|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/18/2009 6:57:08 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'll take it, but only as your gracious word and not your church's stricter position.
I don't know what occasion might present itself to do this, but ask a Priest sometime. The younger, the better.
quote:
LOL! I knew you wanted to send me to purgatory!
I'll save seats for everyone if I wind up there first...we can sweat it out together... 
quote:
Because if your church's teaching is correct, then I have no salvation outside of your church.
I believe this to be a mis-statement of the Church's teaching and position on this. I believe the Catechism supports what I have stated above regarding the salvation of "separated brethren".
quote:
We disagree with you on the definition of who "the Church" is, and how "the Church" is built upon the foundation of the Apostles.
Fair enough...so so a lot of people on this site...
quote:
I appreciate the attempts, but so far all I have is, "no, it doesn't mean what it clearly says, let me tell you what it REALLY means".
I don't see a distinction, but I am reading it from the background and culture of one who already knows the answers, not one who is trying to gain understanding of them.
quote:
The Roman Catholic church is shrinking more rapidly than any other Christian denomination in the USA. So much so that may Bishops and Archbishops have called it a "crisis". I posted the census data and survey data around here once upon a time, but I don't have them handy ATM. Shouldn't be hard to find with a Bing or Google search.
My parish is pretty full every Saturday and Sunday - all four Masses. We have about 30 to 50 people come into the Church through RCIA every year. I would guess that the parish is about 1,500 people or so - not bad for the Bible Belt.
We're probably not losing anymore than any other denomination. I have seen several Protestant Churches in my area go under completely (nothing sadder than a Church building with a "For Sale" sign in front of it) - victims of "Mega-Churches" in the area that have sprung up here and there. These Churches are not gaining more folks to Christianity, but sucking them away from the mainstream Protestant Churches that used to host these folks for Sunday Services.
There is one that has sprung up near my home - my wife and I joke that they must put on a heck of show every week to bring in so many - dancing bears, clowns, trick ponies, and a guy getting shot out of a canon...must be something else in there. I have a pet peeve about people who go to Services to be entertained, rather being the entertainer of God with their activity of worship.
But that's a tangent to the discussion....
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/18/2009 8:26:42 PM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2551
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
I'll take it, but only as your gracious word and not your church's stricter position.
I don't know what occasion might present itself to do this, but ask a Priest sometime. The younger, the better.
Does it count that I am listening to The Priests as I type?
Also, one of the best gospel presentations I ever witnessed was delivered by a "substitute" priest for my uncle's funeral mass. (Not sure if I got the terminology right... a young priest was filling in for the usual priest for the funeral service they perform in the church building).
May I ask why you wrote "the younger, the better"?
quote:
quote:
LOL! I knew you wanted to send me to purgatory!
I'll save seats for everyone if I wind up there first...we can sweat it out together...
quote:
quote:
Because if your church's teaching is correct, then I have no salvation outside of your church.
I believe this to be a mis-statement of the Church's teaching and position on this. I believe the Catechism supports what I have stated above regarding the salvation of "separated brethren".
Well, if that is truly the case, then I will continue reading with that idea in mind.
quote:
quote:
I appreciate the attempts, but so far all I have is, "no, it doesn't mean what it clearly says, let me tell you what it REALLY means".
I don't see a distinction, but I am reading it from the background and culture of one who already knows the answers, not one who is trying to gain understanding of them.
I can appreciate that.
quote:
My parish is pretty full every Saturday and Sunday - all four Masses. We have about 30 to 50 people come into the Church through RCIA every year. I would guess that the parish is about 1,500 people or so - not bad for the Bible Belt.
I'm glad your parish is thriving. Sadly, the trend of Christianity in the US is a declining trend, across all branches.
quote:
We're probably not losing anymore than any other denomination. I have seen several Protestant Churches in my area go under completely (nothing sadder than a Church building with a "For Sale" sign in front of it) - victims of "Mega-Churches" in the area that have sprung up here and there. These Churches are not gaining more folks to Christianity, but sucking them away from the mainstream Protestant Churches that used to host these folks for Sunday Services.
