Catholic Q & A

[Catholic Say What]

8. The idea that that one Bishop can claim infalibility (again, more than just a power trip?)[/b]

What you need to understand is that the Pope is modeled after Jesus Christ. The Pope looks to Jesus Christ’s role and tries to live up to the example that Christ has set. The Pope IS an authoritative figure, but he is ALSO a servant of the Church. There is no “power trip†involved. Also, “infallibility†does not mean that the Pope HIMSELF is infallible. The Pope is ONLY infallible when he is speaking about matters such as faith and morals. And that is definitely simplifying it. I should be more specific and say that the Pope is infallible when discussing doctrine and dogma. If the Pope wanted he could discuss politics and current events – which of course he does – but these are his opinions. He could also speak his opinions on the faith as a fellow Catholic, but again he is speaking infallibly ONLY when discussing doctrine and dogma.

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

That sums up what I just said. And:

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

Rebuttals against Peter’s infallibility are shot down:

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.

Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain "errors of the popes." Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).

I took the bold quotes from here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Plus there is more information there that I did not post.

9. Since you brought up how Protestants love literal interpretations, can you find anything about what the founders of the Church thought in terms of Creation, the flood, the story of Jonah and the whale, <insert any OT story that contains a miracle here>etc.? I would be really interested to see writings claiming they are not historical.[/b]

I can answer this one for you without using too many textual reference (the information I am about to provide is basic Catholic teaching, so I believe I do not have to explain this one in depth). We cannot take the Bible as one hundred percent literal; we must acknowledge the historical context, the sociological context, etc. If we examine the beginning of Genesis, when God creates the world, we must understand that we are such finite creatures and understanding the awesome power of God – in fact, to condense this awesome power into writing – is impossible. Therefore, God communicated this awesome act (creation) using very simplified words. It is highly doubtful that the world was created in seven days. Of course, whether or not it was is a minor detail that should not be fretted over. What we DO know is that God set aside the seventh day. Genesis tells us that God “rested†on the seventh day. Does God need to rest? Of course not – but God communicated this to us because He wants us to spend at least one day entirely focused on Him. He wants the seventh day to be about taking a break from work and life’s anxieties – and to worship. On to Adam and Eve, yes the Church believes that they were two real human beings. In fact (and this is getting into deep theology) there are parallels drawn between Jesus Christ and Adam in the New Testament; likewise Mary is often called the “New Eve.†[but this question is not about Mary so I am not going to touch any further upon that.]

The Flood and Jonah and the Whale are both considered historical. There really is nothing to discuss here, but I will give you some links if you want to do further reading:

The Flood:

Scroll down to "Historicity of the Biblical Deluge Account."

The Deluge is referred to in several passages of Scripture as a historical fact; the writings of the Fathers consider the event in the same light, and this view of the subject is confirmed by the numerous variants under which the Flood tradition lives in the most distant nations of the earth.

Link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

Jonah:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08497b.htm

6. The concept that if you do not attend Mass (weekly/daily/monthly, what have you) you are committing a mortal sin[/b]

As I have stated, only a knowledgeable Catholic who fully understands the teachings of the Church as well as the severity of mortal sin will commit mortal sin by missing Mass on a Sunday or on any other Holy Day of Obligation.

I am providing the following quotes from Early Church Fathers that speak of the Holy Mass and how important it is (and just by understanding the extreme importance of the Mass, you will see why willfully missing it would be a mortal sin):

One of the earliest Christian documents is the Didache, known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which probably dates from the 1st century. Sections 9 and 10 deal with the Eucharist [Gk. Eucharistias] and prayers of thanks which allude to the Mass. It contains this warning, "... let noone eat or drink of this Eucharist unless he has been baptized in the name of the Lord [a shorthand way of alluding to the Trinity]; for concerning this the Lord also said: ‘Do not give to the dogs what is holy.’" Perhaps alluding to St. Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians, in part 14 it notes: "And on the Lord’s day, gather together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins so that your sacrifice might be pure. This is clearly an illusion to the prophecy of Malachi (Mal 1:11), which our next Father also addresses.

