Posted on 07/26/2017 10:35:48 AM PDT by ebb tide
We've been told on these threads there is unanimity among the ECFs upon which Roman Catholics hang their beliefs....so yes...this is what we've been told Roman Catholics believe.
If there were constant "unanimity", why would we have had the Council of Jerusalem?
After the Council decided there were in full agreement...unlike Rome at Trent.
Everything I posted regarding Roman Catholic beliefs on Mary was from Roman Catholic sources. I'm giving you what Rome is teaching. You may not believe it but it is what is being taught.
It may be more complicated than you think.
Oh I didn't do an exhaustive search on every Roman Catholic Seminary nor do I plan to.
I agree a lot of seminaries do offer differing degrees.
I was just looking at the MDiv at a couple of RCC seminaries which is the typical degree one gets at seminary.
But I do recall a posting by salvation from Msgr Pope about discovering the Greek. It amazed me that he could be so trained as a priest and not have been exposed to the Greek.
http://blog.adw.org/2015/08/greek-to-you-dont-dismiss-it-the-importance-of-recourse-to-the-greek-text-of-the-new-testament/
I do find it interesting at the end of the article there is a video of the professor used by my seminary reviewing the Greek alphabet. Imagine a Roman Catholic priest posting a video by a graduate of an evangelical seminary!
Like all people, they had each one his own style, his own emphasis, his own mode of expression, even his own preferences and opinions. These can all be observed in the midst of the broad sweep of their shared Faith, taught by the Apostles, confirmed by their bishops, creeds, synods, councils, and liturgies, which they had in common. It's what they had in common, that comprises the "deposit of faith", their faith "as a whole", "kata holos," called Catholic.
Ealgeone, this is basic. Peace to you. Over and out.
Absolutely preposterous.
First of all, there is nothing in the text of the Missal that would conceivably constitute some sort of “secret” that anyone would have ANY reason to “keep from the people” in order to “keep them ignorant.”
There is nothing particularly “informative” about the Canon of the Mass, or the prayers that change from day to day. Practically the entire text is drawn from the Scriptures. There is no “secret history,” “secret metaphysics,” or any other such imaginary nonsense.
The moment the printing press was invented, Missals containing the entire Latin text of the Mass, with the vernacular translation, became available. These were in the hands of the people. The same, of course, was true of translations of Scripture—which the Church encouraged. As time went on, the Church’s promotion of the use of Missals by the people only grew louder and more insistent.
He is a vicious anti-Catholic. He does nothing but ask stupid questions and draw preposterous conclusions from any answers he gets.
That depends on the Seminary. They vary greatly.
The seminary that I went to required a sufficient reading knowledge of Latin to deal with St. Thomas in the original before one began theology, as well as a basic knowledge of Biblical Greek. Biblical Hebrew was optional.
I have no idea what constitutes “the three major Catholic Seminaries.” Many seminaries are or were awful, but they do vary (and my experiences are mostly from the 90’s, and so are dated).
BTW—while I did finish the seminary formation, I did not go on for ordination, so I do not diminish your 100% stat.
Proving yet again, it is the Romam Catholic, and in this case a priest, who is usually the first to get personal and/or resort to profanity when the argument goes against them.
Jesus said: He who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood can have no life in him. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
“That depends on the Seminary. They vary greatly.”
No doubt you are correct.
Pius XII did bother to explain in detail in Divino Afflante Spiritu what Trent meant by authoritative—but he also made it clear that Trent valued the original text more than the Latin—authoritative has a juridical sense, as Pius XII makes clear.
If one bothers to read Leo XIII’s 1893 Providentissimus Deus one can see that the value placed on original languages is not so modern, a point further emphasized by Pius XI in the 1920 encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus. The myth that 1943 some how changed everything was dreamed up by “scholars” in the 50’s and 60’s looking for an excuse to ignore the entire history of the field. Pius XII made very clear both in DIviono Afflante Spiritu, and in Humani Generis a few years later that his scriptural teaching embraced the encyclicals of both his predecessors in their entirety.
Whatever the vote at Trent, it was sufficient and then signed by the Pope.
Preposterous. Oh, really. LOL. Well stated and factual. not at all hyperbolic.
You avoid the main issue because you misstated the “ancient mass” incorrectly as Latin. God caused the apostles to preach in tongues so that local people could hear the word at a time when they couldn’t read and there was no printing press.
Admit that and free yourself from your anger over this pope. if you want to be upset be upset that abortionist and those who fund them freely walk up and receive communion. Thats the place to direct your anger.
The printing press and missiles didn’t teach people to read. That came later, in something called schools. The church was notorious for maintaining control over information and not saying the mass in the local language after God clearly intended it was a major example of my point.