There is one that has sprung up near my home - my wife and I joke that they must put on a heck of show every week to bring in so many - dancing bears, clowns, trick ponies, and a guy getting shot out of a canon...must be something else in there. I have a pet peeve about people who go to Services to be entertained, rather being the entertainer of God with their activity of worship.
But that's a tangent to the discussion....
Have you ever considered it might be full because it is a Spirit filled church that is ministering well to its congregants and community? I'm not saying you are wrong, God knows how many health & wealth, name it & claim it, blab it & grab it, Christianity-lite side shows are out there. But, a large congregation doesn't HAVE to equal all that.
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/18/2009 10:47:14 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 681
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Well, I sure hope my well-constructed post to Manimal shows up eventually. According to the home Christian Doctrine homepage I'm the last post, but the whole "runtime error" thing leaves my post showing up suspect.
I typed the Catechism "sections" out for you, Manimal. I can tell you there are 4 "Parts" to the Catechism and then there are bolded entries, which I quoted for you and suggest are adequately labeled "sections" rather than chapters or verses. But what do I know.
Sure hope my response isn't lost in cyberspace.
I'll "see" you again when I can.
Good night,
gatolover
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/19/2009 12:12:00 AM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2719
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
Who gets to interpret the catechism, since it seems to be also quite difficult to weed through?
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/19/2009 1:03:00 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 340
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
ManimalX –
quote:
No, you are wasting your time, my time, and everyone else's time by repeatedly posting off-topic red herrings. I'm not here to discuss Presbyterians, or Baptists, or bananas, or rattlesnakes, or the 1940 New York Yankees. I am here to discuss the Roman Papacy. I think it’s pretty evident that you are here to intentionally misrepresent what the CC teaches. I did the exact same thing you did by intentionally misrepresenting Protestant documents. And yes, you did turn exclusively to the Catechism but you failed to turn to the sections that directly address your questions about the CC view on whether Protestants are saved. Do you really want to know what the CC teaches or is your real motivation to try to prove that the CC is wrong?
quote:
Until you can come up with something better than shaded insults and thinly veiled personal contempt, and something other than, "Well, the Catechism clearly states thus-and-so, but here is what it REALLY means...", I am afraid I will not have the "time" to respond to you further. Okay then I’m done with the whole intentionally misrepresenting what a particular church teaches. Can you please do the same?
Let’s move on to Apostolic Succession. You revealed something I found interesting in post #7330:
quote:
I didn't say I rejected Apostolic Succession, I said I reject the Roman idea of what that is.
Can you please share with us what you believe Apostolic Succession is? You reject the “Roman idea” of what it is. But what about the Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran understanding?
What is your understanding of Apostolic Succession given:
1) It is referenced in the creed established at the ecumenical Council of Nicaea?
2) It is referenced by numerous writings of the early church?
3) That it started when Moses “semicha’d” Joshua so that God’s people would not be like a sheep with no shepherd?
4) That the Jewish Apostles would have expected it and continued it’s practice given that it was a biblical practice of Judaism?
5) That nearly every instance in scripture of an appointment to a leadership position in the church involved imposition of hands?
6) That the only Christian denominations that reject it are those that know they don’t have it?
7) That there were originally 12 apostles and then Matthias was ordained to fill the office vacated by the death of Judas? Jesus didn’t appoint Matthias so who had the authority to do so? (See Acts 1)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/19/2009 2:01:26 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2551
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
ManimalX –
quote:
No, you are wasting your time, my time, and everyone else's time by repeatedly posting off-topic red herrings. I'm not here to discuss Presbyterians, or Baptists, or bananas, or rattlesnakes, or the 1940 New York Yankees. I am here to discuss the Roman Papacy. I think it’s pretty evident that you are here to intentionally misrepresent what the CC teaches.
