theoretical Ex Cathedra

[Uphill Battle]

Ok, theoretical question.

(and spare me the "It would never happen" arguement, I know that's what's believed.

If a pope made a proclamation, Ex Cathedra, that appeared heretical, or at the very least contra-biblical, would the Catholic laity be forced to believe it regardless? and would you? Even if it went against understood theology, and it made your spirit writh? I'm wondering exactly how far the capitulation to the Roman Pontiff goes.

[Rhamiel]

I trust the Church God made more then I trust myself.

[Uphill Battle]

I trust the Church God made more then I trust myself.
In otherwords, yes, even if the Pope proclaimed something that went against the bible, you'd follow it.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

If a pope made a proclamation, Ex Cathedra, that appeared heretical, or at the very least contra-biblical, would the Catholic laity be forced to believe it regardless? and would you? Even if it went against understood theology, and it made your spirit writh? I'm wondering exactly how far the capitulation to the Roman Pontiff goes.

One of the criterion for making an ex cathedra statement is that it has already passed into common rite, usage, belief, and practice. Another is that an ex cathedra statement cannot contradict previous infallible statements of the church.

For these two reasons I cannot entirely accept your hypothetical situation, since there is such a large body of previous doctrine confining any subsequent developments.

That said, I (being Lutheran) think the Catholic Church has made heretical statements in the past, namely at the Great (Fourth) Lateran Council, the Council of Trent, and Vatican I. But they cannot contradict what they already have it right, and I cannot see them going any further off the mark where they have it wrong.

[Rhamiel]

In otherwords, yes, even if the Pope proclaimed something that went against the bible, you'd follow it.
No the Pope can not go agianst the Bible for doctrine, the Holy Ghost protects the Church

[E.C.]

If a pope made a proclamation, Ex Cathedra, that appeared heretical, or at the very least contra-biblical, would the Catholic laity be forced to believe it regardless? and would you? Even if it went against understood theology, and it made your spirit writh? I'm wondering exactly how far the capitulation to the Roman Pontiff goes.
Keep in mind, that there are those that believe (and with good reason) that other popes have made decisions that are considered heretical.

[Uphill Battle]

No the Pope can not go agianst the Bible for doctrine, the Holy Ghost protects the Church
you missed the point of the OP.

[Assisi]

Can God make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?

[Rhamiel]

you missed the point of the OP.

No I did not, you asked if a pope made a proclamation that "seemed heretical" and made my "soul writh" how would I respond. You did not ask how I would respond if the Pope made a heretical proclamation but only what I saw as heretical. I can understand that looks can be deceiving. I also understand that God keeps His promises.

[Robskiwarrior]

A very good question. The pope is only a human, even he can do things to his own means - there has been a lot of curruption in the past. Would be interesting to see what happend if he came out with something strange.

[Splayd]

The Catholic Church isn't the one-man show that many of us Protestants think it is. "Infallibility" doesn't really apply to everything... and it's not even like he comes out and says something like "Alright - this time I'm speaking ex-cathedra."

SO - even if the Pope could come out and say something like "Turns out that we were wrong about God. He's really an alien named Bob. Oh - and by the way I'm speaking infallibly this time." the Church wouldn't accept that he was speaking ex-cathedra. I'm sure it would send shock-waves across the world, but at the end of the day it still wouldn't be official Catholic doctrine.

Of course my example is ludicrous, but so is the premise of the hypothetical really. I appreciate that Protestants may well believe that the Pope could speak a "heresy" that is considered "ex-cathedra", but understand that even if that is the case it wouldn't be something "new" but rather a statement about something that's already accepted within Catholicism.

Peace

[ScottBot]

Ok, theoretical question.

(and spare me the "It would never happen" arguement, I know that's what's believed.

If a pope made a proclamation, Ex Cathedra, that appeared heretical, or at the very least contra-biblical, would the Catholic laity be forced to believe it regardless? and would you? Even if it went against understood theology, and it made your spirit writh? I'm wondering exactly how far the capitulation to the Roman Pontiff goes.
Since the Holy Spirit would prevent this from happening, you're "hypothetical" carries no water.

[ScottBot]

The Catholic Church isn't the one-man show that many of us Protestants think it is. "Infallibility" doesn't really apply to everything... and it's not even like he comes out and says something like "Alright - this time I'm speaking ex-cathedra."

SO - even if the Pope could come out and say something like "Turns out that we were wrong about God. He's really an alien named Bob. Oh - and by the way I'm speaking infallibly this time." the Church wouldn't accept that he was speaking ex-cathedra. I'm sure it would send shock-waves across the world, but at the end of the day it still wouldn't be official Catholic doctrine.

Of course my example is ludicrous, but so is the premise of the hypothetical really. I appreciate that Protestants may well believe that the Pope could speak a "heresy" that is considered "ex-cathedra", but understand that even if that is the case it wouldn't be something "new" but rather a statement about something that's already accepted within Catholicism.

Peace
This is an excellent discussion on the boundaries of the charism of infallibility.

If the Pope stepped up to a microphone and announced to the world, "To be saved, you must wear a pink hat at all times." there would be some gullible enough to believe it. but since many of us realize that this has never been a constant teaching of the Church, we would likely respond with "G'on, ya big dope." (Well actually, we would pray that the Pontiff regained his sanity.)

[Uphill Battle]

This is an excellent discussion on the boundaries of the charism of infallibility.

If the Pope stepped up to a microphone and announced to the world, "To be saved, you must wear a pink hat at all times." there would be some gullible enough to believe it. but since many of us realize that this has never been a constant teaching of the Church, we would likely respond with "G'on, ya big dope." (Well actually, we would pray that the Pontiff regained his sanity.)
this is what I was looking for.

[Uphill Battle]

Since the Holy Spirit would prevent this from happening, you're "hypothetical" carries no water.
yet to be proven.

and, like I said in the OP..... spare me it.

[ScottBot]

yet to be proven.

and, like I said in the OP..... spare me it.
You don't see it. I do. Paradigms are funny things they are.

[Uphill Battle]

You don't see it. I do. Paradigms are funny things they are.
'xcept mine is free of circular reasoning.

[ScottBot]

'xcept mine is free of circular reasoning.
^_^, so you like to convince yourself.

[Uphill Battle]

^_^, so you like to convince yourself.
please. You telling me that "RCC is right" why? " Cause RCC says so" isn't circular?

When you boil it down to basics, that's what it amounts to.

As I said. Unproven. (in fact, demonstratable that it ISN'T so.)

[Tonks]

When you boil it down to basics, that's what it amounts to.

If you break apart a car into its small component parts it won't make sense either...which is flaw in such reasoning as it removes context.

Catholicism isn't a push for the "most simple way" particularly as one risks tunnel vision should that be their ultimate approach.

[ScottBot]

please. You telling me that "RCC is right" why? " Cause RCC says so" isn't circular?

When you boil it down to basics, that's what it amounts to.

As I said. Unproven. (in fact, demonstratable that it ISN'T so.)
Just like you say that the bible is infallible because the bible says so. That is a circular arguement.

We say that the bible is a historically accurate document that is reinforced my more supporting historical documentation than any other literary work in the world. Since we can prove the historical accuracy of the bible, we can feel confident that what it says is true. In this document called the bible, a man named Jesus establishes Himself as God in the flesh. The Jesus claims for Himself all authority on heaven and earth, and delegates a portion of this authority to the earthly Church. This Church, manifest with Jesus' authority, develops and canonizes the corpus textus of the bible.

