A Contradiction?

[JP_Marat]

JP Marat;5945792:

adrift;5945724:

In can only be shown in error by error.

You prove post 47

No link? I suspect that it came from an anti-catholic site.

What is in error is your history. The Council of Trent had nothing to do with Copernicanism. Again you show ignorance of infallibility.

RESPONSE:

The Council of Trent decreed infallibly that the Church interpreted scripture correctly. The condemnation of Galileo by the h Holy ooffice evidences that the Church interpreted scripture incorrectly. The validity of an infallible teaching , not Copernicanism, was the Church’s blunder

 

[MrS]

adrift;5946087:

JP Marat;5945792:

RESPONSE:

The Council of Trent decreed infallibly that the Church interpreted scripture correctly. The condemnation of Galileo by the h Holy ooffice evidences that the Church interpreted scripture incorrectly. The validity of an infallible teaching , not Copernicanism, was the Church’s blunder

When you decide to become Catholic, you will learn that the Church has only “infallibly” interpreted a very SMALL portion of Scripture, and said as much. And she and her councils have never said what you imply: that the Church has interpreted ALL OF Scripture correctly.

Again, only a small portion of Scripture has been declared as such.

Do you understand the difference?

.

didn’t think so

 

[JP_Marat]

adrift
Regular Member Join Date: October 28, 2005
Posts: 2,525
Religion: CATHOLIC

Re: A Contradiction?

---

MrS;5946728:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Marat

RESPONSE:

Then perhaps you can practice the second spiritual work of mercy and “instruct the ignorant” regarding (your brand) of inallibility. Or can we dismiss your assertion as merely a claim without evidence?.

I see your still having trouble with the quote features. MrsS is the one who posted this accurate assessment. My son says do you have a mouse in your pocket or do you just think you are royalty with the royal we? You ought to know about claims without evidence. Actually all you are doing is making a snide remark to try to cover up your lack of evidence.
So let me instruct the ignorant.<<

Really When did a pope first discover that he was personally infallible? How many infallible decrees has he issued? How does this related to the infallibility of the universal ordinary Magisterium?

Nothing you have presented has been even slightly claimed to be infallible. Pietro Redondi in his book Galileo wrote “this heresy was inquisitorial-that is, disciplinary, not theological or doctrinal-both according to the words of the manuals of criminal heresiology of the period and as reported by the most serious juridical scholars of the affair.” In case you don’t understand what he is saying, let me state it. It did not concern faith and morals therefore not infallible. There is no error in the Church because Jesus is not a liar.
Galileo was convicted not of heresy but of disobedience according to Warren Carroll. <<

RESPONSE:

With all due respect to Dr. Carroll (to whom I badly owe an e-mail to), lets look at an “infallible” decree of the ecumenical Council of Trent.

Council of trent, 4th Session
"It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which **holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; **

Now lets look at the statement of the Holy Office in the Galileo case.

"…of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;

So the infallible teaching regarding the Church’s interpretation of scripture is in error.

And tell your son that both I and the pope have tapeworms so we always say “We”

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE:

Then you need to look up what "subordination " means, don’t you?

QUOTE]
No I don’t. I didn’t want to take that route but…

Jacket image of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary

 

[JP_Marat]

adrift posted:

So let me instruct the ignorant.

Quote:
The condition of the infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required that:** 1. **he have the **intention of declaring **something unchangeably true; and 2. he speak as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his apostolic authority, and not merely as a private theologian or even merely for the people of Rome or some particular segment of the Church of God.<<

RESPONSE

Really? Wow! So that means that it’s infallible that Catholics have to believe that it is the will of God that (Lutheran) heretics be burned at the stake. Right? And they’re excommunicated if they don’t. Right?

EXSURGE DOMINE, Condemning The Errors Of Martin Luther, Pope Leo X

"With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected….We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…

Condemned thesis #33: " That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."

The conditions you listed for papal **ex cathedra infallibility **are clearly met in this papal bull. **All **Catholics have to believe that the Holy Spirit wills that heretics be burned.

And they tell me that papal ex cathedra teaching are “irreformable” (ie can’t be added to, subtracted from, or changed). Right?

Should I have a barbarcue and invite my Luthran friends?

 

[adrift]

adrift
Regular Member Join Date: October 28, 2005
Posts: 2,525
Religion: CATHOLIC

Re: A Contradiction?

---

JP Marat;5947917:

MrS;5946728:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Marat

RESPONSE

Really When did a pope first discover that he was personally infallible? How many infallible decrees has he issued? How does this related to the infallibility of the universal ordinary Magisterium?"

Peter was told the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. Once Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary. You are unclear in what you are asking in your last question.

RESPONSE:

With all due respect to Dr. Carroll (to whom I badly owe an e-mail to), lets look at an “infallible” decree of the ecumenical Council of Trent.

