The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 162

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Threads 1-50

Threads 51-100

Threads 101-150

Thread 151	Thread 152	Thread 153	Thread 154	Thread 155	Thread 156	Thread 157
Thread 158<;/a>	Thread 159	Thread 160

The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 161

[malakhi]

And who asked you, newbie?

[OLD REGGIE]

(REGGIE) "How many infallible pronouncements have been made and what were they."

(SD) As far as I know there are three. Possibly four.
1. The Infallibility of the Pope
2. The Immaculate Conception of Mary
3. The Assumption of Mary
4. The impossibility of ordaining women

The last is still debated by some agitators for priestesses and Rome has not definiteively identified this statement (which on its surface seems to be preaching infalllibly) as infallible.

------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your reply. You are the only person who has attempted an answer. To my knowledge, there is no unanimity within the RCC as to what actual "Infallible" pronouncements have been made. I believe you will get more arguments on your choices from within the fraternity than from non-Catholics.

For example; from allend:

"Because Vatican II issued no solemn definitions, it is all just Ordinary Magisterium. About 21 councils have issued solemn definitons, and the Pope (not our present Pope) has done it twice. There are something like 250 doctrines which have been solemnly defined."

It would be interesting to see how the two of you can come up with such widely varying answers.

A skeptic might say the definition of "Infallibility" is purposely obscure in order to facilitate the withdrawal of a supposed "infallible" pronouncement in the future.

[Uri’el-2012]

Well, I'll say one thing about all the Christian prattle on FR: Truly it is neverending...sigh.

135 posted on 10/12/01 9:21 AM Mountain by Smittyat90210

May the L-rd of the universe Bless you and someday draw you to His Son, Yeshua HaMashiach.

Tehillim (Psalm) 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.

XeniaSt

[malakhi]

I'm not looking at it from a technological standpoint, but from a user preference standpoint. The threads could go over 1000 replies if we wanted them to. What seems a reasonable size to you?

[malakhi]

I'd say keep the threads the usual. We really need to be able to scroll up and down.

I agree that the one shortcoming of the new format is the inability to search an entire thread for a particular keyword. Of course, you can always set your preferences to load 250 replies rather than the default 20 (click on [settings] at the bottom). If we kept the threads under 500 replies, it would only require two "pages" at maximum replies per page to show the whole thread.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

If you had read the quote, you should have noticed that Origen, back in 244, testified to the doctrine as coming from Apostolic times, and no one challenged Origen on that matter. He said some other things for which the churchmen jumped all over him, but not that.

Oh, Origen's history should be treated as being a smorgassboard. Pick the things we like and throw out the things we don't? No thanks. Keep your history. I'm still waiting for chapter and verse. The "household" scriptures really don't tell us anything about infants.

[SoothingDave]

I take this a a slight modification of your initial statement which, to me at least, implied valid Apostolic Succession only to the RCC.

No, it was an elaboration, for your benefit, on who exactly has maintained Apostolic Succession.

Please elaborate on this statement:

They've ordained women and practicing homosexuals.

1. Are you aware of scriptural prohibitions toward women and/or practicing homosexuals in the clergy?

I am unaware of any Scriptural or Traditional history of women ever being ordained.

That is, if Jesus who came to "shake up" the world did not choose women as Apostles, we are powerless to do the same.

Philosophically, the priest serves the function of Christ in the Sacraments and as the Groom to the Bride which is the Church. If a priestess were to be the Groom, we have a disturbing homosexual metaphor....

2. If a practicing homosexual was validly ordained and, over the course of time, ordained others, who also ordained others; would any or the ordinations be valid.

Good question. I am not entirely sure. A homosexual man who is celibate can be a priest because he is resisting his temptations and more importantly, recognizes them as evil. A defiant homosexual does not recognize his sin as sin and would make an unworthy candidate for the priesthood, which is about obedience to God.

If one such homosexual stealthily became ordained anyway I think we have to accept it as valid. I am unclear on whether someone in defiant dissent on a Church position is incapable of being ordained. (There would seemingly be a lot of invalid priests were it the case.) I will defer to anyone more expert on the subject.

Women, gay or straight, are not proper "subjects" for an ordination.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

1. Are you aware of scriptural prohibitions toward women and/or practicing homosexuals in the clergy?

The one the Protestants usually use is the "A woman shall not have authority over a man," statement. The Catholic Church has not used this argument to my knowledge, but points out why a woman would be incapable of consecrating the Eucharist.

2. If a practicing homosexual was validly ordained and, over the course of time, ordained others, who also ordained others; would any or the ordinations be valid.

Yes, all of them.
-----------------------------------------------------------

It appears SothingDave and you have a vastly different take on this.

Do you, or the RCC, believe A woman shall not have authority over a man," actually means a woman would be incapable of consecrating the Eucharist?

[SoothingDave]

It appears SothingDave and you have a vastly different take on this.

I don't think so. I just used a heck of a lot more words to say basically the same thing.

Do you, or the RCC, believe A woman shall not have authority over a man," actually means a woman would be incapable of consecrating the Eucharist?

