What are some common misconceptions about Catholicism?

[anawim]

That is the coolest icon.

Do you mean my avatar?

Here's a link to the story: http://www.mgardens.org/C-US-LA-NO-AAJD-030324.html

 

[selfintercession]

I didn't just make that up.
I am personally aware of the people and facts in this case. And, it is not isolated, that is the standard deal for an annulment. I'm not saying you aren't Christians or the one true church - just that this particular practice happens, and it reminds peopel of indulgences.

And the government charges a fee to get a driver's licence, marriage licence, name change, passport etc. So? It costs money to provide services... why not charge a fee?

 

[Kusanagi]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but somehow people see us as mindless cyborgs or something.

I also looked on "Top 7 Myths About Catholicism" at about.com and the article lists the following:

Myth 1. Catholics worship Mary and the Saints.
Myth 2. Catholics do not like homosexuals.
Myth 3. Catholics do not use or believe the Bible.
Myth 4. Catholics are against sex.
Myth 5. Catholics oppress women.
Myth 6. The reason why Catholic priests abuse children is because they can't marry.
Myth 7. According to Catholicism, if I sin, I'm going to Hell.

I can tell you, and also watcing too many Mythbusters on the Discovery channel , That all seven of these myths are Busted!

 

[NewMan99]

I didn't just make that up.
I am personally aware of the people and facts in this case. And, it is not isolated, that is the standard deal for an annulment. I'm not saying you aren't Christians or the one true church - just that this particular practice happens, and it reminds peopel of indulgences.

First of all, the orginal post that you responded to was with regard to the myth that we sell "indulgences" - not "annulments." The two things are entirely unrelated.

Secondly, we don't "sell" either one. One cannot "buy" an annulment. If an annulment could be bought then why the need for a tribunal and all the forms etc.? The way you make it sound it would seem like all we would have to do is to pay a fee and viola! instant annulment.

The fee that SOME people (not everybody) are charged is to pay the legal expenses of the canon lawyers. That is who receives the fee. The Church doesn't use annulments as a scheme to line our pockets with (not that you were implying that either - some people think, though, that it is just another way to extract money to increase the wealth of the Church). The "cost" of the lawyer fees will vary greatly from diocese to diocese. The cost at my diocese (St. Paul, Minn) is around $400 -- HOWEVER -- there are all sorts of programs to help out those who are poor and cannot afford it. Some dioceses have little to no fee at all. Others, where the cost of living is high, you might see a fee similar to the $1000 you are referring to. But again, merely paying the fee is no guarantee that you will actually get an annulment (what if the tribunal finds against your request? -- it happens sometimes).

So you can't buy either an annulment or an indulgence.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[AMDG]

#1. Catholics are weird.
#2. Catholics are not Christian.
#3. Catholics have added to the Bible.
#4. The Catholic Church was founded by Constantine in 325.
#5. Catholics are cannibals.
#6. Catholics believe that they can work or buy their way into heaven.
#7. Catholics believe that they can go to confession and then sin as much as they want.
#8. Catholics really worship Mary (but call it "giving reverence".)
#9. Catholics worship a man--the Pope.
#10. And the list goes on and on and on... Oh and don't forget the Protestant's confusion involving Catholic dogma, doctrine, and discipline. (THAT alone deserves it's own special list IMO.)

 

[dhuisjen2]

As a middle school religious education teacher, I know something about these matters already, but I'd be pleased if you could clarify a few things still for me.

First of all, regarding the indulgence sales of the 16th century, when was the practice officially abolished?

This also raises an issue of papal infalibility, even in regard to ex-cathedra statements of doctrine. To me the greatest breakthrough in Catholic theology since Vatican II was when Pope John Paul II issued an official letter of repentance for the Crusades. But wasn't that a matter of a Pope saying, ex-cathedra, that the doctrinal decree of a previous Pope, ex-cathedra, had been wrong? These are honest questions; please help!

I'd also appreciate it if someone could post here or send me a PM on "Catholic annulments for dummies" or something like that.

