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

[Rhiloraye]

Personally,
most of you may be angry with this post and I apologize if you are but I see a lot of heated statements here and heated feelings here that aren’t really necessary…bottom line is that we all really need to realize there are differences between Protestant and Catholic faiths hands down but there truly is no need for dissemination or bickering or putting one another down we all need to pull together…if Protestants are not interested in the Catholic faith then they not need be on this forum bottom line rather than belittle and we need not belittle in return…we are both from different walks of life and if we both want to mesh into one then we both need to learn to work together and understand the differences without passing judgment upon each other is the BOTTOM LINE…as a catholic I am sick and tired of hearing the ****…

 

[mmmcounts]

Could you please attend an RCIA class (finish it) before attempting to argue Catholic versus Protestant theology.

How 'bout this: Stop complaining. I have two reasons for saying this: Everyone else is going through the same thing you are, and if you really want to participate in this kind of discussion, some of this is going to come with the territory.

Here’s a suggestion: As you go about your business on the forum, figure out what things come up that need the most clarification. Find appropriate links and put them in your signature. Change, refine, and add to it so it stays brief but still gets better.

If you want to go really hardcore, you could create a blog or start an RSS feed that gets your stuff out there. Then you can link to that.

And while you’re considering these possibilities, please do make sure you take a 10 second cursory scan of my links before you get into it with me. It doesn’t take long. I’m trying to make it as quick and easy as possible.

 

[PRmerger]

Personally,
most of you may be angry with this post and I apologize if you are but I see a lot of heated statements here and heated feelings here that aren’t really necessary…bottom line is that we all really need to realize there are differences between Protestant and Catholic faiths hands down but there truly is no need for dissemination or bickering or putting one another down we all need to pull together…if Protestants are not interested in the Catholic faith then they not need be on this forum bottom line rather than belittle and we need not belittle in return…we are both from different walks of life and if we both want to mesh into one then we both need to learn to work together and understand the differences without passing judgment upon each other is the BOTTOM LINE…as a catholic I am sick and tired of hearing the ****…

Here’s the BOTTOM LINE, Rhiloraye: we are all in this together, trying to walk the walk of Truth. There’s one Church that has the fullness of Truth, and that’s the one that Christ founded. He gave us the map. We need to follow it to find Him. All others are copies with errors somewhere in the directions!

 

[Memaw]

Sorry, but I did not “get” how you were explaining it in the first post. We each have a different “way” to explain these topics and here is mine:

The Church is always infallible (without error) in its teachings regarding faith and morals.

According to the dictionary:

Infallibility means cannot err or without error.

The Pope, however, is only infallible in matters regarding faith and morals. He is not infallible in regard to anything else. And specific conditions must be met before his teachings on faith and morals are determined to be infallible.

Definition: Infallible: incapable of error; never wrong

Definition: Impeccable: incapable of wrongdoing

Definition: Inerrant: not erring; making no mistakes; infallible

The Pope is infallible when he teaches on matters concerning faith and morals when it is his intent to teach infallibly and the conditions for infallibility are met. He is not infallible in his personal opinions about anything.

The Pope is not impeccable. He can and does sin personal sins. Jesus and Mary are the only two persons with human natures who have never sinned either with original sin or with personal sins. All other persons have original sin on their souls and they are also all capable of sinning personal sins using their free wills.

The Bible is inerrant (not erring) regarding faith and morals. Details regarding Biblical Geography and Science, etc. are not necessarily inerrant./QUOT

SHW,

I never said the Pope was impeccable !! Even Mary is not impeccable. She was capable of sinning but she did not sin. She had the same free will we have. The Impeccability of Christ, the absolute impossibility of Christ ever committing any sin. Jesus Christ being GOD was incapable of ever sinning. Impeccability applies only to Jesus.

Infallibility, i.e. kept free from error by the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
Faith is what we believe and Morals is how we live that belief. That covers a lot of territory. Papal Infallibility in the ‘ordinary’ magisterium is simply the teaching authority of the Church as exercised in ordinary day to day circumstances. The ‘extraordinary’ magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church as exercised in special circumstances calling either for resolution of a disputed clarification of traditional doctrine, such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, (Ex Cathedra), That which occurs by means of the decrees of a Council or an explicit papal definition. Read “Straws in the Wind” and “Canonical Basics” Many try to reduce infallibility to rear circumstances.

Also,
We must obey the Pope even when he isn’t speaking infallibly when he is speaking to the whole Church. God Bless, Memaw

 

[humble_in_doubt]

What??

Still no contradictory document from the Magisterial document I provided?

Does the average defendant ever voluntarily hand over evidence that convicts himself … obviously not. If this constitutes vindication in your mind … I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale – interested?

