Papal Infallibility: A Symbolic, Yet Problematic, Term

Homiletic & Pastoral Review ^ | March 30, 2012 | REV. JOHN T. FORD CSC

[NYer]

Although papal infallibility is commonly found in popular conversation, how well the term is understood is another matter.

“Christ giving Peter the keys of the kingdom” by Pietro Perugino

As Danny Garland, Jr., pointed out in his recent article on “The Development of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility,” the term “papal infallibility” has a centuries-old history that stretches from Peter John Olivi, in the thirteenth century, through John Henry Newman, in the nineteenth century, and down to the present. ¹

In addition to being a well-known term with a lengthy history, “papal infallibility” is also highly symbolic: for Roman Catholics, it has often been a badge of self-identity—a way of distinguishing themselves from Anglicans, Orthodox and Protestants. Simultaneously, the pope’s infallibility has been a counter-symbol to those Christians who do not recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Indeed, for many non-Catholic Christians, the term symbolizes everything that is wrong with Roman Catholicism.

Although papal infallibility is commonly found in popular conversation, how well the term is understood is another matter. One of the most entertaining discussions of the issue is found in a pub-scene in James Joyce’s Dubliners, where a group is stoutly discussing and strenuously defending the infallible teaching of the pope. In Joyce’s story, Mr. Cunningham summarized the doctrine with Hibernian exuberance: ‘But the astonishing thing is this: Not one of them (the popes), not the biggest drunkard, not the most . . . out-and-out ruffian, not one of them ever preached ex cathedra a word of false doctrine. Now isn’t that an astonishing thing?” ²

Cunningham went on to claim that one of the two prelates who voted against Pastor Aeternus at the Council was a German Cardinal, by the name of Dowling—presumably meaning Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger (1799-1890), a German priest-professor at the University of Munich, who was not at Vatican I, but was excommunicated in 1871 for refusing to accept its teachings about infallibility. ³ Although Cunningham and companions can be credited for knowing the essentials of the doctrine, their theological method makes historians and theologians wince—at least if they know anything concerning the history and teaching of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) about “infallibility.” As John Tracy Ellis once remarked: “It is doubtful that any event in the history of the modern Church ever gave rise to a greater flow of misinformation than the [First] Vatican Council.” ⁴

Unfortunately, Ellis was all too right. First of all, contrary to popular belief, Vatican I did not really define “infallibility,” at least, not in the sense of stating precisely what infallibility is. Rather, the Council described how infallibility is operative. What the Council actually did was to specify the conditions required for pope to exercise this authority of infallibility. He must: (1) Rely on the divine assistance promised to Peter; (2) Act as pastor and teacher of all Christians; and, (3) Invoke his supreme apostolic authority. In addition, the Council limited the type of teachings that can be taught infallibly to matters of faith and morals, held by the whole Church. Only if all these conditions are fulfilled, does the pope “enjoy” the infallibility given by Christ to the Church. Then, and only then, can such papal definitions be deemed “irreformable.” ⁵

Although the First Vatican Council did not give a precise definition of the nature of infallibility, its operative description suggests that the Council understood it to be an endowment or charism given by Christ to the Church, which can only be exercised by the pope under specific conditions. A charism ensures that the teaching of the pope, in a particular instance, is immune from error. In describing this divinely given gift of infallibility, the Council’s list of conditions serves a double purpose. First, the list specifies the conditions which must be fulfilled (i.e., if a pope truly wants to mandate a particular doctrine by using the charism of infallibility). Secondly, the list of conditions enables Christians to recognize when a particular teaching is being infallibly taught.

The fact that the vast majority of Church teachings are not taught under this charism does not mean that such teachings are unimportant. They do not have the same importance as teachings deemed infallible, which have a greater binding force, precisely because they are closely connected with the essentials of revelation. ⁶ Moreover, while teaching the Gospel is a daily responsibility of the Church, only rarely has the Church invoked infallibility in fulfilling its teaching mission. In fact, since Vatican I’s declaration on infallibility in 1870, there is only one clear-cut instance where a pope has taught infallibly: Pope Pius XII’s 1950 proclamation of Our Lady’s assumption. ⁷

Meaning of Infallibilitas
What is absolutely crucial to any discussion about “infallibility”—but all too often overlooked—is what the term actually means. In English, “infallibility” has simply been taken from the Latin, infallibilitas, without specifying its meaning. ⁸ As a result, many people use the term in a rather elastic sense—often meaning “immunity from error” or “inability of making fundamental mistakes in religious matters.” While such casual explanations may suffice for popular understandings, they have the potential for creating misunderstandings, among Catholics and other Christians.

