Posted on 03/31/2014 7:35:15 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
A.) When the vote was taken on July 1870, at the First Vatican Council, with 433 votes in favour (placet) and only 2 against (non placet) against defining as dogma the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra, did those Bishops possess infallibility when (or at least only when) voting? Did any of them keep this infallibility (did it remain with all of them or any of them) after they left and returned home? Did any of these Bishops possess any infallibility at anytime before the vote was cast?
B.) Was Mary's (the Mother of Jesus) mother immaculately conceived as Mary was? Was Mary's grandmother immaculately conceived, too? If so, was there near-infinite regression of these immaculate conceptions? If so, how far back did these immaculate conceptions go? If they did not go back farther than two, why were only two and not say three or four immaculate conceptions needed?
C.) When the Apostle Paul confronted Peter (when Peter was being hypocritical concerning his eating with Jews and Gentiles), did the Apostle Paul possess infallibility when stating that Gentiles did NOT have to be circumcised as a requisite for being a Christian? If so, how many other Apostles possessed infallibility in their actions that were later recorded in the Book of Acts?
D.) During the time of the Western Great Schism of 1378, if papal infallibility was in existence at that time (and only later just codified), how could any person who was not one of the two Popes infallibly know (if they did not possess any measure of infallibility) which POpe was legitimate until this was later worked out? What about that period of time? Were people left "twisting in the wind?"
then you will continue to be ill-informed and incorrect for the rest of your life......pathetic
not necessarily so...infallibility belongs to the Pope and only in matters of faith and morals....very limited indeed.
for 2,000 years??, thanks for setting the Catholic Church straight....they don't get it, but your interpretation is correct....O.K., I guess.
The RC will say yes, as infallibility promised to the office, and not contingent upon the holiness of the person, and is assured whenever the world wide bishops in an ecumenical assembly speak together in union with the pope on faith and morals, or the pope himself, even autocratically regardless of what the bishops think or do .
In support they will invoke Caiaphas, who being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation, by advising that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. (Jn. 11:49-52)
The problem with that is that there was no assurance when he would prophecy, which Pharaoh (Ex. 10:28) and the people of the Jews also did (Mat_27:25). There was no assurance even when he would speak truth, but this text simply supports that he would at some time.
Moreover, while his counsel was a prophetic truth, that one man should die for the people, he was actually leading his people into wrath by the intent in which it was given.
Furthermore, in Scripture we see both writings and men of God were recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their heavenly qualities and attestation) , and Truth preserved, without an assuredly infallible magisterium, and too often in spite of the magisterium. Thus the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, being the stewards of Scripture, not upon the premise of assured magisterial infallibility.
Thus both Caiaphas and Scripture at large it fails to support the premise that the office of the pope alone or the magisterium of ecumenical counsels with him will perpetually be infallible when ever they universally speak on faith and morals.
In addition is the Scriptural and historical testimony against Peter and early successors being looked upon as exalted supreme infallible heads over all the church.
The question then is, what is the basis for RC assurance that Rome is the one true and infallible church? History, Scripture and Tradition can only authoritatively mean what Rome says they do.
And the reality for a RC is that Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
B.) Was Mary's (the Mother of Jesus) mother immaculately conceived as Mary was?
The question being, if Mary could be preserved sinless though having impure progenitors, so could Christ have been. And God brought forth His pure written word thru imperfect men.
Moreover, the fact is that the Holy Spirit characteristically records notable exceptions to the norm, from extreme ages, to height, to talking donkeys, to extra toes, to long-term virginity, etc. to sinlessness, thus Christ is at least thrice recorded as being so.
Based upon the silence hermeneutic Catholics invoke in support (it does not say she sinned) of the IC and other aspects of the hyper exaltation of the Mary of Catholicism beyond what is written, (cf. 1Cor. 4:6) then Paul never manifestly sinned after his conversion, while it could be taught that Mary will be one of the two witnesses in Revelation.
C.) When the Apostle Paul confronted Peter (when Peter was being hypocritical concerning his eating with Jews and Gentiles), did the Apostle Paul possess infallibility
That posses no problem in erroneous RC theology, as see the first question. Neither scenario fits the RC criteria, but neither does Paul's description of James, Cephas and John (in that order) "who seemed to be pillars", and his subsequent rebuke of Peter, support RC papal adulation and feet kissing,which Paul says nothing akin to.
Of course, then you have the 51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy (parody)
D.) During the time of the Western Great Schism of 1378, if papal infallibility was in existence at that time (and only later just codified), how could any person who was not one of the two Popes infallibly know (if they did not possess any measure of infallibility) which POpe was legitimate until this was later worked out? What about that period of time? Were people left "twisting in the wind?"
Indeed.