I said i like the latin mass., It is a marketing decision to me. If a priest can speak or read latin and people want to participate then i don’t give a rats ass.
I suggest you ignore my preposterous historically accurate posts and wallow in your need to ignore the real Ancient History of the church.
There is plenty of evidence for the chain. Let's take the papacy. Christ gave Peter special prerogatives and charges among the Apostles ("upon this rock I shall build my Church", and "I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" and "whatever you bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven") St. Peter later appoints 3 bishops in Rome, one of whom is St. Clement (who may very well be the Clement mentioned by Paul)...in the 90s the church of Corinth writes Clement and asks him to settle a local dispute, which he does with authority. Ignatius of Antioch in the 110s is brought to Rome, firing off epistles including one to Rome that strikes a deferential tone; he calls the Roman Church "presiding over the brotherhood of love" and "purified from every strange taint". In the 170s, Irenaeus is saying flat out that every Church must agree with the Church of Rome, because in it the tradition of the Apostles has always been preserved.
Now I know well you're going to pick apart every single one of those and tell me they don't mean what they seem to mean.
But any reasonably unbiased person can see they sure sound like a proto-papacy, and you can't find a single quote from these authors that even sounds remotely like what you believe--which is that the Roman Church went off the rails and started teaching bad, pagan doctrine. Irenaeus said flat out in the 170s that the Roman Church preserved the Apostolic doctrine perfectly since the beginning. You expect me to take your word over his?
I can produce a chain of primary historical sources in defense of my position, starting from people who knew the Apostles personally. Where is your counterevidence? Don't give me this "self-evident" nonsense as if you can just declare the matter resolved by fiat.
If you are sola scripture or something approaching it, there is much less to study outside of scripture and the study of scripture becomes more important—so one would expect protestant seminaries to place more emphasis on the languages.
I find nothing particularly odd about a Catholic promoting a good language scholar who happens to be protestant-—St. Jerome consulted rabbis. I use Mounce’s works in my own Greek course. If Augustine can take freely from Tyconius in the concrete, and in the abstract urge Catholic scholars to be like the Israelites leaving Egypt—to take every truth that isn’t nailed down—what is wrong with swiping something good off of a protestant.
For that matter, I have a pile of Jesuit song writers that I’ll gladly swap for a couple of good Methodists.
Again, you flatter yourself that you present “argument.”
You snipe, you erect straw men, you draw invidious, preposterous conclusions. You do not ask sincere questions.
You are profoundly intellectually dishonest. Which I can prove, and have proven many times before.
Is the following syllogism formally valid or invalid? (If you answer with anything but the single word “yes,” you are intellectually dishonest. [See? I’ve even sneaked you the answer.])
—Sally is the mother of Sam.
—Sam is a welder.
—Sally is the mother of a welder.
This, this, a thousand times this.
Scripture was compiled from the books read at Mass, not the Mass from the books of Scripture!! Thanks for making this point Mrs. Don-o, it's so very crucial.
2) Ordinary Magisterium: this second form of Church teaching is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical documents, in which the faith is declared.
(Definitions from A Catholic Dictionary, 1951)
http://www.catholicessentials.net/magisterium.htm
“I also admit the holy Scriptures , according to that sense which our holy Mother, the Church, has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scripture: neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise, than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
http://newspapers.bc.edu/cgi-bin/bostonsh?a=d&d=usci18320427-01.2.2
3. I also admit the holy Scriptures according to that sense which our holy Mother Church has held, and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers (juxta unanimem consensum Patrum).The Profession of the Tridentine Faith, 1564
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.vi.iv.html
Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT Session IV - Celebrated on the eighth day of April, 1546 under Pope Paul III
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent4.htm
How many do you want?
If you want to call the vote at Trent on the approval of the canon with 24 yeas to 15 nays and 16 abstaining unanimous...well, we have differing definitions of unanimous. But Rome does redefine words at whim.
“Where is your counterevidence?”
Well, *if you refuse to believe the words I quoted from your Pope* -
probably the most intellectually brilliant man to hold that office -
*saying that things were added* that were unknown to the Apostles and Catholics in earlier centuries, you won’t believe anything I write.
Clearly this is about what you *want* to believe and not about what is true.
Good luck with that Claud.
Hey, a Roman Catholic priest wrote this....
No Pope has the power to abrogate an ancient rite of the Church. This is why Pius V did not touch any rite older than 200 years, and it is why Paul VI never dared to abrogate the Missal of 1962.
To which I asked you...the Roman Catholic priest...."So anything less than 200 yrs old is fair game? "
You posted the original comment that lead to the question which is a fair one based on YOUR comment.
If you can't answer it...and I doubt you can, perhaps you should withdraw the post.
It wouldn't be the first time you advanced a position and had to amend what you posted. Probably won't be the last.
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.