MrS
Already answered
When you decide to become Catholic, you will learn that the Church has only “infallibly” interpreted a very SMALL portion of Scripture, and said as much. And she and her councils have never said what you imply: that the Church has interpreted ALL OF Scripture correctly.

Again, only a small portion of Scripture has been declared as such.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[JP_Marat]

JP Marat;5952548:

adrift
Regular Member Join Date: October 28, 2005
Posts: 2,525
Religion: CATHOLIC

Re: A Contradiction?

---

JP Marat;5947917:

Peter was told the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. Once Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary. You are unclear in what you are asking in your last question.

MrS
Already answered
When you decide to become Catholic, you will learn that the Church has only “infallibly” interpreted a very SMALL portion of Scripture, and said as much. And she and her councils have never said what you imply: that the Church has interpreted ALL OF Scripture correctly.

Again, only a small portion of Scripture has been declared as such.

Do you understand the difference?

RESPONSE:

No. The Church cannot infallibly declare scripture as being infallible, because it already is. It can’t be made “dogma” twice.

The Church can only **interpreted scripture **and can **“declare and define (something)to be contrary to the Holy Scripture.” **It did this in the Galileo case and obviously blundered by doing so.

This proves that Trent’s infallible teaching was in error.

 

[adrift]

adrift posted:

RESPONSE

Really? Wow! So that means that it’s infallible that Catholics have to believe that it is the will of God that (Lutheran) heretics be burned at the stake. Right? And they’re excommunicated if they don’t. Right?

QUOTE]

I was under the impression you could comprehend what you read. No it was not infallible. Is English your first language?

 

[adrift]

adrift;5952782:

JP Marat;5952548:

adrift
Regular Member Join Date: October 28, 2005
Posts: 2,525
Religion: CATHOLIC

Re: A Contradiction?

---

RESPONSE:

No. The Church cannot infallibly declare scripture as being infallible

, because it already is. It can’t be made “dogma” twice.

The Church can only "declared and define (something)to be contrary to the Holy Scripture. It did this in the Galileo case and obviously blundered by doing so.

This proves that Trent’s infallible teaching was in error.

the Church has only “infallibly” interpreted a very SMALL portion of Scripture, and said as much. And she and her councils have never said what you imply: that the Church has interpreted ALL OF Scripture

Your statement is :whacky:
Problem with comprehension again?

 

[MrS]

JP:

Name just one time… one… when the Church (through a pope, or the pope with all bishops in union with him) declared something to be infallibly the Truth… and then that declaration was reversed or abrogated.

Before you suggest something, make sure it meets ALL the criteria to be declared an infallible Truth. Otherwise you may continue to look a bit silly and stubborn.

If you can find one, I will leave the Catholic Church, and join yours.

.

 

[JP_Marat]

JP Marat;5952776:

adrift posted:

RESPONSE

Really? Wow! So that means that it’s infallible that Catholics have to believe that it is the will of God that (Lutheran) heretics be burned at the stake. Right? And they’re excommunicated if they don’t. Right?

QUOTE]

I was under the impression you could comprehend what you read. No it was not infallible. Is English your first language.

It seems that you think this is an order to burn heretics but it says the opposite. No where in your quote does it say for hertics to be burned.

RESPONSE:

Read the words.

"With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected….We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…

Condemned thesis #33: " That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."

Said positively: The Spirit wills that heretics be burned.

And you cannot “reform” the Vatican I teachings on papal ex cathedra infallibility, since the teaching on infallibility itself is infallible.

Vatican I

(**W)e teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma **that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable."

Exsurge Domine was infallible precisely because it meets the criteria for infallibility established by Vatican I. If you claim otherwise, I’m afraid you are in heresy.

Shall we look at some more infallible ex cathedra teachings? There were about 16 as late as 1950, but Vatican II wiped most of them out so we’re left with only two, although some theologians say more.

 

[jlhargus]

so according to you the holy spirit is not omnipotent?

JL: The Holy Spirt is omnipotent, but for the Holy Spirit to act in a sacrament the correct signs must be present. In baptism the sign is water and the words. In the sacrament of holy orders the sign is a male and laying on of hands. The male is an icon of the man Jesus Christ.

Man represents the bridegroom Christ our priest and spiritual father. Woman represents the bride the Church our spiritual mother. Having a female priest would be like a same sex marriage, it can never be a valid sacrament, as the correct signs are not present.

[Eph5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 THIS IS A GREAT MYSTERY: BUT I SPEAK CONCERNING CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.] (NIV caps added)

 

[MrS]

No. The Church cannot infallibly declare scripture as being infallible, because it already is. It can’t be made “dogma” twice.

The Church can only **interpreted scripture **and can **“declare and define (something)to be contrary to the Holy Scripture.” **It did this in the Galileo case and obviously blundered by doing so.