No, and allend didn't say that either. I fact he said the Church does not use this Scripture. The argument is not from a "line" of Scripture, but rather from the entire idea of Jesus selecting His apostles from the male side of the aisle. We just follow His example. Surely if the Lord wanted to have female apostles He would have.

SD

[Iowegian]

One of the biggest problems is right here in your reply. You capitalize "church" and I am assuming that you mean the RCC when you do that.

Yes, that is my common usage. If I mean "all Christians" I'll say something akin to that.

Good, now we are getting somewhere. You are part of the problem, not the solution. This is very divisive to Christ's church (not to mention elitist and arrogant).

Hence, you mean that only the RCC has the authority to interpret scripture.

Interpret properly, yes. Christ established a teaching Church, one to go out to the nations and tell them the good news. This one Church, by necessity, would have one message and to ensure the truthfullness of the message, the Holy Spirit guides the Church infallibly.

Necessary for the RCC church to maintain itself, not necessary for God.

Now, what if the church (which means "all who trust in Christ") have the authority to interpret Scripture properly?

Why don't they then? Seriously. If all who trust in Christ are authorized to properly interpret Scripture, why on earth do you all have different ideas about what Scripture means?

Because we are not perfect, we have a sinful nature and do things for our own benefit and interest. Notice that I used the word "could" not "always does" interpret correctly. It has the authority and power to do it correctly (with God's help), but we don't always follow God's will. But we have no guarantees that the RCC will interpret correctly either, and my belief (and I am not alone on this), the do interpret it incorrectly and for their own interests.

That's chaos. That's confusion.

That's your opinion or point of view as a mere finite human being. God is not confused by all of it, he hears th prayers of millions at one time and holds the universe together. This is not a problem for Him, and if you rely on God, through his Word as the final authority, you will not be confused either.

I thank God He left us with teachers to look to for help.

There's nothing wrong with teachers, and I use them and praise God for their wisdom. But my teachers rely on God's Word, and this does not violate sola Scriptura.

Your statement would be correct and not violate the concept of sola Scriptura at all.

If every believer truly could properly interpret Scripture then Sola Scriptura would be a wonderful thing. Until that day, we must reject it as a dangerous doctrine.

Dangerous to the RCC maybe, and I think that is the real problem you have with it. Remember when Rush started making it big all over the country and the libs called him "the most dangerous man in America"? He took it as a compliment, because it showed their vulnerability and insecurity. That's how I take your comment also.

[OLD REGGIE]

What IS clear about "This is My body" is that Jesus was using a metaphor, as He so often did to vividly illustrate truth. Yes, we must appropriate His sacrifice for ourselves as though we were eating His flesh. If one takes this statement ("This is My body") literally, one would have to take all other metaphors He employed literally also. Like "I am the Light of the world," "I am the Door," "I am the Alpha and Omega," "I am the vine," "You are the branches," "My sheep hear My voice," etc. The same is true of "You must eat My flesh and drink My blood." If one reads the context of John 6, it is so easy to see that eating and drinking are synonymous with "coming to Him," which He repeats over and over. It is also a beautiful illustration of how we are united to Him AND nourished and given life by Him. Oh! The analogy is FULL of wonderful morsels of truth!!! To think you literally bite into His flesh, chew Him up, and swallow Him and drink His blood is.......too ludicrous for words.

Well said. You miss that the RCC has reserved to itself the ability to define exactly what is metaphorical and what is actual.

[RobbyS]

Regarding animals in heaven. Since there were animals in the earthly paradise, why not in the new earthly paradise, except that the lion will lay down with the lamb?

Furthermore, I repeat the tale about the old woman who was devasted by the loss of a beloved pet and asked the priest if "Fido" would be in heaven with her. He asked, "Would that make you happy?"" Oh yes," said the old lady. "Then God will provide, " replied the priest.

[OLD REGGIE]

Actually, the count could go on forever. I agree that the webmaster should be the judge.

[OLD REGGIE]

No, and allend didn't say that either. I fact he said the Church does not use this Scripture. The argument is not from a "line" of Scripture, but rather from the entire idea of Jesus selecting His apostles from the male side of the aisle. We just follow His example. Surely if the Lord wanted to have female apostles He would have.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Oh! I see! And Jesus selected only celibate Apostles. That explains the "tradition" that the clergy must be celibate. Surely if the Lord wanted to have married apostles He would have. AH SO!!!

[OLD REGGIE]

You misunderstood my post. There are around 250 doctrines which have been solemnly defined, making them Extraordinary Magisterium. However, even the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. The statements on the ordinary level are too numerous to attempt to count.
------------------------------------------------------------

I'm more confused than ever. Am I to understand that "Infallible" doctrines are "too numerous to attempt to count"?

[OLD REGGIE]

To say that the authority of the Church has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura is to miss the entire point. Sola Scriptra is the rejection of the Church's authority.
------------------------------------------------------------

SoothingDave; one more time, Sola Scriptura is not rejection of the Church's authority. It, as St. Augustine so well defines, stating that Scripture has paramount authority.