Posted on 05/30/2014 10:23:23 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
I see no unfounded assumptions about you perspective, as i showed out that your rejection of V2 on the basis that it is not infallible is inconsistent with Catholic teaching on submission to noninfallble teaching, and V2 in particular.
And that Denzinger is not an infallible list, and that what all is infallible remains an issue of contention (and to basically hold to sola infallibilis makes an infallible list more needful), as said of articles of faith:
Not every revealed truth is an article of faith, nor are theologians agreed on what constitutes any truth an article of faith. Some would limit these articles to the contents of the Apostles' Creed. Others say that every truth defined by the Church, or in any other manner explicitly proposed for our belief, is an article of faith. De Lugo describes them as the principal or primary truths which are the basis of other revealed truths or principles. — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01755d.htm
And that even with the contradictory V2 not being infallible but to which religious submission of mind and will is required, then if you hold it as contradicting infallible teaching, then it leaves Rome leading souls into error.
And it leaves the RC in the position of having to engage in interpretation, both of what is infallible, and what parts of each teaching that are (which protection is not guaranteed for the arguments behind them), and what magisterial level other teachings fall under, and to some degree their meaning.
Consider what the Doctrinal Commission on Lumen Gentium stated when asked about the doctrinal note of LG. It referred the questioner back to its own declaration of March 6, 1964:
"Considering the Conciliar custom and the pastoral goal of this Council, this Holy Synod defines that only those things about matters of faith and morals are to be held by the Church which it will have declared clearly as such. As to other things which the Holy Synod proposes as the doctrine of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church, all and individual faithful persons must accept and embrace them according to the mind of the Holy Synod itself, which becomes known either from the subject matter or from the manner of speaking, according to the norms of theological interpretation." - http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=10&ChapNum=1
The same need can be said for the CCC.
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.
Thus in the light of your dismissal of V2 thus i asked you whether you are SSPX or a sedevacantist. I actually sympathize with your position, as i do see contradictions in RC teaching, past vs present, and that Rome is overall liberal, and thus separation is required, though i must disagree Scripturally with Rome's traditions both sides hold to.
Have you read any of St Francis De Sales yet?
Is that infallible, or God-inspired teaching?
An infallible document has to have the proper form. Just because the documents of VCII are not in the infallible form, does not mean that I reject them. I am merely recognizing them for what they are. They may contain many previously defined dogmas which have always been held by the Church, and that is fine, but I was making the point that since they use ambiguous language in many places, they cannot be compared to previous infallible statements in order to produce a contradiction, since that would be an apples to oranges comparison. The point I was making was that if you could find one infallible document that contradicts another infallible document, that would suffice to show that the supposed infallibility that corresponds to the office of the See of Peter is bogus. But you have produced no such example.
Thankfully the Faithful are not tasked with determining what constitutes infallible teaching, that office belongs to the bishop of Rome.
However, there is room for what some might call a healthy anti-clericalism, as almost every heresy that has arisen in the Church started with a Catholic priest (e.g. Martin Luther).
As St Francis De Sales puts it, the human reason can be used as a negative rule of Faith. Some might call his work “The Catholic Controversy” inspired, as I think he converted over 70,000 souls back to the Church motivated by love of God and neighbor. But very few would call it infallible because that is not a faculty that he would have possessed. He may speak the truth, and his teachings might be inerrant, but we can only ascribe to them what is called a “human faith”. “Catholic faith” is placed in infallible Church teachings, and has a level of divine certitude insofar as we believe that Jesus Christ, who can neither deceive or be deceived, revealed them through His Church, his chosen instrument, His only one, a dove, spotless and without blemish...
An infallible document has to have the proper form.
Yes, but even this is subject to interpretation.
