I'm In Tears -- Help!

[abqfriend]

This is off topic-but the question was asked. The Pope is considered infallible on his statement on doctrine when he clarifies it -by saying it is an infallible doctrine.

Papal infallability is limited-and has been used only once since the -1870 -declaration by the Catholic Church-and that was in defining the Catholic doctrine on the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary -which is found no where in scripture. This doctrine-was in the Church for many centuries as a teaching-but it was made infallible by the Pope.

Here is a link:

CUF.org :: Catholics United for the Faith

Here are a few references to understanding of Papal Infallibility.

The Papacy in the Catholic Church - The Office of the Papacy - The Role of the Papacy in the Catholic Church

Here is a part of the above link

"One such council, the First Vatican Council of 1870, recognized the doctrine of papal infallibility. While some non-Catholic Christians regard this as a novelty, this doctrine is simply a full understanding of Christ’s response to Peter, that it was God the Father who revealed to him that Jesus was the Christ.

Papal infallibility does not mean that the pope can never do anything wrong. However, when, like Peter, he is speaking on matters of faith and morals and intends to instruct the whole Church by defining a doctrine, the Church believes that he is protected by the Holy Spirit and cannot speak in error."

Here is a more detailed explanation link

http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/infallib.PDF

Here is the link from the official Catechism of the Catholic Church:

USCCB - Catechism of the Catholic Church

-see section 890 and 891 of the above link

Here is a link to the actions of the 1st Vatican Council

Pius IX**** Vatican I

-I hope this is helpful

-Carol

So....if I am understanding correctly, the Pope is considered infallible. Is that correct? And what happened in 1890 to make that so?

And I was wondering if I could take a look at more information about this "statement" you refer to.

Thanks Ram. As always.

[Misshalfway]

Thanks Carol. My H and I were just talking about this and feeling confused. Thanks for helping me understand.

[candyprpl]

Thanks for the links -- I don't have time to look at them right now -- but I will tomorrow. I appreciate your input.

P.S. How's your husband doing? I can PM you on this, if you prefer.:)

P.S. - P.S. Misshalfway, I just saw that you have 2,677 posts to my 368 -- we're both Senior Members -- you must be at least, Senior-senior!

Edited September 2, 2008 by candyprpl

[Guest ceeboo]

K ceeboo.....gonna argue with you.....but I assure you, I have a smile on my face and preparing to pass you some chocolate pie, OK???

If God doesn't want us to do the prophet thing anymore, wouldn't that be considered a "change".... and where would such a change come from if not from revelation and not from the bible?

Where did the office of Pope come from anyway? If it isn't the same office that peter held....but a kind of new creation.....who created it if not the men of the day? ANd if the heavens were closed, who gave them the permission to change what Jesus so carefully laid out before his death and instructed after his resurrection? Again, I ask you. Where are the twelve? If the church was untouched and if it progressed without the apostasy hitch, why does it look so very different today?

Did you say chocolate pie ??? UMMMMM, OK thanks a bunch :)

No IMHO, that ( " the prophet thing anymore " )would not at all be considered a change, it was a fullfilment and completion. He ( Jesus/God " same ) came to let us know directly from him what the new covenent was to be from that point on. To be clear, we also do not sacrifice animals to God ( He was the final and ultimate sacrifice ) or many other ( from old testement ) are not changed rather THEY ARE REPLACED BY THE NEW AND EVERLASTING WAY TO SALVATION DIRECTLY APPROVED AND AUTHORED BY GOD HIMSELF AS WAS INDEED PROPHESIED BY THE OLD TESTEMENT.

Pope, new office, where did it come from??:confused: The authority ( keys )

( I would not call it an office ) started with Peter and has been protected as promised by the Lord until now and will continue to stand with same promised protection until the very end. You suggest " the men of the day created it " , NO, Jesus boldly proclaimed it then and promised it would prevail always.

Heavens closed??, Because of Jesus living on earth and the sacrifice made for all, IT HAS NEVER BEEN MORE OPEN TO ALL OF US MERE SINNERS.

What exactly looks so different to you, were you there at the time of Christ ?? I would suggest that today, like then, the world is full of sin, greed, corruption, and most importantly IMHO the ability we were all given to choose what we believe.

I will close by offering you some french vanilla ice cream to go with your pie:)

God bless,

Carl

[Misshalfway]

Thanks for your explanations, to both my catholic friends. They seems consistent with my very limited understanding about the Catholic church. Yes. It sounds like your understanding with the fulfillment of the law of moses is very similar to ours. Do you also feel that Jesus's sacrifice was the last and great sacrifice?