In contrast, German-speaking theologians have tried to translate the term. The most common translation has been Unfehlbarkeit—“inability of erring.” However, this term is not completely satisfactory, since it can have a pejorative connotation. Unfehlbar can describe a person who thinks that he is incapable of making mistakes, which is obviously not the case here. Accordingly, unfehlbar can make the not-too-subtle suggestion that it is humanly impossible for anyone, including the pope, to claim to exercise “infallibility.” Such a dismissive connotation underpinned Hans Küng’s attack on “infallibility” on the centennial of Vatican I in 1970. ⁹

Some German-speaking theologians, such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, have opted for other understandings of infallibilitas, such as Letzverbindlichkeit, implying that a definitive response can be given to a specific doctrinal question. He states:

Heinrich Fries’ suggestion of Verbindlichkeit (binding power), which “at the highest level can become an ultimate binding power” (Letzverbindlichkeit) seems to me certainly worth considering. ¹⁰

The merit of interpreting infallibility as “ultimate binding power” or “judicial finality” is that a doctrinal decision pronounced under infallibility is final—at least, here and now, for this specific question, unless, and until, new questions are raised.

The understanding of “infallibility” as “judicial finality” has sometimes been popularized in American catechetics, comparing doctrinal declarations to decisions of the Supreme Court: whose decisions are judicially final as there is no higher court to which an appeal can be made. So, too, decisions under infallibility are ecclesially final, as a pope, or an ecumenical council, teaching with infallibility, has the definitive word about the specific doctrinal matter under discussion, with no further appeal possible. Nonetheless, change is possible in the future, that is, a new legal question may arise, resulting in the Supreme Court modifying a previous decision. Similarly, a new doctrinal question may be posed, resulting in a new doctrinal decision—not one contradicting the previous teaching, but one amplifying and developing it.¹¹

In other words, just as “judicial finality” does not preclude the possibility of the Supreme Court modifying a previous Supreme Court decision, infallibility does not exclude the possibility that a later pope, or later council, might amplify and develop it further, and in that sense, change the doctrinal decisions of their predecessors. In this respect, the answer to one doctrinal question sets the stage for further questions, and for further doctrinal decisions in the future. For example, the responses of the ecumenical councils of the early church to a series of Trinitarian and Christological controversies may be seen as instances of this continual dynamic of definitive decisions, followed by new doctrinal developments and consequent clarifications. 12

Papal Infallibility
While papal infallibility is routinely used, not only in common conversation, but also among theologians, it should be emphasized that the First Vatican Council did not use the term. In fact, Vatican I deliberately changed the heading of the fourth chapter of Pastor Aeternus. The original draft read: “the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff,” which was changed to: “the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.” The importance of this terminological shift is two-fold. First, it avoided the implication that the pope possesses infallibility in such a personal way that all his statements come under infallibility. While Catholics generally take this for granted today, at the time of the First Vatican Council, there were people who felt that any and every doctrinal statement by the pope was a matter of infallibility. The English theologian, W. G. Ward (1812-1882), for example, was famously reported as desiring a daily exercise of infallibility by the pope: “I should like a new Papal Bull every morning with my Times at breakfast.” 13

Secondly, the reason for preferring the term “infallible magisterium” is that infallibility can be exercised not only by the pope, but also by the college of bishops in union with him; as the Second Vatican Council taught:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. ¹⁴

Accordingly, just as Vatican I specified a list of conditions that the pope must follow in order to exercise the Church’s “infallible magisterium,” Vatican II indicated the conditions that the bishops must follow if their teaching is to be considered a collegial exercise of the Church’s “infallible magisterium.”

