Posted on 12/30/2011 7:07:29 PM PST by rzman21
This thread alone shows there isn't agreement in catholicism?
Abortions would not have increased lockstep with contraceptive use if the majority of Catholics didn't vote liberal and democratic.
Obviously, what the Catholic church teaches about either is irrelevant to those Catholics who vote liberal.
I worked with practicing Catholics who were very involved with their churches who voted Democratic, totally ignoring the abortion issue. When asked outright * Why vote for Democrats who support abortion that the Catholic church teaches is wrong?* the answer was .... quote "because Democrats are for the poor" unquote.
Actually, there is a list.
“It is necessary to provide substantiation for such statements, and if you could provide an infallible list of all the church fathers, and of all infallible pronouncements, then that would be outstanding.”
1, doesn’t exist because no Church Father is infalliable as an individual. As a collective, yes.
Infalliable pronouncements would take some time.
BK, you said there was an infallible list, but where is it? One on who all the CFs consist of is also needed. And it is not unanimity that makes CFs infallible, but Rome's decree that they were, and its definition of unanimous consent.
“Nor did my argument disallow any possibility, but was based upon warrant from normal usage and the most natural meaning”
Adelphoi is also used when Christ refers to his ‘brothers and sisters’ in Christ. Same word. Arguing that the ‘natural’ meaning is that contrary to perpetual virginity doesn’t have much cachet here.
Rather, it is not that brethren" (adelphos) cannot have a wider meaning than male relatives (Acts 22:1), but that collectively and in context, the most natural meaning of “his brothers and sisters” being with Jesus mother, and of “my mother's children,” and the lack of any mention of what would have been a most notable exception, is that it refers to one's own immediate family.
Some also argue that if "brothers" refers to Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph's firstborn would have been legal heir to David's throne. The second theory — that "brothers" refers to sons of a sister of Mary also name "Mary" — faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name. All things considered, the attempts to extend the meaning of "brothers" in this pericope, despite McHugh's best efforts, are nothing less that farfetched exegesis in support of a dogma that originated much later than the NT [...]. — D. A. Carson, Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, volume 8 (Zondervan, 1984).
I can provide other statements from Catholic sources on this having late and wanting support, but what makes this assured truth for the Roman Catholic is that Rome has decreed it to be so, and under that premise your appeal to other sources need not prove it, nor does it.
Snipping the non-sequitor “Catholics don’t reason because they disagree with me”.
You are noncomprehending what the writer and i am saying, which is not that you cannot reason but that you need not to in such a case as this, as you are to simply trust that the AIM of Rome is right, and which implicit trust is what cults require toward their type of magisterium which is effectively held as supreme over Scripture, rather than relying upon searching the Scriptures for its substantiation, (Acts 17:11) despite the preaching that requires to overcome evil imitations with good.
While you can use reason to try to show warrant for trusting Rome, yet in order to do so you must disallow supernaturally established Scripture from providing assurance of truth, due to the fallible nature of man, and must require us to submit to infallible Rome to thus be sure (as she infallibly claims to be protected from the fallibility of men — under her conditions). Yet this act itself is a fallible decision, and requires interpretation. But assured formulaic infallibility of office is not how believers found assurance in Scripture, but by manifestation of the truth in the light of what has been established as truth by supernatural qualities, effects, attestation and conflation, as has been heretofore described.
“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”
Not true.
It was, and even the Bible was restricted (and even banned in some places) and more, and you would have been in trouble:
We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii:
Quinisext Ecumenical Council, Canon 64: That a layman must not publicly make a speech or teach, thus investing himself with the dignity of a teacher, but, instead, must submit to the ordinance handed down by the Lord, and to open his ear wide to them who have received the grace of teaching ability, and to be taught by them the divine facts thoroughly.
If anyone be caught disobeying the present Canon, let him be excommunicated for forty days.
But Rome “redefines”:
“or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question.”
Also not true.
It is in this context, “The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit...he must refuse to be liberal in the sense of reading all sorts of Protestant controversial literature.”
“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.” (ibid, Stapleton)
Considering as both premisses are false, the conclusion is also false.
