Hello

It is illogical to bother to proclaim the notion of papal infallibility. All a Catholic needs to think to themsleves is this:

I believe the Church was wrong when it proclaimed that it could never be wrong.

I mean what was the Church thinking when it proclaimed that idea? Did she think it would help? I don't get it, why bother proclaiming the dogma?

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 26, 2003

Answers

Subject: Why Bother Proclaiming Papal Infallibility?

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 26, 2003.

Dear Mike,

The Church's teaching became infallible when Jesus Christ conferred the charism of infallibility upon the apostles ("whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven", and specifically upon the head of the apostles, Simon Peter. Infallibility didn't begin when the concept was formally defined by a Church Council. If infallibility didn't exist in the Church from the beginning, the Church would already have begun disintegrating into denominations long before the Council which formally defined it.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 26, 2003.

Paul

If infallibility didn't exist in the Church from the beginning, the Church would already have begun disintegrating into denominations long before the Council which formally defined it.

It did begin "disintegrating into denominations long before the Council which formally defined it" The 1500's seems like long before to me anyway.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 26, 2003.

I don't get it, why bother proclaiming the dogma?

The dogma does not say that "the Church can never be wrong."

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 26, 2003.

jake

The dogma does not say that "the Church can never be wrong."

It means that the Church can't be wrong on dogma it proclaims. So here we have a Catholic dogma proclaiming that Catholic dogma is never wrong. Logically there is no point to making the claim because the dogma of infallibility could be wrong in the first place.

It's like a child saying, "I'm right because I never lie". Well how do we know the child never lies? Simply because the child said so! Not very convincing to an outsider. How do you win someone's trust with that?

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 26, 2003.

Every statement of the Pope is not an infallible statement. In fact, I believe the last instance of infallibility is when the Pope spoke on the issue of the immaculate conception and the Assumption of Mary.

That, I believe, was back in the 40's.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 26, 2003.

Mike, If you look at the decree on infallibility as a way for the Church to say: "Look, if it comes down to someone having to make a decision on a question of faith, the Pope has the last word". Then it makes sense. Ultimately, someone has to have the final word on any issue, in order to resolve it.

If the Pope professed a doctrine, for lack of a better term, "out of the blue", on his own accord, arguments in theology will and have occurred.

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility could not have come at a worse time (during Vatican One)politically. Many looked on it (and still look on it) as more a political statement than a statement of doctrine.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 26, 2003.

here we have a Catholic dogma proclaiming that Catholic dogma is never wrong. Logically there is no point to making the claim

actually, mike, i might remind you that nothing in faith is really ever logically irrefutable... that would kind of defeat the purpose of faith, now wouldnt it. what we have, however, is a clear indication of a statement by Jesus proclaiming papal infallability. now, does this mean that the pope always speaks infallably? no way, because there are bad popes who allow their personal ideals to override the influences of the holy spirit. therefore, what you refer to as the infallability being declared as wrong is actually a case of a decision being wrong because it is not in keeping with the tenets of an infallable decision (witch hunts would be a prime example)

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 26, 2003.

Even the worst Popes, and there have been a few real beauties, have never promulgated a false doctrine. The Holy Spirit simply will not allow it. Infallibility is not something the pope can turn on and off at will. When he officially teaches a doctrine as binding on the universal Church, the doctrine is infallible, de facto - even if the pope didn't want it to be! Obviously, any Pope can make any number of factually wrong statements on matters other then official Church doctrine. Infallibility does not apply to such matters, and is never in effect where suchmatters are concerned - even if the Pope wanted it to be!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 26, 2003.

Even the worst Popes, and there have been a few real beauties, have never promulgated a false doctrine.

It would be more precise to say the even the worst Popes have never dogmatically defined a false doctrine.

There's a huge difference there, and it does address that long standing question I hung out to dry a while back. Pass me some salt a let's make some jerky.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 26, 2003.

You might even say it like this: No bad Pope was ever allowed to even SUPPORT a false doctrine, by God the Holy Spirit. Much less the ''good'' Popes.

Please note: I have a new email addy. No-- don't email me, please. Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2003.

If you wish to call yourself Catholic, you must have "faith" in the authentic "tradition" of the church. If you truly believe that the Church was wrong when it gave to you it's package of "truth," then you can't really be Catholic can you. If you can't have "faith" in the essence of the "truths" revealed by the church, then you can't really worship in good faith. You can't call yourself a Christian, unless you are prepared to give yourself to Christ whole heartedly.

This comes from a Catholic, who was raised Lutheran. As I said before, I was raised questioning everything that was Catholic. Now, I'm a Catholic and I truly believe the statement I proclaimed when I was confirmed in the faith, "I truely believe that all the Catholic believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God."

I truely believe that all the Church is, has been revealed by God. Do I agree with everything that has been presented? No! There are still some things that I struggle with, however, I live by the words of the Catholic sister who is my mentor and role model. "Be patient, if things don't seem important now, or if they don't make sense completely right now . . . be patient. The Catholic church is a universal church with a very long history. It's served many different cultures through many changing times. It's been a constant help to it's community throughout it's long and sometime troubled past. If you can't accept all that is the Church, that has been discussed so far, can you believe what is contained in the Nicene Creed, if you believe the essence of our faith that is contained in the creed, then you believe what "we" believe. If the rest doesn't seem quite right in all ways right now . . . then perhaps sometime on your spiritual journey through life the Spirit might seem fit to reveal things to you in a different light. You're on the right path, you just be patient.

Of course, it's not quite that simplistic, but I think what she was saying was that if you can accept the "essence of the tradition of the church, then in due time, the practices or customs and traditions (with a little "t") will work themselves out.

She was right, some things just take time. If it all was easy, what would be the challenge in that?

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 27, 2003.

Leon,
That is a lovely tribute to the faith. Give us many more, Sir.

You bring to mind the wonderful confession of Saint Peter. The glorious apostle was a simple person. Maybe he worked at his fishing like a dog; with no time for deep thoughts.

Our Savior nevertheless, asked for their answer: ''Who do you say I am?''

Peter announced it for us all. ''You are the Christ; the Son of the living God.'' He was the thick-headed impetuous one. Quick to swing a sword. Hopelessly outclassed the night he denied Uur Lord three times. He answered rightly, and the others were all wrong.

You do it just like Peter, Leon. Your words: ''. . . on your spiritual journey through life the Spirit might see fit to reveal things to you in a different light. You're on the right path, just be patient.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2003.

Obviously, any Pope can make any number of factually wrong statements on matters other then official Church doctrine. Infallibility does not apply to such matters,

Actually, any Pope can also make any number of factually wrong statements on matters of Church doctrine, as well. Infallibility does not apply to their each and every statement, even on Church doctrine.

You might even say it like this: No bad Pope was ever allowed to even SUPPORT a false doctrine, by God the Holy Spirit. Much less the ''good'' Popes.

This is wrong. This is not how the Holy Ghost guides the Church. A Pope is man, and being so, if he is not open to the guidance of the Holy Ghost, then he may speak or spread error. The Holy Ghost protects when defining doctrine, but outside of that realm, the Pope must be open to the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and if he is not, then his human nature may lead him personally into error.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 27, 2003.