In your arguement biblical inerrancy is derived from the bible.

In my arguement, biblical inerrancy is derived by establishing the accuracy of the biblical narrative, which established the truth of Jesus as Divine Lord of all creation, who establishes a Church in which He invests His authority, and by which that Church declares said bible to be inerrant. Mine is an upwardly spiraling arguement that is not built upon itself.

[Uphill Battle]

Just like you say that the bible is infallible because the bible says so. That is a circular arguement.

We say that the bible is a historically accurate document that is reinforced my more supporting historical documentation than any other literary work in the world. Since we can prove the historical accuracy of the bible, we can feel confident that what it says is true. In this document called the bible, a man named Jesus establishes Himself as God in the flesh. The Jesus claims for Himself all authority on heaven and earth, and delegates a portion of this authority to the earthly Church. This Church, manifest with Jesus' authority, develops and canonizes the corpus textus of the bible.

In your arguement biblical inerrancy is derived from the bible.

In my arguement, biblical inerrancy is derived by establishing the accuracy of the biblical narrative, which established the truth of Jesus as Divine Lord of all creation, who establishes a Church in which He invests His authority, and by which that Church declares said bible to be inerrant. Mine is an upwardly spiraling arguement that is not built upon itself.
the bible has proven itself accurate.

RCC has not.



The string of the argument, if you simplify, and not use so many words to prettify the argument, RCC is always correct. Why? RCC says so. Why? We have a promise in the bible. Except that the only people who interpret the scripture used as that promise as such is, you guessed it, RCC.

[Asinner]

please. You telling me that "RCC is right" why? " Cause RCC says so" isn't circular?

When you boil it down to basics, that's what it amounts to.

As I said. Unproven. (in fact, demonstratable that it ISN'T so.)

Christ said that the world will know we are His by our Love for each other. On the surface this seems so simple because we all believe we have seen or experienced it. Have we though? I speak of myself firstly. Holy Scriptures define Love and if we are honest, can any of us truly claim to have it? What of Humility and the other Virtues? I have seen true Humility very rarely in my life. What of perfection? Is it possible to attain this? The lives of other Christians who live now and who have lived before us, testify that unification to Christ is not only possible, but is the Christian ideal. I have met a Holy man in my life. It was an experience that was unique to all others and until I actually sat in his presence, was ignorant to what true Holiness was. Although I had read about it in the Holy Scriptures, I had never seen it manifested. This is key. You seem to be asking, Uphill Battle, what is Truth and how do we know where it is? I say that Truth is wherever Christ is manifested . . . Truly manifested. Not in philosophies or ideals, but manifested in His Church and His people.

Love,
Christina

[BigNorsk]

I believe under Catholic Tradition the thing that would happen is for the next Pope to take the body of the heretical Pope and place it on trial and condemn it. At least that's whats been done in the past.

At least that's my theory of how it would be dealt with.

Of course one thing making the hypothetical unlikely is that Pope's never say they are speaking ex cathedra. They speak and after awhile the Catholic Church recognizes it as such. Most of what Popes say is never so recognized.

Marv

[ScottBot]

I believe under Catholic Tradition the thing that would happen is for the next Pope to take the body of the heretical Pope and place it on trial and condemn it. At least that's whats been done in the past.

At least that's my theory of how it would be dealt with.

Of course one thing making the hypothetical unlikely is that Pope's never say they are speaking ex cathedra. They speak and after awhile the Catholic Church recognizes it as such. Most of what Popes say is never so recognized.

Marv
Yup, pretty much how it works. The pope doesn't stand on the pulpit with a big glowing neon sign that says, "Pay Attention, this next bit of work is ex-cathedra."

[Uphill Battle]

Yup, pretty much how it works. The pope doesn't stand on the pulpit with a big glowing neon sign that says, "Pay Attention, this next bit of work is ex-cathedra."
then exactly how do they decide what is, and what isn't?

If it's decided apart from the pope, then it isn't papal infallibility at all!

Makes me wonder at the worth of claiming infallibility of the pope in the first place.

[Splayd]

then exactly how do they decide what is, and what isn't?

If it's decided apart from the pope, then it isn't papal infallibility at all!

Makes me wonder at the worth of claiming infallibility of the pope in the first place.
I'm not Catholic and I have no real interest in defending papal infallibility. That said - Consider your approach to scripture. Do you believe that the books were inspired? Did the authors always speak with this authority apart from in these books? What if the book doesn't identify itself as inspired scripture?

[Giver]

Why don't you try providing something worthy of discussing, rather than a diatribe of unsubstantiated accusations and personal opinion. Just a suggestion.

Do you really think the scriptures I posted are my personal opinion? Or do you think the Catholic Church follows, preaches, or lives those scriptures?

[ScottBot]

Do you really think the scriptures I posted are my personal opinion? Or do you think the Catholic Church follows, preaches, or lives those scriptures?
Scriptures are not opinion. What they mean to you are your opinion. And yes, I do feel that the Catholic Church follows all of the Scriptures in their original, historical, and socio-cultural context.

[Giver]

Forgive me, but what is the purpose of this post? :confused: To me, you appear to be casting judgement upon the Catholic Church. If this is so, that the CC is the Whore, then you as a protestant are her illegitimate child.

In Grief,
Christina
You should read my post a little more carefully. I am not judging the church, but as John says the Word is judging the church.

(John 12:47-48) “If anyone hears my words and does not keep them faithfully, it is not I who shall condemn him, since I have come not to condemn the world, but to save the world: he who rejects me and refuses my words has his judge already; the word itself that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.”

[sunlover1]

No the Pope can not go agianst the Bible for doctrine, the Holy Ghost protects the Church

Hey there Rhamiel.
I'm confused about the statement that
I've seen you make on many threads about
how God won't let us be deceived,
God won't let wolves fool us etc.
Where do you get this from?
I thought we were responsible for
our wisdom/foolishness.

thank you in advance,
sunlover

[Tonks]

You should read my post a little more carefully. I am not judging the church, but as John says the Word is judging the church.

(John 12:47-48) “If anyone hears my words and does not keep them faithfully, it is not I who shall condemn him, since I have come not to condemn the world, but to save the world: he who rejects me and refuses my words has his judge already; the word itself that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.”




Ah yes....the old "I'm personally not judging the actions of the Catholic Church but God is" and the implication is that He is not pleased. Oh well, if I had a nickel for every time I some some fringe theology which discusses how Rome is evil incarnate, has totally destroyed any semblance of Scriptural integrity, is totally false, etc etc I'd have a lot of nickels.

I'm happy to led God be my judge as I have faith that I'm on the correct path.

[Giver]

Ah yes....the old "I'm personally not judging the actions of the Catholic Church but God is" and the implication is that He is not pleased. Oh well, if I had a nickel for every time I some some fringe theology which discusses how Rome is evil incarnate, has totally destroyed any semblance of Scriptural integrity, is totally false, etc etc I'd have a lot of nickels.

I'm happy to led God be my judge as I have faith that I'm on the correct path.
Just read the scriptures I quoted, and then show me where you think I’m wrong.

[Asinner]

You should read my post a little more carefully. I am not judging the church, but as John says the Word is judging the church.

(John 12:47-48) “If anyone hears my words and does not keep them faithfully, it is not I who shall condemn him, since I have come not to condemn the world, but to save the world: he who rejects me and refuses my words has his judge already; the word itself that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.”