If you disagree, then considering you are simply “another peon with an opinion” in stature in Rome, as the established RCA Robert Sungenis stated even of himself, while this man is well credentialed and his work here is duly stamped, then he has far more Roman weight. And if he is wrong, then it is just another example of many approved and variant works by Roman Catholics, and the practical failure of the magisterium to provide a wide scope of perspicuous, consistent, approved teaching to the common Catholic.
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”
Not sure what your point is here? This is supposed to be controversial?
Examine the context, which was that of assurance of doctrine being based upon the premise of perpetual assured formulaic infallibility, whose infallibility does not necessary extend to the reasons and arguments behind the decree. We do not find assurance of doctrine being based on this, but on the weight of Scripture and the manner of attestation is shows being given to Truth. Rome may claim such, but assurance of her decrees does not rest upon it, and Rome can autocratically define evidence as supporting her.
As said one of your chief apologist quote before said on the issue at hand,
“Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
And a far more weightier proponent of papacy stated,
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...
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — 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.http://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt
I'm sure that explains the men who were priests who left the priesthood to marry because they couldn't do both.
Priests are forbidden to marry. A man cannot choose to be married AND a priest.
Here’s the portion in it’s entirety.
And all this true is confirmed by the third book of the Euthymiac History, chapter 40, where we read, in so many words: “It was said that Saint Pulcheria erected many churches for Christ in Constantinople. One of these is the church in Blachernai, built at the beginning of the reign of the divinely-appointed Emperor Marcian [who acceded to the throne August, 450]. When the two of them built a worthy house there, for the all-glorious and all-holy Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, and adorned it with every sort of decoration, they hoped to find her holdy body, which had been the dwelling-place of God.
And summoning Juvenal, the archbishop of Jerusalem, and those bishops from Palestine, who were staying in the capital because of the Synod held at Chalcedon [October, 451], they said to them: “We have heard that teh first and most outstanding church of the all-holy Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, is in Jerusalem, in the place called Gethsemane, where her life-giving body was put in a coffin. We now wish to bring this relic here, to protect this royal city.’
Juvenal answered, on behalf of them all: “There is nothing in the holy, inspired Scripture about the death of Mary, the Holy Mother of God; but we know from ancient and wholly reliable tradition, that at the time she so gloriously fell asleep, all the holy Apostles, who were travling the world for the salvation of the peoples, were lifted up in a single instant of time, and were gathered up in Jerusalem; and as they stood by her, they saw a vision of angels, and heard the divine chanting of the higher powers. So it was that she gave her soul, in an ineffable way, into God’s hands, surrounded by the Glory of God and all heaven. Her body, which had been God’s dwelling place, was brought for burial amidst the singing of the angels and the Apostles, and laid to rest in a coffin in Gethsemane; and the angelic dancing and singing continued without pause in that place for three days.
But after three days, the song of the angels ceased; the Apostles were there, and since one of them - Thomas - had not been present [for her burial] and came at the end of three days, and wished to reverence that body which had housed God, they opened her coffin. And they could not find her body, which had been the object of such praise; all that they found were her burial wrappings. And being overcome by the ineffable fragrance that came out of the wrappings, they closed the coffin again.
Amazed by this miraculous discovery, they could draw only a single conclusion: the one who had deigned to become flesh in her own person, and to take his humanity from her, the one who willed to be born in human flesh as God the Word, the Lord of Glory, and who had preserved her virginity intact after childbirth, now chose, after her departure from this world, to honor her immaculate and pure body with the gift of incorruptibility, and with a change of state even before the common, universal resurrection.
Excuses, excuses......
15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
No one is forced to become a priest. Ergo, marriage is not forbidden to anyone unless they choose to forgo marriage.
http://biblos.com/luke/1-31.htm
Luke 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
http://concordances.org/greek/4815.htm
syllempse
Short Definition: I seize, apprehend, become pregnant
Definition: I seize, apprehend, assist, conceive, become pregnant.
On the contrary, the fact that they chose to reject the teachings of the Church is why they also voted democrat.
We are not all like that, ma’am. I work with the Church as well, and everyone is required to obey what the Church teaches. If they don’t, they are asked to leave.
