Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??

[Memaw]

Hey HID, glad you know there’s something we agree on.

Sorry boys but I haven’t and never will loose the ‘argument.’ Or I should say the Church will never loose the argument. It hasn’t lost it in 2,000 years, so don’t count on it now. God Bless, Memaw.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s built on the strong foundation of the divine truth of who Christ is. All who will make up that church He was about to build will have made that same confession of belief.

It’s not that difficult, PR.

Ah, I see now. Thanks for the explanation. I had always wondered about that!

 

[Peter_J]

Peterj: Interesting read, the C.S. Lewis story. Not sure how it applies to meI know that prmerger brought up the subject, rather unprovoked, I might add I think it would be safe to say, that except for “cradle catholics”,(I still think that is s-o-o-o-o cute), and others born into a religion, everybody at one time or another could be “guilty” of church shopping, or church hopping or whatever label you want to put on it. That would explain the word “convert” next to catholic on their profile. While I attend the same church, all the time, I have been invited by other churches to cime to their service, as either a guest singer, or speaker.Never been invited to a catholic mass; well actually I was, but when my friend and co-worker, George, told me some of the rules(I couldn’t partake of communion, wear a suit, etc) I decided against it; to save him the embarrassment! Blessed is the man who puts his trust in Him:thumbsup:

Ah … I guess we’re just using the phrase “church shopping” in two different ways. You can rest assured that I didn’t and wouldn’t say “No one should ever convert from one church to another, or transfer from one parish to another.”

(Incidentally I cut-and-paste that C.S. Lewis quote from Philgrim’s Blogress. A few interesting comments there.)

 

[Worthy5]

Destruction is very quick when compared to eternity. And to God a thousand years is like one day.It’s built on the strong foundation of the divine truth of who Christ is. All who will make up that church He was about to build will have made that same confession of belief.

It’s not that difficult, PR.

Wow MD, " And to God a thousand years is like one day." You know God’s experience! Are you making that an infallible statement. Just curious.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Still science. Still not the primary role of The Church. And certainly not part of faith and morals, with any bearing on our salvation. Hence, subject to be modified over time as wisdom in these areas expands.

you guys can say this to yourselves a thousand times – still doesn’t change the facts. The church interpreted scripture incorrectly, when interpreting scripture is one of the things it claims to do infallibly.

When it’s proven wrong it then goes back and says something like: concerning that particular subject matter we’re not infallible … but in all other areas we remain infallible. Well, if you believe that line I gotta bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

No, this would not be a precise characterization, although it approximates the idea. Infallibility resides in the formal declaration (teaching) of faith and morals from the papal office (the pope in concert with the college of bishops[magisterium]). Infallibility is scriptural…

“He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

…and implicit in the early Church. Here’s a link to a useful article.

the church interpreted scripture incorrectly before (by its own admission), so why should I believe it here?

Here’s this organization who claims to be infallible – yet has previously flawed in the very area she claims infallibility in. Each time this happens the organization goes back and redefines infallibility? These are the objective facts. You can spin it all you want, you can go check out the Vatican web site (or this forum probably has some pretty elaborate stuff) to get the official spin language, but to me none of it amounts to a hill of beans (the truth is obvious enough in this case).

Now, interpretation of scripture is indeed the role of the Holy Spirit, as He is unified to The Church. So in one sense, we are all free to prayerfully read and, with the guidance of the Spirit, interpret scripture…but we must do so in light of the living Tradition. In other words, by “interpret”, Catholics understand that we are free to seek guidance, meaning and explanations within the sacred text - to deepen our faith and provide ourselves with a body of everyday guidance in our daily Christian walk. We remain, however, faithfully within the framework and protection of the sacred deposit of faith, given to The Church…and therefore we do not seek within Scripture to define doctrine regarding faith and morals…because this has already been done…accomplished during the apostolic age, passed down through the Tradition of the Church which Christ instituted. Within that doctrinal context, The Church retains the authority to authentically interpret the Word of God, whether written or otherwise handed down.

Here’s a link to the Church’s explanation of it.

isn’t this the same mantra I always hear? I guess you guys have this prepared script tucked away somewhere for dissenters or protestants (since it’s obvious you’re not willing to truly critique your own church). Anyways …

 

[josie_L]

you guys can say this to yourselves a thousand times – still doesn’t change the facts. The church interpreted scripture incorrectly, when interpreting scripture is one of the things it claims to do infallibly.

No, the Church interpreted science incorrectly through scripture. In other words, she was using the Bible as a science book, that was in essence the error she made. And she has learnt the errors of her ways.

 

[Worthy5]

you guys can say this to yourselves a thousand times – still doesn’t change the facts. The church interpreted scripture incorrectly, when interpreting scripture is one of the things it claims to do infallibly.

