Posted on 12/30/2011 7:07:29 PM PST by rzman21
“Sorry, that was from MM and i forgot to put in italics, but she was not saying, nor do I, that the CFs were right about the body.”
So we are in agreement here.
“But Rome infers that in requiring “unanimous consent of the fathers” in interpreting holy Scripture, (V 1, Ses. 3) and i think many Roman Catholics sometimes carelessly invoke them for support.”
Unanimous consent is a bit of a special term. It means that the Church has come to an agreement on a specific teaching. It does not mean that each and every one of the magisterium is necessarily correct. In unity they are, but as individuals, no.
This is why we have to be careful to distinguish between a teaching that is espoused by a Church Father and contrary to what the Church teaches. Consensus forms from the body of the magisterium, not the individuals.
“Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy”
Petrine primacy. This is not quite true. The Orthodox, to my understanding do not contest Petrine primacy, but rather, affirm that he is first among equals. The major issues is what constitutes Petrine primacy, ie, jurisdiction. What does the Pope have specific authority over and the relationship between the Bishop of Rome and the others.
“What i said about the exceptional status of this proposition still holds, even if it does not necessarily exclude exceptions.”
Mary is an exception. Her case is unique, and I don’t believe it’s difficult to understand why this is the case. The annunciation happened only to her.
“I actually agree, faith with temperance is to govern, and as said, such is the more historical Protestant position.”
Yes, this more modern interpretation only dates back to the 30’s and has no justification prior. This to me was solid evidence in favor of the earlier understanding. All the reformers were in opposition to contraception. This is not a teaching that should be dividing us.
“But believing in PV does not exclude one from salvation, much less ensure it, and so the real issue is the authority behind it, as expressed before.”
No, and nor has it been infalliably affirmed. It’s just not as important an issue as the other three marian dogmas.
The basis for it goes back to Apostolic times, but it was confirmed at the Council of the Lateran in the 7th century.
I guess you are starting to sound shrill because everyone is seeming to gang up on you, but, no, I shouldn't have to remind you that I believe in Scriptural marriage of one man and one woman. Homosexual marriage is wrong because homosexuality is sin. As to belonging to a church that commands everything about your personal life is not showing strength, it is showing an insecure clergy that cannot trust its members to make mature, spiritual decision between themselves and God. Do you REALLY want them snooping around your bedroom?
If the Roman Catholic Church changed its policy on contraception, would you go back to it?
“Why not change your question then and see what they say?”
I ask the specific questions that I wish to be answered, not the questions that those being asked would prefer to answer.
“I believe in Scriptural marriage of one man and one woman.”
The reason I asked that question, is because if we hold this to be true, then marriage is not just about ‘love’ between two people. Marriage is much more then this. Marriage can only apply to the union of a man and a woman. This is why homosexuality is excluded because they cannot engage in this union with one another.
“As to belonging to a church that commands everything about your personal life”
I have been on both sides, ma’am. It comes down to the basic question of personal autonomy. Where do these ideas come from? They are modern principles. If you were to ask someone in the 1750s what ‘personal autonomy’ meant, they would look at you strangely.
Quite the contrary, Christ teaches that rather then being devoted to ourselves, we have a duty to one another, we do not have a right to ‘personal autonomy’ per se. We are no longer ‘ours’, but His. We have been bought for a very dear price in the death of our Lord and Saviour. Our bodies are his temples.
“make mature, spiritual decision between themselves and God. Do you REALLY want them snooping around your bedroom?”
Again, this is personal autonomy. Christ tells us that we must be willing to come to him like little children. We must be willing to turn EVERYTHING over to him, not keep one side apart from everything else.
Yet your question and subsequent conclusions were based on the underlying assumption concerning why people leave the Roman Catholic Church. You said your "experience" showed "that most if not all ex-catholics disagree with what the Church teaches on contraception." (Post #340) When two other ex-Caths stated that was NOT their reason for leaving, you continued to challenge them, refusing to admit you were mistaken. You can certainly apologize for that mistake and I would forgive you, but please let's not pretend that wasn't what your point was.
To try and demonstrate that what the Catholic Church teaches about contraception had NOTHING to do with why we left, a offered a "test" question, "If the CC changed its policy about contraception, would you return?", but you seem to not want to try that. Could it possibly be because you already know the answers? It's okay, we're all friends here.
I'll take it a little further...."I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." A beautifull verse to be sure.However the last part always seemed a little enigmatic to me (if that's even the right word to use)..."....and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God" If the "work of God" is to "believe on Him whom He has sent" (and it it,John 6:29) then what I think 1 John 5:13 is saying is that if you believe on the name of Jesus then you may know you have life and now you may do the work of God.
Looking back on my earlier post regarding the renewing of our minds it seems that not only "may" we know but it is actually critical that we DO know.It is our starting point in our relationship with God.It made "as a little child" and "a sound mind" and "fear not" and "enter into HIS rest" and "Abba,Father" and "ceased from His own works" and many many more verses jump out from the pages at me.
