I am considering the Orthodox Church

[crazzeto]

Ooo…that’s gotta sting…a saint and “Doctor of the Church”, and he rejects what the RC sees as immutable, infallibly proclaimed dogma! :doh2:

Of course St. Brenard was in fact, not infallible… In fact his charge is this, that the Virgin Mary could not be Immaculately Concieved because there is sin inherent in all sex acts, including marriage.

But is this true? What say the Orthodox? Is there sin involved in every sex act? And there for are you required to confess before receiving the Eucharist every time you have made love to your wife? Think about that one.

St. Brenard’s logic is common of the middle ages to be sure, but that doesn’t mean the interpretation regarding the sex act is correct. Thus if his interpretation of the inherant sinfulness of all sex is incorrect, would this not make his entire argument fall like a house of cards?

 

[Mickey]

Anyone who leaves the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church commits the grave sin of schism. The entire Orthodox Church committed the grave sin of schism back in the 11th or 10th century when the Great Schism occurred.

How profound! Where did you learn this?!?

It is the Roman Catholic Church that went into schism when she separated herself from the other Patriarchates and then began the process of declaring new doctrines (such as the IC).

 

[Mickey]

Of course St. Brenard was in fact, not infallible…

Of course not. No Church Father is infallible.

Neither is the Pope of Rome.

 

[crazzeto]

Of course not. No Church Father is infallible.

Neither is the Pope of Rome.

Correct for the first (depending on the father, obviously Popes are an exception), incorrect for the second

 

[Mickey]

incorrect for the second

If you do not believe in papal supremacy/infallibility, is your salvation at risk?

 

[crazzeto]

If you do not believe in papal supremacy/infallibility, is your salvation at risk?

Part 1 of the question, certainly it isn’t my place to say or judge whether or not someone is going to heaven or hell. Not even of my self.

But if I were to deny the constant teaching of the Church, then I would be guilty of schism, and denial of Christ through the denail of his Apostles successors. I believe that would put me personally at risk, as it would any Catholic who chooses schism and aposticy.

But again, I must stress point one

 

[Mickey]

I believe that would put me personally at risk,

But before 1870 you would have been okay.

 

[crazzeto]

But before 1870 you would have been okay.

But that most certainly isn’t the case my dear friend, as an E. Orthodox you should well know that Councils are used merely to make doctrinal the constant teaching of the Church and usually only when a certain doctrine is under direct fire.

 

[Mickey]

But that most certainly isn’t the case my dear friend

Oh it most certainly is —my dear friend. Prior to 1870, it was not necessary for you to accept infallibility. In fact, the Keenan catechism said that infallibility was “a protestant myth”.

 

[TheosisM]

Oh it most certainly is —my dear friend. Prior to 1870, it was not necessary for you to accept infallibility. In fact, the Keenan catechism said that infallibility was “a protestant myth”.

Can you provide the quote?

 

[crazzeto]

Oh it most certainly is —my dear friend. Prior to 1870, it was not necessary for you to accept infallibility. In fact, the Keenan catechism said that infallibility was “a protestant myth”.

Funny, the same Catechism has a section title TRUE RULE OF FAITH, OR THE TEACHING OF THE INFALLIBLE
CHURCH OF CHRIST.

I guess the catichism is self contradictory as presented by you?

biblelight.net/keenan.htm

 

[crazzeto]

From the Keenan’s Catechism

Q. What is the rule of faith adopted by Catholics?
A. All truly inspired Scripture, and all truly divine tradition, interpreted by the teaching body of the Church,—that is, by the Pastors to whom Christ said: "Go, teach all nations.’’ This teaching body, the Chief Pastor and the bishops in communion with him, all Catholics believe to be infallible,—that is, that they can teach no error. Now, if this great fundamental truth be clearly laid down in Scripture, then Catholics will be quite safe In following the teaching of their Pastors;—then the teaching body will be, to the taught, an infallible rule of faith. Mark well, we do not maintain that the pastors of the Church are, of themselves, infallible, but that God has made them so for the benefit of his

people and that Christ himself teaches by their lips.
Q. What proof have you to advance for all this?
A. In Isaiah ii, 3, Christ is represented as teaching the Church—“He will teach us his ways, and we shall walk in his paths.”* That Church must be infallible in its teaching,which has Christ as its director, and whose children walk in the paths of the Saviour.
Q. What do we find in Isaiah, liv, 17?
A. That no weapon which is formed against the Church of Christ shall prosper; and that every tongue which resisteth her in judgment she shall condemn. Surely she must be infallible, if she triumph over every enemy, and have power from God to condemn every tongue that opposes her decisions. In Isaiah lx, 12, it is said, "that the nation and kingdom that will not serve her shall perish."Now, could nations be compelled to serve the Church, if she could lead them astray and teach them error?
Q. Do we find anything of importance to our purpose in Ezechiel xliv, 23?

 

[crazzeto]

More from the same:

Q. Do you here suppose the teachers individually infallible?
A. The Pope as the constant head of the Church we hold infallible in decisions ex cathedra: but not exempt from falling into personal sin. The various bishops are neither individually infallible or sinless. But we may argue that if the Pope and the various bishop teach any particular doctrine,—men who have had no motive for such, do actually teach the very same truths, then we maintain, by all laws of human evidence or moral certainty, that their combined testimony to the existence of any doctrine infallibly proves its truth. This, however, is not what we contend for here; we maintain our teaching body to be infallible, because God has made them so; as in the Old

[pg. 370]

Law he made the Scribes and Pharisees, who were the public ministers of his Church (though often, no doubt, personally sinners), infallible, for the safety of those whom they taught. That these teachers of the ancient Church were infallible, is more than evident from Matth. xxiii, 1—“Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees; all therefore whatsoever they shall say unto you, observe and do.” Were they not infallible teachers, even God could not thus command us to obey them; and surely no one will make the teachers of the better Christian Church inferior to these.

Edit
Any comment Mickey?

 

[dzheremi]

Oh it most certainly is —my dear friend. Prior to 1870, it was not necessary for you to accept infallibility. In fact, the Keenan catechism said that infallibility was “a protestant myth”.

I don’t know if there’s a different Keenan catechism than the one I found by putting “Kennan catechism” into Google, but the one found on this page by Stephen Keenan (1876) most definitely supports the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. See, for instance, pp. 170-171. Is it that there are earlier editions that contain what you claim? What is on that page is the third American edition, but I couldn’t find electronic editions of any others, so I don’t know what’s in the first or the second editions.

 

[Shin]

Catechisms can err and be revised, it happened just recently with the U.S. Catechism.

Heresies happen.

St. Athanasius went through plenty himself.

 

[crazzeto]

Great minds google alike?

 

[Mickey]

Oh contrare Jharek.

The Keenan was immediatey revised after the doctrine was declared by Pius IX. Prior to this it read:

Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
A. This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, by the Bishops of the Church.
Keenan Catechism

 

[Mickey]

Catechisms can err and be revised, it happened just recently with the U.S. Catechism.

Yeah. They revised that one real fast!

 

[TheosisM]

Oh contrare Jharek.

The Keenan was immediatey revised after the doctrine was declared by Pius IX. Prior to this it read:

Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
A. This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, by the Bishops of the Church.
Keenan Catechism

Do you have links to this information?

 

[Mickey]

Can the Pope of Rome promulgate a new doctrine without the approval of a council?