Yes David Im back, but only briefly so breath a sigh of relief! Ive been having some discussions about the merit of institutional reform in the Church with some of those evil devil worshipping pagan types. The discussion is a bit lengthy to post here, and youd all be pleased to know I was very orthodox, but a final question has me wary of being set up.

Any thoughts on a response to the idea that we could become identical to a Protestant Church in theology but still consider ourselves as the only true church? Am I making sense? Ah well anyway, if you think of anything it would be appreciated.

Take care all and thanks in advance

His reply

Actually thanks, Kiwi, you've completely answered my question for me! I didn't realize that the continuity of the Church was an important issue in Catholocism. So yeah, if you put a value on the continuity of "the one" church, Catholicism could become theologically identical to a Protestant sect and still be "better." -- nabisco (---@n...), September 5th, 2002.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 06, 2002

Answers

Catholicism could never "become theologically identical to a Protestant sect," because she can never fall into heresy -- and innate heresy is part of the definition of Protestantism.

If, theoretically, a so-called Protestant sect were to arise that was "theologically identical to" Catholicism, then it would cease to be eligible to be called "Protestant." It would be eligible to unite itself to the Catholic Church.

Your "nabisco" should not be trying to choose among what is "better" or "worse," but choosing (1) what has the fullness of the truth with no heresy mixed in (Catholicism) versus (2) what lacks the fullness of the truth and has heresy mixed in (anything other than Catholicism).

Number 1 was founded by Jesus, the God-man. Every number 2 was founded by a mere man.

-- Faith (Faith@Faith.Faith), September 06, 2002.

Hi Kiwi,

Nice to hear from you. I hope you stick around.

My reply really doesn't have much to do with your post, but in response to what "Faith" said in her/his post.

I am still confused as to the history of the "Catholic" Church. I enjoy reading about the history of church and religion, but what I continue to find is that it was Constantine who founded the "Roman Catholic" Church around the time of 314, (I think I have the right year). Which would make the life of the Church approx. 1688 years old, instead of over 2000 years. This information is listed under several sites on the internet, (history, theology).

I think John and I have discussed this before, and I know what the responses will be as far as Peter and the rock, and so forth....but nevertheless, it still confuses me.

I look forward in hearing from the regulars......I am sure they will shed some light on this for me.....again =).

God Bless you Kiwi,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), September 06, 2002.

Kathy,

The Catholic Church began with Peter and has had a successive popes for over 2000 years. Take a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia's List of Popes to see their names.

You (and the sites you are reading) are confusing the lifting of prosecutions against the Church by Constantine with the beginning of the Catholic Church. Once Constantine stopped the persecutions, then the Catholic Church was officially recognized. But it had already been in existence for over 300 years.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), September 06, 2002.

Hey Kiwi:

Catholicism will never be identical theologically with Protestanism, and that is really not the point anyway.

The thing that makes the Catholic Church unique is the apostolic succession. In other words, Church history records (via Eusebius the church historian) as well as other records, that the apostles did indeed hand their churches down to appointed leaders chosen by them. Furthermore, Peter's successors are recorded in Eusebius as well. The records reveal apostolic succession straight into what we now call the Catholic Church.

Kathy, Constantine did bring about changes in the Church, but the Church was well-formed by then, inspite of its many persecutions. It was not until the late third century and fourth century that the church was even able to grapple with some of the weighty issues at hand; such as the doctrine of the trinity, Jesus' equality with God, what books belong in the New Testament. These very great issues were not even dealt with until the great persecutions of the first 3 centuries subsided.

I really can't urge folks enough to read the actual writings of the church fathers, from the apostles on down. It is quite enlightening. It also contains the writings of Eusebius, the historian I mentioned above. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), September 06, 2002.

Hi Gail,

Thank you for listing that site....I will definitly check it out. I have also been reading about the Vatican II and the first Vatican. I am coming to a better understanding of what everyone's gripe is about with the two. I have read some pretty disturbing stuff about the current Pope and can see why there are issues between the two Vaticans.

Now I am getting off track......I have read a little about the doctrine of the trinity as well.....but my confusion still remained.

I do appreciate any sites you have to offer so that I can get a better understanding.

Glenn, Thank you for the link.....been there, done that =). I am still reading up on the different Popes and what they have done during their time as the Pope. In doing so, I have come across some controversy, that I don't quite have a grip on yet, but recognized the threads that discussed some of these things. Sorry, I can't mention the names of these Popes, due to my lack of remembering all the different names, and the terminology used as well....I would'nt want to list the wrong ones.

