Submission.

[katerinah1947]

Seems to me that the decisions of a church court are very far removed from an excathedra pronouncement of infallible truth. Perhaps it is not the church that makes mistakes as much as it is the people within her and that includes church courts which do not have any promise of infallibility.

Hi,
The problem is, what is ex-cathedra and what is not, is known by only a few. How many items for instance do you take as infallibly determined, that are in fact only opinion?
LOVE,
...Katherin. .... .

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hi,
The problem is, what is ex-cathedra and what is not, is known by only a few. How many items for instance do you take as infallibly determined, that are in fact only opinion?

LOVE,
...Katherin. .... .

The definition of ex cathedra is well publicised and freely available both online and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as in other catechisms and in many historical documents of the Church, particularly the definition of papal infallibility from the First council of the Vatican. If it is not known then it can easily be learned by any curious to know what it means. But to be sure that all can see for themselves what it means I include below a section from the Catechism of the Catholic Church defining it.

INFALLIBILITY: The gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church whereby the pastors of the Church, the pope and bishops in union with him, can definitively proclaim a doctrine of faith or morals for the belief of the faithful (891). This gift is related to the inability of the whole body of the faithful to err in matters of faith and morals (92).

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

92 “The whole body of the faithful... cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful,’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.”​

 

[katerinah1947]

The definition of ex cathedra is well publicised and freely available both online and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as in other catechisms and in many historical documents of the Church, particularly the definition of papal infallibility from the First council of the Vatican. If it is not known then it can easily be learned by any curious to know what it means. But to be sure that all can see for themselves what it means I include below a section from the Catechism of the Catholic Church defining it.

INFALLIBILITY: The gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church whereby the pastors of the Church, the pope and bishops in union with him, can definitively proclaim a doctrine of faith or morals for the belief of the faithful (891). This gift is related to the inability of the whole body of the faithful to err in matters of faith and morals (92).

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

92 “The whole body of the faithful... cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful,’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.”​

Hi,
I said it is confusing, and hard to find. Not that some expert like you cannot find it. OOOPS! Retraction. It is all there.
Isn't it interesting, that it says even if one person like me disagrees, it is not ex-cathedra.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hi,

I said it is confusing, and hard to find. Not that some expert like you cannot find it.

LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

But I am not an expert. I am only one member of a local parish. I have no special theological training and I am not ordained to any office in the church. If I can look up "infallible" in the glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church then others can too if they want to. If they do not have a Catechism at hand but do have access to the web then they can visit the USCCB (United States Council of Catholic Bishops) web site and read from the Catechism (click this link). I acknowledge that for some this will be difficult and for some there are language barriers that make the web site I've mentioned all but impossible to use and for such persons the matter may be very difficult indeed yet for those of us using ChristianForums the matter is not so difficult if we can read English. Certainly those reading my posts ought, under most circumstances, to be able to access the web site and read what is there or, failing that, they ought to be able to read the section from the Catechism that I posted, right?

 

[Rick Otto]

Hi,
The problem is, what is ex-cathedra and what is not, is known by only a few. How many items for instance do you take as infallibly determined, that are in fact only opinion?
LOVE,
...Katherin. .... .

Thank you.

 

[sunlover1]

Hi,

And yet at times, their authority is so confusing, that in 1616 or so they piblished this:
On February 19, 1616, the Inquisition asked a commission of theologians, known as qualifiers, about the propositions of the heliocentric view of the universe.[31] Historians of the Galileo affair have offered different accounts of why the matter was referred to the qualifiers at this time. Beretta points out that the Inquisition had taken a deposition from Gianozzi Attavanti in November, 1615,[32] as part of its investigation into the denunciations of Galileo by Lorini and Caccini. In this deposition, Attavanti confirmed that Galileo had advocated the Copernican doctrines of a stationary Sun and a mobile Earth, and as a consequence the Tribunal of the Inquisition would have eventually needed to determine the theological status of those doctrines. It is however possible, as surmised by the Tuscan ambassador, Piero Guiccardini, in a letter to the Grand Duke,[33] that the actual referral may have been precipitated by Galileo's aggressive campaign to prevent the condemnation of Copernicanism.[34]

On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[35] The original report document was made widely available in 2014.[36]

At a meeting of the cardinals of the Inquisition on the following day, Pope Paul V instructed Bellarmine to deliver this result to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions; should Galileo resist the decree, stronger action would be taken. On February 26, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered,

to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.

