Church Fathers on Confession

Q. When did confession to a priest start?

A. Confession is a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ Himself in John 20:

22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven…

From the early writings of the Church fathers below you can see that the sacrament of confession has always been a practice of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.In the early Church confession was not done in private to the priest but to the whole gathered Community, in the presence of the priest. Private confession was instituted later to avoid the shame associated with public confession.

The Didache “Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).

Irenaeus

“[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).

Priest Scandal and Confession

Q. After the recent church scandals, the priests should stay away from our children. Multi-generational epidemics of sanctioned and church protected pedophilia proves religion and children should not mix. The church should stay out of our bedrooms and work on correcting their own dysfunctional sexual urges. How can anyone allow children to go to confession with a priest?

A. I too am outraged by the abuse of authority exercised by our disordered priests who succumbed to EVIL. From what I have heard, these priests may have used the confessional as an opportunity to indulge their disordered lusts. Others may have used the confessions to pinpoint who might be susceptible to their overtures. Others simply abused trust. Sacrilege! Abominable! I really can’t think of words to express my indignation at the desecration of this beautiful sacrament instituted by Christ. And the spiritual and moral mutilation visited upon these trusting young people and their families.

However, we must remember that by far the majority of priests have been

CARLOS POLO UNMASKS PLANNED PARENTHOOD DECEPTION!

The Decency Gap / Eve Reinhardt Censored Version

Planned Parenthood as we can plainly see is spreading out all across the globe to promote infanticide through abortion. A few weeks ago Eve Reinhardt went to Peru and pretended to be an unbiased filmmaker wanting to interview pro-life leaders, bishops and priests. But she was unmasked by Carlos Polo.

The film of Carlos Polo confronting her deception was posted on youtube.com. Word was that Youtube removed it but it can still be found on Youtube.com. The Decency Gap website is now just a skeleton.

Carlos Polo is a real pro-life hero…HE DID NOT BACK DOWN!

GO! CARLOS!

Why Do You Confess to a Priest?

Q. Why do Catholics have to confess their sins to a priest instead of praying straight to God?

A. In obedience to Christ.

John 20:19-23 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

After His resurrection, Jesus, appeared to His disciples on Easter Sunday evening. He conferred the power to forgive sins by breathing on them. This corresponds to God breathing life into Adam. And so, Jesus breathes life giving power to forgive sins into his disciples. Note that this is before Pentecost and the general bestowal of the Holy Spirit. This is a special and unique pouring out of the Holy Spirit for the disciples, the first priests and bishops of the Christian Church.

And the purpose of this special dispensation of the Holy Spirit is to empower the apostles with the authority to forgive or not forgive sins in the name of Christ. This specific action cannot mean some sort of general power such as that by the preaching of the Gospel sins are forgiven or not depending upon the hearer. Jesus says, “If you forgive….if you do not forgive…” It would be impossible for the disciples to obey Jesus without audibly hearing the confessions of men and women, boys and girls.

2 Corinthians 5:17-20 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

Now this verse can be interpreted in a Protestant way to mean salvation by the preaching of the Gospel. However, we see this verse as further proof for the sacrament of reconciliation/confession. Also, James points out

Who Said This About the Evils of Contraception?

Hint: The Catholic Church is not the answer to any of them.

1) Contraception is the one sin for which the penalty is national death; a sin for which there is no atonement.

2) The abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all sexual perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it.

3) “Contraceptive methods are like putting a premium on vice. They make men and women reckless. Nature is relentless and will have full revenge for any such violation of her laws…If contraceptive methods become the order of the day nothing but moral degradation can be the result. As it is, man has sufficiently degraded woman for his lust, and contraception, no matter how well-meaning the advocates may be, will still further degrade her.”

4) “By accepting contraception, the world is trying …to form a civilized but non-Christian, mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization and save the world from suicide.”

Prior to 1930 all of Christendom condemned the use of contraception as an evil. But, then in 1930 the Anglican Church decreed that the use of contraception was permissible when the life of the mother was in danger. What periodical ridiculed that decision? Hint: It is still published today.

5) “Carried to its logical conclusions, (contraceptives)…would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality: The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be ‘careful and restrained’ is preposterous.”

Answers:
1) President Theodore Roosevelt
2) Freud
3) Ghandi
4) T.S. Eliot
5) The Washington Post-”Forgetting Religion” 3/22/1931

Source: The Good News About Sex and Marriage by Christopher West

Superstitious Catholics?

Q. Why do Catholics use “good luck charms” like medals and relics of the saints in order to perfom miracles? Why is that not superstitious?

A. It does sound superstitious at first. And perhaps there have been Catholics who used these things in a purely superstitious way. But we would not know for sure unless we questioned them.

