Posted on 08/03/2018 9:55:47 PM PDT by unlearner
There are plenty of posts here on the doings of Pope Francis which have long threads followed by comments from Catholics. It is not very difficult to figure out how freeper Catholics feel about the Pope. Some of the best ways to read up on how ordinary Catholics feel is to read the caucus threads and refrain from breaking them.
“You referred to my post in your first comment and expressed your intent on breaking a caucus.”
I think you’ve misread my first post. It is explicitly not to “break Caucus”. I specifically invited you in case you wished to participate in a non-Caucus discussion of the topic / article.
I made it very clear that I was not interested in a Catholic versus Protestant debate.
I also apologized for the disruption to your thread. Until you pointed me to the policy on this I was unclear about how the Caucus threads worked. I thought it simply meant that it was not a place for debate.
My question even then was not intended to start a debate. I simply am curious about how Catholics correct problems within their Church as that was the subject being discussed. I was not really looking for any Protestant arguments against the Catholic view. However, it seems that in order to find out the answer to that question, it requires posting in a non-Caucus thread. And, unfortunately, since it is a non-Caucus thread, some people may be prone to debate. But it is not my intention to start such a debate.
Perhaps there should be a generalized Christian Caucus thread open to ALL Christian denominations in which the purpose is explicitly NOT to debate. I don’t know.
However, there have been some pretty good replies so far, in spite of the tendency for arguments to break out between Protestants and Catholics. Thank God, it’s not like the violent conflicts of the not-so-distant past.
*****************
Demonstrably inaccurate.
Rome did not decide its NT or OT canon until Trent, April, 1546.
The Council originally said the vulgate was to be the only version and if anyone said otherwise was to be anathema.
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, these same books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately despise the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Canons_and_Decrees_of_the_Council_of_Trent/Session_IV/Canonical_Scriptures,
However, as with so many things Roman Catholic, the church that claims they never change....well, they changed the Council of Trent.
Later, on 3 September 1943, Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, which allowed Catholic translations to be based on texts other than the Latin Vulgate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Trent
In his justification for this, Pius XII, reversed an encyclical from Leo XIII .
Leo had condemned the use of higher criticism in the study of the Bible. Pius XII said this was now okay in light of advances in archeology and historical research which made it advisable to further define the study of the Bible.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divino_afflante_Spiritu
Really? From your post #38:
For the Catholic the answer seems to rely on the authority of the Church. For the Protestant the answer is seen as a personal reliance on the Holy Spirit.
Sounds hypocritical to me.
That is the problem a sect creates when they blasphemously elevate their leader to be “vicar of Christ’ and call him “holy father”. They are then stuck with his proclamations as if they come from God. The fruits of their own teachings. Maybe they should do as Christ taught and call no man father.
So?
The RM didn’t have a problem with it.
And it’s still not appropriate to assign intent like that.
And if I'm understanding RC Canon Law....there's really not a whole lot Roman Catholics can do about this.
No he didn't.
The dude apologized for posting on a caucus forum as he was unclear of the policy.
His exact post:
Ebb Tide posted this as Catholic Only / Caucus earlier and is, as such closed for discussion outside of Catholics. [My apologies for posting to a Caucus of which I am not a member. Even after many years on this forum, I was unclear on the policy about this.]
You're reading into this something that isn't there.
Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.
I was under the understanding that the point of the caucus was to allow for discussion within the group without outsiders, not to have a monopoly on the article and disallowing anyone else from posting it to comment on it.
He did not express intent on breaking the caucus label on your thread as he did not state intent on going over and posting on your thread anyways, ignoring the caucus label.
He posted this one so that he would NOT break the caucus label on the thread you posted.
Whatever it's source, nobody on FR owns the rights to posting form it nor can they prohibit others from posting it as well. Clearly the RM doesn't have a problem with it and HE'S the one with the final say.
If you don't like the rules, take it up with him.
It seems that there's a real lack of understanding about what the caucus designation is for.
Cross threading again?
No...the complaint is the number of threads you start on basically the same topic.
“Really? From your post #38: For the Catholic the answer seems to rely on the authority of the Church. For the Protestant the answer is seen as a personal reliance on the Holy Spirit.”
You’ll have to forgive my feeble attempts to explain the Catholic view since I am not Catholic. That was a best-efforts explanation trying to present BOTH sides, as I have been doing on this thread.
I’m not hiding that I am Protestant or pretending to be Catholic. I prefer to allow Catholics to speak for themselves rather than the likelihood that my attempts to represent Catholic views fail to do them justice.
I suppose that I can understand the delicate nature of the subject at hand. You allude to it in your tagline. Not meaning to pick at your scabs, but hoping for an honest answer which I do not intend to critique, belittle, or degrade.
Not claiming to be ecumenical, but I’ve been puzzled and troubled over the controversy about the current Pope for a while. While I do not agree with many of the arguments by Catholics against Protestant beliefs, practices, or the Reformation in general, I do think (or at least did) that I understood the arguments. I could see their logical design. But I clearly do not understand how Catholics view the issue of the Pope’s fallibility and how that gels with the traditional Catholic teaching of Apostolic succession.
Even if we never agree theologically, I hope that people such as yourself are effective at remedying deviations from Church teaching (and the Bible) on abortion and homosexuality whenever and wherever this occurs.
Go for it if that makes you happy.
I have no scabs.
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.