Peace, David

 

[Gwendolyn]

I didn't just make that up.
I am personally aware of the people and facts in this case. And, it is not isolated, that is the standard deal for an annulment. I'm not saying you aren't Christians or the one true church - just that this particular practice happens, and it reminds peopel of indulgences.

I actually have a friend who is going through an annullment right now. It isn't costing him anything, except to pay the lawyer.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Do you mind explaining a little more on this? I don't think I quite understand it in the first place. As a non-Catholic, it has always been presenting that the Pope cannot sin, and anything he says about doctrine and theology is true, and that his statements are held higher than scriptures at times. Please correct that.

Actual ex cathedra statements are very rare. The Pope cannot make an infallible statement without consultation with representatives of the whole Church - the cardinals, the bishops, the priest, the men and women religious, and the faithful - because an infallible definition of a doctrine must define something that the Church has always believed in some capacity.

While the office of the Papacy has the charism of infallibility - that is, that if the Pope, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is moved to make an infallible statement on matters of faith and morals, he may do so - the actual instance of the Pope actually making an ex cathedra statement has only occured twice in all of history, and even that is not definite. The ability to speak ex cathedra is not something that the Church takes lightly, and it is not something that happens often at all.

Papal infallibility doesn't mean that the Pope wakes up and says, "hey guys, I infallibly declare that Jesus never wore sandals". The Pope cannot "make up" a doctrine or dogma - he can only define or further clarify something that the Church has always believed in some capacity. A definition is simply a clarification, or a succinct articulation of a belief which comes at a time when the Church feels that it would be prudent to further define a doctrine that it has previously held. Previous to that, all infallible statements concerning doctrines came from the Church Councils - notice that infallible definitions involve the consensus of the whole Church, whether the definition comes through an ecumenical council or through the Pope's explicit ex cathedra statement.

So, that is what papal infallibility means. It does not mean that everything that the Pope says is automatically true or binding - he's allowed to have his own opinion on issues that not all of us will agree with, like whether he thinks Monet is a better painter than Picasso. Also, Papal infallibility does not mean that the Pope does not or cannot sin - Popes have confessors, too, and I have heard that JPII received the Sacrament of Reconciliation weekly. The Pope's infallible declarations will never contradict Scripture, and will therefore never contradict Tradition, either. However, Popes can make mistakes and Popes have made mistakes. They are human just like the rest of us.

Does that make sense?

 

[CCWoody]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but somehow people see us as mindless cyborgs or something.

Come now. Let's be honest. Calvinists are the Borg of Christianity. We even have this doctrine called Predestination which teaches that even our very thoughts are forced on us and we are little more than drones. I just don't believe that Catholics are cyborgs. Surely that one is false. (See how I am compatible with your thread.)

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[plainswolf]

As a middle school religious education teacher, I know something about these matters already, but I'd be pleased if you could clarify a few things still for me.

First of all, regarding the indulgence sales of the 16th century, when was the practice officially abolished?

Hi David
In regard to indulgences, an indulgence is the forgiveness of all sins and punishment due to sins. In order for a plenary indulgence to take place, certain spiritual and temporal conditions must be met.

Spiritual Conditions: A man must go to confession and Communion. He must have no attachment to sin whatsoever. If he still has some attachment, and in porportion to the attachment - only a partial indulgence would be the result. He must pray for the intention of the Pope.

Temporal Conditions:He must offer an alm which is usually , but not limited to, a monetary alm ( think of the widow's mite in Scripture). But it could be anything, he could offer a day of fasting instead.

This also raises an issue of papal infalibility, even in regard to ex-cathedra statements of doctrine. To me the greatest breakthrough in Catholic theology since Vatican II was when Pope John Paul II issued an official letter of repentance for the Crusades. But wasn't that a matter of a Pope saying, ex-cathedra, that the doctrinal decree of a previous Pope, ex-cathedra, had been wrong? These are honest questions; please help!

I'd also appreciate it if someone could post here or send me a PM on "Catholic annulments for dummies" or something like that.