Well golly gee willikers! You sure are a spiffy detective, figuring out my dastardly, nefarious plot to bring down your church and all! Rome should give you a merit badge or something, you betcha!
Puh-lease... "intentionally misrepresenting" my foot 
quote:
I did the exact same thing you did by intentionally misrepresenting Protestant documents.
Well, looks like that makes one of us a deceiver, doesn't it?
Why is it that every time the conversations are going well around here, and I just start having some respect for some Catholic teachings, you drop by with your repugnant brand of sunshine and remind me of one of the main reasons I rejected the church of Rome in the first place very early in my life: condescending, haughty Catholics.
All I want to do is have an engaging, respectful conversation. It is obvious I can't do so with you. Have a blessed life. Good day, sir.
Edit to add: Yes, that means you are now on my blocked list. Maybe after you have some block-list purgatory time I will turn it off and see if you are ready to play nice.
< Message edited by ManimalX -- 11/19/2009 2:13:34 AM >
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/19/2009 2:46:33 AM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 12133
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Boys, if you will not play nicely with each other, I will make you sit in the corner holding hands until you decide to.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community. Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/19/2009 8:19:45 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 340
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
ManimalX,
Sorry.... I didn’t mean to be so offensive (I even removed some “snarky” comments before posting). Seriously though, we’ve been trying to explain to you what the CC teaches and you keep trying to tell us otherwise. And then you follow with a dialog with Kelman about how we can’t get our teachings straight after 1500 years and gleefully proclaim what you believe is the decline of the Catholic Church. I’m really not sure how this is “engaging, respectful conversation”, but I will try to do my best not to retaliate in the future.
So again, putting that aside and returning to the topic of this thread ….
What is your understanding of Apostolic Succession given:
1) It is referenced in the creed established at the ecumenical Council of Nicaea?
2) It is referenced by numerous writings of the early church?
3) That it started when Moses “semicha’d” Joshua so that God’s people would not be like a sheep with no shepherd?
4) That the Jewish Apostles would have expected it and continued it’s practice given that it was a biblical practice of Judaism?
5) That nearly every instance in scripture of an appointment to a leadership position in the church involved imposition of hands?
6) That the only Christian denominations that reject it are those that know they don’t have it?
7) That there were originally 12 apostles and then Matthias was ordained to fill the office vacated by the death of Judas? Jesus didn’t appoint Matthias so who had the authority to do so? (See Acts 1)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/19/2009 1:48:58 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
May I ask why you wrote "the younger, the better"?
I like the passion and energy of the younger guys coming out of seminary today. I've had my exeperiences with older, cranky Priests; I can't think of a single "young cranky" Priest that I have ever run across...
quote:
Have you ever considered it might be full because it is a Spirit filled church that is ministering well to its congregants and community? I'm not saying you are wrong, God knows how many health & wealth, name it & claim it, blab it & grab it, Christianity-lite side shows are out there. But, a large congregation doesn't HAVE to equal all that.
I have, but what I think is suspect is that this Church has gone from nothing to a lot in a very short time - almost too short. It has put a Baptist Church out of business in the community, and has impacted several other Churches.
Not sure if that happens merely by being Spirit-filled and ministering well to the congregants. There's a lot of smaller Churches that fill that bill.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/20/2009 4:26:17 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5080
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
I was told by a RC priest, who was trying to get under my skin, that I'd "always" be a RC. For some reason, he thought this would disturb me. I wonder, though, if that's how RC comes to its 1 billion number?
