Infallibility of Church?

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Could you give examples where Catholics cause plenty of division

The examples are endless. Pro choice “Catholic” politicians come to mind.

That works

I asked because I want to see specific examples that a person is thinking of.

 

[mcq72]

I edited post to be more specific.

 

[steve-b]

I believe this discussion will arrive at the point where we must admit that individual Catholics do not merit the term “infallibility”, and the behavior of Catholic persons must be distinguished from the deposit of faith as revealed by God through and in the Church. Infallibility has nothing to do with the behavior of individual Catholics.

True

And it’s also why we go to definitions for clarity.

Example:

here is the language used in the definition at Vat I that keeps this subject contained

(emphasis mine) stressing important words used

"we 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.

Vat I

 

[mcq72]

I don’t persecute anyone. Is my name on any of the documents I quote from?

never said you did…read more carefully or maybe I should be more succinct…lol…it is classic…like Pilate did not condemn Jesus , but merely cited and obeyed Jewish wishes.

You used Paul’s “document” for you sectarian justification, as if Paul indeed had Orthodox and P’s in mind (serving Satan in it’s division/protest), as if Paul would take the Catholic side 1300 years later.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I don’t persecute anyone. Is my name on any of the documents I quote from?

never said you did…read more carefully or maybe I should be more succinct…lol…it is classic…like Pilate did not condemn Jesus , but merely cited and obeyed Jewish wishes.

You used Paul’s “document” for you sectarian justification, as if Paul indeed had Orthodox and P’s in mind (serving Satan in it’s division/protest), as if Paul would take the Catholic side 1300 years later.

Yet

Paul is being led by the HS to teach what he did. He had no idea what history would bring. As far as Paul the apostle was concerned, he thought the end of the age, was probably the end of the world was coming. And he had a lot of work to do to get as much done as he could before that happened.

As we know, the HS’s message, through Paul, is STILL applicable today. And all the consequences are still in place for those who refuse to listen and obey just like in Paul’s day

 

[mcq72]

AND

They (the apostles) are in this ONE Church they are writing to and for. Meaning this Church wrote the NT scriptures, collected only certain NT books, and canonized those books as scripture. Without which there would be no NT. This ONE Church had a name. The Catholic Church

Well this is “old arrows” also. A pope recently himself said so, that it is divisive to portray to the world that the bible is a Catholic book rather than God’s book, that He is the author, at best we (the Church) are the ''custodian".

But yes praise the Catholic Church for everything she did to receive, protect, copy, and even expound correctly on Sacred Scriptures.

But again, 500 or a thousand years later, it is neither here nor there, does not align itself with P or O or C division.

Like what have you done for me lately.

Is it “once right always right” then for said Catholic Church, like Calvin’s “once saved always saved” ?
Same rationale to me.

Not even maybe, but actually. It is the Catholic Church from the first century.

I was referring that maybe, maybe not Ignatius was taught by apostles to call the church "catholic’’, capital C , proper name and not “adjective”.

Not a big deal, and will not take it out the realm of reasoned conjecture that the apostles used the term Catholic as a proper name. Maybe, maybe not, unlike Ignatius and thereafter. History is full of the church developing theological words never uttered by apostles though capturing their intent.

 

[Glenn]

I don’t believe the statement that there are 40,000 Protestant denominations.

I stand by this statement. Please google the words, “We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations” for an article in the National Catholic Register.

 

[Wannano]

steve-b:

AND

They (the apostles) are in this ONE Church they are writing to and for. Meaning this Church wrote the NT scriptures, collected only certain NT books, and canonized those books as scripture. Without which there would be no NT. This ONE Church had a name. The Catholic Church

Well this is “old arrows” also. A pope recently himself said so, that it is divisive to portray to the world that the bible is a Catholic book rather than God’s book, that He is the author, at best we (the Church) are the ''custodian".

But yes praise the Catholic Church for everything she did to receive, protect, copy, and even expound correctly on Sacred Scriptures.

But again, 500 or a thousand years later, it is neither here nor there, does not align itself with P or O or C division.

Like what have you done for me lately.

Is it “once right always right” then for said Catholic Church, like Calvin’s “once saved always saved” ?
Same rationale to me.

Not even maybe, but actually. It is the Catholic Church from the first century.