I will admit to being very confused about the Catholic church. IT feels very complicated. And there are many terms that I am unfamiliar with and am unclear about their meanings. I look for those terms in the bible....such as "pope". I see the word "apostle" associated with Peter. I hope that helps to illustrate my confusion. There are other practices and symbols I don't see in the Bible. Which is fine with me. It just seems confusing if the Bible is seen as the only measuring stick.

I would like to attend a Catholic service. Been thinking about it for some time. Would that be weird? A silly mormon girl, showing up and saying nothing?

[Guest ceeboo]

Thanks for your explanations, to both my catholic friends. They seems consistent with my very limited understanding about the Catholic church. Yes. It sounds like your understanding with the fulfillment of the law of moses is very similar to ours. Do you also feel that Jesus's sacrifice was the last and great sacrifice?

I will admit to being very confused about the Catholic church. IT feels very complicated. And there are many terms that I am unfamiliar with and am unclear about their meanings. I look for those terms in the bible....such as "pope". I see the word "apostle" associated with Peter. I hope that helps to illustrate my confusion. There are other practices and symbols I don't see in the Bible. Which is fine with me. It just seems confusing if the Bible is seen as the only measuring stick.

I would like to attend a Catholic service. Been thinking about it for some time. Would that be weird? A silly mormon girl, showing up and saying nothing?

You are most welcome from one of your two Catholic friends :)

The last and great ( ultimate ) sacrifice, Yes indeed.

The word " Pope " ( Latin-papa= father, Greek-papas=father) meaning the father of the Church ( all ordained Catholic Priests are called father so and so) We Catholics refer to Peter as the first Pope.

Measuring stick ?? short answer would be we hold scripture with tradition ( early Church writers, etc ) as to explain all the varying interpretations to said scripture.

Weird, absolutly not, IMHO the Catholic Church service is beutifull. I would STRONGLY encourage all my friends ( and enemies for that matter ) to experience the worship and celebration of what everything centers around at mass ( THANKING THE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR WHAT HE DID FOR ALL OF US )

BTW, for what it's worth, I have been to other Christian services.

God bless,

Carl

[Guest ceeboo]

Let's see: and where in the Bible will you find the Ascension of Mary?

You point to the only use of Papal infalliability in several hundred years and suggest this " the ascension of Mary " to be NEW MAJOR DOCTRINE?? IMHO If mary was ascended or simply died and rose is a rather small issue in regard to MAJOR DOCTRINE:confused:

I would add that I could put a " let's see list " of what REALLY IS LDS MAJOR DOCTRINE that you absolutly would not find in your bible. ( ot the BofM for that matter)

The popes work very similarly to the LDS prophet. New major doctrines are few and far between, but decisions are made via inspiration. Both claim to have access to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

HMMMM, " Popes work very similar to LDS prophets, new and major doctrine are few and far between " NO, The Pope has never offered new major doctrine in 2000 years and the LDS prophets offer new, major and contradicting doctrine in the course of less then 160 short years.

Perhaps the only difference is that there is no politicking for position in the LDS version.

That's an interesting perspective as well as certainly different then mine on that matter.

The prophets keep and protect the ancient doctrines. They continue to testify of the ancient doctrines. What might be slightly different is that we've had a burst of new revelation to correct what LDS perceive as errors that have entered into the church of God over the millennia.

They keep and protect the ancient doctrine ?? where in any scripture or any early Church writtings can we even see a hint of these claimed doctrines?? A recent burst ?? this history only measures 160 years or so ???

Pope Benedict recently rejected the concept of Limbo, and so now the Vatican is pondering and studying what does happen to small children who die without baptism. They are not to the point of turning them over to hell, as did St Augustine, btw.

Completly out of context and obviously loaded with venum. IMHO, not very admirable:(

If you wish, there is much more to your slanted offering that one can learn and benefit.

BTW, I do not know how to break up quotes in a post that is why I used bold to seperate my answers. ( sorry, it was not to be rude )

God bless,

Carl

[Guest ceeboo]

Let's see: and where in the Bible will you find the Ascension of Mary?

The popes work very similarly to the LDS prophet. New major doctrines are few and far between, but decisions are made via inspiration. Both claim to have access to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Both are replaced by a decision made in its apostolic succession view: LDS via the Quorum of Apostles, and the Pope by the college of cardinals. Perhaps the only difference is that there is no politicking for position in the LDS version.