When it’s proven wrong it then goes back and says something like: concerning that particular subject matter we’re not infallible … but in all other areas we remain infallible. Well, if you believe that line I gotta bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

the church interpreted scripture incorrectly before (by its own admission), so why should I believe it here?

Here’s this organization who claims to be infallible – yet has previously flawed in the very area she claims infallibility in. Each time this happens the organization goes back and redefines infallibility? These are the objective facts. You can spin it all you want, you can go check out the Vatican web site (or this forum probably has some pretty elaborate stuff) to get the official spin language, but to me none of it amounts to a hill of beans (the truth is obvious enough in this case).

isn’t this the same mantra I always hear? I guess you guys have this prepared script tucked away somewhere for dissenters or protestants (since it’s obvious you’re not willing to truly critique your own church). Anyways …

Well Humble in doubt, you did not to respond to my last post to you. Aside from that and the Galileo case, which I am not certain you have demonstrated anything, let us take another case. Being a lawyer let me ask you this: if the Supreme Court overrules Roe v Wade saying it was the wrong decision. Would you no longer accept the Surpeme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution? Just curious. Thanks

 

[Peter_J]

the church interpreted scripture incorrectly before (by its own admission)

HID,

Since you claim “… by it own admission”, that should mean that you can produce a statement from the Catholic Church that says “The Church interpreted scripture incorrectly”, right? I’d like to see that!

 

[SteveGC]

you guys can say this to yourselves a thousand times – still doesn’t change the facts. The church interpreted scripture incorrectly, when interpreting scripture is one of the things it claims to do infallibly.

Why do you insist on demonstrating ignorance with the doctrine of infallibility? Please provide a source, or some other evidence, which reveals that The Church specifically declares infallibility when she interprets anything other than faith and morals from scripture. Infallibility is for the declaration and promulgation of faith and morals (requirements for salvation, guidance on righteous vs sinful behavior) when it originates from the union of the office of the papacy and the college of bishops. This specific, limited scope (faith and morals) can come from an authentic interpretation of Scripture and/or a study and synopsis of Tradition. If we’re talking science, economy, mathematics, sociology, etc…She is most often correct, strives to deliver complete accuracy, and will always adjust as wisdom permits to make corrections…but She is not protected from error on those issues. With faith and morals, however, She has always been, is now, and will always be…spot on.

 

[Zundrah]

In response to the actual threads name, I don’t believe that protestants will ever rejoin the catholic church fully. It just will not, ever, ever happen.

 

[Memaw]

In response to the actual threads name, I don’t believe that protestants will ever rejoin the catholic church fully. It just will not, ever, ever happen.

Don’t ever underestimate the POWER of God. Christ prayed for Unity. When they find themselves reduced to very little, they will want to find the fullness of truth. Protestantism as a whole is becoming weaker and weaker all the time. It is fizzling out. They have divided and divided, disagree on what the Scripture means, many allow so many sinful things including Birth Control, divorce, abortion, Homosexual marriage. Just in my lifetime, I have seen it weaken soooo much. Only God can bring us together. But I believe it will take a sincere love for the TRUTH on our part. God Bless, memaw

 

[SHW]

it wasn’t just science though … the church taught that scripture revealed a geocentric universe (obviously a huge difference)

I do not know what the Church taught about this. Sorry!

The Church is infallible in her interpretations of Scripture regarding faith and morals.

 

[SHW]

Isn’t that what I just said!!! NO one is impeccable except Jesus Christ!. And the Pope is infallible in his teachings in more ways than “ex cathedra”. Ex Cathedra is when the Pope is defining Dogma. but the Church is infallible in other was too. Such as the Teaching Magisterium, the Councils, Canonizations, and when the Pope is speaking on Faith and Morals. God Bless, Memaw

This is what you said:

Correction, Infallibility does not mean one cannot error. All men are capable of sinning. In the Catholic Church, Infallible means the Church in Doctrines, her teachings, cannot error. She is protected by the Holy Spirit till the end of time from teaching error no matter who the Pope or Bishops are.

This is what I said:

When the pope speaks ex cathedra, he is infallible in his teachings on faith and morals. He can not err in his teachings about faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra.

Impeccability means that a person cannot sin. Popes and all church members can and do sin so they are not impeccable.
**
Scripture is inerrant**. It is without error in its teachings about faith and morals.

When the pope and magisterium speak as one (as Jesus’ Catholic Church) on subjects regarding faith and morals, then they are infallible in these teachings about faith and morals. The Church is therefore infallible in its teachings on faith and morals.

There is a difference between our word definitions. You said that infallibility does not mean one cannot err. I say that infallibility does means that the Pope cannot err. These are opposites and mine is correct. I know that you know the correct definition, but you wrote it down incorrectly and I was correcting your goof-up so others would not be confused.

I agree with you that the the Pope’s infallibility is not limited to ex cathedra statements.

 

[SHW]

In response to the actual threads name, I don’t believe that protestants will ever rejoin the catholic church fully. It just will not, ever, ever happen.