Infallible Statements
Another term, routinely used in discussions about infallibility, is the expression: “infallible statements.” Again, one must emphasize that this term was not used by Vatican I; rather, the Council used the term “irreformable definitions.” Many commentators on infallibility have ignored the difference, or have even claimed that the two expressions are equivalent. However, in addition to the need to respect the Church’s official terminology, a casual mixing of terms entails a number of philosophical and theological difficulties. For example, to speak of “infallible statements” suggests that such statements are absolute. In contrast, most philosophers insist that all statements are historically and culturally conditioned—expressions delimited by a particular time and place, and so not absolute, but relative. Similarly, many theologians today do not want to speak of “infallible statements” in order to avoid the doctrinal equivalent of “biblical literalism”: if God did not dictate the Bible word for word, why should one suggest that God dictates doctrinal decisions word for word?

Using terms, like “infallible statements” or “infallible teaching,” risks making the doctrine of infallibility both philosophically, and theologically, indefensible. It becomes an easy target for rejection. In effect, defenders of infallible statements, with the best of intentions, can inadvertently become the doctrine’s enemies, just as defenders of biblical literalism can unwittingly destroy the credibility of the Bible. In contrast, the expression “irreformable definitions” harmonizes readily with interpreting infallibility as “judicial finality” or “ultimate binding power” (Leztverbindlichkeit), as proposed by Hans Urs von Balthazar. ¹⁵ Key to this interpretation, however, is the meaning of “irreformable definitions”—which, at first glance, would seem to have the same meaning as “infallible statements” and, therefore, sharing the same philosophical and theological problems.

Why did the First Vatican Council use the term “irreformable definitions”? Apparently, the Council used this term as a way of rejecting Gallicanism—the seventeenth century doctrinal claim that all papal decisions are subject to the approval of local churches. According to the its proponents, no Vatican ecclesiastical decision could be considered authoritatively final unless, and until, it received the official approval of the Church in France. When Pastor Aeternus is read in the context of Gallicanism—an ecclesiological position well-known to the participants at Vatican I, though not so familiar today—the Council is effectively stating that definitions enunciated by the pope, when exercising infallibility, are not subject to any further approval or appeal. ¹⁶ In sum, “irreformable definitions” are not definitions that are philosophically “immutable” or theologically “unchangeable,” but decisions that are “judicially final.”

Lessons from History
The axiom that: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” has been repeatedly exemplified in the numerous discussions about infallibility in the half-century since Vatican II. There is not only a vast amount of material on the teaching of the two Vatican Councils about infallibility, but, unfortunately, many writers on infallibility have discussed what they presume the Church teaches, rather than carefully examining what the Church actually taught. ¹⁷ Sadly, there is a great deal that has been written about infallibility showing little or no familiarity with, much less critical analysis of, the texts of the two Vatican councils. Surprising as it may seem, some commentators have proposed interpretations about infallibility without analyzing the conciliar texts, much less studying the history of the Councils.

This failure to do the essential historical-theological homework means that many discussions of infallibility are like the conversation in Dubliners—eloquent and entertaining but exaggerated and often erroneous—leading some people to find “infallible statements” everywhere, while leading others to reject “infallibility” out of hand. Neither an outright denial of infallibility, nor an exaggerated extension of it to all church teachings, really serves anyone well. In effect, the many misconceptions about infallibility effectively distort the Church’s teaching, confuse believers, repel prospective converts, and create unnecessary ecumenical difficulties. ¹⁸

Pastoral Suggestions
Admittedly, changing terminology is always a difficult task. Like overcoming an addiction, one keeps falling back into accustomed habits of speech. Yet “papal infallibility” is one of those theological terms that has been misinterpreted so often that it might well be worth the effort to replace it with the terminology that Vatican I actually used: “the infallible magisterium of the pope.” Admittedly, this substitution requires a few more words, and people might be puzzled by the seemingly new terminology, but that reaction might be beneficial. This historical version might succeed in drawing people’s attention to what the two Vatican Councils actually taught, rather than what many people presume the Councils taught.