The prophets keep and protect the ancient doctrines. They continue to testify of the ancient doctrines. What might be slightly different is that we've had a burst of new revelation to correct what LDS perceive as errors that have entered into the church of God over the millennia. Still, we see the Pope doing the same thing. Pope Benedict recently rejected the concept of Limbo, and so now the Vatican is pondering and studying what does happen to small children who die without baptism. They are not to the point of turning them over to hell, as did St Augustine, btw.

Hi ram,

IMHO, a rediculous offering from start to finish.

To reply would be to similarly spew venum so I will opt out and repeat that it was rediculous offering IMHO:)

God bless,

Carl

[funkymonkey]

I personally don't believe that the influence of the spirit is only among the LDS. I think anyone can feel the spirit and choose whether or not to follow it... Pope, or LDS prophet.

[Misshalfway]

Hi ram,

IMHO, a rediculous offering from start to finish.

To reply would be to similarly spew venum so I will opt out and repeat that it was rediculous offering IMHO:)

God bless,

Carl

Why is it a rediculous offering.....if you don't mind me asking? I mean without the venom part.:) Is he wrong? Or just getting it all.....well...wrong?

[Misshalfway]

I personally don't believe that the influence of the spirit is only among the LDS. I think anyone can feel the spirit and choose whether or not to follow it... Pope, or LDS prophet.

This is an interesting idea. I think to a point....I agree with you. But there might be some privilege to whoever truly has the keys. Thus the great divide between us and our fabulous Catholic friends here.

[Guest ceeboo]

This is an interesting idea. I think to a point....I agree with you. But there might be some privilege to whoever truly has the keys. Thus the great divide between us and our fabulous Catholic friends here.

" who truly has the keys " I would put it slightly different, IMHO Jesus gave the keys ( authority and protection against ALL to the very end ) to Peter and has remained in HIS CHURCH from that point as BOLDLY proclaimed by the LORD. ( not me or any LDS )

Can I ask you a question now ?? If the keys were gone from the earth from about the year 100 until 1830 ( 1700 and some years ) what was going on with Jesus' followers,

Saints, and all of his creations for 1730 of the 2000 years since Jesus commanded his will for his Church??

[golfnut]

Rameumpton,

1st. do you think the phrase "ye are Gods" could be posessive, not be plural?

2nd. does your name refer to the holy stand of the Zoaramites?

[HiJolly]

Can I ask you a question now ?? If the keys were gone from the earth from about the year 100 until 1830 ( 1700 and some years ) what was going on with Jesus' followers, Saints, and all of his creations for 1730 of the 2000 years since Jesus commanded his will for his Church??

Ceeboo,

I'd say they were doing the best they could with what they had. What would *you* say was going on with them?

HiJolly

[funkymonkey]

spew venum

Venom has some phenominal anti-aging properties

[Guest ceeboo]

Ceeboo,

I'd say they were doing the best they could with what they had. What would *you* say was going on with them?

HiJolly

Hello HiJolly,

I am not sure what " doing the best they could " means ? or implies in regards to the Lord or the 100's of thousands of obedient Christian followers ????:confused:

I do not believe the keys were ever gone so I am confident they indeed had the full promise, grace, and authoratative Church of Jesus Christ to help then in their earthly journey, just as I and you do today.:)

God bless,

Carl

[abqfriend]

Who has the keys?

My husband asks me the same question-but quite differently. There is of course differences in interpretation between Catholics and the LDS on apostolic succession.

We can agree to disagree-nicely on that point on others.

I am a Catholic-and the Catholic Church over the past 2000 years -depending upon how you are counting-has had a very checkered past. We have had our share of true Saints but some of our past leaders were not very saintly in my opinion. We have had some great popes and some really awful (in my opinion) popes. There was much politics and purchasing of church offices and church corruption especially during the middle ages and at the time leading up to- the much needed-in my opinion-Reformation.

Many past Church leaders did not lead an exempliary life.

Many fortunately did!

That said-the Church has survived, reformed and continues to grow and flourish.

Catholics believe that Peter was the first Pope.

I have been to the Vatican and St. Peter's.

Directly below the high alter of St. Peters is the reported burial place of St. Peter himself.