Peace, David

The Pope apologized for the bad actions of some catholics acting badly, and not according to good faith and morals. Therefore he did not apologize for any official Church doctrine of any sort In short, it was not ex-cathedra.

In reagrd to papal infalliblity, here is how infallibility works: The Authentic Magisterium of the Church - i.e., the teaching office of the Church exercised by proper authority - has different levels of infallibility:

Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Solemn Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, as supreme pastor of the entire Church, speaks excathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith and morals to be held by the entire Church, or when a Dogmatic Council convened and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the entire Church. This is a very rarely excercised assertion of authority (only a few times in the past few hundred years). When the Pope teaches using his extraordinary infallible Magisterium, or when a Council dogmatically defines something and the Pope endorses that defintion, Catholics must believe what is taught de fide, as an article of faith.

Ordinary Infallible Magisterium ("ConstantMagisterium" or "Universal Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past.

Merely Authentic Ordinary Magisterium: any teaching by Pope, Bishop, priest, or any authorized teacher, that does not fall into the above two levels of infallibility is, quite simply, fallible, even though it may be part of the Authentic Magisterium (that is, it is "authorized" teaching). Teaching at this level is owed a conditional religious assent.

Here is an example of a doctrine that is defined (in bold) ex cathedra by Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus 1854: "Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."[29]

Here is an example of Ordinary Infallible teaching from Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS .."Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren(cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful. Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing."

Lastly, the Pope has authority in two ways:
The Pope has theoretical authority - pertains to matters of Faith and Morals. This would include the pope's Extraordinary Magisterium or his infallible Ordinary Magisterium. For these the faithful are required to give a full,unconditional assentof faith.
The Pope has practical authority - pertains to matters of discipline. These may include practical ordinances such as concordats, the introduction of the new missal, the rearrangement of the Church calendar, or the new rubrics for the liturgy.


Hope that helped

Gos Bless
Mark

 

[Asherz]

Thank you all for your posts, they have been very helpful and have given me something to chew on.

 

[dhuisjen2]

Mark,

Thanks for your response! I have copied and printed it out for myself to study more carefully over the course of the summer.

Let me preface all that follows by saying that I am not seriously considering joining the Catholic Church personally, but I have every respect for individual Catholics, and I personally believe that if the Catholic Church of 500 years ago were as sincere and open about its dealings as the Catholic Church of today is, the Protestant Reformation never would have happened. I thus wish above all to reach a clearer understanding of your positions of faith and to build a deeper respect for the rationale behinde them, even if I do not expect to share them.

The indulgence bit is a matter for consideration unto itself, but for now I would like to dig a bit deeper into the issue of papal infallibility. First let me see if I can understand what you have written here:

The Pope apologized for the bad actions of some catholics acting badly, and not according to good faith and morals. Therefore he did not apologize for any official Church doctrine of any sort In short, it was not ex-cathedra.

This struck me as strange in one sense, so I went to look the matter up on the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. There I found the following:
[FONT=&quot]
"The reform effected in the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Church[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]papacy[/FONT][FONT=&quot] through the influence of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]monks of Cluny[/FONT][FONT=&quot] had increased the prestige of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Roman pontiff[/FONT][FONT=&quot] in the eyes of all [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Christian[/FONT][FONT=&quot] nations; hence none but the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]pope[/FONT][FONT=&quot] could inaugurate the international movement that culminated in the Crusades."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"The idea of the crusade is chiefly attributed to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pope Urban II[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (1095)..."

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"The appearance of the crusading armies at [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Constantinople[/FONT][FONT=&quot] raised the greatest trouble, and helped to bring about in the future irremediable misunderstandings between the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Greeks[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Latin Christians[/FONT][FONT=&quot]."

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"...on the night of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]2 June, 1098[/FONT][FONT=&quot], the crusaders took [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Antioch[/FONT][FONT=&quot] by storm."

