Meat on Friday

[Kirkland1244]

You do understand that there's a distinct difference between canonization when it comes to a book of the Bible, and canonization when it comes to a Saint.

Canonization of a book means that the book was inspired by God, inerrant, and is, in fact, Scripture. There are only 73 books that the Church has canonized in this way.

Canonization of a Saint means that the Church is stating that said person is without a doubt in Heaven. It has nothing to do with any books they might have written during their time on Earth.

We really don't have any idea who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews, it likely wasn't Saint Paul. But despite the fact that we don't know who wrote it, it has been judged inspired, and is Scripture. However, we know St. Augustine is in Heaven, but the Church does not teach that his "City of God" is Scripture, nor inspired. It is profitable in that it was written by a true and holy man, but it is not Scripture.

Kirk

 

[Kotton]

Kirk said,"The Fathers are not infallible. "
And Louis' reply,
Umm..yeah they are. Catholics have cannonized some people, didn't ya know that?
Kirk;ALL CANONIZATION MEANS IS THAT THE CHURCH IS STATING THAT THIS PERSON IS IN HEAVEN, AND THEREFORE WORTHY OF VENERATION. Not that they were infallible during their Earthly lifetime.

Kirk is right, as any knowledgable Catholic will tell you.

Louis:

That's exactly what it means kirk. Why don't you just ask your priest so you can agree with me.

No priest would agree with you.

"Not that they were infallible during their Earthly lifetime."

No, but it does mean that their teachings are like the bible, ie infaultable.

INCORRECT

Louis:

hmm...who should I quote...just go back and look at some of the threads on here. That is why I am not a catholic. The bible and the Saint's writings on the bible (thomas A for example) are put on equal footing. Ask wols if you don't believe me. Ask yourself why the church fathers are so important..answer because their writings are taken as infaultable on scriptural matters...ie, I'm right.

The writings of Saints or Church Fathers are NEVER put on equal footing with Scripture. They are important for historical reasons of showing the beliefs and practices of the early Church, and how these same beliefs are still present in the Church today. No reason to ask Wols, he has posted answers that disagree with you and support Kirk.

yes, but the saints interpration of tradition is INFAULTABLE. That is why it is on the same level as the bible, I'm right kirk, as your priest.

Again, incorrect.

umm..if he was using his "ex com...something " powers he would be. so umm..you're wrong here too.

Ex-cathedra is the word, and you do not grasp the concept.

Exactly why they aren't cannonized. Only certain people where like thomas A.

Incorrect interpetation.

So what do you think Cannonized means then Kirk, umm..to make close to right, but not right?

Kirk;ALL CANONIZATION MEANS IS THAT THE CHURCH IS STATING THAT THIS PERSON IS IN HEAVEN, AND THEREFORE WORTHY OF VENERATION

Looks like he answered this already.

Kotton

 

[ZooMom]

Rule of Acquisition # 78: "Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies."

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That was great!


Louis, I'm agreeing with Kirk and Kotton. You really are way off base with your interpretation of this.


God bless...


Sandy

 

[VOW52]

"Canonization, generally speaking, is a decree regarding the public ecclesiastical veneration of an individual.

The writings attributed to the person whose beatification (the first step of canonization) is in question are assembled, printed and distributed to the cardinals of the Congregation of Rites. If nothing contrary to faith and morals is found in the writings of the servant of God, a decree is published, authorizing further action."

(paraphrased from www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm)


I didn't read NUFFIN about those writings becoming "infallible." I gather that the examination of the writings are examined to make sure there were no "naughty notes" or heretical teachings; the person's LIFE is honored through sainthood.

Sorry, Louis, I need to see your references.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Wolseley]

That is why I am not a catholic. The bible and the Saint's writings on the bible (thomas A for example) are put on equal footing. Ask wols if you don't believe me. Ask yourself why the church fathers are so important..answer because their writings are taken as infaultable on scriptural matters...ie, I'm right.

Sorry, Louis, but Kirk, Kotton, ZooMom and Vow are right, and you're wrong.

The Patristic writings make mention of certain dogmas and doctrines which are part of Apostolic Tradition; but that doesn't mean that the Patristic Fathers are infallible; all it means is that the dogmas and doctrines they mention are.

