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?"
I think you may also either be switching your questions or requiring more of my side than of yours. I can't lay out an entire argument here. But you have not laid out an entire argument either.Questions were asked, I tried to discuss them, and in particular to point out related questions. That's all.
I told you I am not a theologian, a priest/minister, a teacher, a philosopher, or a scholar. If I have avoided questions, I lack the competence to answer them.
I have no ability to lay out a comprehensive argument against infallibility; but nothing I have ever read convinces me that the Pope - or any human being - is infallible on any subject.
Nevertheless, I am a reasonably intelligent person with the willingness and capability of reading the Bible and asking the Holy Spirit for guidance. My responsibility, my desire, and my joy is doing just that.
Although I respect the RCC, I do not wish to belong to an organization that makes such a claim. To me such a claim is dangerous. You may be willing to place your faith (and your soul) in the leaders of the RCC, but I am not. I will never allow someone I do not know to decide the truth of faith.
When I joined my current church, I promised that I would accept the guidance of the church. I made the promise but I did so with the reservation (which I communicated to the clergy) that I would listen to the teachings of the church and consider them prayerfully, carefully, and thoughtfully but would not accept them unless I could reconcile those teachings with those which I read to be the truth of Scripture.
If I am wrong - and I very well may be, as I am a very fallible human being - I will stand before Divine judgment and answer for my own errors. But those errors will be mine. I will not try to evade responsibility with the claim that I only believed what someone “taught” me.
Interesting. When I read this, the following thought popped into my mind: If Christ had to have impure progenitors in order to be sinless, then by reasoning, Mary is better than Christ because she could overcome having an impure lineage. Therefore, she must be "better" that Christ Jesus. Egads - blasphemy!
By RC reasoning (that Jesus had to have some help in coming from a sinless mother), either all of Mary's ancestors had to be sinless, or Mary is greater than Jesus.
What? This doesn't make any sense. Christ is sinless because He is divine.
It has nothing to do with having "impure progenitors" and even if it did how would impurity lead to sinlessness?
Did you miss a double negative somewhere?
then by reasoning,
Ahem
Mary is better than Christ because she could overcome having an impure lineage.
Mary didn't "overcome" anything. She was gifted by God through the graces available from the one Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
By RC reasoning (that Jesus had to have some help in coming from a sinless mother)
Please, I beg you, do not go around making claims about what Catholics believe. You are confused and are not anywhere near presenting what it is we profess.
Educate yourself.
Jesus didn't need help and we don't teach that He "needed" to have a sinless mother in order for Him to be sinless.
You are simply wrong about what we believe.
The question of individual moral discernment and the primacy of “conscience” applies to dogma as much as to anything else. This means that, just as I would expect someone who thought representative republics to be evil would leave the US and renounce his citizenship, so someone who rejected some “de fide” proposition ought to leave the Catholic Church.
When I speak of “questions” I often mean the difficult issues that follow from a statement. E.g.: Catholics shuck and jive over grace and merit; a great many Protestants shuck and jive over the Letter of James. To me, taking a theological position sometimes seems to come down to where I'm the most comfortable shucking and jiving, hemming and hawing.
But of course, theology isn't everything. There's justice and there's devotion. These battles on FR necessarily neglect those things.
Here's an alleged thought: when our car doesn't work or our child is very ill, we do not balk at consulting experts. With a very sick child (BTDT) we'll consult many experts and consider many opinions.
What makes theology different? I'm a very mediocre scholar at best but I read in many theologians and consider not only Luther and Calvin but even atheists. I can't walk around every question or probe and explore the nooks and crannies of every issue. So I “take advice,” as we all do on big, complicated, lumpy issues. And finally I decide whose advice I will accept.
But, it seems, only in questions about God do people say that they haven't discussed the issues or read many other opinions and consider that a kind of confirmation of the sureness of their views.
It's especially interesting in the light of what we find in Acts, Corinthians, and Ephesians about teaching and teachers. Those who claim great conformity to Scripture seem to gloss over a clear sense of a teaching role and position and its implication of people whose role is to be taught.