How many times do we hear the phrase..."I know but it hasn't sunk in yet" ? I'm sure pretty much everyone alive would identify with that to some degree.
With that thought in mind the following verses....
"work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
"Study to shew thyself approved"
"Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest"
"give diligence to make your calling and election sure"
.....sound a lot like 'get this to SINK IN'
Which then made "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." ...jump out all the more.Thus,,,if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and it SINKS IN to you that God actually raised Him from the dead then you will be saved!
2 Peter 1:10 really goes all the way with this I think...."IF you do these things you shall NEVER FALL" (now there's a guarantee if ever there was one!) What things? making your election and calling SURE!
I'll end by saying practically every prayer of Paul's was that believers would understand,take hold on,comprehend,grasp what we have been FREELY GIVEN.That all of what God has given us would sink into our desperately wicked hearts,past our know it all minds and deep into our spirit to effect our transformation from the most inward part of us to that outward part that the world sees!
pheeew!!! I can take a breath now.I almost turned blue getting that out,muddled mish mash that it is.
Grace and peace to you BB.
You said your “experience” showed “that most if not all ex-catholics disagree with what the Church teaches on contraception.” ]
Yes, I said that. The question that arises, is why? Why would groups of people of very different persuasions all come to the same conclusion on this particular issue?
“You can certainly apologize”
Why should I apologize for their error? I did not ask them “why did you leave?”, I asked them “do you support what the Church teaches on contraception”.
Again, do not assume I’m asking a question I did not ask. If I wanted to ask that question I would have asked it.
Do you think I don’t know why they would prefer to answer their question rather then the straightforward and direct one that I am asking?
Because my question is straightforward and direct. That is why. They would prefer a question that enables them to mask their true opinion on the issue.
That is why I posted, when this first came up, “why pussyfoot around? Do you agree with what the Church teaches on contraception?”
“To try and demonstrate that what the Catholic Church teaches about contraception had NOTHING to do with why we left”
And to blow apart that, I asked a simple and straightforward question. I’ve been in the business awhile, ma’am.
If it’s not part of why you left, then it should be a simple question to answer, yes or no. Why would I bother asking your question, when I can get to the heart of the matter?
“If the CC changed its policy about contraception, would you return?”,
And the first answer to that question:
No, because I believe that other things are more important. See? Your question allows the person to hide behind the question and never have to admit, “yes, I do happen to support contraception”.
If I had asked that question I would not know now, what I do, whether they actually support or reject contraception.
You can tell which is the good question and which is the bad question by willingness to answer the question. The more they hem and haw and evade, anything than to actually answer the question, deflect stuff, and so on, then you know you’ve got a good question.
The point is not to get at one thing, but the real thing that I’m after. Look at how many posts reference personal autonomy, including yours. Don’t you see that’s what I’m really after?
Muddled mish mash??? Hardly! That was inspired writing! Isn't it so cool that when we let God speak through us, that he gives us just the right words to say? I also know that when it happens, first, we KNOW it isn't us coming out with all that, and second, that we know God has just the right person(s) in mind that it will touch their hearts. We may not ever know this side of glory who we influenced for Christ, but HE knows.
I just got back from brushing my teeth and getting ready for bed, when I started thinking about what it would take for me to give up my eternal security. I cannot imagine thinking that God expects us to live for him without giving us his Spirit to enable us to live for him. And, if we have the indwelling Holy Spirit, he is there for the long haul.
Some, who think it is "sin" to express assurance of our salvation, must think that this gift of God is something that we accept but then tell him to "put it on the shelf until I get to the end of my life and see if I deserve it or not." MERCY! I cannot understand how they can't see that is the same thing as saying we work for our salvation. And if we do, then it is NOT grace that saves us. Yet God's word is FULL of statements to the contrary. While we were YET sinners, Christ died for us. God knows we can never merit eternity with him, but by his mercy and grace we can receive his gift of everlasting life through faith in Jesus Christ. Someone shared that wonderful truth with me long ago, and it "took". In the same way when you and I speak the truth in love, God's word does not return to him void, it accomplishes what he sends it out to do. God bless you, dear Mitch!
Isn't that an awesome thought!
I posted something along those lines about 10 years ago on another forum and about 6 months ago a FReeper emailed me after he'd seen me posting here and said that he'd printed out my original post and stuck it on his fridge as a constant reminder to himself,when he was full of doubts,just where he stood with God.He went on to say that I was one of those he wanted to personally thank when he arrived in heaven.It litterally brought tears to my eyes because when he emailed me it was I that was full of doubt and feeling quite low!
Our most Blessed Holy Father sure is the master of the double-whammy!!
May we all be blessed till we burst!
And that's the working out of our salvation.
Not that we're working for our salvation, but we are working it out in our lives.
Not much different than getting back to the illustration of being married. Once you're married, you're married. Getting married is easy. Being married isn't. It needs to be worked out.
If someone doesn't work on making their marriage the best it can be, they're still married, they just have a lousy marriage.