Besides other testimony i provided, even as regards papal statements, Dulles states, “Except for the definition of the Immaculate Conception, there is little clarity about which papal statements prior to Vatican I are irreformable. Most authors would agree on about half a dozen statements” - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html
And O'Connor,
...it will often be difficult to determine what in fact is being taught infallibly by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. This is so because it must be determined that the bishops of the world, in union with the Bishop of Rome, are teaching a matter of faith or morals which must be held definitively. It is not, therefore, sufficient to establish that such and such a matter is being taught by the bishops and the Pope. It must be clear that they are teaching it definitively as something which must be held. Therefore, one must ascertain 1) exactly what is being taught; 2) whether the Pope and bishops are all (i.e., by a moral unanimity) teaching it; and 3) what degree of certitude they are attaching to their teaching. All of this entails a somewhat exhaustive study and one in which it can be expected that the experts (i.e., the theologians) will not always come to a meeting of minds. — Fr. James T. O'Connor, The Gift of Infallibility (Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1986), p. 106. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2697
since they use ambiguous language in many places, they cannot be compared to previous infallible statements in order to produce a contradiction,
Yet RCs look to the "living magisterium" to interpret itself, but V2 simply affirms the interpretive nature of RC interpretation, as it is obvious V2 is interpreting prior "infallible" teaching as if it that was interpretive, and one aspect of this it that most RCs and modern popes (JP2 affirmed Prot. saints) see this as teaching that properly baptized Prots are born again, in communities that are instruments for salvation, somehow meaning they are in subjection to the pope and in the bosom of the .
Thus one can truthfully state that the popular understanding of V2 as seen in Catholic scholarship as concerns at least this issue (among others ) contradicts past infallible teaching, or the popular understanding of it, but which contradictory interpretation Rome has only affirmed in word and in deed, and is a matter of interpretation.
And submission to V2 is enjoined. Traditional RCs who deny that invoke Pope Paul VI:
...it [the Council] avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority."
Yet as RC apologist Dave Armstrong argues,
The pastoral vs. dogmatic distinction is bogus. A friend of mine who is a canon lawyer, wrote to me:
"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
I think it is more honest to state that V2 is clear enough for it to be held that it is contradicting past infallible teaching, as you seem to acknowledge, and that assent of mind and will to V2 is enjoined. The traditional Catholics may be rejected as saying V2 is to be held as infallible (http://www.novusordowatch.org/vatican-ii-infallible.htm), but i think they are correct in holding that it taught contrary to previous teaching.
In addition, the answer to my question which began this excursion, "do you even have an infallible list of all infallible teachings?" is still no, as other RC apologists admit, despite the works of Ott and Denzinger.
if you could find one infallible document that contradicts another infallible document, that would suffice to show that the supposed infallibility that corresponds to the office of the See of Peter is bogus...Thankfully the Faithful are not tasked with determining what constitutes infallible teaching, that office belongs to the bishop of Rome.
But as the popes have failed to provide an infallible list of all infallible teachings, then some hold V2 is infallible, or essentially that submission to it as if it were infallible is to be given, and to all official teaching (though what is "official" is also disputed among Catholics). In either case it is unreasonable to restrict the veracity of Rome to papal infallibility, and if so, then an infallible list is needed, or of all infallible teachings, as infallibility is not restricted to the pope.
And infallibility is not restricted to the pope. As D.D., Ph.D. Canon George D. Smith states,
What is liable to be overlooked is the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church. It is by no means uncommon to find the opinion, if not expressed at least entertained, that no doctrine is to be regarded as a dogma of faith unless it has been solemnly defined by an ecumenical Council or by the Sovereign Pontiff himself. This is by no means necessary. It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops, whose unanimous teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, or through the teaching of approved theologians, is no less infallible than a solemn definition issued by a Pope or a general Council.
If, then, a doctrine appears in these organs of divine Tradition as belonging directly or indirectly to the depositum fidei [“deposit of faith”] committed by Christ to His Church, it is to be believed by Catholics with divine-Catholic or ecclesiastical faith, even though it may never have formed the subject of a solemn definition in an ecumenical Council or of an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Sovereign Pontiff. - "Must I Believe It?" by Canon George Smith Ph.D., D.D. (Originally published in The Clergy Review) http://www.corpuschristiuniversity.org/index.php?option=com_sectionex&view=category&id=14&Itemid=11
Catholic faith” is placed in infallible Church teachings, and has a level of divine certitude insofar as we believe that Jesus Christ, who can neither deceive or be deceived, revealed them through His Church, his chosen instrument, His only one, a dove, spotless and without blemish...
And so goes the assertion, but thus my questions to you which began this excursion. For having made a subjectively fallible faith-decision to submit to Rome, the basis for your assurance of Truth is the assured veracity of Rome. But which rests upon a number of presuppositions, including that which Dulles also states,
People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. Even the most qualified scholars who have access to the Bible and the ancient historical sources fall into serious disagreements about matters of belief” (ibid, p. 4)
It is this premise, that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God and to discern their meanings), in order to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority, that i find unScriptural (not the need for magisterium, but assured infallibility).