Dear Chabella,
We see the Holy Father not as a man only, but as the straight-line susccessor of Saint Peter.

This is an interesting sbject. Were the Borgia Popes actually ''successors of Peter the holy apostle? Or just men? After all, they were unworthy of the office.

Yet, you can't name a single false doctrine or ecclesial discipline of theirs that can be called false or faulty. Not one. And they were bad men. If what you say is really so, why not?

The truth is, Peter was formally given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Our Holy Savior declared whatever Peter (or his successors) should bind on earth, that would make it also bound in heaven. Same with whatever Peter (and his successors) loosed on earth. It was also loosed in heaven. Why would Jesus phrase the power of the keys in such a way?

Because heaven SEES TO IT that the Pope is really acting as Christ -- not as man. Christ acts in and through Peter. That leaves no doubt in the matter. The keys to the kingdom are Jesus Himself ruling over the decisions of all Popes. That's why we must agree they are infallible in matters of faith and morals.

For this reason, I think your statement:

the Pope must be open to the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and if he is not, then his human nature may lead him personally into error--'' is wrong. Absolutely wrong. Not even the worst Popes substantiate it for you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2003.

You know, I went back and read your statement and my response, and seems I posted too quickly, but only for this reason:

You might even say it like this: No bad Pope was ever allowed to even SUPPORT a false doctrine, by God the Holy Spirit. Much less the ''good'' Popes.

Well, you see, there is no such thing as false doctrine. Doctrine is infallible. But they can support wrong ideas, and hold faulty beliefs. This is possible, and has happened.

Yet, you can't name a single false doctrine or ecclesial discipline of theirs that can be called false or faulty

You see here you state false doctrine again. There is no such thing, really. Either it's doctrine or it's not. And I agree that they have the right to change ecclesial discipline.

But all in all, you have an errant view on what exactly infallibility of the Pope is. You have an errant view on the protection of the Holy Ghost. I pray, Eugene, that you research this soon.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

Isabel:
I have no argument with the lesser consideration you just brought to light. In fact, my opinons differed with His Holiness JP II's in the matter of the war in Iraq. --It was just and necessary in my view; while our Holy Father was adamantly against it.

These aren't in essence doctrinal controversies; and as moral questions, there are counter arguments that I felt he dismissed humanly, not truly as a Pontiff. He possibly foresaw dire consequences, from a human point of view.

I just believe he was wrong. Does this sound as if I have a puppet complex, regarding infallibility? Far from it.

In Catholic matters of doctrine, & the Pope's guidance of his flock, I concede to him as a child of the Church. He has God- given authority over me. In ex cathedra declaration on Catholic teaching, or faith & morals, he is strictly infallible, because the Holy Spirit has elected him to the seat of Peter.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 28, 2003.

From what I see, the, it is possible for a Pope not to err on doctrine, but he could still sin on matters of morality,....

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 28, 2003.

Hello,

Thanks for everyone's input. My concern is not about the legitimacy of the Catholic Church. It is not about if I should be obedient to the Catechism or not. It is not whether or not I think the pope is infallible when he records a dogma for all time.

My concern is on how calling an entire Vatican Council to say one thing, "That the pope is infallible on matters of doctrine" (articles concerning faith and morals) actually builds up the Church? Was it needed?

My point is this. How is it that such a dogma will get a person to have more faith in Christ's Church? It seems like the dogma of infallibility is an excuse for her members to not have need of being examples of holiness and charity. It's like we are saying, do as I say not as I do because I'm right. It's a call to laziness because all we really need is to be "infallible" doctrinally, living it out is secondary at best.

However, what I "do" has more effect on others than "talking right". As St. Francis of Assisi once said, "Evangelize, and if you have to, use words." And regarding the ultimate "talking right" statement which is "papal infallibility" all a person needs to say in his mind is this "I believe the Church was wrong when it proclaimed that it could never be wrong (on doctrine)".

So I am not saying Vatican I was wrong nor was there error in it, it was just a waste of time. It wasn't what the Church needed to build her up. It is our pope's life example which does way more in effecting the faithful and those outside her membership than his official or unofficial talk can ever do. We all know from history that the bad popes left the Catholic Church in great chaos. They were horrible times for the church. Proclaming papal infallibility does nothing to keep the Catholic Church members holy during the reign of a bad pope so what good does it do to proclaim it?

Be good.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 28, 2003.

That's easy fo you to say, Mike,
Is there much more that you've done to explain the question; other than to bring it to the attention of this forum?

I'll be honest; many years ago, I read extensively on the subject of this dogma. Could be 40 years ago. Unfortunately, though it settled that for me then, I don't remember what the rationale or the circumstances were. Funny, isn't it? The one who might have answered your query has forgotten what the answer is. OK, I could go back and work it out again, come back and plunk it on your PC.

But, I'm content to tell you the rationale is perfectly sound theologically, and you ought to find out for youself elsewhere. The info exists.

Too many outsiders (your word) enter our forum just to stir the pot; all for a chance of confounding Catholics with loaded questions. Or snide remarks like: '' --a child saying, '' --I'm right because I never lie". Well how do we know the child never lies? Simply because the child said so? Not very convincing!'' --They could just go fly a kite. Wouldn't bother me.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 28, 2003.

Lessons of Past Pontiffs in Error

"Even with the highest esteem for the Primacy, I do not see any problem with facing the following reality. The Pope can err; many Popes have erred in innumerable fields, not excluding doctrinary teachings, and some have even fallen into heresy...One of the "dogmas" of progressivism that unfortunately is held by many in high places of the Church today is that of not combating the errors of the Jewish religion, which, nonetheless, continues to profess the same principles. It is interesting to see here how the Councils and the Saints have acted so courageously in the past. And how even when a Pope, a heretic Pope, had sustained the Jewish errors, he had received the exemplary resistance of a Saint." This is not my article, but it does raise questions. Let me add I do beieve in infallibility, when pronounced with the "We declare, define, etc.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

eugene,

I am not the only one who has made a statement against the proclaiming of that dogma.

"Some have claimed that John Henry Cardinal Newman denied the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. In actuality, he was an inopportunist, that is, one who (at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870) favored waiting to dogmatically define the definition of papal infallibility (for fear of the Ultramontane party and their ideas and devices). This is a completely different proposition from acceptance or non-acceptance of some form of infallibility. The following is from Ian Ker's John Henry Newman: A Biography, probably the most comprehensive and scholarly recent biography of Newman (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988, 764 pages):"

"Newman himself would continue to pray that there was no definition, but he would accept it if one was passed...... " both quotes from web site http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ72.HTM

So I suppose that Cardinal Newman also wanted to just to stir the pot; all for a chance of confounding Catholics with loaded questions. (your words).

You admit that the reasons for proclaiming the dogma are worthy of research, you have done this yourself here: I'll be honest; many years ago, I read extensively on the subject of this dogma...The one who might have answered your query has forgotten what the answer is. Yet you complain that my motives are unjust and there is no good point to my post, as you say I do it all for a chance of confounding Catholics with loaded questions.

