Papal Infallibility.

[BrightCandle]

Infallibity does not mean equality with God. The Bible is infallible. That does not mean its writers are equal with God. In both circunstances, whether it be the Holy Spirit inspiring the Pope to write an encyclical or the Holy Spirit inspiring a Biblical writer to write a gospel or a letter, it is still God who is the Source of Truth.

I agree that the word of God is infallible, then let me ask you then why does not the Pope obey the word of God and humble himself and stop trumping himself up as the Supreme Pontiff over all Christitanity, a title which taken from pagan Rome's high priestly title of "Pontifex Maxiumus"? Where can you find anywhere in the infallible Gospels, Jesus or the Apostles taking such a title?

 

[She]

The doctrine of limbo was never an official doctrine of Catholic Church. Thomas Aquinas believed that there was a limbo. Augustine did not. Up until recently a Catholic was free to believe one way or another. So the Church did not remove a doctrine. It was never an official doctrine to begin with.

Happy are you if you have not had to live by this doctrine.* Unfortunately, our local priest and my family taught the doctrine of limbo and, therefore, insisted on babies being baptized soon after their birth otherwise they would not go to heaven if they died. Why would the priest have taught this doctrine if it, actually, was not doctrine? Why was my husband called a heretic for disagreeing with this doctrine?

*Implications: neonates are exposed to unsterile water. In some cases "holy water" was forced upon the new baby, from shrines and holy places. This "holy water" was often green with algae, especially Jordan River water. What do you think were the risks to the newly born baby from the micro-organisms in Jordan River water?

Again, you are showing your ignorance of the Catholic Church. The Church has taught that any valid private revelation would not add, change, or remove a doctrine. It could only reinforce an already official doctrrine, but it could never start one.

Carry on believing that if it makes you happy. (Calling others, who were raised by Roman Catholic ex-seminarians, ignorant, just displays your own inadequacy. Perhaps, if you bothered to listen to the history of the Roman Catholic Church from the mouths of the people who were raised in it, you would learn more.)

I have studied the Marian apparitions in-depth, and there is not one Church-approve apparition that has added a doctrine to the Catholic Church. Please document this if you know of one that does.

http://www.pacifier.com/~rosarweb/ll50n6.htm

While only Scripture and Tradition (which includes papal pronouncements) determine the content of our faith, the following incidents are landmarks in the modern spread of this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

In 1830 the Blessed Virgin asked St. Catherine Laboure, of the Daughters of St. Vincent de Paul in Paris that a medal be made in her honor on which would appear her image with outstretched arms, with the words: "O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee."

In 1846, at the sixth Provincial Council of Baltimore, the Bishops of this country issued a proclamation declaring the Mother of God, under the title of her Immaculate Conception, as Patroness of the Catholic Church in these United States of America.

In 1854, in the Apostolic Constitution "Ineffabilis Deus," Pope Pius IX declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary a dogma of the Catholic faith.

In 1858 the Mother of God appeared to the child Bernadette in Lourdes identifying herself in the words: "I am the Immaculate Conception."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

The older feast of the Conception of Mary (Conc. of St. Anne), which originated in the monasteries of Palestine at least as early as the seventh century, and the modern feast of the Immaculate Conception are not identical in their object. Originally the Church celebrated only the Feast of the Conception of Mary, as she kept the Feast of St. John's conception, not discussing the sinlessness.

 

[Renton405]

I have to ask.. If the RC is fallible.. How can a fallible church put together and canonize an infallible bible? the bishops decision-making on canonization MUST be infallible in order for the bible to be..

The bible canonization is proof the RC is guided by the holy spirit..if u deny the infalliblity of the church then you deny the infallibility of the bible because you are putting ALL YOUR TRUST into these bishop choices on what epistles and gospels you read.. The choices of your gospels and epistles and apocolypses in the bible you read today layed wholly on the bishops hands and choices

Something for u to think about

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I have to ask.. If the RC is fallible.. How can a fallible church put together and canonize an infallible bible? the bishops decision-making on canonization MUST be infallible in order for the bible to be..

