Have the jaws of hell prevailed against the church?


#1

I was in the process of explaining that as Catholics we have the assurance of the Son of God that the church will never falter and teach something which is not true and that even if a not so good person was elected Pope, Jesus would still ensure that he would not cause the OFFICIAL position of the church to falter.

I was challenged with the following and I am at a loss on how to respond. Please help.

PS: Some of it can be explained with Infallibility (teaching without error) VS Impeccability (living without sinning) but in some of the examples listed it sure looks like the church made errors in their teaching. How do I explain this? Thanks in advance for your help.


#2

Ask for the link. I’d like to see from where he is getting this.


#3

Link requested.


#4

What errors in teaching are your refering to? I read the whole thing, and I didn’t see a single example of an error in teaching the Faith or Morals. Am I missing them?


#5

Wouldn’t this be an error …

“His genius for generating revenue was shown most clearly in the introduction of sale of indulgence for the dead. Thus living relatives of the dead”

:confused:


#6

Not at all. In fact, indulgences have always been able to be applied to the dead. The sale of indulgences may have been an abuse, but it was based in the idea that donation of money to the Church constituted an act of charity, and counted as a penance. Since the Church has the authority to issue penances, such donations weren’t a problem in and of themselves. It’s when the practice was abused for personal gain that it became a problem, and was discontinued. One is still able to apply earned indulgences through penances, pilgrimages, and special devotions to the dead. That is a practice that goes back to pre-Christian Judaism.

Peace and God bless!


#7

I skimmed most of the article and there’s plenty of mud being thrown about, but there are no major theological course corrections… What I mean by that is something like the following…

Consider that birth control, divorce, abortion, and homosexuality were unanimously rejected by Protestantism using the BIBLE ALONE for well over 400 years… Within the last 50 years, birth control, divorce, abortion, and homosexuality have become acceptable.

I wonder which verses in the Bible changed or were redefined or corrected, put in correct context or re-interpreted to allow that to happen???

Major or complete reversals on core issues is what’s important. The Catholic Church via the Papacy is the only denomination that has a clean record in that regard… - unless you start fresh with a new denomination tomorrow.

Don’t get me wrong, there were plenty of really bad Popes, but fortunately, they were too busy fornicating, gambling, smoking hash, whatever to mess with the doctrine!!!


#8

Let’s take a quick look at indulgences:

[ ]("")         




An indulgence is simply a remission through the infinite merits of Jesus Christ and His Saints, of the temporal punishment due for sins committed
after guilt and eternal punishment have been remitted by God.

That Our Lord has given the Church the power of granting indulgences is
implied in Scripture: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you
loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (St. Matt. 16:19).

St. Paul provides a clear example of the Church using this power with
respect to the incestuous Corinthian upon whom he had imposed a severe
penance. After learning of the Corinthian’s fervent sorrow, St. Paul
absolved him of the penance which he had imposed, saying: “For, what I
have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in
the person of Christ” (2 Cor. 2:10).

In this example we have the elements of a true indulgence: (i) a penance
(temporal punishment) imposed on the Corinthian by St. Paul; (ii) sorrow
on the part of the sinner for his crime; (iii) the relaxation of the penance by
St. Paul (the indulgence); (iv) the relaxation done in the “person of Christ.”
An indulgence may be plenary or partial according to whether it removes
all or part of the temporal punishment due to sin. The requirements laid
down by the Church for gaining a plenary indulgence are (i) performance
of the indulgenced work––for example, adoration of the Blessed Sacrament

 [lumenverum.org/apologetics/DefendtheFaith/back.gif]("http://www.lumenverum.org/apologetics/DefendtheFaith/page264.html")     [lumenverum.org/apologetics/DefendtheFaith/top.gif]("http://www.lumenverum.org/apologetics/DefendtheFaith/page265.html#pageTable")     [lumenverum.org/apologetics/DefendtheFaith/forward.gif]("http://www.lumenverum.org/apologetics/DefendtheFaith/page266.html")

#9

Hi. New Catholic here. Am soooooo confused about Vatican II. Is it a wrong teaching? I have been attending a traditional church. I like it. They do not see the Pope as valid. They do not see the teachings of Vatican II as valid. There are many Catholic churches closer to me. The traditional church says that going to any of them is a sin. I want to be one with the people not on an off-shoot.

I searched for many many years before settling on Catholic. I came back to Jesus via eastern spiritualism. I’m a child of divorce. I know what torn apart feels like. God gave me a wonderful healing years ago from that pain. I am feeling that torn apart feeling again about my current church. Some are starting to say it isn’t right enough either.

Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.


#10

[quote=RosaMarcel]Hi. New Catholic here. Am soooooo confused about Vatican II. Is it a wrong teaching?
[/quote]

No, sounds like you landed in the Land of oz group. They are wrong. Not the One, True Catholic, Traditional Church.

I have been attending a traditional church. I like it. They do not see the Pope as valid. They do not see the teachings of Vatican II as valid. There are many Catholic churches closer to me. The traditional church says that going to any of them is a sin. I want to be one with the people not on an off-shoot.

I searched for many many years before settling on Catholic. I came back to Jesus via eastern spiritualism. I’m a child of divorce. I know what torn apart feels like. God gave me a wonderful healing years ago from that pain. I am feeling that torn apart feeling again about my current church. Some are starting to say it isn’t right enough either.

Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Right now it sounds as if you are in an off shoot. You need to get to a real Catholic Church, and learn the faith. There are always going to be those who think they are "Holier than the Pope, and disagree with the teachings. They are wrong, very wrong. I think you feel torn because spiritually you sense they are off base.


#11

[quote=RosaMarcel]Hi. New Catholic here. Am soooooo confused about Vatican II. Is it a wrong teaching? I have been attending a traditional church. I like it. They do not see the Pope as valid. They do not see the teachings of Vatican II as valid. There are many Catholic churches closer to me. The traditional church says that going to any of them is a sin. I want to be one with the people not on an off-shoot.

I searched for many many years before settling on Catholic. I came back to Jesus via eastern spiritualism. I’m a child of divorce. I know what torn apart feels like. God gave me a wonderful healing years ago from that pain. I am feeling that torn apart feeling again about my current church. Some are starting to say it isn’t right enough either.

Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
[/quote]

If you are attending a Church which teaches that the Pope is not a true pope, or that the teachings of Vatican II are invalid (V-2 changed no teaching), then you are NOT in a Catholic church. You belong to a schismatic church not in communion with the Catholic Church.

How long have you been at this Church? Is it a parish of the Society of St. Piux X? They are the most numerous of the schismatic churches.


#12

Well, I understand that the examples that were given in the link furnished in the OP were not errors of faith and morals, my question is:

Why should we understand Jesus’s sayings about the gates of hell not prevailing against the church as only limited to the teaching of the Truth, specifically the verbal teaching of the Truth? Doesn’t one teach by one’s actions? So, if the members of the Magisterium of the Church (especially the Pope) are not leading by example, why shouldn’t I consider their actions part of their teachings? Doesn’t sin blind one spiritually? So, how can I trust the teachings of the Popes who were extremely sinful?

I’m sorry for any ignorance that I have betrayed through my questions; I am still learning! Also, I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s faith, so please do not take offense.

Micah


#13

Here’s what I’d do. Make him (her?) choose one of that vast list of cut-and-paste buckshot as the strongest case for his argument. Then throw all the others out, and focus on that one case alone. Then insist that he show in that particular case that the pope has taught against a doctrine of the Church, by pointing to the document of the pope, and the document stating the doctrine the pope’s document taught against.


#14

[quote=BigTurkey]Well, I understand that the examples that were given in the link furnished in the OP were not errors of faith and morals, my question is:

Why should we understand Jesus’s sayings about the gates of hell not prevailing against the church as only limited to the teaching of the Truth, specifically the verbal teaching of the Truth? Doesn’t one teach by one’s actions? So, if the members of the Magisterium of the Church (especially the Pope) are not leading by example, why shouldn’t I consider their actions part of their teachings? Doesn’t sin blind one spiritually? So, how can I trust the teachings of the Popes who were extremely sinful?

I’m sorry for any ignorance that I have betrayed through my questions; I am still learning! Also, I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s faith, so please do not take offense.

Micah
[/quote]

I think you ask a very good question. I would reply that even the apostles were imperfect; seriously flawed – perhaps especially Peter. I believe that Jesus knew that man would never be liberated from the tendency to sin, and that he promised protection to the Chuch (rather than to individuals) because only the Holy Spirit could adequately steer the ship.


#15

[quote=BigTurkey]Well, I understand that the examples that were given in the link furnished in the OP were not errors of faith and morals, my question is:

Why should we understand Jesus’s sayings about the gates of hell not prevailing against the church as only limited to the teaching of the Truth, specifically the verbal teaching of the Truth? Doesn’t one teach by one’s actions?
[/quote]

The apostles sinned but they wrote inerrant scripture. Peter denied Christ, but he was given the keys to the kingdom and wrote inerrant scripture.

Actions by their very localized nature do not teach the entire Church. Further, actions do not claim to be teaching to the entire Church.

What you are suggesting is that when men are raised up to bishops they become sinless (for every sin teaches against the Church). Scripture and common experience clearly show that this is not the situation.


#16

[quote=RosaMarcel]Hi. New Catholic here. Am soooooo confused about Vatican II. Is it a wrong teaching? I have been attending a traditional church. I like it. They do not see the Pope as valid. They do not see the teachings of Vatican II as valid. There are many Catholic churches closer to me. The traditional church says that going to any of them is a sin. I want to be one with the people not on an off-shoot.

[/quote]

Hi,

God in His wisdom gave us a clear sign of how to find His Church. Where the Bishop of Rome is, there is the Church. No arguing about who’s got the right doctrines (and Protestantism shows us that nobody ever wins those arguments, they just keep splitting and splitting into more and more denominations). Just find the Bishop of Rome and you’ve found the Church.

As to Vatican II, read the actual documents and the further teachings of the popes on them and you’ll find out how much stuff done in the “spirit” of Vatican II is bogus and often completely at odds with the actual council.


#17

King David was a murderer and an adulterer. Do you have a problem accepting the Psalms he wrote? :wink:

Could you gave an example of an infallible teaching of a Pope that was “exteremly sinful” that you are having problem accepting?


#18

Yeah, you all raise good objections. I guess it is just the Protestantism speaking :smiley:

Thanks,

Micah


#19

Here is an easy answer. The Church herself is perfect because it is of Jesus, the creatchers in the Church are fallen and can never be perfect in this world.

Jesus will protect his Church, his bride, until he comes again.


#20

Although the Pharisees and Sadducees were corrupt, Jesus said to do as they said.


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.