This proves that Trent’s infallible teaching was in error.

If the Church, through which the Bible was given to the world, cannot declare the canon of Scripture… who can?

The “Infallible Scripture” was assembled from lots of gospels, and letters, and the OT. The Catholic Church did this. And further the Church declares - infallibly - that the Scripture is inspired by God, and hence true.

The interpretations of Scripture become another matter. You and other protestants use an inerrant Bible and come up with spin to make it look like the Church disagrees with what you read.

Trent reaffirmed the Canon of Scripture as a “response” to the protestant reformation.

*“declare and define something to be contrary to Holy Scripture” * duh!!!
Of course. There really is a difference between an infallible declaration, and a statement from the Church of its concern for something that is contrary to Scripture.
The Scriptures are inspired. Translations and interpretations could be inspired, inerrant, twisted, misunderstood… or in a very few instances - declared infallible.

On the Catholic Church has the guarantee of the latter.

In the Galileo matter that is what applies… they did not declare the concept of the earth as the center of the universe as correctly understood and as an infallible truth. Scripture alludes to that, true. But again, it is not a matter of faith and morals, so no matter what a pope or council might opine, it is not a declaration of infallible truth.

Now…
if you want to think that it is infallible… go right ahead. Then you must

1- admit that Galileo was wrong and the Church was right
2- admit that the Church has taken that position (she has NOT)
3- expect that the Church would not encourage or permit Catholics to question or study the makeup of the universe (she had NOT, in fact just the opposite) For centuries the Church led the way in medicine, science, astronomy etc.

You are really confused on infallibility … still. Me thinks it is a rejection of papal authority and leads to my opinion that you are either

1- just an uninformed Catholic, content in his lack of knowledge
2- a protestant simply trying to stir a pot of your own making.

.

 

[MrS]

RESPONSE:

Read the words.

**Condemned thesis #33: " That heretics be burned is against the will **of the Spirit."

Said positively: The Spirit wills that heretics be burned.

.

They say just the opposite…

do you even read what you post?

.

 

[adrift]

They say just the opposite…

do you even read what you post?

.

This is not in context which you might have known if you had been provided a link. She never provides a link I suspect because much of it comes from Jack Chick and the like.

Really? Wow! So that means that it’s infallible that Catholics have to believe that it is the will of God that (Lutheran) heretics be burned at the stake. Right? And they’re excommunicated if they don’t. Right?

She stretches the meaning. It doesn’t say that they be burned but that it isn’t against God to burn them and it wasn’t. That however is getting into the death penalty debate. There is nothing in the Bull that is against faith and morals. She is trying to make a case there is but there isn’t. However, the Bull is not infallible anyway. Oh and note she avoided your challenge

Name just one time… one… when the Church (through a pope, or the pope with all bishops in union with him) declared something to be infallibly the Truth… and then that declaration was reversed or abrogated.

She obviously does not understand infallibility

Exsurge Domine was infallible precisely because it meets the criteria for infallibility established by Vatican I. If you claim otherwise, I’m afraid you are in heresy.

She now declares herself as infallible as to what is infallible. She declare that the Bull is infallible and if you don’t agree with her your are in heresy.

 

[Ignatius]

so according to you the holy spirit is not omnipotent?

The Magisterium of The Catholic Church has declared infallibly that there is no warrant for priestly ordination of women. I.E. there cannot ever be priestesses in The Catholic Church. Women cannot be validly or licitly ordained, period.

 

[jlhargus]

In Matthew 16:19 we read “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Back a few years ago the late Pope John Paul II stated the church did not have the authority to ordain women. Now I personally am ambivalent as to the whole womens ordination issue. What the church decides I abide with. But his Holiness’ statement seems to contradict Jesus’ words to Peter. I would be interested in hearing from someone who has knowledge of scripture what they think. I’m not a scripture expert in any way.

JL: [Mt16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven."] (HCSB). This is a more literal translation of bind and loose.

In other words, Peter alone, or bishops in union with him in council, will infallibly inform the whole church what is bound in heaven and what is loosed in heaven. They cannot err binding and loosing something contrary to heaven.

 

[JP_Marat]

JP Marat;5952776:

adrift posted:

RESPONSE

Really? Wow! So that means that it’s infallible that Catholics have to believe that it is the will of God that (Lutheran) heretics be burned at the stake. Right? And they’re excommunicated if they don’t. Right?

QUOTE]

I was under the impression you could comprehend what you read. No it was not infallible. Is English your first language?

RESPONSE:

Absolutely. I can read quite well and comprehend the plain meaning of words as they meet the criteria for an infallible ex cathedra statement established by Vatican I. Can’t you?

 

[JP_Marat]

Following Pope Pius IX discovery that he was personally infallible when he taught ex cathedra, theologians began reviewing prior papal teachings to determine which met the criteria for infallibility as dictated by Vatican I.