If Billy Graham mentioned that Jesus was born of a virgin in a sermon, would you say that his entire sermon was infallible, or only the doctrine of virgin birth he mentioned? My bet is that you'd say only the doctrine.

Same thing with the Patristic Fathers. They may make mention of infallible doctrines, both from Scripture and Tradition, but they themselves were no more infallible than you or I are. In fact, Tertullian, Origen, and others even drifted into outright heresy at times, which is why the Church accepts some of their writings as orthodox, and some others as baloney.

As far as canonization goes, as Kirk said, all it means is that the Church has declared that said individual is in heaven; no more, no less. It does not mean that the said individual is infallible.

To recap: There are four ways for anything to be infallible.
1. It is part of Holy Scripture.
2. It is part of Apostolic Tradition.
3. It is promulgated by a council comprised of the bishops of the Church acting as a unified body.
4. It is made by a reigning Pontiff in an ex cathedra statement.

In the case of 3 and 4 above, neither of them can contradict or cancel out anything in 1 and 2 above, nor any other previous infallible declaration made by 3 and 4.

So, Louis, I'm sorry, but you are most definitely mistaken, incorrect, inaccurate, erroneous, and wrong.

Blessings,
---Wols.

 

[Kirkland1244]

Thank you Wols, Kotton, ZooMom and VOW. Nice to have some back up here.

Kirk

 

[VOW52]

Louis,

If you have honestly believed that all the writings of the saints and the Doctors of the Church had the same weight as Holy Scripture, then I really can understand why you would have issues with "Catholicism."

Misconceptions feed on misconceptions, and that is how many people arrive at wrong conclusions. I am glad this forum offers the opportunity to clear things up.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[LouisBooth]

Thanks wols, "all it means is that the dogmas and doctrines they mention are. "

That's exactly what I was saying. I guess everyone misunderstood me and jumped on the bad wagon. Go back and read my posts again and maybe ya'll will get it.

"It is part of Apostolic Tradition."

Expand on this part and you will see what I have problems with as I will show ya where.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Ex-cathedra is the word, and you do not grasp the concept.
"

umm..yeah I do, I know exactly where it came from and how it started before it was declaired right. I orgianlly saw a problem with that but then I sat down and thought about it and I see the same thing with the cannon of scripture. It was cannon before it was "announced" as cannon. I know exactly what that concept is, don't make stupid assumptions, they lead ya down the wrong path.

 

[Kirkland1244]

That's exactly what I was saying.

No, its really not. At least, its not what you appeared to be saying.

Heres the reality. Let's take Augustine. Augustine wrote about baptism. The doctrine of regenerative baptism is infallible. However, if Augustine writes about that belief, his words about it are NOT infallible. He is writing about an infallible truth, but his writings are just as fallible as yours or mine.

Just like if John Paul II were to write a Biblical commentary. He would be writing about infallible scripture, but his commentary would not be infallible.

Kirk

 

[VOW52]

:::throwing up hands in the air:::

Louis, I quit.

You talk in circles, and then when you are pinned down and asked to provide examples, proofs, you spin away.

Methinks perhaps the Catholic argument is making too much sense to you.

You claim to have the knowledge, the education, the background to "know what you are talking about," yet your misspellings and convoluted reasonings are enough to try the patience of the poor Saints whose mouths you are stuffing full of post-Apostolic "scripture."

I think I'm gonna take a Tylenol and go lie down for a while.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[LouisBooth]

"Just like if John Paul II were to write a Biblical commentary. He would be writing about infallible scripture, but his commentary would not be infallible."

So then augustines thoughts can be wrong then?

 

[LouisBooth]

"all it means is that the dogmas and doctrines they mention are"

Thats what I"m getting at. I'll start from square one. Is it possible for augstine, thomas A., etc..to be wrong about the subject of baptism in their thoughts and writings?

VOW, yes I am a terrible speller and my hand writing is bad too though..but then again so what einsteins and he was one of the smartest men ever.

 

[LouisBooth]

If all of what you say is true then why are docterines and things not backed up SOLELY with scripture as a primary source, why is it always scripture AS INTERPRETED by your catholic fathers?