I can tell you this....it had something to do with the current Pope overturning something that a previous Pope had ruled on.....I know that this was an issue that Fred, and possibly John had talked about in great lenghth in a thread somewhere, perhaps David would know where it is. I would love to read those threads again, because it would probably make more sense to me now.

Anyway, it has been a long learning process. I suppose it is going to take quite some time to understand everything the way John, Chris and others do!! I've never considered myself a slow learner until now!!

Thanks for your responses.

P.S. Kiwi, sorry for interupting your thread.....please forgive me. =)

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), September 06, 2002.

"I am still confused as to the history of the "Catholic" Church. I enjoy reading about the history of church and religion, but what I continue to find is that it was Constantine who founded the "Roman Catholic" Church around the time of 314, (I think I have the right year). Which would make the life of the Church approx. 1688 years old, instead of over 2000 years. This information is listed under several sites on the internet, (history, theology)."

Kathy - I'm wondering if this is bringing to your mind questions of the validity of the Catholic Church being the Church of Christ.

If this is the case then one must look at a few things.

1) If Constantine founded the Catholic Church, and all the Protestant Christian sects sprung out of Catholocism, then where on earth did the real Church of Christ go? Christ promised that it wouldn't be destroyed, and if it isn't the Protestant sects who can only claim 500 years of history, then by default (because there is no other Christian Church) it MUST be the Catholic Church who can claim 2000 years (or at the very least 1688) of history.

2) We must also see that the original 12 Apostles of Christ were living up until the 50's or 60's AD, which leaves a little over 250 years for Christs Church to be in existance after the original 12 + had died, before Constantine had "founded" the Catholic Church. This is only a few generations away - and the oral and writen traditions would have been very strong (one would think stronger than now). It doesn't make much sense to think that in 250 years the real Church of Christ would die, and leave in its wake a man made "Catholic Church" to live for 1688 years. Unless of course that the Church of Christ was indeed (and it is) the Catholic Church.

2) If Constantine didn't indeed found the Catholic Church (which I tend to believe he didn't) - then there is no question.

I no that there is no historical evidence that I have posted, and this is merely my rationalization of your question. But I hope that what little I have put forth is worth something to you.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), September 06, 2002.

Hi Jake,

Thank you for your response. First let me just say that I am in no position to say what is or isn't true. But, if I had to give an answer to your first question to me, I'd have to say yes and no.

Let me just explain briefly; I don't question the validity of the Catholic Church being the Church of Christ. However, I think we would both have different views on what the "meaning" of the Church of Christ is. But, I do have doubts that the Catholic Church is the church that Christ founded. I do have doubts that the "Catholic" Church has been around for over 2000 years. These doubts that I mentioned come from the research I have done only. And for no other reason. Please keep in mind Jake, that I am still learning, I am certaintly no expert on the subject. And I certaintly do not feel as though I am knowledgeable (sp) enough to debate any of this.

This post is in no way a firm belief that I have, it is just a little bit of doubt and uncertainty. Therefore I seek to know more. I would not reject anybody's opinion on this, in fact I welcome it.

I might also mention that I do not limit my reasearch to catholic sites only. The historical sites that I visit are written by historians with no mention of their particular religion. I have also researched theology written by catholics and protestants.

BTW Jake.....everything you post is worth something to me.

God bless you Jake,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), September 06, 2002.

several things: 1) Christ said that the church will never fall into error. And the Jews were promised that they would be as numerious as the stars. Christ said that God could make a Jewish race from the very rocks. It was a great humility point. Could there be such a humility point for the first statement? Have you no humility, only a last ditch arguement? It just seems so feeble to argue so. The church is not as it was in the beginining, is now and ever more will not be. Not to my eyes.

So, no matter how worldly, foolish, etc. the church could become, that there will be no error? Nor any reason to be concerned about error? Priests can marry in one centuary and not in another, and there is no error, no change of course? A vile, course man could become pope, and all of the statements from that papacy have no error? well maybe because Christ could renew his Church, lead her away from problems, and inspire her anew. Things that most people would take as complete opposites can be said in one centuary vs another, and no one talks of the slowly changing church which hopefully is changing toward Christ? And should the next pope save the church from a priest implosion by allowing married priests, will you say "As we have always said..."?

One can see a slow progression of the Jewish religion in the old testamate from many gods to God to an increased understanding of what God wants. This progression is banned from the Church by you? We are the crown of creation, the peak of understanding, and have always been? Paul changed nothing? Augustine changed nothing? Aquinas changed nothing? And there was no error to change from? Or increased understanding to attain to?