The bible canonization is proof the RC is guided by the holy spirit..if u deny the infalliblity of the church then you deny the infallibility of the bible because you are putting ALL YOUR TRUST into these bishop choices on what epistles and gospels you read.. The choices of your gospels and epistles and apocolypses in the bible you read today layed wholly on the bishops hands and choices

Something for u to think about

No denomination wrote a single letter of Holy Scripture. And no denomination played a role in developing the NT canon until pretty much after the fact.


Yes, the RCC did - at a specific meeting - acknowledge the Canon and formally approve. Every other denomination has, too. But that is not mean that every denomination wrote or canonized God's Holy Word.


The New Testament Canon


First Century:


1. The "heart of the Canon" is often regarded to be Paul's epistles. By the time 2 Peter was written (perhaps 70 AD), they seem to be regarding as normative and referred to as Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16). Many theologians - conservative and liberal - give great importance to Paul's works as perhaps the theological framework for that which was later added. So, by 70 AD, we have perhaps half of the NT books in some aspect of a Canon. A bit later, Clement and others also speak of "Paul's letters" in this way, indicating a canonical status.


2. The Synoptic Gospels (written between 45 - 65) also seem to have been quickly and nearly universally seen as canonical. They were "published" together - as a single tome - as early as 115 and were very common. They too are repeatedly spoken of as canonical.

By this point, we have a fairly solid canon of 18 of our 27 NT books.




Second Century:


Many early writers not only reveal a knowledge of NT books, but refer to them specially - as Scripture. Clement points to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and maybe Titus. The Shepherd of Hermas (140) quotes from Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, Revelation and James. Ignatius (d.117) speaks of "all of Paul's epistles" authoritatively, he frequently uses normative quotes from Matthew, John and Acts as well. Tatian (c 170) writes that all Christians recognize that there are four Gospel books. Irenaeus also mentions that Christians accept only four Gospel books, he too speaks of "all Paul's epistles" and quotes from 1 Peter and 1 John. He speaks of these as a parallel of the Old Testament - having equal authority (ie being normative and canonical). Tertullian (d. 220) quotes authoritatively and normatively from all 4 Gospels, all the Pauline epistles, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation. All these reveal that much of the NT canon was in place by the end of the Second Century.


At least 20 of the 27 books are regarded as canonical.



Third Century:


At the beginning, we seem to have a rather solid Canon of 20 of the 27 books. They are the Pauline letters (13), the 4 Gospels, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John. The great majority of the Canon is in place. But a few books - including those eventually being dismissed - were still not embraces with a solid consensus.

Cprian of Carthage (d. 258) says that all Christians accept 21 books: Paul's 13 (in all these lists, nearly always mentioned first), the 4 Gospels, Acts, First Peter, First John and revelation. They are referenced as normative and canonical.

Origin (d. 255) also reports on the status of the books as regarded by Christians. He places them into two groups: Homologoumena (all embrace) as 21 books - the same as Cyprian's list. Antilegomena (challenged) as 10 - they are Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude (all which would eventually be accepted) and also Barnabas, Hermas, Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews (all of which would soon be rejected).

The NT Canon is now solid for 21 of the 27 books.




Fourth Century:


By this time, there is clearly an embrace of 21 books - and has been for a long time. the only "debate" centers around 5- 6 that eventually were embraced, and a handfull soon to be dropped. The core of 21 is now very solid and unquestioned.

Eusebius (d. 340) wrote that Christians all accept 21 books. He lists 4 as ones accepted by most but not by all: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John (all eventually embraced). And he lists some as "spurious" - Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache. Most historians fully agree on this situation, although one of that solid 21 (Revelation) some historians think was more debated than Eusebius seems to indicate.

Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 350) does the same for us, listing the books that all Christians embrace as Holy Scripture. His list is the final Canon, except that Revelation was left out, giving us 26 (Matthew - Jude)

There now seems to be little debate at all, a consensus seem pretty solid - God's people settling on a pretty solid list. Although some historians believe that Revelation was still more disputed in the East.

Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373) Once again, we have someone telling us what we want to know: What books were Christians embracing as Holy Scripture - the NT Canon? He lists them: It's our 27. He does mention the Didache and Hermas as "associated with" but clearly as inferior and below the 27.

Christians clearly had a canon of 27.