Of course, the Catholic Church teaches that only God can perform a miracle. However, everyone will agree that He can perform these miracles any way He wants to. So He can act directly or indirectly. We know that He usually likes to work through people, like Moses-to free the people of Israel, Jacob and the people of Israel -to conquer the land of Canaan, Mary -to usher in the Messiah, etc. God could have just zapped it and gotten it done but He didn’t.

At other times He has acted through inanimate objects like the time in 2 Kings 13:20.

Elisha died and was buried. Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring. 21 Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.

When a dead man came back to life when he touched the bones of the long dead prophet Elisha.

And in Acts 5:15-16 miraculous cures occurred through Peter’s shadow.

As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. 16 Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by evil spirits, and all of them were healed.

And, people who touched handkerchiefs that St. Paul had touched were healed (Acts 19:11-12).

God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.

The miracles that occurred through the inanimate objects above showed the intercessory power of these saints of God. So, also today, miracles that occur when praying with an object related to one of the saints is simply a variation of intercessory prayer. The saint prays to God and He answers the prayer –or He doesn’t. It is not a slam dunk.

The historical facts and foundation of this practice is simply because, at various times and in various ways God Himself chose to act in supernatural ways in response to prayers and the use of medals and relics. So, apparently He doesn’t see anything wrong with the practice.

Rosary vs. Repetitious Prayer

Q. Isn’t the Rosary condemned by Jesus in Matthew 6:7?

Matthew 6:7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words

A. Jesus is not condemning all repeated prayer. If He was, we would be left with no idea how many times any prayer could be repeated. Never? Once? Twice? Three times? Once a day? Once a year? Once a lifetime? Twice…etc. How exactly could we obey Jesus IF in this verse He WAS condemning ALL repeated prayer? We have no concrete direction.

After all, when asked by the disciples about how to pray Jesus gave them a prayer without any stipulations to say it only one time, or once a day, or once year. And we know that from the earliest times this prayer was used in our Christian worship. And let me remind you that this was the ONLY Christian Church in existence.

Also, again, in Matthew (same author as above)

Matthew 26: 39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will. 40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” 42 He went away a SECOND time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.” 43When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44So he left them and went away once more and prayed the THIRD time, saying the same thing.

So, Jesus Himself prayed exactly the same prayer three times in a short time. If the author had meant to explain in 6:7 that all repetitious prayer was pagan then how to explain Jesus’ example here? I think it is safe to say that repeating prayers is not prohibited. What Jesus meant in Mt. 6:7 was to teach against the pagan practice and idea that the more you repeat a prayer the more likely you are to get what you want from the gods.

Besides, what is being missed is that the rosary is primarily a prayer of meditation on the Life of Christ with the Hail Mary prayers used to both ask for Mary’s intercession and to time the length of the meditation on each mystery or scene in the Life of Christ.

How Do Catholics Get to Heaven?

Q. How does a Catholic get to Heaven?

A. By Faith and the Grace of God. Catholics get to Heaven by the power and grace of God. The good works that we do are in obedience to Christ and in order to purify ourselves so that we can become holy as He is holy. But it is all of Grace. We cannot do anything worth while on our own.But specifically GOD communicates His Grace to save and strengthen us to journey towards Heaven, in the following primary ways:

By being born again in baptism:

• John 3:5 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

• 1 Peter 3:20-21 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you…

By receiving communion in the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ

• John 6:50 “This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
  
• John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.
• John 6:53-58-So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
• He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will (CH)raise him up on the last day.
• “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
• “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
• “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
• “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

By living life so that at death you are friends with God. This means that you die without mortal sin on your soul and live life so as to avoid mortal sin. But if we sin we must confess mortal sin to a priest in the sacrament of confession with true repentence and avoid it in the future.

MORTAL SIN

• I John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.

SACRAMENT CONFESSION

• John20:22-23And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

Why Do Catholics Pray to Mary?

Q. Why do Catholics pray to Mary and the Saints?

A. When we “pray to Mary” we are merely asking Mary and/or the Saints to pray for us in exactly the same way as when we ask another Christian to pray for us. This is nothing more than asking for intercessory prayer. And just like most Christians ,when we are in need of prayer we ask those we consider to be closest to God. If I need prayer for healing for my mom with cancer I will not ask the drug dealer on the corner or even a nominal Christian to pray for me. Instead, I ask the holiest Christians I know. After all, James 5:16 says, “the fervent prayer of a righteous man is very powerful”.