2) I found a list of popes that had some gaps in it, but I have not looked for it anew. It was a list of Catholic reconized popes, and there was a gap arould the 200 to 400 mark, and a few other gaps througth out the centaurys..

How did popes get elected/consecrated before the college of cardnals got created? A laying of hands from the last pope seems to be improbable when the last pope may be imprisioned or too quickly killed.

3) When did the popes lose the healing touch given to the apostles? Well, the many gifts are given to many people in different ways, but what distinguished the apostles and even the discples was that they had some of Christ's own healing abilitys. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), September 06, 2002.

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txc/popes.htm

On gaps: well maybe it did take 2 years to elect a pope around 304, and maybe 3 years for 1268, and maybe other dates in a rapidly scanned table. It seems to have been a killer office: most did not last long in it. Most seem to agree, I could not find any mention of the “inter-reign” in any of the sites I searched. So, without support, I withdraw that part. I am still curious when the council of cardinals started, when it started electing the pope, and what was the procedure before that. (Question part 3). Basically, tho I will for now conceed the succession was blessed by God, how is it that one can go several years with out a pope, and still say that the succession is continous? Here is 2 more lists: http://www.bartleby.com/65/po/popesTABLE.html http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0839708.html

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), September 06, 2002.

With Love, Sean. In the words of my friend John G. I think Sean has a gap in his cranium.

I don't have the will to pick apart every point he maid, but here is a few.

"So, no matter how worldly, foolish, etc. the church could become, that there will be no error?"

Not true! This should read "So, no matter how worldly, foolish, etc. the [people inside] the church could become, that there will be no error?"

To this I would say: YES!!!

"Nor any reason to be concerned about error?"

You got that right. Christ never lied.

"Priests can marry in one centuary and not in another, and there is no error, no change of course?"

If you did read the Bible you'd note that none of the Apostles were married during their priesthood. Pere was married before, but when Jesus called him (like the rest), he left everything that he had and followed Christ.

"A vile, course man could become pope, and all of the statements from that papacy have no error?"

Absolutely correct. It's called guidence by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Just look at Peter, who would deny Jesus 3 times, yet have the Charism to heal people with his shadow.

"well maybe because Christ could renew his Church, lead her away from problems, and inspire her anew. Things that most people would take as complete opposites can be said in one centuary vs another, and no one talks of the slowly changing church which hopefully is changing toward Christ? And should the next pope save the church from a priest implosion by allowing married priests, will you say "As we have always said..."?"

In case ther was any last confusions lingering in anyones minds: The Church has NEVER changed her teachings on faith and morals. And she has NEVER changed her teachings on the celebacy of the priests. Before one, like Sean, makes statements like these, one should at least know the true teachings of the Catholic Faith.

I hope that you continue to read the posts on this web site Sean, because the answeres to all the rest of the errors you've posted are already here.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), September 06, 2002.

Kathy, I want to repeat some 100% facts that were stated above, to strengthen your faith and help you get past the doubts you expressed ["I do have doubts that the Catholic Church is the church that Christ founded. I do have doubts that the 'Catholic' Church has been around for over 2000 years."].

The Catholic Church ... has had successive popes [from Peter] for [almost] 2000 years. Take a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia's List of Popes to see their names. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm (Glenn)

If the Catholic Church had just started in about 315 a.d., it would not have had over 30 popes (bishops of Rome) prior to Constantine.

You (and the sites you are reading) are confusing the lifting of persecutions against the Church by Constantine with the beginning of the Catholic Church. Once Constantine stopped the persecutions, then the Catholic Church was officially recognized. But it had already been in existence for [almost] 300 years. (Glenn)

Kathy, the places where you are finding the myth about the Catholic Church being started by Constantine are anti-Catholic sites -- or at least sites set up by unlearned people who pass along the same error that their ancestors have been handing down for the last several generations. But to verify the facts, you don't have to count on us or those anti-Catholic sites (either of whom you may fear to be prejudiced). Instead, try more professional sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia, which say that the Catholic Church can be traced back to the first century.

I really can't urge folks enough to read the actual writings of the church fathers, from the apostles on down. It is quite enlightening. It also contains the writings of Eusebius, the historian I mentioned above. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2 (Gail)

Kathy, reading the early Fathers of the Church (particularly the "ante-Nicene" Fathers, who wrote between 60 a.d. and 325 a.d.) -- may convince you beyond a shadow of a doubt, as it has convinced many. Translations of these Greek and Latin writings can be found in libraries in a hardback, multi-volume set published by a Protestant house, so you don't have to take our word for the fact that they demonstrate Catholic beliefs and practices (including the liturgy) going back for more than 200 years before Constantine. You can read for yourself.

