A
alwayswill
Guest
sorry: i had decided to edit that out moments after I posted it
Did Luther claim for himself that infallibility, which he would not allow to the Church of Christ?
- Status
R
rcwitness
Guest
I see. And I don’t believe you violate our belief in Infallibility, since you said you do qualify your teaching as possibly wrong, and the Catholic Teaching as possibly right.
When I entered the Catholic Church (from Evangelical Free upbringing) I sought unity of faith and a strong conviction of their teachings. The elders at my parish never bash Protestants.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Those are sort of blanket statements and not been my experience in dealing with many SS practicing Christians. Ultimately the protestant becomes his or her own authority by the very nature of the practice.
Now that’s not to say there aren’t good and humble protestant Christians who are open to correction, there certainly are.
And in regards to councils and such, you ask them what is authoritative and they make the general statement of…" whatever is in agreement with the scriptures"…but again, who’s interpretation of the scriptures since books don’t interpret themselves and the Bible is not in text book form?
And in regards to this statement by White :
The Holy Spirit will not contradict himself…he won’t ‘enlighten’ the Baptist Church by telling them baptism is symbolic, and then turn around and ‘enlighten’ the Anglicans or Methodists and tell them it is a re-generational experience. That’s like saying the Father is up in heaven disagreeing with Jesus on the nature of baptism or other Christian essential.
G
goout
Guest
At the end of the day everyone submits to personal authority.
Some choose Rick Warren or Joel Osteen. Some people submit only to themselves.
No one is born with infused knowledge of Christianity. It is passed on from person to person, from family to family, pastor to pastor, friend to friend. The scriptures are not a book of magic that interprets itself and somehow has it’s own authority to do so. The scriptures were written by a community for a community. That community is composed of people. Authority rests in people who bring the scriptures to continuous life in the Church.
I can hear someone now saying they only submit to Jesus Christ. That is a problem, because our Lord himself gave us the Church. We come to know him through the Church.
Jesus could have done this any way he wanted. He could have reigned on a throne even today and their would be no doubt about Church authority.
That’s not the way he incorporated the Church. He gave us each other, person to person.
The problem with modernist thinking is we do not understand the charism of authority and we rebel at it.
Some choose Rick Warren or Joel Osteen. Some people submit only to themselves.
No one is born with infused knowledge of Christianity. It is passed on from person to person, from family to family, pastor to pastor, friend to friend. The scriptures are not a book of magic that interprets itself and somehow has it’s own authority to do so. The scriptures were written by a community for a community. That community is composed of people. Authority rests in people who bring the scriptures to continuous life in the Church.
I can hear someone now saying they only submit to Jesus Christ. That is a problem, because our Lord himself gave us the Church. We come to know him through the Church.
Jesus could have done this any way he wanted. He could have reigned on a throne even today and their would be no doubt about Church authority.
That’s not the way he incorporated the Church. He gave us each other, person to person.
The problem with modernist thinking is we do not understand the charism of authority and we rebel at it.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Naturally, I don’t automatically agree with whatever’s contained in RCW’s posts (though I generally do read them) but regardless I think I should ask: does someone being able or unable to imagine being in this or that denomination matter very much to the discussion?
S
steve_b
Guest
R
rcwitness
Guest
… you have a funny way of being neutral in so many ways! You must try hard.I tend to make mistakes when busy at work and trying get to quickly post in a discussion.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Heh.
I’m not sure whether I agree or disagree with that, but it got me thinking.There are actually a lot of posts that I don’t even read. For one thing, I’ve found that a lot of posts from Protestants start by quoting something that I haven’t read and don’t particularly care to (usually it’s a quote from a poster on my “Ignore List” – I feature that I’m highly thankful for CAF having
, but that’s another story). Leaving me with a choice between reading the whole thing, or skipping the quote and possibly being puzzled by the post, or just skipping the whole thing.Anyhow, maybe that’s why I don’t get into too many scrapes.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Well, don’t think too much, it’s just an opinion… nothing infallible.Heh.
There are actually a lot of posts that I don’t even read. For one thing, I’ve found that a lot of posts from Protestants start by quoting something that I haven’t read and don’t particularly care to (usually it’s a quote from a poster on my “Ignore List” – I feature that I’m highly thankful for CAF having
I don’t even know much about the ignore button. Guess I haven’t felt the need. I actually have a lot of admiration for the Protestants here. When I imagine if it were me in a say, Baptist forum…Anyhow, maybe that’s why I don’t get into too many scrapes.
wow! I wouldn’t last a week. Alwayswill is one of the better referenced members. I enjoy his fellowship. It’s nice to be challenged and see deep knowledge that we can learn from
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I too would think that a denomination/Church teaches and believes infallible belief. It does not make sense to me that people should gamble their salvation on something that could be false.