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God .
I think what is tripping you up is the distinction between Catholic Faith and human faith. Catholic Faith is ascribed to those things which belong to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and among those things are doctrines which the papacy has had to weigh in on with infallible teachings. Human faith is subjective, based upon a fallible assurance or feeling, and is subject to change when more information is forthcoming. For example, one could have human faith in a preacher, pastor, or priest, thinking that he is a good and holy man, only to find out years later that he was a fraud. I have seen this numerous times.
You can certainly go out and find choice quotes from spokespersons to say whatever you want about infallible documents being subject to interpretation, subject to fallible interpretation, but now I feel like I am arguing with a journalist and not a philosopher who is interested in answering the question, “What must we believe in order to be saved?” The whole point of an infallible pronouncement is to clarify a point of doctrine. Imagine the Catholic father of a large family in a Buick station wagon, turning around to warn the children, “don’t make me come back there!” Usually, when a pope publishes such a document, he’s back there.
Despite what you have said more than once, Denzinger’s compilation of infallible documents is complete, there is no mystery about what should be on that list. You can quote moderns all day long about the supposed confusion surrounding infallible teachings, but hey, they have come to appreciate the various shades of gray.
That you are confused by what is found in the documents of Vatican Council II, such as the concept of collegiality, and all of the ambiguous sections found inside, you are not alone. You will find lots of commentators struggling to understand it. The same might be said of the writings of the late Pope JPII, confusing to say the least. There are some who will enjoin you to submit to concepts beyond comprehension, to rock star modernist theological discourse that passes as part of this new, as you say, living magisterium. It is not only not Catholic, it is not human...
Thanks for all the effort you have put into this. I have more to say, but not now. Take care. I have to go feed goats, get ready for mass.
I am not the one "tripped up." The RC argument against Prots and a fallible magisterium is than an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential to determine what Truth consists of and means, which premise is not Scriptural, while just all what RC teachings must be believed and their meaning finds disagreement due to lack of an infallible list of what magisterial level each teachings falls under, and the varying interpretative nature of such.
Catholic Faith is ascribed to those things which belong to the Sacred Deposit of Faith
Christian faith is that which cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, which Scripture uniuely assuredly is, as the wholly Divinely inspired transcendent tangible source. What the church teaches must be tested by and established upon substantiation of it.
Human faith is subjective, based upon a fallible assurance or feeling, and is subject to change when more information is forthcoming. For example, one could have human faith in a preacher, pastor, or priest, thinking that he is a good and holy man, only to find out years later that he was a fraud.
You made a fallible choice to submit to a infallible magisterium, wherein you have assurance, but which was not the basis for assurance upon which the church began.
The whole point of an infallible pronouncement is to clarify a point of doctrine...Usually, when a pope publishes such a document,..
You seem to restrict infallible pronouncements to the pope, while it again presumes an infallible magisterium is essential and Scriptural in order for for souls to have assurance of Truth.
Despite what you have said more than once, Denzinger’s compilation of infallible documents is complete,
That would only be your fallible opinion RC-wise, and other RCs disagree, and thus you need the infallible magisterium to issue an infallible list of all infallible teachings by which to determine if Denzinger only contains infallible teachings, or does not include all.
Looking for just one conciliar decree therein, what authority did Denzinger have for removing canon 3 from Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council? Or is the online version incomplete? http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma5.php vs. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp
Of course, on the practical level where it matters, faced with the variety of RCs teaching and lack of an infallible list, it remains that implicit assent of faith to all official teaching is what is exhorted, and the RC is to look to the "living magisterium" for the meaning of past teaching, and in so doing is clear that modern Rome teaches things contrary to past teaching.
You can quote moderns all day long about the supposed confusion surrounding infallible teachings, but hey, they have come to appreciate the various shades of gray. That you are confused by what is found in the documents of Vatican Council II, such as the concept of collegiality, and all of the ambiguous sections found inside, you are not alone. You will find lots of commentators struggling to understand it. The same might be said of the writings of the late Pope JPII, confusing to say the least.
That is an honest admission that reflects reality, and contrary to the typical RC argument that presents RCs as not having a real problem with reconciling past with present teaching, and of interpretation.
