Posted on 07/13/2014 4:52:15 PM PDT by yosephdaviyd
I was speaking of the New Testament and I corrected myself here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3179804/posts?page=39#39
Yes, the words of the Old Testament were well studied by Jesus Christ, true man and true God.
You are giving Christ the glory, aren’t you? In addition to the Old Testament writers?
>Catholic tradition does not contradict the Bible.
1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Council of Elvira (c. 305)
(Canon 33): “It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry...”
The only things more obvious than the contradiction between the above scripture and tradition is that you have no idea how to reconcile them, that you aren’t going to try and that you accept the traditions of men over the word of God.
No contradictions, additional information by word of mouth.
Holy Tradition.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. - John 1:1-3
I have said it till I was blue in the face. The Catholic Church does not have a pedophile problem, they have a homosexual priest problem. 90% of the sex cases against priests are homosexual priests having sex with young teenager boys, who by the way are not pedophiles.
By the way the homosexual clergy problem affects all denominations. The reason? The vast majority of homosexuals are predators. They are always on the prowl for young teenage boys.
>No contradictions, additional information by word of mouth. Holy Tradition.
And what information would it be that bears on this point that I’m accused of being ignorant of?
“With Catholics bemoaning the dearth of priests, the easiest solution which has no moral issues attached to it is to allow a married priesthood”.
Celibacy has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Do not allow homosexual men in the seminaries and the sex abuse problem is solved. And by the way most protestant clergy that are involved in sex abuse are homosexuals. Why don’t you start commenting on all the sex abuse cases involving protestant pastors and let Catholics worry about the Catholic Church?
I agree with this. Granted, a pope should have his Church history correct, but this sort of blunder doesn’t concern me.
Ex Cathedra is not the only time the Pope and the Church is infallible. Granted, the Pope is not infallible every time he speaks, but I wish Catholics would stop pushing this error.
He was referring to the Old Testament at the time.
Wrt to the question "why was it only boys?" we should note that only boys were allowed on the altar at the time so that was what the priests had access to. HOWEVER, I highly doubt heterosexual predators would be interested in boys. So, we come to the same conclusion: gay infiltration.
No, nothing I said is blasphemy. The Apostles talking in tongues is one thing, bible thumpers in rural areas of the United States, well, that is another thing.
Again, the passage does not mean what you say it means. Saint Paul was not married. If you ordain a married man to Bishop, he must have “one wife”. Fair enough, but that means “one wife”. A man who is married and ordained who becomes a widower therefore can’t get remarried, for it says “a husband of one wife”. Notice it does not say you must ordain a married man for if that were the case, Saint Paul who was an Apostle also served in terms of function as a Bishop in that he was an overseer of many local Churches.
piusv:
You are incorrect. The Magisterium does refer to things not taught as “infallible” in that they are definitively dogmatic teachings, teachings that are taught to clear up a disagreement say through the ordinary magisterium to prevent tension in the Church, but at the same time, can be brought up again for further theological discussion in the future. So strictly speaking, when the Pope invokes uses infallibility to define definitively a dogma, that is the most “forceful” use of infallibility. The last such case was the Dogmatic Apostolic Constitution [which was issued in the form of a Papal Bull {which in and of it self is not infallible, since a Bull is just a form of a Pope’s Letter in that it has the Pope’s seal on one side, and icons and seals of SS Peter and Paul on the other] on the Assumption of Mary.
My point is that ex cathedra is not the only way the Church and pope teach infallibly.
I am not incorrect. You are either incorrect or have misunderstood me .....again.
Uh oh, you posted Bible thumpers! Be ready for the fire, the brimstone, and the mad HTML skills of posting scripture in red!
Some of these folks would fit in well at the the First Self Righteous Church of Pascagoula (search Ray Stevens on YouTube if you’ve no idea what I’m referencing).
piusv:
Well, then you should have stated it that way, rather than be so cryptic. The Pope can issue an Apostolic Letter and define a Dogma, as the case with the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, or the Church can define a Dogma/Doctrine via a Council such as Nicea in 325AD [contra-Arianism].
Canon 749.1 says that by virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff teaches infallibly when he proclaims, by a definitive act, a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals. That is the relevant canon, and As I said, the last time something met this test was the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus issued in 1950.
“…by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith” (44-45).
In 1854, Pope Pius IX issued the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus, in which he declared that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was an article of Catholic faith. The language used in this decree is very, very, similar to the words used to define the Assumption:
“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”
You should be aware or maybe you actually are aware, that the Formative definition of Papal Infallibility was not itself defined until Vatican I in 1870 so what Papal statements prior to 1870 met the strict standard defined in 1870 is a matter for theologians to debate, you and me debating it or Catholics debating it with Protestants is really just a waste of time when it gets into I am right and you are wrong polemical score card. If someone is genuinely trying to discern the truth, that is a different question.
Every theologian that I have read or articles written on the question above agree that the Papal Bull issued regarding the Immaculate Conception was an infallible teaching, not because it was issued via a Papal Bull, but because of the language used and how the teaching was defined.
I will stop right there but I will just state every papal bull issued prior to the 1854 one [in fact most of them] were not infallible teachings of faith and morals definitively. For example, you will see numerous papal Bulls on slavery going back to the 15th century that tried to stop the slave trade, then later ones allowed it as long as the slaves were treated well and taught Christianity [if they were pagans who needed to hear about Christ], it they were Muslim Turks, then slavery was not condemned, etc, etc. All of these Papal Bulls were teachings in the context of the time, but none were definitive and taught to be binding for all eternity.
There were Papal Bulls issued that suppressed the Jesuits, then ones that “eased the suppression of the Jesuits” then papal Bulls that removed the suppression of the Jesuits and allowed them full canonical status to function in the Church. Pope John Paul II came very, very, very, close to suppressing them again in the early 1980’s, but rather than suppress the entire order he did by a papal act “suspend their Constitution” and he picked the Jesuit Superior and gave him orders to clean up the extreme Liberation theology.
So no I am not incorrect and do understand Papal infallibility quite well, what it is and what it is not.
Oh yes, it is my fault for being “so cryptic”.
Please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.