Non-fallible teachings: any examples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fladreamer said:
Could that law be reinstated in the future? Did God really inspire Paul to write that passage or does it solely express Paul’s views? Do you think that particular Church law is infused with wisdom or do you think it was wrong from the start? Do you think the ‘,thorrn in the flesh’’ could have had something to do with Paul’s apparently poor opinion of women? Is it possible that he could have scorned the object of his relentless sexual desires?
Click to expand...

  1. *]Could that law be reinstated in the future?
    *]Did God really inspire Paul to write that passage or does it solely express Paul’s views?
    *]Do you think that particular Church law is infused with wisdom or do you think it was wrong from the start?
    *]Do you think the ‘,thorrn in the flesh’’ could have had something to do with Paul’s apparently poor opinion of women?
    *]Is it possible that he could have scorned the object of his relentless sexual desires?

    1, 2, 3. St. Paul indicates that it was a personal rule that he followed. It seems unlikely. But we did have rules such as no women altar servers, however there are women altar servers now. It was not necessarily the rule of all the Apostles.
    4. I am not aware of any poor opinion of women on the part of St. Paul
    5. What is possible for man is possible for St. Paul. That does not address if it would be likely.
 
Vico said:
I don’t. You have not demonstrated any conflict.
Click to expand...
The conflict is that in one case you dismissively say “Jesus said this, who are we to make any other determination?”, and then on another point, you dismissively say “St. John Chrysostom determined that Jesus didn’t really mean what He said.”

If Jesus said things like “pluck out your eye” as a non-literal way of making a point, it is quite reasonable to conclude that when He says it would be better for Judas if he had never been born, he is doing the same thing that I do when my friend does something to irritate me and I say “I’m going to kill you.” I have no intention of killing my friend. And we can’t dismissively conclude that Jesus was speaking eternal damnation upon Judas, ESPECIALLY when the Church has proclaimed no such thing.

You can’t be an obtuse fundamentalist on one point, while accepting St. John Chrysostom’s non-literal interpretation on another. It damages credibility.
 
Vico said:
I don’t. You have not demonstrated any conflict.
Click to expand...
There are many Bible verses that strongly suggest Judas was condemned. Another is John 17:11-12. The one you quoted and the one I’ve just mentioned speak most strongly about his “future prospects”, whereas many other verses identify his sinfulness, rather than speak to the consequences for him.

I think it is very clear Judas’ behaviour could earn damnation, and bible verses make that point. Nevertheless, I would not presume to know with certainty whether his destiny was hell.
 
Rau said:
There are many Bible verses that strongly suggest Judas was condemned. Another is John 17:11-12. The one you quoted and the one I’ve just mentioned speak most strongly about his “future prospects”, whereas many other verses identify his sinfulness, rather than speak to the consequences for him.

I think it is very clear Judas’ behaviour could earn damnation, and bible verses make that point. Nevertheless, I would not presume to know with certainty whether his destiny was hell.
Click to expand...
Very insighful. Great contribution!👍 Too bad such unprecedented insight can’t be retroactively shared with the doctors of the Church…
 
1neophyte said:
The conflict is that in one case you dismissively say “Jesus said this, who are we to make any other determination?”, and then on another point, you dismissively say “St. John Chrysostom determined that Jesus didn’t really mean what He said.”

If Jesus said things like “pluck out your eye” as a non-literal way of making a point, it is quite reasonable to conclude that when He says it would be better for Judas if he had never been born, he is doing the same thing that I do when my friend does something to irritate me and I say “I’m going to kill you.” I have no intention of killing my friend. And we can’t dismissively conclude that Jesus was speaking eternal damnation upon Judas, ESPECIALLY when the Church has proclaimed no such thing.

You can’t be an obtuse fundamentalist on one point, while accepting St. John Chrysostom’s non-literal interpretation on another. It damages credibility.
Click to expand...
I value your ideas, so what is your take on Paul, his blatant sexism etc.? What does it mean to say the Scriptures are inerrant (or are they) and inspired by God, when many things attributed to Paul reek of pettiness and personal prejudice?

Second last question: can someone who is reasonably intelligent and who is honest and truthful, of good faith could say that reading the new Testament one comes away with a dim impression that killing in self defense was totally acceptable to Jesus?

Last question: is Islam God’s second greatest gift to humankind after the Catholic Church or not? lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-highly-questionable-to-say-islam-worships-christian-god-and Should the current pope not express his views on a number of issues that have nothing to do with faith and morals?
 
Rau said:
There are many Bible verses that strongly suggest Judas was condemned. Another is John 17:11-12. The one you quoted and the one I’ve just mentioned speak most strongly about his “future prospects”, whereas many other verses identify his sinfulness, rather than speak to the consequences for him.

I think it is very clear Judas’ behaviour could earn damnation, and bible verses make that point. Nevertheless, I would not presume to know with certainty whether his destiny was hell.
Click to expand...
If one is saved, then there is eternal joy. If one is damned, then there is eternal suffering. If one is not born there is neither. What other reason could there be that one would have been better not born, that is, better not created, except that it means eternal suffering rather than eternal joy.
 