Another excellent point. I still haven't received an answer as to why the RCC is pretty much the most quickly declining Christian denomination in the world. Declining membership, declining tithes, declining priesthood, declining sisterhood, declining number of priests, etc etc etc... And, frankly, the pope seems to have bad timing as he begins the "inquistion" of the few nuns left in the US....believe me, that's going over like a lead baloon!
quote:
quote:
quote:
Of course, it would be a violation of TOS for a Roman Christian to make such a claim, but I really don't mind: I just want an honest answer. RC has contradicted itself so often that it's no wonder there's confusion as to its current teaching. RC's older "infallible" documents declare that unless an individual bows to the pope, he cannot and will not be saved. This has been proven over and over.
That is my most recent point: According to the Catechism, I have no salvation. The Pope approves of and sustains the Catechism. Therefore, the Pope denies my salvation. However, the Roman Christians here claim that the Catechism doesn't mean what it actually states. Apparently, the earlier "infallible" bulls of the popes are no longer true...yet, still they cling to a doctrine which has been proven to be non-existant - papal "infallibility".
quote:
Either way they lose: if they support their Pope and their Catechism, I am damned and therefore I reject them. If they claim that their Catechism doesn't actually mean what they have had 1,500 years to define, then I reject them because their official documents are phony and they have no solid foundation. Well, it is true some of their official documents are forgeries, i.e., those used to garner historical support for a papacy - a support which did not exist. And, of course, absolute proof that "infallibility" does not exist by virtue of completely contradictory "infallible" documents.
quote:
quote:
Contradicting its former "infallible" documents, nowadays, Rome's popes declare that belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is irrelevant...people's "good works" can save them.
So, get busy, Manimal.....lol
You and I both know our works are soiled garments. Thank God our garments have been purified and washed clean by the blood of the Lamb, regardless of which men we follow or what sins we falter in, and regardless of which ultimately fallible human denomination declares us "in full communion" or not. Yep, there aren't enough rosaries, Mary apparitions, indulgences, papal "utterances", penances or masses in the world to save even one soul.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/20/2009 4:27:47 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5080
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
My answer is that the interpretation of the 15th century document supplied is incorrect. RC appears to be at a lost when attempting to interpret its own "documents".
And yet, they expect others to believe they have the abililty to interpret Scripture....and "infallibly" no less.
A truism...."first, get your own house in order."
That is one of the conclusions that I am quickly coming to accept as truth. I am using nothing but the Catechism to come to my most recent conclusions, but pretty much all I am getting is, "Well, that isn't what it REALLY says, let me explain it to you..." Well, just imagine the confusion if you were using RC's "infallible" documents.
quote:
...which is the exact same thing us "protesters" are being accused of doing! One of them...but, probably way down the "evil" list....lol
quote:
In my SHO (sometimes humble opinion), they have had 1500 years (which they brag about incessantly) to perfect their message. Why do they still need to explain their official Catechism as if it means something different than the words that are in it?!!?!?!?!?! You have had 1,500 years to get it right, why should it still need clarification? Because they write in theological legalise which necessitates constant readjustments with each new set of lawyers.
quote:
For crying out loud, I can present my church's exact beliefs as supported by Scripture in about one page, and we are nowhere NEAR 1,500 years old! Yep, I'll present mine in just five lines:
Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone
Solus Christus - Christ Alone
Sola Gratia - Grace Alone
Sola Fide - Faith Alone
Soli Deo Gloria - The Glory of God Alone
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/20/2009 4:29:31 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2551
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: online
|
Can anyone here point me to a reliable online source for a full collection of official, ex cathedra, infallible papal statements? (Don't know what they are technically called).
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/20/2009 4:29:51 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5080
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ps103
quote:
RC considers all those baptized in that denomination to be "members" regardless of the fact that the individual no longer considers himself to be a "member" and has, in fact, renounced said religion.
As someone who came from a half-Catholic and half-Protestant family, I can tell you right here and now that if your priest told you that, he was mistaken.
Actually, as hard as it is to believe, he was correct. It's all RC gobbledgook, of course, but nonetheless it's what they think. The following is a question and the answer(in part) given by a Rev Randall Weber, the vicar general who "assists the diocesan bishop in the governance of the whole diocese".