Early Meetings:


Early Christian meetings were usually not focused on stating a canon (such seems to have already been in place, with no need to state) but more with practical issues of the lectionary - what would be the Sunday readings.


The Council of Laodicea (363) Really just a regional synod - denominational not ecumenical, it says that "uncanonical books are not to be read in the churches." While it mentions none by name, clearly all knew what was and was not a "canonical book" since there was no need whatsoever to specify which were so regarded. The canon already existed - clearly - in everyone's mind.

The Council of Hippo (393) Actually, just a regional council - denominational not ecumencial, this is the first official meeting (rather than individual) specifically listing exactly what that canon is. It's our 27, the 27 that had been clearly embraced as such for several decades (and in most cases, since the First Century).

The Third Council of Carthage (397) This again listed the by now very well established NT Canon, already agreed upon by consensus by Christians. It's the now familiar 27.

Hundreds upon hundreds of gatherings of various types have confirmed this consensus that Christians developed and which later these councils acknowledged. Virtually all denominations have officially embraced the Canon that God's people embraced from 50-300 AD. It's one of the strongest points of consensus in all of Christianity. But none of these thousands of denominations wrote the Bible or canonized it - God wrote it, God's people canonized it (by His Providence, we tend to believe). Our various denominations affirmed and embraced that.


Footnote:

It's historically necessary to point out that rarely has consensus in Christianity ever been perfect or without dispute. Various other lists - slightly different - continued well into the fifth century and beyond, although by ever smaller and more fringe Christians. Revelation and Hebrews (perhaps the last to be resolved in the mid 4th century) remained controversal for centuries - and some lectionaries excluded any readings form one or the other well into the middle ages.



All this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether any particular denominational leader is "infallible."


Thank you!


My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Trento]

considering the popes of the catholic church supported such theories as the flat earth, burning of supposed heretics for the horrible crime of daring to want to read and study the bible for themselves, and the catholic leaderships tacit support of nazi germany how can anyone realistically believe any sort of papal infallibility?

What a bunch of fabricated history.