Nothing is wrong with celibacy per se. That’s why use the term “mandatory” when I discuss it. Yes, seminarians voluntarily take a vow of celibacy before becoming ordained a priest. But this vow-—especially for younger priests-—is not usually practical.
Case in point: I found out a few years ago that the young priest who married my wife and I was defocked. He was having an affair with a woman he loved and was expelled from the priesthood. IMHO, he should have been permitted to marry the woman and remain in the priesthood. He was a devout Catholic and loved the priesthood.
On the positive side, I have observed in recent years that the average age of seminarians has risen dramatically. According to our pastor the average of a man entering the seminary is now 35 years old. For those who want to keep mandatory clerical celibacy in place, this should be viewed as a positive trend. These are, for the most part, older men, presumably sexually mature, most have been around the block a few times, and know full well what is expected of them. They are also subject to a full battery of psychological examinations and criminal background checks.
As I previously mentioned, we do in fact have a large number of married priests in my archdiocese, and I have NO PROBLEM WITH THIS WHATSOEVER. They are just as holy, just as dedicated as the single, celibate priests.
With respects to nuns and monks-—for the sake of keeping this discussion focused, I would like to discuss that issue separately.
I don’t expect to leave my church if I disagree with its teachings or practices unless they are intrinsically sinful and “un-Biblical.”
For example, I did not leave the Episcopal Church when the it began to ordain women, even though there are Biblical strictures against the ordination of women. I chose to remain as I believe that no valid reason exist to exclude women from the priesthood. The method by which women were ordained wasn’t canonical, but that is another question.
The question of the recognition of homosexuality was a “deal breaker” for me, so I left with regret but without hesitation.
Being a member of a church will always involve compromise, unless a person belongs to a church with a congregation of one.
But compromise over doctrine is similar to compromise over public policy: the vast majority of compromises do not involve questions of deep principle so much as questions of policy. Where there is room for doubt, one can compromise. There is, in my mind room for doubt about the question of mandatory insurance payment for certain methods of contraception; there is no room for doubt about abortion. The former can be compromised, the latter cannot.
Again I return to the questions of homosexuality and the ordination of women. I chose to accept the latter - and even welcome it - because it is not sinful to be a woman. Paul writes against it, and Jesus never married. Neither of those examples seems a compelling reason to exclude women from the ordained ministry.
Homosexual conduct/acts as opposed to a homosexual orientation are sinful. Both the Bible and Jewish-Christian history argue against acceptance of actively practicing homosexuals into a priestly ministry.
By the way, as a former Episcopalian, I was weaned on St James. My current church practices James’ teachings with great vigor. Personally, I tend to lean toward Luther’s description of the Letter of St James, but my church’s current position is in no sense a deal breaker.
I don’t believe that those who reverence Scripture gloss over the role of teacher, so much as they refuse to “reverence” the ordained ministry. For them, it is simply a vocation. It is a position one respects but not one that requires deference from the laity. The emphasis within many evangelical churches is reading the Bible for oneself. If one does that long enough, one will almost certainly come to conclusions that are different from the established dogma of any church.
The question then is how serious are the differences and who decides. If the differences are serious enough - as with the ordination of actively practicing homosexuals - one leaves. If the differences are minor, one remains.
But who decides is another matter. Most Protestants are simply unwilling to cede that authority to the clergy and especially to higher clergy (bishops) whom they have never met and may reside is a different city or country.
For me, I don’t know these men, and experience with the Episcopal Church has given me no reason to trust them.
Which is why I return to the question of Papal infallibility. The Pope may be the most saintly man electable by the College of Cardinals. But he is a stranger; and I repeat, I will not trust my soul to a stranger, however elevated, learned, or saintly he may be.
You may chose to do so. I will not, as I find nothing in the Bible that commands me to do so.
His take is that the call to the SERIOUSLY eremitical life is an entirely different matter from the call to the priesthood. I think that stands to reason. And that at least makes room for the discussion about celibacy and priesthood.
First Things recently had an article about celibacy as an anti-establishment act. It is interesting that both Bismarck and the Meiji emperor wanted their clergy married. It became a requirement in Japan!