Kathy, if you explore the writings of the Fathers, you will learn some amazing things. As the Bible says, St. Peter was first leading the Church in Antioch for some time before going to Rome. He taught a man named Ignatius, who eventually became bishop of Antioch. We still have some letters that St. Ignatius wrote as an old man. One of them, dated from about 110 a.d., says, "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2).

Another Ignatian letter shows that he knew that the universal Church had its headship where St. Peter was bishop and was martyred: "Ignatius ... to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110])."

One of the apostle St. John's disciples was named Polycarp, a bishop in what is now Turkey in the second century. We still have, from about 155 a.d., an account of his martyrdom, which has the words, "And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2)."

Bishop St. Polycarp himself had a disciple named Irenaeus, who went on to become a bishop in France. As an old man around 189 a.d., St. Irenaeus also showed that the Catholic Church was centered in the diocese of Rome: "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches [local dioceses], we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189])."

Kathy, have you heard about the scads of non-Catholics of high intelligence -- including many clergy of dozens of denominations -- who have been converting to Catholicism in the last 150 years of so (esp. the last 30 years)? Please consider the fact that they -- who were not going to let themselves be fooled -- satisfied themselves that the Church that Jesus founded was indeed the Catholic Church. I urge you to read some conversion stories, such as those in "Surprised by Truth" (volumes I and II), "Journeys Home," "Rome Sweet Home," "Crossing the Tiber," and others.

-- Faith (Faith@Faith.Faith), September 06, 2002.

Well, I guess if a Pope appointed a group of people to select his seccesor, and they were still around, then their choice could be considered a legimate seccession. So gaps of many years could be tolerated. This is a Pro-Catholic answer, please notice. I am still currious just how each of the ways to select a Pope was started and handled. I suspect that the college of cardinals was a much later invention.

The celebacy issue continued with non-celebate priests until well past the year 1000. So while Peter may have been an example, many others did not make the same sacrafice. Not that I really want to raise the celebacy issue, except as an point where things have changed in the last 1000 years, and are likely to change again. I have had it suggested to me that there were inheritance issues that drove the problem to the point that it went to celebacy.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), September 06, 2002.

Faith,

Thank you so much for taking the time to post all that. I will take the time to look up the refrences that you provided. You gave me a wealth of information, to which I am thankful.

There is so much out there and alot to decipher. This is where my uncertainty comes from.

Just so you know Faith, I do try to make certain that I am not in an anti-catholic site. If I find a site that I question....I will usually ask John or Chris if it is a valid site. Or I might just try another site if I have doubts about the one I am in.

Again Faith, thank you for your post.

God bless,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), September 06, 2002.

Kathy,

I pulled up a old thread for you to show you something.The thread is titled the Real Presence. But after reading Faith's post to you, I am sure you get the picture now.

Good job Faith!

God bless You Kathy, and God bless Faith.

David S

-- David (David@excite.com), September 06, 2002.

In a way you have given me a joke. (I hope that it is a joke, the arguement comes up with a result that is strange:)

If there is not reason to be concerned that the Church should fall into error, then we can all relax. No problems can befall her. No need of schooling the layity, keeping the magistrum, policing the Priests, or any other such thing. It is in the hands of Holy Spirit. There is nothing we can do to foul up. There is litteraly, according to your defination, absolutely no way that any people's action can foul up the church's teaching.

I really hope that you see the above as a reducto ad adsurdum arguement: if the logical result of your statement is not right, then at least one of your ideas that went into that logic is not right.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), September 06, 2002.

The world is not flat.

Well, we all know that. Photos from space if nothing else. But at one time the Church put its whole self on the wrong science answer. There is a psalm whose ending has a "world is flat" type statement in it. It is now considered poetry. It was considered a statement of faith, and deaply a part of the church's teaching. Well it is not a salvation issue now. But it once could have been life or death for your body.

But you must not consider this a change in the teaching of the Church. There has been no Change in the Teaching of the Church. Ever. Just clarifications. Vatican II, Aquinus, etc are all just clarifications. Well the next clarification could mean anything or go anywhere. And if it does? well we are all protected by the Holy Spirit. What a wonderful attitude. The Quakers and the Adventests will be so happy, as they are strong Holy Spirit folk too.