Does the word of God judge you also? I take it that since you posted those scriptures, you yourself follow them perfectly?

Love,
Christina

[Giver]

Scriptures are not opinion. What they mean to you are your opinion. And yes, I do feel that the Catholic Church follows all of the Scriptures in their original, historical, and socio-cultural context.
There you just proved my original statement. No matter what the Word of God says, what the church says is what most of the Catholic people follow.

[Giver]

Does the word of God judge you also? I take it that since you posted those scriptures, you yourself follow them perfectly?

Love,
Christina
Amen!

[Tonks]

Just read the scriptures I quoted, and then show me where you think I’m wrong.



You mean the Scriptures you posted and highlighted all pretty-like with no real context? You'll have to tell us in your own words.

The Word judges the Church just as He judges you. Then again, your own personal view of the Catholic Church and how it squares with your personal interpretation of Scripture really doesn't keep me up awake a night.

[Tonks]

There you just proved my original statement. No matter what the Word of God says, what the church says is what most of the Catholic people follow.

Well, since the Bible isn't the Word of God but, rather, the word of God I fail to see your point. This, to me, sounds like the typical "I have all of the interpretation correct and everyone else has it wrong" type of argument. You know, the ones that usually begin "Scripture clearly states...."

[simonthezealot]

Hey there Rhamiel.
I'm confused about the statement that
I've seen you make on many threads about
how God won't let us be deceived,
God won't let wolves fool us etc.
Where do you get this from?
I thought we were responsible for
our wisdom/foolishness.

thank you in advance,
sunlover
I often wondered where this was coming from...
Afterall,
did not God allow Jacob to be decieved that his 1st son Joseph was dead in Gen 46?
only to have Joseph say this...
the answer that Joseph himself gave to his brothers. "God sent me ahead of you to
preserve life. It was not you who sent me here, but God."

[simonthezealot]

Well, since the Bible isn't the Word of God but, rather, the word of God I fail to see your point. This, to me, sounds like the typical "I have all of the interpretation correct and everyone else has it wrong" type of argument. You know, the ones that usually begin "Scripture clearly states...."
Vatican II's Dei Verbum 2.10 (quoted by the Catechism in CCC 86) explicitly says that the Church's Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God. And while I know that Catholicism doesn't teaching that only Scripture is the Word of God, it is certainly true that Scripture is the Word of God.

[TwistTim]

Forgive me, but what is the purpose of this post? :confused: To me, you appear to be casting judgement upon the Catholic Church. If this is so, that the CC is the Whore, then you as a protestant are her illegitimate child.

In Grief,
Christina
as a Baptist, we were not formed in protest of the Catholic church, rather to faithfully study the Word of God, not the words of men, so we are not the children of the Catholic church, illegitimate or otherwise... also many modern groups are not formed in protest to the Catholic church... but to other churches....

if someone is Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Anglican or one of those types, then they can be considered children of the Catholic Church, as those were formed in protest to Catholic teachings...

Please release it's more than just "Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant"

[ScottBot]

You mean the Scriptures you posted and highlighted all pretty-like with no real context? You'll have to tell us in your own words.

The Word judges the Church just as He judges you. Then again, your own personal view of the Catholic Church and how it squares with your personal interpretation of Scripture really doesn't keep me up awake a night.
^_^

[ScottBot]

as a Baptist, we were not formed in protest of the Catholic church, rather to faithfully study the Word of God, not the words of men, so we are not the children of the Catholic church, illegitimate or otherwise... also many modern groups are not formed in protest to the Catholic church... but to other churches....

if someone is Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Anglican or one of those types, then they can be considered children of the Catholic Church, as those were formed in protest to Catholic teachings...

Please release it's more than just "Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant"
Please. If the Protestant reformation hadn't happened, none of the other stuff would have either. King Henry only broke from Rome amidst the chaos created by Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. The even funnier thing is that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Henry VIII all had immense dislike for each other.

[simonthezealot]

Please. If the Protestant reformation hadn't happened, none of the other stuff would have either. King Henry only broke from Rome amidst the chaos created by Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. The even funnier thing is that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Henry VIII all had immense dislike for each other.
You've nothing to back this silly sweeping statement!

[Asinner]

as a Baptist, we were not formed in protest of the Catholic church, rather to faithfully study the Word of God, not the words of men, so we are not the children of the Catholic church, illegitimate or otherwise... also many modern groups are not formed in protest to the Catholic church... but to other churches....

if someone is Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Anglican or one of those types, then they can be considered children of the Catholic Church, as those were formed in protest to Catholic teachings...

Please release it's more than just "Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant"

Protestantism is woven from the same cloth as Catholicism. Certainly most of protestants have departed much further and as you said continues to grow farther and farther away from Catholicism (churches protesting other churches protesting other churches . . . ); however, this still does not negate the beginnings of protestantism or from whence it came.

Love,
Christina

[Tonks]

as a Baptist, we were not formed in protest of the Catholic church, rather to faithfully study the Word of God, not the words of men, so we are not the children of the Catholic church, illegitimate or otherwise... also many modern groups are not formed in protest to the Catholic church... but to other churches....

The sufficiency and primacy of Scripture was (is) a uniquely Reformation idea. Correct, again, that Baptists really are not like Lutherans, Anglicans et al. However, the manner in which the study of the written word is approached is a uniquely Reformation idea. While many modern groups are not "children of the Church" they are somewhat indebted to the Reform movement insofar as the theology developed then underpins the "modern" movement (ca 500 years ago or so).

[ScottBot]

You've nothing to back this silly sweeping statement!
If you have paid attention one bit to anything I've ever said, you'd know that I am not prone to blind, sweeping generalizations. Pick up a history book regarding the European Renaissance, you'll learn a thing or two.

[Tonks]

You've nothing to back this silly sweeping statement!

The lack of evidence for these theological ideas speaks for itself. Beyond discussing the historical, political and religions reasons for the Reformation a critical study of the time proceeding WRT divergent theology is a relatively blank canvas.

It really isn't up to Catholics to disprove that these ideas did not exist (as there is a lack of evidence) but it is up to those that support such a reading of history to prove the affirmative based on a lack of evidence.

[sunlover1]

The sufficiency and primacy of Scripture was (is) a uniquely Reformation idea.

Uniquely a God idea rather:

What we're to live by:
Primacy:
Luke 4:4
4 And Jesus answered him, saying,
It is written,
That man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word of God.

Seems VERY important here:
Luke 8:21
21 And he answered and said unto them,
My mother and my brethren are these which
hear the word of God, and do it.

Jesus's words:
John 10:35
35 If he called them gods,
unto whom the word of God came,
and the scripture cannot be broken;

What happened when they were
filled wiht the Holy Ghost...
Acts 4:31
31 And when they had prayed,
the place was shaken where they were assembled together;
and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,
and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Acts 19:20
20 So mightily grew the word of God
and prevailed.

Our Weapon which we're told to take up.
Ephesians 6:17
17 And take the helmet of salvation,
and the sword of the Spirit,
which is the word of God

Hebrews 11:3
3 Through faith we understand that
the worlds were framed by the word of God,
so that things which are seen were
not made of things which do appear.

Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful,
and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder
of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the thoughts
and intents of the heart.

:wave:

[Tonks]

Uniquely a God idea rather:

What we're to live by:
Primacy:

Please demonstrate where in the first 1500 years of Christian history the above interpretation was consistently applied and where a body of theology that supported such interpretation can be found.