I disagree. Jesus prayed that they would “all be one.” His prayer will be answered before He returns at His Second Coming because this is God’s will.

 

[Worthy5]

In response to the actual threads name, I don’t believe that protestants will ever rejoin the catholic church fully. It just will not, ever, ever happen.

 

[SHW]

Time will tell!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I do not know what the Church taught about this. Sorry!

The Church is infallible in her interpretations of Scripture regarding faith and morals.

what does that mean? My understanding is the CC claims infallibility in scriptural interpretation; however, infallibility itself has been redefined. For instance I believe Vatican II redefined the idea. So if the CC get’s to look back in time, discern what it’s gotten wrong over the years, and then turn around and say we’re not infallible in those particular areas … doesn’t it make the idea of infallibility sort of absurd? I mean seriously they stood willing to imprison Galileo for the mere expression of ideas. They did so under the premise that they were the church & thus infallible. Then they discovered they were wrong & reinvented the meaning of infallible. Pretty convenient don’t you think?

Some Catholics will say Galileo wasn’t punished for his dissenting scientific opinion, but rather for his theological views (which were attached to those scientific theories). For instance:

Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include (depending on translation) text stating that “the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.” In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, “the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that “And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place” (see link here).

The church interpreted these passages literally; and believed they taught the earth was both the center of the universe and does not move (of course we know the earth rotates on its own axis, rotates around the sun, and its not the center of anything besides the moon’s orbit – sort of). Believe it or not the first advocate of a geocentric universe was Aristotle (obviously another point he got wrong … but I certainly don’t blame ancient philosophers like Aristotle for being occasionally wrong – but I do say these sort of events harm the churches credibility on the issue of infallibility).

Galileo simply said the churches interpretation of those passages cannot be right. So sure some people could spin this affair by saying he was punished for calling the church wrong (in a theological matter) … but isn’t that really an exercise in semantics?

 

[jam070406]

what does that mean? My understanding is the CC claims infallibility in scriptural interpretation; however, infallibility itself has been redefined. For instance I believe Vatican II redefined the idea. So if the CC get’s to look back in time, discern what it’s gotten wrong over the years, and then turn around and say we’re not infallible in those particular areas … doesn’t it make the idea of infallibility sort of absurd? I mean seriously they stood willing to imprison Galileo for the mere expression of ideas. They did so under the premise that they were the church & thus infallible. Then they discovered they were wrong & reinvented the meaning of infallible. Pretty convenient don’t you think?

Some Catholics will say Galileo wasn’t punished for his dissenting scientific opinion, but rather for his theological views (which were attached to those scientific theories). For instance:

Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include (depending on translation) text stating that “the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.” In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, “the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that “And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place” (see link here).

The church interpreted these passages literally; and believed they taught the earth was both the center of the universe and does not move (of course we know the earth rotates on its own axis, rotates around the sun, and its not the center of anything besides the moon’s orbit – sort of). Believe it or not the first advocate of a geocentric universe was Aristotle (obviously another point he got wrong … but I certainly don’t blame ancient philosophers like Aristotle for being occasionally wrong – but I do say these sort of events harm the churches credibility on the issue of infallibility).

Galileo simply said the churches interpretation of those passages cannot be right. So sure some people could spin this affair by saying he was punished for calling the church wrong (in a theological matter) … but isn’t that really an exercise in semantics?

There was a thread about this not too long ago, here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=345124

 

[Peter_J]

So if the CC get’s to look back in time, discern what it’s gotten wrong over the years, and then turn around and say we’re not infallible in those particular areas … doesn’t it make the idea of infallibility sort of absurd?

HID,

Can you give any example(s) of something that was considered infallible, then later was considered false?

 

[SteveGC]

what does that mean? My understanding is the CC claims infallibility in scriptural interpretation; however, infallibility itself has been redefined. For instance I believe Vatican II redefined the idea. So if the CC get’s to look back in time, discern what it’s gotten wrong over the years, and then turn around and say we’re not infallible in those particular areas … doesn’t it make the idea of infallibility sort of absurd? I mean seriously they stood willing to imprison Galileo for the mere expression of ideas. They did so under the premise that they were the church & thus infallible. Then they discovered they were wrong & reinvented the meaning of infallible. Pretty convenient don’t you think?

Actually, what’s pretty convenient (for you) is the absence of documented evidence of where The Church dealt with Galileo’s science issue under the premise of “infallibility”. Where is infallibility linked directly to this issue? I will yield to you, and research the issue in depth myself, if you will just provide a specific source within which it is revealed that The Church armed itself formally and officially with the charism of infallibility in this issue revolving around Galileo (pun intended)…or any issue outside of FAITH and MORALS. It might also help you to understand that infallibility is linked to dogmatic principles. IOW, official teachings of the Church. Another reason why Galileo’s issue would not be included.