—The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616.[3]

And before that, they published this:
...to check unbridled spirits, [the Holy Council] decrees that no one relying on his own judgement shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which the holy mother Church... has held or holds...

—Decree of the Council of Trent (1545–1563). Quoted in Langford, 1992.[22]

So which is it? Is the church always right, in matters of faith and morals, or did they make an error, as is seeminly said, here.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

I agree, it can be very confusing. As someone who was raised catholic,
all of my relatives are still members of that denomination and the ones that i talk
to about religion, have all different ideas about this or that, same as any
other denomination.
When I was growing up, it was uncommon for catholics to own Bibles, at least
it was in my home, grandmas home, aunts and uncles homes.
I know some will poo poo this testimony, but it's true. And in fact, the catholic
church did (and it's documented) have a practice of killing those who tried to
read the Bible. That always gave me pause.
And nothing really matters, everyone can see,...
if it wasn't "ex cathedra" then our hands our clean.

Hopefully things are changing in ALL of the denominations.
But sometimes I have to wonder.
If you know a tree by it's fruit, then God bless you for your
posting in an honest manner.

Nothing i hate more than watching catholics, baptists, lutherans etc..
posting whatever they feel like saying to defend their denomination.

Denominationalism, it's a very strong strong spirit.
Just try being ecumenical here, watch the rocks start coming lol.

Share the Lord's Supper with other Christians not of your own tribe?
God forbid!!!!!

God bless you.
sunlover

 

[katerinah1947]

But I am not an expert. I am only one member of a local parish. I have no special theological training and I am not ordained to any office in the church. If I can look up "infallible" in the glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church then others can too if they want to. If they do not have a Catechism at hand but do have access to the web then they can visit the USCCB (United States Council of Catholic Bishops) web site and read from the Catechism (click this link). I acknowledge that for some this will be difficult and for some there are language barriers that make the web site I've mentioned all but impossible to use and for such persons the matter may be very difficult indeed yet for those of us using ChristianForums the matter is not so difficult if we can read English. Certainly those reading my posts ought, under most circumstances, to be able to access the web site and read what is there or, failing that, they ought to be able to read the section from the Catechism that I posted, right?

Hi,
Dear,
Call is what you like, but for you to say you do not talk nor sound like an expert, is maybe missed by you. It is not by me.
You talk of going online and looking up definitions, that is at least intellectual. You talk of your ease, of handling what you read. You are not unintelligent, but you miss that not everyone is you.
This stuff is incredibly difficult and hard to understand. The word esoteric as it is commonly used, typifies every statement coming out of Rome. All of us have to sort through, not what they said, but what they meant. Their language and their terms are esoteric.
For you to say, and for me to see that you have no problems with what they say, means to me you are an expert, and an expert missing just one thing. Which of it is wrong.
Ex-Cathedra is implied to every non expert Catholic, in all they write, without ever being there. The masses, me, are constantly confused. I even know priests who have it wrong.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I agree, it can be very confusing. As someone who was raised catholic,
all of my relatives are still members of that denomination and the ones that i talk
to about religion, have all different ideas about this or that, same as any
other denomination.
When I was growing up, it was uncommon for catholics to own Bibles, at least
it was in my home, grandmas home, aunts and uncles homes.
I know some will poo poo this testimony, but it's true. And in fact, the catholic
church did (and it's documented) have a practice of killing those who tried to
read the Bible. That always gave me pause.
And nothing really matters, everyone can see,...
if it wasn't "ex cathedra" then our hands our clean.

Hopefully things are changing in ALL of the denominations.
But sometimes I have to wonder.
If you know a tree by it's fruit, then God bless you for your
posting in an honest manner.

Nothing i hate more than watching catholics, baptists, lutherans etc..
posting whatever they feel like saying to defend their denomination.