St. Clement of Rome was the third successor of Peter the Apostle as bishop of Rome, our fourth Pope. St. Irenaeus (Book III, iii) tells us that Clement "saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught by the Apostles. " Similarly Epiphanius tells us that Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul. There is a tradition that he was ordained by St. Peter and acted as a kind of auxiliary bishop to Linus and Anacletus, his predecessors in the papal chair. His letter to the Corinthians was written between 70-96 A.D. in an effort to restore peace to the Church at Corinith, Greece, which has broken into factions and was intent upon firing some of their presbyters. The epistle, which is written in Greek, is important because of the distinction it makes between leaders of the community and the faithful. Clement refers to the leaders as presbyters or bishops, without making any further distinction, referring specifically to their ministry as the "offering of gifts." He says, "Our sin will not be light if we expel those who worthily and blamelessly have offered the gifts of the episcopacy." This is clearly liturgical language in light of Mt 5:23 and Lv.1: 2 and Lv 7:38, referring in this instance to the Eucharistic sacrifice offered by priests in the Mass.

Still more:

St. Irenaeus who heard the preaching of Bishop Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, writing a famous tract Against Heresies between 180 and 190 A.D. is the first to provide explicit mention of the change that takes place in the bread and wine when they become the Eucharist. The earthly creation (bread and wine) are raised to a heavenly dignity after they "receive the word of God" [at the epiclesis of the Mass or the invocation to the Holy Spirit] and become the food and drink of Christians. So how then can we doubt that, "Our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection to eternal life."

St. Hilary of Poitiers (died in 368 A.D.) in his his De Trinitate said that the Eucharist made the Church Christ’s Body and allows us to become one with the Father. St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogic Catechesis, a series of sermons dated to the late 4th century, is the first to make clear that the Real Presence is made possible by a changing of the substance of the elements, though the word "transubstantiation" was not yet used. He wrote:

“In the Old Covenant there were loaves of proposition [the bread of the presence], but they being of the Old Covenant, have come to an end. In the New Covenant there is a heavenly bread and a cup of salvation that sanctify the body and soul. For as the bread exists for the body, so the Word is in harmony with the soul. Therefore, do not consider them as bare bread and wine; for according to the declaration of the Master, they are Body and Blood. If even the senses suggest this to you [viz. that they are only bread and wine], let faith reassure you. Do not judge the reality by taste but, having full assurance from faith, realize that you have been judged worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ.â€

Link: http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist.htm

7. The idea that there is to be one main Bishop and not just a communtity of bishops (was it more than just a power trip?)[/b]

Using simple common sense, an organized group cannot function well or will not last very long if there is not an authority figure, or figures, present to instruct and to guide. In case you do not understand Church hierarchy, while there is the Pope as the head there are also Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests (I suppose that would be your “community†of authoritative figures). This question really has nothing to do with theology, unless you have questions on Peter (which I will answer, maybe you were just not specific enough), so I have nothing further to add.

3. The concept of asking those who have died to pray for you[/b]

This is another common sense answer. The Church teaches that the faithful are all connected; our relationships with our loved ones, our LOVE for our loved ones, does not cease when death parts us. If you ask a good friend to pray for you, what does it matter if they are on earth or in Heaven? You are not worshipping them by any means. You are asking for their prayers and their support. There is nothing wrong with this.

The Communion of Saints

Paragraph 5. The Communion of Saints

946 After confessing "the holy catholic Church," the Apostles' Creed adds "the communion of saints." In a certain sense this article is a further explanation of the preceding: "What is the Church if not the assembly of all the saints?"477 The communion of saints is the Church.

947 "Since all the faithful form one body, the good of each is communicated to the others.... We must therefore believe that there exists a communion of goods in the Church. But the most important member is Christ, since he is the head.... Therefore, the riches of Christ are communicated to all the members, through the sacraments."478 "As this Church is governed by one and the same Spirit, all the goods she has received necessarily become a common fund."479

948 The term "communion of saints" therefore has two closely linked meanings: communion in holy things (sancta)" and "among holy persons (sancti)."

Sancta sanctis! ("God's holy gifts for God's holy people") is proclaimed by the celebrant in most Eastern liturgies during the elevation of the holy Gifts before the distribution of communion. The faithful (sancti) are fed by Christ's holy body and blood (sancta) to grow in the communion of the Holy Spirit (koinonia) and to communicate it to the world.

