Posted on 04/22/2015 11:50:07 AM PDT by NYer
Sadly it seems to be both. They need to figure out that it's:
CHRISTianity, NOT:
CATHOLICanity, or MARYanity or POPEanity.
Hoss
Jimmy Swaggart, Joel Osteen, Billy Graham, or any other protestant had nothing to do with compiling the Bible. It was Catholics, then the Catholic Church determined what was sacred and the Holy Word of God. When you finally admit that, you’ll be a much happier person. Dr. Scott Hahn, like you, fought tooth and nail against the Catholic Church and was finally set free by the Holy Spirit and is now a Catholic. With God’s grace maybe the same will happen to you. I’ll pray that one day you’ll see the truth. The ones that show “willful dissent” and are rebelling against God, are the PROTESTants that continue to teach a false faith and ignore His Pilgrim Church on Earth.
No Catholics there. Besides, the Catholics only preserved a corrupted version of scripture and even that they worked feverishly to keep out of the hands of the common man lest they learn of the incredible corruption within the Catholic Church.
It also presumes that all that is in an encyclical is infallible, and cannot be further defined even if it seems to contradict previous teaching, as EENS does, and that your interpretation of what a pope wrote settles the matter instead.What is EENS?
Actually you are wrong. It is also part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium which is also infallible.
Actually you are wrong.
...t is only during the last three pontificates that the most important utterances of the Holy See have been given to the world in the shape of encyclicals,..
In the early centuries the term encyclical was applied, not only to papal letters, but to certain letters emanating from bishops or archbishops and directed to their own flocks or to other bishops.
As for the binding force of these documents [encyclicals] it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority. The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case. — Catholic Encyclopedia>Encyclical; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm
Like the CCC, only parts of it can be considered infallible, and even the (imagined) guarantee of infallibility only extends to a pronouncement itself, and not to the arguments or reasons for it.
This does not mean that the teaching that Adam and Eve were two read persons would not be considered infallible teachig, in contrast to holding to the story of how they sinned, and the other historical events such as the Flood, but the point is that simply because something is taught in an encyclical and calls for assent does not make it infallible.
And Donum Veritatis also allows that even if "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments," "some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching." In such "even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions," and is to "refrain from giving untimely public expression to them," and "avoid turning to the mass media..."
But which is what V2 dissenters regularly do.
Meanwhile, just what is and what is not an encyclical, and which parts express infallible teaching, and how they are to be understood (such as The Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX), are all subject to some interpretation.
Of course, i can understand why RCs who long for all the means of the Inquisition want to hold all formal papal statements as infallible, such as condemn as false that,
Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes...The Church has not the power of using force. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. (Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX)
And the Papal Bull Ad exstirpanda, May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, authorized the use of torture (coerce, "force all the heretics)" to elicit confessions (besides the burning of those convicted, and destruction their houses, and taking possessing their goods), and which was confirmed by Pope Alexander IV in 1259, and by Pope Clement IV in 1265.
And the issue of what is infallible is one in which RCs disagree, as they lack an infallible list of all infallible decrees. Yet it is not likely to be as many as they perhaps could be,
Bishop Vincent Gasser, spokesman for the deputation “de fide” (the committee of Conciliar Fathers charged with drafting the solemn definition), delivered a four-hour speech explaining and defending the draft which was submitted to the assembled Fathers for their vote. Gasser is quoted no less than four times in the official footnotes to “Lumen Gentium” 25, which treats of infallibility…
In replying to some Fathers who urged that the procedures or form to be used by the pope in arriving at an infallible decision (i.e., his grave moral duty to pray for guidance, diligently consult the existing teaching of the Church, etc.) be included in the definition, Gasser replied: But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. "Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the apostolic See;" where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?
In other words, Gasser was able to assert "in passing"--that is, as something which did not need arguing and would be taken for granted by his audience-- that there had already been "thousands and thousands" of infallible definitions issued by the Roman see! - http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf (EO source)
So once again you simply refuse to answer the simple questions asked you which must be answered if your "we gave you the Bible" assertion is to have an polemical weight.