So you condemn your own inquirey of 40 years ago.

I am a practicing Catholic. I attend mass and partake of the sacraments regularly. Imperfect though with a bead on what is perfect.

Be good.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 28, 2003.

the Papacy.

Even with the highest esteem for the Primacy, I do not see any problem with facing the following reality. The Pope can err; many Popes have erred in innumerable fields, not excluding doctrinary teachings, and some have even fallen into heresy.

In my last column I showed the liturgical errors of St. Anicetus and St. Victor I, both Popes, and the resistance of St. Polycarp of Smyrma and St. Irenaeus of Lyons respectively in face of them. I narrated briefly how St. Marcellinus, Pope during the persecution of Diocletian, moved by fear, burned incense to the idols. A brief overview was given of the adhesion of Pope Liberius to Arianism, which was resisted by St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, and St. Hilary, Bishop of Potiers. I also described the position of Pope Zozimus, who in written documents supported Pelagius and ordered those who were combating him to retract their objections, as well as the responses of St. Augustine, St. Aurelius and other African bishops who showed energetic resistance to that Pontiff. Finally, I referred to the case of Pope Vigilius, who, under the pressure of the Emperor Justinian, signed a Monophysitist document. In this week's column I will give several more examples which seem useful in understanding the lesson they contain. The incomplete history of events expounded here does not go beyond the 7th century. Perhaps I will have to return to the subject to present the documentation of the cases to which I have referred, or perhaps to give yet other cases. Not my column Eugene

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

Ed

By your post, do you say that the doctrine of papal infallibility is of no value, just words on paper, because pope's have erred? I'm not looking for a point of contention I just want to know if that would be a legitimate conclusion based on your post that said, The Pope can err; many Popes have erred in innumerable fields, not excluding doctrinary teachings, and some have even fallen into heresy.

Sincerely

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 28, 2003.

Ed has proven nothing of the sort.

As for Mike, was I just asking you, what else have you done besides laying it on this forum to explain? Find the facts; after that come to us with something worth discussion.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 29, 2003.

eugene, something you said has me worried

We see the Holy Father not as a man only, but as the straight-line susccessor of Saint Peter.

The truth of the matter is that the Holy Father is a man only... endowed with certain rights and protections by the holy spirit, but still a man. like any other man he is subject to temptation and snares of satan. a poor pope could easily preach false doctrine if he denied the protection of the holy spirit. the important thing is that true popes like JPII come along and fix alot of errors (and appologize too). remember, the pope is not perfect, and we have had evil popes... dont wear rose colored glasses, because we must understand the true history of our faith in order to appreciate our tradition.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 29, 2003.

Look at it from the Catholic perspective and you'll have no problem understanding my words.

Non-Catholics are biased to exactly the contrary; the Pope is ONLY another man. I have heard a Southern Baptist smirk & declare: ''I don't need another man to do my thinkin' for me.''

In fact, I haven't said a thing contrary to what you just said. The Pope is left to his own devices if the Holy Spirit departs. But the successors of Saint Peter rely on the promises of Our Lord. --Me too.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 29, 2003.

The Pope cannot "deny the protection of the Holy Spirit", because the protection of the Holy Spirit through the charism of infallibility is a gift to the Church, integral to the office of Pope, not a gift to the individual man, who can choose to accept it or not. The Pope is infallible in formally declaring doctrinal truth binding on the universal Church, whether he wants to be or not; whether he lives a moral life or not; and whether he personally holds heretical views or not. The Holy Spirit does not allow the doctrine of the Church to be tainted by untruth - period! If infallibility was dependent upon upon a particular Pope's spirituality or personal holiness, the Church would have no way of knowing whether any article of the faith was true, since there could be no way of knowing with certainty whether a given Pope was "denying the protection of the Holy Spirit" while making a certain doctrinal pronouncement or not. In fact though, we know with certainty that no Pope has ever "denied the protection of the Holy Spirit" while formally defining a doctrine, because the Holy Spirit provides that protection to the Church, de facto, whether the Pope in question acknowledges it or not.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 29, 2003.

Mike,

By your post, do you say that the doctrine of papal infallibility is of no value, just words on paper, because pope's have erred?

I don't think that's what Ed was saying at all. Only that infallibility does not pertain to all that a pope says. There are certain 'parameters' surrounding infallibility.

Eugene,

As for Mike, was I just asking you, what else have you done besides laying it on this forum to explain? Find the facts; after that come to us with something worth discussion.

Actually, I think this is worth a discussion. This is a question/answer forum. If umpteen people can come here and post their marriage/anullment questions and have them answered, then I don't see why Mike can't post his. You do not have to answer if that is your desire.

Paul,

I agree totally with you, providing the requirements for infallibility are met. I don't think paul (little p) was saying they could deny it when defining doctrine (correct me if I'm wrong), but they are capable of speaking or teaching error if they do not leave themselves open to the protection/guidance of the Holy Ghost. Never would the Holy Ghost allow a doctrine to be defined that was in error. But that protection does not necessarily extend to the speaches, letters, writings of the Pope.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), April 29, 2003.

Not to pounce on your text or anything, Isabel; neither are there ''requirements'' nor can we presume to judge how ''open'' any other Catholic might be, especially the Pontiff. It is a given.

The caveats you favor for real infallibility are just one way to claim the Pope is misleading Catholics. Not one single heretic ever disagreed with your theory; it's a must if you would take a stand against the Pope. All heretics presumed to read the Holy Spirit better than their Popes.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 29, 2003.

Eugene, you wrote.....

neither are there ''requirements''

Beg pardon? What exactly did you mean by that? Requirements may be the wrong word to use, but there are most certainly are some.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), April 29, 2003.

Only if you never believed the church anyway, isabel

Our Lord told us the Church was fool-proof (my term). If you change that to mean, under some slight requirements, you make the whole scheme your OWN idea, not the church's, nor Christ's. Tell us all the requirements. If we are led by a bad Pope, should everything he thought or said be suspect? Should we only take the Holy Spirit at His Word with certain requirements?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 29, 2003.

Isabel

Thanks for commenting to eugene for me. I agree.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 29, 2003.

Dear Mike:
I'm far from belittling your questions. It's the natural conclusions you seem to draw; my answer was in reply to that. You plainly said: ''It is illogical to bother to proclaim the notion of Papal infallibility.''

Yes; if all it was were the notion. If we expect TRUTH from Christ's Church, it's very logical to make the point to all the faithful. That's why I say to Isabel: ''Only if you never believed the Church anyway,''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 29, 2003.

Eugene;

Should we only take the Holy Spirit at His Word with certain requirements?

The Holy Spirit was never promised for everything the Pope said. You should know this Eugene if you studied it in depth. Do you not know the 'requirements' for infallibility? Would you like me to post them for you? I'll give you a hint, there are three, and all three must be present for the guarantee of infallibility. Not that a Pope speaks incorrectly just because he may not be defining doctrine, but we know for sure that these statements are infallible. Anything else, requires assent, if and only if it is in line with Church doctrine.

