jasJis Posted March 5, 2005 Posted March 5, 2005 Les, It's [u]your[/u] misconception. Ex Cathedra means speaking within the requirements and privlege of their official cerical office and is done when addressing a particualr subject. It's the difference between a Supreme Court judge writing an article about his opinoin for a magazine and writing a legal opinion after hearing both sides of the argument in Courth with witness, the other Judges, etc. Dang. It seems you keep running in the buzz saw of reasonablness.
Myles Domini Posted March 5, 2005 Posted March 5, 2005 [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus[/url] I thought you might appreciate this essay on St Irenaeus and what it says about Adversus Haerses Enjoy
LittleLes Posted March 5, 2005 Author Posted March 5, 2005 Hi Jas Jis, I'm having trouble understading your reply to my point that infallible teachings don't have to be specified as being infallible. Perhaps the following information will help you to see that. First Vatican Council, Session 4, 18 July 1870 Chapter 4, part 9 on the criteria for a papal infallible teaching: "We teach and define as divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when: (1) in the exercise of his office as shepard and teacher of all Christians, (2) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, (3) he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church... "Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable." So "infallibly" taught, there are only three conditions and these cannot be modified ( Hence, irreformable). Thus anytime these conditions were fulfilled, the papal teaching was "infallible." Interested persons might want to review papal writings, encyclicals, etc. to see which fulfilled these three irreformable conditions. In no way do they have to assert that the Pope is speaking "infallibly" or "ex cathedra." If the three conditions are fulfilled, he simply is!
Myles Domini Posted March 5, 2005 Posted March 5, 2005 That would be unneccessary since Lumen Gentium and the new Catechism have already clarified the nature of relations between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. When the Pope speaks as universal pastor and teahcer of the Church he declares it with a formal bull. This is part of the procedure LL. The nature of an encyclical prevents it being an ex cathedra statement because it is understood to be in the jurdistiction of the albeit truthful and binding ordinary magisterium.
LittleLes Posted March 5, 2005 Author Posted March 5, 2005 I'm afraid Papal Bulls are a thing of the past. You won't find them today. That's not to say there still isn't a lot of "papal bull" around. And the "infallibile" pronouncement on "papal infallibility" does not specify a format. Hence the procedure cannot be reformed to require a specific type of document. Technically, a verbal announcement would qualify if the three criteria were met, but it is doubtful that this wuld be done. LittleLes
Myles Domini Posted March 5, 2005 Posted March 5, 2005 LL what are you talking about? Pope Pius XII used a Papal Bull to pronounce the dogma of the Ascenscion and there have been many Bull's of canonisation in JP2's papacy all of which involved ex cathedra authority.
LittleLes Posted March 6, 2005 Author Posted March 6, 2005 Sorry Myles, There is no excathedra statement dealing with the Ascension. And Pius XII's ex cathedra statement on the dogma of the Assumption was the Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus. Incidently, the Assumption appears nowhere in the New Testament and first apeared as a legend in the 4th or 5th century. LittleLes
Archangel Posted March 6, 2005 Posted March 6, 2005 The canon of the bible is not found in the bible either. It was determined by Catholic councils around 400 A.D.
LittleLes Posted March 6, 2005 Author Posted March 6, 2005 That's right Archangel, Around 400 A.D. the Church selected from among many writings four versions that best represented its theological views at that time. It claimed that four were selected because that was the number of the four winds, at least according to Tertullian. LittleLes
peach_cube Posted March 6, 2005 Posted March 6, 2005 Again, how do you feel about Socrates or many other historical figures? Because they do not meet your undefined criteria for reliabity does not mean they are in fact unreliable. What makes one writing reliable and the others unreliable? Should we assume that nothing is true unless they are mentioned in texts that meet your undefined criteria for reliability? You just do not trust an oral tradition. You assume that each writing has a hidden agenda. Because they love Christ they wouldn't dream of misrepresenting him, you can really only understand this if you love Christ yourself.
Archangel Posted March 6, 2005 Posted March 6, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 6 2005, 03:43 AM']That's right Archangel, Around 400 A.D. the Church selected from among many writings four versions that best represented its theological views at that time. It claimed that four were selected because that was the number of the four winds, at least according to Tertullian. LittleLes[/quote] When did non-Catholics determine their bible?
