Infallible Authority Of The Church.

[dzheremi]

Written like a true reformer of the sixteenth century - or maybe one from the fifth century? It really does seem that reforming zeal almost always ends with serious hubris and deep error.

Worry about yourself. The errors of Rome are enough for its own people to deal with.

 

[BobRyan]

Great Controversy: p 271

Century after century the blood of the saints had been shed. While the Waldenses laid down their lives upon the mountains of Piedmont “for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ,” similar witness to the truth had been borne by their brethren, the Albigenses of France. In the days of the Reformation its disciples had been put to death with horrible tortures. King and nobles, highborn women and delicate maidens, the pride and chivalry of the nation, had feasted their eyes upon the agonies of the martyrs of Jesus. The brave Huguenots, battling for those rights which the human heart holds most sacred, had poured out their blood on many a hard-fought field. The Protestants were counted as outlaws, a price was set upon their heads, and they were hunted down like wild beasts. GC 271.2

================= A few tiny examples --
¨1540 -1570 Roman Catholic armies kill at least 900,000 Waldensians Christians of all ages

1550 - 1560 the death of at least 250,000 Dutch Protestants

1572 St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre kills at least 10,000 Protestants during the first three days. .

1641 -1649 death of at least 100,000 Irish Protestants.

1685 French Roman Catholic soldiers kill approximately 500,000 French Protestant Huguenots on the orders of Roman Catholic King Louis 14 of France

The call for the "extermination of heretics" resulted in a number of crimes against humanity
=================

No wonder Pope Francis issued an extremely late - "apology" to the Waldenses in 2022

Pope asks pardon from Waldensian Protestants for past persecution

Pope Francis asked forgiveness on Monday for the Roman Catholic Church's "non-Christian and inhumane" treatment in the past of the Waldensians, a tiny Protestant movement the Vatican tried to exterminate in the 15th century.

www.reuters.com

In that statement Pope Francis said "“On behalf of the Catholic Church, I ask forgiveness for the un-Christian and even inhumane positions and actions taken against you historically,” he said. “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, forgive us!”

See LATERAN IV call for "Extermination of Heretics" for more insight into what he is talking about.

===============================

Even more to the point - the Pope admits to a little something comparing past actions of the Church he heads in its past "Holy wars" to the current criminal acts against civilians in Eukraine committed by Russia.

Pope to Russian Patriarch: 'Church uses language of Jesus, not of politics' - Vatican News

Pope Francis holds a video call with Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill to discuss the war in Ukraine, and calls on Church leaders to use the language ...

www.vaticannews.va

“There was a time, even in our Churches, when people spoke of a holy war or a just war. Today we cannot speak in this manner. A Christian awareness of the importance of peace has developed.” Pope Francis (Vatican News: March 2022)

 

[BobRyan]

Catholic Digest 11/1997 pg 100

​

The question:​

A Baptist family who lives across the street gave me a book called the “Trail of Blood”, by J.M. Carroll. It attacks Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism, indulgences, purgatory, and so on. But I am writing to learn if there is anything in history that would justify the following quotation:​

​

“The world has Never seen anything to compare with the persecution heaped upon the Baptists by the Catholic hierarchy of the Dark Ages. The Pope was the world’s dictator. This is why the Anabaptists before the Reformation called the Pope the Anti-Christ”. Then: “Fifty million died by persecution over a period of 1200 years because of the Catholic Church”​

The answer from Fr. Ken Ryan:

“There weren’t any Baptists until 1609, generally thought of as a year occurring after the Dark Ages. (that is why the article above includes Anabaptists) Anabaptists (means anti-baptism of infants – so they re-baptized them as adults) means “re-baptizers” and was a name given to groups existing in the 3rd, 4th, 11th and 12th centuries but they had no connection with the violent civil-religious (Catholic) reformers who appeared in 1521 at Zwickau in Saxony. These 16th century Anabaptists rejected Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism and Lutheran justification by faith, among other things, and intended to substitute a new “Kingdom of God” for the social and civil order of their time. John Leyden was proclaimed King of New Sion at Munster where museums and libraries were destroyed and polygamy was introduced. This group AND Many others were Exterminated during the Peasants Wars by a Combination of civil and religious authority. Whether they were persecuted or punished depends on your point of view”​

​

​

====================​

​

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45674

Which church is the best?