Vico said:
If one is saved, then there is eternal joy. If one is damned, then there is eternal suffering. If one is not born there is neither. What other reason could there be that one would have been better not born, that is, better not created, except that it means eternal suffering rather than eternal joy.
Click to expand...
I agree with that reasoning - and its conclusion is certainly true at the time of sinning grievously. Jesus’ reference to “losing” one of the ones entrusted to him is also ominous. But I simply see no need or merit to conclude with certainty that we are being told about Judas’ actual and final fate. It actually does not matter.
 
Rau said:
I agree with that reasoning - and its conclusion is certainly true at the time of sinning grievously. Jesus’ reference to “losing” one of the ones entrusted to him is also ominous. But I simply see no need or merit to conclude with certainty that we are being told about Judas’ actual and final fate. It actually does not matter.
Click to expand...
It does matter, as seen in the words of Jesus, John 17:

6 I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of the world. Thine they were, and to me thou gavest them; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they have known, that all things which thou hast given me, are from thee: 8 Because the words which thou gavest me, I have given to them; and they have received them, and have known in very deed that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine: 10 And all my things are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. 11 And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:
  1. As the use of grace is related to the final effect of predestination so the abuse of it is related to the effect of reprobation. Now, in the case of Judas, the abuse of grace was the reason for his reprobation, since he was made reprobate because he died without grace. Moreover, the fact that he did not have grace when he died was not due to God’s unwillingness to give it but to his unwillingness to accept it—as both Anselm and Dionysius point out. Consequently, the good use of grace by Peter or anyone else is the reason why he is elected or predestined.
Questiones Disputatae de Veritate – Question Six: Predestination – ARTICLE II - In the second article we ask: Is foreknowledge of merits the cause of or reason for predestination?
dhspriory.org/thomas/english/QDdeVer.htm
 
Vico said:
It does matter, as seen in the words of Jesus, John 17:

6 I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of the world. Thine they were, and to me thou gavest them; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they have known, that all things which thou hast given me, are from thee: 8 Because the words which thou gavest me, I have given to them; and they have received them, and have known in very deed that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine: 10 And all my things are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. 11 And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:
  1. As the use of grace is related to the final effect of predestination so the abuse of it is related to the effect of reprobation. Now, in the case of Judas, the abuse of grace was the reason for his reprobation, since he was made reprobate because he died without grace. Moreover, the fact that he did not have grace when he died was not due to God’s unwillingness to give it but to his unwillingness to accept it—as both Anselm and Dionysius point out. Consequently, the good use of grace by Peter or anyone else is the reason why he is elected or predestined.
Questiones Disputatae de Veritate – Question Six: Predestination – ARTICLE II - In the second article we ask: Is foreknowledge of merits the cause of or reason for predestination?
dhspriory.org/thomas/english/QDdeVer.htm
Click to expand...
All strong evidence Vico (some of which I quoted to you earlier!) but did Scripture foretell Jesus would be betrayed, or that the one doing it was condemned to hell? If there is a statement addressing his despatch to the underworld, I’m happy to stand corrected, but in the absence of that, I consider it most likely that he was, but not certain. Undoubtedly, the evidence is weighted to condemnation - nothing in Scripture suggests he was saved, and much suggests he was condemned. But there is no more to be learned from concluding that he was condemned for his fake following of Jesus and his greedy act of betrayal, than there is from allowing that he may have repented and was saved. This is why the actual, final outcome does not matter to us.

catholic.com/quickquestions/did-judas-go-to-hell
ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=393943&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

And there is this, apparently from JP II:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2285804&postcount=10

The Church herself expresses no position on whether Judas is in hell (nor anyone else for that matter), despite the statements in Scripture. I am inclined to do the same.
 
Rau said:
All strong evidence Vico (some of which I quoted to you earlier!) but did Scripture foretell Jesus would be betrayed, or that the one doing it was condemned to hell? If there is a statement addressing his despatch to the underworld, I’m happy to stand corrected, but in the absence of that, I consider it most likely that he was, but not certain. Undoubtedly, the evidence is weighted to condemnation - nothing in Scripture suggests he was saved, and much suggests he was condemned. But there is no more to be learned from concluding that he was condemned for his fake following of Jesus and his greedy act of betrayal, than there is from allowing that he may have repented and was saved. This is why the actual, final outcome does not matter to us.

catholic.com/quickquestions/did-judas-go-to-hell
ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=393943&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

And there is this, apparently from JP II:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2285804&postcount=10

The Church herself expresses no position on whether Judas is in hell (nor anyone else for that matter), despite the statements in Scripture. I am inclined to do the same.
Click to expand...
The prophesy is in Psalm 69:

24 Pour out thy indignation upon them: and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.

25 Let their habitation be made desolate: and let there be none to dwell in their tabernacles.

26 Because they have persecuted him whom thou hast smitten; and they have added to the grief of my wounds.

27 Add thou iniquity upon their iniquity: and let them not come into thy justice.

28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living; and with the just let them not be written.
 