Contrary to these fabrications the following testimonies emphasizing the truth of what really happened
in that period when Pope Pius XII was confronting the Holocaust.
******
"No Christmas sermon reaches a larger congregation than the message Pope Pius XII addresses to a war-torn world at this season. This Christmas more than ever
he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent."
The New York Times, December 25, 1942
******
"I should like you to take this occasion to express to His Holiness my deeply-felt appreciation of the frequent action which the Holy See has taken on its own
initiative in its generous and merciful efforts to render assistance
to the victims of racial and religious persecutions."
Franklin D. Roosevelt to Myron C. Taylor, August 3, 1944
******
". . . I told him [the Pope] that my first duty was to thank him , and through him, the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public, for all they had done in the
various countries to rescue Jews, to save children, and Jews in general."
Moshe Sharett, Later First Israeli Foreign Minister (April 1945)
******
"In all these painful matters, I referred to the Holy See and afterwards I simply
carried out the Pope's orders: first and foremost to save human lives."
Angelo Cardinal Roncalli, Patriarch of Venice, Later Pope John XXIII (1957)
******
"When fearful martyrdom came to our people, the voice of the
pope was raised for its victims."
Golda Meir, Israeli Foreign (October 1958)
*******
"He was a great and good man, and I loved him."
Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery,London Sunday Times (October 12, 1958)
******
"It seems evident to me that the principles, reaffirmed by Pope Pacelli in his first encyclical [Summi Pontificatus], and repeated forcefully at every circumstance, above all in the Christmas messages of the war years,
constitute the most concrete condemnation of the Hitlerian type of absolutism."
Eugene Cardinal Tisserant, New York Times (February 26, 1964)
******
"Pope Pius XII did not remain silent."
Jeno Levai (1966)
******
". . . the Catholic Church, under the pontificate of Pope Pius XII was instrumental
in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000,
Jews from certain death at Nazi hands."
Pinchas E. Lapide, Three Popes and the Jews (1967)
******
"Pope Pius XII, the one pontiff with whom I was acquainted, was an interesting man who, after 1945, came in for what almost surely is an unfair amount of criticism
because he didn't stop the conflict Hitler started and because he didn't
do more to save Europe's Jews from Nazi extermination."
C. L. Sulzberger, Go Gentle Into the Night (1976)
******
"What we can say already, in light of what we have learned, is that
the Nazis considered Pius XII and his collaborators as their greatest enemies,
and that, reciprocally, the Pope and his entourage saw the Nazis as criminals
working for the destruction of the Church and civilization."
Jean Chelini, Le Figaro (October 8, 1983)
******
"The gratitude [to Pope Pius XII] of the world Jewish leaders, for deeds to which their own archives are witness, was transformed after 1963 into totally negative commentary. The well-intentioned, informed world Jewish community was downgraded to 'disgraceful testimonials of a few Jews' (New York Times, September 27, 1989), Letters)."
Rev. Robert A. Graham, S. J. (October 1989)
******
". . . that there was no direction given by the Pope in helping the Jews recalls the argument of David Irving, the English author, who in 1977 tried to absolve Adolf Hitler of any responsibility for the Final Solution simply because historians could not find a document proving his responsibility for persecuting the Jews. The failure of historians to find any explicit instructions does not necessarily consititute proof that Hitler was not behind the persecution of the Jews or that Pius XII did not encourage the help given by the Catholic clergy and laity to the Jews, since, as any historian knows, directives can be given orally as well as in writing [actually, as early as 23 December 1940, Pius did send a secret instruction, Opere et caritate, to his bishops to help victims like the Jews]."
Rev. Vincent A. Lapomarda, S. J. (July 31, 1992)
******
"Anyone who does not limit himself to cheap polemics knows very well what
Pius XII thought of the Nazi regime and how much he did to help countless people
persecuted by the regime."
Pope John Paul II (1995)
******
"He was a great pope."
Pope John Paul II (March 21, 1998)
******
"In his 1942 Christmas message, which The New York Times among others
extolled, the pope became the first figure of international stature
to condemn what was turning into the Holocaust."
Kenneth Woodward, Newsweek (March 30, 1998)
******
"Before any more fingers are pointed at Pius XII --- who did more to save the Jews than anyone else --- let him first take a hard historical look at what his ideological kinfolk did at the time of the Holocaust. The New Republic, like The New York Timesand The Washington Post, are the ones who need to apologize for their shameful silence in the face of genocide and stop with the scapegoating of Pius XII."
William A. Donohue, President, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
Catalyst, 27, No. 4 (May 2000), 10
******
". . . Pius XII was, genuinely and profoundly, a righteous gentile."
Rabbi David G. Dalin, The Weekly Standard, February 26, 2001
(also see his "History as Bigotry," in the February 10, 2003 issue).
******

Israel Zoller (Zolli), Rome's Chief Rabbi during World War II, not only converted to
Roman Catholicism he took the same baptismal name, Eugenio, as Pius XII
in appreciation of what the Pope had done for the Jews.

In the seven plots to overthrow Adolf Hitler, Pius XII was involved
in at least two of them.

More than 4,000 priests were killed by the Nazis, incuding 868 Poles at Dachau,
780 from various nations at Mauthausen, and 123 shot in France (one estimate holds
that at least 4,000 were killed at Buchenwald alone).

 

[chilehed]

I believe this view is flawed. It is only when The Pope sits in a special throne and makes a statement that he is infallible...
somehow, I think this is putting the pope above God..

Jesus gave the authority to teach in His name to the Apostles (Matthew 10:20; Luke 10:1; Luke 10:16), with Peter having the preeminent position among them (Matthew 16:17-19), and promised that the Holy Spirit would protect them from ever teaching error (John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26; 16:13; 17:17-19; Luke 21:33). He said that they would remember everything Jesus taught them. (John 14:16-18, 26; Luke 21:33). He further promised that the fruit that the Apostles bore (i.e., the Bishops they appointed and the Church that He built on them(Ephesians 2:19-22)) would remain faithful (John 15:16). The Apostles in turn taught (again, without error) that they had the authority to pass that office on to their successors (Acts 1:20,26; Rom 13:1-2; Heb. 13:17; 1 Tim 1:3; 2 Tim 2:2; 2 Pet. 1:16–21, 3:2; 1 Cor 3:9-11; Jude 8, 10-11 (ref. to Num 16).