LittleLes Posted March 7, 2005 Author Posted March 7, 2005 Hi Archangel, The Protestant reformation was far off. Only one Christian group at that time so it got to pick and choose which writings were included in its bible. I'm actually surprised that John's gospel was includes due to his gnostic leanings. Little Les
Archangel Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 6 2005, 05:21 PM']Hi Archangel, The Protestant reformation was far off. Only one Christian group at that time so it got to pick and choose which writings were included in its bible. I'm actually surprised that John's gospel was includes due to his gnostic leanings. Little Les[/quote] Exactly, LittleLes! The only Christian group at the time was the Catholic Church. It's been going strong for the last 2000 years. How far away off was the Protestant reformation?
LittleLes Posted March 7, 2005 Author Posted March 7, 2005 Hi Archangle, Lets stick to the topic and discuss the Protestent reformation as a separate thread. It isn't directly related to the claim of Peterine primacy. LittleLes
jasJis Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 Les, this only works with convoluted reasoning. One either disregards all of Scripture, or considers all of Scripture, old and new Testament, and the Traditional understanding. You are simply attemtpting to take a myopic view of a select few verses and ignoring or disregarding everything else. Theobabble.
DojoGrant Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 I think you're confusing the scope of a legend. If it was being written about Peter being in Rome in the 2nd century, that falls well out of the "legend" framework. That Peter performed X miracle, that might fall under "legend." That Peter resided in a city for 25 years is a little bit harder to conjure up and have everybody believe within a centuries time if it was not based in some kind of fact. And if you are denying that Peter wrote his epistle, meaning, its claim of authorship is faulty, then why not just throw out the baby with the bathwater. If there can be one lie, there can be many.
LittleLes Posted March 7, 2005 Author Posted March 7, 2005 No Theobable, You're creating the "either - or " fallacy. One has to either completely accept everything in scripture or completely reject everything in scripture. What can be demonstrated to be true should be accepted. What can be demonstrated to be false or contradiction should be rejected. On another thread I've pointed out that Matthew's account of Jesus entering Jerusalem riding two animals contradicts common sense and the other three evangelists which clearly specify only one animal. Matthew is very clear that he's fuffilling a prophecy here in Zec 9:9 about a king entering riding on two animals. The problem is that Matthew didn't understand the Hebrew idiom. There was only one animal there too. Also, obviously Matthew wasn't an eyewitness to the event. Even the Catholic New American Bible in a footnote to Matthew acknowledges Matthew's error. As do I. But it does not follow that everything Matthew reported is in error. Little Les
LittleLes Posted March 7, 2005 Author Posted March 7, 2005 Sorry DoJoGrant, The 25 years Peter in Rome story was more than a century old. Eusebius wrote it around 325-350 A.D. And the legend of the line in the sand drawn by Col Travis at the Alamo (1836) was in full swing by 1873 and was published in a Texas magazine. The trouble is that the survivors of the Alamo (wives, slaves, merchants) reported nothing of the sort. Even Travis' person slave who reported his death early on the last day did not recount this legend. As I wrote earlier, I'm looking for a solid reference written within 100 years of the supposed event claiming Peter was the bishop of Rome. We already know he left his first successor bishop (Evodius) in Antioch. But for whatever reason, he didn't get to be Pope. Probably because Rome was a more important city than Antioch. LittleLes
jasJis Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 Are you accepting all of Scripture, or accepting none of it? It seems it's you who is choosing to ignore the whole of the texts to choose what seems to be an error or an linguistic idiom to define it later by your own terms after the fact. You ignore completely what the Apostles and other disciples that walked, talked, ate, and discussed things with Jesus in person did and didn't do. You limit your scope to what was written down and not "[i]seemingly[/i]" contradicted in Scripture and being the only source of what to do and what not to do. That is illogical and also ignores the clear Scriptural instruction that not everything can be or will be written down. It ignores the clear Scriptural assurance that Christ will send the paraclete to particiapte and dwell with us. We weren't just left with written instructions and nothing else.
Recommended Posts