Posted:August9,2005
1:00a.m Eastern

" I’m also encouraged by Benedict XVI, who seems to have inherited John Paul II’s humility as well as his loyalty to foundational doctrines. On Jan. 22, 1998, when he was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being “heretics.” And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost. That kind of honesty will help relations (though there is no basis for uniting the RCC with Bible-believing Protestant churches)."​

========================

Lateran IV Canon 3 - Advocating for Crimes against humanity is not the same thing as " a custom -- sort of like wearing a tie to church". Rather they directly contradict the teaching of Christ in his statement about loving our neighbor, loving our enemies, turning the other cheek etc.

=======================

St John Paul II The Great made this clear when he apologized for the many failings of the Catholic Church and among them are:

• The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher GalileoGalilei, himself a devout Catholic, around1633 (31October1992).]
• Catholics' involvement with the Africanslavetrade

(9August1993).

• The Church's role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May1995, in the Czech Republic).
• The injustices committed against women, the violation of women's rights and for the historical denigration of women (29May1995, in a "letter to women").
• The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust(16March1998).
• For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18December 1999 in Prague)
• When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter "to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church's reformers, and acknowledged that "independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation's moral education. "It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants

 

[BobRyan]

This may seem like a technical point, but I'm not sure that it is proper to call councils that are held by only one particular church in the communion "ecumenical". Are the canons of the council in question considered binding upon, say, the Maronite Catholics, or the Chaldean Catholics, and so forth? I wouldn't think so, but I really don't know, and I am aware that Rome has changed its approach towards its Eastern churches in more recent times (after 1215, anyway; many Eastern Catholic churches did not come into existence until after that time, anyway).

Some councils were ecumenical others were just local - the Lateran IV council is admitted to have been ecumenical

 

[IcyChain]

BobRyan said:
The Lateran IV council calling for the "extermination of heretics" as part of its official, formal canon law - proves beyond all doubt that ecumenical councils CAN be in gross error.

responses that lack substantive solutions to the irrefutable point I made above - are exactly why that same point 'remains to this very day'.

Your post illustrates the problem with that sort of "can't really address the point raised" response as if it were a "solution".

And often as in the case above -- it is done "as if we were simply not supposed to notice" the glaring lack of response to the point.

You can expect posts that are irrefutable and for which some have no answers... "to remain"

Here you go. Refuted below. Take that and run down the rabbit-hole a bit more with it.

I hope that is enough to satisfy your fix for a bit.

Did the Church change its position on the punishment of heretics?

Not much. First, the issue Lateran IV (1215) addressed was not the “extermination” of heretics in the sense of killing them. Anti-Catholics have bee...

www.catholic.com

 

[BobRyan]

I hope that is enough to satisfy your fix for a bit.

Did the Church change its position on the punishment of heretics?

Not much. First, the issue Lateran IV (1215) addressed was not the “extermination” of heretics in the sense of killing them. Anti-Catholics have bee...

www.catholic.com

your link says "First, the issue Lateran IV (1215) addressed was not the “extermination” of heretics in the sense of killing them."

Turns out - "killing them" and "torturing them" and "stealing all their property and business" etc was exactly what was taught by that command.

Its pretty hard to argue that burning Protestants such as Huss and Jerome - alive at the stake was not with "intent to kill".
It is pretty hard to argue that the St. Bartholomew's day massacre event was not "with intent to kill" - as celebrated by the Pope of that day.

===============================

Pope John Paul II made this clear when he apologized for the many failings of the Catholic Church and among them are:

• The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher GalileoGalilei, himself a devout Catholic, around1633 (31October1992).]
• Catholics' involvement with the Africanslavetrade

(9August1993).

• The Church's role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May1995, in the Czech Republic).
• The injustices committed against women, the violation of women's rights and for the historical denigration of women (29May1995, in a "letter to women").
• The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust(16March1998).
• For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18December 1999 in Prague)
• When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter "to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church's reformers, and acknowledged that "independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation's moral education. "It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45674

Which church is the best?