I was referring that maybe, maybe not Ignatius was taught by apostles to call the church "catholic’’, capital C , proper name and not “adjective”.

Not a big deal, and will not take it out the realm of reasoned conjecture that the apostles used the term Catholic as a proper name. Maybe, maybe not, unlike Ignatius and thereafter. History is full of the church developing theological words never uttered by apostles though capturing their intent.

Which Pope indicated recently that it is divisive for Catholics to claim that the Bible is a Catholic book rather than God’s book? Can you confirm that the word "divisive " was actually used? If so, that is very interesting.

 

[MT1926]

Well this is “old arrows” also. A pope recently himself said so, that it is divisive to portray to the world that the bible is a Catholic book rather than God’s book, that He is the author, at best we (the Church) are the ''custodian".

Which Pope indicated recently that it is divisive for Catholics to claim that the Bible is a Catholic book rather than God’s book? Can you confirm that the word "divisive " was actually used? If so, that is very interesting.

I second that. I would love to read what he said in context.

That being said I totally agree with what was said. Claiming the Bible is a Catholic book isn’t going to get you anywhere, it’s going to do exactly what it does every time it is said, it causes hostility and disagreement.

Now The second part of that statement is profound. I like that word “custodian”. Custodian’s are… curator, keeper, conservator, guardian, overseer, superintendent;
caretaker, steward, warden, warder, attendant;
watchdog, protector, defender

To me that makes perfect sense. Why would God give us this perfect gift of His Word and not appoint a “custodian” as it’s steward and protector?

Mind Blowing revelation from which ever Pope said this.

Would love to read the entire speech, please post a link.

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

No… we’d say that those who separated are the ones who bear responsibility. You never separated from the Catholic Church, so we wouldn’t make that claim about you. We would say that we’re in imperfect communion with you, but we share certain graces and gifts of the Spirit.

How does this square with the Council of Trent, which condemns not only those who separated, but anyone who espouses Protestant ideas? “Whoever says… is anathema.” It seems that the Roman Church has changed its position with respect to those outside of its formal communion. For now, the Church says that Protestants are in some manner connected to the true Church. And this gets back to the question of infallible teaching.

 

[mcq72]

Which Pope indicated recently that it is divisive for Catholics to claim that the Bible is a Catholic book rather than God’s book? Can you confirm that the word "divisive " was actually used? If so, that is very interesting.

Actually might have been Vat 2.

Not sure divisive was used, but that is how I took it. It used the positive word or intent like in the name of ecumenicism (opposite of divisive).

 

[mcq72]

Oh no …pressure is on…maybe I muffed and decree is not that dramatic…you ever do that, read something for the first time, and you see an inch of positive light and make it a mile…go back much later and read it again and perhaps you made it more wishfully?
Lol…have to find it…but that was my first impression…hope I didn’t embellish it over time.

 

[goout]

Doctrine develops. We progress in understanding.
What develops is based on what came before, without rupture.
The Church is living, not a set of dead letters.

 

[mcq72]

The opening sentence pictures the Church, ‘never ceasing — especially in the sacred liturgy — to receive the bread of life from the one table of God’s word and Christ’s body’, and the same eucharistic comparison closes the chapter. This imagery is rooted in St John’s Gospel, chapter 6; it was developed by St Augustine and finds a place in The Imitation of Christ. The idea that God’s word, as it is met through reading the Bible, works as a kind of sacrament, was dear to Newman, though he never developed it beyond a few pregnant phrases, yet perhaps enough to release its force.[xxi] Newman is never referred to in any document of Vatican II, yet many commentators have discerned his presence behind its teachings.[xxii] This is especially true of DV, from its first emphasis on revelation in personal rather than propositional terms, and the explanation of inspiration and inerrancy, to this last powerful image. It is strange that the conservative opposition steadily at work throughout the debates on DV expressed the fear that the comparison would undermine faith in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. The Constitution on the Liturgy sets the statement ‘He is present in his word, since it is he himself who speaks when the holy Scriptures are read in the Church’, parallel to Christ’s presence in the sacrifice of the Mass and in the eucharistic elements, in the sacraments, and finally, in the Church gathered for worship.[

Vatican II and The Bible

The bible is fundamental and central to the Second Vatican Council.

vatican2voice.org

 

[mcq72]

“The Bible is
God’s gift to the Church, which is its custodian and authoritative interpreter”

Cardinal Dulles VaticanII On the Interpretation of Scripture

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I don’t believe the statement that there are 40,000 Protestant denominations.

