Replies

The following important observations were made in 1851:

We cannot allow that every private Priest or member of the Church of Rome should give his own opinions merely as the standard of doctrine. We will have recourse to the oracular response of the Church, and insist that they be represented by themselves; not, however, by private individuals, but by their legal representatives. But, then, there is nothing which they dread so much as the testimony of their own Church....

IT IS A PRINCIPAL AIM OF ALL [ROMAN CATHOLIC] CONTROVERTISTS TO EMPLOY EVERY MODE OF EVASION IN ORDER TO DISCONCERT THEIR OPPOSERS. There is even a marked difference between the tone of these Romish Divines who speak dogmatically for the instruction of their own members and that of those who attempt to answer the objections of their antagonists. With the former, all is matter of downright certainty; with the latter, all is doubt, difficulty, subterfuge, and evasion. When the faithful are to be instructed, every Priest becomes the sure depositary of the infallible decisions of an infallible Church; but when Protestants are to be confuted, the declarations of their most illustrious men are of no authority. Councils are discovered to have been but partly approved; Popes did not speak ex cathedra; Cardinals and Bishops are but private Doctors; and who cares for the opinion of an obscure Priest or Friar? Thus nothing is so difficult as to know what the belief of Roman Catholics really is; and WHEN A PROTESTANT ADDUCES THEIR OWN WRITERS AS WITNESSES, HE IS FREQUENTLY TOLD THAT HE IS A MISREPRESENTER OF THEIR CHURCH (Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, London: John Mason, 1851, p. 23).

Sounds like this guy had a vision of the Neverending Threads way back in 1851 :)

BigMack

but when Protestants are to be confuted, the declarations of their most illustrious men are of no authority. Councils are discovered to have been but partly approved; Popes did not speak ex cathedra; Cardinals and Bishops are but private Doctors; and who cares for the opinion of an obscure Priest or Friar? Thus nothing is so difficult as to know what the belief of Roman Catholics really is;

This is true, I did quite a bit of reading on "ex catherda", and their dosn't seem to be any imformation on what the popes have spoken ex cathedra. I did read one place that he had to be seated in the papal chair,but then that dosn't necessarily mean he is using his office for that purpose.

It boils down to the fact that you can't hold them to anything they say, because they reason, we are all catholic basher and haters, and anything they have to do to protect the Holy Catholic Church is for the good of Church.

Like James Carvell said, "It's A Wor brother, It's a wor" (^g^)

WHEN A PROTESTANT ADDUCES THEIR OWN WRITERS AS WITNESSES, HE IS FREQUENTLY TOLD THAT HE IS A MISREPRESENTER OF THEIR CHURCH (Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, London: John Mason, 1851, p. 23).

Sounds like this guy had a vision of the Neverending Threads way back in 1851 :)

Indeed. Of course Catholics and Protestants have been accusing each other of misrepresenting each other for a lot longer than since 1851.