Posted:August9,2005
1:00a.m Eastern


" I’m also encouraged by Benedict XVI, who seems to have inherited John Paul II’s humility as well as his loyalty to foundational doctrines. On Jan. 22, 1998, when he was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being “heretics.” And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost. That kind of honesty will help relations (though there is no basis for uniting the RCC with Bible-believing Protestant churches)."

=========

Catholic Digest --

The answer from Fr. Ken Ryan:​

​

“... These 16th century Anabaptists rejected Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism and Lutheran justification by faith, among other things, and intended to substitute a new “Kingdom of God” for the social and civil order of their time. John Leyden was proclaimed King of New Sion at Munster where museums and libraries were destroyed and polygamy was introduced. This group AND Many others were Exterminated during the Peasants Wars by a Combination of civil and religious authority. Whether they were persecuted or punished depends on your point of view”​

Your own Catholic Digest uses that term in exactly the way your link says they never did. And history supports Catholic Digest on that point - with 10's of thousands of Christians killed.


================= A few tiny examples --
¨1540 -1570 Roman Catholic armies kill at least 900,000 Waldensians Christians of all ages


1550 - 1560 the death of at least 250,000 Dutch Protestants

1572 St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre kills at least 10,000 Protestants during the first three days. .

1641 -1649 death of at least 100,000 Irish Protestants.

1685 French Roman Catholic soldiers kill approximately 500,000 French Protestant Huguenots on the orders of Roman Catholic King Louis 14 of France

The call for the "extermination of heretics" resulted in a number of crimes against humanity
=================
No wonder Pope Francis issued an extremely late - "apology" to the Waldenses in 2022

 

[BobRyan]

not true.

Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore, be on the alert,

>>apostasy was to arise from WITHIN the church according to Acts 20

1 Tim 1:3 Just as I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, to remain on at Ephesus so that you would instruct certain people not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to useless speculation rather than advance the plan of God, which is by faith, so I urge you now. 5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from a sincere faith. 6 Some people have strayed from these things and have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.

18 This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, 19 keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. 20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.

>>Blasphemers arise from within the church - and are handed over to satan - but not "exterminated" like Lateran IV commanded.

3 John 1
9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us (Apostles) with malicious words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brothers either, and he forbids those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

>>> "The church" casting out those who believe the Apostles's teaching --

The church going into apostasy 2 Thess 2 -

2 Thess 2: Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, a


"deduced" by "some" via "Extreme inference" is not the same as "taught by the writer"

So then Paul himself subject to "sola scriptura testing"

"They studied the scriptures daily TO SEE IF those things taught by the apostle Paul - WERE SO" Acts 17:11

Gal 1:6-9 "Though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from HEAVEN should teach a different doctrine a different gospel other than has been taught - let him be accursed!" - Gal 1:6-9

>>-- rank means nothing - it is the pure truth , pure doctrine that matters according to the Apostle Paul in Gal 1.


History shows the opposite is true such that even Popes accuse fellow popes of being "antichrist" as history shows.

Until we read the texts above and see the many errors that they were facing - as coming from within the church of the first century -

Jude 1:
3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all time handed down to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into indecent behavior and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.


8 Yet in the same way these people also, dreaming, defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak abusively of angelic majesties. 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him an abusive judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 But these people disparage all the things that they do not understand; and all the things that they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed. 11 Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have given themselves up to the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. 12 These are the ones who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, like shepherds caring only for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, churning up their own shameful deeds like dirty foam; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of darkness has been reserved forever.

>> shepherds in the church teaching false doctrine vs 12

... 16 These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.


Titus 1:
7 For the overseer (Elder) must be beyond reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not overindulging in wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, self-controlled, righteous, holy, disciplined, 9 holding firmly the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.

10 For there are many rebellious people, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of dishonest gain.



Instead of NO false doctrine being taught - what we see is tons of false doctrine being taught in the first century church and a great struggle to try and keep it from getting out of hand. How much more so when the apostles themselves had died off.


=============================

The NT writers present the NT age as one of strife and contention and false doctrine arising from WITHIN the church

=========================================

Errors in the Catholic Church over time
1. Communion with the dead
Prayers to the dead
Prayers for the dead
Requests made of the dead

Indulgences for the dead
Purgatory

Its own claims to have edited the commandments of God - in the words of its own commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II

Rites and practices "borrowed from paganism" in the words of its own Catholic Historians regarding changes made after the time of Constantine.