My experience as a married Episcopal priest for a congregation undergoing a tough and angry transition was that being married in that situation was incredibly painful. Those who didn't like the decisions I made took it out on my wife. I'm glad that, at the time, we didn't have a child.
Certainly, if the congregation has control of the compensation of their minister and if at the time the congregation needs to deal with contentious issues, a celibate clergy will be, as Paul says, more able to focus on the job.
I wonder if it can be fairly said that the churches of the east have been more likely to cooperate with the government than the Catholic Church in the west has been. I am certain that, in this age where the call to martyrdom of one sort or another seems ever louder, I would find having a pregnant wife at home taking care of the other children a HUGE influence on whether and how I stood against the demands of the current anti-life government.
Well, how does "the grandmother of God" sound? And in Mormonic doctrine i think they talk about a heavenly mother.
But remember that the Marian dogmata, in our view, arise from Christological teachings. It is through God in IHS that Mary receives all the graces we claim she has. (And therefore, Anne too. It's not her excellence that makes her God's grandmother. It is IHS's gift.)
No.
It's only when a majority vote in a certain way that infallibility occurs.
--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Mary; can you make a millisecond of your precious time available to hear MY plea?)
You smarter than a POPE?
True.
There is certainly really no need to go looking behind any curtain.
It’s all about the Biblical Rock of Christ, and as explained by others, infallibility is quite a limited concept. FWIW, the deeper things of God are always easy to skew, misrepresent or misinterpret.
You sure nailed THIS one!!
|
Is Peter the 'rock'?
As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'
BEFORE the following verses came along.....
NIV 1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. NIV Luke 6:48
He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. NIV Romans 9:33
As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." NIV 1 Peter 2:4-8
4. As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- 5. you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 7. Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, " 8. and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for. But, since there WAS no NT at the time Christ spoke to Peter, just what DID Peter and the rest of the Disciples know about ROCKS??? NIV Genesis 49:24-25 24. But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel, 25. because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty, who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb. NIV Numbers 20:8
"Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink." NIV Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. NIV Deuteronomy 32:15
Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior. NIV Deuteronomy 32:18
You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. NIV Deuteronomy 32:30-31
30. How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up? 31. For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede. NIV 1 Samuel 2:2
"There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. NIV 2 Samuel 22:2-3
2. He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; 3. my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior-- from violent men you save me. NIV 2 Samuel 22:32
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV 2 Samuel 22:47
"The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior! NIV 2 Samuel 23:3-4
3. The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: `When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God, 4. he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning, like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the earth.' NIV Psalms 18:2
The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. NIV Psalms 18:31
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV Psalms 18:46
The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior! NIV Psalms 19:14
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer. NIV Psalms 28:1
To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.
NIV Psalms 31:2-3
2. Turn your ear to me, come quickly to my rescue; be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me. 3. Since you are my rock and my fortress, for the sake of your name lead and guide me. NIV Psalms 42:9
I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?" NIV Psalms 62:2
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:6
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:7
My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge. NIV Psalms 71:3
Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress. NIV Psalms 78:35
They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer. NIV Psalms 89:26
He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.' NIV Psalms 92:14-15
14. They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green, 15. proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him." NIV Psalms 95:1
Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. NIV Psalms 144:1
Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. NIV Isaiah 17:10
You have forgotten God your Savior; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress. NIV Isaiah 26:4
Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal. NIV Isaiah 30:29
And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel. NIV Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." NIV Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish. |
And now you know the Biblical position!
And then there is BLIND faith.
A belief that ignores logical proof or material evidence to the contrary.
John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Mary didn't get mentioned at ALL!
Speakin' of loins....
24 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die, and go unto my fathers; and I go down to my grave with joy. The God of my father Jacob be with you, to deliver you out of affliction in the days of your bondage; for the Lord hath visited me, and I have obtained a promise of the Lord, that out of the fruit of my loins, the Lord God will raise up a righteous branch out of my loins; and unto thee, whom my father Jacob hath named Israel, a prophet; (not the Messiah who is called Shilo;) and this prophet shall deliver my people out of Egypt in the days of thy bondage.
