Can the Catechcism of the Catholic Church ever change?
- Thread starter redleghunter
- Start date
- Apr 22, 2017
- 1,371
- 1,515
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Really?! You mean you want us to take a poster seriously who just randomly posts a text of Scripture in response to an opposing statement, even though the text is on that subject, and that he is not engaging in attempted refutation?
Get real or be ignored!
And just how does that answer the question, do you think the pope speaks as wholly inspired-of-God when speaking "ex cathedra?" The issue was not your belief in speaking ex cathedra, but how that is equal to Scripture as the assured wholly inspired word of God, which is not simply inerrant, but as Hebrews 4:12 states.
PeaceByJesus said: ↑ And just what is your basis for assurance that the Assumption is true?
What kind of Catholic assurance is that? We or even a Mormon can say the same.
Upvote
0
I wish you would ignore me. It would spare me the time of having to read the nonsense that you consistently write. Again, I did not make any false statements. I posted a passage of Scripture. Everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
Not necessarily. My answer to the question would depend on the particular definition of "ex cathedra" in your question. One can understand that phrase in different ways.
I never wrote that "speaking ex cathedra is equal to Scripture" so your question is irrelevant.
I do not know what kind of assurance it should be classified as. I am perfectly fine with the the basis for my beliefs.
Of course you can, but your theology would still be wrong.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Only one week? I was hoping that we could get something new by tomorrow morning. Good night.
Upvote
0
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Once again, Really?! You mean you want us to take a poster seriously who just randomly posts a text of Scripture in response to an opposing statement, even though the text is on that subject, and that he is not engaging in attempted refutation?
What is this so hard to understand, if indeed you fail to see that you posted a text of Scripture in response to an opposing statement in attempted refutation.
Try to keep up. The issue is and was what is the most ancient reliable wholly inspired substantive record of what the NT church believed. You say sacred tradition, which thus requires it to be a wholly inspired substantive verifiable record, such as the recorded words of popes, if they were wholly inspired.
Understand now?
what kind of assurance? It is the kind even a Mormon can claim and is not the assurance the infallible magisterium is said to be essential for.
On what basis? You both base your confidence on prayer and faith. You can argue because your infallible magisterium is the standard, and a Mormon can do the same, but your basis of assurance that your infallible magisterium is worthy of trust is based on prayer and faith. Which is your basis of assurance that your traditions are True.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I thought that you were going to ignore me. I can see that your threats are empty, and that you are not a person of your word.
I never stated that what I posted was not meant to refute your view, so that is irrelevant.
I understand that what you wrote above is incorrect.
I never said anything about "the assurance the infallible magisterium is said to be essential for" so that is irrelevant.
On the same basis.
What I can argue is irrelevant. You asked me to state the basis for my beliefs, and I stated them. I obviously do not care whether or not you like my answer.
But let me ask you one question, since I have already answered so many of yours. What is the basis for your belief that Sacred Scripture is the inspired, inerrant, word of God?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Another poll and thread up:
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-will-pope-francis-change-next.8076331/
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-will-pope-francis-change-next.8076331/
Upvote
0
Do you think there is a pristine copy of the original texts in the Vatican Library? The text of the Nestle-Aland (the Greek source document on which modern Bible translations are based) is changing all the time. There are currently 28 different editions.
Sacred Tradition is every bit as inspired and reliable as Sacred Scripture.
No, they do not.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
He should (not).
Yet, without acting in our Blessed Holy Trinity he can choose in the earthly will and ways to do this however advisable for him to not change the Catholic Doctrine.
Every Holy Passage of Gods Holy Word and Canon Holy Laws are from God The Most High Himself in and through our Lord Jesus Christ in Holy Spirit.
Every Catholic Doctrine was delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself through Holy Saint Peter, Holy Saint John, our Lord Jesus Disciples within Gods Holy Word and from Jesus Himself to His Saints/Nuns/Priests/Bishops/ArchBishops each Century also appearing to them all in accordance with Gods Holy Word.
Yet, without acting in our Blessed Holy Trinity he can choose in the earthly will and ways to do this however advisable for him to not change the Catholic Doctrine.
Every Holy Passage of Gods Holy Word and Canon Holy Laws are from God The Most High Himself in and through our Lord Jesus Christ in Holy Spirit.
Every Catholic Doctrine was delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself through Holy Saint Peter, Holy Saint John, our Lord Jesus Disciples within Gods Holy Word and from Jesus Himself to His Saints/Nuns/Priests/Bishops/ArchBishops each Century also appearing to them all in accordance with Gods Holy Word.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Once again you manifest incomprehension. Get real or be ignored is indeed a threat, which is not empty nor does it bind one to when it will be implemented, any more than threats of Divine judgment required God to execute them immediately (and your logic would charge Him with making empty threats) for is also an invitation/challenge for the opponent to change, or explain why the charge is not valid.
I have patiently endured your attempts to do so, and which provides me with further opportunity to expose your sophistry to the public, but be assured if you remain recalcitrant you will indeed face the axe as regards being consider worthy of response.
It is supremely relevant, for in response to what PeaceByJesus said: ↑ (And the most ancient and reliable church teaching (Scripture) clearly supports Capital Punishment,) you posted John 8:1-11, in which the Judge of all delivered a person from CP, and which I pointed out was not abrogating CP but teaching what the church is to do (it also allows for commutation by the civil powers, but does not require it).
