Posted on 08/20/2016 7:45:03 AM PDT by Salvation
Claiming a lack of comprehension is a poor excuse for lack of argument. What is so hard to understand in: "So you believe that only Ex Cathedra Statements from the Church from the church requires assent from RCs? If not, just what, in your opinion, requires assent? If you hold other teachings (such as encyclicals) as requiring assent can can you provide an infallible list of all teaching which requires assent, and what magisterial level each falls under so we may know what level of assent is required, and the confusion you present Rome as the solution to can be avoided?"
Or is "It is [words transposed] not your one basic duty that of simply following your pastors? Or does that no[t] require assent?" enough to excuse actually answering the questions?
Assent? One is a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew and so on, when one accepts and adheres to the teachings of their faith. Otherwise they are not, irrespective what they assert.
What kind of response is that? I am simply asking you what requires RC assent, not a Hindu, a Buddhist, or a Jew. Why is that so difficult to answer?
The Pontiff is infallible only on matters Faith and Morals, when speaking Ex-Cathedra; “from his Chair”.
That is not what I asked. Lets try again: Do you believe that only Ex Cathedra Statements from the Church from the church require assent from RCs?
Roman Catholicism is most certainly not some sort of democratic forum where everyone gets to ventilate his/her opinion and decide what they will accept/reject.
That remains to be seen, but you are avoiding the question. Again, what, in your opinion, requires assent? You presented the pope - who requires submission - as the solution to divisions, and thus we need to know if only Ex-Cathedra statements require assent, or if other papal teaching, including social encyclicals and that of councils, all require submission, and what level. And what do you consider authorative in defining what requires assent?
Again, if one accepts and adheres to its teachings one is a Roman Catholic; otherwise one is not.
But rather then simply following their pastors, as papal teaching exhorts, which, however unScriptural would prevent divisions, we see RC ascertaining the validity of church teaching by examination of the evidential warrant for it, even aspects of V2, as well as engaging in varying degrees of interpretation. Including what magisterial level certain teachings belong to, and thus what level of assent is required. And which interpretation we see Rome implicitly sanctioning.
Not that I have Catholic statements on that matter, but i want to know your answers, and thus how the pope will prevent different devise opinions.
“He did not say, ‘This bread is my body,’ but simply, ‘This is my body.’ Those words indicated a complete change of the entire substance of bread into the entire substance of Christ.”
I’d say that’s a distinction without a difference. He was either holding bread or had immediately prior given it out, It’s clear he was talking about the bread. There’s a napkin on the table next to me right now. There’s no difference in me saying “this napkin is white” and “this is white.”
Furthermore, I don’t agree that just because the word “is” is used necessarily equates the words. “This napkin is white” doesn’t mean “white” and “napkin” are identical. Whiteness is a characteristic of the napkin. And if the change was such that no bread/wine remained, then Paul wasn’t correct when he referred to the bread being a communion in Christ’s body, and Jesus himself referred to the “fruit of the vine” after consecration.
Finally, I would argue that had Jesus wished to indicate that there was no bread/wine, but only their appearance, He would have used other language, such as “take eat, this bread has become my body.” Rather, he said that the bread was his body and the wine was his blood. We say the same.
Taking the text as it is, nothing added, nothing taken away, there is no use of the word saved here. There is mention of the kingdom and it is the Father's good pleasure to give the kingdom to the little flock to whom the Messiah was speaking. He told them what to do. Sell that which you have and give alms. Be ready and waiting for the Lord can come for you at any hour, and at an hour you think not.
The preceding parable of the rich man, who was not focused on watching and waiting and did not know the hour of the night that his soul would be required of him, leads right into the rest of the lesson. The lesson is given in terms of servants; they are all servants of the LORD. The instruction could be summarized in symmetry with the admonition of the Apostle Paul to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, compassionate to the poor, resisting temptation and sin, and always waiting on the LORD, night and day, until you are called to account for your service.
And you need to show that this postmortem suffering was due to sins for which they has not been punished enough for while on earth, while others did so while still on earth (according to purgatorial doctrine), but instead there are no exceptions in the warnings, even inferred, and all the unfaithful, unprepared souls will be punished.
In short, what you need to show in order for this to support purgatory and overcome alternative explanations is what cannot be shown. Again, give it up, as your attempts are an argument against purgatory being Scriptural.
All I need to do is believe and obey everything the Messiah said to the best of my understanding. Love the LORD with all my heart, soul, and strength; love my neighbor as myself.
What kind of response is that? You are merely reiterating your argument by assertion, which I countered, and repeating the same claim is simply begging the question.
Just because you can’t accept the actual words and meaning
More of the same, which i can charge you with, and as concerns David, but mine is based upon abundant substantiation that Christ was not speaking literally, and which Catholics do not truly take as such.
You either believe that Christ spoke the Truth or you do not believe. It does require Faith in Jesus.
Why are you simply repeating what I refuted by God's grace? It makes you look like a cultist who cannot read what refute him and must engage in soliloquy in order to maintain his delusion.
So to be consistent, since this statement is as much an unequivocal absolute as other "verily verily" statements, then you must hold that all Prots who reject Transubstantiation have no spiritual life in them. Yes or no, and then tell me what sect of Catholicism you belong to.
Only God knows why people reject Transubstantiation. There are nominal Catholics who do so. If arrogance or pride or ignorance or inability to grasp or pure evil, whatever, God will judge.
And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
No just an example of how thin skinned anti-Catholics of the protected class here at FR run to the mods every time they get the butthurt. You talk about hypopocracy... look in the mirror.
I respect that you at least tried.
I think you protest too much.
You’re projecting.
Didn’t you read his post 511?
You aren’t familiar with your own church history?
You can still comment on it if you read it even if you never encountered it before.
On all other subjects on this site; be it current affairs, history, politics, philosophy, sports and so on; posters make their point(s) then move on, averaging less than 40 posts per topic.
However when the subject is religion, the posts skyrocket in the high hundreds. And why is that??? Quite simply because this subject is a magnet for those who have absolutely no interest in learning, reflecting or sharing ideas. None at all. They post so they can vent their ‘my way or the highway’ closed minded intolerance, for any and all who challenge them.
Another hallmark of these posts is their interminable verbosity; the mortal enemy of wisdom and the calling card of pretentious windbags who attempt to disguise their ignorance w/verbiage.
The Ten Commandments, the foundation of our Moral Order, which governs Mankind, aggregates 75 words in sum.
I was not the one who *ran to the mod*.
I did not get my feelings hurt nor am I thin skinned. I know enough about the RF to know what to expect from Catholics in the way of *civility*, and I use the term loosely.
I don’t see that anyone is a protected class as post 551 is still up.
And it was not an answer to the questions I posed in in post 548 which were......
“Give us a list of all the infallible statements made by popes that are binding on Catholics.
And the rest is up for grabs?
If it’s not ex cathedra, then they don’t have to believe it?”
Maybe you’d like to take a shot at it instead of making it personal like the poster did in typical RC fashion when faced with a question or request they cannot or will not answer.
There you go, trying to use logic and reason on the RF.
Please show us that Jesus was talking about the Last Supper in John 6.
And yet, here you are, posting on the Religion Forum using many lettered verbiage, what the rest of us call big words.
I read it, but it is full of heterodox theologians’ and revisionist historians as experts. They are not. There are only the ecumenical councils which teachings on faith and morals ratified by Pope and two Ex Cathedra statements which constitute infallible teachings. History only as reiable as hisorian. Johnson has an agenda.
Lots of misunderstandings on FR.
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.