Based on the word of Christ, we can know that the Magesterium of the Church is protected by God from ever teaching false doctrine as being infallibly true and binding on all believers.

And as has been said, it has nothing to do with a piece of furniture.

 

[BrightCandle]

I have to ask.. If the RC is fallible.. How can a fallible church put together and canonize an infallible bible? the bishops decision-making on canonization MUST be infallible in order for the bible to be..

The bible canonization is proof the RC is guided by the holy spirit..if u deny the infalliblity of the church then you deny the infallibility of the bible because you are putting ALL YOUR TRUST into these bishop choices on what epistles and gospels you read.. The choices of your gospels and epistles and apocolypses in the bible you read today layed wholly on the bishops hands and choices

Something for u to think about

The Bible that the RCC is not the most inspired edition in that they cononized several Apocryphal books that provided the much needed basis for the doctrines of Purgatory, and they found that in I & II Maccabees.

 

[sunlover1]

Jesus gave the authority to teach in His name to the Apostles (Matthew 10:20; Luke 10:1; Luke 10:16), with Peter having the preeminent position among them (Matthew 16:17-19), and promised that the Holy Spirit would protect them from ever teaching error (John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26; 16:13; 17:17-19; Luke 21:33)...

John 14:16-18 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. {comfortless: or, orphans}

John 14:26 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

These verses don't promise anyone that they will never teach error (unless I'm missing something). Plus, these verses are written to those who believe in Jesus, not a select few.

sunlover

 

[Trento]

Since joining the Anglican Church, I have noticed all the additions to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church has evolved and changed since splitting with the Anglican Church less than 500 years ago.

It is just a pity that it has not changed for the better.

You had better check with your Encyclopedia.

The Anglican Communion is a relatively recent concept. Ever since the Church of England (which until the 20th century included the Church in Wales) broke from Rome in the reign of Henry VIII, it has thought of itself not as a new foundation but rather as a reformed continuation of the ancient "English church" and a reassertion of that church's rights. As such it was a distinctly local phenomenon.
Thus the only members of the present Anglican Communion existing by the mid-18th century were the Church of England, its closely-linked sister church, the Church of Ireland (which also broke from Rome under Henry VIII), and the Scottish Episcopal Church, which for parts of the 17th and 18th centuries was partially underground (it was suspected of Jacobite sympathies).
However, the enormous expansion in the 18th and 19th centuries of the British Empire brought the church along with it. At first all these colonial churches were under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London. After the American Revolution, the parishes in the newly independent country found it necessary to break formally from a church whose Supreme Governor was (and remains) the British monarch. Thus they formed their own dioceses and national church, the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in a mostly amicable separation.

 

[WarriorAngel]

John 14:16-18 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. {comfortless: or, orphans}

John 14:26 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

These verses don't promise anyone that they will never teach error (unless I'm missing something). Plus, these verses are written to those who believe in Jesus, not a select few.

sunlover

Indeed. So then is it possible to the have the Spirit of God kept within your 'teachings' and 'feeding the sheep' that the Spirit will allow errors to be spread?

Belief in the Spirit and His unending Presense means that all things will be kept intact. And He is on duty 24/7 because Christ ALSO said...'The gates of hell shall NOT prevail.'

IE...that which the Holy Spirit dwells will not be overcome by satan and errors.

 

[Trento]

The writings of the Church Fathers that have come down to us from pre Canonization prove that they were part of the inspired books.

"Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more--not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness."
Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,6:14( A.D. 202),in ANF,II:504

"All souls, therefore; are shut up within Hades: do you admit this? (It is true, whether) you say yes or no: moreover, there are already experienced there punishments and consolations; and there you have a poor man and a rich...Moreover, the soul executes not all its operations with the ministration of the flesh; for the judgment of God pursues even simple cogitations and the merest volitions. 'Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.' Therefore, even for this cause it is most fitting that the soul, without at all waiting for the flesh, should be punished for what it has done without the partnership of the flesh. So, on the same principle, in return for the pious and kindly thoughts in which it shared not the help of the flesh, shall it without the flesh receive its consolation. In short, inasmuch as we understand 'the prison' pointed out in the Gospel to be Hades, and as we also interpret 'the uttermost farthing' to mean the very smallest offence which has to be recompensed there before the resurrection, no one will hesitate to believe that the soul undergoes in Hades some compensatory discipline, without prejudice to the full process of the resurrection, when the recompense will be administered through the flesh besides."
Tertullian,A Treatise on the Soul,58(A.D. 210),in ANF,III:234-235


