Posted on 04/03/2005 1:56:20 PM PDT by propertius
To me, as a Catholic (and, what's worse, a convert), I neither am obliged by RC teaching to consider him infallible nor do I so consider him.
I take ALL his opinions with extreme seriousness and respect and I frequently return to those with which I disagree and re-examine my thinking and his.
Mind you, had he defined something as de fide, that would be a different matter.
My daughter has never drowned. She has never even fallen into a swimming pool. But that is because her mother and I were vigilant. We saved her from drowning by not letting her get intot a situation where drowning was an option.
Jesus's saving act saved Mary by keeping her Immaculate. She needed Him to do that, as my daughter, on occasion, needed me to keep her from falling into a pool. But I kept my daughter safe, and The Son of God kept the woman chosen to be His mother safe.
I am Catholic by the way,...
ROMAN Catholic?
... not a Mary worshiper or a believer in Mary to mediate between man and Christ.
Well what a coincidence! I'm not a Mary worshipper either, and I'm a Roman Catholic.
As to the mediation thing, that's more complicated: My mother-in-law is a great woman of prayer. I don't understand why that is so, but my experience is that it IS so. Consequently, when something really troubles me or concerns me deeply, I will ask her to pray about it.
Does that mean I "worship" my mother-in-law? Cut me a BREAK! But, in a way, it DOES mean that I expect even my mother-in-law to mediate between me and God. Not in the way that Jesus mediates, but there is still an intercessory aspect to what I ask of her. And so it is with the Mother of my Lord: I ask her to pray for me, and I also pray for myself, through Jesus Christ.
After all, I pray for the world, but I don't think I'm some kind of cosmic mediator....
He was like W in a way. There were people how voted for Pres. Bush who agreed with almost nothing he stood for but they voted for him because the KNEW WHERE HE STOOD.
Thank you. That helps.
One more thing, do you believe "Mary is Queen over all things"?
Where does God say this? Are the men who came up with this idea correct? I guess you believe the Catholic Catechism over the Bible. I would not take that bet no way no how.
When the Pope said "No to war," his solution was not acquiescence in the face of terror, as was reported by the American Press. To the contrary, he noted that at times, civization must confront evil. The news media, and that blogger took these quotes out of context. But he was teaching how to end war: "First, end abortion."
I was adressing the person that stated, "Everyone is agreed that John Paul was a wonderful man. But, to me as a non-Catholic, I do not consider he was infallible.". I felt that is a common, likely well intentioned misunderstanding of Roman Catholic doctrine.
I posted that I believed the pope, as a man, is with sin and error, aka not impeccable. That speaking ex cathedra is infallible.
My post:
As a Catholic, I do not believe the Pope as a man to be without error or without sin, often referred to as impeccablity. I do believe the Pope speaking ex cathedra to be infallible.
I appreciate the questions, as it obviously guides me to clarify my writing.
Therese
Nor was he infallible on which horses would wint he Epsom derby either. /sarcasm. How many times to repeat it? The Pope is infallible on matter of Church dogma when speaking ex cathedra. That's it. He's not supposed to be infallible in everything -- that's God's role.
LOL. Point taken.
That the Bible is inspired, the nature and meaning of the inspiration, and similar issues are -- guess what -- Church Doctrine! What books are in the Bible and which aren't? Church Doctrine! I can't talk about one without talking about the other.
But you misunderstood me. I don't spend much time arguing doctrine. It's enough for me to try to articulate it clearly. I certainly wasn't trying to convince someone so much wiser and more learned than I. I'm sure my M.Div in 1976 and my study in the intervening 29 years is trivial in comparison to your learning. And that's fine. I nearly always enjoy coherent and friendly presentations of different points of view.
You seemed to suggest that the only people who needed to be saved from sin were sinners. So I tried to present, by analogy, a way that somebody could be saved from something without actually being "in" it.
Further, what you said about Mary's not being saved suggested that you do not understand what the Catholic Church says about the teaching. Certainly IF she is immaculate, it is only through the saving action of our Lord, just as every good thing every one of us enjoys is through His grace, one way or another. It's clear that you don't agree with the teaching, and I didn't hope to change that. But I hoped to address some of the misunderstanding.
As far as "canned responses" go, I never heard anyone make the analogy I made about saving my daughter from drowning. So while other and wiser people may have made it before me, it was not canned when I made it.
Am I right that you disagree with the conciliar teaching about the reliablity of the Pope's ex cathedra statements? Are you an "Old Catholic" or kind of an unofficially protestant person who wants to remain a kind of loyal opoposition within the Church?
Sure! Why not? The living mother of a king is usually styled "Queen" as a courtesy title. "In the UK "Queen Mother" is not an official title. The correct title for the mother of a reigning sovereign would be "Queen so-and-so"
So the mother of our Lord, the King of Kings, can be properly styled Queen of Heaven and Earth, as -- when she lived -- the mother of Queen Elizabeth II was called Queen.
I guess I don't see the problem.
What do you make of the pronouncement of the Apostolic Conference in "The Acts of the Apostles" where they say,"It seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit...."? They shouldn't have presumed to think that their decision was inspired by God, nor should they have thought the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was something to rely on?
Well yeah -- except, of course, for the blasphemy part.
I didn't realize you were a Jehovah's Witness (or something similar). I wouldn't have wasted your time. Sorry. My understanding was that you said you were Catholic, but now it sounds like you're in the Arian camp, rejecting the Nicene Creed.
You're also not very open in your discourse. For example, you did not quote the beginning of the passage from Phillipians.
In fact, that's what made me think you were a JW. They rarely argue honestly, in my sad experience, though I was able to make friends with one. Generally, again in my experience, their discourse is like nothing so much as that of a used car salesman of the old school. Certainly the way you excerpt Phillipians places you outside the class of people with whom I carry on conversations. I like my conversations to be either polite or informative. This one is neither. God bless ...
Try again.Still neither polite nor informative.
you seem to skirt issues
regurgitating Doctrine
Now, what I wrote was:
And I say again: one of the things made a matter of doctrine centuries after the ascension of God the Son of God (if you're going to be contentious and intransigent, why shouldn't I?) was which writings made up the Bible, and what part the Bible should play in determining Doctrine. In other words, the Bible itself is a tradition -- a thing handed down. Consequently, your effort to set the Bible over against the other authoritative teachings and tradtitions of the body which authoritatively determined what the Bible was (and is) can not oblige me to respond in the way you want me to.
That the Bible is inspired, the nature and meaning of the inspiration, and similar issues are -- guess what -- Church Doctrine! What books are in the Bible and which aren't? Church Doctrine! I can't talk about one without talking about the other.
Further, not only do I not agree with your interpretation of the passage from Philippians, but I say again that you misrepresented the portion you cited. Consequently I do not think that exploring Scripture with you will serve my needs or any good I can imagine
Finally, you write
I still go to Mass, only I study scripture and take Church Doctrine with a heavy grain of salt.As far as I can tell that makes you a dishonest and disobedient Catholic. At virtually every Mass the congregation says a creedal formula asserting, inter alia the Divinity of Christ. I'm not saying it's dishonest not to believe that. I AM saying that it IS dishonest to act like a member of an organization and to take part in its services, all the while withholding assent from matters which the organization considers central. The Church rejected Arianism more than a thousand years ago. It seems weird to persist in being a member of a body which so wholeheartedly anathematizes what you believe while you consider its beliefs and customs blasphemous.
Basta! Find somebody else to play with. I don't like this game and I think it's bad for you.
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.