Question
"Once a Catholic always a Catholic" is a common saying among Catholics. Is it true that once a person is baptized into the Catholic Church or received into it, he or she is always a Catholic?
Answer
Speaking from a strictly canonical point of view, the answer is yes. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, anyone who has ever been a legitimate member of the Catholic Church can never truly leave. Oh, he or she can become a non-practicing Catholic, a "bad" Catholic, or even an excommunicated Catholic, but never a non-Catholic or an ex-Catholic. Source
This priest I'm referring to was so annoyed this was his way of "getting even". It was kind of funny really since why would I even care? And, obviously, that's where the big numbers come from...all those ever baptized whether they're RC now or not...oh, well.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/20/2009 4:32:38 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5080
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
Can anyone here point me to a reliable online source for a full collection of official, ex cathedra, infallible papal statements? (Don't know what they are technically called).
Don't hold your breath. It's one of those RC "mysteries". Some say seven, some say five but apparently nobody can agree....
...not much of a "collection" is it?
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/20/2009 7:19:29 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2551
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
Can anyone here point me to a reliable online source for a full collection of official, ex cathedra, infallible papal statements? (Don't know what they are technically called).
Don't hold your breath. It's one of those RC "mysteries". Some say seven, some say five but apparently nobody can agree....
...not much of a "collection" is it?
Actually, everyone can forget that I asked. I just finished reading a bunch of the "explanations" or loopholes offered for the Popes whose official teachings were found to be in error. Here are two:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Excuse for Pope Liberius: "The all-important circumstance should be added that the pope so acted under pressure of a very cruel coercion, which at once deprives his action of any claim to be considered ex cathedra, and that he himself, as soon as he had recovered his liberty, made amends for the moral weakness he had been guilty of."
Excuse for Pope Honorious: "...that Honorius was not a profound or acute theologian, and that he allowed himself to be confused and misled by the wily Sergius as to what the issue really was and too readily accepted the latter's misrepresentation of his opponents' position, to the effect that the assertion of two wills in Christ meant two contrary or discordant wills."
So, even if I questioned any Papal teachings or decress, it seems as if the official position is "any teaching proven to be false wasn't actually ex cathedra". I don't quite follow the logic.
Using the reasoning found in the Catholic Encyclopedia, I can make myself an infallible teacher, too: "Well, students, I know I taught you that 1+1=3 and that a triangle has four angles, but since those things have been proven wrong, it only means that when I was standing up here in front of the blackboard teaching bad math to you it only appeared that I was acting in my official capacity as your teacher. What really happened is that I was pressured to teach you wrong, and I was confused and misled by a wily rival from another school. BUT, everything else I have taught you and will teach you is completely true and beyond questioning! Trust me!".
My career as a math teacher would be put to an end fairly quickly, and my reputation in the realm of mathematicians would be worth less than a moldy bologna sandwich.
Sorry, I didn't originally intend to divert attention away from the statements and questions I have posed regarding the Catechism, but I guess I am doing so anyway
This is by no means my final position on infallibility and ex cathedra statements, just the thoughts that came to me as I skimmed the Catholic Encyclopedia entries on infallibility and ex cathedra. Yes, I skimmed, which means my conclusions may change once I go through again and actually dig in a bit deeper.
< Message edited by ManimalX -- 11/20/2009 7:27:18 AM >
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/20/2009 10:45:29 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Using the reasoning found in the Catholic Encyclopedia, I can make myself an infallible teacher, too: "Well, students, I know I taught you that 1+1=3 and that a triangle has four angles, but since those things have been proven wrong, it only means that when I was standing up here in front of the blackboard teaching bad math to you it only appeared that I was acting in my official capacity as your teacher. What really happened is that I was pressured to teach you wrong, and I was confused and misled by a wily rival from another school. BUT, everything else I have taught you and will teach you is completely true and beyond questioning! Trust me!".
