theoretical Ex Cathedra

[ScottBot]

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

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

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

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

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

In your arguement biblical inerrancy is derived from the bible.

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

 

[Uphill Battle]

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

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

In your arguement biblical inerrancy is derived from the bible.

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

the bible has proven itself accurate.

RCC has not.



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

 

[Asinner]

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

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

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

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

Love,
Christina

 

[BigNorsk]

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

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

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

Marv

 

[ScottBot]

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

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

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

Marv

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

 

[Uphill Battle]

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

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

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

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

 

[Splayd]

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

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

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

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

 

[Giver]

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

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

 

[ScottBot]

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

Scriptures are not opinion. What they mean to you are your opinion. And yes, I do feel that the Catholic Church follows all of the Scriptures in their original, historical, and socio-cultural context.

 

[Giver]

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

In Grief,
Christina

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

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

 

[sunlover1]

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

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

thank you in advance,
sunlover

 

[Tonks]

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

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

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

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

 

[Giver]

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

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

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

 

[Asinner]

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

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

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

Love,
Christina

 

[Giver]

Scriptures are not opinion. What they mean to you are your opinion. And yes, I do feel that the Catholic Church follows all of the Scriptures in their original, historical, and socio-cultural context.

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

 

[Giver]

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

Love,
Christina

Amen!

 

[Tonks]

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

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

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

 

[Tonks]

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

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

 

[simonthezealot]

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

thank you in advance,
sunlover

I often wondered where this was coming from...
Afterall,
did not God allow Jacob to be decieved that his 1st son Joseph was dead in Gen 46?
only to have Joseph say this...

the answer that Joseph himself gave to his brothers. "God sent me ahead of you to
preserve life. It was not you who sent me here, but God."​

 

[simonthezealot]

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

Vatican II's Dei Verbum 2.10 (quoted by the Catechism in CCC 86) explicitly says that the Church's Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God. And while I know that Catholicism doesn't teaching that only Scripture is the Word of God, it is certainly true that Scripture is the Word of God.