Posted on 05/30/2014 10:23:23 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
The president of the Evangelical Theological Society, an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians, resigned this month because he has joined the Roman Catholic Church.
The May 5 announcement by Francis J. Beckwith, a tenured associate professor at Baptist-affiliated Baylor University in Waco, Tex., has left colleagues gasping for breath and commentators grasping for analogies.
One blogger likened it to Hulk Hogan's defection from the World Wrestling Federation to the rival World Championship Wrestling league.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Well, you know that and I know that, and I daresay that those making unsupportable blanket statements know that as well, and are just hoping that they won’t be challenged to provide evidence to support their completely unsupportable assertions.
But not to fear, they always have the fallback list you provided to try to impugn anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
Popes are HEROS.
They are worshipped uhhh, adored and venerated and, when they die, prayed to.
I wonder what THESE popes inbaskets in Heaven look like?
Pope Stephen VI Pope John XII Pope Benedict IX Pope Boniface VIII Pope Urban VI Pope Alexander VI Pope Leo X Pope Clement VII
Some get whiney threats in private mail...
Silly boy; referring to Scripture ONLY again...
You, too, eh?
“
Pope Stephen VI
Pope John XII
Pope Benedict IX
Pope Boniface VIII
Pope Urban VI
Pope Alexander VI
Pope Leo X
Pope Clement VII “
Patron saints of mafia, grifters, adulterers, etc.?
The complete collection of infallible teachings are found here:
It fits quite nicely in the palm of your hand. Not very heavy at all…I think the only one missing from this collection is Humanae Vitae.
Vatican II was not an infallible document.
From your response it is clear that you do not have a single example of an infallible statement being false.
Oops.
I see this is “breaking news” as Prof. Beckwith story is dated 2007. I looked at his bio as his name was familiar not in evangelical circles but in Roman Catholic ethics circles. Great resume which does not mention being the head of an Evangelical theological society. It does mention a strong Catholic education (Fordham you know those Jebbies) and teaching at Notre Dame. His bio on his website claims he is an Evangelical Catholic. Watch out FRomans you may have a spy within the Vatican walls now.
Recently with Baylor. Go Bears! Really we support the team who sends players to my son’s children’s hospital. Great school and I am sure they love and welcome Beckwith’s resume.
But Beckwith an Evangelical turned Tiber swimmer? Don’t know. By his bio seems he was raised and educated RC. Fordham you know does not get more Jesuit than that...unless you are looking for a competitive football team. They did have Lombardi.
Read the bio it is interesting. He is clearly a social conservative and perhaps his tomes will convince fellow Catholics Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden to repent of their Babylonian ways.
So the real concern should be for Rome. Can they fit someone who labels himself an Evangelical within their stained stoned Vatican walls? Time will tell. I mean Rome hasn’t really had an Evangelical since Patrick of Hibernia.
The recycling of Tiber “conversion” stories is not uncommon here. It is like counting ballots twice or the voting dead. The same Saul Alimsky tactics used by the “American” Left such as the Chicago Dailys, Pelosis, Biden’s, which has Rome in common as their church of communion. Repeat a story over and over again and folks start to think there is a trend.
We should be happy to have Tokyo Rose and Baghdad Bob gracing the pages of the FRRF. The FRomans sure did learn a lot from those two.
The silence is deafening.......
... We’ll it is late and I’m off to read Rush Revere
The complete collection of infallible teachings are found here:
Sorry but that is your fallible opinion, not an infallible list of all infallible teachings. Thus in response to the query, "Is the Systematic Index doctrine lists in Denzinger's The Sources of Catholic Dogma without error?," another RC says
Denzinger is a primary - perhaps the primary - reference work for systematic theologians, but just as is the case for the Catechism, it is not an infallible document. Indeed, since it is 'merely' a superlative compendium and not a formal instrument of church teaching (unlike the Catechism) it has no real authority other than that which theologians have decided to give it. The same would be true, for instance, of the much-respected 'Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma' by Ott: the work is a brilliant tool for theologians and would-be theologians, but it is not an 'official' statement on dogmatic theology by the magisterium. - http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=8609607&postcount=2
But it seems you are a traditionalist RC, one who would agree that the church can burn heretics based on Exsurge Domine being in Denzinger's (not alone) Enchiridion (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma8.php)
Other RCs see this as well as Ludwig Ott's work as non-exhaustive, and the comments of an Orthodox here are fitting:
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…
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?