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"After a general procession which the crusaders made barefooted around the city walls amid the insults and incantations of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mohammedan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] sorcerers, theattack began [/FONT][FONT=&quot]14 July, 1099[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Next day the[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Christians[/FONT][FONT=&quot] entered [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jerusalem[/FONT][FONT=&quot] from all sides and slew its inhabitants regardless of age or sex[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Having accomplished their [/FONT][FONT=&quot]pilgrimage[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Holy Sepulchre[/FONT][FONT=&quot]..."

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Before his death, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]29 July, 1099[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Urban II[/FONT][FONT=&quot] once more proclaimed the crusade."

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"The history of the Crusades is therefore intimately connected with that of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]popes[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Church[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. These Holy Wars were essentially a papal enterprise."

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Essentially the work of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]popes[/FONT][FONT=&quot], these Holy Wars first of all helped to strengthen pontifical authority[/FONT][FONT=&quot]..."

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]With all of this data coming from a site with a painfully pro-Catholic bias, is it really fair for you to say that John Paul, "[/FONT]did not apologize for any official Church doctrine of any sort"?! How can it be said that the Crusades were anything other than church doctrine? How can you escape the conclusion that John Paul II was effectively saying that what Urban II set forth doctrinally was wrong?

[FONT=&quot]I confess that your text which follows may have part of the answer I'm looking for, but that my abilities in interpreting statements of canon law may be too slight to unpack it.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]In reagrd to papal infalliblity, here is how infallibility works: The Authentic Magisterium of the Church - i.e., the teaching office of the Church exercised by proper authority - has different levels of infallibility:

Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Solemn Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, as supreme pastor of the entire Church, speaks excathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith and morals to be held by the entire Church, or when a Dogmatic Council convened and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the entire Church. This is a very rarely excercised assertion of authority (only a few times in the past few hundred years). When the Pope teaches using his extraordinary infallible Magisterium, or when a Council dogmatically defines something and the Pope endorses that defintion, Catholics must believe what is taught de fide, as an article of faith.

Ordinary Infallible Magisterium ("ConstantMagisterium" or "Universal Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past.

Merely Authentic Ordinary Magisterium: any teaching by Pope, Bishop, priest, or any authorized teacher, that does not fall into the above two levels of infallibility is, quite simply, fallible, even though it may be part of the Authentic Magisterium (that is, it is "authorized" teaching). Teaching at this level is owed a conditional religious assent.

Here is an example of a doctrine that is defined (in bold) ex cathedra by Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus 1854: "Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."[29]

Let me jump in here to ask about this one. (To be honest with you, I once at university bombed a church history exam question on "Pio Nio" and I've been trying to redeem myself on that one ever since.) Pius presided over the period of the most massive loss of secular authority in the history of the papacy. It is thus not surprising that he felt a human compulsion to prove his personal importance to the world. Without faith in the doctrine of papal infalibility this in itself could well explain the existence of the whole Ineffabilis Deus document. Or does it?

The text of the doctrine, which you have presented above, is linguistically as dense as any Derrida material I have ever confronted! As it has been explained to me, the basic idea is to expand the teaching of the virgin birth to say not only was Jesus not the result of human reproductive desires, but that Mary remained imune to such throughout her life (with Jesus's brothers and sisters having come from Joseph's previous marriage) and with St. Anne even having originally conceived Mary herself without sex. Is that a fair synopsis of the doctrine? If not, how should it be qualified further?

Anyway, back to your text:

Here is an example of Ordinary Infallible teaching from Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS .."Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren(cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful. Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing."

Lastly, the Pope has authority in two ways:
The Pope has theoretical authority - pertains to matters of Faith and Morals. This would include the pope's Extraordinary Magisterium or his infallible Ordinary Magisterium. For these the faithful are required to give a full,unconditional assentof faith.
The Pope has practical authority - pertains to matters of discipline. These may include practical ordinances such as concordats, the introduction of the new missal, the rearrangement of the Church calendar, or the new rubrics for the liturgy.


Hope that helped

God Bless
Mark

So let me make sure I understand this correctly: ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS is to be considered just as infalible as, say Ineffabilis Deus; but when John Paul "[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]read the document, 'Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Mistakes of the Past,'at a "solemn ceremony" on March 12, 2000" (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/14/story_1458_1.html) as "[/FONT]Merely Authentic Ordinary Magisterium" [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]that is not at all excathedra, and thus is open to question by true believers.