The church began with the common people having assurance than a holy man in the desert eating insects was a “prophet indeed,” and an itinerant Jewish Preacher was the Divine Son of God and Messiah. For the Lord established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis, (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.) and in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation.
But which means that as then, unity depends upon the weight of upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not self-proclamation and boasting of historical descent.
Of course, any thing we do is fallible, any time we think or act, we can fail to be perfect. But in the matters of Faith, the gift precedes our action, and the gift of Faith is infallible.
The gift of final perseverance is that of the proper use of the gifts (think talents) of Faith, Hope, and Charity; all gifts given freely to us by God Himself first, before any merit, before any effort on our part.
He established His Church as another gift to us, an instrumental cause of our salvation, to administer the Graces and to safeguard revealed Truth of Jesus Christ, agent and final Cause of our salvation.
It is really very simple, as He said, His yoke is easy, and His burden is light. His government is upon His shoulder.
This was already addressed and avoids the question. The gift of faith has both an object and a basis, (Rm. 10:17) and the basis for your assurance that Rome is the one true church, and thus your faith really is a gift from God, is the issue, which your posts have failed to actual answer from the beginning. .
He established His [Roman] Church as another gift to us...,
That is a mere assertion, and subjectively claiming the gift of faith is not the answer.
I am not sure I can make it any more clear.
Maybe you should define what you mean by “basis for assurance”. What is the basis for your basis?
The light of Faith is a gift, much like the light of the natural reason is a gift. God made us in His IMAGE and LIKENESS, which means we have the ability to know and to love. That is, He instilled in us the first principles of our natural knowledge, without them we would be lost, being unable to abstract any universals from our experiences. We would have no ability to acquire scientific knowledge of any sort. In like manner, without the gift of Faith, we have no ability to advance in the divine science. Without first principles there can be no science. Even when we encounter a rule of Faith, like the Sacred Scriptures, lovingly compiled for us, or miracles, or the teachings of the Early Church Fathers, or teachings of the Bishop of Rome, both ordinary and extraordinary, it is our Faith which resonates when presented with Truth, it is the work of the Holy Spirit in our souls, and it is a beautiful thing. But the gift of Faith comes, not as a single virtue, no, Faith comes in a trinity of virtue, for with Faith comes also Hope and Charity. It is impossible to study the science of God, as known through revelation, without Charity.
I have explained this to you before, and all you want to do is to respond with "The light of Faith is a gift," which is a given, but ignores the instrumentality of that, in which faith has some degree of warrant."
Saving faith is in the "Man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance [pistis] unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Whereof he hath given assurance (pistin paraschōn). Second aorist active participle of parechō, old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence. Note this old use of pistis as conviction or ground of confidence (Heb_11:1) like a note or title-deed, a conviction resting on solid basis of fact. All the other uses of pistis grow out of this one from peithō, to persuade. - WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by Archibald Thomas Robertson
"And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother: and Elijah said, See, thy son liveth." "And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth." (1 Kings 17:23-24)
"Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God." (John 16:30)
"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20:31)
My assurance is based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, with Scripture being Divine based upon its unique Heavenly qualities and attestation, and then what i believe being in conformity of with that assured wholly Divinely inspired word of God, both in text and in effects, and which includes that which is seen in history and personal testimony.
However, the basic premise of Rome is that since this allows for and see different conclusions, then determination and assurance of Truth cannot be gained by personally objectively examining evidences in the light of Scripture, which the RC is not to do in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, and instead an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential, and which the magisterium Rome is, and thus it is upon the premise of her assured veracity that one has assurance of Truth.
As Cardinal Avery Dulles stated: People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. Even the most qualified scholars who have access to the Bible and the ancient historical sources fall into serious disagreements about matters of belief.” - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html
Thus an assuredly infallible magisterium is held as being essential for knowing both which revelation and writings are of God and their meaning, and it is then argued that Rome is that magisterium in the light of her historical descent.
But which effectively nukes the church as the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation.
And instead they followed an itinerant prophet in the desert, and then an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture, with it being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (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.)