Misunderstanding arises between Protestants and Catholics because of our use of the phrase “pray to Mary” or “pray to St. Francis” etc. For Protestants, with a shorter history, prayer is only and always directed to God. However, for Catholics the older uses of the English “pray” have endured through the centuries. In medieval English it was common to use the word “pray” as a synonym for “ask”. I pray thee, good king, give me …. Plus, as usual in human speech this phraseology has endured because it is short and sweet. It is easier to say, I will pray to Mary than to say, I will ask Mary to pray to God for me. While the second sentence is more theologically accurate it is also more than twice as long. So, no one uses it in everyday speech.

Despite this colloquialism, the prayers of the Church are theologically correct. For instance, in the Hail Mary we say, “Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.” and in the I Confess we say, “And I ask blessed Mary, all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters to pray for me to the Lord our God.”

Another difference between Protestants and Catholics is how we view those Christians who have died. Protestants remember them and miss them but once they are dead they are beyond this world and our prayers. And although Protestants certainly believe in the Body of Christ they tend to think of this consisting of living Christians only. Dead Christians are either in Heaven or Hell and no longer connected or affected or interested in events in this world.

But ,for Catholics, all Christians both the living and the “dead” are a part of the Body of Christ. We remain connected to each other. We continue to love, care and pray for each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. Therefore, intercessory prayer continues through the power of God, among the members of the Body of Christ, because we are all alive.

Appearances of Mary

Q. Are we required to believe in the apparitions or miraculous appearances of Mary?

A. No.

Q. What about the Church approved apparitions, like Lourdes or Fatima?

A. No. When the Church approves of an apparition it is not done until the appearances stop. Then all the evidence is examined and if approved it means that we can be assured that there was nothing unorthodox in the revelations and they are worthy of belief. However, these are in the category of private revelation and no one is required to believe them. No matter what is said or who is appearing this information is never anything other than private revelation and is not an addition to doctrine or public revelation.

If God is Loving….

Q. If God is love, then why does He allow evil?

A. Because God is Love, HE created man in His own image in order to extend the communion of love, that exists in the Trinity, to us. God wants us to choose to love Him, not be compelled to obey Him. In order for man to love God freely God gave man free will. He is just and will not deprive man of this free will. Man cannot be free to love and obey God, without being free to reject Him and rebel against Him.

Even God, if He wants men to be free cannot take from them the power to choose evil. If He enforces goodness, He takes away freedom. If He leaves freedom, He permits evil, even though He forbids it. It is man’s dignity that he is master of his own destiny instead of having to develop just like a tree which necessarily obeys natural law.

Men, as a matter of fact, misused their freedom, and sin and brutality resulted. But, it was impossible to give man the gift of freedom and the dignity of being master of his own destiny without risking the possibility that men would sometimes choose evil. (Radio Replies Vol. 1, p 4)

Q. What is the destiny we are supposed to choose using our free will?

A. Heaven or Hell. Eternal Joy or Eternal Misery. Our life in this world has many joys and many sorrows but none of those are the purpose of our life. The purpose of this life is to praise, love, and serve God so that we can attain eternal life with God in Heaven. Our earthly life is short compared to eternity and yet what we do with it determines our eternal destiny. We must use our free will to save our souls.

Technorati Tags: God, evil, free+will, Catholic, souls, Heaven, Hell

Homosexual “Marriage”

Here is a link to the online article I have reproduced below. We, in California will be voting on this issue in November.
But it is of interest for everyone. I thought this was an excellent well- thought out article.

http://ncregister.com/site/article/15099/

The National Catholic Register

COMMENTARY

Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ and the Persecution of Civil Society

BY JENNIFER ROBACK MORSE June 8-14, 2008 Issue | Posted 6/3/08 at 10:48 AM

Advocates of same-sex “marriage” present the idea as a step forward for tolerance and respect. But recent developments place that interpretation very much in doubt.

Legalizing same-sex “marriage” is not a stand-alone policy, independent of all the other activities of the state. Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes.

Unfortunately, these government-enforced changes conflict with a wide array of ordinary liberties, including religious freedom and ordinary private property rights.

It began with the persecution of Catholic Charities in Boston. The archdiocese eventually closed down its adoption program, because the state of Massachusetts insisted that every adoption agency in the state must allow same-sex couples to adopt.

Recently, a Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony. In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.

At last report, the Mennonites were considering leaving the province rather than permit the imposition of the state-sponsored curriculum on their children.

And recently, a wedding photographer in New Mexico faces a hearing with the state’s Human Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn’t want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.

The underlying pattern is unmistakable. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” has brought in its wake state regulation of other parts of society. The problem is sometimes presented as an issue of religious freedom, and so, in part, it is. But the issue runs deeper than religious freedom.

McGill University professor Douglas Farrow argues in his book A Nation of Bastards that redefining marriage allows the government to colonize all of civil society.

