few people understand this use of the term, and with the English language the sentiment is actually more clear with the omission.

I dont really understand a lot of the arguments here. people are stating that the "modern" version is wrong but, then they cite that the meaning between the two is exactly the same. I understand that the usage of the word "men" is all-inclusive, but then again so is the word "people". When translating from Greek neither usage is incorrect, and the word "people" is more clearly understood to people who speak English, which makes it the better choice.

We are talking about a translated work. The only "original" version is one that is written in Greek. Any translation of that original is going to have differences.

Quote from: c_yeager

I believe that the "modern" wording is an acceptable variation of the "original" translation. The modern version is actually a more accurate translation of the text which runs afoul of some excentricities of the English language. The use of the word "catholic" in the older translation is a bit confusing to the modern reader as it actually refers to "all churches as a whole" rather than specifically to the "Catholic Church". Few people understand this use of the term, and with the English language the sentiment is actually more clear with the omission.

I dont really understand a lot of the arguments here. people are stating that the "modern" version is wrong but, then they cite that the meaning between the two is exactly the same. I understand that the usage of the word "men" is all-inclusive, but then again so is the word "people". When translating from Greek neither usage is incorrect, and the word "people" is more clearly understood to people who speak English, which makes it the better choice.

We are talking about a translated work. The only "original" version is one that is written in Greek. Any translation of that original is going to have differences.

c_yeager, much of what you say is true but it misses the point. Within the Catholic Church there is a teaching authority known as the Magistarium which is made up of the bishops of the Church in union with the Pope, or the Bishop of Rome. This teaching authority has the duty and authority to dictate how the truths of the faith are to be taught and like it or not what they say goes. The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) has been given the responsibility of translating all liturgical text into English. Generally speaking they do a horrible job in this task but that is beside the point because what they say goes. The english translation of the Nicene Creed that they have published (which is actually quite good) is the one required for use in the liturgy. No priest or bishop, to include the Pope, can change this fact and use a version that they FEEL is better.

Furthermore, every priest in the world has taken a vow of obedience. Although changing the word 'men' to 'people' seems like a small thing (though it is not and that is why these liberal priests alter it, but that is a discussion for another day), they are required, like it or not, to use the one given to them. If these priests are willing to break their vows for this, what else are they willing to do and which other vows are they willing to break as they see fit?

This abuse is unacceptable and must be reported and stopped.

I wasnt arguing that the modern interpretation of the creed is "legal" under the archaic and obscure laws of the Roman Catholic Churcn, simply that the modern version is truer to the original Greek than the traditional translation. The notion that accuracy has no relevance to the Vatican is not at all suprising.

The question that was asked was if it was "normal" not if it were stamped and approved by the Italians. The fact is that the version of the Nicene Creed that was said in her church is a common translation, despite the fact that it isnt an approved Roman Catholic translation.

Yes, one could certainly complain to their Bishop that their priest had failed to be in proper lock-step. Which would almost certainly result in a return to the official version. Lord knows that it would just be easier to do away with priests alltogether and just have an approved audio tape send straight from the Vatican every month with the word-for-word approved mass prepared for the faithfull. This mindless adherence to every single petty rule as handed down from on high on pain of excommuniction and banishment to the fires of hell is a big part of my decission to no longer attend a Catholic church. I dont need my religion to have to go through a comitee lest I be placed in a position of having to think for myself.

c_yeager,

I would like to respectfully differ with you on some of your points. You mention, "The notion that accuracy has no relevance to the Vatican is not at all surprising." Not true. When an organization claims to be for the benefit of the spiritual good of man, it will attempt to be as accurate as possible in its actions.

You also mention, "The fact is that the version of the Nicene Creed that was said in her church is a common translation, despite the fact it isnt an approved Roman Catholic translation." That may be so. However, when one is a member of an organization, one normally agrees to abide by the regulations of the organization set forth by the authority of that organization. In the case of the Catholic Church, members, which include both priests and laypeople, need to abide by the rubrics of the Church, including using the translation of the Creed that the Vatican declared is to be used.

Finally, you said, "This mindless adherence to every single petty rule as handed down from on high on pain of excommunication and banishment to the fires of hell..." Firstly, within any large organization adherence to the rules, even seemingly unimportant ones, is crucial to the unity and survivial of that organization. In the the case of the Catholic Church, that is very true, and must work well, for the Church has survived as one united entity for almost 2,000 years. Also, pain of excommunication and banishment to the fires of hell are punishments that are not meted out by the Church, but brought upon oneself when one strays from the rubrics or teachings of the Church in a grave matter. Petty rules would not be considered grave matters, and would not bring excommunication or hell if one strayed from following them. However, one needs to follow them for the unity of the Church.

