Posted on 04/20/2014 12:50:38 PM PDT by Gamecock
Period.
He never told us to be saved through the church.
Where’s yours? You were asked first and as yet have not posted on doctrine of dogma that you consider infallible.
Dan did and so far you have not reciprocated so I have no reason to believe that if I do, that you will post what you consider to be infallible doctrine or dogma.
All dogma of the Church is infallible.
Now, which of yours is fallible?
The topic isn’t about dogma or doctrine you agree with.
That would be changing the subject.
I think there is a double standard in your position.
We both can make lists of things we see our respective infallible authorities teaching…
and:
But no one or office has the gift of assured infallibility…
I think you are attacking the position of infallible dogma. My point is no religion holds its dogma as fallible. This is what is declared as true. It is not like science where there are hypotheses.
So I ask for the same thing you ask for - infallible or fallible - in order to illustrate the double standard.
Hope this is clearer.
And the two strawmen said , come, let us reason together.
One of the "strawman" came about in part due to my own poor choice of words in post # 308, for when speaking of what could be possibly "fallible" I mistakenly used the wording doctrine and dogma as to applying to possibly fallible in "the deposit of faith" which can include writings of church doctors, etc., (as compared to also inquiring after just what is "infallible doctrine or dogma" which is said by the teaching magesterium of the Roman Catholic church to be necessary to be "believed"). But that wording in regard to "fallible" applied to doctrine/dogma had been introduced by D'fendr first in his own comment #306 when he reworded what I had said, claiming I had first said it in identical manner of intended meaning as he used it in his own comment #306 Subtle, huh? And now, very much seems stuck on that one false note.
Previously, I had been more clear as to the underlying fundamental question in #302, speaking there of "deposit of faith" which I assume can include writings of those which the [Roman] Catholic church have spoken of as "Doctors of the church" rather than or compared to doctrines and dogmas possibly found listed in aggregation elsewhere, which he then redefined --- saying that I said it as he did (in his own #306) when I had up to that point not done so, but was myself more clear.
D -- Of all the writings of found within "the deposit of faith", which doctrines and dogmas possibly within those, are required by the [Roman] Catholic church to be regarded by any and all who is part of that ecclesiastical community or would be, to be considered "infallible"?
Is there some listing of what is infallible dogma and doctrine, comparable to some "statements" found here or there, or writings of "church doctors" which can safely enough assumed to be not so infallible?
That's what originally meant (and did ask) as to including inquiry towards "fallible".
There was a point to all of it, with that being that it is apparent enough that any and all who would seek after what it is that is so "infallible" in regards to the work products of the "Magesterium" (once one can properly identify just what that teaching "Magesterium" is) then if those persons were to be "faithfully [Roman] Catholic" believing themselves to be member of "the One True Church" which should have or hold the truth without admixture, with my here putting it like that [no admixture] in attempt to reflect what many [Roman] Catholics project upon us here on the pages of this forum is the truth about their own ecclesiastical community to the exclusion of all others.
If or when (we should think "when") expressions of faith can be and/or are directed to be looked upon other than required to be regarded as above reproach that would render those something lesser or other than infallible leaving those writings requiring some rapprochement, analysis, sifting, harmonization etc., which unless engaged in with an authoritative guide by which all could be measured against --- would leave one where exactly?
That does bring us once again to the question which I did pose to D'fendr while pointing towards that question to be considered before needing bring to us here a list of that which according to ---not to his own opinion, which he could here express freely enough of course --- but as is required by this aforementioned "teaching magesterium" to be regarded as "infallible", with that question posed to any and all being the subject title/headline of this thread;
I do not have disagreement much of any real substance with acceptance for the principle of sola scriptura particularly when but one part of the five solas as I have already made mention of on this thread -- so I have answered the question.
You said;
as a doctrine subscribed to need not be seen as entirely infallible.
Further, is issue of there being no distinction being made here by yourself between doctrine and dogmas, with those not being entirely synonymous. Doctrines are more amenably to later adjustment or clarification, while dogmas proclaimed to be infallibly true by those who declaring themselves to be infallibly proclaiming them-- not as much if at all, without incurring risk of having not been so infallible on a particular point.
Proceeding then to such as;
The point borders on being superfluous, particularly in how it arose on this thread, as I did explain in a comment to yourself (and addressed to a few others also) just previous to my now making this comment.