[ScottBot]

Uniquely a God idea rather:

What we're to live by:
Primacy:
Luke 4:4
4 And Jesus answered him, saying,
It is written,
That man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word of God.

Seems VERY important here:
Luke 8:21
21 And he answered and said unto them,
My mother and my brethren are these which
hear the word of God, and do it.

Jesus's words:
John 10:35
35 If he called them gods,
unto whom the word of God came,
and the scripture cannot be broken;

What happened when they were
filled wiht the Holy Ghost...
Acts 4:31
31 And when they had prayed,
the place was shaken where they were assembled together;
and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,
and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Acts 19:20
20 So mightily grew the word of God
and prevailed.

Our Weapon which we're told to take up.
Ephesians 6:17
17 And take the helmet of salvation,
and the sword of the Spirit,
which is the word of God

Hebrews 11:3
3 Through faith we understand that
the worlds were framed by the word of God,
so that things which are seen were
not made of things which do appear.

Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful,
and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder
of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the thoughts
and intents of the heart.

:wave:

Those passages talk about the importance of Scripture, nbut hardly convey the sufficiency of it.

[Asinner]

Uniquely a God idea rather:


Sunlover :hug:,

No one disagrees that Holy Scriptures are not Truth. :crosseo: Many of us, though, know that Truth transcends the written word. I would ask any protestant to point me in the direction of the manifestation of the Holy Scriptures. Where are the Holy Scriptures being made known? Where are those Christians who have attained perfection? Where is there Virtue and Grace? There is where Christ is.

Love,
Christina

[Uphill Battle]

Sunlover :hug:,

No one disagrees that Holy Scriptures are not Truth. :crosseo: Many of us, though, know that Truth transcends the written word. I would ask any protestant to point me in the direction of the manifestation of the Holy Scriptures. Where are the Holy Scriptures being made known? Where are those Christians who have attained perfection? Where is there Virtue and Grace? There is where Christ is.

Love,
Christina
you mean Heaven? There are no Christians who have obtained perfection on this earth.

[ScottBot]

Vatican II's Dei Verbum 2.10 (quoted by the Catechism in CCC 86) explicitly says that the Church's Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God. And while I know that Catholicism doesn't teaching that only Scripture is the Word of God, it is certainly true that Scripture is the Word of God.
No educated, self-respecting Catholic would disagree with this. The difference being that the Church considers the Magisterium to be a servant of the word, whereas, in many cases, people make the word a servant to their private interpretation of it, particularly when they begin their dissertations with pithy little quotables like, "Scripture clearly states..." or "The bible teaches us that....."

[Uphill Battle]

No educated, self-respecting Catholic would disagree with this. The difference being that the Church considers the Magisterium to be a servant of the word, whereas, in many cases, people make the word a servant to their private interpretation of it, particularly when they begin their dissertations with pithy little quotables like, "Scripture clearly states..." or "The bible teaches us that....."
as opposed to "the Church has always taught...."?

[sunlover1]

Those passages talk about the importance of Scripture, nbut hardly convey the sufficiency of it.
Sufficient for what?

(It better be sufficient if Jesus told us
to live by it!)

[ScottBot]

you mean Heaven? There are no Christians who have obtained perfection on this earth.
Jesus, "Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect."

So, Jesus gave us an unobtainable goal?

What about, "For men, it is impossible, but with God, all things are possible."

[simonthezealot]

Those passages talk about the importance of Scripture, nbut hardly convey the sufficiency of it.

These do!

Psalm 19:7-11

7 The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul.
The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy,
making wise the simple.
8 The precepts of the LORD are right,
giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the LORD are radiant,
giving light to the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is pure,
enduring forever.
The ordinances of the LORD are sure
and altogether righteous.
10 They are more precious than gold,
than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey,
than honey from the comb.
11 By them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.



2 Timothy 3:15-17

15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

[Asinner]

you mean Heaven? There are no Christians who have obtained perfection on this earth.

There are MANY, who have achieved perfection. This is our purpose in life, communion with God. I met one such man several years ago.

Love,
Christina

[ScottBot]

as opposed to "the Church has always taught...."?
Who did the Church get the mandate to teach from?

(its at the end of the Gospel of Matthew, in case you're looking)

[ScottBot]

These do!

Psalm 19:7-11

7 The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul.
The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy,
making wise the simple.
8 The precepts of the LORD are right,
giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the LORD are radiant,
giving light to the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is pure,
enduring forever.
The ordinances of the LORD are sure
and altogether righteous.
10 They are more precious than gold,
than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey,
than honey from the comb.
11 By them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.



2 Timothy 3:15-17

15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
You are still speaking about the importance and essentiality of Scripture. I see nothing about the sufficiency of it.

[Tonks]

Since the Bible apparently now self-actualizes please show me where it states:

I am sufficient. Full Stop.

There is that little bit about holding fast to words and epistles....always seems to be ignored in this debate.

[ScottBot]

Since the Bible apparently now self-actualizes please show me where it states:

I am sufficient. Full Stop.

There is that little bit about holding fast to words and epistles....always seems to be ignored in this debate.
It was only important to do that until the bible was printed. Feel free to ignore that part (or any other parts you feel sticky or complicated). :thumbsup:

[Uphill Battle]

Jesus, "Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect."

So, Jesus gave us an unobtainable goal?

What about, "For men, it is impossible, but with God, all things are possible."yes, Jesus gave us a goal that is unattainable on this earth. He also said that if our Piety didn't far surpass that of the scribes and pharisees, that we couldn't make it to heaven. The Goal of perfection is a journey on this earth, the destination is in the next.

There are MANY, who have achieved perfection. This is our purpose in life, communion with God. I met one such man several years ago.

Love,
ChristinaI'd love to see how they measure up to perfection!

Who did the Church get the mandate to teach from?

(its at the end of the Gospel of Matthew, in case you're looking)interesting.... except that that fails on two points.

1) Jesus said All authority in Heaven and eart has been given to ME. (not them, him.)
2) There is no proof whatsoever that many of the doctines of the RCC were "always taught." Most of the ones that have been taken issue with, crop up after 300 AD. Doesn't look like an "always taught."
oh, and I forgot one. so make the list 3. Nowhere does Jesus institute one earthly orginization as an authority over all Christendom. I know which passage you will point to, but it simply doesn't say what you claim it does.

[ScottBot]

yes, Jesus gave us a goal that is unattainable on this earth. He also said that if our Piety didn't far surpass that of the scribes and pharisees, that we couldn't make it to heaven. The Goal of perfection is a journey on this earth, the destination is in the next.

I'd love to see how they measure up to perfection!

interesting.... except that that fails on two points.

1) Jesus said All authority in Heaven and eart has been given to ME. (not them, him.)
2) There is no proof whatsoever that many of the doctines of the RCC were "always taught." Most of the ones that have been taken issue with, crop up after 300 AD. Doesn't look like an "always taught."
oh, and I forgot one. so make the list 3. Nowhere does Jesus institute one earthly orginization as an authority over all Christendom. I know which passage you will point to, but it simply doesn't say what you claim it does.
You don't see it, I do. Paradigms are funny things, you know.

[Uphill Battle]

You don't see it, I do. Paradigms are funny things, you know.
you got that on cut and paste, Scot? :P

[Tonks]

It was only important to do that until the bible was printed. Feel free to ignore that part (or any other parts you feel sticky or complicated). :thumbsup:

I forgot that Catholics don't read the Bible. If we paid more attention to Sacred Scripture I'm sure we'd figure it out.