In addition, terms like “infallible statements” and “infallible teaching” might well be replaced with terms like “irreformable definitions” or “teachings of the Church’s infallible magisterium.” Again, such substitutions involve a few more words, but their use might prompt people to reflect on what the Church’s teaching really is. Last but not least, in explaining the doctrine of infallibility, it would seem not only appropriate, but extremely beneficial to use the short and succinct description of infallibility found in the Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church whereby the pastors of the Church, the pope and bishops in union with him, can definitively proclaim a doctrine of faith or morals for the belief of the faithful.” ¹⁹

• Danny Garland, Jr., “The Development of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review 111/9 (June/July, 2011): 48-54, at 50; hereafter cited: Garland, HPR 111/9. ↩
• James Joyce, Dubliners (New York: Penguin Books, 1967), 168. ↩
• Dubliners, 169-170. For a comparison of the views of Döllinger and Newman on infallibility, see Wolfgang Klausnitzer, Päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit bei Newman und Döllinger: Ein historisch‑systematischer Vergleich, Innsbrucker theologische Studien 6 (Innsbruck‑Vienna‑Munich: Tyrolia, 1980). ↩
• John Tracy Ellis, “The Church Faces the Modern World: The First Vatican Council,” in The General Council, edited by William McDonald (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 113‑145, at 135. ↩
• The First Vatican Council described conditions for papal infallibility in Pastor Aeternus, in Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum §3073-3075 at: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1957,_denziger,_enchiridion_symbolorum lt.pdf For English translation: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm: “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra , that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals (mores) to be held (tenenda) by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy (pollere) in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.” ↩
• Although the prelates at Vatican I acknowledged that infallibility had been previously exercised by various popes, the Council did not provide a list of such teachings; accordingly, theologians differ about which papal decisions prior to Vatican I should be considered exercises of infallibility; for example, theologians disagree whether Unam Sanctam (1302) of Pope Boniface VIII should be considered an exercise of infallibility or not. ↩
• Although some theologians in the past considered canonizations an exercise of infallibility (e.g., Francis Kieda, “Infallibility of the Pope in His Decree of Canonization,” The Jurist 6 (1946): 401‑415), few do so today; this view in no way diminishes the importance of canonizations, but it does emphasize that the exercise of infallibility is limited to essential matters of Christian faith. ↩
• In fact, many theological terms in English have a Latin background: revelation, Trinity, magisterium, etc., however, if the meanings of revelation and Trinity are clear, some Latin terms, such as magisterium, have a spectrum of meanings in English. ↩
• Hans Küng, Infallible? An Inquiry, translated by Edward Quinn (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971); unfortunately, the English translation did not always capture all the nuances of the German original. Among the numerous critiques of Küng’s Infallible?, see: Walter Brandmüller, “Hans Küng and Church History, Some Criti­cal Observations on ‘Infallible? An Inquiry’,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review 72 (1972): 10‑24. ↩
• Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church, translated by Andrée Emery (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 221-222, cited by Garland, HPR 111/9: 52; the theological problem of translating infallibilitas into German is an often over-looked factor in the “infallibility debate” initiated by Hans Küng in 1970. ↩
• Like every comparison, this one has limitations; for example, Supreme Court decisions may effectively revoke laws (e.g., laws that formerly permitted slavery); in contrast, a new dogmatic decision can not contradict previous decisions, although it may significantly reinterpret previous doctrinal decisions. ↩
• John Henry Newman discussed the relationship between doctrinal continuity and change in his seminal work, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (18461; 18783); for a comparative study of the differences between the first and third editions of Newman’s Essay, see: Gerard H. McCarren, “Development of Doctrine” in The Cambridge Companion to John Henry Newman, edited by Ian Ker and Terrence Merrigan (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 118-136. ↩
• Wilfrid Ward, Life of Cardinal Newman 2:213 (available at: http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter27.html). ↩
• Lumen Gentium § 25 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html . ↩
• Again, see Garland’s citation of von Balthasar, HPR 111/9: 52. ↩
• For a detailed study of the Gallican background of the First Vatican Council, see Richard F. Costigan, The Consensus of the Church and Papal Infallibility: A Study in the Background of Vatican I (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005). ↩
• See the now-dated survey of John T. Ford, “Infallibility: A Review of Recent Studies,” Theological Studies 40/2 (June, 1979): 273‑305. ↩
• See John T. Ford, “Differences about infallibility . . . too significant to be brushed aside as inconsequential,” in Church and Theology: Essays in Memory of Carl J. Peter, edited by Peter C. Phan (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1995), 111‑160. ↩
• Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church, at: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.shtml#I This description refers to §891 of the Catechism, and adds: “This gift is related to the inability of the whole body of the faithful to err in matters of faith and morals” (§ 92). ↩

[Natural Law]

"So, in your view, Jesus was bluffing"?"