If you change that to mean, under some slight requirements, you make the whole scheme your OWN idea, not the church's, nor Christ's.

Actually this is doctrine. Defined by the Church at Vatican I. So this is the Church's and Christ's teaching. If you believe otherwise, you make the whole scheme you OWN idea.

Mike,

You are welcome. I was hoping you wouldn't mind.

Ed, I hope you don't mind that I opened my big mouth in your place. I really need to learn not to speak out of place.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 29, 2003.

If we expect TRUTH from Christ's Church, it's very logical to make the point to all the faithful.

If the pope speaks for Christ, he ought to act for Christ as well. Or I might say, if the pope speaks like Christ spoke than the pope should act like Christ acted as well. Christ did not expect everyone to believe him just because he said "believe me, I'm Christ!" Nor did he think the Father would automatically convert the multitudes while his son went to the beach. Christ lived what he taught to the fullest any human possibly could. He had no place of his own to lay his head. He owned little or nothing. He peformed countless healing miracles and acts of kindness. He frequently climbed mountains alone to pray to "Our Father". He lived with the poorest of the poor when he ministered to them. If Christ had not behaved in such a self- giving manner and had not performed healing miracles, few people would have listened at all to his Gospel of self-denial and love. His actions spoke louder than his words. So why all the hype on what the pope potentially says? All the charism of infallibility of the pope offers is that the pope has the potential to teach correctly. He won't lie to us. That's the bare bones minimum we ought to expect from the pope and from ourselves for that matter. What good is that if the leader of the Catholic Church does not choose the very cross Christ chose for his own life of faith? What good is it if the pope doesn't live a life of extraordinary charity and voluntary poverty, similar to what Jesus Christ himself lived? We know where the Catholic Church's buildings are and who its head is and how the administration functions, but more important to ask is what do they do with what they have? Talk is cheap.

And so I talk...

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 29, 2003.

Isabel:
Your requirements are doctrine? Oh, ''The Holy Spirit was never promised for everything the Pope said. You should know this Eugene if you studied it in depth. Do you not know the 'requirements' for infallibility?''

Except I wasn't claiming everything the Pope says is infallible. If you studied this subject in any depth, you would already see that I took John Paul II's Iraqi War statements outside the realm of the infallible. Neither did I say the Holy Spirit stands behind all the words of a Pope. He MIGHT, but not always! I said, in my odd kind of way, that it's the Pope we look to for the infallible Word of God in matters of faith, morals, and the Curch's earthly concerns.

To put it in a nutshell, the only true requirement is the word must come from the Vicar of Christ on earth, for it to be indisputable.

No requirements; only the conditions set by God himself. Your text-book 3 requirements are welcome. They will not clash with anything I've insisted on here. I already knew about declarations ex cathedra.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 29, 2003.

eugene,

In my last post I am not making any direct references to a specific historical action or lack of action of any pope. I'm speaking about what are the important concerns for a pope in general. This can go for a lay person also but this thread began with the topic of papal infallibility. That topic is a good sign of the manner that our Catholic minds, in general, are oriented. We get into doctrine so much, and excite over how right Catholic doctrine is, it seems like we are missing the boat. I/We ought to be more concerned about how I act not how I talk.

Matt 21:28-31

"What do you think? A man had two sons; and he went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work in the vineyard today.' And he answered, 'I will not'; but afterward he repented and went. And he went to the second and said the same; and he answered, 'I go, sir,' but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."

In the parable, the first son's entry into kingdom of God has absolutely no bearing on what he said, it was all about what he did. My point here is that we are overconcerned with what we (me, you, the pope) say and it dwarfs our concern for what we do. A blown out of proportion concern for papal infallibility, one that got us to have an entire Vatican Council called just to write it down, gets us thinking that we just need to talk right, what we do is of little consequence.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 30, 2003.

I find your concerns too negative, Mike. I'm willing to go back and try from the start again. It would eliminate a lot of superfluous argument at the least. We ought to remember how the demons torment saints. They try the patience of holy men.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

You are not too far away from the Kingdom of God, Mike H. Lutherans and others think that what we say or believe will save us. Then, anyone who says Jesus is Lord woiuld be saved, baloney! Even Jesus said to a man to sell his possessions, give them to the poor,and then follow him. Even Abraaham folloed his dream of sacrificing his son Issac. God tested his faithfulness. It is not what we say, it is what we do.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 30, 2003.

eugene

I saw a thread that talked of you being banned from the forum. False rumor I suppose. Maybe you were allowed to return after a certain time? If so, what was it all about?

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 30, 2003.

No, I was not banned. Not at all. The former moderator unfairly deleted a series of my posts. I protested and demanded an apology. (I knew it would be ignored,) and told him I would never post again if he didn't treat me fair, and also apologise. I departed of my own will, and never offended him or anyone else. I returned after that moderator for whatever reason left the job to another. Another, I might add, who doesn't try to intimidate the forum participants. Everyone here will tell you this is the truth.

We all have an obligation to remain civil and never resort to vile language. Lying is sometimes permitted; but what can we do? I don't like to build myself up lying about others. It's true or I won't say it. But often telling the truth will be taken for abuse. It's a problem for some, but not for me. I trust in God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

eugene

So you're not really a rascal after all. Thanks for clearing that up. I stopped hanging out here for a long time as well but I don't post as much as you or a lot of the others here either. I do recall that Moderator as being a bit delete happy. More than once I went to look at a thread I had participated in and found my post gone. I wondered if it was me who was "bad" or someone else. Also there may have been more drive by spiritual cyber shootings from Protestants and loonys then too. Seems better lately.

The first thread I ever posted on anywhere on the web was one that I stumbled across through a Google search. It had you and this other person going at it on VOLTAIRE. Remember that one. I should drag it up. I posted on it once not to long ago I think.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 01, 2003.

I can't recall. Voltaire made one statement I found amusing. ''I have prayed only once to God; and this was my prayer-- Make all my enemies ridiculous! And, He answered it!''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 01, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Mike H.

I hope that you and others will pardon the great length of this reply. I tried to "trim the fat" out of it, but there is just so much info that I wanted to present to you to help you with some of the difficulties you expressed in your opening post.

I have to agree, in part, with Eugene. It would have been so helpful if you had privately researched the matters you raised, because I am convinced that, if you had done so, you would not have even started this thread. To get the info you needed would have cost you just a little work -- the reading of a long article on Vatican Council I in the (old) Catholic Encyclopedia [CE]. I just went to that article (on the Internet) and copied various segments for you to review here. I decided to do these extractions for you (and for other readers, present and future) because I hoped that I could do the job pretty quickly, and I didn't want anyone to think that there is a firm basis for criticizing or discounting Vatican I.