[sunlover1]

You are still speaking about the importance and essentiality of Scripture. I see nothing about the sufficiency of it.
Sufficient for what?

[ScottBot]

you got that on cut and paste, Scot? :P
Nah, it type it in from scratch just for you....;) ^_^

[ScottBot]

Sufficient for what?
Sufficient, requiring nothing else.

In a human, is breathing important? Is breathing essential? Can life happen without breathing?

[simonthezealot]

Sufficient, requiring nothing else.

In a human, is breathing important? Is breathing essential? Can life happen without breathing?

The knowledge contained within is all that is required unto salvation. (maybe not in your opinion, but certainly in mine!)

[Asinner]

I'd love to see how they measure up to perfection!





Some attained such Divine Grace in their lifetime that after death, their bodies did not decay. Instead, from their flesh poured sweet myrh and fragrance.

Their lives attest to the Grace they received. Today, for example, one of the saints we remember is Saint Cuthbert the Wonderworker, Bishop of Lindisfarne. Here is his reading.

Saint Cuthbert was born in Britain about the year 635, and became a monk in his youth at the monastery of Melrose by the River Tweed. After many years of struggle as a true priest of Christ, in the service both of his own brethren and of the neglected Christians of isolated country villages, he became a solitary on Farne Island in 676. After eight years as a hermit, he was constrained to leave his quiet to become Bishop of Lindisfarne, in which office he served for almost two years. He returned to his hermitage two months before he reposed in peace in 687. Because of the miracles he wrought both during his life and at his tomb after his death, he is called the "Wonderworker of Britain." The whole English people honoured him, and kings were both benefactors to his shrine and suppliants of his prayers. Eleven years after his death, his holy relics were revealed to be incorrupt; when his body was translated from Lindisfarne to Durham Cathedral in August of 1104, his body was still found to be untouched by decay, giving off "an odour of sweetest fragrancy," and "from the flexibility of its joints representing a person asleep rather than dead." Finally, when the most impious Henry VIII desecrated his shrine, opening it to despoil it of its valuables, his body was again found incorrupt, and was buried in 1542. It is believed that after this the holy relics of Saint Cuthbert were hidden to preserve them from further desecration.


He is only one example. :)

Love,
Christina

[Robskiwarrior]

If the Pope stepped up to a microphone and announced to the world, "To be saved, you must wear a pink hat at all times." there would be some gullible enough to believe it. but since many of us realize that this has never been a constant teaching of the Church, we would likely respond with "G'on, ya big dope." (Well actually, we would pray that the Pontiff regained his sanity.)

hehe a nice summing up there, and a great mental image!

[ScottBot]

The knowledge contained within is all that is required unto salvation. (maybe not in your opinion, but certainly in mine!)
To this I agree. However, since the knowledge does not extract itself infallibly from the pages of Scripture, then an authoritative interpreter is required. An interpreter to tell us what the words of Scripture mean in their proper context, and authoritative so that we don't have hundreds of little interpeters argueing about what the real intended meaning of Scripture is. You know, kinda sorta like what happens here hundreds of times every day....^_^

[simonthezealot]

To this I agree. However, since the knowledge does not extract itself infallibly from the pages of Scripture, then an authoritative interpreter is required. An interpreter to tell us what the words of Scripture mean in their proper context, and authoritative so that we don't have hundreds of little interpeters argueing about what the real intended meaning of Scripture is. You know, kinda sorta like what happens here hundreds of times every day....^_^
You don't need an authoritive interpreter...
....What you dig out is YOURS to KEEP forever!

What would make a group of guys any more authoritive being guided by the HS than myself being born again and having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide me?

[simonthezealot]

To this I agree. However, since the knowledge does not extract itself infallibly from the pages of Scripture, then an authoritative interpreter is required. An interpreter to tell us what the words of Scripture mean in their proper context, and authoritative so that we don't have hundreds of little interpeters argueing about what the real intended meaning of Scripture is. You know, kinda sorta like what happens here hundreds of times every day....^_^
One wrong interpreter for all followers sounds much more devastating... than a bunch of individual interpreters whom mostly have it right!
THATS HOW I SEE IT!!!

[Uphill Battle]

Some attained such Divine Grace in their lifetime that after death, their bodies did not decay. Instead, from their flesh poured sweet myrh and fragrance.

Their lives attest to the Grace they received. Today, for example, one of the saints we remember is Saint Cuthbert the Wonderworker, Bishop of Lindisfarne. Here is his reading.

Saint Cuthbert was born in Britain about the year 635, and became a monk in his youth at the monastery of Melrose by the River Tweed. After many years of struggle as a true priest of Christ, in the service both of his own brethren and of the neglected Christians of isolated country villages, he became a solitary on Farne Island in 676. After eight years as a hermit, he was constrained to leave his quiet to become Bishop of Lindisfarne, in which office he served for almost two years. He returned to his hermitage two months before he reposed in peace in 687. Because of the miracles he wrought both during his life and at his tomb after his death, he is called the "Wonderworker of Britain." The whole English people honoured him, and kings were both benefactors to his shrine and suppliants of his prayers. Eleven years after his death, his holy relics were revealed to be incorrupt; when his body was translated from Lindisfarne to Durham Cathedral in August of 1104, his body was still found to be untouched by decay, giving off "an odour of sweetest fragrancy," and "from the flexibility of its joints representing a person asleep rather than dead." Finally, when the most impious Henry VIII desecrated his shrine, opening it to despoil it of its valuables, his body was again found incorrupt, and was buried in 1542. It is believed that after this the holy relics of Saint Cuthbert were hidden to preserve them from further desecration.


He is only one example. :)

Love,
Christina
how is this sort of thing verified?

It's very weird to me. On surface value, it looks like things being attributed to be more like Christ, regardless of whether or not it's true.

[ScottBot]

You don't need an authoritive interpreter...
....What you dig out is YOURS to KEEP forever!

What would make a group of guys any more authoritive being guided by the HS than myself being born again and having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide me?
You can't be serious can you? I just look at the myriad of conflicting teachings in "Christianity" and understand the flaw in your premise. Jesus never endorsed unfettered sprituality. He instructed His church to go out, make disciples and teach what He commanded. Not what He recommended, or what He thought was a pretty neat idea. Christ gave commandments and entrusted their propagation to the Church.

[ScottBot]

One wrong interpreter for all followers sounds much more devastating... than a bunch of individual interpreters whom mostly have it right!
THATS HOW I SEE IT!!!
Of course you do. How every democratic.

[ScottBot]

how is this sort of thing verified?

It's very weird to me. On surface value, it looks like things being attributed to be more like Christ, regardless of whether or not it's true.
hebrews 11:1

[Uphill Battle]

hebrews 11:1
shoot, given your logic, you could apply that to anything.

I have faith (hope for things unseen) that a million dollars is under my pillow.

:D

That doesn't work.

[Asinner]

how is this sort of thing verified?

It's very weird to me. On surface value, it looks like things being attributed to be more like Christ, regardless of whether or not it's true.

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/Holy_Relics/index.shtml

Are we not called to be Christ-like? The saints testify to this possibility! Christianity is not a philosophy or idea, but a transformation into Holiness and a putting away of filth. Christ came to restore us back to our original purpose. Communion with Him.

