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.
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.