Posted on 08/19/2010 5:55:44 PM PDT by Gamecock
“First, the unity of the Church and its necessity for salvation”.
That is because the Church does not teach extra ecclesium nulla salus. People have been and will continue to be saved outside the Church. Does not the Church teach that the patriarchs will be saved, that they are with God himself already as testified by Christ at the transfiguration? Yes. Therefore, while the Church holds the fulfillment of Christ’s teachings here on Earth, the salvation of believers is not limited to her.
I already cited a list, which you dismissed as ‘having no such official standing, despite the fact that the author of said list was Pope Benedict.
While the list is in and of itself not exhaustive, Unam Sanctum is not there, as much as you would like to have it there.
I don’t know what you want to do to convince yourself. Unam Sanctum is not an ex-cathedra pronouncement. Never has been considered to be such ever in the history of the church.
I can find no such list authored by Pope Benedict XVI nor by Cardinal Ratzinger for that matter,
While the list is in and of itself not exhaustive, Unam Sanctum is not there, as much as you would like to have it there.
I am on record as claiming there is no such list. I merely asked what conditions of infallibility Unam Sanctam failed.
I was under the impression you gave me the complete list as evidenced by your post:
It’s been invoked 7 times:
“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.
List of Infallible Declarations
While the list is in and of itself not exhaustive, Unam Sanctum is not there, as much as you would like to have it there.
I don’t know what you want to do to convince yourself. Unam Sanctum is not an ex-cathedra pronouncement. Never has been considered to be such ever in the history of the church.
As I recall, I merely asked how Unam Sanctam failed the "Infallibility" test. Still no answer.
As for your "official" statement from Pope Benedict, not so.
That’s the official statement from Pope Benedict.
The list I gave is from Klaus Schatz.
As for my question concerning the "infallibility" of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which you conveniently ignored allow me to reference the confirmation by Cardinal Ratzinger when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis "Infallible"?
Your Orthodox brothers have their own view of the viability of Papal Infallibility claims.
Eastern Orthodoxy does recognize the exceptional doctrinal record of the Roman Church during the first centuries of Christianity and the fact that at least two popes of Rome did produce doctrinal statements worthy of the acclamation “Peter has spoken!” Hence, Orthodox theologians can certainly view Leo’s Tome and Agatho’s Letter to the Sixth Council as Petrine and infallible. On the other hand, the idea that Papal Infallibility can be presented as independent of any conciliar consent and as “the constant belief of the universal Church” is rejected.
Perhaps more convincingly, Orthodox theologians can argue that Papal Infallibility as defined by the bull Pastor Aeternus does not harmonize well with historical data, a problem also recognized in modern Roman Catholicism. The fact that no list of Ex-Cathedra statement has or in or likelihood will ever be produced further leads the reduction of this dogma to the level of confusing and non-testable rhetoric.
Ah, bzel333. Good stuff.
Better for you to make claims and expect others to accept whatever you say without question.
It is necessary to write a retroactive history to claim the early church was "Catholic.
Do you want the quotes? History is not on your side.
Please understand. I don’t think it necessary to trace the doctrines of the Reformation back to historical Christianity to establish legitimacy. I disagree with those teachings but I can understand where Scripture could be interperted to support them. But they are products of protest against the Catholic Church of the 16th century. When abuses caused many to examine the practices and teachings of the Church. Including Catholics of the Counter Reformation.
The Church of the Fathers was Orthodox/Catholic in structure, in sacraments, in liturgy and in teachings. The worship centered around the Eucharist. It was not Protestant in those elements.
But that should not matter to modern day Protestants because you do not need to define yourself in terms of being a visible Church as understood by Orthodox and Catholic believers. You define yourself by Scripture alone (with confessions and creeds being used to clarify and expound on your understanding of Scripture.) this means the marks of Church are not central to your beliefs.
So again it should not matter what history shows was the practice of early Christians. You have rejected that as being extra Biblical in order to develop a purer non corrupted community of believers or Body of Christ. Which is fine but it does not allow you to change history.
The Church of the Fathers was Orthodox/Catholic in structure, in sacraments, in liturgy and in teachings. The worship centered around the Eucharist. It was not Protestant in those elements.
According to Scripture the Church "services" were most likely based on the simple home gatherings practised by the Apostles. The elaborate ritualistic practices of the Orthodox and Catholics were developed with the passage of time.
But that should not matter to modern day Protestants because you do not need to define yourself in terms of being a visible Church as understood by Orthodox and Catholic believers. You define yourself by Scripture alone (with confessions and creeds being used to clarify and expound on your understanding of Scripture.) this means the marks of Church are not central to your beliefs.
Why would you assume I am Protestant? I do admit I generally agree with the Protestant position and believe they have an equally valid claim to the Church of God as you claim for yourselves.
So again it should not matter what history shows was the practice of early Christians. You have rejected that as being extra Biblical in order to develop a purer non corrupted community of believers or Body of Christ. Which is fine but it does not allow you to change history.
"Change history"? Are you joking? I have never been accused of relying on forgery to justify my beliefs and practices.
I did not accuse you of forgery. I have no reason to think that of you at all. I use the term Protestant for Trinitarian non Orthodox/Catholic Christians. It is not in any way meant to be an insult.
That is all.
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.