The command to "exterminate heretics" in its own Lateran IV - CANON 3.

That now ends with --

A tiny snip of examples

Errors in the Catholic Church over time
1. Communion with the dead
Prayers to the dead
Prayers for the dead
Requests made of the dead

Indulgences for the dead
Purgatory

Its own claims to have edited the commandments of God - in the words of its own commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II

Rites and practices "borrowed from paganism" in the words of its own Catholic Historians regarding changes made after the time of Constantine.

The command to "exterminate heretics" in its own Lateran IV - CANON 3.

 

[IcyChain]

your link says "First, the issue Lateran IV (1215) addressed was not the “extermination” of heretics in the sense of killing them."

Turns out - "killing them" and "torturing them" and "stealing all their property and business" etc was exactly what was taught by that command.

Its pretty hard to argue that burning Protestants such as Huss and Jerome - alive at the stake was not with "intent to kill".
It is pretty hard to argue that the St. Bartholomew's day massacre event was not "with intent to kill" - as celebrated by the Pope of that day.

===============================

Pope John Paul II made this clear when he apologized for the many failings of the Catholic Church and among them are:

• The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher GalileoGalilei, himself a devout Catholic, around1633 (31October1992).]
• Catholics' involvement with the Africanslavetrade

(9August1993).

• The Church's role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May1995, in the Czech Republic).
• The injustices committed against women, the violation of women's rights and for the historical denigration of women (29May1995, in a "letter to women").
• The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust(16March1998).
• For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18December 1999 in Prague)
• When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter "to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church's reformers, and acknowledged that "independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation's moral education. "It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45674

Which church is the best?

Posted:August9,2005
1:00a.m Eastern


" I’m also encouraged by Benedict XVI, who seems to have inherited John Paul II’s humility as well as his loyalty to foundational doctrines. On Jan. 22, 1998, when he was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being “heretics.” And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost. That kind of honesty will help relations (though there is no basis for uniting the RCC with Bible-believing Protestant churches)."

=========

Catholic Digest --

The answer from Fr. Ken Ryan:​

​

“... These 16th century Anabaptists rejected Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism and Lutheran justification by faith, among other things, and intended to substitute a new “Kingdom of God” for the social and civil order of their time. John Leyden was proclaimed King of New Sion at Munster where museums and libraries were destroyed and polygamy was introduced. This group AND Many others were Exterminated during the Peasants Wars by a Combination of civil and religious authority. Whether they were persecuted or punished depends on your point of view”​

Your own Catholic Digest uses that term in exactly the way your link says they never did. And history supports Catholic Digest on that point - with 10's of thousands of Christians killed.


================= A few tiny examples --
¨1540 -1570 Roman Catholic armies kill at least 900,000 Waldensians Christians of all ages


1550 - 1560 the death of at least 250,000 Dutch Protestants

1572 St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre kills at least 10,000 Protestants during the first three days. .

1641 -1649 death of at least 100,000 Irish Protestants.

1685 French Roman Catholic soldiers kill approximately 500,000 French Protestant Huguenots on the orders of Roman Catholic King Louis 14 of France

The call for the "extermination of heretics" resulted in a number of crimes against humanity
=================
No wonder Pope Francis issued an extremely late - "apology" to the Waldenses in 2022

The actions that a group of people take after a document is written does not prove the meaning of the document or the intention of it's author. Southern Americans interpreted the Bible to justify the enslavement of black people. That does not make the Bible pro-slavery. I am sure that you can come up with a few other examples to illustrate this principle. Please give it a try and report back to me with your results.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Worry about yourself. The errors of Rome are enough for its own people to deal with.

Advice you might want to apply to your own posts before you post them; they contain rather a lot of negative opinion about Catholicism.

 

[prodromos]

Advice you might want to apply to your own posts before you post them; they contain rather a lot of negative opinion about Catholicism.

I'm shocked, shocked, to see non Catholics disagreeing with Catholic ecclesiology that is alien to their own faith Tradition.

 

[dzheremi]

Advice you might want to apply to your own posts before you post them; they contain rather a lot of negative opinion about Catholicism.