Love,
Christina

[Uphill Battle]

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/Holy_Relics/index.shtml

Are we not called to be Christ-like? The saints testify to this possibility! Christianity is not a philosophy or idea, but a transformation into Holiness and a putting away of filth. Christ came to restore us back to our original purpose. Communion with Him.

Love,
Christina
Christ like in action. That does not mean we receive the same as he, such as no decompostion, etc....

now, what is it about the mummified remains of a man makes it holy?


http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/peru/human/fi/00000000.jpg (http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/peru/human/sect.htm)

Here is an example of another corpse that has no putrifaction. Not a saint of the church, however.

[Asinner]

Christ like in action. That does not mean we receive the same as he, such as no decompostion, etc....

Christ not only received no decomposition, but a Resurrection. As will we, be resurrected on the day of Judgement. What does it mean to be Christ-like only in action? I have met a Holy man. Divine Grace was evident without him opening his mouth. His eyes were brighter than the sun and it was as though he was already in Heaven with Christ and the angels.


now, what is it about the mummified remains of a man makes it holy?




From the article:
The holiness of the Saints—both the holiness of their souls and of their bodies—derives from their zealous grace- and virtue-bestowing lives in the Body of the Church of Christ, of the God-Man. In this sense, holiness completely envelopes the human person—the entire soul and body and all that enters into the mystical composition of the human body. The holiness of the Saints does not hold forth only in their souls, but it necessarily extends to their bodies; so it is that both the body and the soul of a saint are sanctified.

Love,
Christina

[PassthePeace1]

Christ like in action. That does not mean we receive the same as he, such as no decompostion, etc....

now, what is it about the mummified remains of a man makes it holy?




Here is an example of another corpse that has no putrifaction. Not a saint of the church, however.


Most of ours look better..^_^ , oh sure we have a few leathery looking ones, but many are plump...:)

[Uphill Battle]

Christ not only received no decomposition, but a Resurrection. As will we, be resurrected on the day of Judgement. What does it mean to be Christ-like only in action? I have met a Holy man. Divine Grace was evident without him opening his mouth. His eyes were brighter than the sun and it was as though he was already in Heaven with Christ and the angels.don't suppose you have a photo of HIM.




From the article:
The holiness of the Saints—both the holiness of their souls and of their bodies—derives from their zealous grace- and virtue-bestowing lives in the Body of the Church of Christ, of the God-Man. In this sense, holiness completely envelopes the human person—the entire soul and body and all that enters into the mystical composition of the human body. The holiness of the Saints does not hold forth only in their souls, but it necessarily extends to their bodies; so it is that both the body and the soul of a saint are sanctified.

Love,
Christina

then tell me how the same conditions can be found in the corpses of others not even remotely associated with the Church?

makes no sense.

I have extreme skepticism for this. WE are promised no such thing on this earth, in fact scripture states that we are in tents, not mansions. that our FUTURE imperishable bodies, post resurrection are what we will recieve.... not in these shells we walk around in now.

[Asinner]

don't suppose you have a photo of HIM.

Yes I do. :)




then tell me how the same conditions can be found in the corpses of others not even remotely associated with the Church?

makes no sense.

They are not in the same condition. There is no fragrant myhr flowing from that body you showed.

Love,
Christina

[Uphill Battle]

Yes I do. :)






They are not in the same condition. There is no fragrant myhr flowing from that body you showed.

Love,
Christina
post it then.



no fragrant Myhr? how can that be asserted from a photo?

And, of course, the "relics" have been tucked away again, there is no way to verify the scent of Chrism. (which, of course, could be manufactured anywho.)

[sunlover1]

so that we don't have hundreds of little interpeters argueing about what the real intended meaning of Scripture is. You know, kinda sorta like what happens here hundreds of times every day....^_^

That means nothing.
Shoot, even the Apostles who were taught
face to face by Jesus Christ Himself, got
things wrong.

If your pope or Jesus Himself
told 20 people the same thing
they because they are human, can hear
it differently.

If 20 people see an accident, you will get20
different eyewitness accounts.

sunlover

[Asinner]

post it then.



no fragrant Myhr? how can that be asserted from a photo?

And, of course, the "relics" have been tucked away again, there is no way to verify the scent of Chrism. (which, of course, could be manufactured anywho.)

There are many, many testimonies to uncorrupt bodies with fragrant myrh flowing from them from the first centuries of Christianity to today. I have smelled the bones of one saint, and it was beautiful! It most certainly has been verified, Uphill Battle. Many Christians have witnessed the miracles you doubt! Do not be like Thomas. Miracles are still present with His Church. I am saddened that you choose to believe they do not exist.

As for posting a picture of someone who is Holy . . . it is a pearl to me. Perhaps if I believed your heart was opened to seeing him for what he is and not making a mockery of it with your questioning unbelief, I would post it.

Love,
Christina

[simonthezealot]

You can't be serious can you? I just look at the myriad of conflicting teachings in "Christianity" and understand the flaw in your premise. Jesus never endorsed unfettered sprituality. He instructed His church to go out, make disciples and teach what He commanded. Not what He recommended, or what He thought was a pretty neat idea. Christ gave commandments and entrusted their propagation to the Church.

You can't be serious can you?

I just look at the myriad of scripture conflicting doctrine in "Catholocism" and understand the flaw in your premise.

Your under the false premise that your church is "THE" church in and of itself!

[Uphill Battle]

There are many, many testimonies to uncorrupt bodies with fragrant myrh flowing from them from the first centuries of Christianity to today. I have smelled the bones of one saint, and it was beautiful! It most certainly has been verified, Uphill Battle. Many Christians have witnessed the miracles you doubt! Do not be like Thomas. Miracles are still present with His Church. I am saddened that you choose to believe they do not exist.

As for posting a picture of someone who is Holy . . . it is a pearl to me. Perhaps if I believed your heart was opened to seeing him for what he is and not making a mockery of it with your questioning unbelief, I would post it.

Love,
Christina
ah, so you'd be casting a pearl before swine. Fair enough.

[ScottBot]

You can't be serious can you?

I just look at the myriad of scripture conflicting doctrine in "Catholocism" and understand the flaw in your premise.

Your under the false premise that your church is "THE" church in and of itself!
AN example or two would be nice, or should I take your word for it that 5 years of study on the CHurch that I spend before recommitting myself to it was just wasted effort? Wait....no, then YOU would be my pope. which in and of itself would be a contradiction to the very thing you are talking about.

[Giver]

I would like to share a few areas where I believe the Roman Catholic Church has failed to comply with the Word of God.


(Matthew 5:44) “But I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;”

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

(Matthew 6:19) “Do not store up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moths and woodworms destroy them and thieves can break in and steal.”

(Matthew 23:8-12) “You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you must be your
servant. Anyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and anyone who humbles himself will be exalted.”

(Luke 6:27-29) “But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly. To the man who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek too; to the man who takes you cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic.”

(Luke 14:33) “So in the same way, none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up all his possessions.”


(Luke 6:30-35) “Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from the man who robs you. Treat others, as you would like them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what thanks can you expect? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do food to you, what thanks can you expect? For even sinners do that much. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive what thanks can you expect? Even sinners lend to sinners to get back the same amount. (How did the church ever justify saying usury was excessive interest?) Instead, love your enemies and do good, and lend without any hope of return. You will have a great reward, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.


(1 Corinthians 5:11) “What I wrote was that you should not associate with a brother Christian who
is leading an immoral life, or is a usurer, or idolatrous, or a slanderer, or a drunkard or is dishonest; you should not even eat a meal with people like that.”