But nice distraction, it seems so central, but it is not, for it is so near the border of artifice (for representing things by over-simplicity while ignoring clarifying qualify clauses, redefining them not inclusive of the clarifying clause, but excluding those instead)
I'm sorry I did not more fully extend effort to address these aspects, or straighten it out sooner. I did write concerning this usage of "fallible" as it has been employed here by yourself but never finished well enough to actually post comment concerning this digression towards fallible being conceptually applied to dogma in the manner in which it has, though I provided introductory overview of a somewhat differing treatment of the issue, showing things to be not exactly thing of on-off infallible/fallible dichotomy, for reason that pretty much any product of men's minds and hands in regards to the things of God become polluted whenever man sets his tools to work upon the platforms from which sacrifice is then made unto God.
A better inquiry for us here would be to examine if that which has been dogmatically proclaimed by those who drape themselves in mantle of infallibility are well enough justified in that which they not only proclaim is truth, but which by dogmatic proclamation is said must be believed by all.
Here is some interesting wording, which if carefully enough examined, may show one of those double-standards which seem to be troubling to you D-fendr, for neither dan or any other on this thread at least, have gone quite to the extent as saying the below;
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."[29]Hence, if anyone shall dare--which God forbid!--to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.
So we see here this is one thing which Roman Catholic Magesterium" (?) in the person of "pope Pius IX" is threatening penalties of law if one dare oppose the ideas in writing which he expressed in Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854.
Just what are those penalties of law? Those would include excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church, which same church in that era expressed the idea that she alone could empower "priests" to "confect the sacrifice" or in other words, successfully conduct the sanctification ritual which results in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the being "the body of Christ" which if according to "law" (?) one does not eat thereof, is cut off from Christ entirely.
That's heavy weight stuff to be attaching "by penalty of law" to a literal dogma (dogma -- as compared to beliefs more simply said to be "true" or contain truth).
Roman Catholic doctrine has changed greatly from it’s inception to now, all of which puts it’s current doctrine in question.
The topic in general is somewhat explained here…
I get that you don't recognize the Church and it's authority. Nor do you believe what the Church teaches. So if that end's up being your point, there's no need.
My point is that no church or confession teaches fallible dogma - it's a contradiction in terms.
And to avoid a double standard, ask yourself or your church, for yourself:
Is there some listing of what is infallible dogma and doctrine, comparable to some "statements" found here or there, or writings of "church doctors" [or your founder or confession] which can safely enough assumed to be not so infallible?
Non-Catholic doctrine varies greatly which puts it’s current doctrine in question.
Great point because we've all been there where we've quoted something some priest or bishop or even pope says and get the old *It's not INFALLIBLE* doctrine.
So clear up matters, it would be good to have a list of what is considered infallible doctrines which Catholics have to believe to be faithful Catholics, and what are just statements or opinion made by church officials which can be taken or left as the hearer so desires.
I honestly never expected to see a list out of any Catholic, so no surprise here that the request has been denied.
You could have saved a lot of time if you had just flat out refused in the first place.
I honestly never expected to see a list out of you, so no surprise here that the request has been denied.
You could have saved a lot of time if you had just flat out refused in the first place.
Not on issues of salvation.
And Catholic Churches vary greatly when you wander away from the generic American Vanilla flavored Roman Catholicism.
Sure on salvation.
Tulip anyone?
:)
cul-de-sac. I just went into how that one came about. We both had a hand in it, but you led the way when restating what I HAD said giving it meaning you ascribed to the situation, not I, for what I was hoping to communicate was as I said --- not a thing of simple yes/no on/off dichotomy.
Which renders what "you get" as to what I recognize or not, far wide of the marks, other than for myself to have pointed towards infallibility being not a thing guaranteed to men, even the original ekklesia we see formed in the NT.
If that not be true, (to engage in some of the 'ol "if this-then that" logic exercise) then Paul would not have written as he did; Galatians 1
Do you see there, reading in between the lines of scripture (if other biblical derived principles can come to mind also even as relating to the above) that Paul is pointing towards the possibility he may go off-track?
He absolutely did not say, "unreservedly trust always those who come after both Peter and myself and the rest of the Apostles and original disciples".
Nor did anyone even hint that to say "I am of Peter" and/or "I am a bishop which succeeded the original bishop 300 hundred or nineteen hundred years later" then Paul's own words of warning to not listen to EVEN AN ANGEL OF HEAVEN if they did what again --- preached any other Gospel would in this latter condition be rendered void.