Again, I don't begrudge you your own ecclesiology, even though it is obviously wrong. The only reason this thread has gone the way it has is because your coreligionist decided to try to claim that OO ecclesiology is just RC ecclesiology in different words, and you decided to back him in that, since neither of you know OO ecclesiology from a hole in the ground. I already tried to point out that this thread is not about my Church, and when that didn't work I tried to explain where the differences actually lie, and when that didn't work, I told you worry about yourselves. It's a pretty standard progression, and not at all related to "negative opinions about Catholicism" so much as negative experiences with its partisans who don't know anything other than their own church, and yet assume that its ecclesiological viewpoints and practices are universal (because they're 'Catholic', don'tcha know) when they are not, and never have been.

 

[Always in His Presence]

How can ’the church’ Be an authority, when it is of universally accepted who ‘the church’. Even is?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

you decided to back him in that

I didn't back him in any specific opinion about OO ecclesiology.

 

[JSRG]

In regards to the claim made in this topic that the Fourth Lateran Council supposedly ordered "extermination" of heretics in Canon 3, having looked into the Latin carefully, I do not think this is the proper translation. Looking into translations, I did see one translation of the council's decrees use exterminate, though another used expel. Which is accurate? Well, the Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary offers the following as its definitions of the Latin word in question, extermino (infinitive exterminare):

ex-termĭno , āvi, ātum, 1, v. a. terminus; qs. to drive beyond the boundaries; hence,
I.to drive out or away, to expel, exile, banish (rare, save in Cic. and eccl. Lat.; syn.: expello, eicio, proicio, al.).
I. Lit.: “C. Marcellum exterminandum ex illa urbe curavit,” Cic. Sest. 4, 9; cf.: “haectanta virtus (i. e. Milo) ex hac urbe expelletur, exterminabitur, proicietur?” id. Mil. 37, 101: “aliquem ex hominum communitate,” id. Off. 3, 6, 32: “aliquem de civitate,” id. Balb. 22, 51: “aliquem a suis diis penatibus (with expellere a patria),” id. Sest. 13, 30: “aliquem urbe atque agro,” id. N. D. 1, 23, 63: “peregrinos,” id. Off. 3, 11, 47: “aliquem,” id. Rep. 3, 17: “fucos in totum,” Col. 9, 15, 2: herbam sulcis, id. poët. 10, 149.—Pass. in mid. force: “cubiculo protinus exterminatur,” App. M. 2, p. 125 fin.—
II. Trop., to put away, put aside, remove: “auctoritatem vestram e civitate,” Cic. Prov. Cons. 2, 3: “quaestiones physicorum,” id. Ac. 2, 41, 127: “sic exterminatus animiatque attonitus,” deprived of senses, senseless, App. M. 3, p. 138, 37 Hildebr.—
III. To abolish, extirpate, destroy (late Lat.; “syn.: exstirpo, deleo, etc.),” Vulg. Sap. 16, 27; id. Apoc. 11, 18 et saep.

We do see abolish/extirpate/destroy there. However, I note two things. First, it's the third definition, meaning the least common. Second, it specifies this is "Late Latin", which as noted above is the third to sixth century (this is why it's omitted from some Latin dictionaries, as some focus only on Classical Latin, i.e. Latin before the third century). If this is saying that the meaning is restricted to Late Latin, then obviously, a council in the 13th century would not qualify; that would be medieval or ecclesiastical Latin. Therefore, it seems like the destroy definition is in fact ruled out for Lateran IV given its time period. Note also that while for the definition of drive out/expel/exile/banish it says "rare, save in Cic[ero] and eccl[esiastical] Lat[in]"; we are obviously dealing with ecclesiastical Latin, so it fits.