[Splayd]

I would like to share a few areas where I believe the Roman Catholic Church has failed to comply with the Word of God.I'm sure most of these are relevant for all of us in some way or another. That's sad and in no way diminshes the seriousness, but be careful that you don't point out the speck while ignoring the log. Let's look at them in more detail.

(Matthew 5:44) “But I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;”This is certainly a tricky one for most of us, regardless of our affiliation to a particular church, but it's certainly how we are to act towards our enemies. Imagine then the extent to which we are to love our brothers and sisters in Christ. After all, we're to be known by our love for each other, are we not? Incidentally - I wonder if any of the Catholics reading your posts have felt persecuted and whether they've responded by praying for you. I suspect some may have, but if they haven't, this serves as a great reminder.

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistanceI'm not sure what your point is here. Perhaps you could illustrate how you are getting it right that I might better understand how they are getting it wrong.

(Matthew 6:19) “Do not store up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moths and woodworms destroy them and thieves can break in and steal.”I'll assume you haven't done this either. Perhaps you could make some positive suggestions and encouraging posts about how to live in poverty and the blessings you've received as a consequence. I'm sure we'd benefit much more from that, then simply pointing out that some others are getting it wrong.

(Matthew 23:8-12) “You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you must be your servant. Anyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and anyone who humbles himself will be exalted.”I'd suggest that if your understanding of these verses is correct, it's just as big an issue for many Protestants. I don't know how many Doctors of Theology or Reverends I've met along my journeys.

(Luke 6:27-29) “But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly. To the man who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek too; to the man who takes you cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic.”This is another one where I'm not actually sure what the implication is but I'd agree that most (perhaps all) of us could be better at this.

(Luke 14:33) “So in the same way, none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up all his possessions.”I confess a great respect for you here. I wish I could do what you've obviously done and give up all my possessions. It's certainly commendable. I assume you're using the internet at a local library or uni or something like that?

(Luke 6:30-35) “Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from the man who robs you. Treat others, as you would like them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what thanks can you expect? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do food to you, what thanks can you expect? For even sinners do that much. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive what thanks can you expect? Even sinners lend to sinners to get back the same amount. (How did the church ever justify saying usury was excessive interest?) Instead, love your enemies and do good, and lend without any hope of return. You will have a great reward, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. I guess this is the manner in which you surrendered all your possessions? Perhaps you could share some guidelines and practical advice. Did you just go with the "first in, best dressed" approach when giving away your stuff or did you seek those most in need?


(1 Corinthians 5:11) “What I wrote was that you should not associate with a brother Christian who
is leading an immoral life, or is a usurer, or idolatrous, or a slanderer, or a drunkard or is dishonest; you should not even eat a meal with people like that.”
Sound advice indeed. I wonder if it might be the reason Catholics have closed communion?

Peace

[Giver]

Splayd, I don’t believe this thread is about me, if I follow the Word of God or not. No! It is about what the Catholic Church teaches and practices, or doesn’t teach and practices.

(Matthew 5:44) “But I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;”

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

My point here is that Jesus tells us not to even offer the wicked man any resistance. Now you tell me does not the church teach a “Just War”?

(Matthew 6:19) “Do not store up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moths and woodworms destroy them and thieves can break in and steal.”

When have you ever heard the church teach against savings or saving up for your retirement?

(Matthew 23:8-12) “You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you must be your
servant. Anyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and anyone who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Here is a scripture that is so plain, but is totally ignored, by the church.

(Luke 6:27-29) “But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly. To the man who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek too; to the man who takes you cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic.”

(Luke 14:33) “So in the same way, none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up all his possessions.”

Does the church believe Luke got it wrong? It sure doesn’t teach this.


(Luke 6:30-35) “Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from the man who robs you. Treat others, as you would like them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what thanks can you expect? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do food to you, what thanks can you expect? For even sinners do that much. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive what thanks can you expect? Even sinners lend to sinners to get back the same amount. (How did the church ever justify saying usury was excessive interest?) Instead, love your enemies and do good, and lend without any hope of return. You will have a great reward, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.


(1 Corinthians 5:11) “What I wrote was that you should not associate with a brother Christian who
is leading an immoral life, or is a usurer, or idolatrous, or a slanderer, or a drunkard or is dishonest; you should not even eat a meal with people like that.”

The Bishops sure should really take this scripture to heart. If they had, those priests who did those horrible things would not have been around for so long.

[Uphill Battle]

Splayd, I don’t believe this thread is about me, if I follow the Word of God or not. No! It is about what the Catholic Church teaches and practices, or doesn’t teach and practices.

(Matthew 5:44) “But I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;”

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

My point here is that Jesus tells us not to even offer the wicked man any resistance. Now you tell me does not the church teach a “Just War”?

(Matthew 6:19) “Do not store up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moths and woodworms destroy them and thieves can break in and steal.”

When have you ever heard the church teach against savings or saving up for your retirement?

(Matthew 23:8-12) “You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you must be your
servant. Anyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and anyone who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Here is a scripture that is so plain, but is totally ignored, by the church.

(Luke 6:27-29) “But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly. To the man who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek too; to the man who takes you cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic.”

(Luke 14:33) “So in the same way, none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up all his possessions.”

Does the church believe Luke got it wrong? It sure doesn’t teach this.


(Luke 6:30-35) “Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from the man who robs you. Treat others, as you would like them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what thanks can you expect? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do food to you, what thanks can you expect? For even sinners do that much. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive what thanks can you expect? Even sinners lend to sinners to get back the same amount. (How did the church ever justify saying usury was excessive interest?) Instead, love your enemies and do good, and lend without any hope of return. You will have a great reward, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.


(1 Corinthians 5:11) “What I wrote was that you should not associate with a brother Christian who
is leading an immoral life, or is a usurer, or idolatrous, or a slanderer, or a drunkard or is dishonest; you should not even eat a meal with people like that.”

The Bishops sure should really take this scripture to heart. If they had, those priests who did those horrible things would not have been around for so long.


Actually, this thread isn't about what the Catholic church practices or teaches either. go back and read the OP.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:1_Pt8rb-thU56M:http://home.comcast.net/~beb0183/hijacker_1.JPG (http://home.comcast.net/~beb0183/hijacker_1.JPG)

[ScottBot]

Splayd, I don’t believe this thread is about me, if I follow the Word of God or not. No! It is about what the Catholic Church teaches and practices, or doesn’t teach and practices.

(Matthew 5:44) “But I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;”

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

My point here is that Jesus tells us not to even offer the wicked man any resistance. Now you tell me does not the church teach a “Just War”?

(Matthew 6:19) “Do not store up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moths and woodworms destroy them and thieves can break in and steal.”

When have you ever heard the church teach against savings or saving up for your retirement?

(Matthew 23:8-12) “You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you must be your
servant. Anyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and anyone who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Here is a scripture that is so plain, but is totally ignored, by the church.

(Luke 6:27-29) “But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly. To the man who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek too; to the man who takes you cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic.”

(Luke 14:33) “So in the same way, none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up all his possessions.”

Does the church believe Luke got it wrong? It sure doesn’t teach this.


(Luke 6:30-35) “Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from the man who robs you. Treat others, as you would like them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what thanks can you expect? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do food to you, what thanks can you expect? For even sinners do that much. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive what thanks can you expect? Even sinners lend to sinners to get back the same amount. (How did the church ever justify saying usury was excessive interest?) Instead, love your enemies and do good, and lend without any hope of return. You will have a great reward, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.