Absolutely not. I'm just saying that if you truly love Jesus you would be willing to endure an eternity of the pain and deprivation threatened in the fire and brimstone hell for His sake as I am sure He would do for us. The God who created human psychology surely knows that positive reinforcement is a far more effective motivationa tactic than coercion.

"You say Jesus "was speaking to a Jewish audience who did not have a complete understanding and appreciation of heaven, hell and an afterlife". That's an astounding admission when you have mocked and criticized people like Smvoice and others, who spoke about the audience of Jesus in the gospels being the Jews and the effect on the context of what he said."

Were that lack of understanding limited only to the Jews you might have a point, but obviously that lack of understanding persists among some Christians to this day.

"Are you saying you disagree with your church's teachings about hell?"

Not at all. I am not saying that fire and brimstone do not exist, just that as a Catholic and Christian the threat of that pales in comparison to an eternity absent God:

CCC 1057 Hell's principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

[mitch5501]

"The God who created human psychology surely knows that positive reinforcement is a far more effective motivationa tactic than coercion."

Amen to that!

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

[metmom]

You say Jesus "was speaking to a Jewish audience who did not have a complete understanding and appreciation of heaven, hell and an afterlife".

[metmom]

bb:"So, in your view, Jesus was bluffing"?"

nl: Absolutely not. I'm just saying that if you truly love Jesus you would be willing to endure an eternity of the pain and deprivation threatened in the fire and brimstone hell for His sake as I am sure He would do for us.

What on earth kind of reasoning is that? And how do you figure that Jesus would be willing to endure eternal torment for our sake? What's your Scriptural justification for that????

Not at all. I am not saying that fire and brimstone do not exist, just that as a Catholic and Christian the threat of that pales in comparison to an eternity absent God:

Spending an eternity absent from God without the torment is no punishment for someone who already hates and rejects God.

What's going to be the punishment for people who don't want God isn't being without Him; that's just giving them what they want.

It's going to be the torment

[Natural Law]

"What on earth kind of reasoning is that?"

It only seems bizarre when considered in the absence of an understand of what divine and perfect love is.

"And how do you figure that Jesus would be willing to endure eternal torment for our sake?"

He loves me, divinely and perfectly.

"What's your Scriptural justification for that????"

You don't believe that Scripture says that God loves you?

"What's going to be the punishment for people who don't want God isn't being without Him; that's just giving them what they want..."

It is a very dark and hedonistic soteriology that puts the personal fear of the physical above the loss of the divine and believes that the Gospel must rely on threats and coercion to precipitate what should be selflessly given.

[metmom]

*sigh*

Time to complete the thought.....

bb: You say Jesus "was speaking to a Jewish audience who did not have a complete understanding and appreciation of heaven, hell and an afterlife".

NOBODY has a complete understanding and appreciation of heaven or hell.

I've noticed that the Catholic church and Catholics like to CLAIM they do, like they claim to understand the Trinity, but most of what we believe about things unseen and things of God is most likely nowhere near the mark.

[metmom]

IOW, no Scriptural justification for it.

I didn't think so.

The comment about if we truly loved Jesus we would be willing to spend eternity in eternal torment for His sake is total nonsense.

Granted, it's a sentence, but still, sentences are supposed to mean something. That doesn't.

It is a very dark and hedonistic soteriology that puts the personal fear of the physical above the loss of the divine and believes that the Gospel must rely on threats and coercion to precipitate what should be selflessly given.

Well, you'll have to take that up with Jesus because He's the one that warned us more about hell and the eternal torment and the punishment for unbelief than He taught about heaven and the rewards for belief.

And it isn't nearly as twisted as some of the teachings about salvation that the Catholic church purports.

It may not have occurred to you yet, but *threatening* someone who doesn't want anything to do with God with an eternity without Him, is no threat to them. You still haven't explained how giving someone what they want is punishment to them. For the God hater, the punishment would be to spend eternity WITH Him.

Take out the eternal torment and there's no impetus for the non-believer to give a rip about the idea of spending eternity without God.

Spending eternity without God is only a deterrent to those who want to spend eternity WITH Him, and they're most likely going to be saved anyway.

[Natural Law]

"The comment about if we truly loved Jesus we would be willing to spend eternity in eternal torment for His sake is total nonsense."

It is only nonsense to those who value their own creature comforts more than they do Him. I pray that your statement was only the product of anti-Catholic contrariness and not your true feelings.