 

[SteveGC]

I love the semantics. The CC claims it’s right regarding scripture and protestants are wrong (at least in the many areas there are disagreement, like baptism for instance, which arguably isn’t an issue pertaining to faith and morals). If you want to say baptism does pertain to faith, then why isn’t everything the CC alleges pertaining to its understanding of scripture a matter of faith? Isn’t scripture generally a matter of faith?

Baptism IS an issue relevant to faith, because “faith” includes all things necessary for my right relationship with God, and hence, my salvation. Knowing if the sun is the center of my universe is irrelevant to any of that - nor is it relevant to my right behavior. That’s the distinguishing element you’re missing here.

The definition changes every time the CC is proven wrong; and herein lies my problem with the churches credibility on this issue. Indeed it wasn’t until Vatican I (in the 19th century) that it dogmatically defined the doctrine; and it wasn’t until recently (Pope John Paul II) that the church sort of admitted error with regard to the Galileo affair.

What was an earlier definition of infallibility that is now redefined?

 

[guanophore]

come now, you don’t really think that one bad church is going to make me assume that all Catholics are mean now do you?
I will never judge a church by one persons actions! If our Lord did that then surely we would all be dammed!

Indeed, this is exactly the pattern your posts demonstrate. You have written off men, marriage, children, family life, and some other things on the sole basis of your unpleasant person experineces.

Thank you for your help but don’t worry, I am not put off by a little trouble!

I am glad you are not put off, and I don’t think what happened to you was “little trouble” but you do have some very serious prejudices.

 

[Memaw]

Does the average defendant ever voluntarily hand over evidence that convicts himself … obviously not. If this constitutes vindication in your mind … I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale – interested?

OH! I see you already bought that bridge HUH??? Well, you can always step off of it and come climb our, (the Catholic Church’s ) Ladder to Heaven. It is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. Read some of Scott Hahn’s books.And Patrick Madrid’s 3 vol. set titled “Surprised by Truth”. You can get them thru Catholic Answers. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Worthy5]

Does the average defendant ever voluntarily hand over evidence that convicts himself … obviously not. If this constitutes vindication in your mind … I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale – interested?

Well as prosecutor HID why do you not prove your case?

 

[Peter_J]

Does the average defendant ever voluntarily hand over evidence that convicts himself … obviously not.

No, but you did say “the church interpreted scripture incorrectly before (by its own admission)” (emphasis added).

 

[PRmerger]

Does the average defendant ever voluntarily hand over evidence that convicts himself … obviously not. If this constitutes vindication in your mind … I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale – interested?

Umm…humble? I’m asking you to provide evidence that acquits you. Right now you look very guilty, very guilty indeed! Not to mention confused.

 

[guanophore]

Error/err - same thing.

No. The Scriptures are a completely different phenomenon. They’re theopneustos: God-breathed.

I agree with you, and authority does exist in the breath of God. A better way of expressing it would be that they are authoritative. However, Scriptures are not what takes the actions that produce the plethora of Protestant denominations. People do that. Oh, they all base it on the “authority” if scripture, but what it comes down to is their own perception of what scripture means. They have made themselves their own authority, or have attached themselves to the authority usurped by another person.

Or are you suggesting that a Papal encyclical is theopneustos, hence, Scripture? If so, I would call that position heretical.

If it contains an infallible truth, then perhaps this could be said. If it were comprised an ex-cathedra statement.

Can you show me where it’s recorded that Jesus said HIS church is infallible? The church is made up of many members, so every member would of necessity be infallible.

Are you at all aware of the doctrine controversies throughout church history?Ah-huh.

Can you show me where it’s recorded that Jesus said HIS church is infallible?

I am behind in the thread, so someone else probably already did this. Not only that, I am pretty fairly certian that you already know why Catholics believe this.

The promise that Jesus made to his newborn Church was that He would send His Spirit, who would lead them into “all truth”.(Jn. 16:13)

He also promised that the “gates of hell shall not prevail” (Matt. 16:18). I think that we would both agree that teaching errors results in passing through the gates of hell.

The church is made up of many members, so every member would of necessity be infallible.

To the extent that they are in union with the Apostles, and what they taught, each member can benefit from the gift of infallibility. When people or groups depart from unity with the Apostles then they lose the benefit of the gift.

Are you at all aware of the doctrine controversies throughout church history?Ah-huh.

Indeed! Fine testimony that Jesus has, indeed, kept His promise of infallibility to the Church. It is that gift of infallibility that you have your bible today, with which you try to debunk the divine source from which it comes.

 

[guanophore]

What I was saying is this: First and Second Peter are infallible documents (and quite a lot of Christians agree with me). Do you take issue with that?

I would take issue. I would say that fallibility requires elements not contained by the Holy Scripture. Scripture does not discern and make choices. Scripture cannot take responsibility for it’s actions/decisions and their consequences. These are qualities of persons, not writings.

The scriptures are inerrant and inspired. They were designed to be used by the Church, whose infallible guidance is made possible by Christ. When they are separated from the Church by which and for which they were produced.