I believe your post, while being a bit tongue-in-cheek, does actually describe the process of determining 'ex-cathedra' teaching quite well. Its one of the better ones I've seen. Imagine that.
I believe an examination of the Vatican site, in addition to New Advent and/or the Catholic Encyclopedia would reveal that "ex-cathedra" is a position arrived-at after examination and reflection, and not so much an on-the-spot decree. At least, that's the way, I have seen it. I've tried searching the Vatican site for "ex-cathedra" and have also done Google searches in an answer to the questions "what is the most recent statement of any Pope to be declared 'ex-cathedra'". The Google search yielded a lot more information about the process itself, rather than what the last statement may actually have been.
The "dogma' of 'ex-cathedra" came about in 1870 (...the principal of it had been around a long time). Since that time, its been used only once - in 1950 to establish the teaching of the Assumption of Mary. The teaching of infallibility was defined in 1870 (...and I could find no evidence that this has been determined to be 'ex-cathedra' per se...), and before that was codified, the majority of Bishops codified the Immaculate Conception in 1854.
So in spite of all the razz here about infallibilty, the Church has only done this once since 1870, and only 7 times in Church history. When other posters refer to bulls and encyclicals as being "contradictory" or "evidence of fallibility", it is simply a demonstration of not knowing what on mother earth they are talking about regarding the doctrine of infallibilty. At least you are posting the right kinds of questions to get to the bottom of the matter.
It is much more likely that the Church would review a collection of historical statements on a subject, and arrive at an infallible teaching from them, then stamp the statements "ex-cathedra" ex-post facto as being supportive of the dogma, once the Church accepts that this dogma has been revealed to her.
I envision the equivalent on the Protestant side of the fence being the ubiquitous use of the KJV Bible. When you look around non-Catholic Christendom, the use of the KJV is quite universal across a number of different Churches. One can examine this in the past-tense and see that the King James Version seems to have been profitable to an awful lot of folks in supporting their faith. One would not be out of their tree to declare as dogma that the KJV is an authoritative text in defining faith for Christians, if one were going to start a Church or attempt to codify authoritative documentation of a description of a particular version of faith.
I believe that it is fair to say that 'ex-cahedra' works a bit like this as well. It might be 'infallibly determined' that the KJV is the English version of Scripture to be used to formulate faith for a Protestant Church (any of them...) - this 'infallible doctrine' could apply to many non-Catholic Churches and congregations, because someone would have to step forward and present a hearty and carefully crafted refutation of this statement, in order for it to be reconsidered as something other than 'infallible'.
That's the process and that's how it works.
You really would need to get a response on that from someone more informed than I on the ways of 'ex-cathdra' and how the Church determines this, because its not simply a matter of "because a Pope said it".
From good ol' Wikipedia:
quote:
Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents:
"Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.
...no offense to good Jansenists everywhere...
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 11/20/2009 4:10:29 PM >
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/20/2009 5:50:42 PM
|
|
|
JKaplan
Posts: 78
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
This priest I'm referring to was so annoyed this was his way of "getting even". It was kind of funny really since why would I even care? And, obviously, that's where the big numbers come from...all those ever baptized whether they're RC now or not...oh, well.
However you decide to "talley" the numbers is up to you.
All I can attest to was that I "was" an Independent Baptist and am now a Catholic. This had nothing to do with marriage or family or any other excuse my protestant friends will try to come up with to explain it away.
The reason is very simple. It was after years of scripture study and an honest look at Church history and the writings of the Church fathers that led me straight into the Catholic Church.
So along with Frank Beckwith and many Protestant pastors, who through modern media, are learning the "truth" about the Catholic Church I will have to be counted as a convert.
Yes, there really are folks who convert to the Catholic Church from Evangelical Christianity.
The times are a changin...
The fullness of truth will always prevail in the end.
