Posted on 03/24/2014 2:51:32 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Anyone who is truly Catholic knows the answer. There will never be a mass exodus od “the faithfull”. Only an exodus of those who God let’s go.
Some of us get "tighter in" during these kinds of times, at least to the traditional teachings and practices.
“resisted reforming themselves in light of women’s equality”
Meaningless babble.
Men and women are as they were created. There is nothing new under the sun.
No...he spoke ex cathedra on this. As I understand it this did more than reinforce it....it made it a belief of the Catholic church....only one of two times the pope has spoken ex cathedra based on catholic sources.
So the infallibility of the Pope wasn't formalized until 1870??
The infallibility of the pope was formally defined in 1870, although the tradition behind this view goes back much further. In the conclusion of the fourth chapter of its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Pastor aeternus, the First Vatican Council declared the following, with bishops Aloisio Riccio and Edward Fitzgerald dissenting:[65]
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. (see Denziger §1839).
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV , Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv
6.Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
7.Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.
so we wait until 1870 to get the official word that what the pope says ex catheda is official? kinda late in the game isn't it for this?
Seems to me this undermines the whole claim to authority being given to Peter. that would imply what he said goes. why wait until 1870 to declare this if it was already a truth?
regarding the assumption of Mary
Before declaring the Assumption a dogma in Munificentissimus Deus in 1950, in the encyclical Deiparae Virginis Mariae "" (1946) Pope Pius XII obtained the opinion of Catholic bishops, and based on their overwhelming support (1210 among the 1232 bishops)proceeded with the dogmatic definition.
so the pope did an opinion poll on this????
were the 22 who did not give their support considered heathen protestants????
this is really eye-opening to me....theology by opinion poll.
Since the 1870 solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I in 1870, this declaration by Pius XII has been the only ex cathedra use of Papal Infallibility.
While Pope Pius XII deliberately left open the question of whether Mary died before her Assumption, the more common teaching of the early Fathers is that she did.
so the pope doesn't know the answer???? I thought when he spoke "ex cathedra" as in this case, he was speaking on behalf of Christ.
wouldn't this have been revealed so we would know for sure??
I tell you...the more I study the Catholicism I see a lot of its claims (the papacy, assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, etc) built upon a lot of what ifs, suppositions, and pulling scripture out of its context to justify positions that are at best questionable from a Biblical perspective.
No...he spoke ex cathedra on this. As I understand it this did more than reinforce it....it made it a belief of the Catholic church....only one of two times the pope has spoken ex cathedra based on catholic sources.
So the infallibility of the Pope wasn't formalized until 1870??
The infallibility of the pope was formally defined in 1870, although the tradition behind this view goes back much further. In the conclusion of the fourth chapter of its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Pastor aeternus, the First Vatican Council declared the following, with bishops Aloisio Riccio and Edward Fitzgerald dissenting:[65]
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. (see Denziger §1839).
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV , Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv
6.Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
7.Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.
so we wait until 1870 to get the official word that what the pope says ex catheda is official? kinda late in the game isn't it for this?
Seems to me this undermines the whole claim to authority being given to Peter. that would imply what he said goes. why wait until 1870 to declare this if it was already a truth?
regarding the assumption of Mary
Before declaring the Assumption a dogma in Munificentissimus Deus in 1950, in the encyclical Deiparae Virginis Mariae "" (1946) Pope Pius XII obtained the opinion of Catholic bishops, and based on their overwhelming support (1210 among the 1232 bishops)proceeded with the dogmatic definition.
so the pope did an opinion poll on this????
were the 22 who did not give their support considered heathen protestants????
this is really eye-opening to me....theology by opinion poll.
Since the 1870 solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I in 1870, this declaration by Pius XII has been the only ex cathedra use of Papal Infallibility.
While Pope Pius XII deliberately left open the question of whether Mary died before her Assumption, the more common teaching of the early Fathers is that she did.
so the pope doesn't know the answer???? I thought when he spoke "ex cathedra" as in this case, he was speaking on behalf of Christ.
wouldn't this have been revealed so we would know for sure??
I tell you...the more I study the Catholicism I see a lot of its claims (the papacy, assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, etc) built upon a lot of what ifs, suppositions, and pulling scripture out of its context to justify positions that are at best questionable from a Biblical perspective.