Source: http://212.77.1.244/archive/catechism/p123a9p5.htm

The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption (1 Corinthians 1:2 — Greek Text). The damned are thus excluded from the communion of saints. The living, even if they do not belong to the body of the true Church, share in it according to the measure of their union with Christ and with the soul of the Church. St. Thomas teaches (III:8:4) that the angels, though not redeemed, enter the communion of saints because they come under Christ's power and receive of His gratia capitis. The solidarity itself implies a variety of inter-relations: within the Church Militant, not only the participation in the same faith, sacraments, and government, but also a mutual exchange of examples, prayers, merits, and satisfactions; between the Church on earth on the one hand, and purgatory and heaven on the other, suffrages, invocation, intercession, veneration. These connotations belong here only in so far as they integrate the transcendent idea of spiritual solidarity between all the children of God. Thus understood, the communion of saints, though formally defined only in its particular bearings (Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, decrees on purgatory; on the invocation, veneration, and relics of saints and of sacred images; on indulgences), is, nevertheless, dogma commonly taught and accepted in the Church. It is true that the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Pt. I, ch. x) seems at first sight to limit to the living the bearing of the phrase contained in the Creed, but by making the communion of saints an exponent and function, as it were, of the preceding clause, "the Holy Catholic Church", it really extends to what it calls the Church's "constituent parts, one gone before, the other following every day"; the broad principle it enunciates thus: "every pious and holy action done by one belongs and is profitable to all, through charity which seeketh not her own".

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm

4. Mary being referred to as "Queen of Heaven"[/b]

Because of the special importance placed upon Mary, and because of the belief that she was assumed into Heaven, it is only natural to refer to her as the Queen of Heaven; it is an honorable title.

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

1. The concept of Mary being ever-virgin

2. The concept of Mary being without sin[/b]

The absolute purity of Mary:

Patristic writings on Mary's purity abound.

• The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");

• Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");

• Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);

• Maximus of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");

• Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve, nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").

• In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (On Nature and Grace 36).

• Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");

• it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);

• she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);

• she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);

• when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).

• The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).

• To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").

• Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, "Mari SS. Vita", Sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the "Revelations" of Catherine Emmerich which contain the entire apocryphal legend of the miraculous conception of Mary.

From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary's immunity from sin in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.

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

A response to Fundamentalists:

Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.

A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinct persons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the "Nestorian" church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.

Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.

The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and the following passages witness to their lively recognition of the sacred truth and great gift of divine maternity that was bestowed upon Mary, the humble handmaid of the Lord.

Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp

The Early Church Fathers on The Immaculate Conception

Justin Martyr:

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, "Be it done unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus:

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, "Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word." Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen:

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus:

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Ephraim the Syrian:

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Ambrose of Milan:

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianzen:

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Augustine:

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Theodotus of Ancrya:

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Proclus of Constantinople:

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

Jacob of Sarug:

[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

Romanos the Melodist:

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).

Source: http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

**I am interested to see what your responses to these texts will be; I am ALSO interested to hear the sources you have that back up your non-Catholic beliefs. Sources that run contrary to both Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers (the first CHRISTIAN leaders). If such sources even exist, of course.

**As a reminder, I will not have computer access next week.

Pax.

[Zabby]

Ermm... Catholics Say What, If you had acutally read the debate forum guidlines. You'd know that we already have a Catholic Q&A thread here. I appricated your enthusiasm, but a mod will probably come along and merge this with that.

[Jakob]

I don't think my original post which I am now replacing with this edit was worth it*****

[froggielover]

Ermm... Catholics Say What, If you had acutally read the debate forum guidlines. You'd know that we already have a Catholic Q&A thread here. I appricated your enthusiasm, but a mod will probably come along and merge this with that.[/b]

I am sorry Zabby, I requested CSW make a new thread with all of the info she posted in "The First Church" thread. I didn't want to overrun that thread. I had a handful of questions about the early Church and what they believed and wanted to see evidence of particular Rome Catholic beliefs and if they were present within the first century of the Church.

It would be super if this could remain seperate, if needed maybe just a heading change or something if that helps.

CSW, I am still reading this and thanks again.

[Catholic Say What]

But, I find it humorous your idea of papal infallibility can only derived from a concept of interpretation of Scripture, which by your definition is flawed man interpreting infallible Scripture.[/b]

You read all of that text within five minutes of my posting? I am impressed.

