|
To present a few problems with the Catholic church using church documents as evidence.
I became Catholic because I wanted to know and live the Truth. Protestants who are critical of Catholicism are all to happy to point out that she has made errors.
Guidelines we can use to determine what is and what isn't true. . . .
See also Astrology.
None of the following examples concern doctrines of faith and morals and therefore do not contradict the doctrine of infallibility.
I wholeheartedly believe that the Catholic Church is the true church founded by Jesus and the apostles, and I am 100% loyal and faithful to her teachings and laws.
Decrees from various church councils highlight problems.
| Quotes | My comments |
When someone is so notorious for his offences that an outcry goes up which can no longer be ignored without scandal or be tolerated without danger, then without the slightest hesitation let action be taken to inquire into and punish his offences, not out of hate but rather out of charity. If the offence is grave, even though not involving his degradation, let him be removed from all administration.
1215 A.D., Fourth Lateran Council |
Too bad this wasn't followed in the modern abuses by priests.
Why does the church wait until the offenders are considered "notorious for his offences" before acting?
Clearly, the church leaders are shirking their responsibility when the laity have to raise an outcry before they take action. |
Nobody is to hear the masses of those whom he knows to have wives or concubines.
1139 A.D., Second Lateran Council |
Apparently, Catholics need to be careful who presides over the mass. Certainly a homosexual or pedophile priest would be as bad (or worse) than a married priest.
My response is to avoid attending mass with a priest when I have doubts about their holiness and firm belief in the teachings of the Catholic church. |
[It is an error that...] If a bishop or a priest is in mortal sin, he does not ordain or confect or consecrate or baptise.
1414-18 A.D., Council of Constance |
In the Council of Constance the church determined that a priest in mortal sin can confect the sacraments.
|
It [the holy Synod] also teaches, that even priests, who are in mortal sin, exercise, through the virtue of the Holy Ghost which was bestowed in ordination, the office of forgiving sins, as the ministers of Christ; and that their sentiment is erroneous who contend that this power exists not in bad priests. . . . Even though there be no contrition on his part, or no intention on the part of the priest of acting seriously and absolving truly,--he is nevertheless truly and in God's sight absolved, on account of his faith alone. For neither would faith without penance bestow any remission of sins; nor would he be otherwise than most careless of his own salvation, who, knowing that a priest but absolved him in jest, should not care fully seek for another who would act in earnest.
Council of Trent
|
The priest can be in mortal sin but he must have the intention of "acting seriously" and "absolving truly". But how can a priest who doesn't believe in the Catholic doctrines of the sacraments [which in itself is a mortal sin] have this intention? |
Can. 916 Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass
Code of Canon Law |
A priest who is conscious of grave [mortal] sin cannot celebrate mass. But what about a priest who is, indeed, sinning mortally but who is not conscious of it? Perhaps he doesn't believe the moral teachings of the Catholic church. I believe that a priest should not celebrate mass if he is guilty of mortal sin whether he is conscious of it or not. And why should he not celebrate mass? I believe it is because he is not able to confect the Eucharist.
The problem is that us lay Catholics don't know when the Eucharist (or the mass) is or isn't valid with so many homosexual, pedophile, and liberal priests in our parishes. And how can we worship Christ present in the Blessed Sacrament if we are unsure whether the Eucharist is valid? I would think that the bishops would take a very strong stand against priestly abuses, but many don't, to the detriment of all Catholics and the church. |
Home | In Defense of Catholicism | North Forest | Top of page
Popes have declared things which are suspect.
| Quotes | My comments |
37. [It is an error that] Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.
1520 A.D.,
Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther, Exsurge Domine, Bull of Pope Leo X |
He is saying that the doctrine of purgatory can be proved from the Bible. I think this is an overstatement. Certainly there are many verses which support the doctrine of purgatory. I believe in purgatory. |
67. [It is an error that] By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble.
Pius IX, 1864, Syllabus of Errors |
He is saying that divorce is not allowed. |
(For other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church . . . can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 1629 |
Unfortunately, the church is all too happy to issue annulments, especially in marriages in which one of the parties is non-Catholic, as if non-Catholics are incapable of understanding the nature of marriage. |
It focuses specifically on the loss of Jerusalem and points to the sins of the Latin States as the reason for this great loss.
1187 A.D., Audita tremendi,
Papal bull issued by Pope Gregory VIII |
I am always leery when someone blames a person's sin for some calamity or misfortune. |
Whenever popes declare something which is not true, then they were not speaking infallibly. Part of the difficulty is that we don't really know for sure which papal statements are intended by the pope as infallible.
Regarding Catholic annulments: The Catholic view that marriage is a sacrament and that divorce is never acceptable is very refreshing. A consequence of these high standards of the Catholic Church implies that many non-Catholic marriages don't qualify as marriage at all. This is when annulments seem proper. I am not addressing the topic of whether or not annulments are given in cases when they perhaps should not be.
Home | In Defense of Catholicism | North Forest | Top of page
Pope Honorius I was officially condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
| Quotes | My comments |
Regarded by Roman Catholic and Orthodox Eastern churches as the sixth ecumenical council. . . . It also condemned several churchmen as Monothelites, among them an earlier pope, Honorius I. The condemnation of Honorius is a much-discussed point in church history.
680 A.D., Third Council of Constantinople |
A church council determined that a pope had heretical views. How, then, can we be certain that the views of modern-day popes are sound? Perhaps a future council will declare otherwise? |
[Pope] Honorius was . . . incorrect. . . . The letter of Honorius had been a grave document, but not a definition of Faith binding on the whole Church. . . . The final dogmatic decree [of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, 680 A.D.] contains the decisions of the five preceding general councils, condemns . . . heretics by name, including [pope] Honorius.