What's bad is that kind of attitude towards something God Himself established and blessed, marriage. And I've heard it before from other religious people, and not all Catholics.
The RCC doesn't know whether it's coming or going on marriage and it certainly does not understand what marriage is all about.
God created Eve because it was not good for man to be alone. THEN He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. And yet the Catholic church seems to treat sex as if it's dirty or sinful unless it's for the express purpose of creating children. That by default condemns probably over 90% of the sex people engage in.
Besides, Paul says that it is better to marry than burn with passion. The writer of Hebrews says the marriage bed is undefiled. Does the Catholic church also demand that people not eat when they're hungry, sleep when they're tired, hug somebody if they're happy or lonely, or fulfill any one of other human needs when they have them.
People aren't called TO marriage as was stated earlier. That's the default option and not sinful at that, but if people are called to anything, it's singleness because it's so difficult.
It is NOT good for man to be alone.
That's the problem with citing someone outside of Scripture. Catholics are so conditioned to follow the teachings of man that it is obviously beyond their comprehension that Christians do not.
Quoting something that is more clearly expressed than I could say it is NOT *following* that person. It's at most, agreeing with them.
But no, when you reference someone else's work, Catholics are all over you like white on rice that you are one of their *followers*.
Of course they do. It gives them authority.
I don't follow those who are self-proclaimed authority.
Tradition is not reliable enough to be authoritative. God saw fit to put what He knew we needed in a book. He's a big fan of writing things down. that way there's a permanent record of it and it can be used as a standard to verify it instead of assuming or counting on men having enough integrity to NOT corrupt what if being passed on by word of mouth. Because THAT certainly isn't going to work.
Exactly. The RCC could change it’s position on a whole slew of subjects that involve the morals that Catholics claim I *had to* have left for and I would still not go back.
And besides, as someone pointed out elsewhere, it’s be pretty hard to out liberal the Catholic church in way too many areas.
The only areas they’d officially proved themselves to be extremely conservative are the pro-life and homosexual agenda areas.
But looking at the voting records of those Catholics who I personally know from what they’ve told me themselves..... pfffftttt..... Liberal to the core.
Are you joking?!?!?!
From the church that hands out *annulments* even to those who've had children???
I don't know of any other denomination that offers church sanctioned divorce in disguise.
Besides, the two becoming one flesh was never predicated in Scripture on having children. Even without children, when the marriage is consummated, the two have become one flesh. It's more than just a physical union.
Otherwise you're saying that a marriage that doesn't produce children means the husband and wife are not *one flesh*.
Yeah. You're such an expert. right.
Seems more like an expert on assuming and projecting.
If I had asked that question I would not know now, what I do, whether they actually support or reject contraception.
You can tell which is the good question and which is the bad question by willingness to answer the question. The more they hem and haw and evade, anything than to actually answer the question, deflect stuff, and so on, then you know you’ve got a good question.
Wrong. People won't answer when they see that they're being manipulated. Or that they're going to be labeled and pigeon-holed and judged.
The point is not to get at one thing, but the real thing that I’m after. Look at how many posts reference personal autonomy, including yours. Don’t you see that’s what I’m really after?
Yeah, we see what you're really after. That's why we're not answering. Maybe you can manipulate other Catholics but not us.
Because you know what? You have no authority over us and can't intimidate us or cow us. And we know it.
If the Scriptures are silent on the question of contraception use by Christians, I think I would certainly have the right to be also without having anything read into it.
Unanimous consent is a bit of a special term. It means that the Church has come to an agreement on a specific teaching.
UC is indeed a special term, and is referring to the premise that the “Fathers” were unanimous in interpretation of Scripture on some things, and thus the Holy Fathers, “are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals..” (POPE LEO XIII, PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html) and, therefore, it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to to the church or the unanimous consent of the Fathers. (V1, Ses. 3), and thus the required oath in the Tridentine Creed contained in the papal bull Iniunctum Nobis, “Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” (http://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/323/texts/trent.htm, http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html)
But which unanimity is not as in a papal conclave, but this “unanimous consent” of the Fathers came to be interpreted to mean unanimity even when there is dissent.
No, and nor has it been infalliably affirmed.
But it is defended as if it were infallible, while as there is no infallible list of what all church fathers consist of, or of all infallible pronouncements, not everything is clear as to what is infallible.
The basis for it goes back to Apostolic times, but it was confirmed at the Council of the Lateran in the 7th century.
By basis i was not referring to the assertion of one side of Tradition over another by a council, but ultimately to the real premise behind assurance of the veracity of the claims of Roman Catholicism will .
Which assurance, as said, does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural warrant (which source is disallowed as providing real certitude of Truth), though that may be invoked, but upon the premise that Rome is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined scope and subject-based formula (thus rendering her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible). And upon which premise she can define history and Scripture as supporting her, though she rarely infallibly defines texts of Scripture, and the reasons and arguments behind an infallible decree are not necessarily infallible themselves.
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.