List of ex cathedra statements

[Scott_Waddell]

It’sjustdave1988 posted a great response to the Protestant bait, “Where is your infallible list of infallible pronouncements?”:

The problem is they view our Church as if it was like theirs. It isn’t.

Protestant scholars have referred to Scripture as a “fallible list of infallible books.” It’s quite absurd, but that’s how some Protestants see it. They often charge that we are not much different, asserting the view that Catholicism rests upon a “fallible list of infallible dogmas.” What they do not understand is, unlike their situation where they don’t have anyone to ask that can answer authoritatively to remove all doubt, we do. We have a living magisterium. We have the benefit of two-way communication. If theologians wonder whether a teaching is infallible, they just send a dubium to the Roman Pontiff. The Pope then sends a Resondsum ad dubium removing any doubt. Here’s an example regarding the ordination of women: cin.org/users/james/files/w-ordination.htm

We do not define what the Bible says, or what the Church teaches based upon the opinions of the Taught Church. We have a living Teaching Church. We don’t need to rely solely upon our clever exegesis of ancient Scriptural and magisterial texts to determine what the Teaching Church is teaching. We can simply ask.

So, whether a dogma is infallibly defined, or merely a certain doctrine (yet less-than-absolute certain), we owe our religious assent. Whether a dogma is understood as infallible or not is irrelevent, except for dogmatic theologians (and Protestants, appearantly). Faithful Catholics are to submit to their superiors whether they speak infallibly or not. Nonetheless, if we want to know if a doctrine is infallible, just ask the Pope.

Hebrews 13:17 "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

 

[EA_Man]

Fidelis:

Just what I said and for the reason I explained in my post.

This “list of infallible teachings” is a typical and tired anti-Catholic line of questioning, so you’re not fooling anyone here. This is borne out by your posts on other threads. Suffice to say no answer anyone will give here will be considered in good faith by those who are pursuing this kind of agenda. Farewell.

How have I tried to fool anyone?

I was simply asking some questions.

The way to eliminate “tired” questioning is to provide an answer.

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect

Peace

 

[EA_Man]

Scott Waddell:

We do not define what the Bible says, or what the Church teaches based upon the opinions of the Taught Church. We have a living Teaching Church. We don’t need to rely solely upon our clever exegesis of ancient Scriptural and magisterial texts to determine what the Teaching Church is teaching. We can simply ask.

The question I guess I have about this is: How is an infallible interpretation any better than the infallible revelation? Divine revelation is a disclosure or unveiling by God. But to claim, as Catholics do, that God’s infallible unveiling in the Bible needs further infallible unveiling by God is to say that it was not correctly revealed to begin with.

Scripture itself claims that scripture is sufficient for instruction.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

According to Paul the problem with revelation is not with perception, but with reception;

Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20

Paul is saying that even the heathen can understand enough about God to turn to Him.

Why do we need another mind to interpret Scripture correctly for us when the mind God gave us is sufficient to interpret everything else, including some things much more difficult than Scripture?

Peace

 

[thessalonian]

EA_Man:

I wasn’t speaking about ‘picking and choosing’.

If we must submit to all church teaching, then of what distinction is an infallible teaching or an ex cathedra statement since I’m required to believe all church teaching regardless of infallibility?

In other words if I’m required to believe every teaching, why even bother with the distinctions?

The world attempts to confuse what the teaching is. At times the Church feels that a doctrine is attacked such that it is difficult for the faithful to tell what is and has always been the true teaching of the Church. Among men of good will it has become difficult to know the teaching becuase wolves from within have attempted to savage the flock. Infallible declarations come about not to define knew doctrine but to clarify what has always been taught. Therefore the Church clarifies and emphatically states the teaching.

Blessings

 

[DeFide]

EA_Man:

The question I guess I have about this is: How is an infallible interpretation any better than the infallible revelation? Divine revelation is a disclosure or unveiling by God. But to claim, as Catholics do, that God’s infallible unveiling in the Bible needs further infallible unveiling by God is to say that it was not correctly revealed to begin with.

Scripture itself claims that scripture is sufficient for instruction.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

According to Paul the problem with revelation is not with perception, but with reception;

Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20

Paul is saying that even the heathen can understand enough about God to turn to Him.

Why do we need another mind to interpret Scripture correctly for us when the mind God gave us is sufficient to interpret everything else, including some things much more difficult than Scripture?

Peace

Nowhere in 2 Tim 3:16 does the word “sufficient” appear. It says “useful”. It’s good but certainly not the only thing.

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html

Rom 1:19 Says nothing about Sola Scriptura either. Strike two.

Jesus tells us the Church is the final authority, not Scripture:
In Matthew 18:15-18 we see Christ instructing His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. It is extremely telling in this instance that Our Lord identifies the Church rather than Scripture as the final authority to be appealed to. He Himself says that if an offending brother “will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” (Matt. 18:17) – that is, as an outsider who is lost. Moreover, Our Lord then solemnly re-emphasizes the Church’s infallible teaching authority in verse 18 by repeating His earlier statement about the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18-19), directing it this time to the Apostles as a group (7) rather than just to Peter: “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matt. 18:18).

