Posted on 01/17/2015 5:23:38 PM PST by Jandy on Genesis
Why are you excerpting your own material?
That is absurd, beginning with your very premise and its presuppositions for the veracity of RC doctrine.
For it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?
And what do you include as RC doctrine? Only infallible teachings (how many are there?) All encyclicals? All Bulls? All that catechisms ever contain?
An interesting issue, as this deals with the allowance of disagreement/dissent, and the manner of it, about which issue itself there is interpretive disagreement.
And if there is allowance of conscientious dissent in non-infallible teaching, and relative to the magisterial level under which a teaching fall, then it requires one to know what magisterial level each one falls under. And it also presupposes that one is correctly understanding the item of RC belief, profession , and teaching.
All of which can be interpretive, as can be shown.
One example is the Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus decree of Boniface 8 which is held by most as part of infallible teaching, but its meaning is understood different and conflicting ways, or without precision.
In such cases RCs look to lower levels of the magisterium, but which can itself be unclear, and or their level of authority is debated if it seems to vary from what the higher level says.
The RC thus also looks to other sources, from church fathers and saints to local priests and RC apologists, but they may err, and so the diligent weigh what they say against what other things says.
Of course is this not as manifest as it is among Pros who are more committed to doctrinal purity, and in fact it is among those RCs who are most committed to that which sees the sharpest divisions.
Even when Rome proceeds to interpret itself then it can result in more problems than it solves.
As one poster wryly complained,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
All this reality is contrary to the simple picture painted by others, while what is exhorted by Rome is submission to her even if in error.
So you actually do believe that Catholics and Muslims serve the same God?
Hmmmmm....
Sounds just like the accusation leveled at Christians, that we can pick and choose what we believe.
But it’s OK when Catholics do it.
Typical hypocrisy....
The 1976 Moscow Agreed Statement (between Anglicans and Orthodox) imagines,
“Scripture owes its authority to the Church.”.. (In http://www.equip.org/articles/orthodox-tradition-is-the-orthodox-tradition-apostolic/#christian-books-2)
Which is absurd, as the church established its Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture.
Thus the church owes its authority to OT Scriptures upon which foundation it began, and thru which more complimentary conflative writings were added.
However, rejecting this, the church of Rome (and i understand you are Anglican, which has too much of Rome in it, besides liberalism) makes itself the supreme infallible authority, even though even though her claimed infallible teachings are not wholly inspired of God, nor are even the reasons for them protected from error, and thus cannot be said to have God as their author as Scripture does, nor their resultant spiritual power. (Heb. 4:12)
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter...Providentissimus Deus, (On the Study of Holy Scripture), Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, dated November 18th, 1893.
And that God is the author of RC doctrine is based upon the premise that Rome is infallible. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
And based upon this novel premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility, the basic attitude of Rome has been that RCs are to give implicit assent to all that Rome teaches, even though in one century that can mean physically exterminating all the "heretic" in a country, and in another would be condemned.
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, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. [emp. mine]
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Satis Cognitum (# 9): June 29, 1896: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html
...having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation? Your private judgment has led you into the Palace of Truth, and it leaves you there, for its task is done; the mind is at rest, the soul is satisfied, the whole being reposes in the enjoyment of Truth itself, who can neither deceive nor be deceived....”
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ;
And under which you have wishful thinking that,
CCC 889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."
Which presupposes that unfailingly adherence to the faith of the church either all of Magisterial teaching is infallible and has such perspicuity that the need for any interpretation is excluded.
Or that some degree of variant interpretive understanding of RC faith is allowed, esp. as regards non-infallible teaching, but which never extends to a real denial of the Faith. And allows for disagreement in areas not officially defined.
Which is more reasonable, but which is not what is conveyed in RC arguments against evangelicals who overall hold to a common faith and values (more so than Caths overall) despite disagreements in other areas, and are censured for such, and told the RC papacy and magisterium is the solution to this problem.
Yet under such RCs can have disagreement, including on what Scripture says within the parameters of RC teaching, as well as those who deny the latter, but Rome shows what she believes about essential faith by treating them as members in life and in death.
No-infallible modern teaching on this issue includes,
http://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html , there are three kinds of magisterial statement, three levels of authoritative teaching which establish the “the order of the truths to which the believer adheres.”[1] They are (1) truths taught as divinely revealed, (2) definitively proposed statements on matters closely connected with revealed truth, and (3) ordinary teaching on faith and morals. A fourth category, ordinary prudential teaching on disciplinary matters, is commonly accepted by theologians and can be inferred from the text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Donum Veritatis.[2]
http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM: According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority.