I stand by this statement. Please google the words, “We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations” for an article in the National Catholic Register.

As I posted, the point appears to come from 2 sources HERE

Looks to me like both sources are non Catholic for sure.

 

[steve-b]

mcq72:

steve-b:

AND

They (the apostles) are in this ONE Church they are writing to and for. Meaning this Church wrote the NT scriptures, collected only certain NT books, and canonized those books as scripture. Without which there would be no NT. This ONE Church had a name. The Catholic Church

Well this is “old arrows” also. A pope recently himself said so, that it is divisive to portray to the world that the bible is a Catholic book rather than God’s book, that He is the author, at best we (the Church) are the ''custodian".

1. Where’s tour reference for that, properly referenced of course
2. Your statement in extension denies then that the writers of the NT were NOT in the Church they were building, and writing to and for. Which would be absurd. Of course they were in the Church they were writing to and for.
3. The Catholic Church ALSO gave us the canon of scripture.

example:

Muratorian Canon A.D. ~170
Excerpt:

"it is yet shown-i.e., by this sevenfold writing-that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all. He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey. 4. The Epistle of Jude, indeed,37 and two belonging to the above-named John-or bearing the name of John-are reckoned among the Catholic epistles. And the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter, though some amongst us will not have this latter read in the Church.
From: Muratorian Canon (Roberts-Donaldson Translation)

Not even maybe, but actually. It is the Catholic Church from the first century.

I was referring that maybe, maybe not Ignatius was taught by apostles to call the church "catholic’’, capital C , proper name and not “adjective”.

Irenaeus made the argument well against the Gnostics. I already posted it.

Wannano:

Which Pope indicated recently that it is divisive for Catholics to claim that the Bible is a Catholic book rather than God’s book? Can you confirm that the word "divisive " was actually used? If so, that is very interesting.

I never said a pope said that. I’m asking you, where is the proof (properly referenced of course)

 

[mcq72]

We progress in understanding.

You know who also says that? The JW’s. They say a scripture, OT I think, about “the light getting brighter and brighter…”. They have to ward off criticism about some of their prophecies failing, or flip flopping on issues ( eg. blood transfusions).

 

[goout]

goout:

We progress in understanding.

You know who also says that? The JW’s. They say a scripture, OT I think, about “the light getting brighter and brighter…”. They have to ward off criticism about some of their prophecies failing, or flip flopping on issues ( eg. blood transfusions).

That’s a different thing. That’s backpedalling on errors.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

mcq72:

steve-b:

AND

They (the apostles) are in this ONE Church they are writing to and for. Meaning this Church wrote the NT scriptures, collected only certain NT books, and canonized those books as scripture. Without which there would be no NT. This ONE Church had a name. The Catholic Church

Well this is “old arrows” also. A pope recently himself said so, that it is divisive to portray to the world that the bible is a Catholic book rather than God’s book, that He is the author, at best we (the Church) are the ''custodian".

1. Where’s tour reference for that, properly referenced of course
2. Your statement in extension denies then that the writers of the NT were NOT in the Church they were building, and writing to and for. Which would be absurd. Of course they were in the Church they were writing to and for.
3. The Catholic Church ALSO gave us the canon of scripture.

example:

Muratorian Canon A.D. ~170
Excerpt:

"it is yet shown-i.e., by this sevenfold writing-that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all. He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey. 4. The Epistle of Jude, indeed,37 and two belonging to the above-named John-or bearing the name of John-are reckoned among the Catholic epistles. And the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter, though some amongst us will not have this latter read in the Church.
From: Muratorian Canon (Roberts-Donaldson Translation)

Not even maybe, but actually. It is the Catholic Church from the first century.

I was referring that maybe, maybe not Ignatius was taught by apostles to call the church "catholic’’, capital C , proper name and not “adjective”.

Irenaeus made the argument well against the Gnostics. I already posted it.

Wannano:

Which Pope indicated recently that it is divisive for Catholics to claim that the Bible is a Catholic book rather than God’s book? Can you confirm that the word "divisive " was actually used? If so, that is very interesting.

I never said a pope said that. I’m asking you, where is the proof (properly referenced of course)

Actually, I never said that either…not my quote.