Since the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, and as Christ told Peter "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it," Catholics take comfort in this promise. We believe that each Pope, elected by God (if you like I can go through the election process), is intimately guided by the Holy Spirit. And as I clearly outlined, the Pope is only speaking infallibly when discussing matters of doctrine and dogma - which were given to us by Jesus Christ.

So you're just as likely to have made a mistake as a protestant using Sola Scriptura. Because we're ultimately basing doctrine on our own interpretation. That's all I have to say, though.[/b]

Sola Scriptura is another matter entirely. A non-Catholic Christian follows the Scriptures alone, which is a contradiction because no where does the Bible state that we can only follow Scripture alone. So this concept of Sola Scriptura is OUTSIDE of the Scriptures. An absolute contradiction.

[Zabby]

I don't think the post was worth it, haha.[/b]

Play nice now Jakob.

I am sorry Zabby, I requested CSW make a new thread with all of the info she posted in "The First Church" thread. I didn't want to overrun that thread. I had a handful of questions about the early Church and what they believed and wanted to see evidence of particular Rome Catholic beliefs and if they were present within the first century of the Church.

It would be super if this could remain seperate, if needed maybe just a heading change or something if that helps.

CSW, I am still reading this and thanks again. [/b]

Hmm... wouldn't it have been better to take it to PM then? Oh well, not my place. Have fun though guys

[Jakob]

You read all of that text within five minutes of my posting? I am impressed.

Since the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, and as Christ told Peter "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it," Catholics take comfort in this promise. We believe that each Pope, elected by God (if you like I can go through the election process), is intimately guided by the Holy Spirit. And as I clearly outlined, the Pope is only speaking infallibly when discussing matters of doctrine and dogma - which were given to us by Jesus Christ.

Sola Scriptura is another matter entirely. A non-Catholic Christian follows the Scriptures alone, which is a contradiction because no where does the Bible state that we can only follow Scripture alone. So this concept of Sola Scriptura is OUTSIDE of the Scriptures. An absolute contradiction.[/b]

I did say the thread was tl;dr (too long;didn't read)

All I'm saying is that the entire Catholic church is based upon interpretation of Scripture yet they themselves discourage private interpretation of it. That's the point of my original post.

And might I add you just defined Solo Scriptura, which is not equal to Sola Scriptura.

[Catholic Say What]

It would be super if this could remain seperate, if needed maybe just a heading change or something if that helps.[/b]

I completely agree with you. If we brought this into private messenger it would probably look sloppy (I doubt the quote tags would work and it would just be a mess).

CSW, I am still reading this and thanks again. [/b]

It's totally cool. I think we can really learn from each other. If there is anything you can take out of this debate, it's that all Christians share the same history. My Tradition is YOUR Tradition.

I did say the thread was tl;dr (too long;didn't read)[/b]

I put a good hour into gathering all of that information together. If you do not want to read it, then do not comment upon it. I only want to discuss it with people who have read it and are genuinely interested. Otherwise, it is a waste of my time.

And might I add you just defined Solo Scriptura, which is not equal to Sola Scriptura.[/b]

I defined it properly, thank you.

Sola Scriptura: http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/solascri.txt

And according this website, which appears to be a non-Catholic Christian one:

Sola Scriptura simply means “by Scripture aloneâ€. It is the belief that the Scriptures are completely sufficient for everything that we need for faith, life and godliness.

Solo Scriptura is the perversion of the historic Protestant teaching of “sola scriptura.†The reformers taught that the church is an authoritative interpreter of Scripture, but not an infallible interpreter of Scripture. Solo scriptura is the belief that the church is not an authoritative interpreter of Scripture, or is only authoritative when “I agree with it.†Sola Scriptura is the belief that all I need to interpret the Scriptures properly is “Me, My Bible and the Holy Spirit.â€

Link: http://www.christchurchreformed.com/matthe...thew1232005.pdf

[Jakob]

Sola Scriptura is the belief that all I need to interpret the Scriptures properly is “Me, My Bible and the Holy Spirit.”[/b]

This is what Paul did. And by that, I meant he interpreted the Old Testament in light of Christ's arrival and the use of the Holy Spirit.

You are correct, Sola Scriptura is that Scripture alone is all I need to interpret and live for "faith, life, and godliness."

However, where you are mistaken is that Sola Scriptura rests that Scripture is the highest absolute authority, meaning Scripture > Tradition, and all things pertaining to CHristianity must held in light to Scripture but Scripture is ultimately held in the highest regard.