What this means is that an assuredly infallible magisterium is not essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and for providing and preserving it, but assurance of Truth is based upon Scriptural substantiation, with Scripture being the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, which it is abundantly evidenced to be.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
The magisterium is to authoritatively confirm both men and writings of God as being so, but not as possessing infallibility, and such are of God regardless of the rejection of the magisterium. And thus the church began, with the veracity of the magisterium being itself dependent upon Scriptural substantiation, and not as superior to Scripture which Rome makes herself to be.
For not only does she presume to uniquely determine what is of God and their meaning, but the veracity of RC teaching is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the presumed veracity of Rome. Under which premise all is made to conform to her.
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.
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — "Most Rev." Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, "Lord Archbishop" of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
>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. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l
When I look in my garage, I have many tools, each with a different purpose. Depending on the job, I will assemble a kit of tools to get it done. The tools do different things, but they are no way opposed to one another. Having seven rules of Faith has been very effective in keeping the sweet yoke of the Gospel alive and well down through the centuries. If, on the other hand, all I have in the garage is a hammer, then every job starts to look like a nail...
We have seen that private interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures has led to division and legions of conflicting doctrines that claim the title of “Christian”. If having only this one rule of Faith is the ideal, why is there such chaos in this method?
Take for example contraception. The Catholic Church was right about this long before the science was known. That is, the Holy Spirit spoke to us through Humanae Vitae, through the teaching authority of the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome. Now we know that the pill is not a contraceptive, it is an abortifacient. It does not prevent conception, it prevents implantation. So, as a local Catholic priest once told us, it is bad enough that we have to face Jesus Christ and give an account of our life at our private judgement, but it does not help when there will be a crowd of witnesses for the prosecution asking the simple question, “Why did you kill us?” The Catholic Church has been right on this from the beginning, most protestant human traditions have adopted a silent acceptance of such moral aberrations as divorce, contraception, sterilization. This is a direct result of being separated from the fullness of the Faith, from access to the Sacraments established by Jesus Christ Himself, from relying on sola scriptura alone as a rule of Faith, from letting private interpretation be the basis of assurance, from letting human reason be a positive rule of Faith.
The silence I am hearing indicates that you agree with the teaching found in Humanae Vitae. It is a good start.
What silence are your hearing? The silence is on your ambiguous response in failing to interact with the fact that you have an instrumental basis for assurance of Truth.
As long as the Holy Spirit is the instrument, what’s not to like?
He is not the actual author of even papal decrees, as He is with all the words of Scripture.
Once again, trying to use one tool for every task...
The Holy Spirit inspired the Sacred Scriptures, the Holy Spirit operates through the Sacraments, including Baptism and Holy Orders, and the Holy Spirit guides the bishop of Rome when he teaches on matters of Faith and morals.
And you are bound by the teaching of Humanae Vitae. As Christ told the apostles, whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven. But I would venture that the teaching found in Humanae Vitae is too hard for you. And I would further venture that you have never read it...
Writings as well as men of God were already established as being so long before a church of Rome would assert she is essential for that, and in the light of that wholly inspired source then the claims of Rome to that all her doctrines are of God is shown to be specious.
We strongly defend the core Truths which are, based upon their Scriptural substantiation, while also opposing the
http://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2013/03/things-new-testament-church-did-not.html that are not Scriptural, but their claim to veracity are essentially based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
And you are bound by the teaching of Humanae Vitae. As
No, I am not bound by Rome's claims, assent and devotion to which results in RCs compelling Scripture to support her, thus i can objectively examine Scripture and contend for the Truths we both concur on which are manifestly Scriptural, as well as contend against those that are not.
But I would venture that the teaching found in Humanae Vitae is too hard for you.
I would venture to say that your mind reading is highly presumptuous, and as a celibate heterosexual (due to dedication to the work of Christ, as confirmed by God), i do not believe in fornication or contraception, and grieve over divorce but esteem marriage and romantic conjugal love and affection therein, even if not for procreation, and think that if you are married you should have as many children as love and fertility with temperance will bear.
But as especially as in the years that followed Paul's "time is short" warning in 1Cor. 7:29, such will especially have trouble in the flesh, particularly as the culture and state increasingly compel all to salute the flag of Sodom.
And I would further venture that you have never read it...
As if most Catholics have, while i do not need to read 8000+ words of papal prolixity to know what it is about, and to have Scriptural views on it. And if the pope wants to communicates something Scriptural, he needs the Spirit and gift of preaching and listen to some evangelical preachers that do.
You are missing out.
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.