Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
I also think the argument goes both ways. I have seen many, many false statements, overactive hyperbole, hurtful rhetoric and downright hateful things said by Catholics on this forum about all non-Catholics as if we are less than vermin in their sight, so I cannot blame some who react in like manner. I have expressed my desire repeatedly that we refrain from that silliness and discuss issues like grown-ups. I really hope one day we will.
Yes I do. In fact I hold Catholics to a higher standard. I will admit that we do not always hold to that standard out of ignorance or anger, but the truth is not advanced by a lie.
I will say this about Luther; he was a flawed man. Evil in many ways but did see and speak out about flaws within the Catholic Church and the Church is better for it today. I do not believe that he sought a schism or believed himself anything other than a Catholic.
Luther was also a pawn of the German princes who desired a break with the Holy Roman Empire and an opportunity to seize Church property and wealth as was done in England. They played to his vanities and he responded. He is not the first, nor last to be played by the greedy and powerful.
From your response it would seem that what I have said so far does not make any sense to you. I think I now understand why. I neglected to explain how the Church defines doctrine.
Just about all Catholic doctrine is implicit in her sacraments, such as the mass, baptism, confession, marriage, and consecration of priests, or in the Church hierarchical structure. The sacraments and hierarchy was set by the Apostles. Other than by Scripture, the Church does not define doctrine explicitly unless it is necessary to counter an heresy. Explicitly defined teachings are always based upon implicit teachings that have existed for many years or since the beginning of the Church. Petrine infallibility has been operational since it was established by Christ and exercised by Peter's early successors.
Did a powerful interest called Pope Honorius promulgate and teach heresy in his official letters, as bishop of Rome, to Sergius, in words "hurtful to the soul", and did that "former Pope of Old Rome, who with the help of the old serpent" scatter "deadly error", or not?
Yes, apparently, but I have been trying to show you that this issue of Honorius is moot to our discussion because it does not undermine the doctrine of infallibility.
It is circular because you simply assume what must proved; namely, that Popes are infallible in their teaching ex cathedra, and therefore it is impossible for any Pope to have erred in a teaching on faith or morals.
I was not specifically addressing the proof of infallibility found in Scripture. That is an issue separate from question of whether Honorius undermined infallibility. Papal infallibility is and has always been, at least implicitly, a core doctrine of the Catholic Church. The great bulk of infallible doctrine was fully defined by Scripture and the papally certified councils that took place prior to the Church's finalization of her NT canon.
No Catholic of any rank is allowed to transgress infallible doctrine. If a Catholic pope or Catholic peasant does so, his actions are illicit. The Vatican I Council definition of ex cathedra did not say this because it is a basic tenet know to all. Since a pope is not allowed to transgress infallible doctrine, he obviously cannot do so ex cathedra.
Despite His divine nature, Christ is fully a man and so were the Apostles. What about the "thing" that they established?
This Catholic is of the opinion that you spend waayyyyy too much time obsessing over what Catholics do and don't believe. Honestly, why would any sane person surrender to the compulsion to compose and post a nearly thousand word screed, in multicolor and fancy fonts, containing mostly fabricated information and falsified interpretations of the one thing they profess to abhor? And further, why would anyone with a healthy mind believe that any of it makes any difference at all?
As for the rest...well, if you and your dog don't like what is on this thread, no one is forcing you to stay.
I posted what New Advent tells us of the Atonement and what the Catholic Church teaches. It teaches that:
Why this is important is that you will find this new Catholic view of the Atonement to be more in line with the Orthodox view. The Roman Catholic Church changed centuries of teaching by the western fathers to align their views of the atonement to the eastern church view.
Before the split, all Eastern councils rejected by the Pope were considered invalid by the Eastern Christians.
That doesn't change the fact that Orthodox do not look upon the Pope as "infallible". They believe in a conclave of several leaders of the Church arriving at consensus. They consider the Pope to be one leader of many. Now either the Orthodox view is wrong or the Catholic doctrine that says the Pope is infallible is wrong. You can't have it both ways.
Protestants tried to hijack the good name of Augustine but that does not mean he approved to them. They were highly selective of Augustine's writings.
Read through "A Treatise of Predestination of the Saints" and tell me if you agree with Augustine's conclusions. I do.
You misquote me. Of course the Church teaches homosexuality is a sin
Then why does the Church allow homosexual priests to stay in the clergy?
Maybe, just maybe you ought quote the entire reference instead of an out of context sentence from the last paragraph. Better yet, why don't you check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church to see what the Church ACTUALLY teaches.
1992 - Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.