If same-sex couples can marry each other, they should be allowed to adopt. Anyone who says otherwise is acting against the policy of the state. If same-sex couples can have civil unions, then denying them the use of any facility they want for their ceremony amounts to unlawful discrimination. When the state says that same sex couples are equivalent to opposite-sex couples, school curriculum will inevitably have to support this claim.

Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government. The duty of caring for those children exists even without a government or any political order.

Marriage protects children as well as the interests of each parent in their common project of raising those children.

Because marriage is an organic part of civil society, it is robust enough to sustain itself, with minimal assistance from the state.

By contrast, same-sex “marriage” is completely a creation of the state.

Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple.

The state must create parentage for the same-sex couple. For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes parentage.

In her essay in The Meaning of Marriage, Seana Sugrue argues that the state must coddle and protect same-sex “marriage” in ways that opposite-sex marriage does not require.

Precisely because same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex marriage, the state must intervene to make people believe (or at least make them act as if they believe) that the two types of unions are equivalent.

Public schools in California are soon going to be required to be “gay friendly.” A doctor has been sued because she didn’t want to perform an artificial insemination on a lesbian couple. A private school is in trouble for disciplining two female students for kissing. All in the name of supporting the rights of same-sex couples to “equality” with straight couples.

The fact that opposite- and same-sex couples are different in significant ways means that there will always be scope for the state to expand its reach into more and more private areas of more and more people’s lives.

Perhaps some people think it is okay to shut down Catholic adoption agencies, because the Catholics have it coming to them: The Church’s enemies are many. Perhaps some people don’t care for Methodists, and don’t care whether they lose their tax-exempt status.

But the Mennonites? These are the most inoffensive people on the planet. They have been pacifists for centuries. Their continued existence here in North America is a testimony to the strength of our ideals of religious tolerance and pluralism, in all the best senses of those terms. But now, in the name of equality of same-sex couples, the Mennonites are being driven out of Quebec.

Perhaps you think people have a natural civil right to marry the person of their choosing. But can you really force yourself to believe that wedding photography is a civil right?

Maybe you believe that same-sex couples are entitled to have children, somehow. But is any doctor they might encounter required to inseminate them?

Advocates of same-sex “marriage” insist that theirs is a modest reform: a mere expansion of marriage to include people currently excluded. But the price of same-sex “marriage” is a reduction in tolerance for everyone else, and an expansion of the power of the state.

Jennifer Roback Morse is the senior fellow in economics at the Acton Institute and the author of Love and Economics: It Takes a Family to Raise a Village, newly reissued in paperback.

---

Stay informed, get connected and more with AOL on your phone.

Sinlessness of Mary

Q. Do Catholics have to believe in the sinlessness and assumption of Mary?

A. Yes. We are obliged to accept and believe everything the Church teaches. If you are having trouble with any doctrine of the Catholic Church then you may have to simply choose to submit to the wisdom and authority of the Church. In other words, accept it purely on faith. But of course it is far better if you are convinced that what the Church teaches is true and makes more sense than any competing ideas. But this may take time for you to research the reasons that the Church teaches the doctrine you are having trouble with. You can ask a knowledgeable priest or research on the internet. And pray for God to help you find the answers to your questions.

I can guarantee that if you are honestly searching for the truth and not just trying to find fault with the Church, you will find answers that will be both simple and sublime. I have done this research many times and every time the answers are more intelligent, more logical and better documented than I had expected. I am thoroughly convinced by the evidence and thoughtfulness of Catholic theologians and don’t have to take blind leaps of faith.

Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary

Q. How can anyone really believe that the pope was infallibly informed about the immaculate conception in 1854 and Assumption of Mary in 1950, so late in the history of the Church?

A. I would have trouble believing these doctrines too if they were first introduced nearly two centuries after Christ. However, that is not what the dates mentioned mean. The Christian Faith was taught by the apostles and those they ordained to continue the ministry. The Pope and bishops have never sat down and solemnly and systematically declared all of the doctrines of the Catholic Faith. That isn’t how she works. She evangelizes, baptizes, teaches, and administers the sacraments. Doctrines are not defined until and unless they become seriously threatened by heresy.

For instance, controversy arose in ACTS about whether Gentiles had to keep all of the Jewish laws and be circumcised. The controversy was examined and settled at the very first Church Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Most of the heresies in the early Church involved wrong ideas about Jesus. Was he merely a holy man? Was he a god that appeared to be a man? Was he a man who became a god at his baptism? Was he fully God and fully man? All of these were settled at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD when the Doctrine of the Trinity was defined. This doctrine was not invented or communicated to the pope for the first time at this date. The doctrine existed from the very beginning but when heresy grew and threatened the truth, the Pope and the bishops met in council and settled the issue clearly and once and for all.