"But above all these things is the being associated with the companies of angels and archangels, thrones and dominations, principalities and powers, and the enjoyment of the watches of all the celestial virtues—to behold the squadron of the saints, adorned with stars; the patriarchs, glittering with faith; the prophets, rejoicing in hope; the apostles, who in the twelve tribes of Israel, shall judge the whole world; the martyrs, decked with the purple diadems of victory; the virgins, also, with their wreaths of beauty. But of the King, who is in the midst, no words are able to speak. That beauty, that virtue, that glory, that magnificence, that majesty, surpasses every expression, every sense of the human mind. For it is greater than the glory of all saints; but to attain to that ineffable sight, and to be made radiant with the splendor of His countenance, it were worth while to suffer torment every day—it were worth while to endure hell itself for a season, so that we might behold Christ coming in glory, and be joined to the number of the saints; so is it not then well worth while to endure earthly sorrows, that we may be partakers of such good, and of such glory?" - St. Bede 710 AD

[boatbums]

It is only nonsense to those who value their own creature comforts more than they do Him. I pray that your statement was only the product of anti-Catholic contrariness and not your true feelings.

No, it IS nonsense and it has NOTHING at all to do with a person valuing creature comforts more than they do the Lord Jesus. The Apostle Paul spoke about how much he loved his fellow Jews - so much that if it were possible he would be accursed from Christ in their place (Romans 9:3). But, as we know FROM Scripture, God does not allow that and each person must make a decision about Christ for himself. So, I agree with Metmom, that imagining eternity in hell separated from Christ to somehow prove our love for him is nonsense. It may sound pious to some, but it is nonsense nonetheless.

Your quotation of Bede, BTW, does NOT address eternity in hell but "for a season" and he used the analogy to encourage us to endure whatever hardships in this present life for the glory that awaits those who are Christ's. He came that we may HAVE life and that abundantly.

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans 8:18)

[HarleyD]

You missed the point. We can and always choose the wrong course in our lives. We can and never choose the right way. While Protestants accept that Christ is our atonement and the perfector of our faith, Catholics feel there is a need to work one’s way. Thus the purpose of purgatory. Of course Mary would have been excluded.

Would you say that Judas could be in purgatory?

[Natural Law]

"We can and always choose the wrong course in our lives. We can and never choose the right way"

Catholics do not accept the doctrine of total depravity. While we are wounded by Original Sin, with the grace of baptism we need not be defeated by it. We only lose when we surrender to it.

"Catholics feel there is a need to work one’s way. Thus the purpose of purgatory.

Purgatory is not a place. It is a timeless state named for the purgation of our sins to ensure that we are pure when we enter heaven.

"Would you say that Judas could be in purgatory?"

Since I cannot say with any certainty or knowledge where Judas is or is not I cannot comment except to sat that it is a possibility.

[Natural Law]

"No, it IS nonsense and it has NOTHING at all to do with a person valuing creature comforts more than they do the Lord Jesus."

Would you willingly suffer an eternity in the fire and brimstone of hell if it pleased God? If the answer is no then your understanding of love is hypothetical and your love of God is conditional and incomplete.

[boatbums]

Would you willingly suffer an eternity in the fire and brimstone of hell if it pleased God? If the answer is no then your understanding of love is hypothetical and your love of God is conditional and incomplete.

Basing your understanding of the kind of love God expects with hypotheticals is nonsense. That as well as the kind of God we love. Fortunately for us God does not leave us to wonder about hypotheticals, We love him because He first loved us. (I John 4:19) and Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (I John 4:10)

With Jesus Christ making complete and total propitiation for our sins, we need never have to contemplate an eternity in the fire and brimstone of hell. All, who receive the gift of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ, have been redeemed from the threat of eternal damnation FOREVER and:

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

[metmom]

Would you willingly suffer an eternity in the fire and brimstone of hell if it pleased God?

If it pleased God?!?!?! It doesn't please God to send anyone to hell. What kind of God do you serve? (No need to answer, really. I know what kind of god Catholics serve because that is the one I was taught about as a Catholics and the one I rejected for the true God, the one of the Bible who is as He knows Himself to be, not a lopsided construct used to cow people into submission to a church.)