But aside from the fact the timing of the council indicates the destroy definition should be ruled out, is there further indication in the canon itself that the usage of extermino refers to the expel version, not destroy? The word is used a few times, and while most are a bit ambiguous by context, one seems to make it clear. Looking at the Latin text, we can see this portion in which extermino (or rather exterminate, the singular ablative version of the perfect participle of extermino) is used:

"pro defensione fideo praestent publice juramentum, quod de terris suae jurisdictioni subjectis universos haereticos ab ecclesia denotatos bona fide pro viribus exterminate studebunt"

Tanner's Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils renders this as "to take publicly an oath for the defence of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith". While I did see another translation use exterminate here and use "in the territories" instead of "from the lands", the fact the above Latin says "de terris" seems to clinch it in favor of expel. You see, "de" means from (like in the sense of away from, a departure, separation), which fits with expel, but not destroy. Now, "de" has some other meanings (e.g. of/concerning) but in no definition that I have seen does it work for "in" a place. The Lewis & Short Dictionary says it can be used to mean "in" when referring to time (e.g. "de mense Decembri" meaning "in the month of December" (or "in December" for short)), but never says it can be used for place. If it was saying you were destroying heretics in the lands, then the preposition "in" should have been used instead. "De terris" seems like it can only mean from the lands, which requires the expel translation.

I admit I'm not an expert on Latin or anything. But based on what I do know, and the above information, it seems pretty clear that for Lateran IV, the proper translation should be expel, not exterminate.

 

[IcyChain]

I'm shocked, shocked, to see non Catholics disagreeing with Catholic ecclesiology that is alien to their own faith Tradition.

Well yeah - to the extent that the purpose of this thread was to prove the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility - it's kind of a pipe dream. It's like a Protestant trying to convince me that Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are correct, or a SDA trying to convince 2 billion Christians on the Earth that we are obligated to observe the Saturday Sabbath. Have at it but in the 25 year history of the internet I'd be surprised to find a single thread in which a person actually was persuaded to change his mind on important doctrine by a random person on the internet.

But was that the original purpose of the thread? I didn't necessarily think that the original post was limited to Catholic doctrine per se.

I thought it was more or less a universal thing that Christians thought the Church was infalliable. The Eastern Orthodox do not? Even my brother in Christ dzheremi ultimately admitted that the likelihood of his church being incorrect is the same as the likilihood of a monkey flying out of his rear end (his words not mine).

I thought that the difference would be in the way that people define "The Church" not with the basic idea itself that the Church is infalliable (as a corporate body). To hold that "The Church" is infalliable does not lead to a logical conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church or any other particular church is infalliable so I'm not exactly sure why some folks take such offense to the idea of that.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

To hold that "The Church" is infallible does not lead to a logical conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church or any other particular church is infallible so I'm not exactly sure why some folks take such offense to the idea of that.

It may stem from the thought that admitting that the Church is infallible carries with it the possibility that not only are Church councils infallible but perhaps also the bishops who make up a council have a gift of infallibility when in council and that could imply that a pope is infallible too which would send our OO and EO brethren into an epistemological tizzy.

 

[prodromos]

It may stem from the thought that admitting that the Church is infallible carries with it the possibility that not only are Church councils infallible but perhaps also the bishops who make up a council have a gift of infallibility when in council and that could imply that a pope is infallible too which would send our OO and EO brethren into an epistemological tizzy.

 

[IcyChain]

Again, I don't begrudge you your own ecclesiology, even though it is obviously wrong. The only reason this thread has gone the way it has is because your coreligionist decided to try to claim that OO ecclesiology is just RC ecclesiology in different words, and you decided to back him in that, since neither of you know OO ecclesiology from a hole in the ground. I already tried to point out that this thread is not about my Church, and when that didn't work I tried to explain where the differences actually lie, and when that didn't work, I told you worry about yourselves. It's a pretty standard progression, and not at all related to "negative opinions about Catholicism" so much as negative experiences with its partisans who don't know anything other than their own church, and yet assume that its ecclesiological viewpoints and practices are universal (because they're 'Catholic', don'tcha know) when they are not, and never have been.

Well that is patently false. I did not claim that OO ecclesiology is RC ecclesiology in different words. To clarify that was not my view, I wrote:

To clarify, no, your church does not have an exact equivalent of Catholic theology, but it may have the doctrine of infallibility, as many other churches do. You are starting to seem not to even know what your own church teaches, by first claiming that your church has no error, and then indicating that it’s councils may have error.​

I asserted that your church appears to have a form of infallibility, which you admitted by indicating that the teachings of your church are limited to 3 specific ecumenical councils, and then by claiming that the likelihood of any of those councils containing error is the same likelihood as a monkey flying out of your rear end (i.e. impossible).