Denominationalism, it's a very strong strong spirit.
Just try being ecumenical here, watch the rocks start coming lol.

Share the Lord's Supper with other Christians not of your own tribe?
God forbid!!!!!

God bless you.
sunlover

I have the same problem with any denomination that I would with any political system that has a history of corruption. Especially when all the policies of that system is still by most accounts written into their system and propagated as pure truth.

 

[katerinah1947]

That's private, not necessary for others to believe. Public prophecy was closed with the death of Jesus.
As I said to Katerinah, this is why we are not required to believe what was taught to St. Faustina, or to Margaret Mary Alacoque, or St. Jerome, or Juan Diego. We are required only to believe what Jesus and those who preceded Him taught us.

Hi,
Don't they also say, that to throw that out, is wrong? Do they not also imply to not follow what is revealed may be a mistake? Do they not?
And if they say all those things, then what is anyone to do, when Jesus Himself tells a girl, things and now, we are doing Divine Mercy Hour, and Eucharistic Adoration, and other such things that some do? One is saying a daily rosary becaue Mary in Fatima, said to do that. I have heard she has said it in other places also.
Am I to say, Mary I do not believe in you, because I don't have to? Am I to not go to any church ceremony that involves revealed in modern times information. Is not Divine Mercy Sunday, one of those? Yes. Can I throw that out and contest with the church and win? It seems so. That is something I do not have to believe in, they seem to say. Yet, they use other words with that, that imply I would be equally at fault for not trusting in God, to do as He wishes.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

 

[katerinah1947]

I have the same problem with any denomination that I would with any political system that has a history of corruption. Especially when all the policies of that system is still by most accounts written into their system and propagated as pure truth.

Hi,
And you should. Yet, to throw the baby out with the bath water, although easier to understand, is no different than throwing out all of what is good, for the few things that are bad now.
Yet, I do not think that is what you meant. I think you just are telling others, to not hold on to everything that is told to them in every religion.
LOVE,
...Katerina., .... .

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Hi,
And you should. Yet, to throw the baby out with the bath water, although easier to understand, is no different than throwing out all of what is good, for the few things that are bad now.
Yet, I do not think that is what you meant. I think you just are telling others, to not hold on to everything that is told to them in every religion.
LOVE,
...Katerina., .... .

Please do not pressume to second guess what I meant iydm. I'm sure you must know that is exactly what I meant Knowing within yourself what fits the full picture is important so as not to swallow whatever is being fed cart blanche. Of course that goes for any denomination or person upon which a learning experience of biblical things is occuring. In the final accounting each will stand alone at the judgement.
When there are libraries of books that need to be gone thru to find mistakes that are obvious or carefully hidden, the most useful time spent would be to threw it all out and begin with what ALL denominations agree upon to be the truth. That is starting with the baby and leaving out the dirty bathwater.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But I am not an expert. I am only one member of a local parish. I have no special theological training and I am not ordained to any office in the church. If I can look up "infallible" in the glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church then others can too if they want to. If they do not have a Catechism at hand but do have access to the web then they can visit the USCCB (United States Council of Catholic Bishops) web site and read from the Catechism (click this link). I acknowledge that for some this will be difficult and for some there are language barriers that make the web site I've mentioned all but impossible to use and for such persons the matter may be very difficult indeed yet for those of us using ChristianForums the matter is not so difficult if we can read English. Certainly those reading my posts ought, under most circumstances, to be able to access the web site and read what is there or, failing that, they ought to be able to read the section from the Catechism that I posted, right?

Hi,
Dear,

Call is what you like, but for you to say you do not talk nor sound like an expert, is maybe missed by you. It is not by me.

You talk of going online and looking up definitions, that is at least intellectual. You talk of your ease, of handling what you read. You are not unintelligent, but you miss that not everyone is you.

This stuff is incredibly difficult and hard to understand. The word esoteric as it is commonly used, typifies every statement coming out of Rome. All of us have to sort through, not what they said, but what they meant. Their language and their terms are esoteric.

For you to say, and for me to see that you have no problems with what they say, means to me you are an expert, and an expert missing just one thing. Which of it is wrong.