Again, later, due to confusion and controversy the Pope and Council of Hippo defined the contents of the New Testament in 393 AD and 397 AD. The pope did not invent the Doctrine of the Trinity in 325 AD or the New Testament in 397 AD. This is exactly the case with the Doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. They have been believed from the beginning. But with the rise of Protestantism these doctrines became more and more threatened and so were solemnly and clearly defined.

Evil Popes

Q. The theory that the popes of the Catholic Church are infallible is ridiculous because history records that several popes have been evil. How can you Catholics go on believing popes are infallible in the face of the historical evidence to the contrary?

A. First let me agree with you that there have been some evil popes in the history of the Church. And if they did not repent before their death there may even be some popes in Hell. But it is common to misunderstand. The Church does not mean, when she claims that the pope is infallible, that we believe the pope is sinless or impeccable. Absolutely not. Jesus and Mary were sinless but the Church has never claimed or even pretended that our popes are sinless. They go to confession at least once a week if not more often.

What the Church means by infallible is a very narrow and closely defined dogma.

The pope is infallible, only when he is:

1. Teaching about faith and morals to the whole Church.

2. We believe that God protects His Church from error and heresy by graciously preventing the pope from ever teaching error regarding faith and morals.

3. This does not mean he is infallible in private teaching, conversations or balancing his checkbook.

Some people might think that the Dogma of the Infallibility of the Pope means that the pope is always hearing messages from God that he then passes on to the whole church. While this might, at times, occur with a very holy pope that is not what we mean. Infallibility works to prevent false teaching. The pope must study and learn in the ordinary way and the Holy Spirit guides him into teaching nothing but the truth.

So, when by the wiles of Satan a godless or worldly pope is installed, the Holy Spirit would prevent that pope from teaching error to the whole church through letters, encyclicals etc. That sort of pope would effectively be silenced by the Holy Spirit in order to protect the truth of the Catholic Faith.

CCC 889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”⁴¹⁷

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.⁴¹⁸ When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,”⁴¹⁹ and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”⁴²⁰ This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.⁴²¹

Popes and Bishops in the Early Church

Q. If popes and bishops are necessary then why were there none in the early church?

A. In the early Church there were all three ordained offices of the Catholic Church that we have today (Deacons, Priests, Bishops). They were called by different names but the offices were in existence and are designated in Acts 6:5 and Acts 15 at the first Church Council and elsewhere in the New Testament.

Q. Then why have I never seen that in Acts 15 before? I have read it many times.

A. You surely saw it but just missed the significance of the information you were reading.

First, we have Peter at the council who stood up and settled the dispute, made the POPE or Vicar of Christ in Matthew 16:17-19.

Then, also present at the first Church Council were the apostles who became the first BISHOPS ( Gr. Episkopos) in the Church. There are many other New Testament passages that mention the office of bishop or overseer.

Next we see PRIESTS, called elders in the New Testament because this is the strict English translation of the Greek presbuteros. However, our English word Priest is etymologically derived from the Greek word presbuteros.

And finally we have DEACONS. Stephen and others in Acts 6 and qualifications of deacons in I Timothy 3:8-12. There are many other NT passages also that talk about deacons.

Election of the Pope

Q. “Do you say that God makes a man infallible who has to be voted for just like politicians?
A. God says He does. However the pope is not infallible because he was voted for. He is elected by votes, and when elected he receives infallibility from God. The pope does not derive his infallibility from those who elected him but directly from the power of God.” Radio Replies, Vol. 1,p 96

Q. What is infallibility?
A. It is the guarantee that all teaching from the Pope on faith and morals given to the whole Church will be free of error. God gives the pope this gift regardless of his holiness or lack of it because He wills to protect His Church from error. Our Lord can, with a holy pope, instruct the whole Church through many writings and teachings. Thus, the Church is strengthened much. But in the event an evil pope attains the Chair of Peter through the machinations of heretics or evil men (as has happened in the past) Our Lord protects His Church by preventing the pope from writing or teaching error to the whole Church.

Q. If the Pope is infallible, then why do the laws of the Church change with the popes?
A. Infallibility concerns morals and doctrine. These are never changed by popes. Disciplines of the Church can be changed to keep them fresh and fruitful in the lives of the faithful

Infallible Pope???

Q. How can anyone actually believe that a mere man could be infallible?

A. Of course, an athiest would never accept this, but anyone who believes in a Creator God could easily accept that God can do anything He chooses to do. Wouldn’t you agree? So, anyone who believes in an all powerful God could accept that it would be theoretically possible for God to cause a man to be infallible.

But, that does not mean that He would choose to make a man infallible. So, then we could ask,

“Has He ever made any mere man infallible in the past?” And the answer to that question is

“Yes”.