“No...he spoke ex cathedra on this. As I understand it this did more than reinforce it....it made it a belief of the Catholic church....only one of two times the pope has spoken ex cathedra based on catholic sources.”
the most complete ancient prayer to the Blessed Mother historically preserved is the Sub Tuum Praesidium (250 A.D.):
We fly to your patronage,
O holy Mother of God,
despise not our petitions
in our necessities,
but deliver us from all dangers.
O ever glorious and blessed Virgin.
Note that by the third century, our early Christian brothers and sisters already accepted Mary under the title of “Mother of God,” even though this title would not be solemnly defined for another two hundred years. Further, the early Church realized that direct prayer to Mary did not consist of forms of idolatry or adoration, as is sometimes mistakenly interpreted in our day, but rather as a spiritual communication of love and petition to the Mother of Jesus, who continues to care for the Mystical Body of her Son by her intercession.
Moreover, the Sub Tuum prayer tells us that the early Christian community went to their motherly Advocate especially in times of trial and danger. The acknowledgement of Our Lady’s special intercession, especially for the Church in times of danger, continues to our present day.
http://www.piercedhearts.org/hearts_jesus_mary/heart_mary/mary_early_church_miravalle.htm
BTW it was the Third Council of Ephesus in 431 where it was stated: “This is the account of the true faith everywhere professed. So shall we find that the holy fathers believed. So have they dared to call the holy virgin, mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word or his godhead received the origin of their being from the holy virgin, but because there was born from her his holy body rationally ensouled, with which the Word was hypostatically united and is said to have been begotten in the flesh. These things I write out of love in Christ exhorting you as a brother and calling upon you before Christ and the elect angels, to hold and teach these things with us, in order to preserve the peace of the churches and that the priests of God may remain in an unbroken bond of concord and love.”
AND
” Following in all points the confessions of the holy fathers, which they made with the holy Spirit speaking in them, and following the direction of their opinions and going as it were in the royal way, we say that the only-begotten Word of God, who was begotten from the very essence of the Father, true God from true God, the light from the light and the one through whom all things in heaven and earth were made, for our salvation came down and emptying himself he became incarnate and was made man. This means that
he took flesh from the holy virgin and made it his own, undergoing a birth like ours from her womb and coming forth a man from a woman.
He did not cast aside what he was, but although he assumed flesh and blood, he remained what he was, God in nature and truth.
We do not say that his flesh was turned into the nature of the godhead or that the unspeakable Word of God was changed into the nature of the flesh. For he (the Word) is unalterable and absolutely unchangeable and remains always the same as the scriptures say. For although visible as a child and in swaddling cloths, even while he was in the bosom of the virgin that bore him, as God he filled the whole of creation and was fellow ruler with him who begot him. For the divine is without quantity and dimension and cannot be subject to circumscription.”
AND
“Therefore, because the holy virgin bore in the flesh God who was united hypostatically with the flesh, for that reason we call her mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh (for “the Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and the Word was with God”, and he made the ages and is coeternal with the Father and craftsman of all things), but because, as we have said, he united to himself hypostatically the human and underwent a birth according to the flesh from her womb. This was not as though he needed necessarily or for his own nature a birth in time and in the last times of this age, but in order that he might bless the beginning of our existence, in order that seeing that it was a woman that had given birth to him united to the flesh, the curse against the whole race should thereafter cease which was consigning all our earthy bodies to death, and in order that the removal through him of the curse, “In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children”, should demonstrate the truth of the words of the prophet: “Strong death swallowed them Up”, and again, “God has wiped every tear away from all face”. It is for this cause that we say that in his economy he blessed marriage and, when invited, went down to Cana in Galilee with his holy apostles.”
AND
“For you must surely know that almost all our fight for the faith arose in connexion with our insistence that the holy virgin is the mother of God. But if we claim that the holy body of our common saviour Christ is born from heaven and was not of her, why should she still be considered God-bearer? For whom indeed did she bear, if it is untrue that she bore Emmanuel according to the flesh? It is rather they who speak such nonsense against me who deserve to be ridiculed. For the holy prophet Isaiah does not lie when he says, “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us”. Again the holy Gabriel speaks total truth when he says to the blessed virgin: “Do not fear, Mary. You have found favour with God, and behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a son and you will call his name Jesus . For he will save his people from their sins”. “
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum03.htm
All of the beliefs regarding Mary were, contrary to your reasoning a fait accompli, an established fact, prior to any Pope speaking ex cathedra.
Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
Please remove be from your Catholic forum
and Catholics say they don't pray to Mary....oops. this is clear idolatry. If anyone cannot see that their eyes are blind.
The term "mother of God" is nowhere used in the New Testament. It is a man-contrived term.
We have ZERO reference or direction to pray to anyone other than Christ or to the Father in the New Testament.
Mary never referred to herself in this manner...mother of God. To the contrary, Mary referred to herself in Luke 1 as "humble" and "His bondslave". She rejoiced in "God her Savior". She knew she was a sinner in need of salvation else she wouldn't have said "God her Savior."
Why pray to Mary? Why not go straight to our High Priest....Christ Jesus??
When He taught the disciples to pray it was to "Our Father, who aret in Heaven." Mary, despite the prayer, cannot deliver us from danger.
Again the holy Gabriel speaks total truth when he says to the blessed virgin: “Do not fear, Mary. You have found favour with God, and behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a son and you will call his name Jesus . For he will save his people from their sins.
This last paragraph is sound Biblical truth and what we need to remember....Jesus saves us from our sins. No one else can.
Bye bye
I seriously doubt it, because I think most people who are exercised enough about it to leave already left.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I agree with "karnage" in post 22.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
The same thing the faith of the Church founded by Jesus Christ was based upon before the New Testament was even written.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"Jesus quoted scripture extensively and the apostles did as well."
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jesus Himself obviously did not practice "Sola Scriptura". Jesus verbally added many new teachings that were not contained in the Old Testament, including the many times He said things like, "You have heard it said...but I say..." which totally changed some teachings written in the Old Testament, making them into something completely new that were not written or spoken before, not in the Old Testament (Scriptura), or anywhere else. Do you think that Jesus never said anything brand new that was not already written in the Old Testament?
Jesus also specifically told His Church that whoever hears them, hears Him (Luke 10:16). Do you believe Jesus?
1) 1 Corinthians 11:2: “. . . keep the ordinances, as I delivered {them} to you.” Paul in writing, orders the Corinthians to observes teachings transmitted orally.
2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “. . . hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” Same here. The Bible directs us to oral teachings
3) 2 Thessalonians 3:6: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” Oral teachings are the norm.
4) 1 Corinthians 15:1-3: “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received.” Again — Paul in writing refers to an oral teaching as authoritative and calls the people to follow it.
5) 1 Thessalonians 2:13: “. . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received {it} not {as} the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.” Oral teaching from the apostles is the equivalent of the word of God.
6) Jude 3: “. . . ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Oral teaching is the path to salvation. The Bible says so.
7) Lk 1:1-5 “it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.” Luke endorses the oral teaching in writing, and assures us that the original oral teaching is reliable.
8) Rom 6:17 “But God be thanked that [though] you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.” Paul gives thanks to God that his readers follow an oral teaching.
9) 1 Cor 11:23 “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you” Paul verifies that his oral teaching is from the Lord.
10) Gal 1:9ff “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” Anyone who preaches a gospel differing from Paul’s ORAL PREACHING is “accursed”.
11) 2 Pet 2:21 “For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known [it,] to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.” People who have turned away from Peter’s oral teachings are better off with NO GOSPEL AT ALL.
12) Romans 10:15 “And how shall they preach unless they are sent?” Preachers not sent by the apostles have no authority and are not to be heard. They are not sent by God.
13) John 20:30 “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.” The apostles know more than you do.
14) John 21:25 “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” The apostles know more than you do.
15) 2 John 1:12 “Having many things to write to you, I did not wish [to do so] with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.” John saves his best stuff for the oral teaching. The Bible says so, so it must be true.
16) Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” If you do not “hear” the apostles and those sent by them, you do not hear the Lord.
17) Matthew 16:19 “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Peter received in the keys a mandate given to no other disciple.