"For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones(1 Cor.,3);but also wood and hay and stubble,what do you expect when the soul shall be seperated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God;or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones; Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials;for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature,but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble.It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our trangressions and then returns to us the rewardof our great works."
Origen,Homilies on Jeremias,PG 13:445,448(A.D. 244),in CE,577

Your conclusion also disreguards the fact that the Jews had the same belief as this Orthodox Jewish site proves.

The Yahrzeit Organization -
PastQuestion’s and Answers

Click on Is this what Catholics do and you will find this.


Q) I was reading about the Kaddish and in it you state: "The Rabbis teach us that Kaddish is a source of merit for the soul. Also, when you give charity in the name of a deceased, it can abolish evil decrees." My question: Is this like what the Catholics do in their belief of purgatory? When you say "charity... [abolishing] evil decrees," is this comparable to the Catholic doctrine of indulgences? Are these prayers for purification of the dead, or are they used to provide a greater experience of peace and happiness for the dead? Also, when did the Kaddish come into being? Is it Scriptural (Torah or otherwise) or is it a tradition? Please let me know. I am really interested in so many things on your website

A) If a soul is in purgatory, the recitation of kaddish or the act of charity can help to get that soul out. The way this works is that the reward for the act of sanctifying G-d's name through reciting the kaddish or doing an act of kindness is transferred to the soul in purgatory by the person who does the mitzva by thinking, before the act, "I'm doing this act of charity or reciting this kaddish in the merit of ________." The kaddish is not Scriptural, it is Rabbinic. It was composed in Mishnaic times circa 100 B.C.E.
The Jewish religion came before catholic and therefore the custom of kaddish and that of charity was from the Jewish religion.

 

[She]

Supreme Governor was (and remains) the British monarch

Better that, than an infallible Roman Pontiff.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a104.htm

Of course Christ didn't appoint Peter to be the Pontifex Maximus. And of course the early Church Fathers spoke of the Pontifex Maximus in such derogatory, paganistic ways. Because when the early Fathers were writing, the Pontifex Maximus was the head of the Roman pagan religion, and the Roman Empire itself was pagan. As any student of Roman history knows, the Pontifex Maximus was an imperial office, usually held by the Emperor himself, which made one the "chief priest" of the Roman "state cult."

Now as I said, in the days of the early Fathers, this "state cult" was paganism and Emperor worship. Yet, when Constantine the Great became the first Christian Roman Emperor, the "state cult" changed to Christianity. Now, oddly enough, the first Christian emperors all still retained the title of Pontifex Maximus (a traditional title for Emperors) which, under imperial law (though not Church law), actually made them the "Head of the Church" ! It was by this authority, for example, that Constantine called the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) to settle the Arian controversy.

Indeed, it was not until the Empire split in two, with the Western Empire going to the pious, youthful Emperor Gratian (c. 360 AD) that the Pope was given the title Pontifex Maximus. Indeed, feeling that it was not right for he himself to carry that title (since he was, after all, not a Christian priest) the pious young Emperor bestowed it upon Pope Damasus I, who became the first Pope in history to hold the title "Pontifex Maximus."

http://www.answers.com/topic/pontiff

Definition:

Pontiff is a title of certain religious leaders. It comes from the Latin word pontifex, which literally means bridge-maker. It could therefore be construed to mean a bridge between God and humanity.

Pontiffs were men on the highest council of priests in ancient Rome, called the College of Pontiffs, and the Pontifex Maximus was the highest religious figure. Today this term still refers to the highest religious authority in Rome, the Pope. Sometimes the Pope is called the Supreme Pontiff and other bishops of the Roman Catholic Church are called Pontiffs.

 

[Kotton]

Better that, than an infallible Roman Pontiff.