There is a song I know, about a cat that does something awkward, and then just looks at everyone and seems to say: I ment to do that.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), September 06, 2002.

Sean, you continue to be mixed up about the Churches teachings. The Church is ONLY infallible on teachings of Morals and Faith. The structure of the Earth is not moral or faith based. The Church put her trust in secular science, which errd at first on the flatness of the earth.

You also worte: "No need of schooling the layity, keeping the magistrum, policing the Priests, or any other such thing."

This is just plain common sence. We need not worry abuot the Church precisely because of the schooling of the layity, keeping the magisterium, etc. In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), September 07, 2002.

Sean, until now I have been bypassing your messages, because I have been interested in corresponding with Kathy (whom I thank for her gracious reply). (I thank you too, David.)

But now, Sean, I have gone back to read what you wrote and found that you are really confused. It sounds like you might have been a Catholic that fell away from the Church (perhaps because you rejected some moral teaching?) and are now in some kind of very muddled, "liberal" denomination like Episcopalianism -- where people can just about believe whatever they want, without penalty. I hope that you are coming here, not to lure Catholics into your present misery, but rather because you are sorry that you left the home where Jesus dwells and you are being felt drawn back to Catholicism.

Christ said that the church will never fall into error. (Sean)

Yes, in effect he said this. It is good that you acknowledge it. It is a reason that you should not have left, and that you should return to, the Catholic Church, which will never fall into teaching religious heresy. That's what Jesus meant.

And the Jews were promised that they would be as numerious as the stars. (Sean)

No, not really. Rather, Abraham, a man from an area near modern Baghdad, Iraq, was promised (long before there ever was such a thing as a "Jew"), "I will do you good, and make your descendants as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude." It was his "descendants" that would be numerous. Today's Jews, Christians, and Moslems are considered spiritual "descendants" of Abraham. God kept this promise, just as Jesus has kept the other promise (his Catholic Church being protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching heresy).

Christ said that God could make a Jewish race from the very rocks. It was a great humility point. Could there be such a humility point for the first statement? Have you no humility, only a last ditch arguement? It just seems so feeble to argue so. (Sean)

Sean, you used the word "you," but addressed your message to no one, even though five or six people had written before you did. To whom were you speaking? What is the "last ditch argument" to which you referred? What do you mean by a "humility point for the first statement"? Should there be a "humility point" just because you want there to be one? Could it be that you are calling an argument "feeble" just because you don't agree with it? Please make an effort to communicate more explicitly. I'm not very bright, so I can't read your mind.

The church is not as it was in the beginining, is now and ever more will not be. Not to my eyes. (Sean)

In one way, you are right. The Church is what Jesus was describing when he spoke of the great shrub that grows from the tiny mustard seed. The Church not only changes by growing, but also changes in non-essentials (such as customs, rules/regulations, attire, ways of communicating). In another way, though you are wrong. The Church never changes the teachings that have been handed down from the time of the Apostles. The Church has always taught, and always will teach, that Jesus is God and man and that he rose bodily from the dead. The Church has always taught that certain acts are sins and she will always teach that those acts are sins, for she has no authority to change God's teaching. Some people foolishly join quasi-Christian groups led by dingbats like John Spong, who think that they can "re-define" God's morality (sodomy now OK, remarriage now OK, etc.) or faith content (resurrection a myth, Jesus not really divine, etc.).

So, no matter how worldly, foolish, etc. the church could become, that there will be no error? Nor any reason to be concerned about error? Priests can marry in one centuary and not in another, and there is no error, no change of course? A vile, course man could become pope, and all of the statements from that papacy have no error? (Sean)

The "Church" cannot become "worldly" or "foolish," but only some members of the Church can. Even if that were to happen, though, the Church would be incapable of teaching the whole world to believe an error. In using the word "error," we are not talking about sin and we are not talking about rules. We are talking about doctrine -- faith content and morality. Whether priests can marry or not is a rule that can change. It is not doctrine. See the distinction? I think you know that no "vile, coarse man" is going to become pope. But if it were to happen, then every doctrinal statement by which he would teach the whole Church would nevertheless be protected from error. Jesus promised, and the Holy Spirit delivers. If you doubt it, you insult Jesus and claim that God lies.

Things that most people would take as complete opposites can be said in one centuary vs another, and no one talks of the slowly changing church which hopefully is changing toward Christ? And should the next pope save the church from a priest implosion by allowing married priests, will you say "As we have always said..."? (Sean)

Someone has fooled you, Sean. There is no worldwide priest shortage. In places where the faith is vibrant, there is an abundance of priests. The Church's shepherds, for many centuries, have judged that allowing married priests will not make the world better. More importantly, as I have said earlier, that is not a matter of doctrine, but of rules that can change.

