Replies

daniel1212:

No, because your interpretation of any thing you post is your view. You of course are entitled to your view, but you are not an expert on Catholic Doctrine, in my view, you are “likely” an ex-Catholic who thinks he knows Catholic Doctrine and now as Protestant is trying to frame it from your new found Protestantism, which I “predict”, will be a different strand of Protestantism before you die. Again, I am only making observations and predictions, not statements of fact with respect to you.

Now, more to the subject at hand, there are different levels of Catholic teaching, things that are Doctrines that are to be held definitively and are part of Divine Revelation and thus are not teachings that can be changed are different than things that taught as to be held as taught via the ordinary magisterium or through a papal bull to ease tensions in the church or to provide a teaching on a matter as general guidance or another thing. With respect to the Jesuits for example, there have been Papal BUlls that 1)Founded the Jesuits, 2) Put them under restriction, 3) Out right suppressed them and took away their canonical standing and 4) eased the suppression and 5) Fully restored the Jesuits back to Full Canonical Standing. There have been Papal Bulls on Slavery that indicated some Popes wanted to end Slavery going back as far as the 14th century, there were some that tolerated it, but put parameters on it, etc, etc.

On all those matters, we are not talking about the Nicene or Apostles Creed, the Canon of Scripture, the Sacraments, the Primacy of the Church and Bishop of Rome, etc. On these matters, there is a clear teaching that has remained unchanged, as all of these are part of the Dogmatic and Doctrine of the Church and come directly from Divine Revelation of Christ to the Apostles.

This term Super RC, I don’t know of such term in Catholic Canon Law. Do you have a source on that? Perhaps you are talking about SSPX followers or Sedevacantist? You are talking about in the former case, schismatic at a low level [they at least at times have entered into dialogue with the Pope], and the later, outright heretics and schismatics.

Again, I am not interested in what an internet Catholic guy says if he or she is spouting off things that have no basis in official Catholic teaching anymore than I am hearing from Protestants of the same stripe. They in essence, while different are in this case the same, they each set themselves up as their own “Pope”. I am comfortable with the fact that in my lifetime, there have been now 5 Popes and I haven’t been one of them.

But this simply illustrates my point that submission to the pope in one century as understood as plainly stated, can mean something the opposite in another. Want examples?

No, because your interpretation of any thing you post is your view. You of course are entitled to your view, but you are not an expert on Catholic Doctrine

That is my point. What i can post are things RCs debate about, and while your anonymous "expert[s] on Catholic Doctrine" do not settle the issues either.

in my view, you are “likely” an ex-Catholic who thinks he knows Catholic Doctrine and now as Protestant is trying to frame it from your new found Protestantism,

It is the job of RCs to prove that i am not rightly representing RC doctrine, but go search my postings and see how often that charge has held up. Instead i often educates RCs, and find them engaging in misrepresentation.

which I “predict”, will be a different strand of Protestantism before you die.

Since one should grow toward perfection, i hope so.

Now, more to the subject at hand, there are different levels of Catholic teaching,

I know that, and also that some clergy divide them into 4, while they do not know which parts of the CCC are stating infallible teaching, or even how many total they are and what they all are. And some RCs say most of what RCs believe and practice has never been stated infallibly.

There have been Papal Bulls on Slavery that indicated some Popes wanted to end Slavery going back as far as the 14th century, there were some that tolerated it, but put parameters on it, etc, etc.

Yes, very consistent, coherent and clear moral guidance.

On all those matters, we are not talking about the Nicene or Apostles Creed, the Canon of Scripture, the Sacraments, the Primacy of the Church and Bishop of Rome, etc.

Of course; i know that, and which avoids the issue of the room or need for interpretation among RCs. 20th century Evangelicalism itself began due to a shared contention for such basic commonly held Truths..

This term Super RC, I don’t know of such term in Catholic Canon Law. Do you have a source on that?

Do not act ignorant or insolent. It is right next to "cafeteria Catholic" in Catholic Canon Law. In context it refers to just the RCs you described, who make themselves more Catholic than the Pope is.

Again, I am not interested in what an internet Catholic guy says if he or she is spouting off things that have no basis in official Catholic teaching

That was never brought up, but that of RCs who disagree about what official Catholic teaching is and means. Do you even have an infallible complete list of what level each teaching belongs to, and an official commentary on all the Bible?

My argument is that while RCs attack SS adherents as having no infallible interpreter for their supreme standard, and relying on their fallible human reasoning and fallible men, neither do RCs have an infallible interpreter for their supreme standard, and must also rely on their fallible human reasoning and fallible men. And that what they can and do disagree on is extensive.

And that the church did not begin under the premise of assured magisterial infallibility of the stewards of Scripture.