J
_____________________________
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matt 16:18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/20/2009 6:01:41 PM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2551
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: online
|
Thanks for the reply.
So, from what you wrote, ex cathedra doesn't happen by the Pope sitting down in his chair and proclaiming, "I am about to deliver an infallible truth. ex cathedra", but rather upon examination of his teachings after the fact.
What that tells me (and what the bits from the CE that I posted above tell me) is that Popes mess up and make mistakes in their teachings frequently, and only after history has found a statement not to be false is a particular teaching declared "infallible". That being said, why is it such a big deal for folks to criticize the teachings of a Pope? If he is allowed and even expected to be wrong sometimes, he is really no different than any preacher in any Christian church of any denomination who preaches the Scriptures but makes mistakes sometimes.
Again and similar to my silly math teacher example above: if doctrinal statements that haven't been proven false after a certain amount of time are the requirement or definition of infallible, that means thousands and thousands of preachers and pastors and reverends and ministers around the world are infallible as well. That means my own pastor is infallible, as he has made several doctrinal statements that are still true many years after he spoke them.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm : "whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching."
My own pastor does that.
In other words, "infallibility" isn't exclusive to the Roman church or the Roman pontiff. Again from the Catholic Encyclopedia: "If God bestowed the gift of prophecy on Caiphas who condemned Christ (John 11:49-52; 18:14), surely He may bestow the lesser gift of infallibility even on unworthy human agents."
The Encyclopedia then continues on to give a list of "proof" verses from the Bible that supposedly "prove" that the Roman church is infallible. The only problem is that none of these "proof" verses apply only to the Roman church. They apply to all believers of all times, while the Encyclopedia erroneously claims these verses are only for the Apostles and their successors.
GAH! I wanted to focus on the Catechism, and now I sent myself down another rabbit hole!
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/20/2009 9:02:48 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 340
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JKaplan
quote:
This priest I'm referring to was so annoyed this was his way of "getting even". It was kind of funny really since why would I even care? And, obviously, that's where the big numbers come from...all those ever baptized whether they're RC now or not...oh, well.
However you decide to "talley" the numbers is up to you.
All I can attest to was that I "was" an Independent Baptist and am now a Catholic. This had nothing to do with marriage or family or any other excuse my protestant friends will try to come up with to explain it away.
The reason is very simple. It was after years of scripture study and an honest look at Church history and the writings of the Church fathers that led me straight into the Catholic Church.
So along with Frank Beckwith and many Protestant pastors, who through modern media, are learning the "truth" about the Catholic Church I will have to be counted as a convert.
Yes, there really are folks who convert to the Catholic Church from Evangelical Christianity.
The times are a changin...
The fullness of truth will always prevail in the end.
J
This was my experience too JKaplan. There were just too many "difficult" or "non-essential" scripture passages for me to remain a Protestant, and too many times where I had to be told what the verses "really mean". I hear the same thing from many converts I know and the trend of Protestant pastors and seminary students entering the CC is very telling. And you're right! Truth always prevails - this is a promise of Jesus himself.
"You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church". --- Jesus Christ, c. 33 A.D.
"Jesus didn't really mean that. What he really meant was ......" --- Pastor X, 1500+ years later
"This IS my body .... This IS my blood ...." --- Jesus Christ, c. 33 A.D.
"Jesus didn't mean that. What he really meant was 'this SYMBOLIZES my body' and 'this SYMBOLIZES my blood'"--- "enlightened" Pastor Y, about 100 years after the first solo-interpreter protested against what Jesus really meant.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/21/2009 5:14:36 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5080
Status: offline
|
quote:
This priest I'm referring to was so annoyed this was his way of "getting even". It was kind of funny really since why would I even care? And, obviously, that's where the big numbers come from...all those ever baptized whether they're RC now or not...oh, well.
