What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kd5glx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by adrift
Ambrose “Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).
Click to expand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrift
Bernard “It behoved the Queen of Virgins, by a singular privilege of sanctity, to lead a life free from every sin, so that, while she brought forth the slayer of sin and death, she should obtain for all the gift of life and justice.”
Click to expand...
That says nothing about the IC. Of course it does, free from every sin doesn’t mean except os.
 
Hesychios said:
1,300 years after the fact.
Click to expand...
Are your suggesting there could be no correct Doctrine but from the first century? The IC is also already celebrated in England as a Feast Day at this point. So by the late 1200’s its not a unknown, its just not approved in the CC.
 
JonNC said:
Hi rinnie,

If God can (and does) “wipe away” our original sin at Baptism (no dispute there from me), then why could God not wipe away the Blessed Virgin’s sin - all of it - at the time of the Visitation, for example?

Jon
Click to expand...
“It is more noble to forgive one’s guilt by preserving that person from it, than by permitting that same person to fall into guilt and than to remit that person’s guilt.” Duns Scotus

Gary
 
GaryTaylor said:
“It is more noble to forgive one’s guilt by preserving that person from it, than by permitting that same person to fall into guilt and than to remit that person’s guilt.” Duns Scotus
Click to expand...
That’s just an opinion, and highly debatable at that.

He is using his imagination to proclaim a belief. This is dangerous mixing.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Are your suggesting there could be no correct Doctrine but from the first century? The IC is also already celebrated in England as a Feast Day at this point. So by the late 1200’s its not a unknown, its just not approved in the CC.
Click to expand...
I am not suggesting anything except that it is not received teaching. It does not come to us from Christ through the Apostles, the evidence for that is whole swaths of Christianity had not known this ‘New Light’, and the evidence for that is the fact that the entire concept was debated in the hallowed halls of the great (new) universities where these intellectual exercises were being proposed.

By that very fact it is not Christian teaching, it was not universally accepted and to this very day it is unknown teaching in all of the other Apostolic churches.
  1. I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord’s help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God’s Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church. …
Click to expand...
  1. Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality , antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.
Click to expand...
Chapter 4 of the Commonitorium 434AD - St Vincent of Lerins
Click to expand...
What you are claiming is that 800 years ago peasants and yeomen were celebrating a new concept of belief about the mother of God in some places and 700 years ago some scholar made a theory to elaborate and support it. These kind of novelties have no place in the universal church even to this day.
Click to expand...
 
Hesychios said:
That’s just an opinion, and highly debatable at that.

He is using his imagination to proclaim a belief. This is dangerous mixing.
Click to expand...
You failed to answer my question:shrug:

Actually its “part” of his entire doctrine which has yet to be effectively refuted. And serves to answer the question Jon asked.
 
GaryTaylor said:
You failed to answer my question:shrug:

Actually its “part” of his entire doctrine which has yet to be effectively refuted. And serves to answer the question Jon asked.
Click to expand...
I was not answering Jon, I was commenting on the quote you provided, which has no basis in early Christian belief as far as I can tell.

His entire doctrine is novel.

He expresses an opinion that his odd assertion is better than another assertion. You have to show us why that is.
 
Hesychios said:
I am not suggesting anything except that it is not received teaching. It does not come to us from Christ through the Apostles, the evidence for that is whole swaths of Christianity had not known this ‘New Light’, and the evidence for that is the fact that the entire concept was debated in the hallowed halls of the great (new) universities where these intellectual exercises were being proposed.

By that very fact it is not Christian teaching, it was not universally accepted and to this very day it is unknown teaching in all of the other Apostolic churches.

What you are claiming is that 800 years ago peasants and yeomen were celebrating a new concept of belief about the mother of God in some places and 700 years ago some scholar made a theory to elaborate and support it. These kind of novelties have no place in the universal church even to this day.
Click to expand...
You should go back and read the link I supplied for Blessed Duns Scotus. That is part of his work which ultimately became the Immaculate Conception. Sorry you missed that.
 
GaryTaylor said:
LOL talk about “opinion”. Thanks for sharing:thumbsup: Apparently the Pope didn’t think so.
Click to expand...
Well, as far as Orthodox are concerned the Pope does not have the right to unilaterally declare a dogma. Only heretics can do that for their own churches, the Pope should not be following a bad example and return to the ancient practice of leaving dogmatic pronouncements for the gathered bishops in Council.
 