But since some of their members do not believe they have infallible teachings by their pastors/leaders, then why join such church? We have infallible teachings in the Catholic Church that are free from errors.
Of course Catholics know what the infallible teachings are. They are those that are declared Ex-Cathedra or those by Ecumenical Councils that have been approved by the Pope.
A
alwayswill
Guest
Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis from 1994 an ** infallible** doctrine or not?
Do you know?
"When John Paul II ruled out the ordination of women in Ordinatio sacerdotalis, he used the expression “definitive,” but did not use the formula that would signal an infallible teaching; in fact the word “infallible” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document. (These documents are carefully crafted. “Infallible is missing for a reason.) Cardinal Ratzinger, as prefect for the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith, argued in a response to a question about Ordinatio sacerdotalis that the teaching was part of the “deposit of faith” and therefore an infallible teaching of the “ordinary and universal magisterium”–although he knows full well that’s not how infalliblility works; something can’t be declared infallible by a Vatican office. Canonists and theologians the world over argued that** the teaching was not infallible for a variety of reasons. -**”
uscatholic.org/blog/2011/05/infallible-teaching-womens-ordination
I have been astonished over the past few days at how many commentators, including Catholics widely known for their orthodoxy, have hastened to state that the Pope’s recent Apostolic Letter, “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”, is not infallible. In fact, it is a textbook case of infallibility in action.
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
Just in this thread I find
Some Catholics say Unam sanctam from 1302 is infallible
some say it is not
some say it doesn’t matter
some say the interpretation of Unam sanctam is not infallible
what do you say?
A
alwayswill
Guest
How many teachings have been declared Ex-Cathedra ?
There is no set list of ex cathedra teachings, but that’s because there are only two, and both are about Mary: her Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870) and her bodily Assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950).
uscatholic.org/church/2011/05/there-list-infallible-teachings
How many Scripture verses have been infallibly interpreted ?
Is it less than 10?
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Good question. The Pope is infallible when he declare ex cathedra in matter of faith and moral. The Church’s teaching is content in the Magisterium.
Here’s an example of infallibility.
We believe that the decision on which books made up the Bible (the canonization of the Bible) to be infallible; which was done in a Council by the Bishops of the Church.
How about you? Do you believe that the compilation of the books in the Bible that you have now, yes, the one that you have, perhaps being held under your arm pit, to be infallible?
Do you believe that the decision of your church/pastor in choosing the Bible version, which you are using, to be infallible?
OR you just get your Bible, the compilation which was decided by others, and you just trust their wisdom, to be infallible?
OR you do not think that it is infallible, that some books should not be there or that some books that should were being omitted?
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Not sure the reason for those questions, which do not address the infallibility of the Pope/Church for a given situation. Are their purposes for you to deny that the Church practices this infallibility or what? If they are, then that is not what the church believes. She believes that the Pope can exercise infallibility as and when required.
The infallible teachings of the Church are contained in the Sacred Magisterium, her teaching office. There are different degrees of the Magisterium such as: dogmas, doctrines, disciplines, encyclicals, letters and pastoral letters.
The summary of the teachings is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The infallible ones are those that have been affirmed and defined in ecumenical councils or by the past Popes as such while others are just teaching offices that involve varying doctrines and disciplines.
You can pick any infallible dogmas there such as the Sacraments with subject like the real presence or the forgiveness of sins.
Not sure what you are getting at.
Scripture means the Bible, right? Well, it does not give you doctrines per se. It is just a data in documents selected by the Church. You have a problem when you look for doctrines in the Bible because you would not know which ones. You have to look to the Church for them.
The Bible is to support the doctrines, as the Church came first before the Bible.
In any case, there are many interpretations or understanding, thousands of them, of the Bible for specific verses or passages if you look through the CCC.
A
alwayswill
Guest
the reason for the questions, the point I’m getting at, is in response to your post.#190
(which I quoted in my posts)
Posted by Reuben J View Post
Of course Catholics know what the infallible teachings are
In the very next post; I then provided two specific examples and questions about “knowing what the infallible teachings are” in post #191
Then I asked , in post #192; if you knew what the number of infallible teachings that are Ex Cathedra and Scripture interpretation…
I don’t see that you directly answered those questions in posts 191 and 192
So I ask again :
Can you please show that you (and Catholics)
“Of course Catholics know what the infallible teachings are”
is true by answering the questions in posts 191 and 192?
I hope that explains the “reason for those questions” and the what I am “getting at”
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Oh, I see. Fair enough then. I am sorry to barge in and did not follow the posts.
The teachings, and thus doctrines of the Catholic Church, were documented through Councils and Papal documents - they are literally millions of them throughout the centuries and stored in the archive of the Vatican.