But here we are only left with Jews and Christians, perhaps Muslims, but I don’t know for sure, who believe that God has made many different men infallible down through the

Kneeling Before the Pope

Q. In Acts 10:25-26, Peter refused to let a man kneel before him. Why doesn’t the Pope also forbid people from kneeling before him just like St. Peter?

A. In this passage from Acts Cornelius “fell at his feet and worshipped” Peter. Seeing this Peter said, “Arise. I myself am also a man.”
If the Pope detected that someone who came to honor him was in fact worshipping him he too would give the same warning. And forbid it. But kneeling is a sign of respect and reverence, especially in former times. When Sir Francis Drake knelt before Queen Elizabeth, he was not worshipping her. So kneeling can be a sign of respect or of worship. It all depends upon the intentions of the one who kneels.

The intention of the one who is kneeling can not be detected, for sure, unless he is asked about his intentions. For instance, many non Catholics, seeing a person kneeling in front of a picture or statue of Mary or another saint jump to the uncharitable conclusion that he has seen idolatry with his own eyes!

Comment: Actually a difference can be detected by an outward sign. Gregor:The difference is marked by the rule (today not always observed) that we genuflect on our right knee before God, whereas we genuflect on our left before the Pope (and - traditionally - Cardinals and our own Bishop).

But Paul Rebuked Peter

Q. In Galatians 2:11-14 Paul rebuked Peter for hypocrisy so it seems pretty clear that Peter was NOT infallible after all.

A. If the definition of the Dogma of Infallibility of the Pope included all the actions of the pope then the Galatians passage would indeed be evidence that Peter was not infallible. However, the Dogma of Infallibility DOES NOT include the actions of the pope. The Pope is only infallible when and ONLY when, he both 1) teaches on faith and morals and 2) when he teaches to the whole church.

In the Galatians passage Peter did not fulfill either one of the requirements for infallible teaching let alone both requirements. He simply did not promulgate any teaching for the whole church. He caved into peer pressure. He was weak at this moment.

Some might insist that he certainly was teaching by his actions. But again this is not the type of teaching referred to in the Dogma of Infallibility. But even if we concede that Peter did teach, still he was NOT teaching error to the whole Church. Therefore, it still would not meet the requirements necessary to be considered a failure of infallibility.

This Dogma does not imply that every word from the lips of the pope is infallible.

He could make errors in his speech as he walks with a Cardinal friend down the hall at the Vatican. (Not taught to the whole Church/not on faith and morals)

He could make arithmetic errors in his checkbook. (Neither about faith and morals nor for the whole Church)

In a meeting and discussion of theology with other bishops he could even make mistakes. (Not taught to the whole Church)

But none of these would disqualify him from being infallible because the Holy Spirit ONLY protects his teaching when it is about both faith and morals and it is being taught to the whole church

Is There Historical Evidence for a Pope?

Q. Is there any historical evidence for the Papacy?

A. In the writings of the Early Church Fathers the fact of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is taken for granted. In 80 A.D. the Corinthian Church kicked out their bishop and/or priest. Appeals were made to Pope Clement I, the fourth Bishop of Rome to settle the matter. And yet, the Apostle St. John was still alive at Ephesus and living a lot closer to Corinth than Rome. Never the less the appeals were made to the Pope because all knew that he had the authority to make a binding decision.

St. Irenaeus, a student of St. Polycarp (a disciple of St. John the Apostle), exhorts all “Christians (to) be united to the Church of Rome in order to maintain the Apostolic Tradition. He then made a list of all the Bishops of Rome up to his time. There is nothing in his writing that sounds like he is trying to be convincing but rather that all Christians take for granted that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.

For 250 years the Roman Emperors tried to destroy Christianity through persecution. In the first 200 years of Christianity, every Pope but one was martyred. So, even the Romans knew that the Bishop of Rome was the head of the Church.

A Roman Emperor’s greatest fear was a rival to the throne. Nevertheless, the emperor Decius (249-251 A.D.) one of the harshest persecutors of the early Christian Church made the following remark:

I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than of another bishop of Rome. (Christian History, Issue 27 1990, vol IX, No. 3, p22)

Decius said this after he had executed Pope Fabian in 250 A.D.

-Beginning Apologetics by Fr. Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham

Pope Peter?

Q. If Jesus made Peter the Pope or head of the Church on Earth, Peter didn’t seem to know a thing about it. Why would he, in I Peter 5:1, call himself a fellow elder putting himself on the same level of authority as others if he knew he was the POPE?

A. The use of a fraternal term identifying himself with others in a similar office is nothing other than humble courtesy. For instance, when a president or king addresses the populace with, “My fellow citizens…” it is an appeal to unity with them not an admission that he does not know he is the president or king.