25 And it shall come to pass that they shall be scattered again; and a branch shall be broken off, and shall be carried into a far country; nevertheless they shall be remembered in the covenants of the Lord, when the Messiah cometh; for he shall be made manifest unto them in the latter days, in the Spirit of power; and shall bring them out of darkness into light; out of hidden darkness, and out of captivity unto freedom.
26 A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.
27 Thus saith the Lord God of my fathers unto me, A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren.
28 And he shall bring them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers; and he shall do whatsoever work I shall command him.
29 And I will make him great in mine eyes, for he shall do my work; and he shall be great like unto him whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel, out of the land of Egypt; for a seer will I raise up to deliver my people out of the land of Egypt; and he shall be called Moses. And by this name he shall know that he is of thy house; for he shall be nursed by the king’s daughter, and shall be called her son.
30 And again, a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth of my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them in the last days;
31 Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of thy loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together unto the confounding of false doctrines, and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to a knowledge of their fathers in the latter days; and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.
BACKLINE
The line across the ice at the back of the house. Stones which are over this line are removed from play.
BITER
A stone that just touches the outer edge of the circles.
BLANK END
An end in which no points have been scored.
BONSPIEL
A curling competition or tournament.
BRUSH
A device used to sweep the ice in the path of a moving stone.
BURNED STONE
A stone in motion touched by a member of either team, or any part of their equipment. Burned stones are removed from play.
BUTTON
The circle at the centre of the house.
COUNTER
Any stone in the rings or touching the rings which is a potential point.
CURL
The amount a rock bends while travelling down the sheet of ice.
DRAW WEIGHT
The momentum required for a stone to reach the house or cirlces at the distant end.
END
A portion of a curling game that is completed when each team has thrown eight stones and the score has been decided.
GUARD
A stone that is placed in a position so that it may protect another stone.
HACKS
The foot-holds at each end of the ice from which the stone is delivered.
HEAVY
A rock delivered with a greater force than necessary.
HIT
A take-out. Removal of a stone from the playing area by hitting it with another stone.
HOG LINE
A line 10 meters from the hack at each end of the ice.
HOGGED STONE
A stone that does not reach the far hog line. It must be removed from play.
HOUSE
The rings or circles toward which play is directed consisting of a 12-foot ring, 8-foot ring, 4-foot ring and a button.
IN-TURN
The rotation applied to the handle of a stone that causes it to rotate in a clockwise direction and curl for a right-handed curler.
LEAD
The first player on a team to deliver a pair of stones for his/her team in each end.
OUT-TURN
The rotation applied to the handle of a stone that causes it to turn and curl in a counter-clockwise direction for a right-handed curler.
PEBBLE
A fine spray of water applied to a sheet of curling ice before commencing play.
RAISE
When one stone is bumped ahead by another.
ROLL
The movement of a curling stone after it has struck a stationary stone in play.
SECOND
The curler who delivers the second pair of stones for hi/her team in each end.
SHEET
The specific playing surface upon which a curling game is played.
SHOT ROCK
At any time during an end, the stone closest to the button.
SKIP
The player who determines the strategy, and directs play for the team. The skip delivers the last pair of stones for his/her team in each end.
SPARE
An alternate player or substitute.
SLIDER
Slippery material placed on the sole of the shoe, to make it easier to slide on the ice.
SWEEPING
The action of moving a broom or brush back and forth in the path of a moving stone.
TAKE OUT
Removal of a stone from the playing area by hitting it with another stone.
TEE LINE
The line that passes through the centre of the house parallel to the hog line and backline.
THIRD, VICE-SKIP OR MATE
The third player on a team to throw two stones in each end. Generally this player acts as the skip when the skip is delivering his/her stones and assists with shot selection decisions.
WEIGHT
The amount of force given to the stone during the delivery.
HMMMmmm...
Good choice of word!
It's nice to HOPE so; but the sad truth is that many churches will talk up Christ - a LOT!! some of them - but when you get into the details of day-to-day living; the practice does NOT measure up to the preaching.
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.