By the mid 1950’s the list had grown to the following. But after Vatican II, the Church stopped “emphasizing” most of these teachings.

Here is a list of **all of the ex cathedra pronouncements **, from “That Catholic Church,” Radio Replies Press, 1954. Note that **Exsurge Domine **is on the list.

Leo I, Lectis Dilectionis Tuae, 13 June 449,
On the divinity of Christ.

Agatho, Omnium Bonorum Spes, ~680,
On the divine and human wills in Christ.

Boniface VII, Unam Sanctam, 18 Nov 1302,
On papal supremacy in the Church.

Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, 29 Jan 1336,
On the heavenly destiny of saints.

Leo X, Exsurge Domine, 15 June 1520,
Condemning the errors of Martin Luther.

Innocent X, Cum Occasione, 31 May 1653,
Condemning the errors of the Jansenists.

Innocent XI, Coelestis Pastor, 19 Nov 1687,
Condemning the erros of the Quietists.

Clement XI, Unigenitus, 8 Sept 1713,
Condemning the false teachings of Paschasius Quesnel.

Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 28 Aug 1794,
Condemning the false teachings of the Synod of Pistoia.

Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 Dec 1854,
Defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

also, Quantae Cura, 8 Dec 1864,
Condemning the erros of secularism and communism.

Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 13 Sept 1896,
Condemning Anglican orders as null and void.
also, Testem Benevolentiae, 22 Jan 1899,

Condemning merely Naturalistic interpretations of Christian Activities.
[A few theologians say these two are not technically ex cathedra.]

Pius X, Lamentabili, 3 July 1907, also, Pascendi, 7 Sept, 1907,
Condeming the errors of the Modernists.

Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 31 Dec 1930,
Calling contraceptive birth control a grave violation of the Law of God.
Quadragesimo Anno, 15 May 1931,
Condeming materialistic socialism.
[These two are “very probably” ex cathedra, according to my source.]

Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, 1 Nov 1950,
Defining the dogma of the Assumption.

While no official list of papal ex cathedra infallible teachings has ever been published by the Catholic Church, following Vatican II the number is generally taken as only two.

However, some theologians maintain longer lists. See those lists in “Creative Fidelity” by Fr. Francis Sullivan SJ, Paulist Press, 1996

Shall we examine some?

 

[adrift]

Following Pope Pius IX discovery that he was personally infallible when he taught ex cathedra, theologians began reviewing prior papal teachings to determine which met the criteria for infallibility as dictated by Vatican I.

By the mid 1950’s the list had grown to the following. But after Vatican II, the Church stopped “emphasizing” most of these teachings.

Here is a list of **all of the ex cathedra pronouncements **, from “That Catholic Church,” Radio Replies Press, 1954. Note that **Exsurge Domine **is on the list.

Leo I, Lectis Dilectionis Tuae, 13 June 449,
On the divinity of Christ.

Agatho, Omnium Bonorum Spes, ~680,
On the divine and human wills in Christ.

Boniface VII, Unam Sanctam, 18 Nov 1302,
On papal supremacy in the Church.

Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, 29 Jan 1336,
On the heavenly destiny of saints.

Leo X, Exsurge Domine, 15 June 1520,
Condemning the errors of Martin Luther.

Innocent X, Cum Occasione, 31 May 1653,
Condemning the errors of the Jansenists.

Innocent XI, Coelestis Pastor, 19 Nov 1687,
Condemning the erros of the Quietists.

Clement XI, Unigenitus, 8 Sept 1713,
Condemning the false teachings of Paschasius Quesnel.

Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 28 Aug 1794,
Condemning the false teachings of the Synod of Pistoia.

Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 Dec 1854,
Defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

also, Quantae Cura, 8 Dec 1864,
Condemning the erros of secularism and communism.

Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 13 Sept 1896,
Condemning Anglican orders as null and void.
also, Testem Benevolentiae, 22 Jan 1899,

Condemning merely Naturalistic interpretations of Christian Activities.
[A few theologians say these two are not technically ex cathedra.]

Pius X, Lamentabili, 3 July 1907, also, Pascendi, 7 Sept, 1907,
Condeming the errors of the Modernists.

Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 31 Dec 1930,
Calling contraceptive birth control a grave violation of the Law of God.
Quadragesimo Anno, 15 May 1931,
Condeming materialistic socialism.
[These two are “very probably” ex cathedra, according to my source.]

Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, 1 Nov 1950,
Defining the dogma of the Assumption.

While no official list of papal ex cathedra infallible teachings has ever been published by the Catholic Church, following Vatican II the number is generally taken as only two.

However, some theologians maintain longer lists. See those lists in “Creative Fidelity” by Fr. Francis Sullivan SJ, Paulist Press, 1996

Shall we examine some?

You need to cite your source. It is not a source from the Church so it is meaningless and dishonest.