Ex-Cathedra is implied to every non expert Catholic, in all they write, without ever being there. The masses, me, are constantly confused. I even know priests who have it wrong.

LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

What more can be said. The facts are on the table in my previous post.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hi,

And yet at times, their authority is so confusing, that in 1616 or so they piblished this:
On February 19, 1616, the Inquisition asked a commission of theologians, known as qualifiers, about the propositions of the heliocentric view of the universe.[31] Historians of the Galileo affair have offered different accounts of why the matter was referred to the qualifiers at this time. Beretta points out that the Inquisition had taken a deposition from Gianozzi Attavanti in November, 1615,[32] as part of its investigation into the denunciations of Galileo by Lorini and Caccini. In this deposition, Attavanti confirmed that Galileo had advocated the Copernican doctrines of a stationary Sun and a mobile Earth, and as a consequence the Tribunal of the Inquisition would have eventually needed to determine the theological status of those doctrines. It is however possible, as surmised by the Tuscan ambassador, Piero Guiccardini, in a letter to the Grand Duke,[33] that the actual referral may have been precipitated by Galileo's aggressive campaign to prevent the condemnation of Copernicanism.[34]

On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[35] The original report document was made widely available in 2014.[36]

At a meeting of the cardinals of the Inquisition on the following day, Pope Paul V instructed Bellarmine to deliver this result to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions; should Galileo resist the decree, stronger action would be taken. On February 26, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered,

to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.

—The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616.[3]

And before that, they published this:
...to check unbridled spirits, [the Holy Council] decrees that no one relying on his own judgement shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which the holy mother Church... has held or holds...

—Decree of the Council of Trent (1545–1563). Quoted in Langford, 1992.[22]

So which is it? Is the church always right, in matters of faith and morals, or did they make an error, as is seeminly said, here.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

I'll answer your question with a question to you...When did the motion of the planets become a matter of faith and morals?
Regarding Galileo, he was not ordered to abandon his beliefs in the heliocentric universe (which is wrong, by the way-the sun is not the center of the universe!). He was told he could not teach it as truth, because he could not prove it. Copernicus, btw, was a Catholic priest, and did teach it. As theory.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hi,
I said it is confusing, and hard to find. Not that some expert like you cannot find it. OOOPS! Retraction. It is all there.
Isn't it interesting, that it says even if one person like me disagrees, it is not ex-cathedra.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

Could you point that out to me? The Church is not a democracy-you and I don't get a vote.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I agree, it can be very confusing. As someone who was raised catholic,
all of my relatives are still members of that denomination and the ones that i talk
to about religion, have all different ideas about this or that, same as any
other denomination.

We're entitled to have opinions about this and that. But what the Church teaches as matters of faith, there is no compromise. So you should ask about specific doctrines and dogmas, rather than relying on their varying opinions. Also, opinions on topics such as birth control, the Real Presence, the Ever-Virginity of Mary, and so on, are invalid. Even if they hold different opinions, what really matters is what the Church teaches. Everyone is imperfect, and not able to completely be true to Christ and the Church.

When I was growing up, it was uncommon for catholics to own Bibles, at least
it was in my home, grandmas home, aunts and uncles homes.

So what? It's uncommon for lots of homes to have Bibles. Does owning a Bible prove anything?

I know some will poo poo this testimony, but it's true. And in fact, the catholic
church did (and it's documented) have a practice of killing those who tried to
read the Bible. That always gave me pause.

Proof please? And when did this happen?

And nothing really matters, everyone can see,...
if it wasn't "ex cathedra" then our hands our clean.

Hopefully things are changing in ALL of the denominations.
But sometimes I have to wonder.
If you know a tree by it's fruit, then God bless you for your
posting in an honest manner.

Nothing i hate more than watching catholics, baptists, lutherans etc..
posting whatever they feel like saying to defend their denomination.

People can say what they want, but the Catholic Church has documentation for everything, their entire faith.

Denominationalism, it's a very strong strong spirit.
Just try being ecumenical here, watch the rocks start coming lol.

Share the Lord's Supper with other Christians not of your own tribe?
God forbid!!!!!

