I get what you are saying, and I couldn’t agree with you more. We have some work to do in the Catholic Church, that’s for sure.
No, that would be an empty argument. Papal infallibility existed before we put a name on it just as the Incarnation was a realtity long before anyone came up with “hypostatic union” to attempt to explain it.
Heh. I wish I could read Newman. I struggle with the old style of writing and can never down more than a page or two at a time.
No, that would be an empty argument. Papal infallibility existed before we put a name on it just as the Incarnation was a realtity long before anyone came up with “hypostatic union” to attempt to explain it.
My argument (a question, really) would be, "Did Urban REALLY proclaim the Crusades ex cathedra? :nope:
Infallibility pertains to defining and teaching formally on matters of faith and morals, and sending troops off to take back the Holy Lands from the Mohammadans does not qualify. :twocents:
** Look I am not here to argue just war, From everything I have read of the crusades and the encyclicals of Urban II the call was an Ex Cathadra statement. I am also not here to argue Infallibility as I know its definition as well. The point I was making was to clarify a statement of an earlier post and not to get the same answer that “anti-war” Catholics like to bring forth when saying that there is not “just war” when they insultingly say that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility didn’t exist back then. **
Heh. I wish I could read Newman. I struggle with the old style of writing and can never down more than a page or two at a time.
** Maybe you should consider reading the works of Menno Simon, or John Wesley if you think Newman is hard to read.**
So, I like what I read about Newman.
Putting my two cents in: from what I have read about Urban II and, references, he did
Putting my two cents in: from what I have read about Urban II and, references, he did
speak “ex-cathedra” about the crusades.
THANK YOU!!! Finally another Roman Catholic that agrees on this one.
Did you also read that he was trying to save his soul from Purgatory? And also those of the faithful fighting?
Also, I have tried reading Menno Simon and John Wesely and gave up in confusion. As
for Cardinal Newman, I enjoyed his writings, though a bit dry, and I have learned quite a bit.
Menno I got interested in when I get a great deal of Amish friends, so I purchased a copy of his complete works. He was a heavy thinker and obviously when he left the Catholic church argued hard against those who attacked him, particularly on infant baptism. He does shed light into the behaviors of the clergy at the time being drunk and saying mass thus making a mockery of the sacrament and the evils of why infant baptism should be removed–at that time it was used as citizenship in the native country and bore no real religious meaning to some. I do love also he lets the Anglicans and Lutherans have to both barrels too.
Wesley tended to ramble and speak in circles. I wonder being that he drank a quart to gallon (depending of the source you read) of wine a day if this was the reason- he was pickled.
It is nice to see that you are open to other points of view and not just stick to only one faith’s author’s. You are to be commended.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
In general, I think you are correct, but it is a generalization that only takes one priest to disprove. It just so happens that the priest in our small town is just the guy! He tells it like it is, regardless of the issue & it is not unusual for people to walk out during his homilies
Good Point my aunt just sent me a piece on a Catholic bishop that openly supports the gay agenda, ordaining women and is pro abortion.In general, I think you are correct, but it is a generalization that only takes one priest to disprove. It just so happens that the priest in our small town is just the guy! He tells it like it is, regardless of the issue & it is not unusual for people to walk out during his homilies
That’s what we call a heretic in these parts!
Not only heretic, I wouldn’t even call him a Christian even if he claims he is. This has been going on since the beginnings of the church, so it comes as no surprise. Seems
Seems like you are saying the church is more concerned with being politically correct than spiritually correct. This problem does not only afflict the Roman Catholic church but protestants as well.Not only heretic, I wouldn’t even call him a Christian even if he claims he is. This has been going on since the beginnings of the church, so it comes as no surprise. Seems
it’s more prevalent and evident now since the relaxation and drastic changes of Vatican II
so as to fit the Church into modern society. ( I’m a conservative, so there ! )
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
There are definitely people that are more concerned with this. That it could sometimes be people that are more “representative” than others because of the more public or authoritative positions they hold can also be true. But can any of these people actually change dogma? No. Can the Church go through a hard time at the hands of someone or those within it though, yes.
I would say more orthodox, not more conservative (or less orthodox, not less liberal). I know what you’re saying though. But I see this as more of a testament to the “gates of Hell” not prevailing against the Church. If you can have a Church that’s been around for 2000 years, has gone through all of that time’s worth of change in societies and cultures, and to still exist, not to mention to not have changed dogmatically, is pretty amazing.
But even you’re traditionalism is an example. Some of Vatican II doesn’t sit right with you, but you’re faithful to the Magesterium. There are those who try too hard to “bring the Church into modern society”, but also stay faithful to the Magesterium. It’s a testament to the truth of the Church.Not only heretic, I wouldn’t even call him a Christian even if he claims he is. This has been going on since the beginnings of the church, so it comes as no surprise. Seems
it’s more prevalent and evident now since the relaxation and drastic changes of Vatican II
so as to fit the Church into modern society. ( I’m a conservative, so there ! )
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
God is perfect holiness
Individual bishops CAN be wrong.
These points I thought had already been placed to rest in earlier posts, we were not using the same tired Catholic responses as they can be more easily knocked down by Protestants. If you kindly go back are read some earlier posts you will see there are some interesting concepts used that do not use the same ole scriptures that I a Protestant would expect you to use. Not all Apologetics has to be taken directly from the same old sources, when it is, your opponents will know your game plan and are able to counter your every move.
I agree, It happens to us Protestants too.Individual bishops CAN be wrong.
Unfortunately, this happens much more than it should.
CC
What are you using for your source?? Cite your sources for each of these “assertions” or retract what you say.