How stupid. Once a woman knows she's pregnant, it's a baby. Nobody is going to do an abortion on a woman who doesn't think she's pregnant.
Allowing an abortion up to the 40th day is knowingly committing murder. The church was WRONG on that one.
the term dates to the 13th-14th centuries and was understood as “to take seed into oneself”.
Which is not what the term means today. Conception meaning - “sperm and egg unite” doesn’t come about until much later.
Applying what the term means today to what it meant when it was written is incorrect.
“become pregnant”, absolutely. Conception!= sperm and egg unite - no.
With the benefit of modern technologies, sure. But back then? No.
Do you think the 40 days was chosen at random?
When the women knew they were pregnant, they would not be permitted to have an abortion. This is why 40 days was chosen, not to permit abortion, but as a ‘best guess’ as to when life began.
When the ovum was discovered, the response of the Church was to confirm that conception was the point at which human life began and has been this way ever since.
I’m not sure how you come to that conclusion.
All this thread shows is that there is significant disjuct between what protestants believe are Catholic teachings and what the Catholic church actually teaches.
“BK, you said there was an infallible list, but where is it? One on who all the CFs consist of is also needed. And it is not unanimity that makes CFs infallible, but Rome’s decree that they were, and its definition of unanimous consent.”
As I said there is a list. It will take time for me to put it together for you. :) I don’t have it ready at the go right now, but I will in a bit.
“All things considered, the attempts to extend the meaning of “brothers” in this pericope.”
Again, snipping it here. The word is adelphoi, which can mean brethren or kinsmen. There is nothing to indicate the distance of the relationship to Christ. We cannot impute a close relationship unless we are certain such a relationship exists. Arguin gthat we ought to impute said relationship lacking concrete evidence in favour is going to fail. The burden is on proving the close relationship, and lacking sufficient evidence, all we can conclude is that there is some family relationship but not the distance between them and Christ.
“I can provide other statements from Catholic sources”
And I can cite what the Pope writes on the P-V of Mary too.
“what makes this assured truth for the Roman Catholic is that Rome has decreed it to be so, and under that premise your appeal to other sources need not prove it, nor does it”
What one Catholic writes is not ‘Rome’s decree’. Far from it. If your approach is simply to dig up a Catholic author who disagrees with what the Church teaches, you’re in for some disappointment. As I said previously, the magisterium does not work that way.
“You are noncomprehending what the writer and i am saying,”
No, I fully understand what he is saying. He is arguing that because of what the Church teaches we must discard reason. This is a bad argument because I can just as easily argue that in order to maintain church teachings requires the application of reason, ergo, his argument fails.
He does not provide a means to assess how reason may be employed. Nor does he bother, because it is simply his opinion and without merit. I could dismiss what everyone writes here by saying they ‘lack reason’, but I suspect you would find it unsatisfying.
“that you need not to in such a case as this”
In order to understand the teachings of the Church, and to effectively apologize for them, one must apply one’s sense of reason.
“as you are to simply trust that the AIM of Rome is right”
I assure you that it requires reason in order to comprehend what those teachings are. :)
“implicit trust is what cults require”
I am not bound to Rome through anything but my free will. I am free to investigate into the contents of Sacred Scipture and the treatises of the magisterium without constraint.
“magisterium which is effectively held as supreme over Scripture”
Nonsense, for the magisterium cannot promulgate teachings contrary to scripture. If the magisterium were sincerely supreme, then they could simply discard books at will, like Luther did. By using Luther’s canon you are effectively ceding magesterial supremacy to one man.
“rather than relying upon searching the Scriptures for its substantiation”
Again, I assure you that Catholics understand the teaching of the Church as compatible to, not in conflict with Sacred Scripture. This requires investigations and understanding into Scripture.
“yet in order to do so you must disallow supernaturally established Scripture from providing assurance of truth”
As I already cited earlier, the Catholic church affirms the supernatural origin and inspiration of Sacred Scripture. Ergo, this claim has no merit. There is no conflict between what the Church believes and what you have stated here.
“due to the fallible nature of man”
If man’s falliable nature were truly in play here, then you cannot assert that scripture written by men is free of error. You must allow that those who wrote scripture did so under the power of the holy spirit, preventing them from error.