However you decide to "talley" the numbers is up to you. Actually, it's not up to me, now is it? RC's the one who claims anyone ever baptized in a RC church is still RC. The impact on the numbers should be obvious to anyone. And, it would be a false impact.
quote:
All I can attest to was that I "was" an Independent Baptist and am now a Catholic. This had nothing to do with marriage or family or any other excuse my protestant friends will try to come up with to explain it away. What does this even mean? You converted because you wanted to..for whatever reason.
quote:
The reason is very simple. It was after years of scripture study and an honest look at Church history and the writings of the Church fathers that led me straight into the Catholic Church. Must have been pretty light on the "scripture study" since RC's doctrines are not found there.
quote:
So along with Frank Beckwith and many Protestant pastors, who through modern media, are learning the "truth" about the Catholic Church I will have to be counted as a convert. Beckwith was raised RC. Yep, of course, some Protestants have converted to RC but there are millions who have fled when they were actually exposed to Scripture.
Although, worldwide RC is losing numbers and evangelical Protestantism is gaining significantly in third world countries. God is gracious as He brings the truth to those nations..."So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.".
However, in the grand scheme of things, numbers are irrelevant. God is clear that truth and faith are not built on concensus.
quote:
Yes, there really are folks who convert to the Catholic Church from Evangelical Christianity. So who said anything to the contrary?
quote:
The times are a changin...
The fullness of truth will always prevail in the end. I guess it depends on what you mean by "prevail".
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/21/2009 5:16:31 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5080
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
In other words, "infallibility" isn't exclusive to the Roman church or the Roman pontiff. Again from the Catholic Encyclopedia: "If God bestowed the gift of prophecy on Caiphas who condemned Christ (John 11:49-52; 18:14), surely He may bestow the lesser gift of infallibility even on unworthy human agents." Do you see the absurdity of that quote? There's not the slightest bit of logic used or biblical support for such a ridiculous statement.
God moved Caiphas to say what He wanted as God moved Pharoah and others to do the same. What is the possible connection between that and claiming something for yourself that God did not give?
Using that silly logic we all can claim to be miracle workers because God parted the sea and the Israelites crossed on dry land.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/21/2009 5:48:39 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2551
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: online
|
[edited]
Also, your comment:
quote:
Although, worldwide RC is losing numbers and evangelical Protestantism is gaining significantly in third world countries. God is gracious as He brings the truth to those nations..."So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.".
...reminded me of Matthew 7:14, ""For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few". It sure seems like an argumentum ad populum (that is, an appeal to popular support of a certain position) is one of the weakest debate positions a Christian can take.
I hesitate to use the next two verses, Mt 7:15-16, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?", because even though the Roman church is FULL of false prophets and bad fruit (as non-Roman denominations are as well), there is still a lot of good fruit being produced by our brothers and sisters in the Roman denomination in terms of charity and justice on the behalf of the poor, hungry, orphan, widow, and downtrodden around the world. My fear is the corruption of those fruits by a rotten gospel message (trust in the Roman Church for salvation rather than Christ).
Once such a threshold is crossed, good works no longer matter and become no better than the vain good works of pagans and other idolaters.
[post has been edited by moderator to remove a quotation and response to deleted material--no violation on this poster's part]
< Message edited by Ps103 -- 11/21/2009 12:30:23 PM >
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/21/2009 12:06:15 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 12133
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
I have removed an inflammatory, trolling comment and an in the process of removing the responses to it.
Do that again and earn a vacation from forums.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community. Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/21/2009 2:46:45 PM
|
|
|
seekeratthesea
Posts: 31
Joined: 12/2/2007
Status: offline
|
Generally speaking he doesn't represent Christ anymore than other Christians do. And we don't need him.
He's the leader of the biggest Christian church on the planet.
Catholics make too much of the pope in my opinion, but he still deserves the same type of respect as any other church leader.
_____________________________
Check out the first chapter of Elijah the Tishbite
Elijah the Tishbite
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