One can see a slow progression of the Jewish religion in the old testamate from many gods to God to an increased understanding of what God wants. This progression is banned from the Church by you? We are the crown of creation, the peak of understanding, and have always been? Paul changed nothing? Augustine changed nothing? Aquinas changed nothing? And there was no error to change from? Or increased understanding to attain to? (Sean)

Someone has misinformed you, Sean. First, there was never a belief in "many gods" in "the Jewish religion." Second, a very great and beautiful teaching of Catholicism is that the Holy Spirit leads the Church into a "development of doctrine," an authentic "increased understanding" (using your phrase). Understanding a doctrine better, though, does not mean changing it in a way that contradicts any aspect of the previous belief. Saints Paul, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas "changed nothing," and "there was no [doctrinal] error to change from." Those men had no power to "change" what God revealed. They only helped people to understand revelation better. Am I making the distinctions clear? Once you grasp these key points, your animosity toward Catholicism, based on misconceptions, will fade away.

How did popes get elected/consecrated before the college of cardnals got created? (Sean)

The clergy of the city of Rome chose their next bishop (the pope). Today, each of the world's cardinals has a "titular" church within the diocese of Rome, wherein he acts like a chief pastor. In this way, the ancient custom is preserved symbolically when the cardinals gather in a conclave to choose the next pope. They are acting then, not as bishops of their own dioceses, but as "titular clergy of Rome." A pope chose to create the college of cardinals about a millennium ago. A pope has the right and power to do that. He is the head teacher and maker of ecclesiastical laws. Very unlikely, but some day, a pope may replace the conclave with a new way to elect the next pope. This is a matter of change-able rules, not doctrine.

When did the popes lose the healing touch given to the apostles? Well, the many gifts are given to many people in different ways, but what distinguished the apostles and even the discples was that they had some of Christ's own healing abilitys. (Sean)

Popes did not "lose the healing touch." God gives special gifts where and when he knows they are needed. In his wisdom, he still gives the gift of healing to some Catholics. I am not going to question his wisdom about this. The absence of a visible gift should not be misjudged as a lack of favor. Every pope in our lifetime has been given great graces of holiness and wisdom -- much greater gifts than "the healing touch." These men have healed souls, more important than healing bodies.

tho I will for now conceed the succession was blessed by God, how is it that one can go several years with out a pope, and still say that the succession is continous? (Sean)

Nowadays, with instantaneous communication and rapid transportation of cardinals to conclaves, it can still take several weeks for a new pope to be elected. By extending a faulty logic, you would have to say that "the successsion is [not] continuous" unless a new pope were elected within one heartbeat of the previous pope's death! What is an acceptable interval of time? As long as the circumstances require. Many centuries ago, the periods were sometimes very long -- due to wars, lack of political cooperation, inability of the electors to agree, etc.. No problem! The Holy Spirit came through eventually.

In a way you have given me a joke. (I hope that it is a joke, the arguement comes up with a result that is strange:) If there is not reason to be concerned that the Church should fall into error, then we can all relax. No problems can befall her. No need of schooling the layity, keeping the magistrum, policing the Priests, or any other such thing. It is in the hands of Holy Spirit. There is nothing we can do to foul up. There is litteraly, according to your defination, absolutely no way that any people's action can foul up the church's teaching. I really hope that you see the above as a reducto ad adsurdum arguement: if the logical result of your statement is not right, then at least one of your ideas that went into that logic is not right. (Sean)

Sean, you have inadventently captured the truth in the part I have put in bold type. I know that you were trying to mock the Church, but you failed. The "logical result of" the Catholic "statement" IS right, and everything that went into the logic is right too. Where you have messed up is in thinking that a Church that cannot teach heresy (Catholicism) must also be a group of men and women who cannot sin, who don't need an education, who don't need to "police the priests," etc.. People have free will, and even leaders in a Church that teaches infallibly can sin, can make bad choices, or can provide unwise leadership.