The Catholic Church relies much less on it's pope for definition and clarification of church doctrine than it's teaching authority-the leadership of the Church-called the Teaching Magesterium. The Pope is not a prophet-but acts in some ways similar way-put in LDS terms- to a leader of the Quorum of the Twelve or Quorum of the Seventy.

Keys open and close things-and the Church believes that it has the Keys-and interprets Scripture to understand that those keys were first given to Peter.

Matthew Chapter 16 15-18

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Despite the many faults- of its members- the Catholic Church survives, grows and flourishes. It relies on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in the formulation of it's doctrines which it believes are centered on the faith and teaching of the apostles which comes from Christ.

The Catholic Church believes it has the Keys given to it by Christ.

PS-Ceeboo--Please consider filling our your profile-it is blank-along with many other member profiles in the forum.

-Carol

" who truly has the keys " I would put it slightly different, IMHO Jesus gave the keys ( authority and protection against ALL to the very end ) to Peter and has remained in HIS CHURCH from that point as BOLDLY proclaimed by the LORD. ( not me or any LDS )

Can I ask you a question now ?? If the keys were gone from the earth from about the year 100 until 1830 ( 1700 and some years ) what was going on with Jesus' followers,

Saints, and all of his creations for 1730 of the 2000 years since Jesus commanded his will for his Church??

[HiJolly]

Hello HiJolly,

I am not sure what " doing the best they could " means ? or implies in regards to the Lord or the 100's of thousands of obedient Christian followers ????:confused:

Ceeboo,

First, I know very well that the members, even the leaders of the LDS church are not always 'good' people. We've had some Apostles that were excommunicated.

In my post last week, did you note my mention of the heresy of Donatism? Are you familiar with that (it was back in the 300's, IIRC)? The question was, can a bishop, or other Church administrator and priesthood leader, by virtue of his institutional position and authority ALONE, continue to lead the Church and the flock, when he has clearly demonstrated that he is unworthy to do so?

In Mormonism, the answer is 'NO'. In the Catholic church, the decision was 'YES'. Now at this point I"m going to get a little mystical, and I hope you don't mind -- I wouldn't think so, considering the long and honored tradition that mysticism has in the RCC. So, here we go:

The sacraments of the Church have both an external (or, exoteric) FORM and an internal (or, esoteric) FULFILLMENT on each soul that receives them. Be it baptism, confirmation, forgiveness (confession) or eternal marriage, all these have a dual nature-- and God honors the fulfillment when the soul is sincere, honest, practicing no deception before Him.

But the declaration of Donatism as an heretical belief by the RCC, was pure trouble. Institutional trouble -- and it is my belief that this cost the RCC the keys of the kingdom (among other things - Vanhin and others have mentioned).

The Church itself does not get this specific when it discusses the apostacy, just to let you know. The Church is not 'against' any other church. I'm not against Catholicism either, I just don't think it is capable, institutionally, of saving anyone. I know you feel the same way about Mormonism. As a mystic, I have great confidence in the efficacy of the pure heart of each person, be they aligned with whatever religion. As I've said before, I'm a bit of a Mormon heretic (good thing there's no sin of heresy in the Church ).

The LDS view as it pertains to the salvation of man is a very expansive, inclusive thing. Through vicarious ordinances (sacraments), all mankind may be saved, be they from 2000 BC, 1 AD, 500 AD or 1700 AD. Not to mentions the billions of Africans, asians and Native Americans that never even heard of Jesus Christ whilst in this mortal sphere. Add to that our doctrine of the salvation through Christ of all the babies that died without baptism, and the message is glorious indeed. This is our message of Grace to the world.

We all do the best we can. Few things in life are as they really should be. I hope you see what I mean. I think this is the last post I will make that is critical of the RCC. I don't like posting negative things like I have here.

HiJolly

[Guest ceeboo]

Ceeboo

We all do the best we can. Few things in life are as they really should be. I hope you see what I mean. I think this is the last post I will make that is critical of the RCC. I don't like posting negative things like I have here.

HiJolly

Good morning HiJolly

Concerning your above quote, I am confident that I see what you mean ( I also Agree ):)

I would add that, to me anyway, I do not think your post was all that critical, as a matter of fact considering the 2000 year resume that is filled with :eek:, I think you were very generous and charitable.:)

The only thing I think we agree to disagree on is concerning the " human actions " of the RCC " trumping " and thus removing the Divive ( Jesus' ) authority of his Church.