But as this was obviously an attempt to deny my statement that Scripture clearly supports Capital Punishment, you were faced with the charge of false teaching. But in response you pleaded "I did nothing other than quote a passage of Sacred Scripture." And "I posted a passage of Sacred Scripture without comment. Everything else you wrote is irrelevant."
Which, if true, would mean you were not attempting to refute the statement you were responding to, that Scripture clearly supports Capital Punishment.
But being faced with "Really?! You mean you want us to take a poster seriously who just randomly posts a text of Scripture in response to an opposing statement," now you implicitly admit that what you posted was meant to refute my view.
Which means you are guilty of false teaching. And if you deny that you were engaging in attempted refutation then it means you want us to take a poster seriously who just randomly posts a text of Scripture in response to an opposing statement.
Either way, you can hardly do better to expose yourself as a sophist who are not fit for extended exchange, except perhaps to expose him to be public.
PeaceByJesus said: ↑ Try to keep up. The issue is and was what is the most ancient reliable wholly inspired substantive record of what the NT church believed. You say sacred tradition, which thus requires it to be a wholly inspired substantive verifiable record, such as the recorded words of popes, if they were wholly inspired.
Which argument by mere assertion is a poor excuse for an argument.
No, once again it is not irrelevant, for the issue is the question of the basis for assurance of teaching, which means there are alternatives, and for a Catholic and Catholic teaching this means infallible magisterium is involved, for either assurance is to be simply based on prayer and faith in God, or prayer and faith in God that infallible magisterium provides assurance.
As one of your apologists stated,
"...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true," Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers; Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275),
PeaceByJesus said: ↑Which is your basis of assurance that your traditions are True.
Thank you for affirming that an infallible magisterium is never essential for assurance that Catholic teaching is true.
You miss the reality that it is not about you, but the church you believe in or are supposed to.
What was the the basis for the belief that Sacred Scripture is the inspired, inerrant, word of God before there was a church which presumed it was essential for souls to discover the contents of it, that it required faith in her, as is taught in Catholic theology (Dulles, Catholic encyclopedia, etc.)?
And for that matter, how did common souls hold that men such as John the Baptist were prophets indeed? (Mark 11:28-33) It certainly was not because an infallible council first established them. Was it not essentially due to the enduring Divine qualities and attestation such men, words and writings of God manifested and received, even when opposed by the historical valid magisterium?
The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalms 19:7-11)
And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth. (1 Kings 17:24)
As with Christ above all,
Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:45-49)
Upvote
0
LOL. Face the axe? I WANT you to ignore me. In fact, I hope and pray to God that you will ignore me so that I do not have to keep responding to the nonsensical things that you continue to write.
Nice analysis, but this is nonsense. My motive was to refute, but the only action I took was exactly what I wrote, which was to post a Scripture verse without comment. Obviously the passage I posted is inconsistent with your assertions, and I posted it for that reason. Any idiot can see that.
As far as me being a sophist who is not fit for extended exchange, that is laughable because you keep writing volumes upon volumes in response to me, no matter how many times I ask you to make good on your empty threat to ignore me.
I could not care less what somebody else wrote. I told you the basis for my assurance, and it is not what you wrote above. So everything that you wrote above is irrelevant. If you want to have a debate about what Karl Keating wrote, send an email to Karl Keating or call him on the phone. I do not care.
I did not write this either, so it is also irrelevant.
Well then send a letter to the Pope or the Catholic bishop in the area in which you live. I do not care. You do not get to tell me what arguments I have to make, and what arguments I have to defend. If you do not like that, make good on your threat to ignore me and have a conversation with someone else.
I ask you one question and your respond with five questions. Well, that is not how this game is going to be played. If you want to me to answer any of your questions, you are going to have to give a straight answer to mine first. I refuse anything else. If you do not like it, ignore me. I do not care.
Upvote
0
You said and I quote
"But the basic duty of RCs is to submit to their pastors as docile sheep."
Which is totally false.
You clearly know nothing about infallibility either.
Leave catholics to explain catholicsm.
"But the basic duty of RCs is to submit to their pastors as docile sheep."
Which is totally false.
You clearly know nothing about infallibility either.
Leave catholics to explain catholicsm.
Upvote
0
concretecamper
Member of His Church
- Nov 23, 2013
- 6,786
- 2,580
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I take it you concede that there is no substantial difference as you claimed early on and now want to move onto life imprisonment?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Totally false?! It is you who lack knowledge about teaching in Catholicism (even if not consistent). To wit:
"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
Epistola Tua: To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation.
Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.... Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.
On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to [only] concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. (Quanta Cura. Encyclical of Pope Pius IX promulgated on December 8, 1864; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm)
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...nts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
The authority (of papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great". It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, esteemed Catholic theologian and professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America, who served as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council. Extract from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.
Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-...ents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
...when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x
to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm
In addition, as concerns social teaching, The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states:
80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it . - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...peace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
Of course, such are open to interpretations as to their meaning, but according to strict traditionalists (such as the source for Allocution Vi ringrazio) there simply is no sanction for public dissent of official church teaching (they just disagree on what that is), and indeed, in the past laity was even forbidden to engage in public debate on matter of Catholic theology.
We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Religious_Discussions
However, Catholic teaching can change.
Oh. And I presume this is in response to my statement that Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Then show me where this is not accurate, that when Rome (the pope or councils together with him) declares something in accordance with her infallibly defined scope and subject-based (defining a matter on faith or morals for the whole church) then it is not to be held as infallible. And thus her declaration that she is thus infallible, is infallible, even if this belief preceded Vatican 1.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