The world is not flat. Well, we all know that. Photos from space if nothing else. But at one time the Church put its whole self on the wrong science answer. There is a psalm whose ending has a "world is flat" type statement in it. It is now considered poetry. It was considered a statement of faith, and deaply a part of the church's teaching. Well it is not a salvation issue now. But it once could have been life or death for your body. (Sean)

You will have to prove that to me by quoting from official Church documents. Without proof, I wouldn't believe it for a minute. I think that you have picked up some nonsense from an anti-Catholic source. People were not executed, by order of a pope, for disbelieving in the flatness of the planet! Even if some idiot of a clergyman demanded belief in such a thing, that would be irrelevant, since the subject matter (science/geography) is not in the area of divine protection from error. Whether the world is flat or not is not a matter of faith content or morality.

But you must not consider this a change in the teaching of the Church. There has been no Change in the Teaching of the Church. Ever. Just clarifications. Vatican II, Aquinus, etc are all just clarifications. Well the next clarification could mean anything or go anywhere. And if it does? well we are all protected by the Holy Spirit. What a wonderful attitude. (Sean)

I talked about this kind of thing in mentioning development of doctrine earlier. Suppose I go to arctic Greenland and meet a native that has never seen a peach. If I show it to her, she can describe it to the best of her ability. Then, suppose I let her feel the fuzz. It would make a difference to her description. Then, suppose I remove the outer peel. She can describe the appearance of what is beneath it. Then, suppose I remove some of the "flesh" and let her eat it. Then, suppose I remove all the "flesh" and expose the pit. Then, suppose I open the pit and reveal the inner chamber. In each succeeding step, the Greenlander understands the peach better and can describe it more thoroughly. They say that "every analogy limps," but I hope that this little story about the peach helps explain how the development of doctrine works. Each thing the Greenlander progressively has to say about the peach does not contradict what she said before, but better defines the facts. Similarly, every thing the Church progressively has to say on a doctrine does not contradict what was said before, but more clearly or fully explains the truth.

Good to chat with you.

-- Faith (Faith@Faith.Faith), September 07, 2002.

Thank you, Faith for you patience with me.

This is a bit germain to the starting thread. So celebacy, science and maybe some other things are not core issues. And what Christ said is the core and moral issues. No disagreement from even the most protestant Christian Group.

And no man or group or decadent age can stop the Church. Ok, I guess. So whatever the Pope proclaims can not stop the Church, even if I became Pope. (and I am multiply disqualified, not even beening a priest). The Popes we have had reciently are so distant from coarse vile men that it may have been inconvievable that someone might in some age manage to bribe his way to the Papacy. But even such a man could do no harm?

I still have trouble with the hubris of that statement. If God could create a Jewish race from the very rocks, then he could create an infalible church the same way. Not that anyone has seen such a miracle, but as I said the statement lacks humility. And this attitude of no humility could itself lead to error. It strongly implies that no matter what is done for good or ill, that the church will prevail. If there was humility here, there would be more caution, more care. And (maybe this is my point) if the church was stripped of this last ditch arguement (I am correct now because Jesus said that I would be correct no matter what I say), then you would have to truly address the arguements of the others.

Let me think a while before continuing my reply. You have made some points. And my research into papal succession has made some others for you. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), September 07, 2002.

"If God could create a Jewish race from the very rocks, then he could create an infalible church the same way."

I don't know about creating a Jewish race from the very rocks (I don't know where that is in scripture), but Jesus very much did create an infallible church the same way! That is, look at the Apostles, all sinners. Peter, the Pope, had denied Christ three times! That is proof of the Power of the Holy Spirit. Had Christ left the Church in the hands of perfect people, then there would be no doubt that the Church WAS infallible, but there might be a question as to whether or not it was the Holy Spirit or just these great perfect people. But, by purposely placing sinners in charge of His Church, not only has Christ guarenteed us an infallible Church, but He has shown us the Power of the Holy Sirit to do this through sinners.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), September 08, 2002.

Sean,

I can see your genuineness and your desire to return to the fold or be welcomed for the first time (if you were never Catholic), if only you can clear up a few of these "hurdles" you are trying to leap over. I feel it unnecessary to repeat what Faith has done an extraordinary job in accomplishing, however I would like to address your issue with regard to humility and "looking for a sign."

You said I still have trouble with the hubris of that statement. If God could create a Jewish race from the very rocks, then he could create an infalible church the same way. Not that anyone has seen such a miracle, but as I said the statement lacks humility. And this attitude of no humility could itself lead to error.It strongly implies that no matter what is done for good or ill, that the church will prevail. If there was humility here, there would be more caution, more care. And (maybe this is my point) if the church was stripped of this last ditch arguement (I am correct now because Jesus said that I would be correct no matter what I say), then you would have to truly address the arguements of the others.