I was raised in the Lutheran church & learned the Nicene Creed, among much other doctrinal and Biblical data.

Our version of the NC was as you remember it from your old school (big-C) Catholic days...though we were always clear that the "C" was lower case, as in "universal," not Roman. Some of the older parishoners would always manage to miss the word, however, when we all recited it during services.

Anyway, I am of the mind that an organization has the right to make its own rules for obedience, membership, discipline, etc. Roman Catholocism has a certain doctrine and rules. It seems reasonable to me that the RC insist that those who claim membership adhere to the rules. Otherwise, they aren't really (big-C) Catholics, now are they?

FWIW, I have more respect for denominations that stick to their doctrine/traditions/rules than those who don't really beleive in...much at all. Even if I have serious problems with hteir doctrine, etc. A person/organization that beleives in nothing will believe in just about anything.

uvakat, your faith is your business. I would just counsel you that if you want to be an honest-to-goodness (big-C) Catholic, to find and honest-to-goodness Catholic church, not some wishy-washy Catholic church. Accept no substitutes. If you don't want to be a Catholic, there are plenty of denominations out there that believe what they teach & teach what they believe.

Man can not live on bread alone...and milquetoast is positively poisonous to faith. Life is too short and eternity too long to build your faith on a limp simulacrum of the real deal.

Quote from: jfruser

I was raised in the Lutheran church & learned the Nicene Creed, among much other doctrinal and Biblical data.

Our version of the NC was as you remember it from your old school (big-C) Catholic days...though we were always clear that the "C" was lower case, as in "universal," not Roman. Some of the older parishoners would always manage to miss the word, however, when we all recited it during services.

Anyway, I am of the mind that an organization has the right to make its own rules for obedience, membership, discipline, etc. Roman Catholocism has a certain doctrine and rules. It seems reasonable to me that the RC insist that those who claim membership adhere to the rules. Otherwise, they aren't really (big-C) Catholics, now are they?

FWIW, I have more respect for denominations that stick to their doctrine/traditions/rules than those who don't really beleive in...much at all. Even if I have serious problems with hteir doctrine, etc. A person/organization that beleives in nothing will believe in just about anything.

uvakat, your faith is your business. I would just counsel you that if you want to be an honest-to-goodness (big-C) Catholic, to find and honest-to-goodness Catholic church, not some wishy-washy Catholic church. Accept no substitutes. If you don't want to be a Catholic, there are plenty of denominations out there that believe what they teach & teach what they believe.

Man can not live on bread alone...and milquetoast is positively poisonous to faith. Life is too short and eternity too long to build your faith on a limp simulacrum of the real deal.

Great post, jfruser!

Quote

Let the pastor know in no uncertain terms that if he wants to be something other than Catholic then he needs to go somewhere else because he is doing nothing in his current position but endangering peoples' souls, especially his own.

I can understand being upset that a few words are being changed from "ye olde and official" creed, but I'm curious as to how the preacher is endangering people's souls. You've made a good argument that because of the preacher's vow of unquestioning obedience to the earthly government of the Roman Catholic church and its particular translations - fallible as you admit those translations may be - this change would be a violation, however tiny and well-meaning, of that vow and would speak poorly for him.

But my question is: Whose soul is endangered by saying "people" instead of "men"?

//quote=cordex// But my question is: Whose soul is endangered by saying "people" instead of "men"? //quote//

The pastor is not endangering anyone's soul, if you read what I wrote above I mentioned that this is a minor matter. However, he should use the version of the Creed the Church wishes him to use because it fosters unity within the Church, (people aren't confused if they go to Mass at a different parish and here the Creed recited with the word "men" instead of "people") and sets a stellar example of his vows, his dedication to them, and the obedience required of him inherent in those vows.

Quote from: Blackburn

I wanna buy me an indulgence!

Ahh, a trolling comment. Sorry Blackburn, you won't get a response from me about that. Only interested in serious discussion. (Now, if you have a legitimite question or gripe about indulgences, start a new thread and I'll do my best to respond.)

Quote

The pastor is not endangering anyone's soul, if you read what I wrote above I mentioned that this is a minor matter.

MaterDei appeared to have a different view. That was what I was curious about.

As to your remarks about unity, is unity of words more imporant than unity of understanding?