 

[Peter_J]

I would take issue.

Issue-taking noted. (Or should it be “Issue-takage noted”?)

 

[moondweller]

I would take issue. I would say that fallibility requires elements not contained by the Holy Scripture. Scripture does not discern and make choices. Scripture cannot take responsibility for it’s actions/decisions and their consequences. These are qualities of persons, not writings.

Hence, whatever your Magisterium says and writes cannot be considered “infallible” either since what the say and write don’t make choices.

Based on your definition only the persons themselves who make up your “Magisterium” can be deemed infallible. But then they experience only bouts of infallibility. So it begs the question, who is to determine when these bouts of infallibility actually occur? The Magisterium? SHW stated that Scripture can’t testify of itself. If that’s so, wouldn’t that same principle hold true of your Magisterium? And since they experience only bouts of infallibility, what guarantee do you have that what they say and write at any given time is inerrant?

However, we do know that the Scriptures are inerrant because they’re theopneustos: God-breathed. And God IS, infinitely, infallible.

 

[Peter_J]

Hence, whatever your Magisterium says and writes cannot be considered “infallible” either since what the say and write don’t make choices.

Based on your definition only the persons themselves who make up your “Magisterium” can be deemed infallible. But then they experience only bouts of infallibility. So it begs the question, who is to determine when these bouts of infallibility actually occur? The Magisterium? SHW stated that Scripture can’t testify of itself. If that’s so, wouldn’t that same principle hold true of your Magisterium? And since they experience only bouts of infallibility, what guarantee do you have that what they say and write at any given time is inerrant?

However, we do know that the Scriptures are inerrant because they’re theopneustos: God-breathed. And God IS, infinitely, infallible.

Don’t you have the same “problem” with Scripture? I.e. who’s to say which writings are Scripture and which aren’t?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

No, but you did say “the church interpreted scripture incorrectly before (by its own admission)” (emphasis added).

yes the church interpreted verses such as: Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 … as revealing a stationary earth that stands at the center of the universe. It’s since changed its position. That’s an admission by any objective standard.

This interpretation was the basis upon which the church charged Galileo with error. I guess some people here will say the CC never interpreted scripture this way (this contention is obviously proven wrong by the facts), while others take the position that while the church did erroneously interpret these verses, the matter to which they pertained is not a matter of faith and morals (and the church never officially invoked infallibility during the Galileo affair or ever with regard to interpretation of those passages).

This might be fine if we were talking about the Eastern Orthodox Church, who takes a much more narrow view of infallibility. However, this claim seems like semantics when coming from Rome. Obviously there’s a different history. It’s Rome who protestants initially broke with; and it’s Rome who has largely taken up the banner of fighting what they describe as protestant heresy. Most of this so called heresy lies in protestant interpretation of scripture.

So on one hand we see the RCC claiming it’s infallibly correct and protestants are wrong with regard to scripture, basing that authority on it’s alleged infallibility as “the church” – yet on the other hand when they’re conclusively proven wrong about anything they turn around and say they never invoked infallibility (how convenient). These claims IMO lack integrity and credibility. They constructively invoke infallibility with regard to scriptural interpretation; because when examining the state of mind of any person or entity we look at their actions not just their words.

There’s all sorts of elaborate arguments they use for this, but they all amount to the same thing. Whenever they do something bad or they’re shown to be wrong they say the matter didn’t concern an infallible proclamation of the church (conveniently – always after the fact). However, when it suits their purposes (i.e. when they’re “battling” alleged protestant heresy) they’re always quick to point to their so called infallibility.

IMO this doesn’t pass the smell test.

 

[Peter_J]

So on one hand we see the RCC claiming it’s infallibly correct and protestants are wrong with regard to scripture, basing that authority on it’s alleged infallibility as “the church” – yet on the other hand when they’re conclusively proven wrong about anything they turn around and say they never invoked infallibility (how convenient).

Since I am innocent of this crime, I find it decidedly inconvenient that the gun was never found.

 

[Peter_J]

But leaving Andy Dufresne out of it, I think my point still holds …

yes the church interpreted verses such as: Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 … as revealing a stationary earth that stands at the center of the universe. It’s since changed its position. That’s an admission by any objective standard.

This interpretation was the basis upon which the church charged Galileo with error. I guess some people here will say the CC never interpreted scripture this way (this contention is obviously proven wrong by the facts),

I would be one such person. More specifically, I would say that members of the Church made that wrong interpretation, but the Church (the spotless body of Christ) didn’t do so. Much as I would say that members of the Church committed attrocities during the Crusade, but the Church (the spotless body of Christ) didn’t do so.

This might be fine if we were talking about the Eastern Orthodox Church,

Just because the Eastern Orthodox believe something, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Roman Catholics don’t believe it too.

 

[SHW]

I never said the Pope was impeccable !!

I agree with you!