Vico said:
The prophesy is in Psalm 69:

24 Pour out thy indignation upon them: and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.

25 Let their habitation be made desolate: and let there be none to dwell in their tabernacles.

26 Because they have persecuted him whom thou hast smitten; and they have added to the grief of my wounds.

27 Add thou iniquity upon their iniquity: and let them not come into thy justice.

28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living; and with the just let them not be written.
Click to expand...
A bit beyond my skills of interpretation I think. I shall rest on my previous post.
 
Vico said:
The prophesy is in Psalm 69:

24 Pour out thy indignation upon them: and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.

25 Let their habitation be made desolate: and let there be none to dwell in their tabernacles.

26 Because they have persecuted him whom thou hast smitten; and they have added to the grief of my wounds.

27 Add thou iniquity upon their iniquity: and let them not come into thy justice.

28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living; and with the just let them not be written.
Click to expand...
And Psalm 137:9 is a prophecy about how abortion doctors are blessed, right? This is an excellent example of how dangerous it is when scripture gets into the wrong hands.
 
Rau said:
A bit beyond my skills of interpretation I think. I shall rest on my previous post.
Click to expand...
St. Peter refers to Psalm 69, in choose the replacement for Judas. Also to Psalm 109.

Acts of the Apostles, Matthias Replaces Judas

12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day’s journey. 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. 14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty: ) 16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: 17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
  • Psalm 69:25 Let their habitation be made desolate: and let there be none to dwell in their tabernacles.
  • Psalm 109:8 May his days be few: and his bishopric let another take.
 
1neophyte said:
And Psalm 137:9 is a prophecy about how abortion doctors are blessed, right? This is an excellent example of how dangerous it is when scripture gets into the wrong hands.
Click to expand...
Haydock Commentary Psalm 136:9

Ver. 9. Dash thy little ones, &c. In the spiritual sense, we dash the little ones of Babylon against the rock, when we mortify our passions, and stifle the first motions of them, by a speedy recourse to the rock, which is Christ. (Challoner) (St. Augustine) (St. Gregory) (Psalm l.) (Worthington)

— We do not read that Cyrus treated Babylon with this rigour; but such practices were then customary, (Osee xiv. 1.; Homer, Iliad xxii.) and Darius cruelly punished the revolted city. (Herodotus iii. 159.) (Calmet)

— God will reward those who execute his decrees (Haydock) against Babylon. (Worthington)

— The psalmist contrasts the felicity of the conqueror, with the misery of the citizens, without approving of his conduct. (Berthier)
 
fladreamer said:
What does it mean to say the Scriptures are inerrant (or are they) and inspired by God, when many things attributed to Paul reek of sexism, pettiness and personal prejudice?

Second last question: can someone who is reasonably intelligent and who is honest and truthful, of good faith could say that reading the new Testament one comes away with a dim impression that killing in self defense was totally acceptable to Jesus? I know about the gradual nature of Revelation, but I just don’t see how any seeds Christ may have grown exponetially to become the killing-in-self-defense-is-totally-acceptable sequoia. That’s like a highschool wallflower who returns to a 10 year reunion an arrogant, in-your-face, aggressive billionaire.

Last question: is Islam God’s second greatest gift to humankind after the Catholic Church or not? lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-highly-questionable-to-say-islam-worships-christian-god-and Should the current pope not express his views on a number of issues that have nothing to do with faith and morals? Should he not just drive his ship to a safe harbour instead of commenting on the torpedo that’s headed in the ship’s direction, saying, ‘‘Nah, don’t worry about that, that’s a friendly torpedo’’
Click to expand...
 
Vico said:
Haydock Commentary Psalm 136:9

Ver. 9. Dash thy little ones, &c. In the spiritual sense, we dash the little ones of Babylon against the rock, when we mortify our passions, and stifle the first motions of them, by a speedy recourse to the rock, which is Christ. (Challoner) (St. Augustine) (St. Gregory) (Psalm l.) (Worthington)

— We do not read that Cyrus treated Babylon with this rigour; but such practices were then customary, (Osee xiv. 1.; Homer, Iliad xxii.) and Darius cruelly punished the revolted city. (Herodotus iii. 159.) (Calmet)

— God will reward those who execute his decrees (Haydock) against Babylon. (Worthington)

— The psalmist contrasts the felicity of the conqueror, with the misery of the citizens, without approving of his conduct. (Berthier)
Click to expand...
You did it yet again. Dashing babies’ heads against the rock gets turned into mortifying one’s passions, while Psalm 69 is a prophecy about God sending people straight to hell. Why is Psalm 69 not read the same way as 136? Why is it not our passions and sins that are blotted out of the book of the living? Why wouldn’t Psalm 69 be a prophecy about the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

You’re making an excellent case for anyone who says that Catholic interpretation of scripture is arbitrary subjective silliness. (Even in the numbering. 136 in Douay Rheims, 137 in NIV). Confusion galore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top