In addition to this, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. In one way this is the same as the bishop of any other diocese in the world. However, the Bishop of Rome has, since the time of Peter, been acknowledged as the seat of the government of the Catholic Church. The Bishop of Rome as the Pope is the highest authority in the Church on Earth as the vicar or prime minister of Christ.

One additional point to be made here is that, Peter certainly did seem to know he had authority over the Church because in the following verses (I Peter 5:2-4) he goes on to instruct his fellow priests and bishops in how to carry out their ministry.

Fishers of Men

Fishers of Men

This is a two minute version of the DVD which is about 20 minutes.

The Unexpected Blessing

We Adore YOU Oh Christ and We Bless YOU

I have chaperoned teens from my church to Stubenville San Diego for the past two years. It was a most amazing experience. I saw this priest at our stadium with over 4,000 teens. The room was darkened. He brought in Jesus in the Most Holy Eucharist and without a word of instruction, 4000 teenagers fell down upon their knees in worship of Our Lord. Father processed up and down, back and forth down every aisle.The teens spontaneously reached out.

The next morning our bishop said mass for us and our new, young, lawyer, vocations director, Fr. Saroki asked for all the boys who had ever considered the priesthood to stand up. Then he asked for them all to come down in front of the stage. Then everyone in the stadium jumped to their feet and burst into applause and cheers that would rival any winning touchdown!

These young men, no longer alone in their parish, were cheered by their peers!

I saw several going down the aisle right next to me. Then I turned to look around. Every aisle was FILLED and they kept coming for ten or fifteen minutes during which time the applause never stopped. This scene was repeated for the girls who had ever considered religious life. Now I know they won’t all end up in a religious vocation.
But….this was just in one event in California. Surely, the vocation crisis will soon be over.

Petros/Petra vs. Rocky/Rockelle

Q. Isn’t the problem, with the Catholic argument that Peter is the Rock of Matthew 16, that the Greek word used by Jesus for the Rock foundation of His Church is petra but the name He uses for Peter is Petros? Doesn’t Petra, meaning a BIG rock refer to Peter’s confession whereas, petros, Jesus’ name for Simon, means small stone.

A. This is a valiant attempt by non-Catholics to explain away Biblical evidence that Jesus founded His Church on Peter. However, it simply is not convincing when one looks at the facts.

First, most scholars believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic there is only ONE word for rock. Kepha. So what Jesus actually said would have been:

You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.

Jesus was not making any distinctions, after all, between Peter and the petra that Christ would build His Church upon. But obviously Peter comes from the Greek word petros. So, of course, one would tend to wonder about the strength of this argument since we now call Simon–Peter and not Kepha. The explanation is simple. There actually are several places in the New Testament where the Aramaic IS used for Simon.

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas, which, when translated, is Peter.”

1 Corinthians 1:12
What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas “; still another, “I follow Christ.”

1 Corinthians 3:22
whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours,

1 Corinthians 9:5
Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

Simon’s new name has come down to us as Peter because the Greek translation of the New Testament is the stronger traditional translation used by the Church when translating into Latin and English, and other vernacular languages.
Second-When the translation of the original Aramaic was made into Greek the word petra which denoted Peter was simply changed by the translator to petros because petra has a feminine ending and petros has the masculine ending. It would not be fitting to call the Prince of the Apostles by a girl’s name like Rockelle. In English we use the name Peter which is a Greek name but if we were to make a strict translation into English it would be Rock or Rocky. A man’s name.

Technorati Tags: Petros,, petra,, rock,, pope

Martin Luther on Scripture

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” Martin Luther–Commentary on St. John, ch. 16

Historically, the Catholic Church used the authority given to her by Christ to infallibly determine which books would be included in the canon of Sacred Scripture. The canon of scripture was not officially recognized until 400 years after the birth Jesus. To put that in perspective, it has been 400 years since the Pilgrims landed in America. So, for nearly 400 years the Christian Church evangelized the known world. And, all this was done without a complete canonized Bible.

And, due to the fact that there were no printing presses (until 1440 A.D.) most Churches did not probably even own all four gospels let alone all of the epistles. Even if each church had most of what eventually was canonized as sacred scripture, most people could not read and so faith and the pursuit of holiness could not possibly have been dependent upon personal Bible study. If Martin Luther, born in 1483, had been born 50 years earlier, long before the proliferation of printing presses, his theories of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide would never have gotten any traction.

The Gospel has always been proclaimed, from the earliest times until now, by those ordained to the Apostolic Succession of the Diciples of Jesus. The celebration of Holy Mass teaches through every word and action about the holiness of God, the sacrifice of Christ and our calling to worship God, repentence, forgiveness of sin and the pursuit of holiness. And, precisely because most of the faithful could not read scripture for themselves, it was read to them at every mass.

