For Catholic who lose their faith.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I started a new thread due to the length of the old one.

I used to struggle with this question.

One observation: The Catholic doctrine is quite complex. 2000 plus years of study has created volumes of commentary.

One should not be overwhelmed by this. Bottom line - Love God with all your heart, all your mind and your neighbor as yourself.

What gives the Catholic Church (including the different rites) the "fullness of truth"?

The observation of the sacraments.

Why? Each of the sacraments is a individual sign of God's grace. All are there for a purpose. If one is omitted, a sign of grace is omitted.

I disagree at times with the Church on matters of policy, discipline, or procedure, but never doctrine. I may question doctrine and exhaust myself in digging through the volumes until I satisfy myself with the answer, but it usually boils down to me asking why?

I have attended several different denominations and studied them to an extent. But,personally, I have always found that one thing or another was lacking.

So mentally, I run back home.

I continue to ask questions ...and get answers.

God bless

-- John Placette (jplacette@catholic.org), January 03, 2005

Answers

Dear John,

There is of course the sacramental reality of communion with Christ and receiving His life-giving presence and promises. And even though some of us wouldn't call all seven of them "sacraments" (only a matter of definition), as a Lutheran I know we try to keep those realities: Baptism, Marriage, Eucharist, Confession and Absolution, Confirmation, Ordination, Laying on of Hands and Anointing for Healing. Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, works through these, I know. (Catholics would say some of our sacraments are not valid, but I hope Christ still in His grace may use them as an occasion of grace.

And the simple truth is, no one else in the world has the power of proclamation the Holy Father has. No one. The Pope is a tremendous strength in the Catholic Church, for the rest of us lack a clear Magisterium. Frankly, though some might not admit it, we often look to Rome for guidance! I must confess that I see, in the bishop of Rome, a manifestation of Peter's office as the one who strengthens the brothers and sisters, and who has an anointing to teach all of us.

My only problem--the thing that holds me back from swimming the Tiber- -are the unsavory popes of the past who have taught and commanded things I believe are untrue: see my post on the torture and burning of heretics! Yet I am driven to confess that *no one* except Pope John Paul II is loudly, consistently, and bravely standing for the Gospel of Life amidst the culture of death in our day. May I say, if Peter has a successor in all the world, it *must* be John Paul II.

In short, I am willing to be wholly converted! My only other alternative (for Lutherans institutionally are in grave danger of losing the Faith) is perhaps the Orthodox. Yet they are, unhappily, like a band of quarreling brothers, often not in communion with one another. Hmmm...it sounds like they need a common "father"?!

Anyway, John, keep on asking the questions, and hold fast to that marvelous Christian faith which has so beautifully been handed on to you in the holy Catholic Church. I know many holy and good and devout Protestants, but I must say that without the Tradition of the past 2000 years, we would be quite without a compass. Don't lose that compass, John.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 03, 2005.


Michael,

Your phrase "popes of the past who have taught and commanded things I believe are untrue" is mixing apples and oranges. You need to differentiate between what popes have taught, as Christian truth binding on the universal Church, vs. what some popes have done, or commanded to be done. No pope is capable of teaching anything untrue as binding doctrine. If that happened, the words of Jesus Himself, "whatsoever you bind upon earth is bound in heaven", would likewise become untrue. On the other hand, popes are men, and as such are sinners. So it is entirely possible for a pope to do something, or to command that something be done that is against the will of God. These are two entirely separate issues. God selected a man through whom the Holy Spirit would reveal the fullness of truth - not because of that man's sinlessness, but in spite of that man's sinfulness. This infallibility is not a personal gift to the Pope, but rather a gift to the entire Church, a gift to each of us, for it is the only way anyone can know with objective certainty that a given doctrinal belief is actually true. Jesus did not choose a sinless man for this ministry however, for the simple reason that there is no such thing as a sinless man.

If you think that any Pope has ever taught a binding doctrinal belief that was/is untrue, you are wrong. It has never happened, and will never happen because the Holy Spirit does not allow it to happen. Jesus said the truth would set us free, so obviously He must have provided the means of knowing the truth with certainty. Otherwise we would never know for certain if we are free, or in bondage to false beliefs. On the other hand, if you doubt the truth of the Church's teaching simply because its leaders, beginning with the Apostles and continuing through the centuries, have all been sinners, then there is no Church on earth you can look to for truth, since every Church whose leadership is human has sinners for leaders. There must be a Church which we can look to for truth however. Otherwise the Word of God would not refer to the Church Christ founded as "the pillar and foundation of truth".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 04, 2005.


Thanks, Paul M. As usual, you have much wisdom. I see your point about the Church being the pillar and ground of the truth. Lord knows, Lutheranism lacks that certainty, and I am glad to have the Catholic Tradition to lean upon! What I have trouble with is, if we have Leo X teaching that burning heretics is okay, and Innocent IV commanding it, can we really just say, "Well, it's not ex cathedra, so it doesn't count"? Can you give other examples of papal ethical teaching in encyclicals, or commands, that we can safely ignore? In other words, where is there room for proper dissent from a papal teaching or command? Because I do see a real contradiction between Leo X and John Paul II on this issue of burning heretics!

I'm not arguing with you. I want to learn how to make such proper distinctions between papal teaching I must obey versus papal teaching I don't have to obey, because if I become a Catholic I don't want to be a "cafeteria catholic". I want to be for real.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 04, 2005.


Catholics and others get too caught up on papal infallibiltiy.

All it really means is that the buck has to stop somewhere.

If a doctrine needs to be defined and no clear decision can be reached, the Pope must make a decision and declare it decisively. Such as, the Assumption of Mary.

There is a big difference between papal infallibility and teaching authority. The Magisterium holds teaching authority.

Only the Pope is blessed with or saddled with the responsibility of papal infallibility.

Can you imagine the weight of it on your shoulders, knowing that if you declared something ex cathera that it would be binding on millions of people?

This is the reason why Popes will very rarely IF EVER declare a doctrine ex cathera.

Michael, the Catholic Church and the Luteran Church have come a long way in mending fences I pray it continues.

The aftermath of the reformation were horribly brutal -- on both sides. I pray we learn from history.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), January 04, 2005.


Dear John,

Within Lutheranism there is a pastoral group called The Society of the Holy Trinity. One of its goals is reconciliation with the Bishop and Church of Rome. I too pray for mending of fences!

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 04, 2005.



The burning of heretics was never a doctrinal teaching. It was a discipline, a way of doing things, a practice. The fact that the practice was approved by some popes of the time does not touch upon papal infallibility, as there was no doctrinal issue involved. There was certainly a moral issue, but again, popes are not exempt from immoral behavior or judicial excess. Also, while it might be said that we should expect a higher level of moral practice from the Church than from society at large, we should also recognize that the punishments inflicted by Church-approved Inquisitions were no more severe than, and often far more lenient than punishments inflicted by the civil courts of the time, which would not hesitate to hang a man for stealing a chicken, or have him drawn and quartered for poaching a deer.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 04, 2005.

Thanks, Paul M. God bless you.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 05, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