18) Matthew 18:18 “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The power of binding and loosing belongs to the apostles, not to all followers of Jesus.
19) Luke 24:45 “Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures.” The apostles know more than you do.
20) Matthew 13:11 And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” The apostles know more than you do.
21) Luke 8:10 he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand. The apostles know more than you do.
22) 1 Timothy 3: 14-15 “I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” The pillar and bulwark of the truth is not the Bible. It is the Church. THE Church.
23) 2 Peter 1:20 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” Scriptural interpretation contrary to the authentic apostolic teaching is invalid. You cannot be assured of your salvation simply by reading the Bible in private.
24) 2 Peter 3:16 “There are some things in [Paul’s epistles] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” Scriptural interpretation contrary to the Church descended from the Apostles is invalid.
It's evident that laypeople did this. Mary herself quoted from the OT. So this means she learned the OT. She studied the OT. It was taught in her household.
But these oral teachings were the Scriptures. They are now the Old and New Testament which we have. If teaching can only come about through oral transmission, as you suggest, what's the point of having the Bible at all?
It's absurd to think that only a priest can correctly read and understand the Bible. The Bible is written in language that anyone can understand. So anyone can come to salvation. The Bible, in more than one place, tells us how to be saved....and that we can know we are saved.
now, to your point about only oral teaching....
22) 1 Timothy 3: 14-15 “I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” The pillar and bulwark of the truth is not the Bible. It is the Church. THE Church.
The church derives its authority from the Word which is derived from God....not man.
2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “. . . hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” Same here. The Bible directs us to oral teachings
you contradict yourself here....as this includeds "our epistle"...written words.
23) 2 Peter 1:20 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” Scriptural interpretation contrary to the authentic apostolic teaching is invalid. You cannot be assured of your salvation simply by reading the Bible in private.
Let's put this verse in proper perspective and not cherry pick.
So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.
For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Romans 10:15 “And how shall they preach unless they are sent?” Preachers not sent by the apostles have no authority and are not to be heard. They are not sent by God.
Have you actually read the Bible? Acts 8:1-4 Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death.
And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him. But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.
Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word.
Notice these were not sent by the apostles...yet they were preaching the word. This is how a lot of people come to know Christ. Friends share the Gospel with a friend and that person becomes saved. There is nothing in the Bible that says you have to go to an earthly priest for salvation.
If one of our soldiers in Afghanistan is mortally wounded and before he dies, a buddy shares the Gospel with him, and the soldier believes in Christ without benefit of talking to a priest....is he saved?
It is Catholic teaching that says only the priest is able to declare the word....(this is the type of false teaching Peter was addressing and Paul address later)...yet, in Acts as noted, we have the Bible saying members of the church were scattered and were preaching the word. They were not sent by the Apostles.
I know catholics say that Peter had the power to forgive sins...yet there isn't one example in the NT of Peter forgiving anyone's sins...he always pointed them to Christ.
this has been an enlightning discussion, but I've gotta run now.
I lost count of all the straw men in that reply. You seem to enjoy boxing at shadows.
I would be curious as to your answer on this one. This is a real life scenario that happens more than we want to admit. Not only on the battlefield but in day to day life.
If one of our soldiers in Afghanistan is mortally wounded and before he dies, a buddy shares the Gospel with him, and the soldier believes in Christ without benefit of talking to a priest....is he saved?
The answer is that we don’t know. Through his apostles, Jesus gave the Church the power to forgive sin (or to hold it unforgiven). Those who approach a priest for the sacrament of reconciliation thus enjoy the confidence of knowing that the minister of the sacrament has been authorized to remit sin on behalf of our Lord. Those who merely make an act of faith have no such assurance. Now, God is clearly not bound by the sacraments and may exercise mercy and administer justice as he wills. We have no way of knowing how he will judge the dying soldier in your hypothetical. If I were in that situation, I would not want to turn my back on what the Church is authorized to give me in my hour of need. I would not want to presume that my salvation is assured even as I refuse the help Jesus established for my benefit.
I appreciate your honest answer.
He can speak ex cathedra. He can't contradict anything that was taught at a dogmatic level before. The impossibility of ordaining women has been taught infallibly, and is also part of the praxis of the church from the earliest time.
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.