Pick your favorite Pope, and check the encyclicals. They are infallible because the Church teaches infallibly, and has nothing to do with whether or not it says so on the top, the bottom or the middle that it is infallible. — http://50.22.108.14/showpost.php?p=260991&postcount=8
Going into the First Vatican Council, there was an ultramontanist view that held that every infallible element of bulls, encyclicals, etc., every decree of the Roman Congregation, if adopted by the Pope should be seen as stamped with the mark of infallibility; in short, “…every doctrinal pronouncement is infallibly rendered by the Holy Spirit.” Such an attitude treated papal pronouncements the way Protestants treat the Bible.
This view was rejected by the Council (yet many Orthodox and Protestants think this is what was adopted). The danger of such a theological position is not only the ultra-monarchist, dictatorial overtones but the inevitable historical problems of the past popes who obviously erred—the most notable examples being Pope St. Liberius, Pope Vigilius, Pope Honorius I, Pope John XXII, Pope Sixtus V, Pope Paul V, Pope Clement XIII, and Pope Pius VIIII. http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/10/03/the-infallibility-of-the-pope-and-the-magisterium/
The point is that there is disagreement among RCs about what teachings, or parts thereof, are infallible, as well as their meanings to some degree (including Exsurge Domine) and that of non-infallible teaching.
And Robert Sungenis states: In fact, most of what Catholics believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly. Most of our faith and morals comes from the Ordinary Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium is rarely singled out as infallible dogma. There have been only two definite instances of the exercise of papal infallibility. Of course, the Church could go back and analyze various teachings of past popes in order to decide whether one or the other was teaching infallibly on a given issue, but she has never done so, and thus there is no list of infallible papal teachings. [http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Dave_Armstrong_Teaching_Falsehoods_About_Galileo.pdf]
Neither is the CCC, meaning RCs need to examine all teaching to see if it is consistent with infallible teaching, which involves interpretation of both, and makes the need for an infallible complete list more needful.
And your response of rejecting V2 in the light of its contradiction of past infallible teaching essentially admits Rome has contradicted herself on a level in which most of the church is deceived thereby, as they look to V2 as interpreting past infallible teaching.
A sedevacantist site makes a good case for V2 being taught as binding, even while they criticize it.
Paul VI, in closing the Council stated that "the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching." Still later he stated that the Council "avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility" but that it conferred on its teachings "the value of the supreme ordinary Magisterium" (Speech of Jan 12, 1966), and that "it has as much authority and far greater importance than the Council of Nicea". Elsewhere he has called it "the greatest of Councils", and "even greater than the Council of Trent."[10] Perhaps the most clear cut statement is to be found in a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre demanding his submission to the post-Conciliar Church:
You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic." - http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html
And,
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. The heterodox concept of a dual magisteria, i.e., (the pope & bishops plus) the theologians, is not based on scriptural nor traditional grounds. - http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM
Are you part of the SSPX or a sedevacantist, or just part of a traditional sect that excommunicates the majority of RCs, since they are liberal, although Rome treats them as members in life and in death?
And i am being told that i need to stop examining evidence for warrant for the perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome (because the arguments for it are exposed as specious), and instead i must submit to it in order to see how it is Scriptural. Its the Roman mind meld again.
There's a reason it's called the "Cataclysm of the Catholic Church" by some theologians and clergy.
Why do you make so many unfounded assumptions about my perspective? The documents of VCII are not infallible, so consider the collection of documents a bowl of oranges. Now look at the documents listed in Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, consider them a basket of apples. Comparing apples to oranges to find a contradiction is a “fruitless” exercise.
VCII opened up the doors and windows of the Church to the prevailing winds of modernism and liberalism. This was supposed to be a good thing. It was to bring about a “springtime” in the Church. That was what we were told. However, by the fruits we know what VCII did to the Church. Just look into the goings on in any given parish, the results are not good. If you look closely at the proponents of the changes that took place after the Council, there is strong evidence that the Lodge was involved, especially in the recruitment of homosexual priests. That man-caused disaster has done much to bankrupt the Church.
Have you read any of St Francis De Sales yet? Do not deprive yourself. So often I encounter those who are following the traditions of men so close-mindedly that they cannot break free to examine the truth when it is presented.
The Holy Spirit will never endorse liberalism because at its murky root is the “non serviam” of Lucifer (there is a good book that explains this statement if you are interested). The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church, stays with it in good times and in bad, much like a good marriage. It is uncanny that the schism of the Church of England was so intimately tied with the divorces of a narcissistic king. It has been nearly 500 years, but the Church of England is finally coming home. Catherine of Aragon is on the welcoming committee. And the Holy Spirit is patient.
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.