Not necessarily so. This was twenty years ago, so things may have changed, mind you. . .
My parents had a civil ceremony. My dad had been divorced once before, and it was my mom’s first marriage. Six years later–in 83–I came along. My mom had me at the local Catholic-run hospital, St. Joseph’s. While she was there, she asked a nun/nurse to arrange a meeting with the local priest about baptism, and she did.
The guy came up to my mom’s hospital room, asked her a few questions, and then said that he wouldn’t baptize me because my dad was “divorced”, but still, according to the church, tecnically married to his first wife ('cause marriage is forever, you see), which meant that my parents weren’t married in the church’s eyes, and that I was therefore a bastard child.
My mom kicked him out of the room, and then, five days later when I came home (had a bit of jaundice), she baptized me in the kitchen sink, figuring that it was just as valid to God as it would’ve been had she “shopped around” and found a priest that’d do it. Which I suppose makes my mom a heretic, but I won’t tell if you won’t.
Sounds more like the fundamentalists that come around to my door than the Catholic priests at my church.
I agree with others who say that merge’s experience was with a bad counselor. I was fortunate to find someone who was also Catholic so there was no religious difference issue, but I have known mixed faith couples that have had Catholic wedding ceremonies and they have never run into any of the problems that were mentioned.
That priest had his head up his ass. The Church does not refuse to baptize “bastard” children (the word “bastard” is one I would hardly use to describe the child of a parent who had been married previously, but I’m just quoting here.
I know several children (more like young adults now), including my own godson, who are the product of second marriages who were baptized, educated, received Communion, and were confirmed, all with the approval and active cooperation of the Church.
Well, all religions (or at least all Western religions, with the possible exception of content-free religions like Unitarianism) teach this. It wouldn’t work any other way. They can’t all be equally true, no matter how attractive a proposition that would be. If the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and various Protestant denominations teach that he isn’t, and that in fact he’s the Whore of Babylon, well, they can’t both be right. They might both be wrong, and one might be right and the other wrong, but they can’t both be right. It necessarily follows from Catholic teaching (or that of any other religion) that the Catholic Church is the one and only true religion, and that all others are at least partly false.
The Catholic Church, like every other church, believes that they are in in possession of Truth, with a capital “T,” and that it is their duty to spread that Truth, and correct error where they find it.
Not so. Ordination confers no special gifts of intelligence or sympathy or understanding upon the ordained man. It does convey the power to perform sacraments. That is certainly a gift of the Holy Spirit, but ordination does not change the very nature of the ordained person.
If you’re a baseball player and a hockey player friend of yours asks you to play with him, you don’t bring you bat.
If you don’t like the Catholic church, that’s fine, don’t come, but if you want her to recognise your marriage why is it so strange that you abide by thier rules?
rhinostylee , is neither that hand waving nor they people’s prayers that do it, if you’re trying to be ironic at least know what you’re talking about (it’s like I said about american football " all those big guys scoring homeruns" you wouldn’t take me seriously). Are infallible when you say no one is infallible?
For all:
Don’t like celibacy, don’t be catholic
Don’t like mass, don’t be catholic
Don’t like the Pope, don’t be catholic (you get the point)
If religion is a problem, like any other with couples, solve it. Praying helps, talking helps, drawing lists help, but ONLY if you love each other.
The Da Vinci code…yeah, from the same guys that say they only want logic and science. Try checking its sources. It might be good fiction but bad history.
It’s always “The Pope did it”, maybe that’s why tha Cubs don’t win
Sorry, I’m calling bullshit. Please provide me evidence of a catechismic nature that Catholicism declares Protestant religions “false”. You make the claim, you back it up.
In my opinion, you have no idea what you’re talking about, pure and simple.
I’d expect to encounter what I hear from a majority of the people I know associated with the organization. As such, I would expect merge to have encountered a priest who is knowledgeable in his job, and competent in his vocation. Unfortunately, it sounds like the opposite occurred.
What LLM said. Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Please stop spreading your ignorance in this thread. I’m going to ignore the rest of your post, as it is material that would have been more suited for the Pit, as you should have well known for someone with your post count and time registered on the board.
Well, then that’s two times too many. Besides, it’s the idea itself that’s offensive. And ridiculous.
What were the matters of such great importance that the pope had to make an infallible statement?
Okay, I’ll take a stab at this . . . it’s the Holy Spirit that does it, isn’t it? Well, regardless if it’s the prayers, the hand waving, the holy spirit, the priest’s lovely dress, or his purported celibacy, the fact remains that at every mass catholics believe in the actual presence of Jesus in the eucharist and that a miracle has taken place.
How about instead of just saying that I’m wrong, why don’t you tell me how you are right? Or should I just take your word for it? What creates the miracle? It doesn’t sound like you know what you’re talking about.
That just doesn’t make sense. I assume that you meant, “Are YOU infallible when you say that no one is infallible?” and was meant as a clever way of using my own criticism against me. Well, I don’t preach Rhinostylee Infallibility, I just preach against papal infallibility.
rhino, I don’t wish to get into a GD here with you, so I’m not going to further discuss the RCC’s reasons and explanations. There are plenty of threads in the archives covering many discussions about this.
