|
|
 |
Location: Blogs Network News |
 |
| Posted by: NetworkNews |
2/18/2009 11:44 PM |
TO :
Mr. Bill Geddie, ABC News, Members of the View
Network Newspaper readers and online viewers
From: Dolores Milazzo-Hicks, Publisher
Dear Readers,
This dialogue took place on the View in response to a New York Post article that claims there is a new study approved by the Vatican on sin that concludes that ,“Men and women sin in different ways. Men are more given to lust; women to pride.“ The report quotes one monsignor about a study whose author remains curiously undisclosed.
The View.” Here is an excerpt:
Whoopi Goldberg: Realize the Vatican is the last word in all things that are god. For some folks. But explain how you suddenly can write new sins. You can't do that.
Joy Behar: The pope is supposed to be infallible. He can say whatever he wants and people believe it. That's how it goes.
Goldberg: But that doesn’t make any sense.
Barbara Walters: What do you think is the biggest sin?
Behar: Lust amongst priests.
Elizabeth Hasselbeck: Pedophilia. They put that in the year after.
Goldberg: The biggest sin?…Intolerance.
Both Hasselbeck & Bahar are ex catholics; Walters is a well known anti catholic and as for Whoopi Goldberg I am surprised at her intolerance and lack of preparation for the discussion. Not one of those women are informed or educated on the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Ignorance is not bliss, it is in fact divisive and hurtful. I hope the truth below will help set the panelist and others free.
FYI:THE VIEW
Papal Infallibility
by Jeffrey Mirus, PhD
(This is the response of Jeffrey Mirus to a question about papal infallibility addressed to him in the "Ask the Experts" section of EWTN Online Services.)
While the the First Vatican Council defined papal infallibility in 1870, you must understand that the date on which a doctrine is officially defined is not the date on which it becomes true. Rather, it was always true. It's just that different aspects of the Faith are challenged at different periods of history, and when a challenge occurs or a serious concern or question arises, then the Church will settle the difficulty by formally stating what the truth of the matter is -- to end the confusion. So papal infallibility has always been true, and, moreover, was accepted and practiced from the earliest times.
The evidence that papal infallibility is part of the Christian Faith comes from three sources.
SCRIPTURE
First, Scripture. Such passages as: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; to you I give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven", and "Do you love me, Peter. Feed my sheep", and "I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren", have always been taken to refer to a special role for Peter in the establishment of the Church, and special divine protection for Peter in the exercise of his authority.
HISTORY
Second, History. From the earliest times we see the bishops of Rome acting as if they had special authority in succession from St. Peter, and we also see the rest of the Church accepting their authority as if they knew it was genuine. Thus Pope Clement wrote to settle a problem in the Church of Corinth before the end of the 1st century. During the first few hundred years of Church history, moreover, many who were accused of heresy appealed from every corner of the known world to Rome for vindication or condemnation. The Fathers too repeatedly attest to the authority of the Roman See. And the Popes always had the decisive word at general councils, as when the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon said in response to the Papal definition of the two natures of Christ, "Peter has spoken through Leo" -- and accepted it unhesitatingly.
LOGIC
Third, Logic. There are only two covenants, the old and the new. But the first Christians under the New Covenant had a living and infallible guide to the truth in Christ himself. Surely the lack of such a guide in future times would constitute yet another covenant -- the difference would be so radical. The argument runs as follows:
It is clear even from Scripture that Peter had a special commission and special powers from Christ to care for the flock of Christ, to bind and loose, and to confirm his brothers in faith -- indeed he had the very powers of the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously, these powers were essential to the Church as constituted by Christ. And Christ promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and said that the powers of hell would not prevail against it.
Now, clearly Christ knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, so he must have intended that the power he gave to Peter would be carried on until His return. After all, Peter was to feed "my" (Christ's) sheep, and so was serving as the vicar of Christ in Christ's absence. When Peter died, a new vicar would take his place, and so on, until Christ returned to claim his own. The parable of the steward awaiting his Master's return is very much to the point.
Just as clearly, Peter's authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means -- eventually, election by the college of cardinals.
Moroever, if these special and essential powers were to pass out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer with his Church and that the powers of Hell had indeed prevailed. Therefore, again, Christ must have intended successors to Peter.
For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. As I indicated above, this authority was excercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive. The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ's will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition).
INFALLIBILITY ITSELF
Now we come to the specific question of infallibility, by which the successors of Peter continue to confirm the brethren. Since the successors of Peter have the same Petrine authority, which comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation -- that is, in faith or morals. Now, if a Pope could bind the faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the error under Christ's own authority. Obviously, this cannot happen.
Therefore, the logic of the situation demands that the Petrine power of confirming the brethren must be an infallible power. When the Pope intends by virtue of his supreme authority to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the entire Church, he MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit from error -- else the powers of hell would prevail.
This is the logic behind infallibility. But, of course, it is not based solely on logic, since it is attested in Scripture and was held by the earliest Christians and the Fathers and, indeed, by the vast majority of Christians from the beginning.
Further, it is not a new thing. It was precisely defined at Vatican I in order to clarify what was at that time a confusing issue, but this was by way of stating clearly what Christ's teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope was in fact infallible -- the same conditions which logic demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.
When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called "infallible" and the teaching which he articulates is termed "irreformable".
|
| Copyright ©2009 Network News |
| Permalink |
Trackback |
Comments (1)
Add Comment
|
Re: Members of the 'View' blast Catholic Church over undocumented New York Post article. |
By Not a Pope Fan on
4/7/2010 3:44 PM |
| 1st in your response "Copy and paste quote" "You must understand" is a misleading of a persons intellect. No person must understand anything. On the contrary one must deliberate the statements made. While the pope may be the leader of the Catholic Church, he is not recognized by all of Christendom as a leader of all Christianity. However reverred the pope may be among catholics he is mearely a man. He carries no special office in the eyes of those who do not lean to a catholic persuasion. If catholics deam it necessary to deify the office of the pope that is their right and nobody should interfere with them. While with the same respect catholics need to stop trying to get "Protestants" as they call those who are not of their particular faith to have the same feelings about their leader. When God blessed mankind with eternal life through his Son's redemptive work he made all who believe in him preists. The bible also emphatically states that God is not a respecter of men. We are all his children none greater than the other as Jesus rebuked those who asked who among them would be greater in heaven. Level the playing field and learn to respect others and your level of respect in the world of Christian will improve. At this time in history I can see how it might be important to impart this theory of infalibility of the papacy considering the outcry for honesty from the Vatican concerning all of the scandal concerning sexual misconduct of children by catholic preists. It seems to me to be extremely contradictory for catholics to claim to be the leaders of the prolife movement and at the same time be found guilty of child sexual abuse on such a great amount of children. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|