LittleLes Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 1. The teaching on the doctrine of infallibility and its requirements is frequently misunderstood by many Catholics. 2. By definition, (the charism of) infallibility is the belief that the holy Spirit will not allow the Catholic Church to make an error in its teachings on faith and morals. 3. There are two major divisions of infallibility, and not recognizing these divisions results in much of the confusion: (a). Infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal (or Constant) Magisterium: What has always been taught by all Catholic bishops throughout the world. (In short, what has always been taught is for this reason correct). (b) Infallibility of the Extraordinary (or Solemn) Magisterium: (1) Definitive decrees of the ecumenical councils. and (2) Papal ex cathedra statements. Any additions, corrections, etc., so far....?
Jaime Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Welcome to summer repeats [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=30478"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=30478[/url]
LittleLes Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 15 2005, 10:12 AM']Welcome to summer repeats [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=30478"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=30478[/url] [right][snapback]644431[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Not really. This one will be so much better! And not be so plagued with URL's of Father So-in-So's ramblings!
LittleLes Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 [quote name='Nicole8223' date='Jul 15 2005, 10:14 AM']hot stuff's here...yay! [right][snapback]644433[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: No doubt he will make many meaningful contributions to the discussion rather than deal in ad hominems.
Quietfire Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 15 2005, 12:00 PM']RESPONSE: No doubt he will make many meaningful contributions to the discussion rather than deal in ad hominems. [right][snapback]644470[/snapback][/right] [/quote] And you wonder why no one wants to respond to your posts . I'll bet your school records state "does not play well with others"
LittleLes Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 [quote name='Quietfire' date='Jul 15 2005, 11:34 AM']And you wonder why no one wants to respond to your posts . I'll bet your school records state "does not play well with others" [right][snapback]644486[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: On the contrary, people do reply to my posts. Both you and hot stuff just did!!! P.S. And my school records say "Simply brillent!!!. But its an understatement! : But, alas, your post is an ad hominem. Don't you have anything to contribute to the discussion???
Quietfire Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Yes. Please learn to spell correctly. Mr. Brillent!
LittleLes Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 [quote name='Quietfire' date='Jul 15 2005, 12:07 PM']Yes. Please learn to spell correctly. Mr. Brillent! [right][snapback]644504[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: If you spell a word the same every time it only proves that you don't have any imagination. Moreover, there is no correlation between IQ tests and spelling ability.
LittleLes Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 The question of infallbility did not arise in the early Church. Scripture, the commentaries of the Church Fathers, the Church councils, and the writings of those in authority were more or less taken to be inspired, inerrant, and reliably expressing the divine will. While it is claimed that infallibility was divinely revealed, nothing in the New Testament makes such a claim. The argument then becomes that while the concept of infallibility is not explicitly taught by scripture, it contains the implicit proof of infallibility. A number of New Testament texts are sometimes cited. Perhaps the most relevant are: Luke 10:15 "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." and 1 John 2:27 "As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him. " Of course, it is possible to read just about anything "implicitly" into scripture, so no real guarantee of infallibility is given by these passages. In most case these types of passages are speaking to an ideal rather than reality. Along similar lines, John 14: 13-14 tells us: "And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. " But is this literally true or only figuatively?
Cam42 Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 15 2005, 02:50 PM']The question of infallbility did not arise in the early Church. Scripture, the commentaries of the Church Fathers, the Church councils, and the writings of those in authority were more or less taken to be inspired, inerrant, and reliably expressing the divine will. While it is claimed that infallibility was divinely revealed, nothing in the New Testament makes such a claim. The argument then becomes that while the concept of infallibility is not explicitly taught by scripture, it contains the implicit proof of infallibility. A number of New Testament texts are sometimes cited. Perhaps the most relevant are: Luke 10:15 "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." and 1 John 2:27 "As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him. " Of course, it is possible to read just about anything "implicitly" into scripture, so no real guarantee of infallibility is given by these passages. In most case these types of passages are speaking to an ideal rather than reality. Along similar lines, John 14: 13-14 tells us: "And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. " But is this literally true or only figuatively? [right][snapback]644585[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Haven't we been here before? Oh Kilroy....this is a bit ridiculous, isn't it?
Jaime Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 You know what would be way more interesting? The Church's view on slavery. .. Why don' t we discuss that? Has it ever been brought up before?
Cam42 Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:58 PM']You know what would be way more interesting? The Church's view on slavery. .. Why don' t we discuss that? Has it ever been brought up before? [right][snapback]644869[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I'm not sure....hey, how about we talk about the primacy of Peter....I think that one has never been breached.
LittleLes Posted July 16, 2005 Author Posted July 16, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 15 2005, 06:24 PM']Haven't we been here before? Oh Kilroy....this is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? [right][snapback]644782[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: No. I haven't been there before nor had the opportunity to cite the various Church documents involved. You aren't trying to "close" the topic because it's something you don't want to face, are you?
Socrates Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:36 PM']I'm not sure....hey, how about we talk about the primacy of Peter....I think that one has never been breached. [right][snapback]644894[/snapback][/right] [/quote] And endless ramblings on Galileo and the authorship of scripture acording to Raymond Brown are always fascinating!
Socrates Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:42 PM']RESPONSE: No. I haven't been there before nor had the opportunity to cite the various Church documents involved. You aren't trying to "close" the topic because it's something you don't want to face, are you? [right][snapback]644899[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yeah, we're afraid of facing it because it's something we've never seen before, and find the prospect of the unknown terrifying!
LittleLes Posted July 16, 2005 Author Posted July 16, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 15 2005, 07:58 PM']You know what would be way more interesting? The Church's view on slavery. .. Why don' t we discuss that? Has it ever been brought up before? [right][snapback]644869[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: We have already proven from Church documents that the Church supported the moral legitimacy of slavery based on its interpretation of scriptural teaching and the natural law at least until 1866. But if you like I can cite the documents again.
LittleLes Posted July 16, 2005 Author Posted July 16, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:36 PM']I'm not sure....hey, how about we talk about the primacy of Peter....I think that one has never been breached. [right][snapback]644894[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Yes, and I think from the Acts of the Apostles and the writings of Paul we demonstrated that the original followers of Jesus remained a sect within orthodox Judaism ,and that their leader was James the Brother of Jesus. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Pauline Christianity became dominant obviously led by Paul. Peter wasn't the leader of either.
LittleLes Posted July 16, 2005 Author Posted July 16, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:42 PM']And endless ramblings on Galileo and the authorship of scripture acording to Raymond Brown are always fascinating! [right][snapback]644900[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Yes, aren't they. A bit different than what Catholic apologists try to tell you isn't it?
Recommended Posts