Solo Scriptura is that Scripture is my only authority in this life, and by that (rather absurd thought) I can't use a science text book because it doesn't hold authority. WHere as in Sola Scriptura, the science textbook answers to Scripture and Scripture is ultimately predominant.

Another thing is that I don't have tradition or anything. All history, philosophy, science and so forth is ultimately held to Scripture because all I need is the Bible and it rests as my highest authority, and explanation for this can be seen in my reformed theology thread.

*shrug*

It's a pointless debate because it goes no where and I'm not up for debating this again because it turns into two people pointing the finger.

And for the record, now that the threads have been merged, this is where I stop posting because I don't post in this thread...

[Zme]

Guys:

I did initially merge the topics, but then decided not to on the basis that both Guitar Guy and FROG asked for them not to be, plus the fact that I get the impression that CSW rather wants to run this thread.

So then I split the threads again, and somehow I have screwed something up and deleted Guitar Guy's post. I'm sorry. I don't exactly know how that happened.

I'm rubbish, throw scones at me.

[Jakob]

Guys:

I did initially merge the topics, but then decided not to on the basis that both Guitar Guy and FROG asked for them not to be, plus the fact that I get the impression that CSW rather wants to run this thread.

So then I split the threads again, and somehow I have screwed something up and deleted Guitar Guy's post. I'm sorry. I don't exactly know how that happened.

I'm rubbish, throw scones at me.[/b]

*feeds Tom a scone*

It's really okay. Perhaps it's better this way for now... Haha

Tom! Why did you have to bring it back!?! I thought it could have ended on a technicality!

[Zme]

EDIT: AHA! I have recovered Guitar Guy's post. Sorry about all that kuffuffel. Carry on.

[JesusRocks4Me]

Oooh! I have some questions for any Catholics that want to answer, but preferebly not Zabby or AquinasD (sorry guys! )

Anyway here goes.

Why does the Roman Catholic Church accept tradition as "holy"?

How is Sola Scriptura contradictory to the Bible?

Do you believe in the complete, word-for-word preservation of the Biblical manuscripts, like Fundamentalists do?

If Peter was the first pope, and in charge of doctrinal matters and such, why did he only write 2 letters in the NT? Why did he not write more than anyone else? I mean, that just follows logically that if he is in charge, he should write the most.

Why are councils considered infallible?

[Catholic Say What]

You are correct, Sola Scriptura is that Scripture alone is all I need to interpret and live for "faith, life, and godliness."

However, where you are mistaken is that Sola Scriptura rests that Scripture is the highest absolute authority, meaning Scripture > Tradition, and all things pertaining to CHristianity must held in light to Scripture but Scripture is ultimately held in the highest regard.

Solo Scriptura is that Scripture is my only authority in this life, and by that (rather absurd thought) I can't use a science text book because it doesn't hold authority. WHere as in Sola Scriptura, the science textbook answers to Scripture and Scripture is ultimately predominant.[/b]

You have me a bit confused; first you told me I was wrong, that I meant Solo Scriptura and then, after I provided the definition of both - and you provided definitions of both, which are in agreement with mine - you are telling me that I am correct.

Another thing is that I don't have tradition or anything. All history, philosophy, science and so forth is ultimately held to Scripture because all I need is the Bible and it rests as my highest authority, and explanation for this can be seen in my reformed theology thread.[/b]

Where did the Bible come from?

[Zabby]

Oooh! I have some questions for any Catholics that want to answer, but preferebly not Zabby or AquinasD (sorry guys! )[/b]

Joseph, why don't you want me to answer. Some of these are questions I've never addressed before. I'm mostly joking. If you don't want me to answer, I won't... unless I feel as though something needs to me said.

[Catholic Say What]

Oooh! I have some questions for any Catholics that want to answer, but preferebly not Zabby or AquinasD (sorry guys! )

Anyway here goes.[/b]

Thanks for stopping by!

Why does the Roman Catholic Church accept tradition as "holy"?[/b]

Here is a passage about Sacred Tradition, from The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

Link: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

How is Sola Scriptura contradictory to the Bible?[/b]

There is no Sola Scriptura teaching mentioned in the Bible.