IOW as a "good Catholic" one must not question the Virgin Mary's total a-sexuality or the unsuitability of women for positions of ecclesiastical authority, but is free to speculate about whether the late pope was within his rights to repent for the attrocities sanctioned by is predecessors?

To me as a child of the post-enlightenment period, this teaching is somewhat problematic. Do you see this (doctrine of papal infalibility) as God's final word on the subject with no human element involved, as a matter of enduring Catholic consensus, or as an [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]older generation issue[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] of maintaining tradition (cue the opening to "Fiddler on the Roof") and thus potentially something that may change as a matter of God's progressive revelation to His Church?

These are difficult questions, but please do not take this as a flame! I really do respect the integrity and intelligence of Catholics as a whole, and I really do want to understand your perspective better.

Thanks, David
[/FONT]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...i_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

 

[NewMan99]

Hi David,

I hope that Mark (Hi Mark! ) doesn't mind me jumping in a bit here. I just want to address a couple of things and will step aside so he can answer the rest.

...I personally believe that if the Catholic Church of 500 years ago were as sincere and open about its dealings as the Catholic Church of today is, the Protestant Reformation never would have happened.

With respect, David, the Church at that time was far less corrupt and "insincere" than many modern-day Protestants suppose. But, overall, I tend to agree with you that there were many internal problems within the Church herself that added fuel to the Reformation fire.

How can it be said that the Crusades were anything other than church doctrine?

Because it isn't "doctrine." The word doctrine refers to Church "teaching" - not Church actions or policy. So Mark is correct that JPII did not apologize for any "doctrine" (teachings), but rather apologized for the ACTIONS of SOME Catholic individuals who behaved scandalously (and frankly contrary to Church teaching).

How can you escape the conclusion that John Paul II was effectively saying that what Urban II set forth doctrinally was wrong?

Because the Crusades were not about teachings of Christianity or Catholicism, but rather about protecting Christendom from Islamic invasion. This is a very complex topic, and what I said was a great generalization (and perhaps an over-simplification), but the reality is that without the Crusades, Europe would most likely be Muslim today.

Examples of Christian doctrine would be: God is a Trinity, Christ is God the Son Incarnate, Jesus Redeemed us on the Cross, our salvation comes through grace alone, etc...

The Crusades were not about doctrine.

...(with Jesus's brothers and sisters having come from Joseph's previous marriage)...

That is a commonly held belief, but not something that the Church has dogmatically stated. It is speculative (in my personal opinion it is even highly likely) and not something that the Chruch officially teaches. The Church does teach that Mary herself remained perpetually a virgin and did not have any children other than Jesus. The "brother and sisters" could be half-siblings (as you state), or they could be cousins from the extended family, or...who knows?

...and with St. Anne even having originally conceived Mary herself without sex.

Well, no. Mary was conceived in the "normal" way (through the sexual act). I assume you are referring to the Immaculate Conception. The "IC" doesn't refer to HOW Mary was conceived (which was no different than how you and I were conceived), but rather it refers to an action of the Holy Spirit whereby she was protected from Original Sin from the moment of the conception onward. In other words, while the rest of us are healed from Original Sin at our baptism, Mary was "baptized" (in a manner of speaking) at her conception in anticipation of her unique role in Salvation History. Thus, according to the doctrine, she was "conceived" in an "immaculate" state - a state without the stain of Original Sin. The word "immaculate" comes from the Latin word "macula" - which means something akin to a "dark spot." Adam and Eve were created whole, unfallen, and filled with the light of grace. However, when they sinned, the light of grace left them and the void that remained was a "macula" - a dark spot. This macula darkened our intellects, weakened our wills, disordered our appetites, and inclined us to sin. Since Mary was conceived unfallen, without Original Sin, it can be said that she did not have a "macula." Thus we refer to this as "The Immaculate Conception." There are many reasons for this doctrine, and more than a few places where it is implied in the Bible.