Therefore it must be concluded that all you have is an assertion without an argument. Come back when you can affirm or deny what was asked you.
Cath canned and refuted ‘apologetics, which are repetitively posted as if they there are compelled to convince themselves contrary to evidence and reason. Pray for all.
So perhaps you would answer the questions of 164,
1. Is perpetual infallibility essential for discerning, understanding and preserving faith? And for providing assurance of faith?
2. Who was promised perpetual infallibility in interpreting Scripture?
3. How do you know this for sure?
4. How many texts of Scripture has your church infallibly interpreted?
5. Are Protestants excluded from ever correctly interpreting a part of Scripture without error?
When you can and will answer these then get back to us.
That is in context to RC tactics of rejecting what they disagree with as being non-infallible. Or asserting something as being infallible simply because it is in an encyclical, including that such precludes dissent. Which ultimately leads to charges of inconsistency in RC teaching.
There is a reference book known as "Denzinger" whose full title is “Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals”. Denzinger is the reference book for scholars and students alike who are interested in the sources of various Church teachings. Denzinger is laid out chronologically, with a “Systematic Index” in the back that one can use to find the document(s) related to the matter(s) being researched.
For example, when I wanted to know what the magisterium had to say about the reality of Adam and Eve, I started with the “Overview of the Individual Sections” at the begining of the “Systematic Index” and found “C. God Creates and Blesses the World”. Within sectiom C I found “4. Man (a: The Origin of Mankind ..”, at which point I left the Overview and went to Section C4 of the Systematic Index. There I found “Adam and Eve were the first human beings created by God ...” Followed by several paragraph numbers. Since I was especially interested in the “last word” on the subject, I went to the highest number (as I said, the basic format is chronological). That’s where I found the quote from Humani generis that I posted on the thread at #84 above.
The teaching of Humani generis that Adam and Eve were real individuals is indeed an infallible expression of the ordinary and universal magisterium. Should any Catholic wish to challenge me on this, I feel certain that piusv would be happy to join me in defending that claim on a separate Catholic Caucus thread dedicated to the issue.
Peace of Christ be with you.
Yes, we keep on.
Difference between Christianity and catholicism is that Christians didn't need someone to tell us it was true. We believe the word.
The next question then becomes.....were they created on the sixth day as noted in Genesis. By day I am defining that, based on the word, to be a 24 hour day as we understand it today......or was the creation just symbolic as outlined in the CCC?
Easy enough...
1Co_4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
Elevation of Mary??? Nope...Elevation of Saints...Nilch...A pope??? Give it up...
1Jn_5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Is there something outside of scripture that will aid in our salvation??? NOPE...It's all there...Any future tradition??? Not a chance...A new revelation from God or Mary??? Never happen....We've got it all in the scriptures...
and this you know exactly how...?
You guys are a trip...
Probably because he/she read the book and knows it's not in there...
I presumed most RC apologist here would know: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
Here is a comparative chart on this which may need some more work:
|
Historical RC teaching |
Comments |
Modern RC teaching |
Comments |
|
Pius XII, Humani Generis (27,28): "Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation...These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons." http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html |
Thus the Mystical Body of Christ is said to be the Roman Catholic Church, and which is the true Church, belonging to which is necessary for salvation. However, the Vatican Two defender could argue that this does not mean the Roman Catholic Church is uniquely the Mystical Body, but which is what the pope seems to be arguing against as being part of the errors of modernism which he is addressing.