Now, that certainly is not Roman Catholic ecclesiology. But it is a form of infallibility if we take what you wrote to it's logical conclusion. When I made that abundantly clear to you and everyone else, you had a fit of anger and decided to start throwing insults at everyone and indicated that you would block me.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

As the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is strangely misapprehended by our separated brethren, because it is grievously misrepresented by those who profess to be enlightened ministers of the Gospel, I shall begin by stating what Infallibility does not mean, and shall then explain what it really is.

First—The infallibility of the Popes does not signify that they are inspired. The Apostles were endowed with the gift of inspiration, and we accept their writings as the revealed Word of God.

No Catholic, on the contrary, claims that the Pope is inspired or endowed with Divine revelation properly so called.

“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in order that they might spread abroad new doctrine which He reveals, but that, under His assistance, they might guard inviolably, and with fidelity explain, the revelation or deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles.” [Council, Vatican I: Const. Pastor Æternus, c. 4.]

Second—Infallibility does not mean that the Pope is impeccable or specially exempt from liability to sin. The Popes have been, indeed, with few exceptions, men of virtuous lives. Many of them are honoured as martyrs. Eighty-two out of the two hundred and sixty-six that sat on the chair of Peter are invoked upon our altars as saints eminent for their holiness.

The avowed enemies of the Church charge only five or six Popes with immorality. Thus, even admitting the truth of the accusations brought against them, we have forty-four virtuous to one bad Pope, while there was a Judas Iscariot among the twelve Apostles.

But although a vast majority of the Sovereign Pontiffs should have been so unfortunate as to lead vicious lives, this circumstance would not of itself impair the validity of their prerogatives, which are given not for the preservation of their morals, but for the guidance of their judgment; for, there was a Balaam among the Prophets, and a Caiphas among the High Priests of the Old Law.

The present illustrious Pontiff is a man of no ordinary sanctity. He has already filled the highest position in the Church for upwards of ten years, “a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men,” and no man can point out a stain upon his moral character.

And yet Francis, like his predecessors, confesses his sins every week. Each morning, at the beginning of Mass, he says at the foot of the altar, “I confess to Almighty God, and to His Saints, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word and deed.” And at the Offertory of the Mass he says: “Receive, O Holy Father, almighty, everlasting God, this oblation which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer for my innumerable sins, offences and negligences.”

With these facts before their eyes, I cannot comprehend how ministers of the Gospel betray so much ignorance, or are guilty of so much malice, as to proclaim from their pulpits, which ought to be consecrated to truth, that Infallibility means exemption from sin. I do not see how they can benefit their cause by so flagrant perversions of truth.

Third—Bear in mind, also, that this Divine assistance is guaranteed to the Pope not in his capacity as private teacher, but only in his official capacity, when he judges of faith and morals as Head of the Church. If a Pope, for instance, like Benedict XVI. were to write a treatise on Canon Law his book would be as much open to criticism as that of any Doctor of the Church.

Fourth—Finally, the inerrability of the Popes, being restricted to questions of faith and morals, does not extend to the natural sciences, such as astronomy or geology, unless where error is presented under the false name of science, and arrays itself against revealed truth. [Council, Vatican I: Const. Dei Filius, cap. 4; Colossians 2:8.] It does not, therefore, concern itself about the nature and motions of the planets. Nor does it regard purely political questions, such as the form of government a nation ought to adopt, or for what candidates we ought to vote.

 

[IcyChain]

It may stem from the thought that admitting that the Church is infallible carries with it the possibility that not only are Church councils infallible but perhaps also the bishops who make up a council have a gift of infallibility when in council and that could imply that a pope is infallible too which would send our OO and EO brethren into an epistemological tizzy.

Well I'm not sure about that. The idea of the infallibility of the church and the idea of papal infallibility are logically distinct. There are non-Catholic Christian denominations that hold to the idea of the infallibility of the Church but reject the idea of papal infallibility. Perhaps my brother in Christ dzheremi did not realize that and equates the two in his own mind, but perhaps you will need to ask him about that yourself as he has chosen to block me because I exposed the logical inconsistencies with what he wrote.