Check this out: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num6.htm

An Outline of the Catholic Case Against Sola Scriptura

I. SS is UNBIBLICAL

(1) there is no direct teaching of SS in Scripture (OT or NT)

(a) although possibly implied by 2 Tim 3:15-17; 1 Cor 4:6; etc)

( denied by 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2; etc)

(2) there is no statement that apostolic oral revelation would cease to be a rule of faith (was argued it has in fact "passed away")

(3) or at least SS is "non-biblical" since the NT is silent about the "passing away" of the apostolic oral revelation (cf. Matt 24:35; Acts 2:42; 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 3:2; etc)

Do you believe in the complete, word-for-word preservation of the Biblical manuscripts, like Fundamentalists do?[/b]

If Peter was the first pope, and in charge of doctrinal matters and such, why did he only write 2 letters in the NT? Why did he not write more than anyone else? I mean, that just follows logically that if he is in charge, he should write the most.[/b]

Why are councils considered infallible?[/b]

I believe you can find all of these answers in my original post. Happy reading!

Note: I find it 10x more beneficial to provide you the texts as opposed to simply explaining the teachings to you. While I love to explain teachings, I feel that the sources I provide are more informative and offer sources themselves.

[AwedbyTruth]

We've had quite a few of these. If it's Q &A why in the debate forum?

[Catholic Say What]

We've had quite a few of these. If it's Q &A why in the debate forum?[/b]

It IS meant to be a debate, or I assume that is what it will turn into. I really did not intend for the title of this thread to throw anyone into confusion. FROG asked questions, and I gave answers. Hence the title.

[AwedbyTruth]

I have a problem with it being in the debate forums for a few reasons.... a whole bunch of people will pop in and start arguing about which ever dish they have with the Catholic Church. We'll have 10 different topics with in one topic.

[froggielover]

What you need to understand is that the Pope is modeled after Jesus Christ. The Pope looks to Jesus Christ’s role and tries to live up to the example that Christ has set. The Pope IS an authoritative figure, but he is ALSO a servant of the Church. There is no “power trip†involved[/b]

Thing is is that we(Christians) are all supposed to be modeled after Jesus Christ. We are all supposed to try and live up to the example that Christ set.

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17).[/b]

I am not understanding how the pope can claim infallibility by looking at those passages. Can you elaborate on that please?

Do we see the bishop of Rome as the leader of the early Church? Was it not until Victor when the idea went from bishops of Rome to Bishop of Rome?

As far as infallibility, I have to wonder why was that not defined until 1870?

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . "). [/b][/b]

I am having a hard time connecting dots here. I see these same few verses used as the reason for infallibility. I do not understand why though. First, because I do not see a connection between what Christ said to the infallible claim. Second because how does that imply a succession where this supposed gift is transferred to others?

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.[/b]

Ok. The Holy Spirit was promised yes, but not to just one man, not to just Peter. He was promised to all. The Truth cannot fall away from Truth. When Christ talks about His Church, he is not talking about a building with a specific name on it, he is talking about His followers. Hades will not overpower that Church. I do not see Matt. 16:18 promising protection on a specific church (little c) that has a certain title on its front.

People have free will right. If you can admit that the pope himself is not infallible, how can you not admit that articles defined by popes over the years possibly may not have been inspired by God? I find it kind of scarey to place that much power in someone elses hands. How do you know your Traditions to be God inspired?

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).[/b]

I am unsure about this Cyprian quote. I just cannot get over the mention of "seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived" instead of a mention of Christ or even God. Just seems like He was cut right out of the equation there.

We cannot take the Bible as one hundred percent literal; we must acknowledge the historical context, the sociological context, etc.[/b]

I agree, not everything in the Bible can be taken literally. What I initially was getting at was early teachings of supernatural events in the Bible. It has been mu understanding that the Jews believed in a literal Genesis, flood, story of Jonah, etc. (I use those specific three because they have been debated on this site before) If Jews did believe in literal, historical understandings of these stories, Jesus no doubt would have been taught this way as well. If they were in error, meaning the accounts were not historical, why would Jesus not correct that them?

As I have stated, only a knowledgeable Catholic who fully understands the teachings of the Church as well as the severity of mortal sin will commit mortal sin by missing Mass on a Sunday or on any other Holy Day of Obligation.[/b]

This concept is lost on me. How can it be a mortal sin for you to miss Mass but not for me? I always thought that sin was sin was sin. Just because you do not understand something fully does not mean you are not to be held accountable right?

