Bishop Paprocki Goes Against US Bishops on Unions

Church Militant ^ | 7/12/18 | David Nussman

[Mrs. Don-o]

Someone has misinformed you about the meaning of infallibility.

It does not mean that the pope's opinions are binding and error-free. They are neither; and, just as importantly, nobody claims that they are.

The doctrine of infallibility is not a positive characteristic of a pope as an individual, but a negative protection for the Church as a whole. It means that if or when a pope makes an erroneous statement, that statement will not become part of the de fide doctrine of the Church, binding on all Catholics.

It is basically the Holy Spirit playing defense.

I could go into so much detail that it would hurt the roots of your hair, but being a merciful person, let me just offer this wee cartoon, which is precisely Catholic and actually quote funny.

How To Explain Papal Infallibility in Under Two Minutes (LINK)

Enjoy.

[Mrs. Don-o]

1. Who wrote the Gospel of Mark?

2. Who says?

[ealgeone]

1.Who wrote the Gospel of Mark? 2. Who says?

We don't have the author of Hebrews and it is accepted.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Of course. I agree. But it has nothing to do with my questions.

I asked:

1. Who wrote the Gospel of Mark?

2. Says who?

[ealgeone]

The doctrine of infallibility is not a positive characteristic of a pope as an individual, but a negative protection for the Church as a whole. It means that if or when a pope makes an erroneous statement, that statement will not become part of the de fide doctrine of the Church, binding on all Catholics.

Yet, when the pope speaks he speaks on behalf of Roman Catholicism...right or wrong people listen to him.

Pope Urban II promised the forgiveness of sins for everyone who fought in the Crusades.

There is nothing in the NT offering forgiveness of sins for fighting on behalf of the church. I don't believe I've heard any Roman Catholic say he was in error to do this. Perhaps you will be the first.

This is why Christianity rejects Rome's assertion that "Tradition" is equal to or in some cases superior to Scripture and why the papacy is not a NT teaching.

[ealgeone]

Does it matter?

[ealgeone]

Next you'll be wanting to trot out the old failed argument of who put in the table of contents. A really, really inept RC apologetic.

Why don't we discuss page numbers and font size as well!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Why won’t you answer the questions? They’re simple enough.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yes.

[Marchmain]

I hope you don’t “identify” as a Christian; I hope you ARE a Christian. :-)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Nobody can be forgiven in advance for a sin they might do or intend to do or plan to do in the future.

Agree?

[ealgeone]

Nobody can be forgiven in advance for a sin they might do or intend to do or plan to do in the future.

YES they can. That's what the cross is all about.

If not, maintaining your salvation becomes dependent upon you and what you do or don't do. That's not in the NT.

[ealgeone]

I hope you don’t “identify” as a Christian; I hope you ARE a Christian. :-)

Well, both! But your point is understood.

[ealgeone]

We don't know definitively who wrote Hebrews or the Gospels. However, it has been agreed that it was Matthew, Mark (some say Peter dictated and Mark wrote), Luke, John (believed to be the beloved disciple) and Paul (Hebrews).

But the key thing to keep in mind is the Gospels were generally accepted by the early ekklesia as inspired texts.

Rome didn't declare its canon until Trent....some 1400+ years after the early church had decided upon the NT canon.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"But the key thing to keep in mind is the Gospels were generally accepted by the early ekklesia as inspired texts."

Correct, ealgeone. Very good.

"Generally accepted by the early ekklesia" is the rod of measurement for Apostolic Tradition. The same thing in the words of Vincent of Lerin: "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus."

The Apostolic Tradition is the pillar and foundation determining what we now call the New Testament.

The early ekklesia is the pillar and foundation of the canon of Scripture.

Tagline:

[Mrs. Don-o]

Now, the next question:

"How do you know that the Gospels were generally accepted by the early ekklesia as inspired texts."

[ealgeone]

Your attempt to equate the early ekklesia with Roman Catholicism is going to fail as so much of Roman Catholicism is not found in Scripture.

The Apostolic Tradition is the pillar and foundation determining what we now call the New Testament.

The Apostles didn't decide this....the entire ekklesia did.

The early ekklesia is the pillar and foundation of the canon of Scripture.

You got it backwards....Scripture is the pillar and foundation of the early church.

Have you honestly had no training in this topic?

[ealgeone]

"How do you know that the Gospels were generally accepted by the early ekklesia as inspired texts."

The Spirit moved them in this capacity as the Spirit always moves the believers.

I'll keep reminding you....your Roman Catholic church did not declare its canon until the Council of Trent in the 4th Session in April, 1546.

Further, it declared the vulgate to be the official version for the RCC.

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm

Roman Catholics don't even adhere to the decrees of its own Council!!!!

[Mrs. Don-o]

"How do you know that the Gospels were generally accepted by the early ekklesia as inspired texts."...
The Spirit moved them in this capacity as the Spirit always moves the believers.

Yes, surely. But that's understood.

But what I'm looking for is, this "early ekklesia" who confirmed that these Gospels were "generally accepted" --- who were they? I need I.D.:

• who (names of individuals) or
• who (what group or groups) and
• what (did they "generally accept" the 27 books of the NT? the books of the OT as well?) and
• where (name of a city, a province) and
• when (year)?

  Did this "early ekklesia" put it in writing, such that other people would know? and

• to whom were they writing, if they did put it in writing?

That's enough for now. Your turn.

[ealgeone]

But what I'm looking for is, this "early ekklesia" who confirmed that these Gospels were "generally accepted" --- who were they? I need I.D.:

Kinda getting up there on that high horse of yours....

We don't have the names of all the individuals. However, what we do have are the books.

Mrs. D, you can continue to ask however many questions you want.

The plain and simple fact is your denomination didn't approve its canon, both OT and NT, until April 1545. Further, it declared the vulgate to be THE only translation Roman Catholics are to use....and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

That's the end of the discussion for the Roman Catholic. You have no choice but to adhere to what Trent ruled upon....unless, of course, the RCC has changed again on this topic.

to whom were they writing, if they did put it in writing?

In Paul's letters we have the audience he was writing to.

In Revelation we do as well.

What they did not put in writing are all of the things Rome claims to be their "Tradition". And as attested to in history, so much of that contradictory "Tradition" came much, much later than the Apostles, negating the claim of "Apostolic succession".