Hope that helps.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[a_ntv]

[FONT=&quot]"Essentially the work of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]popes[/FONT][FONT=&quot], these Holy Wars first of all helped to strengthen pontifical authority[/FONT][FONT=&quot]..." ....[/FONT]
How can you escape the conclusion that John Paul II was effectively saying that what Urban II set forth doctrinally was wrong? [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Crusades were a result of a age, some pope wanted them as well as most of kings and people af such a age.
The reasons were mainly political and economical. It is exaclty as now that 'to give democracy to Iraq' there is war, and the 'democracy' is not the real cause of the war, but politic and economic matters are by far prevalent.
Crusades are not a doctrine. Noone was never teached to believe in crusades as a doctrine. Many saints were against them.
Doctrines (for the infability issue) are about only to Faith issue, like Christ, God, Trinity, Cross, Sacraments. More, only the base facts are doctrines, ad instance the rite of the Mass or celibacy of priests are not doctrine subject to infallibily.
For sure political opinions (crusades, or the political party t vote as catholic) are not doctrines, nor there is any infallibility on it.
With other words, infallible doctrines are the only ones necessary for salvation.

Is the papal-infallibilty new in the history of the church?
Not at all, bc the pope have the same 'infallibility' "which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."
So the pope, togeghter with catholic church, simply shares the same Holy Spirit Help that worked many many time in defining and defending the doctrine, as it happened during the first ecumenical councils.

[/FONT]

As it has been explained to me, the basic idea is to expand the teaching of the virgin birth to say not only was Jesus not the result of human reproductive desires, but that Mary remained imune to such throughout her life (with Jesus's brothers and sisters having come from Joseph's previous marriage) and with St. Anne even having originally conceived Mary herself without sex. Is that a fair synopsis of the doctrine? If not, how should it be qualified further?

Sex, always thinking to sex!! No, immaculate conception is NOT about sex or virginity. It simply says that, bc the Perfect Holiness of Jesus, Mary was kept free from the effects of the original sin.
The logic result of that is that Mary was sinless, not that she had no sex, or that St. Anne made no sex!!!
Probably Mary never had sex, while St. Anne had sex with his husband!!!

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]To me as a child of the post-enlightenment period, this teaching is somewhat problematic. Do you see this (doctrine of papal infalibility) as God's final word on the subject with no human element involved, as a matter of enduring Catholic consensus, or as an [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]older generation issue[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] of maintaining tradition (cue the opening to "Fiddler on the Roof") and thus potentially something that may change as a matter of God's progressive revelation to His Church?[/FONT]

No, the revelation of God to the Church was closed with the death of the last of the Apostles.
But in early Chuch lots of matters were believed implicitally but not well defined with words.
In the following centuries Holy Spirit helped to define the doctrine better. Doctrines defined in such a way are: Christ as true man and true God, Trinity and so on, up to immaculate conception, that is not a new beieve, but simply a new wording for a old believe (cummon to orthodoxes too)
Infallibily have tight limits. The pope can only confirm with a new wording the old believes.
Look carefully about what JPII says about the priestly ordination to women: JPII do not say that women shall not be ordinated, he simply says that he, and the Church, have no the authority to change the tradition.
The infallibility of the pope do NOT grant him the chance to change the Jesus willings, but grant him only to confirm the christian people.

 

[AMDG]

to both Newman and a_ntv

 

[dhuisjen2]

Thanks gentlemen for your responses. It seems that you wrote largely with the same ideas without direct influence on each other, sort of like what I believe in reference to the Gospels.

Thanks in particular, NewMan, for your clarification regarding St. Anne. It sort of clicks for me. Is there some source you might refer me to to confirm the official status of that interpretation?