This, also, is what the Catholic church teaches.
“require us to submit to infallible Rome”
You have already submitted yourselves to infalliable Rome, for you bind yourselves to the book she has written.
“But assured formulaic infallibility of office is not how believers found assurance in Scripture”
Which is not what the Church teaches about infalliability, nor does the Church require it to understand Sacred Scripture. For if we had to be infalliable to understand it, none of us could.
“by manifestation of the truth in the light of what has been established as truth by supernatural qualities, effects, attestation and conflation, as has been heretofore described.”
Again, which is what the Church teaches as confirmed by the Catechism.
“It was”
In every age you find Saints who have written extensive commentaries of heresy. They could not have compiled their understanding of heresy without serious study. Ergo, the Church actually requires study of heresy in order that it might properly be refuted.
“and even the Bible was restricted”
Evidence would be nice. Are you saying that I cannot go and get a bible and read it anytime I wish? You are gravely mistaken if you believe that is the case. We are encouraged to reflect upon scripture whenever possible.
“We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith.”
Then you have little understanding of my office. :)
“That a layman must not publicly make a speech or teach, thus investing himself with the dignity of a teacher, but, instead, must submit to the ordinance handed down by the Lord, and to open his ear wide to them who have received the grace of teaching ability, and to be taught by them the divine facts thoroughly.”
Again, you have little understanding of my office.
“His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit...he must refuse to be liberal in the sense of reading all sorts of Protestant controversial literature.”
Given my origins, I cannot see how such would apply to me.
“If you disagree, then considering you are simply ‘another peon with an opinion’ in stature in Rome”
And you will attain understanding when you finally realize that this is something that isn’t controversial. :) I may not be a Sungenis, but we are all, happily, peons.
“and the practical failure of the magisterium to provide a wide scope of perspicuous, consistent, approved teaching to the common Catholic.”
So you would hope. But you do not understand the Magisterium and how it works. Perhaps someday you shall.
“Examine the context, which was that of assurance of doctrine being based upon the premise of perpetual assured formulaic infallibility”
Perhaps in your mind.
“Rome may claim such, but assurance of her decrees does not rest upon it, and Rome can autocratically define evidence as supporting her.”
Again, in your mind only. If this were so, why would we see the vast degree of freedom which we possess to debate issues not strictly doctrinal? People believe that Catholicism is a straightjacket, but that is incorrect. Yes, the church teachings are explicit, but beyond those, one has the freedom of investigation and application.
“As said one of your chief apologist quote before said on the issue at hand,”
You should already have a sense of which school I follow, and it is not Mr. Keating’s. I believe that said argument is insufficient to convince evangelicals. True as it is, there are other approaches.
You would do better to cite the Pope, but I know why you don’t. :) Interesting discussion, and yes I will try to get that list to you tomorrow. It is late and I have typed a great many words to the five of you today.
Blessings.
Your argument that the Catholic church fails to adequately oppose abortion belies the fact that the Catholic church is by and large, the bulk of those who are engaged in the work.
Yes, there are a great many evanglicals involved, and I am thankful for them, but the bulk are Catholics, motivated to follow the teachings of the Church. All facts which refute your assertion.
“Elizabeth knew for starters. It was prophesied in the OT - why didn’t your so called church fathers know what was written?”
As I said the Church knew after the fact. I am not sure how you read into my words anything other than what was written.
“Catholics are know to ignore The Holy Spirit”
Yawn.
“So that teaching is obviously from when catholicism was invented as the tool to come against God’s Word.”
Yawn.
“Now catholicsm is sitting looking silly as they claim they didn’t know, science hadn’t caught up when conception took place.”
Argument assumes that non-existant protestant denominations at the time had knowledge that wasn’t available, interpretations that never were expressed and had divine foreknowledge of things that were hidden until very recently.
Also yawn. Historical fact, is just that, historical fact. You want to argue that the Church supported abortion (when in fact they were the only ones arguing against it), good luck with that.
Or perhaps I can just take a look at what Luther actually taught concerning quickening? But nah, why should I bother to apply real facts?
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.