*if it pleased God*...... That's a false premise if there ever was one. A hypothetical question that has no basis in reality, but Catholics do love to play the pious martyr, don't they? I guess it comes from all that Catholic teaching that somehow we can earn forgiveness by self-abasement and suffering for God enough, as if our suffering can remit sins and please God.

Well, any god that our suffering pleases is not the God of the Bible.

And Catholics wonder why people reject the Catholic God.

If the answer is no then your understanding of love is hypothetical and your love of God is conditional and incomplete.

Not as incomplete as the understanding of God that someone could actually think up something so ludicrous.

EVERYBODY'S love of God is conditional and incomplete. No human is capable of the kind of love and devotion to God that He deserves and anyone who claims otherwise is deceiving themselves. It's only through the work of the Holy Spirit in us that enables us to be or do anything that pleases God.

[Natural Law]

"Well, any god that our suffering pleases is not the God of the Bible."

"Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." - Matthew 16:24, Luke 9:23

I do have to say that you have a unique ability to turn every discussion into a gratuitous attack upon the Church. It saddens me to think that you derive some perverse pleasure and satisfaction from it. Insulting me and the Church is not helping convince anyone of your Christianity and only evokes my pity and prayers. Whatever injury you may have suffered at the hands of Catholics and those acting in the name of the Church you would best serve yourself and God by finding a way to forgive.

For all of the postings you have made the one thing that is clear is that you were extremely poorly Catechised or have an extremely vivid imagination. I would only hope that you would learn the actual doctrines and history of the Church and base your criticism on fact and not fancy. Those within the Church need to hear legitimate and constructive criticism, but your attacks only cloud the real problems in vitriol.

Peace be with you.

[boatbums]

EVERYBODY'S love of God is conditional and incomplete. No human is capable of the kind of love and devotion to God that He deserves and anyone who claims otherwise is deceiving themselves. It's only through the work of the Holy Spirit in us that enables us to be or do anything that pleases God.

AMEN!!! Why isn't it enough for some people to deal with reality as God tells us in Holy Scripture? Why the need to "out-holy" another or try to sound oh-so-much-more-pious-than-thee based on imagined scenarios or hypotheticals? There were theologians that actually argued about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin and other such nonsense! I can imagine God laughing in derision at some of them.

I join you in praising God that He also led me into the truth of His nature and out of a false religion that twisted it. We love Him because He first loved us.

[Tramonto]

Not one of them (the popes), not the biggest drunkard, not the most . . . out-and-out ruffian, not one of them ever preached ex cathedra a word of false doctrine. Now isn’t that an astonishing thing?

LOL Now thats funny.

[boatbums]

"Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." - Matthew 16:24, Luke 9:23

I do have to say that you have a unique ability to turn every discussion into a gratuitous attack upon the Church. It saddens me to think that you derive some perverse pleasure and satisfaction from it. Insulting me and the Church is not helping convince anyone of your Christianity and only evokes my pity and prayers. Whatever injury you may have suffered at the hands of Catholics and those acting in the name of the Church you would best serve yourself and God by finding a way to forgive.

It seems you do not want to miss a chance to criticize anyone who left the Roman Catholic Church under the pretext that they "just didn't get catechized correctly". Metmom is correct, God does NOT take pleasure in our suffering and the verse you quoted speaks about what anyone who desires to be a disciple can expect. We WILL have suffering in this world - Jesus warned us repeatedly - but to suggest that God is pleased when we do suffer is wrong. He takes NO pleasure in the wicked suffering, what makes you think He does with His children?

Nothing Metmom has said about her upbringing in the Catholic Church contradicts my experience nor that of the many others that have also left and post here. Perhaps it is your own "unique ability to turn every discussion into a gratuitous attack upon" former Catholics that is at issue. You also cannot know what is in our hearts that compels us to speak about these things. Why does ANY criticism of your church insult YOU? Are you suggesting none of it is truthful or based upon facts? That kind of tactic, as you should know by now, doesn't work.

[metmom]

Then I guess you don’t know what dying to self means.

[metmom]

It seems you do not want to miss a chance to criticize anyone who left the Roman Catholic Church under the pretext that they "just didn't get catechized correctly".

Even worse is the accusation and more than clear implication that those who left the RCC did so out of *personnel reasons*, with the speculation that it is due to immorality, divorce, or other blatant sin in their lives. Never because of the Church's unscriptural theology.