I must say, however, that I still find it problematic to say that the Crusades were not a matter of church teaching. If I quote again from New Advent:

[FONT=&quot]"After travelling through [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Burgundy[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and the south of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]France[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Urban II[/FONT][FONT=&quot] convoked a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]council[/FONT][FONT=&quot]at [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Clermont-Ferrand[/FONT][FONT=&quot], in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Auvergne[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. It was attended by fourteen [/FONT][FONT=&quot]archbishops[/FONT][FONT=&quot], 250 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]bishops[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and 400 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]abbots[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; moreover a great number of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]knights[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and men of all conditions came and encamped on the plain of Chantoin, to the east of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Clermont[/FONT][FONT=&quot], 18-28 November, 1095. On 27 November, the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]pope[/FONT][FONT=&quot] himself addressed the assembled multitudes, exhorting them to go forth and rescue the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Holy Sepulchre[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Amid wonderful enthusiasm and cries of "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]God[/FONT][FONT=&quot] wills it!" all rushed towards the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]pontiff[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to pledge themselves by [/FONT][FONT=&quot]vow[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to depart for the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Holy Land[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and receive the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]cross[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of red material to be worn on the shoulder. "[/FONT]

Is there some linguistic understanding by which addressing a council which one has assembled for purposes of exhortation is not a matter of teaching?

[FONT=&quot]
Crusades were a result of a age, some pope wanted them as well as most of kings and people af such a age.
The reasons were mainly political and economical. It is exaclty as now that 'to give democracy to Iraq' there is war, and the 'democracy' is not the real cause of the war, but politic and economic matters are by far prevalent.[/FONT]

Here, my friend, I fundamentally agree with you, and thus I believe that the late holy father was right in issuing his apology. But for reasons stated directly above, I still have difficulty accepting that this was not a matter of doctrine.

[FONT=&quot] Many saints were against them.
[/FONT]

Interesting! Expand please. I was only aware of St. Francis, somewhat of a rebel character in many respects, attempting some unofficial diplomacy. What other examples can you give? This is a sincere question.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Doctrines (for the infability issue) are about only to Faith issue, like Christ, God, Trinity, Cross, Sacraments. More, only the base facts are doctrines, ad instance the rite of the Mass or celibacy of priests are not doctrine subject to infallibily.[/FONT]
[snip]
[FONT=&quot]With other words, infallible doctrines are the only ones necessary for salvation.[/FONT]

But Mark wrote that the declaration of women being excluded from the priesthood was subject to infalibility. ISTM that it is not a question of the size of the issue, but the expedience of making an "eternal law" out of the matter that is at issue here.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Sex, always thinking to sex!!

I confess, as a man I do so on a daily basis, but that is rather beside the point here!

No, immaculate conception is NOT about sex or virginity. It simply says that, bc the Perfect Holiness of Jesus, Mary was kept free from the effects of the original sin.
The logic result of that is that Mary was sinless, not that she had no sex, or that St. Anne made no sex!!!
Probably Mary never had sex, while St. Anne had sex with his husband!!!

Without picking on your grammar here, I find that NewMan has better grasped what I was trying to say about this matter. I, as a Protestant of a "low church" tradition, have no compulsion to make sex (or lack thereof) a precondition in any matters of faith. I would not hold Mary in any lower esteem if, subsequent to Jesus's birth, she proceeded within the sacred contract of (Jewish) marriage to have normal intimate relations with her husband. The doctrine that she remained a virgin for life, and that her praiseworthiness is in part tied to this state, is AFAIK, a strictly Catholic tradition venerated by Pius IX, foreign to all other forms of Christianity. Would you have any doubts about this matter?

No, the revelation of God to the Church was closed with the death of the last of the Apostles.
But in early Chuch lots of matters were believed implicitally but not well defined with words.
In the following centuries Holy Spirit helped to define the doctrine better. Doctrines defined in such a way are: Christ as true man and true God, Trinity and so on, up to immaculate conception, that is not a new beieve, but simply a new wording for a old believe (cummon to orthodoxes too)
Infallibily have tight limits. The pope can only confirm with a new wording the old believes.