But, I will answer your question of when papal infallibility has been used. One has been mentioned by you: the bodily assuption of Mary into Heaven. The other is the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
angel of the lord’s story is quite right. pre-vatican 2 doctrine would have labeled him as illegitimate and as long as his mother stayed in the relationship and did not repent of it, he would be considered outside of the church. that would be a very strict reading of doctrine. i’m rather surprized that he had this happen to him in '83. that must have been one very old-fashioned anti-vatican 2 priest. most priest in’83, or even '53 would have no problem baptising him.
it really does depend on the priest, some are rather live and let live, others are very rules are rules; just like real people. i’m sorry merge, it seems you have found a rules are rules, forget the spirit of the rules priest.
There are a number of tehnical issues of Canon Law that trouble me about this statement, but that are irrelevant to the discussion. However, I see no reason for any priest to take $400 to stand around at a ceremony and write his name saying he’d been there. (Back in the old days, priests received stipends at such ceremonies because they often did not receive a salary from the diocese and that practice has turned into “giving him a tip,” but that doesn’t require any three-digit figure. If you offered $400, then he should have demurred for a much smaller stipend/tip.)
rhinostylee:
Regarding the “one true church” issue, the RCC certainly thinks of itself as having the best handle on God’s message, however, it hardly regards other Christians as “false.” From the current Catechism:
Now, I do not expect the Orthodox or the Anglicans or the Calvinists or anyone else to recognize the RCC’s claim to authority, but it can hardly be said that the RCC is dismissing and damning everyone else.
Regarding the Divine Presence at the Eucharist, it should be noted that the Orthodox, the Anglican Communion, and several Lutheran groups hold the exact same belief that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist.
Thank you for the ad hominem attack, and the sweeping assertion that I don’t know what I’m talking about. How very loving of you. Jesus would be proud, I’m sure.
Facts. I was born and raised into an nth generation Roman Catholic Church family. Nothing but solid and exclusive RC teaching (=indoctrination) at RC denominated schools from the age of 5 to 18. Regular attendance at Catholic mass, weekly or more often, without fail up to age of 20-ish. Regular keeping of all the RC sacraments and observances up to the same age. High school education at an RC school where about 60% of the teaching was done by ordained RC priests or other RC clergy, including regular discussion of scripture, theology and RC teachings. Have served as an ‘altar boy’ and sung in RC church choirs.
So, ‘you have no idea what you’re talking about’ wasn’t quite accurate, was it? You and I may disagree about our interpretation of RC teachings, but ‘no idea’ isn’t even close to being true. And if we do differ in our interpretation, well, that’s only to be expected. After all, the RC isn’t very consistent, and doesn’t really know what it teaches (e.g. policy on cremation, policy on women covering their hair before entering Church, policy on non-priests touching the ‘sacred’ host).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that’s incorrect; or, at the very least, a bit misleading. Papal Infallibility (ex cathedra, meaning “from the seat”) wasn’t a Catholic doctrine until 1870–a decision stemming from the first Vatican Council. So, really, a Pope has only spoken ex cathedra twice in a 133 year span.
There are two separate types of ex cathedra:
1.) Solemn Magisterium - which, roughly, are new teachings;
2.) Universal Magisterium - which, roughly, are reiterations of teachings passed down by the apostles (and, thusly, have always been taught).
Only once has the Solemn Magisterium been invoked: 1950 - Pope Pius XII’s Munificentissimus Deus, which proclaimed the Assumption of Mary into Heaven.
The first instance of ex cathedra in practice was Pope Pius IX defining Mary’s Immaculate Conception in the Ineffabilis Deus.
Wow, I sure am impressed with that resume. Oddly, you failed to address any of my points. No worries, looks like tomndebb found all the necessary facts and cites to prove you wrong. Maybe you should look into getting a refund for all that miseducation. By the by, asking you to stop spreading ignorance isn’t an ad hominem attack, as I’m attacking your false statements, not your person.
SkipMagic, absolutely true. Good catch. I think a lot of people who refute the concept of papal infallibility believe it both be always in effect as well as been a church belief for all of church history. My statement might have been misleading in that regard. Thanks for pointing it out.
Making unfounded and sweeping assertions to the effect that someone ‘doesn’t know what they’re talking about’, just because they have an opinion you don’t like about your preferred mythology, does not constitute ‘making a point’. It’s just aggressive rhetoric.
You said I don’t know what I’m talking about. That’s an attack on me, not a rebuttal of points or opinons.
So you’ve found a cite showing the Catholic church condemning all protestant religions as false?
You’ve brought new information (including cites and/or links) regarding the gifts bestowed upon priests at their ordination?
Do share. Maybe these answers are on page 1.5 of this thread. I only get pages 1 and 2, so if you could just be a peach and repost them, I’d appreciate it.