If someone grows up within a culture that believes that sacraficing babies is totally fine, does that mean it is not a sin?

I see how dear Mass is to you and I appreciate the information. I still do not see how missing it(with full knowledge or not) means you have committed a mortal sin. Do you believe that salvation is found within the act of Communion? If you do, do you believe that it is fleeting and must be renewed every week?

Using simple common sense, an organized group cannot function well or will not last very long if there is not an authority figure, or figures, present to instruct and to guide. In case you do not understand Church hierarchy, while there is the Pope as the head there are also Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests (I suppose that would be your “community†of authoritative figures). This question really has nothing to do with theology, unless you have questions on Peter (which I will answer, maybe you were just not specific enough), so I have nothing further to add.[/b]

My question came from two ideas. One being that Peter considered himself an elder among elders. Peter 5:1 Second, there doesn't seem to be any early indication that there was an singular authority figure. Meaning one person as the head.

This is another common sense answer. The Church teaches that the faithful are all connected; our relationships with our loved ones, our LOVE for our loved ones, does not cease when death parts us. If you ask a good friend to pray for you, what does it matter if they are on earth or in Heaven? You are not worshipping them by any means. You are asking for their prayers and their support. There is nothing wrong with this.[/b]

I am not so much looking at the definition or explanation of the practice. I have heard it explained several times My question was more based on when did it become practice to pray (or petition prayer) to the dead? Since I do not find examples of this practice in the Bible (which I think would be important) I wonder when it was thought up. I wonder this because only God knows the heart, we have no guarantee as to who is in heaven and who is not.

Because of the special importance placed upon Mary, and because of the belief that she was assumed into Heaven, it is only natural to refer to her as the Queen of Heaven; it is an honorable title.[/b]

Why was the doctrine of Mary being assumed into heaven not defined until 1950. I am very skeptical of this. Why would it not have been stated before that. If the knowledge was circulated since the 5th century, I wonder why would it not have been stated within the 1st century. If it is true, what a wonderful miracle that would have been! I am cautious about believing something assumed so long after the "fact"

The absolute purity of Mary:

I will have to check on those quotes. It is so hard to find quotes with dates attached. I am really interested in when things occured.

The Early Church Fathers on The Immaculate Conception

Justin Marty & Irenaeus' quotes didn't seem to point to any immaculate conception.

Hippolytus:

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).[/b]

I am really perplexed by this quote. I thought Roman Catholics call Mary the ark?

[**I am interested to see what your responses to these texts will be; I am ALSO interested to hear the sources you have that back up your non-Catholic beliefs. Sources that run contrary to both Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers (the first CHRISTIAN leaders). If such sources even exist, of course.[/b]

I am not here to debate with you really. I am only interested in the truth. My motives lay in finding out when certain practices came about and my curiosity as to why they were not revealed by either Christ or His apostles.

[JesusRocks4Me]

I am going to avoid calling names and making accusations, Catholic Say What.

I don't care what the church fathers believed, because they aren't infallible.

I trust the Bible though. Not the Catholic church's interpretation.

Anyway, what does the Catholic Church say about contemporary Christian music?

[proud_orthodox_guy]

I don't care what the church fathers believed, because they aren't infallible.[/b]

You should care. Their writings are windows into the early church and how it functioned.

[AwedbyTruth]

Anyway, what does the Catholic Church say about contemporary Christian music?[/b]

Nothing.

[Asgb]

I have a question, Do catholics believe in baptizing babies? And what is your personal view on this?

[Jordan]

I have a question for any Catholic here who has the time or patience to answer, which is more of a follow up from a previous question I asked Zabby in another thread. My question is, and this is from my understanding which might be in error to begin with, but why does the Catholic church teaching insist that while people might be saved outside of the Catholic church, that they might not be, even if they believe in Christ? I realize Catholic teaching holds that they are the true, one church Christ began and gave to Peter, but can someone explain in more detail where this doctrine is rooted in, why this is so? And in advance, I realize this may be a sensitive topic, and I in no way mean to cause division, mislead, or worse, cause doubt among Catholics or people considering joining the faith. I am all for a unified body of Christ, as paul insisted on in 1 Corinthians 1. I am just interested in this doctrine.