 

[YinYangMom]

EA_Man:

The question I guess I have about this is: How is an infallible interpretation any better than the infallible revelation? Divine revelation is a disclosure or unveiling by God. But to claim, as Catholics do, that God’s infallible unveiling in the Bible needs further infallible unveiling by God is to say that it was not correctly revealed to begin with.

Scripture itself claims that scripture is sufficient for instruction.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

According to Paul the problem with revelation is not with perception, but with reception;

Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20

Paul is saying that even the heathen can understand enough about God to turn to Him.

Why do we need another mind to interpret Scripture correctly for us when the mind God gave us is sufficient to interpret everything else, including some things much more difficult than Scripture?

Peace

A couple of things come to mind here…

1. just looking at the 4 gospels the same story is told 4 different ways. Genesis has two versions of the same story. In Acts Paul himself describes his conversion in about 3 different ways.
2. Jesus taught directly sometimes, but at other times he taught with parables.
3. In the gospels and Acts the writers show how Jesus fulfills the old testament covenent, but they do so in different ways, depending on who the audience was.

Those are just a few examples of how confusing the revelation of God’s word can be to the ‘average’ reader. Even the Protestants rely on preachers to explain scripture to them…those preachers are, in essence, interpreting the Word for his/her congregation.

For me, as a Catholic, I find comfort knowing the interpretation I’m getting - laying out scriptural quotes, providing the geographical context of certain passages, the history of the culture by which to understand what was being taught - comes from the successor of Peter upon whom Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to ensure the Word is spread effectively and accurately.

I know, without a doubt, that the Holy Spirit works through the Pope and all the ordained because Jesus said so. I do not know by what authority preachers get their interpretations of the Word.

Because the Truth of the Church is laid out for all to see it is possible to recognize an errant priest’s interpretation…we have a sold backdrop to help us stay on the correct path. This is another assurance I find quite useful. What backdrop is there to measure various preachers’ interpretations?

Bottom line, Jesus (God) does not do things for no reason. The fact that He named Peter the head of the Church and the fact that he sent the Holy Spirit to descend upon a select group of followers on Pentecost tells me He was safeguarding the Word by sending specific people to spread the Word. I think of all the people listening to the Sermon on the Mount…they weren’t authorized to reveal the Word to man…they were charged to give Witness to what they saw and heard, but not to teach. The role of Teacher was passed on to a select group of Christ’s followers by Christ Himself.

 

[EA_Man]

YinYangMom:

A couple of things come to mind here…

1. just looking at the 4 gospels the same story is told 4 different ways. Genesis has two versions of the same story. In Acts Paul himself describes his conversion in about 3 different ways.
2. Jesus taught directly sometimes, but at other times he taught with parables.
3. In the gospels and Acts the writers show how Jesus fulfills the old testament covenent, but they do so in different ways, depending on who the audience was.

Those are just a few examples of how confusing the revelation of God’s word can be to the ‘average’ reader. Even the Protestants rely on preachers to explain scripture to them…those preachers are, in essence, interpreting the Word for his/her congregation.

For me, as a Catholic, I find comfort knowing the interpretation I’m getting - laying out scriptural quotes, providing the geographical context of certain passages, the history of the culture by which to understand what was being taught - comes from the successor of Peter upon whom Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to ensure the Word is spread effectively and accurately.

I know, without a doubt, that the Holy Spirit works through the Pope and all the ordained because Jesus said so. I do not know by what authority preachers get their interpretations of the Word.

Because the Truth of the Church is laid out for all to see it is possible to recognize an errant priest’s interpretation…we have a sold backdrop to help us stay on the correct path. This is another assurance I find quite useful. What backdrop is there to measure various preachers’ interpretations?

Bottom line, Jesus (God) does not do things for no reason. The fact that He named Peter the head of the Church and the fact that he sent the Holy Spirit to descend upon a select group of followers on Pentecost tells me He was safeguarding the Word by sending specific people to spread the Word. I think of all the people listening to the Sermon on the Mount…they weren’t authorized to reveal the Word to man…they were charged to give Witness to what they saw and heard, but not to teach. The role of Teacher was passed on to a select group of Christ’s followers by Christ Himself.

Didn’t Jesus Send His Holy Spirit to you as well?
Does He send a different Holy Spirit to you then He does to the Magesterium?

Peter says in Acts 2:37-39
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Paul says of gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:7-11
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

I will plainly admit that not all of are given the gift of teaching, BUT is it your position that ALL that have been given the gift of teaching are in the Magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church ALONE? If the answer to that is “yes”, then that position dictates that no one is alive today that has the gift of teaching who IS NOT in the Magesterium. Otherwise they would have a gift of the Spirit that they are not using for Christs’ Church. Also, by this logic the Magesterium has received the gift of administration but no one else has either.

Furthermore, it is one thing to acknowledge that you don’t have the gift of teaching others, but how does that limit your ability or responsibility, having the Holy Spirit, of being able to comprehend God’s Word?

That seems reminiscent of Paul’s admonition to Timothy of “believers” in the Last Days; they will be “having a form of godliness but denying its power.”

 

[Anne_Carmel]

off topic