now, the pope hasn't used his infallibility flag since 1950, to define the assumption of mary. how we would like to define the scope of his infallibility is a bit hazy. the copy of the catechism i have clearly states: "papal infallibility is to preserve the flock of christ from the poison of error. it covers two forms of teaching, of faith and morals. it may be ... something knowable by reason, like the sinfulness of abortion or contraception."

however, many don't hold those last stated views. does the leader of the catholic church not represent the universal beliefs, then? or does he represent what the universal beliefs should be?

it's somewhat funny though: there's no chair or anything so whenever the pope just acts "ex cathedra," he all of the sudden becomes infallible. i'd at least rather there was an infallibility chair or something.

it'd be funny if the pope declared that gay marriage is okay along with pot smoking and not using contraceptives. also that you don't have to pay any sort of penance or confess your sins to a preacher, only to god.

catholics would be pissed

I really don't want to get into this. Obviously, the majority of this forum is Anti-Pope and i have no desire to try defend him page after page.

I just wanted to say that there is a chair, C_B. It's the Chair of St. Peter. I don't think the pope ever actually sits in it, though. It's on display somewhere, though. I'm guessing The Vatican.

There is another aspect to Papal infallibility that is pretty misunderstood. I don't fully understand it. The belief that the what the Pope says regarding faith and morals is the absolute truth makes him sound like some kind of all-knowing being.

But the aspect of infallibility has more to do with what the previous Pope's have stated. It's my understanding that the current Pope couldn't just say "Ok. Abortion is ok now." Because a previous Pope has declared that it is NOT ok. They aren't allowed to contradict each other. So the infallablility of a papal decision is basically just that he can't go against what a previous pope has proclaimed doctrine.

Infallability is really more of a hindrance to him than a blank check to do whatever he wants.

ah. i hadn't thought of it that way.


i think you put it well.

to answer your question, CB. what should be believed. if you have a catechism, you have in your hands what the Church does believe.

furthermore, it makes perfect sense to me that IF the Incarnation happened, The word became flesh, etc, etc, then after Christ's death he would institute a human church to carry on his teachings. "Peter you are my rock, and on this rock i build my church". Of course, human nature being what it is, this church should logically have a leader that is so spiritualy connected to God and His will that when teaching Ex Cathedra, he teaches truths that cannot be rejected, for they underline everything Christ has promised. The world is a big place, so it would follow that a sort of hierarchy would have gradually been formed to ensure that these teachings get passed on to the laity, while still respecting the laity's free will. Ultimately, it is up to every human being to decide if they accept this teaching authority, but it is not going away. In america, i believe this is a problem lately. Church teachings are often watered down. If a Priest has a true message, and there is one or two people at mass to hear it...that is preferable to a packed church where a priest is saying little things to make you feel good. there is no better modern day issue to observe this with than abortion and contraception.

are you saying priests are changing their messages to fit with the majority? i'm not following. could you expand?

not changing their message, but omitting the hard truths. I have been to masses in big suburbs where the priest just doesn't seem to want to offend the parishioners, so his homilies are more or less a tame summary of the gospels. It seems clear to me that this sort of thing is about money and numbers in the parish rather than the Church's teaching authority. i could be totally generalizing, but i'm just basing what i've observed and complementing it with what i see as huge misconceptions in the media and popular culture and even the faithful as to what the Church actually teaches.

hopefully Benedict will address this problem when he comes to visit this week. stay tuned.

I think that this is one of the reasons that people are leaving the Church in larger numbers. there is no sense of community or solidarity anymore. people are told constantly that things are relative, and "you can believe what you want just don't hurt me". how could a philosophy like that mesh well with the Church hierarchy and teaching authority? The Church claims to be unchanging, so when a new wave of philosophers come through town like we saw in the enlightenment, people are spiritually asked to choose sides. If you are concerned about numbers, though, you are missing the point. The Church will teach whether one man hears it or 1 billion men do.

you're probably right. most masses i've been to have also not preached about these things. i've heard a few here and there, but mostly it's relating to i suppose the moderate folk (or maybe because kids are there? i don't know).

what, may i ask, are the hard truths about abortion and contraception? that the church says any allowance of them is sin?

interesting study released yesterday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351111,00.html

Study Finds American Catholics Embrace Their Faith, But Not Mass

American Catholics said in a new survey they were pleased with the leadership of Pope Benedict XVI, ahead of his first visit to the U.S. since he was elected. The study also found intense interest in faith among some young people.

