Errors that need correcting!


#1

I want to sorta remind or inform all of us that there are many errors that are being put forth by Catholics in very high positions. In many cases, I have found, that these priests and teachers (even Bishops) are ignornat of what the Church really teaches. When I was going for my masters at Seton Hall University (school of Theology) prominent members of the faculty put forth a number of errors: 1. That Christ was ignorant of some things in his life. 2. That scripture contains errors on matters of history and in some cases even religion. 3. That Chrsit had faith. Now each of you should be able to recognize that that these three are not consistent with Church teaching. However,many priests and religious and others are ignorant of these teachings. Please read up on these matters and be on the look out so you can inform other Catholics of the truth.


#2

[quote=marineboy]I want to sorta remind or inform all of us that there are many errors that are being put forth by Catholics in very high positions. In many cases, I have found, that these priests and teachers (even Bishops) are ignornat of what the Church really teaches. When I was going for my masters at Seton Hall University (school of Theology) prominent members of the faculty put forth a number of errors: 1. That Christ was ignorant of some things in his life. 2. That scripture contains errors on matters of history and in some cases even religion. 3. That Chrsit had faith. Now each of you should be able to recognize that that these three are not consistent with Church teaching. However,many priests and religious and others are ignorant of these teachings. Please read up on these matters and be on the look out so you can inform other Catholics of the truth.
[/quote]

I thought that the catholic church was infallible.


#3

[quote=marineboy] 1. That Christ was ignorant of some things in his life.
[/quote]

It is clear from Scripture that Jesus’ humanity in some measure veiled certain things from his human intelligence. Recall the incident when the woman with the issue of blood touched his garment: “Who touched me?”

  1. That scripture contains errors on matters of history and in some cases even religion.

Scripture is inerrant in matters pertinent to faith and salvation. Other apparent errors are “code” and can be solved. Certain things, such as how old the earth is, are symbolic, allegorical – or factual (the Church does not claim to know which).

In what matters of faith were you taught that Scripture is in error?

  1. That Chrsit had faith.

Jesus had to have free will *as a true man. *Otherwise he could not love nor deliver us from Adam’s sin. The will is the seat of faith. You’re not pointing yourself toward monothelitism are you?


#4

[quote=josiah]I thought that the catholic church was infallible.
[/quote]

The Church is infallible when teaching as the Church. Individiuals, speaking for themselves, on their own behalf are not.


#5

When speaking on faith or morals the Magesterium or Pope are infallible. The Church is all of us who are not infallible.
Go see newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm


#6

[quote=josiah]I thought that the catholic church was infallible.
[/quote]

The Church is infallible. That is how we can be certain that those who depart from Catholic teaching (such as the priests and Bishops Marineboy mentioned) are in error.

Infallibility is a special charism provided to the Pope when he is defining an article of faith or morals with the intent of binding all Catholics, universally, to it. Each preist or Bishop is not protected by the charism of infallibility when they speak or write. The Pope alone possesses this charism, and only in very limited circumstances.


#7

[quote=mercygate]Jesus had to have free will *as a true man. *Otherwise he could not love nor deliver us from Adam’s sin. The will is the seat of faith. You’re not pointing yourself toward monothelitism are you?
[/quote]

I think marineboy is going off of a definition of faith as “assurance of things unseen”, but if Christ, being God, is omniscient, there is nothing unseen. Hence, no faith, but complete assurance of everything.

About Christ’s humanity, he is subject to some human limitations: he gets tired, hurt, hungry. Being one Divine Person, though, I think his knowledge was ultimately divine, and so, no faith. But it would have been har humanlyd to process this divine knowledge, just as his divinity is impassible, but he suffered a painful passion.


#8

[quote=josiah]I thought that the catholic church was infallible.
[/quote]

You clearly don’t understand the concept of infallibility. It’s when speaking excathedra in matters of faith and morals.


#9

[quote=RBushlow]You clearly don’t understand the concept of infallibility. It’s when speaking excathedra in matters of faith and morals.
[/quote]

The three organs of infallibility: The Ordinary Magisterium, Ecumenical Councils, and the Pope.


#10

‘The Church is infallible. That is how we can be certain that those who depart from Catholic teaching (such as the priests and Bishops Marineboy mentioned) are in error.’

that was a GREAT answer. applause.

so you’re saying Jesus had no faith? without faith it’s impossible to please God. Heb 11.


#11

Hmmm, there’s a puzzler: does the Second Person of the Holy Trinity need faith to please God?


#12

[quote=debtera]Hmmm, there’s a puzzler: does the Second Person of the Holy Trinity need faith to please God?
[/quote]

No puzzler at all. As the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was also a man, He had to have faith.


#13

It may sound strange, but Jesus did not have faith, just as we will not have faith when we arrive in heaven.