You are right a false humility can be detrimental to one's faith in that one may believe so much in their own humility that they forget such a virtue is not theirs to begin with. It is truly a gift given by God, in fact, by definition alone, according to the current Catechism, humility is "the virtue by which a Christian acknowledges that God is the author of all good." It would be safe to say that anything contrary to this recognition couldn't be seen as humility as such. However, you forget that, though God is a humble God, He is also an All-Powerful God. He was the reason for our creation and, as Psalm 139, verse 13 reminds us, "For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother's womb." You must also remember though, that there is a difference between humility and faith. In fact, you elude to miracles, and Christ Himself, when he performed miracles, sometimes said, "rise," "get up," "walk," commands that could be seen as less than humble. However, is it a lack of humility or is it an assertion of faith? Christ did say "For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you." (Mt 17:20) Even the great St. Pio is recorded as commanding the lame to walk with confidence in his voice and a hearty laugh. Is that a testament to his lack of humility or his faith? I think the problem that you might be facing is the delineation between the two.

Even beyond the miracles your difficulty seems to be with God not being as humble as you would like Him to be. However, taken from that perspective, your argument would almost seem to be a way in which you wish to limit God. Yes, that may seem a little simplistic, however, in a sense, it seems that that is what you have done. The Church was guaranteed to stand by Christ Himself when He said "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." (Mt 16:18) How does that Church stand? It stands by being docile to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and being true to it's four marks, "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." For the sake of brevity I would advise you to check the followi ng out for a more in depth view of the four marks.

I think you are close, you are just still unclear about a few different matters with regard to Catholicism. Continue to seek, and ask questions, and maybe one day you will be welcomed home.

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), September 08, 2002.

Hi Sean:

You said, "I still have trouble with the hubris of that statement. If God could create a Jewish race from the very rocks, then he could create an infalible church the same way."

By "infallible church" do you mean one in which all the people would be perfect in word, thought and deed? Why, that would mean He would have to strip us of our free will, and hence become a puppeteer pulling the strings of a marionette!

Lots of Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), September 08, 2002.

^

-- ^ (^@^.^), September 08, 2002.

Hi Kathy:

Faith posted a fabulous post earlier. You can read the actual writings of the people she mentioned in that post at the ccel.org site that I referenced earlier. That's what sealed it for me. The truth is POSITIVELY UNAVOIDABLE reading their writings, and not what someone else says they said. Read it for yourself. It's absolutely fascinating.

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), September 08, 2002.

Ok, I have had my words misunderstood, but I am still happy to dialog with you all.

If God could create a Jewish race from the very rocks (A quote from Christ, IIRC, chastising the Jews for their hard headness and un- humble attitude) then I feel that he could create another Catholic church as easily, maybe more so. If the problem with the Jews was their attitude that because they were the Chosen people that no one else could do right, and they could never lose God, I do feel that there is a near one to one correspondence with the attitude expressed in the arguement that I object to. Becauese you were Chosen, you can do no wrong in moral teaching. Faith acknowleged some of my feelings, and scored some points.

A very arrogant, un-humble joke would be to pick a protestant religion and say that God had already done so. But maybe no one would be laughing, and it would go against the respect this forum attitude that would prevail here. I could pick the Anglo-catholic church, as the begininging of it would guarentee the humbleness of that church for a long time.

No, the real thing for me is the problem with ending any arguement that you are losing with "Jesus said we would be right, so we are right". Bad manners, poor taste, near total arrogance that seems to be hubris. Do you understand the traditional punishment in greek thought for hubris?

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), September 08, 2002.

The citation I am citing (flogging?) is Matthew 3:9 or there abouts. Strong indications of Do not be so proud.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), September 09, 2002.

Gail wrote: By "infallible church" do you mean one in which all the people would be perfect in word, thought and deed? Why, that would mean He would have to strip us of our free will, and hence become a puppeteer pulling the strings of a marionette! Lots of Love, Gail

Sean replies: No, I ment the present day infallable Catholic Church. Sorry to use the words that lead to misunderstanding.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), September 09, 2002.

Thank you for this link. It explained things that I had been wondering about, specifically how a church that did not reach everyone could be called catholic.

16:18) How does that Church stand? It stands by being docile to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and being true to it's four marks, "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." For the sake of brevity I would advise you to check the followi ng out for a more in depth view of the four marks.

I think you are close, you are just still unclear about a few different matters with regard to Catholicism. Continue to seek, and ask questions, and maybe one day you will be welcomed home.

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), September 08, 2002.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), September 09, 2002.