You wrote:
"My concern is on how calling an entire Vatican Council to say one thing, 'That the pope is infallible on matters of doctrine' (articles concerning faith and morals) actually builds up the Church? Was it needed? ... I am not saying Vatican I was wrong nor was there error in it, it was just a waste of time. It wasn't what the Church needed to build her up. It is our pope's life example which does way more in [a]ffecting the faithful and those outside her membership than his official or unofficial talk can ever do. We all know from history that the bad popes left the Catholic Church in great chaos. They were horrible times for the church. Proclaming papal infallibility does nothing to keep the Catholic Church members holy during the reign of a bad pope so what good does it do to proclaim it?"

Before I begin to quote from the CE article, I will tell you up front, Mike, that Vatican I was not called "to say one thing," but to reflect on, and teach about, many things. As you will read, it was not even called for the purpose of discussing papal infallibility at all! Vatican I was most assuredly not "just a waste of time." It was part of "what the Church needed to build her up", but much of what was intended to be accomplished could not be done because the Council was cut short by a war. It was not an accident that Pope John XXIII called for the next Council to be at the Vatican also, because it was seen (in part) as a concluding of the work that was to have been done at Vatican I. And now ...
----------------- QUOTE from Catholic Encyclopedia ------------------------

On 6 December, 1864 ... [Bl. Pope] Pius IX announced ... his intention to call a general council. He commissioned the cardinals residing at Rome to express in writing their views as to the opportuneness of the scheme, and also to name the subjects which, in their opinion, should be laid before the council for discussion. Of the twenty-one reports sent in, only one, that of Cardinal Pentini, expressed the opinion that there was no occasion for the holding of an ecumenical council. ... Nearly all sent lists of questions that seemed to need conciliar discussion. ...

As the day of its opening approached, the following drafts were ready for discussion:
----- three great dogmatic drafts,
(a) on the Catholic doctrine in opposition to the errors which frequently spring from Rationalism,
(b) on the Church of Christ and, (c) on Christian marriage;
----- twenty-eight drafts treating matters of church discipline. They had reference to bishops, episcopal sees, the different grades of the other clergy seminaries, the arrangement of philosophical and theological studies, sermons, the catechism, rituals, impediments to marriage, civil marriage, mixed marriages, improvement of Christian morals, feast days, fasts and abstinences, duelling, magnetism, spiritualism, secret societies, etc.
[NOTICE: The cardinals preparing for the council had no intention of discussing papal infallibility (at least not as a major topic). JFG]

... In addition a large number of subjects for discussion had been sent by the bishops of various countries. Thus, for instance, the bishops of the church provinces of Quebec and Halifax demanded the lessening of the impediments to marriage, revision of the Breviary, and, above all, the reform and codification of the entire canon law. The petition of Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore treated, among other things, the relations between Church and State religious indifference, secret societies, and the infallibility of the pope. ... Others desired a revision of the index of forbidden books. No less than nine petitions bearing nearly two hundred signatures demanded the definition of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. Over three hundred fathers of the council requested the elevation of St. Joseph as patron saint of the Universal Church. ...

The opponents of infallibility constantly assert that the pope convoked the council of the Vatican solely to have papal infallibility proclaimed. Everything else was merely an excuse and for the sake of appearances. This assertion contradicts the actual facts. Not a single one of the numerous drafts drawn up by the preparatory commission bore on papal infallibility. Only two of the twenty-one opinions sent in by the Roman cardinals mentioned it. ... It was not until the contest over papal infallibility outside of the council grew constantly more violent that various groups of members of the council began to urge conciliar discussion of the question of infallibility. ... The petitions concerning infallibility called forth ... outside the council a large number of pamphlets and innumerable articles in the daily papers and periodicals. ...

In comparison with the large scope of the preparations for the council, and with the great amount of material laid before it for discussion in the numerous drafts and proposals, the immediate result of its labours must be called small. But the council was only in its beginnings when the outbreak of war brought it to a sudden close.

... Thus it was that in the end only two not very large Constitutions could be promulgated. If, however, the contents of these two constitutions be examined, their great importance is unmistakable. The contents meet in a striking manner the needs of the times. ...

The dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith defends the fundamental principles of Christianity against the errors of modern Rationalism, Materialism, and atheism. ...

The other dogmatic Constitution is ... on the Pope ... [T]he first chapter treats of the establishment of the Apostolic primacy in the popes of Rome. ... In the third chapter the meaning and nature of the primacy are set forth in clear words. ... [T]he canon appended to the third chapter says: "When, therefore, anyone says that the Pope of Rome has only the office of supervision or of guidance, and not the complete and highest power of jurisdiction over the entire Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in matters which concern the discipline and administration of the Church throughout the entire world, or that the pope has only the chief share, but not the entire fullness of this highest power, or that this his power is not actual and immediate either over all and individual Churches, or over all and individual clergy and faithful, let him be anathema." [And thus the excommunication of schismatics. JFG] The fourth chapter, lastly, contains the definition of papal infallibility. ... [NOTE: This subject is in Chapter IV of one of two conciliar documents. Thus, papal infallibility was not the "be-all-and-end-all" of the Council, and the subject was not even on the pope's mind when he called the Council. JFG]

[A]s regards the drafts and propositions which were left unsettled by the Vatican Council, a number of these were revived and brought to completion by Pius IX and his two successors. To mention a few:
----- Pius IX made St. Joseph the patron saint of the Universal Church on 8 Dec., 1870, the same year as the council.
----- Moral and religious problems, which it was intended to lay before the council for discussion, are treated in the encyclicals of Leo XIII on the origin of the civil power (1881), on freemasonry (1884), on human freedom (1888), on Christian marriage (1880), etc.. Leo XIII also issued in 1900 new regulations regarding the index of forbidden books.
----- From the beginning of his administration, Pius X seems to have had in view in his legislative labours the completion of the great tasks left by the Vatican Council. The most striking proofs of this are: the reform of the Italian diocesan seminaries, the regulation of the philosophical and theological studies of candidates for the priesthood, the introduction of one catechism for the Roman church province, the laws concerning the form of ritual for betrothal and marriage, the revision of the prayers of the Breviary, and, above all, the codification of the whole of modern canon law.
------------------ UNQUOTE from Catholic Encyclopedia -------------------------

Mike, you had some concerns, expressed as follows: "How is it that such a dogma [infallibility] will get a person to have more faith in Christ's Church? It seems like the dogma of infallibility is an excuse for her members to not have need of being examples of holiness and charity. It's like we are saying, do as I say not as I do because I'm right. It's a call to laziness because all we really need is to be 'infallible' doctrinally, living it out is secondary at best. However, what I 'do' has more effect on others than 'talking right.' As St. Francis of Assisi once said, 'Evangelize, and if you have to, use words.' And regarding the ultimate 'talking right' statement which is 'papal infallibility' all a person needs to say in his mind is this "I believe the Church was wrong when it proclaimed that it could never be wrong (on doctrine).'"

Maybe you will want to go to the CE and read the whole article now, in search of answers to some of the above difficulties. But if the article does not help you, please let me know, because I think that there is a good response to each of your objections.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.