Again, an interesting perspective, which is new to me in this form. My understanding has been that Luther's sola scriptura fixation has been offensive to Catholic leaders because it denies a principle of progressive revelation within church tradition; IOW the Holy Spirit continues to reveal new riches of grace, mercy and justice to his church through the agency of the infalibility of the popes. Are you saying this is not the case? Are you saying that infalible proclamations of the pope must be limited to the clarification and clearer enunciation of traditional church doctrine? (It would seem by this standard that Ineffabilis Deus fails on both accounts.) Let me stress again that I mean no offence to any of you, and I do want to understand your doctrines better. If someone turns to me in my professional capacity and goes into all the nasty myths regarding Catholicism, I want to be able to go a few more rounds in your defence than what I am now able to do. Part of this involves recognizing the level of diversity within Catholicism and part of it involves understanding the logic of your defence of certain counter-intuitive doctrines. So please bear with my prickly interogation!

Peace, David

 

[AMDG]

The Pope is infallible within a very narrow set of circumstances--that of speaking on Faith and Morals WHEN He is speaking (teaching) with his full authority as the Successor of Peter and head of the Church on earth; he must make a final pronouncement on the teaching at issue (it has been brought up before in the roughly 2000 years of the existence of the Church); and the Pope must bind all Catholics to accept his teaching or else fall away from the Catholic Faith. IOW, the Pope is to teach faithfully the truths handed down by Christ and the Apostles--this is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. (Afterall, Jesus DID promise that He would be with His Church always.)

 

[a_ntv]

Thanks gentlemen for your responses. It seems that you wrote largely with the same ideas without direct influence on each other, sort of like what I believe in reference to the Gospels.

Yes, I'm not English borne-speaking, so I need lot of time to check words on dictionary, so my answer was indipendent from NewMan99's one

I must say, however, that I still find it problematic to say that the Crusades were not a matter of church teaching. If I quote again from New Advent:

New Advent is not the Bible and I can assure you that Crusades are not part of catholic doctrine. Crusades have been used to many atheistic people to go against religion. And the worse of protestantism have used them to beat catholics, as if I'm responsabile of politic of 900 years ago

Interesting! Expand please. I was only aware of St. Francis, somewhat of a rebel character in many respects, attempting some unofficial diplomacy.

Also Saint Dominik, the other great saint on such a age, did not relay on crusades but believeid that a reall conversion is gained with poverty and Christ-following, not with weapons
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

But Mark wrote that the declaration of women being excluded from the priesthood was subject to infalibility.

[FONT=&quot]Look carefully about what JPII says about the priestly ordination to women: JPII do not say that women shall not be ordinated, he simply says that he, and the Church, have no the authority to change the tradition.
The infallibility of the pope do NOT grant him the chance to change the Jesus willings, but grant him only to confirm the christian people[/FONT]

doctrine that she remained a virgin for life, and that her praiseworthiness is in part tied to this state, is AFAIK, a strictly Catholic tradition venerated by Pius IX, foreign to all other forms of Christianity.

Virginity of Mary is NOT immaculate conception.
Immaculate conception=Mary is sinless. Stop.
Virginity of Mary is a different matter, not a dogma, ad anyway believed also by orthodox

Again, an interesting perspective, which is new to me in this form. My understanding has been that Luther's sola scriptura fixation has been offensive to Catholic leaders because it denies a principle of progressive revelation within church tradition;

Only protestants, anyone reading the Bible alone, believe that there are as many revelations as many people reading the Bible.
Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. That is believed by both CC and EOs.
Pope can only find a new wording for a already well known fact, or condamn openly heretic sentences (=sentences that differ form the Bible and from continuos tradition)

 

[TomUK]

Only protestants, anyone reading the Bible alone, believe that there are as many revelations as many people reading the Bible.
Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostles. That is believed by both CC and EOs.
Pope can only find a new wording for a already well known fact, or condamn openly heretic sentences (=sentences that differ form the Bible and from continuos tradition)

Is this is a common Catholic teaching? I have always believed that God continually reveals himself his Church- is that not a teaching found in the Catholic Church?

 

[AMDG]

You asked about revelation, all orthodox (small "o") Christians believe that pblic revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. That means that there can be no new doctrines, Scriptures, or prophecies after the close of the apostolic age.