You want a church supervised by a king/queen over the pope, an ordained man of God? :o

Kotton

 

[icedtea]

Some believe the pope speaks infallibly on doctrine. Others don't. Each believes they are correct. Impasse. I would let it go.

 

[Knowledge3]

As long as the Church is standing on it's foundations, and it keeps the same doctrine as the Apostles.

The one holy catholic and apostolic church is the ancient faith.

 

[Trento]

The ministry of the Pope is a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church. We see this unity by which all Catholics should adhear to in the Catholic Catachism which parallels the teachings of the Apostles and the first Bishops of the Church who were instructed by Apostles.
The disunity and division of the Rest of Christiondom cannot give one much confidence that the Holy Spirit is at work there.
The strong concern with unity is scriptural:

• [SIZE=-1]John 17:20-23: [Jesus praying to the Father for his disciples:] I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father art in me, and I in thee so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.[/SIZE]

Notice two things which are striking about this passage: - Jesus seldom repeats himself in the Bible, but twice Christ tells us that we are to have the unbelievably profound unity shared between the Father and the Son (3 times counting Jn 17:11). - Twice Christ tells us that a reason for unity is to spread and maintain the faith: that the world may believe/know that God sent him, so that the world may be Christian. The inverse of this statement is that if we are not profoundly united, the world will not believe that God sent Christ as his only begotten Son: indeed, Christian division has been associated with falling levels of faith in western society since the Reformation. So many claims of truth have been made with such certainty--even within Christianity--that the very notion of truth is now questioned. The anger, hatred, self-righteousness, and persecution even within Christianity has lent credence to the notion that religion needs to be a purely private matter.

Christ even gives us a reason why disunity will result in falling levels of faith: Mt 12:25: [Speaking of spiritual kingdoms, Jesus said:]

Every Kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city, or house divided against itself will stand.

The increasingly secular mindset of our country has proven disastrous in terms of both the destruction of the social fabric broken homes, drug abuse, crime, etc. and of lost souls. We tend to be angry at those of a secular mind-set: but what Christ seems to be telling is that the problem is us: Christians. Disunity is the reason for falling levels of faith. God asked, even begged, for unity, but everyone did it their way, and as always, paid the price for disobedience. It is tragic that so many are hurt in the process.

 

[Knowledge3]

Where is the one holy catholic and apostolic church?

 

[WarriorAngel]

I agree that the word of God is infallible, then let me ask you then why does not the Pope obey the word of God and humble himself and stop trumping himself up as the Supreme Pontiff over all Christitanity, a title which taken from pagan Rome's high priestly title of "Pontifex Maxiumus"? Where can you find anywhere in the infallible Gospels, Jesus or the Apostles taking such a title?

What do you know of his heart?
Men cannot judge because they cannot read hearts and will never be a just judge.

I also wanted to add that titles come from the sheep, not the shepherds themselves.

The humbled people under the Pope give him these titles. He doesnt demand them.

IT is our humility that chooses to give him such honor for standing in the chair Jesus created with Peter.

It is our love for Christ that understands that since Christ would not be with us in person, He left His men in charge and created a hierarchy.



HAD Christ spoke these things NOT IN PRIVATE to His choosen men, but to the crowds...I would also acknowledge that ALL His words were meant for the laity.

BUT since He was building His foundation on HIS rock...Peter, then it was not meant for all of mankind to be the bearers of the Spirit in the graces to give baptisms and breaking of the Bread...but for His men whom did so for the ppl.

'Peter....feed my sheep'

Jesus Himself made the Chair of Peter. To which none can have but the man who steps in the shoes of Peter.

The first shall be humbled.
And since you are not a reader of men's hearts, you cannot claim to know if the Pope is humbled or not. BUT the Popes are most humble of all. They have the biggest of burdens.

They are responsible for all the sheep.

 

[icedtea]

Christ left us the Holy Spirit, infallible, unlike any human.

 

[WarriorAngel]

ONE more thing...as men of God in the place of Peter...the biggest burden of them, is their judgement.

The more a man knows and the higher his responsibility, the more that man is accountable.

Since he is shepherd to all the sheep.... his judgement is most harsh.

So is he humble? As a man of God he knows he will be judged more severely.

Would you like his position? I wouldnt.