Bravo, John--

Looks like no stone is unturned & we ought to thank you for this post. With appreciation, in fact, to Mike H., who without intention provided an impetus to this good work. Truly, a great addition to these threads and the archives. Without Mike's question, they wouldn't have been called for! Does God work in strange ways? OH Boy, does He. Many other pesky threads these days will eventually add I hope, to a clearer understanding of our Holy Catholic Church. For the spiritual benefit of so many known only to God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.

John,

Thank you for the long and considerate reply. I was aware that the First Vatican Council was cut short by war. Also this, at the closing session it got very dark and there was a huge thunderstorm, it reminded me of the scene of the death of St. John Vianney, they closed the council in candle light. Did they have elctricity then? I'm not sure. But it was eerie. Considering that the war and the storm were symbolically saying "stop", they had to push on with what must have become the most important to those with the most influence at the council. I had no idea that: "The opponents of infallibility constantly assert that the pope convoked the council of the Vatican solely to have papal infallibility proclaimed" as you claim. I am not highly politically minded, nor good at rhetoric nor with a lawyer's knowledge of the situation. I am not that, and I'm not stupid either.

The members of the First Vatican Council, as you say, thought "thus, papal infallibility was not the "be-all-and-end-all" of the Council, and the subject was not even on the pope's mind when he called the Council." So Vatican I Council members at least initially agreed with the introduction to this thread, that there was little need to declare papal infallibility, probably because they felt it would not build up the Church much if at all. It was not even on the pope's mind at first you say. So did the pope hang himself by letting himself be emotionally coerced into the signing the dogma? By your own admission the pope didn't want it. So you argued your case along the lines I've just stated and then you but in bold type "The contents (of these two constitutions) meet in a striking manner the needs of the times...." as if it was defined anyway because God wanted it defined. So this implies that the pope's charism of infallibility led him to unexpectedly proclaim the dogma of infallibility, but if he didn't have infallibility to begin with he would have followed the intended path of action for the council which was that it "was not even on the pope's mind".

That just reasons out so ridiculously. I am not saying the silliness of it all means the dogma is false, I am not saying that. I express obedience to the pope as a Catholic. It is just that the dogma here and the Vatican I scene, pictures a leadership that is having an intellectual tantrum shouting to a deaf world "listen to me". Now, by contrast, if we were in the Jordon River and a dove decends onto a man and a voice from the clouds says "listen to him", that is convincing. By contrast, regardless of its truth, Vatican I dogma does not convert the masses of hearts to the Church. If anything it may attract a lawyer or a philosopher. A brainiack if you will. It does nothing for the bulk of humanity searching for God and his Church, which is the Catholic Church. Most people need to see holiness in action to be converted. They can't read about it's potential in certain persons and be moved to obedience or to poverty or to chastity.

As an aside, the Church membership also includes all those who lack the fullness of the faith because they choose to be in schism, they are in the Church too, they just lack the fullness of the faith.

Thank You again for your post John, I respect your research.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 02, 2003.

John

I retract my rantings against the dogma of papal infallibility. I see they are rooted in my inability to overcome a habitual sin. I stand by all the teachings of the Catholic Church which were perfectly lived out in Jesus and Mary and I pale in comparison. Anyway I am frustrated in one particular defect of character and am looking for a way out, to make faster progress. Doubting the moral law would be faster, and stupid. I am the doubting Thomas as in last Sunday's Gospel reading. I talked with my priest today. Pray for me.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 03, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Mike H.

Perhaps I am overreacting to what seem to be "cues," Mike, but it appears that you thought that I wrote my entire previous post from my own head (or that I based it on collected pieces of information. I say this because you referred several times to what "you say" [meaning what "I said" last time]. But I want to emphasize that the middle 3/4 of my post was directly quoted from the (circa 1913) Catholic Encyclopedia, published when some people who were present at the Council in 1870 were still alive! [I only inserted a few phrases in brackets.]

Thus, it is in that old article that we find these words that you quoted: "The opponents of infallibility constantly assert that the pope convoked the council of the Vatican solely to have papal infallibility proclaimed." These were not my words, though you said that I "claimed" them to be true, as though you thought that I wrote them to rebut you. I was hoping that you would see the remarkable coincidences that I noticed -- namely, that the 90-year-old article demonstrated that you have been laboring under misconceptions regarding the purposes of the Council.

You wrote: "So Vatican I Council members at least initially agreed with the introduction to this thread, that there was little need to declare papal infallibility, probably because they felt it would not build up the Church much if at all."

I couldn't really speculate (and I don't think that you should, either) as to the reasons the planning cardinals had for recommending (or choosing not to recommend) topics for discussion. To me, the fact that a formal definition of papal infallibity was not high on their agenda implies neither (1) that there was "little need" for a definition nor (2) that such a definition "would not build up the Church much, if at all." Perhaps there were many things for which there was a "need" or that would have "built up the Church," but perhaps most of these (including a definition of papal infallibility) did not appear in their planning documents simply because there were already many other things that they considered of even higher priority.

You wrote: "[Discussing infallibility] was not even on the pope's mind at first you say. So did the pope hang himself by letting himself be emotionally coerced into the signing the dogma? By your own admission the pope didn't want it."

Whoah, Nelly! I never said that "the pope didn't want it," because I would have no way of knowing his thoughts about it. Rather, the old Encyclopedia article said that the planning cardinals did not have it as an agenda item, and the pope did not force it upon them. In no way did "the pope hang himself." And no one ever said anything about his "be[ing] emotionally coerced into" signing. When we are tempted to think negatively about an Ecumenical Council's actions, I think that we have to recall the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Council Fathers. Mike, I really was not expecting a partially negative response from you to my post. You still seem very emotionally distraught about this whole matter. I hope that this second reply of mine helps you to set your misgivings aside.

You wrote: "... you [John] put in bold type, 'The contents (of these two constitutions) meet in a striking manner the needs of the times....,' as if it was defined anyway because God wanted it defined. "
Again, Mike, I was quoting the article, the author of which I assumed to be a better judge than us of "the needs of the times." I included (and "bolded") that phrase to show that both constitutions served the needs of the Church, including (but not limited to) the one that defined papal infallibility -- which, you'll recall, members of the Church outside the Council had sought (presumably because of a felt need).

You wrote: "So this implies that the pope's charism of infallibility led him to unexpectedly proclaim the dogma of infallibility, but if he didn't have infallibility to begin with he would have followed the intended path of action for the council which was that it 'was not even on the pope's mind.'".

Absolutely not. That's not how papal infallibility works! It is not a "gift of inspiration" to spring into action and state something new and ideal! Rather, it is referred to as a "negative charism." Through infallibility, the pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error to all Christians in matters of faith and morals. Papal infallibility has nothing at all to do with matters chosen for discussion at a Council.

You wrote: "I express obedience to the pope as a Catholic. It is just that the dogma here and the Vatican I scene, pictures a leadership that is having an intellectual tantrum shouting to a deaf world 'listen to me.' Now, by contrast, if we were in the Jordon River and a dove decends onto a man and a voice from the clouds says 'listen to him,' that is convincing."