However, the CCC is a good source for the summary of the teachings and it is regarded as infallible except for those that are disciplinary and pastoral in nature which can be changed. If you haven’t looked at it, you can try, to know what I am trying to say. I guess, my above two posts have touched on that but you are free to ask specific questions if you want to.
I do not know if there is any list for the infallible teachings as such because all teachings are to be observed and followed by Catholics. One has to look for the dogmas, and there are many of them, a few I have given as examples.
So yes, we know which teachings are infallible and which are just disciplines. However, having said that, not all your average Catholics would be able to articulate it and thus the CCC is more in a simple form. These are for practical use and practice for practicing Catholics.
I guess the idea here is - we are confident that the belief we have are from infallible teachings because that is what the Church declares so. Naturally, I would not go for belief that is being taught to me if there is doubt about the truth of it.
A Catholic would think that other Christians of different denominations would regard their belief in a similar way, and if not, then it is not something that can make sense to us.
R
rcwitness
Guest
The way that I look at the statement “It is necessary for salvation that any human creature be subject to the Roman Pontif” is in context of what Scripture says. I don’t do a word search in the bible to find if it says that exact phrase. First I look at the passage that supports the establishment of the Roman Pontif in the first place. That’s Matthew in 16.
In this passage, Jesus, who is the source and reason for the salvation of all whom He judges worthy of eternal life, establishes a foundation on which he will build His entire community of saved people. Simon answers His question, not from natural knowledge, but from a revelation from the heavenly father. Jesus then gives Simon a new name, with a certain privilege. He is given the keys of the kingdom, having authority to open and close the door to heaven over specific matters and the people that those matters affect.
Peter, then became a final authority for issues that the Church needed Confirmation over. He became necessary in the universal Church government. All the Apostles were given a commission to preach and deliver the Revelation of Jesus Christ to the world. They were the first Magisterium, upon which every member afterward would exercise Magisterial authority.
Another passage that I looked at for knowledge of this Magisterial authority is in Matt. 18. Here, the member who sees a fault in his brother should try to convict him of it in order for him to repent of the problem. Jesus explains the basics of what to do if that person debates/argues and just rejects the admonishment. Ultimately, He says to bring it to the Church. Then, if he does not listen to the Church, he is to be regarded as no longer a member of the Church.
Then I looked at other passages that covers the issue at hand.
Hebrews 13
Obey your leaders andsubmitto them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.
I Peter 2
Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right.
One of these passages is talking about Church leaders and the other secular. We are to obey and submit to both! How do we do this if they contradict one another? One must have a greater authority. The one Jesus instituted is the greater.
So then, I ask what does it mean to be subject or submit to the leaders (or leader) other the Church on earth? Well, he has the keys of heaven and earth, which are Jesus’. This means whatever Peter and the rest of those given Magisterial authority decide as binding, I must accept and follow. Subsequently every successor after Peter is faced with matters in the kingdom to judge and confirm. And no member can contradict what any of the previous one have set in stone.
Scripture is the account and revelation that the Apostles set in stone. This cannot be contradicted by anyone. Though, as you made aware of Teachings, some things in them are not to be permanently observed, but practices can change. For example, women “speaking in Church” or the Sabbath being replaced with the “Lord’s Day”. So again, there needs to be a magisterium to decide these issues with authority from Jesus.
So I looked at the statement from the pope and saw that we need to observe the lawful authority of the Church, given from Jesus through Scripture to obey and submit to the decrees given through the leaders of the Church. When this statement refers to “salvation”, I also have to consider what the Church requires of me for salvation. We know that from the beginning, we are to be believe in God and that He sent His Son to forgive sins through His death. We are to confess and repent of sins, and live a life according to faith.
This statement is really nothing new or beyond Scripture. It just needs to be understood in light of Scripture, and His Holy Spirit.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I just saw this post. Sorry I did not see it earlier.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an apostolic letter. A Pope would from time to time issue his thought on matters pertaining to the practices of the Church.
That whole letter by itself is not infallible as he was not speaking from the Chair, that is, ex cathedra. However, there are some elements in the letter that are infallible, those which are already affirmed and believed by the Church.
So that is the thing about teachings - they can be categorized in various degrees.
For example: Celibate priest is a discipline, meaning it can be changed. Only man as priest is a dogma - the Pope cannot change that.
So that’s how we read Papal letter. The more articulate a Pope is, the more schoalrlistic is his writings. They can be very beautiful but some parts of the content can be just discipline and pastoral in nature.
We were blessed with two very learned Popes in John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Alwayswill, is this Scripture Infallible?
1 Cor. 11
… but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
1 Cor. 11
… but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
A
alwayswill
Guest
absolutely: there is no such thing as a writing breathed out by God that is not Infallible
- Status