|
Vatican Two: Lumen Gentium 16: "The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities... |
Thus rather than the Mystical Body of Christ being uniquely the Roman Catholic Church, she is united in faith with many (properly) baptized Protestants. |
|
Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood..." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215) [considered infallible by some] |
Thus the universal Church of the faithful is said to be one that holds to the erroneous doctrine of transubstantiation with its NeoPlatonic explanation, outside which no one at all is saved. |
"They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood." — LUMEN GENTIUM: 16. |
Thus rather than salvation requiring being part of the universal Church of the faithful which holds to the Catholic transubstantiation, with rejection of which excluding one from salvation, baptized Protestants are generally affirmed as being part of the universal body of Christ. |
|
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem, March 17, 1856): “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm |
Thus the pope decrees (imagines) that the Apostolic Roman Church under Peter is the One True Church® outside of which one cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation, and is not in the Church. He thinks this bombast will prevent dissent, but it has not worked. |
Dominus Iesus: " …those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.” “All who have been justified by Faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ: they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” — http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html |
While Rome, of course, asserts that all grace to be found in separated Churches and communities come from her, and thus ecumenical RCs can try to use this as meaning Protestants are part of the church, it is certain that Popes Boniface VIII, Pius IX, Pius XI, Pius XII, Innocent III, Eugene IV and the Council of Florence and the authors of the other exclusive elitist assertions here — would not stand for this. |
|
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox “schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html |
Thus the specific stipulation that recognition and submission to the pope as supreme is stated to be necessary to be in the One True Church and for salvation, which excludes even the EOs. |
Joint Catholic-Orthodox declaration: Grateful to God, who mercifully favored them with a fraternal meeting...Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I have not lost sight of the determination each then felt to omit nothing thereafter which charity might inspire and which could facilitate the development of the fraternal relations thus taken up between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople. They are persuaded that in acting this way, they are responding to the call of that divine grace which today is leading the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, as well as all Christians, to overcome their differences in order to be again "one" as the Lord Jesus asked of His Father for them. |
So much for recognizing and obeying the authority and supremacy of Peter for life and salvation. Note the substantial differences between the two. |
|
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself." — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html |
Here we have an accepted (by many) “infallible” clear statement — made when Rome had no real lasting competition besides the EO, and used an unholy sword to deal with dissent, and could control the press — that submission to the Roman pope is necessary for salvation, with “subject” not meaning the EOs view of the pope, but the RC manner of submission. |
CCC 838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324 |
Evidently Vatican Two sees some Prots as somehow being subject to the Roman Pontiff, which Boniface VIII say is absolutely necessary for salvation. While Lumen Gentium does says. |
|
Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516, http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm |
Thus the presumptuous pompous decree of Boniface VIII is affirmed by the Fifth Lateran Council, adding to Rome collective guilt. |
Dominus Iesus: "...these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation...” |
Obviously, if “separated brethren” are part of the Body of Christ, and are instruments for salvation, then it cannot be held that subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful. Period. |
|
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some] |
Here is specified who is excluded from becoming participants in eternal life, which includes heretics and schismatics, yet in reality some dissent from Rome it is necessary to be saved. Rebellion to errors of Rome is obedience to God. |
Lumen Gentium 8; This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. . These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.
|
Consistent with what has been said previously is the change here regarding the word “subsist.” Noted RC theologian Yves Congar states, The problem remains if Lumen Gentium strictly and exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Can we not call it into doubt when we observe that not only is the attribute "Roman" missing, but also that one avoids saying that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body...Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-Catholic christians are members of the Mystical Body and not merely ordered to it. (Le Concile de Vatican II, (Paris: Beauchesne) p. 160.) |
|
Therefore we can see that Vatican Two Rome has contradicted previous church teaching, even if that was not consistent. But which latest magisterial teaching is what RCs are to obey, and not interpret for themselves what church teaching really is by examination of the past,. For, It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906. However, both pre and post Vatican Two Roman Catholicism was and is a serious deformation of the NT church, as partly detailed here by God's grace. |
|||
However, that is not an infallible document.
The teaching of Humani generis that Adam and Eve were real individuals is indeed an infallible expression of the ordinary and universal magisterium.
For a RC that is, based upon your judgment that that it is what was always taught everywhere, or as Rome defines always and everywhere. That the stories in Genesis were always held as being literal would be harder. However, i was addressing the premise that since something is taught in an encyclical then it is RC infallible, which it is not.
Sure thing.
They do not understand that most of what they believe is anything but infallible !!
God bless.
Pope Pius XII declared in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950):6 “It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For, these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: ‘He who heareth you, heareth Me’ (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and the will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.”
In the case of Adam and Eve, Pius XII was reiterating infallible, Catholic teaching.
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.