God bless you.
sunlover

Sharing the Lord's Supper is one thing, sunlover, but if you go to a Catholic Church and present yourself for reception of the Eucharist, which we believe is the REAL Presence of Jesus, and you don't believe that yourself, you should not step up and receive it.

 

[sunlover1]

We're entitled to have opinions about this and that.

Awesome!
And i do understand that too!
Some folks (obviously not you) will argue those
"minor" points here.

So what? It's uncommon for lots of homes to have Bibles. Does owning a Bible prove anything?

So what!?
It's a HUGE problem when you have an entire denomination as huge as
yours being told they can't read the bible themselves!
HUGE problem.

Proof please? And when did this happen?

It's very very common knowledge.
See the council of Toulouse.

People can say what they want, but the Catholic Church has documentation for everything, their entire faith.

Yes, it does, and so do most entities
Your church is also guilty of forging documents,
just saying. I mean, it's run by men, so of course
we can expect corruption can creep in, same as anyone.
Forged Documents and Papal Power | Berean Publishers

Sharing the Lord's Supper is one thing, sunlover, but if you go to a Catholic Church and present yourself for reception of the Eucharist, which we believe is the REAL Presence of Jesus, and you don't believe that yourself, you should not step up and receive it.

Well the priest in the church I had been attending last fall said we're ALL one,,,
he preached on unity and oneness and I believed him ...
Not all catholics agree with you.
And I don't either.
We're either one or we're not.
Blessings

 

[katerinah1947]

I'll answer your question with a question to you...When did the motion of the planets become a matter of faith and morals?
Regarding Galileo, he was not ordered to abandon his beliefs in the heliocentric universe (which is wrong, by the way-the sun is not the center of the universe!). He was told he could not teach it as truth, because he could not prove it. Copernicus, btw, was a Catholic priest, and did teach it. As theory.

Hi,
Here:
On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[35] The original report document was made widely available in 2014.[36]

At a meeting of the cardinals of the Inquisition on the following day, Pope Paul V instructed Bellarmine to deliver this result to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions; should Galileo resist the decree, stronger action would be taken.

LOVE,
...Katie., .... .

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hi,
Here:
On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[35] The original report document was made widely available in 2014.[36]

At a meeting of the cardinals of the Inquisition on the following day, Pope Paul V instructed Bellarmine to deliver this result to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions; should Galileo resist the decree, stronger action would be taken.

LOVE,
...Katie., .... .

You still have not shown where the movement of the universe is a matter of faith. In other words, the hierarchy can be wrong in matters of other than faith.
And again, the truth is that Galileo was instructed not to teach what he taught as fact, and would have been fine had he done so, because he could not prove it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Awesome!
And i do understand that too!
Some folks (obviously not you) will argue those
"minor" points here.


So what!?
It's a HUGE problem when you have an entire denomination as huge as
yours being told they can't read the bible themselves!
HUGE problem.

You didn't say they can't read the bible themselves, you said they didn't own one. Lots of households don't.

It's very very common knowledge.
See the council of Toulouse.

Common knowledge is wrong. Council of Toulouse banned VERNACULAR Bibles...

Yes, it does, and so do most entities
Your church is also guilty of forging documents,
just saying. I mean, it's run by men, so of course
we can expect corruption can creep in, same as anyone.
Forged Documents and Papal Power | Berean Publishers

Well, we know that men can fail, but the Holy Spirit prevents errors in faith and morals. That doesn't change the Truth of the Church.

Well the priest in the church I had been attending last fall said we're ALL one,,,
he preached on unity and oneness and I believed him ...
Not all catholics agree with you.
And I don't either.
We're either one or we're not.
Blessings

That doesn't matter, what the Church teaches matters.

 

[sunlover1]

That doesn't matter, what the Church teaches matters.

But to ME, it's what Jesus taught that matters, and if man is teaching something
different then I will go with my conscious every time.
My conscious tells me that God WANTS us to be one and
that God WANTS me to partake of His body/blood, EVERY
time we gather together. I do my best to follow His words.

I realize that's not what you or most other Christians believe.
That's between them and God.
What I do is between me and God.
I haVe to do as I feel led.