Referring to the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, Cardinal Ratzinger observed
, "For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side.
The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989, p.196; http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)
The Western Schism was thus at an end, after nearly forty years of disastrous life; one pope (Gregory XII) had voluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII) had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of the Church, "a pope without a Church, a shepherd without a flock" (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm
absolutely incorrect!!!! Jesus was FULLY man and FULLY God, you can never separate His natures...
Catholics aare, by nature, not a denomination...they are the true church and those fallen away are denominations. The Eastern schism did not change either group as far as their authenticity is concerned. The various split away groups that you refer to are "protestants in training" The Roman church and the various Orthodox, Russian etc.,are all within the catagory of TRUE church.
We're talking NOT about Wisdom itself but about only its/his SEAT. Don't make our Marian devotions to be more than they are.
I would suggest that there could be more thought about what a mother and what a seat is. A Mother bears something that is in part hers and in part exogenous. She is the mother of what she bears and delivers. but we all know that not all of it is 'hers.'
So to say, "Theotokos," is to say FIRST something about IHS. But my mother brought no Y-chromosomes to the party. Mary brought no divinity. Yet I am a guy-type-person, and Jesus is God.
Likewise with "seat." To call Mary "seat of Wisdom" is only to say that Wisdom sat on her. I am currently on the "seat of Mad Dawg." But I am not remarkable, and neither is my chair.
As to the bigger questions: You submit that there is a radical seam between logic as we know it and Divine Logos. (Am I saying it fairly?)
I find that there are more problems with that as a starting point than with saying that Logos is Logos and Logikos is logikos, and our problem is lack of information and sin -- and the fruits of sin,like distractibility and preferring to be THOUGHT to know the truth before actually knowing it. You, in my opinion rightly, appeal to certain canons of human logic, absence of evidence and all that. But the problem is a certain lack of clarity about the use (if any) of human logic in theology.
And, just to make us all throw up our hands and decide to go out for beer instead, I think the NT in general, and the Gospel of John in particular suggests that the Holy Spirit will guide us into truths not explicitly set forth in Scripture. So, quite seriously, what we find in Scripture is the Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture!
I no longer care to win arguments with cheap, or even expensive, shots. I'm not trying to back you into a theological or denominational corner. Even if I could, which is by no means clear, I'm not sure what good that would do either of us.
I will make this "partisan" remark. While Aquinas is fer shur a Catholic, a mega-Catholic with oak-leaf clusters, A lot of what he writes appeals to many, including even to atheists. It's not that they agree with him necessarily, bot about everything. But they do see that he makes compelling arguments which deserve consideration.
Luther Says that Aquinas misunderstood Aristotle. I've read a lot of Aristotle, a lot of Luther, and a lot of Aquinas (and right much Calvin, too.) To ME, it's not a slam dunk that Luther understood EITHER Aquinas OR Aristotle.
But I do know that a lot of people don't read Aristotle because they've been told he's been "Discredited." (No one says by whom or how.)
And I fear a lot of Protestants and other non-Catholics don't read Aquinas because somebody in authority said he'd been discredited too. Well whether or not that's true, he's worth reading on the problem of reason and theology, even if one decides at the end that he is wrong.
Thanks for your patient and reasonable (if only with human reason -- ;-) ) posts.
noone is denied anything...Ordination is strictly voluntarily entered into, no one forces anyone into anything
Jesus promised it, and we accept it....learn what it means or refrain from commenting on it...
I don’t know if this has been said yet but what the council did then was to recognize and formally define the infallibility the Pope always had through the centuries.
So it’s not like that council needed to be infallible in of itself to somehow “confer” infallibility either retroactively or proactively to all Popes past and future.
Hope that helped.
So infallibility came about by a vote...If they voted against it, would a pope be infallible anyway???
Your argument isn't with me. Take it up with the Catholic-cited source that says there are 35,000 "Christian denominations." Both claims herald from the same Catholic-cited source. If you're going to accept one, you have to accept both.
John 16:13
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth;...
Note that this is spoken to the eleven, not to all IHS's followers.
Paul writes, as I said, about the charism and office of teacher. (This implies that some are not teachers and are therefore to be taught.)
It seems not ridiculous to suppose that the Holy Spirit which calls and equips some to be teachers would do so in order for them to teach incorrectly. And there is the promise of "all truth," in the unspecified future, with respect to the time that IHS was speaking.
One might ask which promise of Jesus requires that the Scriptures be infallible and that nothing more be required for Salvation than what could be found in them or proved from them.
Nah, lack of sex just means you are married.
Yes, I know...a virgin has never experienced sex. Or never had sex.
For more like 4000 years.
The catholics didn’t invent the pope, it is an ancient pagan office.
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.