Announcement
Collapse
Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines
Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Ex Cathedra Papal Statement and the Bible.
Collapse
X
-
Where does the idea that the Pope can be infallible in certain circumstances come from anyway?
Leave a comment:
-
You're Right Sparko there is a lot of room for something to be found fallible later. And reviewing history, it tends to speak for itself.
Leo not so much ex cathedra, but the faith and morals thing.....
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View Postsnip
Nothing like a little hit and run criticism eh? Seriously though if you're feeling unwell don't continue. I'll defend my faith, but I want you to be happy as well.
I potentially have to get off my computer because of a coming thunderstorm, and you call that "hit and run criticism"?
This wasn't about "feeling unwell", although storms do take a toll.
The next day, or maybe two have thunderstorm chances. I really don't want my computer, or anything else we have, to get busted by a lightning strike. So, depending on the weather, my responses might be a bit more sparse than usual. This applies to all activity regarding computers. I've already had two days where I had to spend several hours with everything turned off.
ETA: I now realize that this post might have seemed like hit and run criticism. I did not intend that. I'm thinking at this point I'm saying things that come out wrong. I don't want that. I should probably wait to post seriously until I can be more sure what I'm saying is clear, and what I really intend.Last edited by Cerebrum123; 04-09-2015, 07:31 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostHe just said that those who are circumcised regardless of whether or not they place their faith in that or not lose their salvation. That's clearly against the teaching in the Bible that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision are an advantage.
Do you know what judaizing is? And yes I do believe as a Catholic that without just reason, its a sin to circumcize. There are no just reason anymore, hence its a sin.
The biblical quote you gave does not establish that its morally permissible for gentiles to circumcize, just between a baptized jew and a baptized gentile there is no difference. And so one does not become a greater Christian by becoming a jewish Christian.
What do "definitions" have to do with anything, and how are you "defining" them?
To know what teachings or moral laws must be held to be true by all catholics, the specific teaching has to be layed out clearly. It must also be stated that no Catholic may be in opposition to this teaching.
I don't think pope Eugene IV had to do this though. No one disagrees that there is no theological merit in circumcision after Christ gave us the sacrament of Baptism.
And therefore there's no good reason to imktate the jews ritual.
The weird practice in America is a different matter. You're free to zoom in one sentence of his, but you'd be ignoring the context of judaizing.
When American men today get circumsized is that to imitate the jews? Whether or not they believe this to be good?
How are you defining "ex cathedra"?
As said its only been done 5 times in history.
The latest two was on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.
The clost to Pope Eugene IV was an affirmation that the Just who die enter immediately into the beatific vision.
How is a council on such an important issue, and the resulting Papal Bull not "official"?
Though I still say what he says is true and is in no way in conflict with the bible.
This seems like a case of having your cake and eating it too.
I don't see what the size of the data pool has to do with anything. A single error is enough to prove papal infallibility wrong.
There may be a storm coming, so I might have to get off soon.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWhat criteria is used to determine if a papal bull is an infallible Papal pronouncement or not?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postsounds like there is a lot of wiggle room to say something is not infallible if it is ever proven fallible later.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThe Cantate Domino is a papal bull teaching on something for which there was an ecumenical council at the time, namely the council of Florence. I wanted to show you the topic, which was kinda left it, as you seemed to be zooming in on something and I wasn't sure whether you thought the pope had contradicted himself, or whether he had contradicted the Bible.
There's no contradiction between the teaching that I layed out and the Bible, not unless you're ready to say that Christians have to get circumsized, or that its good for Christians to be circumsized for religious reasons and that you can find support for that in the Bible. The Council of Florence however was dealt more specifically on the question on how our works can have merit, with one of the dogmas being that without the Blood of Christ all we do is in vain, and even the good of our actions come about from His sacrifice.
In that case its simple, this is not an instance of Papal infallibility. There's really only been five cases (I think) where a pope has spoken ex cathedra. In this case its clear that he hasn't, simple because he's made no definitions. There have been far more cases of ecumenical councils producing dogmatic statement with the seal of infallibility.
As Spartacus said earlier in another thread, the dataset of clear biblical teachings, and instances of papal infallibility are both limited data-sets.
I don't see what the size of the data pool has to do with anything. A single error is enough to prove papal infallibility wrong.
I started this thread because it certainly seems like this Papal Bull has an error, and it certainly seems like it would fall under papal infallibility. Either one or both of those is wrong, or papal infallibility is false. The error is there. That's why I have to ask about the "infallible" aspect. I don't yet see any reason why it shouldn't be considered such, other than the error I pointed out.
There may be a storm coming, so I might have to get off soon.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostCan you demonstrate that Cantate Domino is an infallible Papal pronouncement?
I stumbled on this while looking for information about "ex cathedra". I saw how it very clearly does contradict the Bible(well, unless you define words differently), and thought I should ask about it here.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThere's not a set of criteria as such, but it must be clear that the pope is exercising his office as pope to bind the consciences of Catholics on an issue of Faith and Morals. The Church isn't in doubt about when that's happened.
I'm not convinced there's any errors in what he said though.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWhat criteria is used to determine if a papal bull is an infallible Papal pronouncement or not?
I'm not convinced there's any errors in what he said though.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostI did link to it you know.
There's no contradiction between the teaching that I layed out and the Bible, not unless you're ready to say that Christians have to get circumsized, or that its good for Christians to be circumsized for religious reasons and that you can find support for that in the Bible. The Council of Florence however was dealt more specifically on the question on how our works can have merit, with one of the dogmas being that without the Blood of Christ all we do is in vain, and even the good of our actions come about from His sacrifice.
He still says "Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation". So, either you are right, and he meant the way you say, and he contradicted himself, or he didn't, and he contradicted the Bible. Seems like a lose-lose situation for Papal infallibility to me.
As Spartacus said earlier in another thread, the dataset of clear biblical teachings, and instances of papal infallibility are both limited data-sets.
Leave a comment:
-
Can you demonstrate that Cantate Domino is an infallible Papal pronouncement?
Leave a comment:
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Leave a comment: