Posts

Total: 22
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 141
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
INTRODUCTION.

Today marks one month since we started the Sunday School posts; time sure flies. Looking back at previous Sunday Schools, a question by @Earth caught my eye. In today's post, I will be addressing this question.

Again, however, I must stress that these posts aren't about debating or arguing, but about sharing different perspectives. Most bear misconceptions about the Catholic Church, so I hope to clarify Catholic positions and share her correct teachings with others. If any confusion lingers after reading the following, mention me in the comments and I will try my best to answer. That being said, I am not perfect by any means and do not know everything there is to know about the faith. I may very well make a mistake in answering these post-like questions, or when addressing comments. I hope you will not take my personal imperfection to be an accurate representation of the Catholic faith. I urge all to conduct research themselves, for as C.S. Lewis once said, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance."

QUESTION.

I was asked a very central question regarding Catholicism: "What are your thoughts on the papacy?" As some can infer—being a Catholic—I hold the papacy to be a divinely appointed institution by Jesus Christ, and the pope (from the Latin word papa, meaning father) to be the vicar of Christ. But what is the pope?

ANSWER.

Catholics (such as myself) believe the pope is the Bishop of Rome and the visible head of the Catholic Church, tasked with safeguarding faith and morals, unifying the faithful, and leading the Church in its mission to spread the Gospel. Why? In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus declares, "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades (hell) will not prevail against it." giving him the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and the authority to bind and loose. This act signifies Christ entrusting Peter with a unique leadership role, rooted in spiritual authority and service.

Apostolic succession is the unbroken transmission of spiritual authority from the apostles, through their successors—the bishops, and particularly the Pope as the successor of St. Peter—down to the present day. Catholics believe it is true because it is rooted in both Scripture and Tradition. In the New Testament, Jesus commissions the apostles to continue His mission, saying, "as the Father has sent me, so I send you" (John 20:21) and granting them the authority to teach, sanctify, and govern in His name (Matthew 28:19-20). This authority was not meant to die with the apostles but to be passed on, as seen when the apostles appoint successors like Matthias (Acts 1:20-26) and ordain leaders through the laying on of hands (2 Timothy 1:6; Titus 1:5). Early Church Fathers, such as St. Irenaeus in the 2nd century, explicitly affirm apostolic succession as the means by which the true faith is preserved, identifying the bishops as custodians of apostolic teaching. Apostolic succession directly connects the Pope to St. Peter, ensuring that the unique authority Christ gave to Peter continues through an unbroken line.

History offers inspiring examples of the papacy’s impact. Pope Pius XII, who saved more Jews during the Holocaust than Schindler, penned the profound encyclical Humani Generis and provided life-saving aid to millions of refugees during and after World War II. Pope St. John Paul II, instrumental in the fall of communism, survived an assassination attempt, forgave his assailant, and gifted the Church the transformative Theology of the Body. While there have been “bad popes” in the Church’s history, these are two of my favorite examples of how the papacy can exemplify extraordinary courage, leadership, and fidelity to Christ.

NOTE.

The sins or failures of individual popes do not falsify the papacy because the office itself, established by Christ, is grounded in divine authority, not human perfection. Jesus chose Peter, a flawed man who denied Him three times, to be the rock upon which He built His Church (Matthew 16:18-19), demonstrating that God works through imperfect individuals to accomplish His will. The Church teaches that the pope’s charism of infallibility applies only to official teachings on faith and morals, not to personal holiness or decisions (though that is another topic altogether). The persistence and unity of the papacy across centuries, despite the failings of some popes, affirm Christ’s promise that "the gates of Hades (hell) will not prevail against it"
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 6,311
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
John Paul 2 was never actually the pope. The last pope was pope Pious XII

https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/sedevacantism-the-only-logical-answer/
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 141
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@WyIted
If Sedevacantism is true, where is the Church Christ founded? Eventually, if there hasn't been a pope since 1958, and all the Episcopal consecrations since then are invalid—which, if that's the case, we are almost there—we will eventually get to a point where there are no validly consecrated bishops anymore (which means there are no successors of the apostles). Furthermore, we would eventually reach a point, perhaps in another 50 years, where no priests are ordained by bishops who were validly consecrated. If that's the case, where is the Church?

CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 141
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Stephen
@Shila
I'm surprise you guys don't have anything to say this week.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,769
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I'm surprise you guys don't have anything to say this week.

That may well be down to your dictates .. Again!! Or did you think none of us recognised it for what it was?

Here you go:

CatholicApologetics wrote: Again, however, I must stress that these posts aren't about debating or arguing..........#1


But I'll play.

History offers inspiring examples of the papacy’s impact.

History also shows that The "church" was handed over to James, the Brother of Jesus. It's my belief that Peter would have been the last person that Jesus would have wanted to take over the "keys". Regardless of how Christians have interpreted certain verse/s claiming otherwise.

Marvellous how you have so many thumbs up when only you and one other posted before myself. Must be a miracle.
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 141
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Stephen
Why do you believe Peter would have been the last person Jesus would have wanted to entrust with the “keys?”
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 374
Posts: 11,700
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I hold the papacy to be a divinely appointed institution by Jesus Christ
To be clear, this is only limited to teaching about faith and morals?

But how does it explain the change in those teachings over time. I mean, the papacy teaches different morals and faith today than it did 1000 years ago. So does the divine authority change over time? I understand that God in the Bible did update his message(hence the New Testament). So does God keep "updating" his message further through papacy?
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 141
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Best.Korea
I believe you’re referring to Papal Infallibility, which applies solely to doctrinal statements on faith and morals. The Catholic Church actually hasn’t contradicted its teachings over the past 1,000 years. However, much like infallibility, the understanding of other beliefs has naturally developed over time. This reflects a common pattern in the Church’s teachings: later clarifications explicitly articulate what was previously implicit. In essence, the Church’s teachings have developed consistently, without altering or contradicting earlier doctrines (which, if you ask me, is a miracle in and of itself).
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,497
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I believe you’re referring to Papal Infallibility, which applies solely to doctrinal statements on faith and morals. The Catholic Church actually hasn’t contradicted its teachings over the past 1,000 years. However, much like infallibility, the understanding of other beliefs has naturally developed over time. This reflects a common pattern in the Church’s teachings: later clarifications explicitly articulate what was previously implicit. In essence, the Church’s teachings have developed consistently, without altering or contradicting earlier doctrines (which, if you ask me, is a miracle in and of itself).
What is the church's stance on homosexuality?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, a text which contains dogmas and teachings of the Church, names “homosexual acts” as “intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law,” and names “homosexual tendencies” as “objectively disordered.”

What is the pope's position on Lgbtq?
In other public statements, Francis has emphasised the need to accept, welcome, and accompany LGBT people, including LGBT children, and has denounced laws criminalising homosexuality.


ranacat
ranacat's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 12
0
0
4
ranacat's avatar
ranacat
0
0
4
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I am concerned by the Catholic belief [correct me if I'm wrong, but I read it in the Catechism] that everyone born bears the transgression of Adam & Eve.  I have to ask why, then, did Christ atone for our sins; all of us, including our first parents? Seems to me, the belief we bear their stain denies the atonement, which is infinite, and the whole purpose of Christ's presence among us 2,000 years ago as the Son of the living God in the flesh, as Peter testified to him that Jesus was. [ Matthew 16: 15-18] 






ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,535
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I guess I have a question: how does the Catholic Church feel about non-Catholic Christians and their denouncement of the papacy. Would Jesus consider it blasphemy? 
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 403
Posts: 2,149
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
Jesus never built the church upon anybody.

According to the scripture he is the chief cornerstone.
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 141
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@Shila
Carefully reread what I said.
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 141
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@ranacat
The Catholic Church’s teaching on original sin does not oppose Christ’s infinite atonement—it reveals why we so desperately need it. As St. Paul explains (Romans 5:12–21), sin entered the world through one man, and all humanity inherited a wounded nature, lacking the communion with God once enjoyed by our first parents. The Catechism (CCC 404–409) clarifies that this “original sin” is not our personal guilt but the transmission of a fallen condition. Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, offered once for all, overcomes this estrangement: by His Cross and Resurrection, He makes possible our restoration to grace, ordinarily conferred through Baptism. There is no contradiction. Does that clarify things?
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 141
0
2
8
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
2
8
-->
@ILikePie5
The Catholic Church does not deem non-Catholic Christians’ rejection of the papacy as blasphemy, nor condemn them thereby as faithless. The Church views them as brothers and sisters in Christ who, while confessing the same Redeemer, lack the fullness of communion that Christ willed for His flock. In the eyes of the Church, the papacy—rooted in Christ’s words to Peter (Matthew 16:18)—represents both the center of visible unity and apostolic continuity. Jesus desires that all be one (John 17:21), so the Church prays and labors that every Christian might one day share this unity in its entirety. Though disagreement remains about the role of the Pope, it is not adjudged a deliberate offense against God’s honor but an imperfect apprehension of the gift Christ entrusted to Peter and his successors. We trust that in God’s providential plan, sincere hearts moved by grace will together converge on the truth, fulfilling our Lord’s prayer that all may be one.
ranacat
ranacat's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 12
0
0
4
ranacat's avatar
ranacat
0
0
4
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Yes, that does clarify a lot for me. Thank you. 
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,497
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@CatholicApologetics
The Catholic Church’s teaching on original sin does not oppose Christ’s infinite atonement—it reveals why we so desperately need it. As St. Paul explains (Romans 5:12–21), sin entered the world through one man, and all humanity inherited a wounded nature, lacking the communion with God once enjoyed by our first parents. The Catechism (CCC 404–409) clarifies that this “original sin” is not our personal guilt but the transmission of a fallen condition. Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, offered once for all, overcomes this estrangement: by His Cross and Resurrection, He makes possible our restoration to grace, ordinarily conferred through Baptism. There is no contradiction. Does that clarify things?
Human sacrifice was not part of the commandments from God.
In Jeremiah 19:4-6, Gd tells us that human sacrifice is so horrible a concept to Him, that it did not even come into His mind to demand it from His creation.

It was not a known practice to allow someone to die for the sins of others.Even the disciples did not know why Jesus had to die.

Why was Jesus' death hidden from the disciples?
The disciples failed to comprehend Jesus' explicit and repeated predictions of his coming crucifixion and resurrection because, even while he was revealing it to them, it was being “hidden from them” by the Lord Himself. And only the Lord could remove that incomprehension — which is exactly what Luke says happened.Jun 23, 2021

The Bible tells us Jesus was crucified for blasphemy. He was put on trial for his own sins and found guilty.

If Jesus claimed that only dead Jews could forgive sins using himself as an example. Then the Holocaust was totally justified. The world needed more Jews sacrificed for the growing population of Christian sinners.

Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,497
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@CatholicApologetics
The Catholic Church’s teaching on original sin does not oppose Christ’s infinite atonement—it reveals why we so desperately need it. As St. Paul explains (Romans 5:12–21), sin entered the world through one man, and all humanity inherited a wounded nature, lacking the communion with God once enjoyed by our first parents. The Catechism (CCC 404–409) clarifies that this “original sin” is not our personal guilt but the transmission of a fallen condition. Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, offered once for all, overcomes this estrangement: by His Cross and Resurrection, He makes possible our restoration to grace, ordinarily conferred through Baptism. There is no contradiction. Does that clarify things?
Human sacrifice was not part of the commandments from God.
In Jeremiah 19:4-6, Gd tells us that human sacrifice is so horrible a concept to Him, that it did not even come into His mind to demand it from His creation.

It was not a known practice to allow someone to die for the sins of others.Even the disciples did not know why Jesus had to die.

Why was Jesus' death hidden from the disciples?
The disciples failed to comprehend Jesus' explicit and repeated predictions of his coming crucifixion and resurrection because, even while he was revealing it to them, it was being “hidden from them” by the Lord Himself. And only the Lord could remove that incomprehension — which is exactly what Luke says happened.

All SACRIFICED animals had to be slaughtered by a priest, at the Temple (and prior to that, at the sanctuary), and that animal was treated differently - parts were burnt, parts went to the priests and levites, and the rest was returned to whoever brought it.

The Bible tells us Jesus was crucified for blasphemy. He was put on trial for his own sins and found guilty. Jesus was not sacrificed in the temple. He was crucified in a public area. The crucifixion was not performed by priests. The Roman guards then crucified Jesus.

John 19:23 23 When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

Is Jesus' death a human sacrifice?
In response, God didn't sacrifice Jesus. Rather, Jesus gave up his own life. No one forced Him. He laid down His life willingly, as He made clear speaking about His life: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. Jesus admits he took his own life even though he was crucified for blasphemy and sedition.

If Jesus claimed that only dead Jews could forgive sins using himself as an example. Then the Holocaust was totally justified. The world needed more Jews sacrificed for the growing population of Christian sinners.

Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,476
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@CatholicApologetics
The Catholic Church does not deem non-Catholic Christians’ rejection of the papacy as blasphemy, nor condemn them thereby as faithless. The Church views them as brothers and sisters in Christ who, while confessing the same Redeemer, lack the fullness of communion that Christ willed for His flock. In the eyes of the Church, the papacy—rooted in Christ’s words to Peter (Matthew 16:18)—represents both the center of visible unity and apostolic continuity. Jesus desires that all be one (John 17:21), so the Church prays and labors that every Christian might one day share this unity in its entirety. Though disagreement remains about the role of the Pope, it is not adjudged a deliberate offense against God’s honor but an imperfect apprehension of the gift Christ entrusted to Peter and his successors. We trust that in God’s providential plan, sincere hearts moved by grace will together converge on the truth, fulfilling our Lord’s prayer that all may be one.
Interesting statement. I'm not sure that Canon Francis Ripley agrees with you. See his lovely and helpful book, named This is the Faith published by Tan Book Publications. 

Also, would you explain the position of marriage as a sacrament of the church?  If a couple are married outside of the Roman Catholic Church are they truly married? Or would they need to be remarried by the Church if they wished to join the church as members? 

Also, would you explain why the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated the Orthodox Church in the original split? Why does history from both the Orthodox and the Protestants and even from some Catholic historians suggest it was because the Orthodox refused to accept the authority of the Papacy and his role in introducing "and the Son" to a certain Creed? 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,769
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
In Jeremiah 19:4-6, Gd tells us that human sacrifice is so horrible a concept to Him, that it did not even come into His mind to demand it from His creation.

But he did command Abraham to sacrifice Issac.

Genesis22 :2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

It seems that it was only the intervention of an "angel" that stopped him doing the deed. Makes you wonder who was really in charge at times? Such is the ambiguous nature of the BIBLE. 
This is god once again stamping his authority over his human creation and demanding that we fear him, Shila.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,769
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea

But how does it explain the change in those teachings over time. I mean, the papacy teaches different morals and faith today than it did 1000 years ago.

 Try just 50 or even10 years ago, BK.  There are now transgender,  lesbians and non binary  ministering in the church. And all against the teaching in the  BIBLE! 
Maybe Its a case of submitting to those minorities and finding favour with such. Maybe the cause is the fall in church attendees in the West? 

How does the  church allow what god calls an abomination to preach to his flocks.  I can only guess the Church wishes to destroy and bring down its own temple. It wouldn't be that unusual, come to think of it. 

Male and female created He them. GEN 1:27

Meet Non-binary bisexual Catholic priest wants you to know people of all genders are created in God’s image.

Father/Mother? Kori Pacyniak wants you to know that  Non-binary, trans, bisexual priest leads LGBT- are all welcome to the Catholic congregation. 

I notice the Reverend Tradesecret  is asking and answering his own questions again. 
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,497
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
But he did command Abraham to sacrifice Issac.

Genesis22 :2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

It seems that it was only the intervention of an "angel" that stopped him doing the deed. Makes you wonder who was really in charge at times? Such is the ambiguous nature of the BIBLE. 
This is god once again stamping his authority over his human creation and demanding that we fear him, Shila.
If God stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son because God felt his intentions were pure and genuine, why did God reject Jesus’s prayer to stop his sacrifice? Did he feel Jesus was not sincere?

Matthew 26:39
He prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, take this cup of suffering away from me. But let what you want be done, not what I want.

Jesus was explicit he did not want to be sacrificed, “not what I want.

Matthew 27:45-47 (also Mark 15:33-34) says: “Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? ' that is, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?