=rinnie;8121296]Hey boss, here is why. Simple if he would have waited until her visitation she would have had the stain of Original SIn on her the same as us.
Click to expand...
But remember Catholic teaching, it was AT THE MOMENT OF HER CONCEPTION. get it. GOd got between her and original sin. GOd would not let original sin hit her. IF he would have waited till the visitation she would have already been hit with original sin. Remember what I told Mickey a long time ago on this thread. If you were about to fall in a whole and I stepped in and pulled you out before you fell I saved you from the fall. Same thing here buddy.
Click to expand...
Why? Rinnie, why couldn’t God erase that stain of original sin?
P.S. Mickey loves me I am his FAVORITE R.C.😃
Click to expand...
You’re one of my favorites, too.

Jon
 
Well we would be entering into another topic at that point Michael. Definately that period became a fork in the road for Christianity.
 
GaryTaylor said:
“It is more noble to forgive one’s guilt by preserving that person from it, than by permitting that same person to fall into guilt and than to remit that person’s guilt.” Duns Scotus

Gary
Click to expand...
I understand what Duns Scotus is saying, though I’m not sure there is any way to know that this is how God views it. As I said before, is the IC possible? Yes. But then, so is the idea that her sinlessness by God’s grace began at or even with the Angel’s words at the Visitation.

My point remains that we lack a certainty from scripture and, yes, Tradition as to when God chose to fill her with His grace. We also lack a truly ecumenical council that defines it.

Jon
 
Hesychios said:
Well, as far as Orthodox are concerned the Pope does not have the right to unilaterally declare a dogma. Only heretics can do that for their own churches, the Pope should not be following a bad example and return to the ancient practice of leaving dogmatic pronouncements for the gathered bishops in Council.
Click to expand...
Amen to that!! This is central to the discussion we have been having on another thread where I said that the Bishop of Rome was not supreme in all things prior to 1054ad.
 
JonNC said:
I understand what Duns Scotus is saying, though I’m not sure there is any way to know that this is how God views it. As I said before, is the IC possible? Yes. But then, so is the idea that her sinlessness by God’s grace began at or even with the Angel’s words at the Visitation.

My point remains that we lack a certainty from scripture and, yes, Tradition as to when God chose to fill her with His grace. We also lack a truly ecumenical council that defines it.

Jon
Click to expand...
…the Annunciation or time of conception of Jesus. That theory was debated back in the late twelve hundreds also. At this period the English church has the Feast of the IC established. They mention I believe three theorys including the Annunciation. The scholars who debated this chose the IC as “most fitting”. At that point they are convinced it has to be but one of a these options. Here again is where the Pope borrowed from the work of Duns Scotus. From there the rest is history.

I’m not sure whats possible in regards to Benedicts age here. Benedict is willing to start the council. His stated he would meet with the Patriarchs. I could also see him letting the next Pope take the entire situation on. Problem is when the next Pope is in office who knows what issues will be at hand. This is why I do believe most Catholics would like to see this at least start with Benedict. The world becomes a better place overnight with a church in communion. Its well needed in the period of time we reached.

Gary
 
kylemccloughan said:
Amen to that!! This is central to the discussion we have been having on another thread where I said that the Bishop of Rome was not supreme in all things prior to 1054ad.
Click to expand...
Surely a man with no Army would consider himself supreme today. He does understand the responsibility of sitting in Peters Chair though. Basically he is a slave in Christ as St Paul so clearly stated also, or Matthew in regards to Peters Chair thus Rome.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Surely a man with no Army would consider himself supreme today. He does understand the responsibility of sitting in Peters Chair though. Basically he is a slave in Christ as St Paul so clearly stated also, or Matthew in regards to Peters Chair thus Rome.
Click to expand...
I don’t think St. Paul goes nearly that far, in fact he never says anything about Peter being supreme or even being in Rome did he?
 
GaryTaylor said:
…the Annunciation or time of conception of Jesus. That theory was debated back in the late twelve hundreds also. At this period the English church has the Feast of the IC established. They mention I believe three theorys including the Annunciation. The scholars who debated this chose the IC as “most fitting”. At that point they are convinced it has to be but one of a these options. Here again is where the Pope borrowed from the work of Duns Scotus. From there the rest is history.

I’m not sure whats possible in regards to Benedicts age here. Benedict is willing to start the council. His stated he would meet with the Patriarchs. I could also see him letting the next Pope take the entire situation on. Problem is when the next Pope is in office who knows what issues will be at hand. This is why I do believe most Catholics would like to see this at least start with Benedict. The world becomes a better place overnight with a church in communion. Its well needed in the period of time we reached.

Gary
Click to expand...
So would I, Gary. Contrary to what some of the Orthodox posters here say, I believe unity must start between east and west. while I don’t think that would influence all protestant communions, I think it would have a serious impact on some, or at least some of their members, such as me.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top