Thanks for a very usefull post IMHO:)

God bless,

Carl

[Misshalfway]

Venom has some phenominal anti-aging properties

OHHHHH FUNKY! You are simply awesome!!!!:lol:

[Misshalfway]

Well Ceeboo, I don't know if I can answer that question better than Hijolley. He tends to say things much better than I ever could and I don't have specific knowledge of the detailed history of the Catholic church.

When I try to answer the question about what the church was doing, I start with the events in the NT following Christ's ascension. It is clear to me that the 12 were on a learning curve before he left. It is clear some...well one....doubted the validity of the resurrection. It is clear that the Lord tried to comfort and fill in the doctrinal blanks for them so they could run the church after he was gone.

Then I look at the travels of Paul and it is clear that he was trying to keep order and doctrinal purity throughout all the regions and within the various congregations of those early members that seemed to be so determined to go there own way. Even then, the church was starting to unravel. And with all the persecution and the scattering and the murdering of the 12 and the Christians, it seems at least that the church was in a state of serious confusion.

So, then I ask, who had the keys after Peter? The church needed some leadership and organization and it is clear that such organization didn't come for hundreds of years. A lot can happen in such a space of time! From my perspective, it would be easy for anyone to say, "Hey, I have the keys". It is also possible that someone was able to secure and protect them. But.....I am not sure such happened. But that doesn't mean it isn't a logical possibility.

I personally agree with Hijolley in that they did the best they could with what they had. They knew something had to be done. They knew they had responsibility to regain control of the doctrine and the direction of things and I think they put back the pieces the best they could. And thank goodness there were people willing to preserve the Bible and preserve the name and teaching of the Savior! So many have learned of His life and mission because of the efforts of such people! And we have the record of the birth and life and atonement of the Savior! Goodness! What a treasure! So clearly, in my mind, whether they had the keys or not, they did have a great mission and succeeded on many fronts with that mission.

Beyond that, I don't know. Does anybody really know what happened in those early years? How far did the Apostacy go? Are the keys truly with the Catholics? Or was a restoration necessary? And I have searched within the Spirit to know those answers.

The answers don't matter to me in terms of whether or not I am friends with you all. :) They don't matter to me in terms of winning arguments or being proved right. They only matter to me in the simplicity and solitude of my own walk towards Christ and discovery of the truth. And so......I...me...just me.... take and have taken the question and the confusion in my mind to the Lord so that He can help me know what really happened back then and how that relates to my choices today.

How's that for an answer this early in the morning? :)

Edited September 3, 2008 by Misshalfway

[Guest ceeboo]

The answers don't matter to me in terms of whether or not I am friends with you all. :) They don't matter to me in terms of winning arguments or being proved right. They only matter to me in the simplicity and solitude of my own walk towards Christ and discovery of the truth. And so......I...me...just me.... take and have taken the question and the confusion in my mind to the Lord so that He can help me know what really happened back then and how that relates to my choices today.

How's that for an answer this early in the morning? :)

AMEN sister :):):):):)

That's a great answer IMHO ( but you know it's almost lunch time in Michigan :))

Peace,

Carl

[Misshalfway]

AMEN sister :):):):):)

That's a great answer IMHO ( but you know it's almost lunch time in Michigan :))

Peace,

Carl

What??? You are not all on "halfway standard time"?

[candyprpl]

Keys open and close things-and the Church believes that it has the Keys-and interprets Scripture to understand that those keys were first given to Peter.

Matthew Chapter 16 15-18

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

-Carol

We interpret these scriptures differently and this is why I started this thread. Misshalfway explained these scriptures better than my attempt will be now;

Jesus was asking Peter how he knew Jesus was the Christ and Jesus' answer was that he knew by the power of the Holy Spirit not because Jesus, 'flesh and blood' told him so. And when he tells Peter, 'upon this rock,' it's the gospel of Jesus and the church will be built upon that. And then we agree, Peter was given the keys.

I'm like you Misshalfway, I've prayed so much and asked God about this and I still get that gentle whisper that I'm where I need to be.

We are all here (on earth) to learn and maybe these conversations help us learn of spiritual matters. I know, for me, I'm going to the Lord more about what I'm learning or trying to learn. So maybe this is a good thing?:)

[candyprpl]

Ceeboo,

I know that you've had this conversation (Peter, 'the rock') on another thread with Vahnin and you agreed to disagree. V explained it way better than I did!

Again I ask, how can there be such differing opinions, especially when each of us say that we get answers from God on these subjects.