Please understand that I'm not trying to be obtuse or arguementative. I've long been comfortable with questioning religious leaders within and outside my own faith and even refusing to accept what I consider a faulty understanding. This issue appears to me to be, as you say, a very minor one, but others seem to have had a much greater reaction to it - going so far as to imply that because this change was made, worship at that church was in some way watered down.

Quote from: cordex

Quote

Let the pastor know in no uncertain terms that if he wants to be something other than Catholic then he needs to go somewhere else because he is doing nothing in his current position but endangering peoples' souls, especially his own.

I can understand being upset that a few words are being changed from "ye olde and official" creed, but I'm curious as to how the preacher is endangering people's souls. You've made a good argument that because of the preacher's vow of unquestioning obedience to the earthly government of the Roman Catholic church and its particular translations - fallible as you admit those translations may be - this change would be a violation, however tiny and well-meaning, of that vow and would speak poorly for him.

But my question is: Whose soul is endangered by saying "people" instead of "men"?

Tangent, Cordex was questioning my quote, I believe.

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.

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

Quote from: cordex

Quote

The pastor is not endangering anyone's soul, if you read what I wrote above I mentioned that this is a minor matter.

MaterDei appeared to have a different view. That was what I was curious about.

As to your remarks about unity, is unity of words more imporant than unity of understanding?

Please understand that I'm not trying to be obtuse or arguementative. I've long been comfortable with questioning religious leaders within and outside my own faith and even refusing to accept what I consider a faulty understanding. This issue appears to me to be, as you say, a very minor one, but others seem to have had a much greater reaction to it - going so far as to imply that because this change was made, worship at that church was in some way watered down.

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. Inclusive language doesn't sound bad on the surface but it resides right at the precipice of a very slippery slope. With inclusiveness, Father, Son and Holy Spirit quickly become Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier and other such very damaging nonsense ensues.

Quote from: cordex

As to your remarks about unity, is unity of words more imporant than unity of understanding?

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

Quote from: cordex

Please understand that I'm not trying to be obtuse or arguementative. I've long been comfortable with questioning religious leaders within and outside my own faith and even refusing to accept what I consider a faulty understanding. This issue appears to me to be, as you say, a very minor one, but others seem to have had a much greater reaction to it - going so far as to imply that because this change was made, worship at that church was in some way watered down.

You didn't seem to obtuse or argumentative. I don't mind. I like this discussion, you seem sincerely interested, and I try to respond the best I can.

However, comments like Blackburn's are argumentative, flame-fest-forming trolling.

Quote from: MaterDei

Tangent, Cordex was questioning my quote, I believe.

Oh, I see. Sorry.

Quote from: MaterDei

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.

The experience of the Catholic Church in the U.S. has shown that that is mostly unfortunately true.

This is Tangent. I decided to register with the name I go by on other forums.

Quote from: Blackburn

I'm not trying to form an argument. I'm thinking if I can get a bulk discount on some one-size-fits-all indulgences, that'll be the perfect christmas card stuffer.

It would be great and convenient if the Catholic Church did that, but sorry, it is not possible.

Quote from: Cosine/Tangant

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

Would that it were so!

Quote from: MaterDei

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:

Quote from: MaterDei

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.

Quote from: MaterDei

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.

Quote from: MaterDei

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?

Quote

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.

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

Quote from: cordex

Quote from: Cosine/Tangant

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

Would that it were so!

Quote from: MaterDei

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:

Quote from: MaterDei

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.

Quote from: MaterDei

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.

Quote from: MaterDei

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)

Quote

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.

Quote from: cordex

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.

Quote from: cordex

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.

Quote from: cordex

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?

Quote from: cordex

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.

Quote from: 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.

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

Quote from: cosine

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.

Quote from: cosine

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.

Quote from: cordex

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

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

Quote from: cordex

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.

Quote from: cordex

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.

Quote from: 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.

Quote from: Werewolf

Quote from: 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.

Quote from: cosine

Quote from: Werewolf

Quote from: 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.

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.

Quote from: c_yeager

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.

Quote from: c_yeager

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: 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?

Quote from: 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.

Quote from: cosine

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.

Quote

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?

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. Wink

Quote from: cordex

Quote from: 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?

Quote from: 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.

Quote from: cosine

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.

Quote from: cordex

Quote from: 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.

Quote from: cordex

Quote

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.

Quote from: carebear

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. Wink

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.

Quote from: cosine

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?

Quote from: cosine

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.

Quote from: cosine

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?

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

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

Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: uvakat on December 11, 2005, 03:18:14 PM