The problem lies in the etc. For example, Papal Bulls, which were once considered to be dogmatic statements, are now generally ignored altogether.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not exactly. Ex Cathedra declarations are believed to be infallible, but infallibility is thought to reside in the institutional church in the absence of any such Papal decrees. Hence, the Magisterium is said to be infallible, the Councils are said to be infallible, etc.
Ex Cathedra statements were what we were referring to, not every Papal pronouncement.The problem lies in the etc. For example, Papal Bulls, which were once considered to be dogmatic statements, are now generally ignored altogether.
Ex Cathedra statements were what we were referring to, not every Papal pronouncement.
I see. Well, if I have any defense for my excessive use of "etc.,"I know, but you corrected the statement by saying that infallibility lies not only with "ex cathedra" statements, but also with other means, including "etc." It is the etc. that can be confusing.
I see. Well, if I have any defense for my excessive use of "etc.,"it would be, in this case, that there are still other mechanisms, according to the RCC, by which the church speaks infallibly. I didn't feel like going into that.
I know short responses can be frustrating, but I think you need to re read my posts that you are addressing above.Yes, opposite, as in opposed or contrary to. For example, if I say that the post-death experience of a person entails extreme pain and torture, but several centuries later someone comes along and says that I was simply mistaken and the reality is that the experience is one of delight and refreshment, would you not agree that these are opposite opinions? One may be correct, but both cannot be correct.
I know short responses can be frustrating, but I think you need to re read my posts that you are addressing above.
Not sure where you get "delight and refreshment" from. Apologies if you were just using those terms as exaggeration.
Scripture says that all nations will call Mary blessed. Why is it that so many Protestants refuse to do so? Are they so afraid of appearing Catholic that they are willing to disrespect the Mother of our Lord? The only time they ever even talk about Mary when they either drag her out for Christmas or, in extreme cases, when they are disparaging her to say she was merely an incubator and no one special. What is with that?
That would make a lot of sense if Mary was made a pope ... or an apostle ... or a bishop ... or a priest ... or even a deacon. But since she has never been considered as any of these I guess 'blessed' has no great correlation to where one is in the hierarchy.the difference is in the mindset, in the rcc universe blessed equals hierarchical superiority.
That would make a lot of sense if Mary was made a pope ... or an apostle ... or a bishop ... or a priest ... or even a deacon. But since she has never been considered as any of these I guess 'blessed' has no great correlation to where one is in the hierarchy.
None of these have anything to do with the hierarchy. I guess maybe you have a thing about Mary that I can't appreciate. So I'll leave you to it without further interference.not in titles contained within the rcc system.
superlative titles like queen of the universe, mediatrix, cause of our joy, star of the sea, etc..
don't tell me these are simply fictional.
None of these have anything to do with the hierarchy. I guess maybe you have a thing about Mary that I can't appreciate. So I'll leave you to it without further interference.
Your reply seems to cast a blind eye toward the "queen" part.That would make a lot of sense if Mary was made a pope ... or an apostle ... or a bishop ... or a priest ... or even a deacon. But since she has never been considered as any of these I guess 'blessed' has no great correlation to where one is in the hierarchy.
Yeah, you missed something. Mary has no role as even a simple deacon, let alone priest or bishop or cardinal or pope. She is outside of that whole hierarchy thing you guys love to rail about, as outside of it as you and I are. Rail on, if you must.Your reply seems to cast a blind eye toward the "queen" part.
Did I miss something?
You are correct, if we limit the discussion to ranks of the clergy. However, that's not what the thread or its title are about.Yeah, you missed something. Mary has no role as even a simple deacon, let alone priest or bishop or cardinal or pope. She is outside of that whole hierarchy thing you guys love to rail about, as outside of it as you and I are. Rail on, if you must.
So they can get over their hierarchy issues, or discuss them in a separate discussion (as if that's never been done before). It would make more sense to me if they could keep their eccesiological issues separate from their issues with Mary. Maybe it's just linguistic imprecision. Whatever.You are correct, if we limit the discussion to ranks of the clergy. However, that's not what the thread or its title are about.
Sensationalize our simple observations if you must, but the force of her influence is magnified by her back-channel access to the divine, else she not deserve hyper-dulia.Yeah, you missed something. Mary has no role as even a simple deacon, let alone priest or bishop or cardinal or pope. She is outside of that whole hierarchy thing you guys love to rail about, as outside of it as you and I are. Rail on, if you must.
Why do women have to be like men in order to be equal to men? That's the worst sort of sexism there is!Yeah, you missed something. Mary has no role as even a simple deacon, let alone priest or bishop or cardinal or pope. She is outside of that whole hierarchy thing you guys love to rail about, as outside of it as you and I are. Rail on, if you must.
This is a terrible apologetic line.Why do women have to be like men in order to be equal to men? That's the worst sort of sexism there is!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?