The bold part is not true…As Catholics we must defer to the magisterial teachings of the CC. Not not one pope officially taught that murdering dissenters was the will of God. Proof please, and the teaching must be binding on the flock…
Please provide quote?
I admitted that in another post. OK. Let’s reverse it: If a person within the CC e.g. Luther, challenged ekklesial authority when faced with corrupt leaders i.e.challenged the corrupt behavior of church leaders then there would still be a good reason to stay i.e. Luther still had a reason to stay with the CC?, In other words stay and trust in God’s providence as did Francis when faced with utter corruption, with no tampering of doctrinal truth, as was the case in the time of Francis and Luther?
Something that occurred to me when I was in your shoes: You do not see this type of division in the Catholic Church because we defer to the magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church, in the final analysis in terms of resolving doctrinal differences, and these groups defer to sola scriptura i.e. we believe what scriptures has to say about Jesus’ church and follow the example of the first-century Christians, as per Hebrews, by trusting in God’s ineffable guidance.
Sure it is. I found massive disunity in the RC. Much more than I have in the WELS.
Sure. Exsurge Domini specifically states it. If I were around in 1520 and wrote to the pope arguing against Exsurge Domini because it was not binding of the flock or ex cathedra, I probably would have earned the popes matches and kindling just like other dissenters. Thankfully the RC denomination doesn’t teach that anymore.
“33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”
Can you prove that Exsurge is an example of the exercise of papal infallibility, and therefore showing that Exsurge disproves the notion of papal infallibility, for the simple fact that the CC today does not believe that burning heretics at the stake is the will of God?
I can’t prove it’s not papal infallible. I simply take the teaching as face value. False teaching must be rejected.
Exactly! And herein lies the problem!
Papal infallibility - under certain conditions the person occupying the Petrine office cannot err regarding doctrine i.e. speaking ex cathedra*: *When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is exercising the Petrine office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals that is binding on the entire Catholic Church, such as the following statements regarding dogma.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=320195&language=en
“These were, regrettably, standard court procedures of the time, and heresy was severely punished because it was seen as revolution, treason against God (which it is). The Church was not speaking doctrinally, but simply accepting practices of the time. These statements were not specifically moral teachings protected by infallibility.” - Dr. Carroll
You conclude that a teaching is false and reject said false teaching based on what, if not the authority of any one church?
Well, If that is true then no need to belong to the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus, due to the idea that God is not preserving doctrinal truth within His Catholic Church.
Well, If that is true then no need to belong to the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus, due to the idea that God is not preserving doctrinal truth within His Catholic Church.You conclude that a teaching is false and reject said false teaching based on what, if not the authority of any one church?
Not much more to say if we cannot conclude that the Pope was speaking ex cathedra.
The RC denomination has never infallibly defined what papal statements are infallible. In fact no one seems to know for sure what is and is not infallible. Catholic apologists are all over the place on the issue. And everyone seems to have made up their own minds. How could I determine if its infallible when your own church cannot even do so with certainty?
Yes, the Roman Catholic denomination has erred on doctrine. Its a fine church and a venerable tradition outside of that.Well, If that is true then no need to belong to the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus, due to the idea that God is not preserving doctrinal truth within His Catholic Church.
The RC denomination has never infallibly defined what papal statements are infallible. In fact no one seems to know for sure what is and is not infallible. Catholic apologists are all over the place on the issue. And everyone seems to have made up their own minds. How could I determine if its infallible when your own church cannot even do so with certainty?House Harkonnen;12197458]Well, If that is true then no need to belong to the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus, due to the idea that God is not preserving doctrinal truth within His Catholic Church.
When Martin Lutrher erred it was no big deal because he never claimed to be guided by God in terms of doctrinal truth. However, with the CCs claimed of papal infallibility i.e., as per John 16:13 guided into all truth… as opposed to some truth, if the CC has erred as you suggest then John was wrong to say what he said. Moreover, those Christians e.g. the Baptists Church could be right and your church and my church could be wrong i.e. Jesus did not leave us with a way to discern the truth vis-a-vis the holy Eucharist; that would be sad indeed. Perhaps the apostles erred as well, regarding what they wrote? After all they were fallible men…I will look into the official ex cathedra statements…
When Martin Lutrher erred it was no big deal because he never claimed to be guided by God in terms of doctrinal truth. However, with the CCs claimed of papal infallibility i.e., as per John 16:13 guided into all truth… as opposed to some truth, if the CC has erred as you suggest then John was wrong to say what he said. Moreover, those Christians e.g. the Baptists Church could be right and your church and my church could be wrong i.e. Jesus did not leave us with a way to discern the truth vis-a-vis the holy Eucharist; that would be sad indeed. Perhaps the apostles erred as well, regarding what they wrote? After all they were fallible men…There was one universal church, to which the apostles belonged, in the first century - right? Do you believe that the apostles would have refereed to Jesus’ one church as a denomination? If so why? I say it is his church because he said - "I will build my church…?
House Harkonnen;12197458]Well, If that is true then no need to belong to the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus, due to the idea that God is not preserving doctrinal truth within His Catholic Church.
You are correct. :thumbsup:The Catholic Church has never officially provided a complete list of papal statements, that are considered infallible, so there is no way you can prove that the pope at the time, endorsed, infallibly, binding on all, the following: heretics are to be burned because its the will of the Spirit. If the Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus, and I believe it is (you do not) and Jesus was given all authority, as per scripture, and Jesus gave His church the Holy Spirit to guide Jesus’ church into all truth (John 16:13) then it does not matter.
As we’ve noted, you’d be hard-pressed to find a dissimilar view in general Protestantism. There just aren’t many restorationists, at least not among the logical, reasonable, history-accepting denominations. So very few will even consider a ‘1500 year gap’ to have ever existed.
Much discussion occurred on #33 of Exsurge domine, back 4 years ago, centering on whether it was a Papal exercise of the teaching authority, in the ordinary magisterium, and that by definition, that teaching requires assent of the faithful, per para 753 of Canon Law. And also on precisely what was meant by the article, whatever degree of authority might rightly be attached to it. Opinions differed. But that it was not ex cathedra was readily agreed.