I'm sorry, Mike. Sometimes I don't catch on. Maybe you can restate this (if you think it still relevant after having read my previous comments), because I don't grasp your meaning. Keep in mind that it was the Catholic people outside the Council who strongly asked for this definition after the Council had begun [it was in session for about eleven months], so there is no way that "leadership [had a] tantrum."

You wrote: "By contrast, regardless of its truth, Vatican I dogma does not convert the masses of hearts to the Church. If anything it may attract a lawyer or a philosopher. A brainiack if you will. It does nothing for the bulk of humanity searching for God and his Church, which is the Catholic Church."

But the defined dogma was not intended to "convert the masses of hearts to the Church." Maybe that's why you are so upset. You approached with the wrong assumption. The Church sometimes needs to do mundane things and/or things related to apologetics -- not just purely spiritual things related to "convert[ing] the masses of hearts." I tried to emphasize the variety of topics that the Council would have gone into, if not for the war -- topics that were more closely related to "convert[ing] the masses of hearts."

You wrote: "Most people need to see holiness in action to be converted. They can't read about its potential in certain persons and be moved to obedience or to poverty or to chastity."

Maybe I shouldn't try to "read between the lines," but your words seem to hint that Pope Pius IX and/or the bishops at Vatican I were immoral -- or at least that they were "all talk, but no action." If you are saying this, I don't see how you could possibly know! Within the Church of 1870, I think that there was no shortage of "holiness in action" visible to "most people," since there were lots of very devout priests, nuns, and laypeople around, some of whom we revere as saints and "blesseds" today. Let's not forget that Pius IX himself is now called "Blessed Pius" -- and in order to be proclaimed "Venerable," years before "Blessed," he was judged to have been a man of "heroic virtue."

You closed by stating: "As an aside, the Church membership also includes all those who lack the fullness of the faith because they choose to be in schism, they are in the Church too, they just lack the fullness of the faith."

(Uh-oh! We may be opening a big "can of worms" here.) You are mistaken about this, Mike, if by "in the Church" you mean "in the Catholic Church." People in schism have stepped outside the Catholic Church (e.g., the Eastern Orthodox, the SSPX, etc.).

It also appears that you may be confusing schism and heresy. You referred to people "in schism," but those are not the people who "lack the fullness of the faith." People who are truly in schism (and schism only) accept all the dogmas of the Church except the one by which we know of the visible spiritual headship of Christianity by the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ. Catholics who go into schism excommunicate themselves, meaning that they leave the perfect "communion" shared by Catholics.

But people who reject one or more dogmas other than, or in addition to, papal supremacy actually slip into "formal heresy." These folks may be in graver danger even than the many people who, though no fault of their own, are born into (Protestant) ecclesial communities that hold doctrines constituting "material heresy." People who are in heresy are not fully incorporated into the Catholic Church. So the Church tells us in "Unitatis redintegratio" ["Restoration of unity"] and "Lumen gentium" ["Light of the nations"], both Vatican II documents. The words "fully incorporated" come from "Corpus," meaning "Body," thus referring to full participation in the Body of Christ.

Speaking of Catholicism, "Unitatis reditegratio," the Decree on Ecumenism, states: "We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God."

"Lumen gentium," the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, states this about Catholics like you: "They are fully incorporated in the society of the [Catholic] Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops."

Speaking about people in schism or heresy, "Unitatis redintegratio" says: "[These people] who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church -- whether in doctrine and sometimes also in discipline, or in regard to the structure of the Church -- do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion."

In "Unitatis redintegratio," the Church cautions us to guard against a certain flaw in our approach to non-Catholics: "Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded." [A "false irenicism" (from the Greek "irene = peace") is a "peace-at-all-costs" approach, an over-conciliatory approach in which part of doctrinal truth is compromised away.]
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 03, 2003.

John

Thanks for your thorough reply. Even though you missed my short post at first, I read yours anyway and found it informative. You have a keen mind for details.

When I said "As an aside, the Church membership also includes all those who lack the fullness of the faith because they choose to be in schism, they are in the Church too, they just lack the fullness of the faith." I meant the Body Of Christ not just the Catholic Church.

So do schismatics have the "fullness of the faith"? If so, than that is like saying there is no harm in being schismatic. Isn't it?

I didn't know that schismatics accepted all the dogmas. Maybe that's a baby step toward becoming a heretic? I'm sure some people skip right over the schismatic phase and morph into heretic immediately. If I were to be a thorn in the side of the Catholic Church, I wouldn't bother being a schismatic, I'd go right for the jugular and be a heretic. Of course better to be neither. I guess I'm an "it's either black or white" type, either I conform totally or I oppose totally. People with autism are like that too, he he. Which might be why I have trouble in my spiritual walk some days, rather, some weeks.

I'm glad you made the point on peace-at-all-costs ecumenism. Better for us to stand for our faith in a charitable manner. Would that also be called relativism? Ecumenism makes me think of this: I like to listen to Christian radio. There is no Catholic radio around me. Most of the music lyrics and talk shows are good but some of it I have to laugh at, being a Catholic. I don't think I should not listen just because there are obvious errors expressed. Some of the most common errors expressed on the radio in lyrics are these "I know I am saved for sure and can't wait to be in heaven with Jesus" songs, like they have a ticket in their pocket. Also ones that expess how "I have to do no work, pay no cost, just accept that free gift." I laugh when I hear them, maybe I should cry. But otherwise there are good morals and praise expressed and nice sounding tunes, no rap or metal on the one I listen to. I don't think I'm in danger by choosing to tune in, all the while knowing I will hear some false doctrine. What do you think on that?

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 04, 2003.

Jmj

The Church has never come right out and told us to avoid watching/listening to non-Catholic religious TV or radio.
My opinion, Mike, is that a person with a strong, unshakeable Catholic faith (like you) is very unlikely to be harmed by listening to the radio as you do. It could even be an occasion for prompting you to pray for Christian unity and the conversion of people who believe wrongly.

You stated: "So do schismatics have the 'fullness of the faith?' If so, than that is like saying there is no harm in being schismatic. Isn't it?"

I didn't say that they have the "fullness," because they have discarded the key doctrines of Petrine succession and primacy. Therefore, there IS spiritual "harm in being schismatic."

You also wrote: "I'm sure some people skip right over the schismatic phase and morph into heretic immediately."

Oh, most definitely! In fact, I think that you and I would be hard-pressed to find a "perfect schismatic." Once a person goes into schism, it seems not to take long -- because they are off the bark of Peter -- before they start dabbling in dissent (through unguided scriptural interpretation, etc.). Example? The "classic" case of schism is supposed to be the Eastern Orthodox churches -- our closest "separated brethren," who have seven valid sacraments, ancient liturgies of the Mass (Divine Liturgy), etc.. But if you begin to take a closer look at Eastern Orthodoxy (now separated since 1054 A.D.), you find that most of the Orthodox accept divorce-and-remarriage ... that they seem to doubt in the existence of Purgatory ... that they no longer condemn contraception ... [and there are other ways that they now believe wrongly]. In other words, I worry that, if we all fail to be reunited under the pope soon, one or more of the autonomous Orthodox churches (e.g., Russian, Greek, etc.) may some day fall into heresy (fully rejecting one or more dogmas).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), May 05, 2003.