 

[Kirkland1244]

Yes, Augustine can be wrong. He was not as an individual an infallible person.

However, the doctrines he writes about CANNOT be wrong. His opinion on them might be wrong (though that is unlikely), but the core faith he discusses is infallible.

Many saints went through "rough" periods where they strayed close to heresy and wrote against the doctrines of the faith, but returned to the fold. By your logic, even their heterodox writings would be orthodox. That's nonsense.

Just be a man and give this one up. You've yet to show any evidence to support your case, you fall back on the same platitudes whenever pinned down, and even such overwhelmingly informed Catholics as Wolseley have called you on this. You are mistaken. That's okay. But don't stand there and try to lecture to ME about MY religion, when you're not standing on firm ground.

Kirk

 

[Kirkland1244]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
If all of what you say is true then why are docterines and things not backed up SOLELY with scripture as a primary source, why is it always scripture AS INTERPRETED by your catholic fathers?

Catholic doctrines are often backed up solely with Scripture. Read the Catechism... just as often as it references a non-Scriptural document such as a papal proclamation or a document from a Council, it references Scripture (and not Augustine's commentaries on Scripture).

Catholics reference the Fathers when discussing our beliefs on Scripture for the same reason we do so when discussing our beliefs regarding Tradition -- to show the continuity of the Catholic faith down through the ages.

Kirk

 

[LouisBooth]

"However, the doctrines he writes about CANNOT be wrong. "

You don't understand what I"m asking. Certain docterines came about BECAUSE of him and what he wrote. He outlines certain things and they became law because he wrote about them and his opinions are his theology.

"You've yet to show any evidence to support your case, "

kirk, go back to your political realm where someone is always right and someone is always wrong, people here are tryint to understand and learn.

"But don't stand there and try to lecture to ME about MY religion, when you're not standing on firm ground."

Kirk, not to sound arrogant but I probalby know more about your relgion then you do.

"Catholic doctrines are often backed up solely with Scripture. "

exactly...so those traditions are mans interpretations of things that aren't scriptural..that's where my concern lies. If its a human thing it can be wrong.

 

[Kirkland1244]

You don't understand what I"m asking. Certain docterines came about BECAUSE of him and what he wrote.

No they do not. Beliefs are not part of Tradition because Augustine wrote about them. He wrote about them because they are part of Tradition. We do not look at Augustine for the source of the beliefs, just as a tool in understanding them, and more importantly, in understanding how these beliefs were held in the Early Church.

kirk, go back to your political realm where someone is always right and someone is always wrong, people here are tryint to understand and learn.

Bullpuckey. You're not trying to learn. You're a broken record. You keep repeating the same lame assertations, even though EVERY CATHOLIC HERE has denounced your false version of OUR beliefs.

And you're wrong about politics, too. Politics is a world of grays, little right, little wrong. Thats why I find it ever more unappealing.

But when it comes to religion, there is nothing but right and wrong. There is no in between. You either have proper Christology, or you have wrong Christology. You either have right Soteriology, or you have wrong Soteriology. You either understand the concept of the Deposit of the Faith properly, or you misunderstand it. You misunderstand it, as EVERYONE HERE has told you.

Clearly, you think me some mentally deficient intellectual midget whom you can bully around. I am not and you cannot.

I did not come to Catholicism lightly, nor did I come to it uninformed and unprepared. For years before converting, and for almost eighteen months after, I have soaked myself in the teachings of the Church -- the Catechism, the writings of the Fathers (particularly Augustine), apologetics works, the Documents of Vatican II, recent Vatican documents such as Dominus Iesus (great document, I'm re-reading it this evening, now that I'm back from class... this is "unwinding" reading for me).

Were it not for a family crisis, I would not have taken the four month break from this immersion, which I am just now returning to. I do not do this so that I can lord over other people with my knowledge (which you seem to do, as you snidly try to teach Catholicism to a group of well-informed Catholics), but because I feel a particular calling to learn as much as I can. Why? I do not know.

So don't think that Mr. High and Mighty LouisBooth is the only one who comes here to "learn." I am here for that reason to. And learn I do. From Wolseley. And ZooMom. And VOW. And other Catholics here. And occasionally from various Protestants who post in this area, too.