There are three theological virtues: faith, hope and charity, “but the greatest of these is charity”, said saint Paul (1 Cor. 13). When we arrive in heaven we will no longer have faith because we will “see God face to face”; and we will no longer have hope because we will “possess God”. All that will remain is charity, which is the love of God.

Faith is defined as the “evidence of things hope for, the substance of things unseen” (Heb). Since Jesus was God, He possessed the beatific vision and therefore did not need faith.


#14

Regarding whether Jesus did not know all things around Him, and the scripture verse of the woman who touched His robe; I heard a beautiful sermon which focused on the fact that Jesus knew who touched Him, but she was able to disclose her faith through His question.


#15

[quote=RSiscoe]It may sound strange, but Jesus did not have faith, just as we will not have faith when we arrive in heaven.

There are three theological virtues: faith, hope and charity, “but the greatest of these is charity”, said saint Paul (1 Cor. 13). When we arrive in heaven we will no longer have faith because we will “see God face to face”; and we will no longer have hope because we will “possess God”. All that will remain is charity, which is the love of God.

Faith is defined as the “evidence of things hope for, the substance of things unseen” (Heb). Since Jesus was God, He possessed the beatific vision and therefore did not need faith.
[/quote]

But you are ignoring the fact that Jesus was a man as we are. His humanity means that he had faith.

To say otherwise is to say that Jesus was not man.


#16

[quote=ByzCath]No puzzler at all. As the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was also a man, He had to have faith.
[/quote]

1. If we can’t trust the bishops to know what is Catholic teaching - whom are we to trust ?

  1. I think the issue of the ignorance of Christ is left over from the past; Jesus has to be authentically human - the question is, does ignorance of certain things militate against this authenticity, given that He came as our Saviour, and not to be a walking encyclopaedia ?

IMAFO an omniscient Jesus wuld be a monstrosity - human beings are not omniscient, and it is not clear that He needs to be; but then, He would know what was required for the “economy” of His Incarnation - which is just the point: for we, don’t know what it required for it.

It’s true that “traditional” Christology tends to be, or is, uncomfortable with the notion of a Christ Who needs faith - but is the objection to His having it, really well-founded ? Much of this issue seems to be reducible to how one relates His humanity, to the issue of whether or not He enjoyed the Beatific Vision. ISTM that one is entitled to wonder about this. If He can suffer, why must objections based on an alleged enjoyment of the Beatific Vision during His earthly life be fatal to his being limited in knowledge in much the same ways as we are ? For suffering seems no less difficult to reconcile with the possession of the Beatific Vision - yet His ability to suffer is admitted, even insisted on. ##


#17

It does seem important to note that the question of Jesus’ knowledge, and whether he had faith or not, is a matter of theology, i.e., how we understand the faith and the logical implications of tenets of our belief. This is not a question of the faith itself; or so it seems to me. If a council or the magisterium has weighed in on the issue, I am bound to believe what the Church teaches. But, as a matter of faith, we can only say Jesus is fully human and fully divine. Beyond that, it seems to be theology. The problem is that on the one hand, some say being fully human requires faith. (The necessity of faith for being human needs to be explained to me.) On the other hand, some say that being fully divine precludes faith. (This is my position.) I think the Church may have prudently decided that as a matter of faith it is undecided.

Then again, Luke 2: 52 does say “And Jesus advanced (in) wisdom and age and favor before God and man.” FWIW, this seems to say in his humanity he went from less wisdom to more wisdom.


#18

[quote=ByzCath]But you are ignoring the fact that Jesus was a man as we are. His humanity means that he had faith.

To say otherwise is to say that Jesus was not man.
[/quote]

Well, Jesus was like us in that he had a human nature and human soul, but He was unlike us in that He was God.

Jesus Christ is a Divine Person - the second person of the Blessed Trinity - who took to Himself a human nature; but Jesus remained a Divine Person. Jesus is one person, with two natures. The person of Jesus is God. That is how He is different than us.

When a human is in the state of grace, they are a human person, who becomes a “partaker of the Divine nature” (1st Peter). We are humans but we participate in the divine life of God. With Jesus it was the opposite, He was a Divine Person with a human nature. The difference is that Jesus is God, and we are not.


#19

If Jesus had doubts on the cross, asking the Father why He had forsaken Him, then that would imply that Jesus also had to have faith, at least during certain times in His life. Perhaps Jesus’ experience of the Beatific Vision was not continuous, but appeared spontaneously, over intervals during His lifetime. Perhaps it was during the absence of the Beatific Vision on the cross that Jesus had thoughts of doubt and of being forsaken.


#20

I answer that, As was said above (II-II, 1, 4), the object of faith is a Divine thing not seen. Now the habit of virtue, as every other habit, takes its species from the object. Hence, if we deny that the Divine thing was not seen, we exclude the very essence of faith. Now from the first moment of His conception Christ saw God’s Essence fully, as will be made clear (34, 1). Hence there could be no faith in Him.

[RIGHT]— III, 7, 3ST[/RIGHT]


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.