Pope Honorius, Monothelitism |
How are we to know which statements of a pope are binding or not? And how are we to know which "official" papal statements are true and which are heretical? |
His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680). . . . In addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas.
Pope Honorius I |
If popes can be heretics, how can we trust them? How can we know whether or not a pope will be declared a heretic by a future council? |
I suppose that a pope who was declared a heretic could not make infallible statements.
We are fortunate today to have popes who are obviously so holy, devout, and orthodox.
Home | In Defense of Catholicism | North Forest | Top of page
The Catholic church teaches contradictory and confused views of whether or not priests should be married and what celibacy means.
I am not advocating that priests should or should not be celibate. I am merely highlighting that the church's teaching on the topic is in disarray. I can think of practical reasons why priests should or should not be married:
- Should not be married -- it would cost more to support their families and the emphasis would be more on money, much as it is in many Protestant denominations.
- Should be married -- We would likely have enough candidates for the priesthood.
- Should be married -- Parishes would likely have more of a family feel.
| Quotes | My comments |
Nobody is to hear the masses of those whom he knows to have wives or concubines.
1139 A.D., Second Lateran Council |
The modern-day Catholic church allows there to be married priests in certain circumstances . . .
- Eastern-rite Catholic priests
- Orthodox and Protestant married converts who become priests (with special permission)
The problem is that she dogmatically asserts that priests cannot be married because of the nature of the priesthood itself. |
All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life. . . . Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 1579 |
If celibacy is a sign necessary for the priesthood, then priests should never be married. But the church allows married priests in some situations. Therefore, celibacy is not a sign after all. You can't have it both ways. |
In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 1580 |
Whether priests are married or not is here considered as merely a discipline, not as dogma. Therefore, the church could change the rule in the future and priests could be married. Yet people talk about celibate priests as if it were dogma. |
Now Simon's mother-in-law. . . .
Luke 4:38 |
Apparently, Peter was married. If it's okay for the first pope to be married, why is it not okay now for priests to be married? |
Myth: Clerical celibacy has been the norm since the Second Lateran Council in 1139.
A Brief History of Celibacy
in the Catholic Church |
As this article shows, the rules for celibate priests has not been constant over the centuries. But we need to distinguish between the decrees of the church and the practices of disobedient church leaders. |
Home | In Defense of Catholicism | North Forest | Top of page
| Quotes | My comments |
Rome has already made a change in Catholic practice with regard to intercommunion by allowing, for example Orthodox Christians to communicate at our Eucharists. But the Orthodox Church allows divorce and remarriage. Hence, it could well happen that a divorced Catholic would be barred from receiving Communion at a Mass in which an Orthodox Christian in the same situation would be welcomed. . . . It is practicalities such as these that can make Roman regulations seem remote, arbitrary and confusing.
Catholic Insight |
Too many rules lead to inconsistencies. I suspect that the church has overdefined the doctrine of marriage as a sacrament. |
Regarding Catholic annulments: The Catholic view that marriage is a sacrament and that divorce is never acceptable is very refreshing. A consequence of these high standards of the Catholic Church implies that many non-Catholic marriages don't qualify as marriage at all. This is when annulments seem proper. I am not addressing the topic of whether or not annulments are given in cases when they perhaps should not be.
Home | In Defense of Catholicism | North Forest | Top of page
How I determine what is true and what isn't true in the Catholic church ...
The guidelines I use in determining which claims of the church are true ...
But ...
- Rules and laws must not have weird consequences. Examples ...
- Annulment seems like divorce in some cases.
- The requirement that priests must be unmarried results in a shortage of priests (or is this just a reflection of the emphasis on materialism by many Catholics?) and cold parishes (is this merely due to bad training?)
- Catholic marriage rules devalue marriage by non-Catholics.
- The requirement that all who wish to become Catholic must attend a poorly run and often heretical or liberal RCIA program for 9 months is insulting to those who have studied the church on their own.
- The practices of the church must not offend our moral sensibilities. An example is reassigning immoral priests instead of firing them.
- The spiritual welfare of the people must be foremost. Yet too many priests are either liberal or immoral (and some bishops do little or nothing).
A few of my complaints about the modern-day church: If the church were doing her job perfectly, I would not have these complaints so, for me, these complaints provide a measure of what is right and what is wrong with the church ...
- I dislike the strong emphasis on membership and the difficulty of joining. (Perhaps this is this just my own personal hangup because I am not able to trust the "liberal-friendly" Catholic Church in America.)
- I am appalled by the liberal and immoral priests, and the seeming failure of some bishops to do anything about it. (I wonder if it's even possible for a bishop to do anything about it?)
- I am saddened by the lack of evangelism. It seems the only converts are from Protestantism to Catholicism. The church is dying, the people are dying, and the popes and bishops seem helpless to solve the problem. (This has happened before in the history of the church.)
- There seems to be a lack of concern by some bishops for the spiritual welfare of Catholics. The emphasis is on merely attending weekly mass and the sacraments (baptism, communion, Eucharist) while Catholics are spiritually dry.
- Too many homilies are "churchy" instead of inspirational and devotional.
- Some parishes don't provide Bible study groups and other spiritual study groups, and when they do they are often led by administrators rather than gifted teachers.
- Some Catholic colleges are not wholesome and spiritually uplifting for the students, and cause some students to abandon the faith. Some teachers are liberal and some of the fellow students are immoral.
- Some bishops refuse to publicaly address or even acknowledge problems and abuses in the church or in their dioceses, preferring to deflect criticism or to blame the critics for daring to criticize. This erodes the trust of the laity.
Home | In Defense of Catholicism | North Forest | Top of page
|