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 with a humble and teachable spirit it is his duty "to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented," with "an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him." prayerfully trusting "that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail."
The theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, and Joseph Ratzinger (as Archbishop) taught that "over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else,"[2] it cannot be allowed to be determinative of truth, and the Catholic is obliged to form it according to Catholic teaching. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum. cf. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html
Some (from a Catholic Answers thread) hold,
The faithful can disagree with particular points within the ordinary non-infallible teaching of the Church, including anything in the Catechism that has not been taught infallibly, except that even non-infallible teachings [which call for religious assent=ordinary assent: religious submission of will and intellect] cannot err to the extent that they would lead the faithful away from salvation. So such a disagreement on particular points or in particular respects cannot be on a matter that is essential to salvation.
And others argue,
Religious assent (religiosum obsequium) has never been compatible with what the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith defines as "dissent," that is, "public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church" (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of Theologian, 32). -
To which a Prot responds,
Boy. No disrespect intended...and I mean that honestly...but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn't trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task.
The solution for which is cultic, just obey and don't question:
Praxis [practice] is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That's what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that's what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to "obey your leaders and submit to them." This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1565864#post1565864
Ron Conte (the first poster above), a lay RC teaches on his site,
Non-infallible Teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium - generally require ordinary assent. Infallible teachings of the Sacred Magisterium fittingly require sacred assent. Likewise, the non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium fittingly require ordinary assent (also called the religious submission of will and intellect). The type of assent must accord with the type of teaching. The faithful are not asked to give sacred assent to teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, because such teachings may contain error and are subject to revision and, occasionally, to revocation.
he exercise of ordinary assent includes the possibility of faithful dissent because ordinary teachings admit the possibility of errors. But these errors are limited in extent, such that no error can occur which would lead the faithful away from the path of salvation. ...since ordinary assent pertains to only ordinary teachings, which may contain errors, ordinary assent by its very nature must include the possibility of faithful dissent from particular ordinary teachings. http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/assent-dissent.htm
"This "pastoral" vs. "dogmatic" council distinction is a bunch of hooey (a technical canonical term meaning whatever). Those two words are descriptive, not definitive. Whatever Vatican II taught authoritatively, Catholics are bound to hold. Period. Of course, finding out just what Vatican II taught authoritatively is not always so clear as it was with, say, Trent, but that's a different problem from the one your friend wants to pose." ...So you are not at liberty to dissent from its teaching in part or in entirety. It's as simple as that. - http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/vatican-ii-is-it-orthodox-binding.html
But which is a contradiction, as if Vatican II did not teach some things authoritatively then the RC has liberty to dissent from its teaching. The problem remains that this requires interpretation on the part of the RC.
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’[b]—
18 things known from long ago.[c]
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
What may we safely disbelieve? Oh, I don't know, how about salvation by works, church membership and baptism? How about Jesus and a co redemptrix? How about graven images? Is that a good start? I am sure you good people can think of a few other things as well. 😄😃😀 See you at the pearly gates.
Blah blah blah.
I am so glad God rescued me from the lies of rome.
Read John 14:6, ...
Jesus claims exclusive status, I believe Him, not you or rome.
Please meditate on Jesus’ claims, promises and prophecies.
I think Rome says to be a "Catholic" one has to accept all the teachings of Rome.. but we know in practice RC's pick and choose all the time..daniel1212 to Ann Archy>The majority of RC's do not believe not going to mass on Sunday will send them to hell,look around at your RC neighbor.. most have 2 or 3 children thanks to birth control...Catholics have more abortions than anyone, listen to them talk, they take the Lords name in vain more than most protestants.. and studies have shown that many RC's not only do not do their required confession and "communion"...and even then many do not believe that they are actually receiving the " body and blood of Jesus...
They pick and choose ..they just pretend they are really Catholics
I pray for all of you and I dust my shoes off of the EVIL spoken in this forum. You will reap in life what you sow.
My parents taught me very early in life that here are two things that should never be discussed in public. Politics and religion.
Why do you say that? The Catholic Church, which Catholics claim started with Christ, didn’t even care enough about her to keep track of where she lived out her life or where she died. Not a word was written about her either by religious our secular writers since the day of Pentecost. Not a word. They just didn’t care.
Lol! The Religion Forum is a tough school.
This is an open thread in the Religion Forum. Posters may argue for or against deities, religious figures, authorities, beliefs, etc. If you are not comfortable with this kind of debate then IGNORE open RF threads and instead read and post to those labeled caucus, prayer, devotional or ecumenical.
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.