(1 Corinthians 5:11) “What I wrote was that you should not associate with a brother Christian who
is leading an immoral life, or is a usurer, or idolatrous, or a slanderer, or a drunkard or is dishonest; you should not even eat a meal with people like that.”

The Bishops sure should really take this scripture to heart. If they had, those priests who did those horrible things would not have been around for so long.


If you have an issue with the pederasty scandal in the Catholic Church, why don't you go start a separate thread on it in Hamartiology.

2.8 No Off-Topic

You will not 'de-rail' or 'hijack' threads by making posts unrelated to the original post or other posts in the thread. You will not create threads unrelated to the topic of a forum or subforum.

[Giver]

If you have an issue with the pederasty scandal in the Catholic Church, why don't you go start a separate thread on it in Hamartiology.

2.8 No Off-Topic

You will not 'de-rail' or 'hijack' threads by making posts unrelated to the original post or other posts in the thread. You will not create threads unrelated to the topic of a forum or subforum.
Wow! I stepped on somebody’s toes. I am sorry, please forgive me. You may be right I will take your advice and start another thread.

[ScottBot]

Wow! I stepped on somebody’s toes. I am sorry, please forgive me. You may be right I will take your advice and start another thread.
That's all I asked. I'll be glad to respond in there. This thread was headed in the wrong direction from the OP and I wanted to try to get it back on track. Thanks. God bless. :)

[Uphill Battle]

There are many, many testimonies to uncorrupt bodies with fragrant myrh flowing from them from the first centuries of Christianity to today. I have smelled the bones of one saint, and it was beautiful! It most certainly has been verified, Uphill Battle. Many Christians have witnessed the miracles you doubt! Do not be like Thomas. Miracles are still present with His Church. I am saddened that you choose to believe they do not exist. now whoever said that I disbelieve that miracles occur? I am just very careful in looking at every thing and saying Miracle! Miracle! You call me doubting Thomas, fine... but then Should I beleive the "miracles" of statues of Ganesh that drink milk? All the crying statues, Mary appearing in a taco in Guadarlacava.... The list is endless. You smelled the bones of a saint, but you don't even wonder whether or not it is manufactured... because your church says so, it's a miracle! I neither need nor seek miracles to bolster my faith.

As for posting a picture of someone who is Holy . . . it is a pearl to me. Perhaps if I believed your heart was opened to seeing him for what he is and not making a mockery of it with your questioning unbelief, I would post it.

Love,
ChristinaWhere do you get the notion that questioning is a BAD thing? For instance, the claims of Christ. I questioned them over an over... they still hold water despite every criticism and barb thrown at him. A great deal of "miracles" do not. Stigmatisms, Holy Relics, appearances of saints, etc.... there have been fraudulent examples of all of them. Other religions claim miracles as well.

I hold very fast to the words of Christ, that states "even if they see signs and wonders, they still won't believe." That being said... do you think he would then turn around and peform sign after sign? Makes little sense. God does the miraculous. I will hold a reverent Agnosticism on the matter for most claimed miracles, and most likely, never need to see one manifested in such a manner. I can find no promise, or reason, that God would preserve the corpses of "saints" on this earth. What is sown persishable will rise imperishable, but not NOW. That is what I see in the bible.

As for the Holy man, I wonder strongly if the description of this Man is as you say, where he is... he must be strongly cloistered to avoid any press for his appearance! With eyes brighter than the sun, that would turn some heads, I have no doubt. I respect that you don't want to cast that pearl before who you consider a doubter, fine. It's just that if the Orthodox church was very much about the signs, and wonders, such as the holy relics, I would think that someone of such an appearance would serve well to evangelize Christ, instead of being so far removed that nobody knows he exists. Just my opinion.

[BigNorsk]

then exactly how do they decide what is, and what isn't?

If it's decided apart from the pope, then it isn't papal infallibility at all!

Makes me wonder at the worth of claiming infallibility of the pope in the first place.

Largely Catholic politics. If the Pope says something that a bunch of Catholics want they start campaigning in support of it and they run with it and after awhile it is therefor recognized, often by a following Pope that it was spoken ex cathedra.

And the politics are instrumental actually in getting a Pope in place that will support your position so that he can speak "infallibally" on it and so you can push support for it and make it a sin not to believe what you believe.

Of course Catholic explanations for how it works probably wouldn't agree with that assessment.

Marv

[Uphill Battle]

Largely Catholic politics. If the Pope says something that a bunch of Catholics want they start campaigning in support of it and they run with it and after awhile it is therefor recognized, often by a following Pope that it was spoken ex cathedra.

And the politics are instrumental actually in getting a Pope in place that will support your position so that he can speak "infallibally" on it and so you can push support for it and make it a sin not to believe what you believe.

Of course Catholic explanations for how it works probably wouldn't agree with that assessment.

Marv
probably not.

[ScottBot]

Of course Catholic explanations for how it works probably wouldn't agree with that assessment.

Marv
You're right about that one.

[Uphill Battle]

You're right about that one.
so then, tell us all how it REALLY works.

[Uphill Battle]

well? how does it really all go down?

[ScottBot]

well? how does it really all go down?
Ask the Holy Spirit......

[Uphill Battle]

Ask the Holy Spirit......
no, what I mean is... if something is not considered Ex Cathedra when it is first spoken, how does it BECOME ex Cathedra?

[ScottBot]

no, what I mean is... if something is not considered Ex Cathedra when it is first spoken, how does it BECOME ex Cathedra?
Well, if that's what you wanted to know, you should have asked....:D

A great modern example of this is John Paul II's encyclical Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html)a treatise regarding the ordination of women into the priesthood. It is being regarded by many as a modern example of an ex cathedra dogmatic announcement. I've included the english translation if the document rom the vatican website so you can see it for yourself. :)

Notice how he opens the letter up, "Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches."

He appeals to the constant teaching (tradition) of ALL of the Apostolic churches (Catholic and Orthodox)" the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents." He is basically saying, "Hey, I am not making this stuff up. This is what the church has believed and taught from the very begining."

Then, he goes on to expound WHY this issue requires papal intervention, "But since the question had also become the subject of debate among theologians and in certain Catholic circles, Paul VI directed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to set forth and expound the teaching of the Church on this matter. ....at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force." The Pope is issuing this document because the constant teaching of the church, specifically that ordination to the ministerial priesthood is reserved to men alone, is being called into question.

Finally, he appeals to Christ, the head of the Church, as the one who has established this doctrine. "The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church's Tradition- Christ established things in this way........In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner."

And finally, what makes this letter subject to ex cathedra, is in the closing remarks. "
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

So, I hope that helps. So, as a review, ex cathedra declarations usually have 3 conditions:

1. The are founded on the constant teaching of the Church based on the work of Christ.
2. There is a pressing need to promulgate the doctrine, i.e. is it being debated and called into question.
3. It is decided that it is an article that is closed for debate, or in the words of St. Augustine, "jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est " (for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished.) or, the more succinct paraphrase, Rome has spoken, case closed.

Hope that helps. I know that you have issues with the fundamental authority of the Bishop of Rome, but I hope that you can see that I, as a loyal Catholic, don't need to run around refuting this matter. It has been believed and discussed for thousands of years. What right do I have to question its validity but out of mere human pride.

[ScottBot]

bump, for UBs edification.

[Uphill Battle]

I read it scott, thanks.