John,

Oh no! It would appear that the Eastern Orthodox are headed for Protestantism. Mr. Lust and Mrs. Greed have sent their Repo Man to them. Sad, all they need to do is look at the history of those who accept divorce, contraception and those who reject Purgatory.

First, since schismatics deny Petrine succession and primacy, as you said, schismatics could take a lesson from St. Francis of Assissi who used to preach at length about the fruits of holy obedience. Wouldn't the act of schism oppose the virtue of obedience? When St. Francis went on a lengthy walk with a companion such as a religious novice, he would put the novice in charge of him for just the time of the walk, even though St. Francis founded the order! What a lesson for us! Schismatics perhaps first lost sight of the value of obedience. No obedience, no cross. How many times did Jesus say he came to do his Father's will? Many times indeed as you know. Obedience is very important. St. Francis decribed how we ought to imitate a corpse:

"Take a corpse," he said, "and put it where you will! You will see that it does not resist being moved, nor murmur about its position nor protest when it is cast aside. If it is placed on a throne, it will not raise its eyes up, but cast them down. If it is clothed in purple it will look twice as pale. This," he said, "is a truly obedient man. He does not judge why he is moved; he does not care where he is placed; he does not insist on being transferred. If he is raised to an office, he retains his customary humility. The more he is honored the more unworthy he considers himself." from The Life of St. Francis chapter six, by St. Bonaventure

But you mention John that for Eastern Orthodox schismatics, the rejection of the cross does not stop at obedience. Divorce is obviously wrong, plainly stated in the Bible as wrong. Couples ought to expect their cross once the honeymoon is over. Divorce rejects the cross. Contraception is well known to lead to abortion, that is practically a no-brainer. Not to mention it also rejects the cross. If all I want from life is sensual pleasure, how can I grow spiritually? The elimination of Purgatory is the same problem. It eliminates the cross because it opens us to "once saved always saved" thinking. Purgatory does not fit with the Protestant notion of salvation. Because if all I need to do is accept Christ and go to heaven, where is the cross? The Anti-Christ is Anti-Cross as I heard in a Fulton Sheen video. How true!

love our cross

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 05, 2003.

This isn't a thread about Eastern Orthodoxy, so I'm not going to belabor the point, but I think there is a misunderstanding of how the Orthodox view divorce and remarriage. I do not belive that the Orthodox are in heresy on this matter. (If there is official Catholic Chruch teaching that the Orthodox are in heresy on this issue, I am open to correction.) Orthodox teaching rejects remarriage after divorce as completely sinful, just as our Lord teaches in Holy Scripture. The difference lies in how the Orthodox and the Catholics deal with people who are in this sinful situation, and is pastoral only, not dogmatic. You might say that the Orthodox have taken the actual (but illegitimate) Catholic practice of widespread use of the "internal forum solution" and made it a legitimate part of their practice of "economia".

If you are going to argue that this is heresy, you might as well argue that dropping the automatic excommunication of Catholics who civilly remarried was also an act of heresy.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 05, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Mike H and Mark.

Mike, thanks for the good stories about my patron saint (Francis)!
I want to clarify something I said last time.
I stated that the Eastern Orthodox "have discarded the key doctrines of Petrine succession and primacy."
Actually, they still believe in "Petrine succession" in the sense of accepting the current pope as Bishop of Rome and successor of St. Peter in that capacity. But, whether or not they acknowledge the primacy of Peter over the other apostles, they definitely do not accept the primacy of his successor over the other bishops of today.

Top apologist Dave Armstrong has a big page of links about the Catholicism/Eastern-Orthodoxy situation. I wish that I had time to read everything listed there, because my knowledge of the facts is still too small.
A good starting point, if you are interested in pursuing it, may be the very first link on that page: "Catholicism and Orthodoxy: a Comparison." You can read about the problems I mentioned last time (and the ones I left out).

Mark, I'm afraid that I have to disagree fully with what you said about Eastern Orthodoxy, divorce, and remarriage. You wrote:
"... I think there is a misunderstanding of how the Orthodox view divorce and remarriage. I do not belive that the Orthodox are in heresy on this matter. (If there is official Catholic Church teaching that the Orthodox are in heresy on this issue, I am open to correction.)"

I'm not aware of an "official" Church statement on this. But I don't think that we need one because, once one thinks the matter through, it becomes rather obvious.

You continued: "Orthodox teaching rejects remarriage after divorce as completely sinful, just as our Lord teaches in Holy Scripture. The difference lies in how the Orthodox and the Catholics deal with people who are in this sinful situation, and is pastoral only, not dogmatic.

According to what I have read, you are mistaken in thinking that the Orthodox consider "remarriage" to be "completely sinful." Rather (I have read), the "sinful" thing is the failure to hold the "first" marriage together. However, even if what you say is correct (and what I have read is wrong), it still is clear that Orthodoxy's "pastoral" way of "deal[ing] with people ... in this sinful situation" is, to put it bluntly, "heresy in action." It as tantamount to making a liar out of Jesus, who rejected "remarriage" as adultery (a continuous series of mortal sins that can lead to damnation). These are sins that cannot be absolved until the adulterous relationship ends. These are sins that make one unable to receive the sacraments.

You concluded by saying: "If you are going to argue that this is heresy, you might as well argue that dropping the automatic excommunication of Catholics who civilly remarried was also an act of heresy."

No, this does not follow logically. The Church, with the power to bind and loose, is not required to excommunicate every heretic. She can choose a lesser penalty, such as withholding the sacraments. The current, milder treatment of Catholics who are in this state of adultery does not imply that the couple is not guilty of heresy (disbelief in the indissolubility of marriage). The Orthodox error, however, is to go beyond a "milder treatment" by allowing those couples who are in mortal sin to commit sacrilege by receiving Holy Communion.

By the way, here is how Dave Armstrong summarizes the situation:
"Catholics ... believe that Jesus and the Apostles and ancient Christian Tradition considered a valid sacramental marriage between two baptized Christians as absolutely indissoluble. An annulment is essentially different from a divorce in that it is the determination (based on a variety of possible reasons) that a valid sacramental marriage never existed. Orthodoxy accepts second and third marriages, with, however, a measure of penitential sadness commensurate with a falling short of the Christian ideal, and feels that this is a tragic pastoral necessity, in light of the fallen human condition."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 06, 2003.

John

Thanks for the link. I read half of "Catholicism and Orthodoxy: a Comparison" so far...

I read that the schism is rooted in THE SACKING OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 1204. Reading about what went on, I suppose they had some reason to break away, even if not really a good enough one. Perhaps we could say the same for the Protestants, that they had some real reasons for being upset with the church-men. Perhaps God let that go on with relative peace among the heretics and schismatics until the 20th century. But maybe God is now saying, in modern times, all ought to be Catholic. All ought to go back home. It is no longer safe away from home.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 07, 2003.