Yet, few parishioners overall said they go to confession, and most believed they could be good Roman Catholics without going to Mass.

The poll, released Sunday, was commissioned by the nation's bishops and conducted in February by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University.

San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer, head of the bishops' communications committee, was encouraged by the openness to faith in the survey but said it highlighted the need for better religious instruction.

"The challenge for church leaders," he said, "is to help them see what Catholicism really means."

Strengthening Catholic identity and observance are central themes of Benedict's papacy, and topics he is expected to address when he travels to Washington and New York starting Tuesday.

In the survey, eight of 10 Catholics said they were somewhat or very satisfied with his leadership. Nearly half a million people sought tickets to his public events in both cities.

The poll found that Catholics born before 1960 — among the most faithful parishioners — and those born since the 1980s have similar outlooks.

For Catholics who attend Mass at least once a month, an overwhelming majority of the young and older generation believe Christ is present in the Eucharist.

Even more, the younger, regular Mass-goers surpass their elders in observing Lent, with nearly all saying they abstain from meat on Fridays and receive ashes on Ash Wednesday. The young people are also more likely to consider devotion to saints very important to their faith.

However, the study found that only 36 percent of the younger Catholics attend Mass at least once a month, compared with 64 percent of the older generation.

Sixty-eight percent of all Catholics surveyed said they agreed that they believed they could be in good standing with the church without going to weekly Mass.

The poll, "Sacraments Today: Belief and Practice Among U.S. Catholics," found that nearly one-third of the nation's 64 million Catholics attend Mass in any given week. That figure has remained the same in the last five years, according to the report.

Thirty percent of the respondents said they go to confession less than once a year and 45 percent said they never go.

Regarding the church's social justice teaching, two-thirds of Catholics said helping those in need is a moral duty for Catholics.

The survey also measured satisfaction with the American church hierarchy. Seventy-two percent of Catholics said they were somewhat or very satisfied with the bishops' leadership, a 14-point jump since 2004, when the clergy sex abuse crisis was still roiling the church.

Another factor is that 90% of Catholics do not follow the Church's rules on contraception.

The rules are hard and aren't going to change. These stances have been in place since the beginning. Would a priest standing in front of his congregation yelling about it week in and week out change anything? I don't know.

could one say that maybe this is the church changing its message according to the changing morals and ethics of the society in which it is present?

The Church? No. The official positions are still the same.

Individual priests? Yes.

The Church itself has made a conscious effort to allow people to examine their consciences in making decisions regarding their actions, however. So in a way, it has become sort of watered down because of the age we live in, i suppose.

sorry, my wording was off. i meant local priests, parishes, churches, etc, not "the" church.

Yeah. I'm sure that's exactly what it is.

I guess i shouldn't really put words in anyone's mouth. But i'm pretty sure a local priest doesn't want to give sermon's regularly that piss off 90% of the congregation. You will occasionally get lectures on capitol punishment, abortion, contraception, etc...but not most of the time.

But from my limited experience, homilies tend to be positive in nature. They aren't the "fire and brimstone" speeches you hear in some other denominations. At mass, you are usually hearing about positive ways to accept and spread Christ's love, as opposed to all the shit you better not do if you don't wanna go to hell.

I honestly can't remember the last time i heard the word hell used in a homily.

that seems very accurate from my own experiences.

from the article cb posted:



in terms of the Church's teaching authority, i'd say that this is a HUGE communication breakdown between the Vatican and the laity. considering that the catechism clearly states this:



and this:



Something is seriously wrong with the Church's teaching authority if Catholics think that they can skip out on this and just have a "personal relationship with God". This, i think, it what Benedict means when he speaks of the "dicatatorship of relativism". Either that, or these once a month Catholics simply don't believe in the Eucharist or it's importance to the Faith. to that, i would reply that you might as well not even take the Eucharist at mass.

furthermore, if Christ is really present in the Eucharist, and you, by being Catholic, acknowledge that Truth, why in the world would Mass on Sunday not be the most important part of your week?

I don't know about in other countries. But i would put the number of American Catholics that actually understand their faith at around 10%. I'm often quite amazed at this complete lack of understanding.

i was talking with someone last week about atheism and whatnot, and mentioned how dawkins, hitchens and shermer come from very religious backgrounds, and oddly enough, as seemingly spokespeople for the atheism movement may have a much better understanding of christianity than most christians.