And now you, who are wrong on this issue, see fit to bite your thumb at every Catholic here, who has answered and refuted your charges. You now claim that you know Catholicism better than me. I doubt it. But in saying you are right here, and I am wrong, you are making the same claim against every Catholic who has stood up to your rantings.

So now you know Catholicism better than Wolseley?

And apparently better than the Church, the leaders of which do not seem to realize that the documents of the men they recognize as Saints are actually inspired to the level of Scripture?

Well sound the trumpets and call the Pope! The great Prophet LouisBooth has risen up to lead us Catholics out of darkness. Who needs the Councils, who needs the Popes, when we have Louis here to tell us what we believe?

Or maybe you're wrong, as everyone here has said you are.

Kirk

 

[ZooMom]

Very well said, Kirk. You are absolutely right. And that isn't a slam about Louis personally or in particular. I feel exactly the same way, and it is probably the root of why I get so burned at other boards. I despise having someone tell me what I think.

Louis, I think it's time you either provide whatever evidence you have that you think proves us wrong or you concede. If you have no evidence and refuse to concede, you might want to spend some time reflecting on why you feel that way. No-one is going to feel smug if you come around on this, only relieved that we were able to help you understand our practices.


God bless...


Sandy

 

[Wolseley]

>>>>"However, the doctrines he writes about CANNOT be wrong. "<<<<

You don't understand what I"m asking. Certain docterines came about BECAUSE of him and what he wrote. He outlines certain things and they became law because he wrote about them and his opinions are his theology.

Louis, please provide me with documented evidence of this development. Give me standard bibliographic references as to where Augustine's primary statement is located, and then further documentation in the relevant Catholic corpus where this doctrine of Augustine's invention became dogma, Tradition, or an infallible belief. If you cannot and will not do this, then be prepared to have me dismiss everything you have to say from this point forward, because it appears to me that you don't have any backing for your assertions---you're just making statements that mean nothing, that are based on nothing other than your personal opinion.

It either comes from documented evidence, or it comes from your imagination. Which is it?

>>>>"You've yet to show any evidence to support your case, "<<<<

kirk, go back to your political realm where someone is always right and someone is always wrong, people here are tryint to understand and learn.

Prime example of my point, Louis; Kirk asked you for some sort of documentation, somewhere you could point to and say, "I got my ideas about this subject from this document here," and instead, you go off onto some totally irrelevant statement about politics. Again, if you're going to make statements about Catholic doctrine and its development, then be prepared to back them up with something other than air.

>>>>"But don't stand there and try to lecture to ME about MY religion, when you're not standing on firm ground."<<<<

Kirk, not to sound arrogant but I probalby know more about your relgion then you do.

(Picking myself up off the floor, hoarse from laughing; wiping tears out of my eyes) No, Louis, you don't. No, Louis, you don't. No, Louis, you don't. I'm sorry (erupting in laughter again) but, no, Louis, you don't. :lol:

>>>>"Catholic doctrines are often backed up solely with Scripture. "<<<<

exactly...so those traditions are mans interpretations of things that aren't scriptural..that's where my concern lies. If its a human thing it can be wrong.

Wow, what a leap. Kirk mentions that Catholic doctrines are often backed with Scripture, and you immediately make the assertion that Tradition is all man-made, and wrong, to boot.

Louis, it's clear that you have a very foggy notion of how both Scripture and Tradition developed, and how Catholic doctrine got to be Catholic doctrine. You may think you do, and you say you do, but from what you have repeatedly posted here, no, you do not. And until you can start posting some proof-texts here to back up your statements, I'm going to have to continue to dismiss your ideas as simply so much misunderstood Protestant woolgathering. If you can quote for me some Patristic sources, Scholastic sources, Augustinian sources, encyclical sources, conciliar sources, to back up what you say, fine. We'll go from there. If all you can do is throw out unfounded statements like "Augustine's ideas became Catholic doctrine," then all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say, "Really? Jeepers! That's nice", and go on to other business that has some substance.

I'm sorry if I sound harsh, Louis, but this ring-around-the-rosie jazz is getting extremely tiresome. Give me some sources. And I mean book, chapter, line, verse, and word, not "St. Augustine said somewhere".

Standing by on a 10-24,
---Wols.