Christian liturgy draws our souls to Christ through all five senses. Because, in addition, to hearing, the faithful see the stories of the Old Testament and the life of Christ depicted in sacred art in the churches. We also smell the incense and best of all touch and taste the Body of Christ in Holy Communion.
Technorati Tags: Martin, Luther, canon, scripture, Bible

Why Can’t Catholic Priests Get Married?

To answer this question I am posting a discussion I had in the comments section of Priesthood of all Believers.

Peter’s style in the comments section was casual/IM…thus, without punctuation or capitalizations. This is normal in those venues and does NOT mean he doesn’t know how to punctuate or capitalize. I didn’t make all of the corrections needed to make his comments and questions formally correct b/c it would have been a lot of work. I thought he had very good and honest questions, representative of the questions many people have so I decided to put them in a post. So, here is our discussion:

Peter: i think you are dead right about presbyters (being the word translated “priest” in English). that is why some are placed into positions of leadership (like james the just or peter and paul, etc). however, these leadership positions are extensively talked about by paul in timothy and other places. in timothy, paul says that presbyters are to be husbands of but one wife and their kids are to be respectful because if they cant control their family they cant control the church.

so now tell me, how can a claim be made that presbyters are supposed to be celibate? there is no mandate that presbyters are celibate. in fact, the exact opposite. paul says that they should marry if they cant control their passions.

BFHU:

You are absolutely correct. There is no Biblical mandate that Priests are to be celibate. In fact, we know since Peter had a mother-in-law that he must have been married, at some point. The normal discipline of priestly celibacy could be changed to allow priests to marry. Celibacy is a discipline in the Latin Rite Catholic Church it is not an unchangeable doctrine or dogma. Eating fish on Fridays, similarly, was a discipline in the Church but it was changed and priestly celibacy might be changed, could be changed, theoretically. But it probably will not be changed any time soon. So disciplines can change but dogma does not change.

There are many good reasons to keep celibacy but the best is because the celibate Priest most closely models Jesus Christ, who was celibate. He also, stands in Persona Christi in most of the sacraments and since in Heaven there will be no marriage, the priest also models life in the age to come. In the Eastern Orthodox churches and even some non Latin rite Catholic Churches married men are ordained to the priesthood. But the married ones cannot become Bishops. And people in these churches prefer the unmarried priests to the married ones for the obvious reason that an unmarried priest can be married to the Church as he is called to be, and a more available

Homosexual-By Birth or By Choice?

Q. Are homosexuals born gay?

A. There is much controversy about whether homosexuals are born gay, choose it or something in between. At the moment the cause is not certain. However, what we do know is that practicing homosexual intercourse, oral sex, etc. is gravely sinful and disordered.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

This teaching of the Catholic Church derives its authority from Sacred

Luther Believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Q. What did Luther and the other reformers think about the perpetual virginity of Mary?

A. All three of the first reformers, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, accepted and defended this doctrine completely. So, if the Catholic Church believes in this doctrine and the reformers believed in this doctrine–by whose authority and when was this doctrine rejected by all the Protestant Churches?

Martin Luther: “It is an artcle of faith that Mary is the Mother of the Lord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” (Works of Luther, V. 11, pp319-320; V. 6, p 510)

John Calvin: “there have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Mt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this our Lord Jesus Christ is called the firstborn. This is not because there was a second or third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”.” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. comp., V6,1 P. 639

Reformers Called Mary The Mother of God

Q. If the Catholic Church has such good reasons for calling Mary the Mother of God then why did the Protestants stop using this title?

A. It is not known when the Protestant churches dropped this title for Mary or by what authority they did so since all of the principle reformers vigorously affirmed and defended this doctrine.

Martin Luther: “In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them…Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born in Bethlemem but of Him who, before, the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God” (Weimer, The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Souis, V7,

Did the Early Church Believe in the Real Presence?

Q. Did the Christians in the first three centuries believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

A. Yes. They certainly did!

110 AD–St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John wrote in :

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6,2)

“I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ…and for drink I desire His Blood, which is love incorruptible.” (Letter to the Romans 7,3)

150 AD–St Justin Martyr wrote to the Emperor of Rome around :

“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made

Are Catholics Christian?

Q. Are Catholics Christians?
A. Yes. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

“Upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt. 16:18

Q. Why is it called the Catholic Church?

A. “Catholic” comes from the Greek word kataholos meaning universal. The Christian Church has been called “The Catholic Church” at least since 110 AD. We know this from a letter written by St. Ignatius of Antioch:

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 Ignatius of Antioch; 110 A.D. ).

Q. Are Catholic Christians born again?

A. Certainly. In the Catholic faith tradition we believe that we are born again through the waters of baptism.

Jn 3:5 “Unless one is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

I Peter 3:21 “…baptism now saves you..”.