The rest of this double-standards stuff does seem stuck in your own head due in part to the "fallible dogma" mistake. I just outlined how that all arose --- by your own hand more than mine, and then in part by my own, but then SHOVED UNDER THE NOSES of everyone else present on this thread. So avoid them yourself and spare me further lecture concerning it.
You can hardly be appealing to "fairness" in regards to the questions which have been put to you, attempting to force those onto myself when it is not ME who is claiming that the "church" I belong to possesses infallible authority.
The question does not arise in the same form, though issues of authority and how that be exercised and how it can be abused can arise. But we are speaking of things such as dogmas, now. Doctrines too, if you wish.
The question asked as to what teachings are are required to be regarded as infallible (amid the Roman Catholic church) AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED is one which can be asked neutrally.
Is the answer -- all of them? Ok, if that was so, then what are the "them" as to the teachings?
So answer or not. No more games.
As to general topic and link to Jimmy Akin -- who is he but a guy with opinions? He may be a pretty good guy all in all, and from what little I know of him seems to be, but he is not "the teaching magesterium" is he? Who and what that "teaching Magesterium" is, is still yet to be defined, now that I mention it. ;^')
Could you be a bit more precise?
Define "church". What is this church. WHO EXACTLY is this church when you say church.
Authority? I *think* I know what church you are talking about... and I may have to guess what you mean by authority.
Authority to do what --- over what?
How far does that extend?
Please allow myself to define my own positions for myself (which I very much have) rather than the continual corner-cutting and re-wording labeling of them which you have engaged in here without stopping such as saying "I get that you don't recognize the Church..." etc.
These are not always yes/no answers, even as the identity of the capital "C" church -- and who or what is to have authority over it, and within it.
Your own saying
assumes much which is not in evidence.
How many times have you been asked to supply what MUST be believed by this "church" you speak of? Would that not be a rational place to begin?
Here, I'll start if off. I don't believe there was intention for there to be singular papacy, as in one bishop over all. If there are to be vicars[of Christ], functionally speaking, there were originally more than a few, theologically and historically speaking.
Particular aspects of what is called "Marionism" I also have some significant disagreements with.
A bit more generally, I am not persuaded that the [Roman] Catholic church has "no" authority (though there is some question as what could have been more ideal but has now been somewhat forfeited) along with myself "holding" more that it (the RCC) errs most often when speaking of itself and it's own "authority", even if the only real error at particular junctions of stating that claim is to the extent which the claim is extended solely towards itself, and none others but amid a particular hierarchy composed of it's own members.
Now that that is hopefully somewhat out of the way, perhaps you could answer the question of the title of this thread.
But meanwhile, don't expect me to go fishing around in Akin's writing looking for the answers, when it seems to me that you are not willing to go fishing around in what I write DIRECTLY TO YOU for answers you may be looking for.
Besides, if I was to go there and take Akin's words as your side of things, I would need do all the work of transplanting/transporting his own words here to then discuss those if any further discussion was called for, after which--since he's no bonafide authority, if anything was to turn up amiss in his own discourse towards the issue, any further aspect I may single out as a "here --right here much relies upon as foundation -- but is amiss, invalid, only goes so far and here are the reasons, etc.," could just be swept aside, because just what is a Jimmy Akin anyway? IS he "the church" which you speak of? Is he the "teaching magesterium"?
When the claim runs to "as instituted by Christ" then there should be some chain of custody as to the doctrine or dogma, one would think.
Just saying "WE ARE the "chain" for reason that "we" have had or claim to have had custody, doesn't quite cut it.
Particularly when it is evident enough that a few things were NOT present within the NT church, or common to the primitive and earliest (Christian) church among the various far-flung assemblies which made up that which came to be known as The Church.
It surely wasn't as Rome being the lone ranger, riding herd over all the sheeple bishops and peoples elsewhere.
Even some of Marionism has it's roots not in the teachings of those considered to be in authority, but the Protoevangelium of James, and coming also from the imaginations of those from the lower rungs of the church, who themselves may or may not have much known Christ through the Holy Ghost.
But bit by bit, such ideas as were not found at the source have entered in and puffed themselves up, puff-by-puff over the years.
Acorns my foot. Those doctrines are a pain to "the body".
My TULIPs were very pretty this year. They liked the unusual cold winter we had here in SC I guess.
You are right. A church has nothing to do with salvation. God does not teach belonging to a church saves you. Why do some people believe that?
We are under a tornado warning. Y’all be safe
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.