Editorial by omission is just as intellectually dishonest as outright lying.
If sinlessness were a requirement for the priesthood would any human qualify? What dark sins do you harbor that would prohibit you?
Not ordinarily, but a temple virgin dedicated to celibacy would be married off to an older man, typically a widower, so that she can be taken care of economically. The Protoevangelium describes just that, and whether or ot you think it applies to Our Lady, it clearly was not in itself an outlandish idea back in 2c.
“I know not man”, she said. A woman intending to have children with her fiancee does not respoind like that.
He did -- so that we know God better by doing something similar to what He does: love and create. But Mary and Joseph knew God face to face, thety did not need training wheels.
God did not create Adam and Eve in order that they enjoy marital sex. He created them in order that they know and love Him, and gave them sex as one tool to that end.
The Church's tradition and common sense.
Thak you, excellent question. We don't always know. It took the Church several centuries to decide which of the writings of the early Church were inspired and which were not. Before that -- that is before the councils of Orange and Rome in late 4-early 5 c. much of what you now know as Holy Scripture was simply tradition. Of some gospel and epistles there was little doubt, of others, the debate continues even after canonization (which was done in a local council anyway). Further, the Church never said that the books that were not canonized were without merit. They formed what we call patristic literature, binding on a Catohlic Christian where it reveals a consensus of the fathers, but not necessarily in every detail.
On the subject on hand, there is a common belief in the Early Church that Our Lady remained virgin. That is consistent with what the scripture reveals of her, consistent with any other teaching of the Church and is of historical early origin. So that is a part of the Holy Tradition.
And that is the general rule: a traditional belief may or may not be a part of the Holy Tradition. If it is historically extending from the Early Church, and consistent with the rest of the Christian teaching, including the canonized scripture, then it is Holy Tradition. Otherwise it is perhaps of some value but it is not binding on us.
At times someone comes up with a thought or a revelation that he personally experienced and he insists that he discovered a truth. If he can trace it to the Fathers of the Church and if it is consistent with the rest of the Christian faith, that becomes something that other Catholics may join in believing. If t becomes a significant development in the faith the Church may make an official pronouncement allowing that private revelation as a private choice of veneration. Examples of that are all canonizations of saints, the Apparition of Fatima, the writings of people like St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. They becomes something the Church recommends as a choice to listen to or venerate. They are not binding but they are approved. They do not become Holy Tradition because they ar ento of apostolic origin, but they add to the magisterial teaching.
Next, there are thoughts and revelations that are not approved. Numerous miracles and revelations are in this category, and massive Christian literature of which the Church has not made any determination. The various types of journalism fodder, like when some prelate says that he believes in space aliens. A well known one like that is the miracles at Medjugorie.
Lastly, there are thoughts and revelations that ther Church definitively ruled against. Such are theories that run contrary to the Scripture and therefore on that criterion alone are harmful to a Christian believer. The teachings of Luther, Calvin and the rest of the mental garbage that came out of the Reformation are in that latter category.
Ok then, what did Honorius do as bishop of Rome, in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, except define a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church?
Explicitly defined teachings are always based upon implicit teachings that have existed for many years or since the beginning of the Church. Petrine infallibility has been operational since it was established by Christ and exercised by Peter's early successors.
The dogma of Petrine infallibilty was apparently unknown in Honorius' era because forty years after he committed error, i.e., was fallible, in defining a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, he was anathematized for it by an Ecumenical Council, an anathamazation that was affirmed by subsequent Popes and Councils.
Yes, apparently, but I have been trying to show you that this issue of Honorius is moot to our discussion because it does not undermine the doctrine of infallibility.
How does an historical case study in fallibility of a Pope's teaching on a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church become moot to a discussion of the doctrine of infallibility? Only by overruling the facts of history by dogma. That's why you say:
Since a pope is not allowed to transgress infallible doctrine, he obviously cannot do so ex cathedra.
You see? It's impossible by definition! If that's not circular reasoning I don't know what is. Pope Honorius and subsequent Councils and Popes must not have gotten that 19th century email on papal infallibility.
Not only is the reasoning circular, it is useless because you never know whether some current promulgation will be overturned forty years from now or not.
Cordially,
You are the one that pointed the finger at Luther.. just pointing out the root of much anti semitism and that the catholic church does not have clean hands
Is all of this nonsense derived from predestination, is......
Are you trying to change the subject NL ?
Wow, that's an understatement.
We look at it from our perspective of history and see where it went. He had no clue what to expect. For all he knew, he was laying his life on the line. Remember, this was the era of the Inquisitions. He knew what the RCC did to heretics.
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.