Catholics divided

The Pope speaking about Iraq is not a matter of papal infallibility.

If you had any remote knowlege about the RCC you'd know that. But it's easier for you to lie about the RCC because it supports your anti-catholic agenda. Last time I checked, that's a violation of the 9th commandment.

Additionally, the fact that you suppor the SBC speaking about Iraq, but you don't support the Pope speaking about it, well, that makes you a hypocrite.

 

Dear Born Again,

You said

How many times does it have to be esplained to ju?
Or is it that you choose not to understand?

Pope John Paul II has never made an ex cathedra statement. The Church has never said that everything the pope says is infallibile.

You said I personally think the Pope should keep his mouth shut . I assume you say that because you believe that your education and contact with world leaders is superior to that of the pope. Now I don't always agree with the pope or the president but they both have responsibilities and obligations to state their beliefs.

As for papel , isn't Ron Papel that guy who sells the Pocket Fisherman and some kind of vegetable dicer?

Grace and peace,
Uncle Ray

 

Everyone is intitled to their own opinion. There are many on this board alone. I agree with your opinion.

But only because the Pope is in charge of the Roman Empire. USA business is none of his business.

Sherrie

 

Born Again,

Where have you been?

I see it too. All the time.

Why does our observation that there are divisions among them have to be anticatholic propaganda?

It is an observation that Catholics are making too.

God Bless

 

Please list the last 5 "ex cathedra" statements in history and show how you 'know' they were being made 'ex cathedra'.

In Christ,

Bob

 

What's wrong with supporting the SBC's position? I attend SEBTS and we recently had a "Just War Forum" with a four member panel, one of which was Dr. Land, Head of Ethics. It was very good. I was undecided on the whole issue before the forum, but now I feel there is a "just cause" for war with Iraq.

Neal

 

Please list the last 5 "ex cathedra" statements in history and show how you 'know' they were being made 'ex cathedra'.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]You must be confused...there haven't been 5 made yet. Perhaps some more study (using accurate sources) would be good.


LaRae

 

Well then, how many (if any) "ex-cathedra" statements have there been? What were they, and how are we supposed to know that they were in fact "ex cathedra" statements rather than just the usual garden-variety papal pronouncements?

 

Well then, how many (if any) "ex-cathedra" statements have there been? What were they, and how are we supposed to know that they were in fact "ex cathedra" statements rather than just the usual garden-variety papal pronouncements? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Here's a clip I have saved from another conversation...."ex-cathedra" means "from the Chair" (as in the Chair of St Peter):

The following comes from section 25 of Lumen Gentium, the dogmatic Constitution on the Church produced by Vatican II:

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.


As you can see, the qualifications are:

1) The pope intends, as pope, to make a defining, infallible, doctrinal statement, AND

2) He makes it in a form which leaves no doubt of his intention to do just that, AND

3) The matter concerns faith or morals.

In brief, there can be no question about whether a statement is an ex cathedra pronouncement -- because it will say exactly that. There is therefore no such thing as an "accidental" or an unintentional ex cathedra definition of a dogma. In addition, remember that the MATTER must be faith or morals -- the pope could not, for example, make an "infallible" statement about the best recipe for cheesecake, or define dogmatically whether the music of Beethoven is superior to that of Elvis.
-----------------------------------------
Also you can find more info on EWTN and the Vatican website. I believe there have been 2 ex cathedra statments made by a Pope...none by the current Pope. The 2 made by the pope concern the Immaculate Conception and Assumption.

------------------------------------
Some Catholics wrongly believe that ONLY "ex cathedra" Papal Statements are
infallible. This would limit infallible dogma to two, the Immaculate Conception
and the Assumption. Obviously, only 2 infallible dogmas in 2,000 years sounds
very sparse. Some theologians incorrectly proliferate a notion that ONLY the
Extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. Even Raymond Brown has abandoned
this notion. Ergo, propositions like the one you mention, that the doctrine of the
perpetual virginity of the B.V.M. is NOT infallible, are ridiculous. If in doubt, the
BEST resource is Denziger's Enchiridion Symbolorum. Next, is Ludwig Ott's
monumental work, "The Fundamentals of Dogma." There, one can find the
theological distinctions made between divinely revealed truths (DE FIDE) and
those which are only theologically certain.


DE FIDE is the highest level of theological/doctrinal truth. They are INFALLIBLE
statements by their very nature, like the Holy Trinity, The Real Presence, etc.

Next, are VERITATES CATHOLICAE (catholic truths) like the existence of God which can be known through reason alone.

Finally, there are four types of THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS:

1. SENTENTIA FIDEI PROXIMA (proximate to the Faith) like the Trinity can be known only through Revelation.

2. SENTENTIA CERTA (theologically certain) like Monogenism, i.e., that the human race came from one set of parents.

3. SENTENTIA COMMUNIA (common teaching) like the Church's prohibition & proscription of artificial contraception.

4. SENTENTIA PROBABILIS (probable teaching) like the premise that the Virgin Mary died before being Assumed into Heaven.

According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium #25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the ASSENT OF FAITH, they CANNOT be disputed nor rejected publicly and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the
one possessing the fullness of teaching authority. The heterodox concept of a
dual magisteria, i.e., the theologians, is not based on scriptural nor traditional grounds. Some have gone as far as to propose a triple magisteria, the body of believers. While it is true that as a whole, the body of believers is infallible in that SENSUS FIDEI is that the Church as the Mystical Body cannot be in error on
matters of faith and morals, the TEACHING AUTHORITY (Magisterium) resides solely with the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops in union with him.

 

LaRae,
Thanks for the clarification.

 

Another question:
Was Peter making an infallible statement when in 1 Peter 5:1-4 he addressed the elders (presbyters) as being shepherds (pastors) and overseers (bishops), thereby implying the three titles were descriptions of one office? (Also did you note how Peter said that he himself was a "fellow elder"?)

This is consistent with Paul addressing the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:17-35 as being overseers (bishops), shepherding (pastoring) the church of God (verse 28). (Elders and Bishops are used interchangeably again in Titus 1:5-9)

If Peter was speaking "ex cathedra" here (which one can safely assume since this is inspired Scripture we're talking about!), why did those who followed Peter and the rest of apostles introduce innovation into the church by making two distinct offices out of the one biblical office thereby beginning the creation of an unbiblical heirarchy? I mean, should we trust inspired Scripture or the uninspired writings of "early church fathers", their proximity in time to the apostles notwithstanding?

 

Fine - please show a Catholic authorotative source that will list all the Ex-Cathedra statements in hisotry and that Catholic leaders will agree to as in "that is the only list".

Or is it in fact "whatever you happen to feel like selecting".

As for Catholics "divided" - isn't it interesting that you DO find a great many that reject purgatory, or indulgences or infallibility or some other key teaching of the RCC while remaining Catholic?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Wait a minute! Are you sitting in your new chair or did you just say that as a joke?

If you were sitting in your chair - then I assume you were speaking infallibly - and would therefore want to ask - can you also turn bread into the body of Christ?

Do you have that "magic power"?

Can you forgive sin?

If you die - would it be ok to start praying to you and asking you for favors?

Would you mind if we offerred prayers and incense on your "altars"?

We want to be sure we get it right this time.

Bob

 

Wow, guys. I think the whole ex cathedra thing is a load of bull too, but last time I checked, a mocking attitude wasn't on the list of the fruits of the spirit. In fact, it's condemned in Proverbs. I get annoyed when my Catholic friends(who definitely aren't Christian, btw), mock my belief in eternal security, or my disbelief in transubstantiation.

We're told to confront Catholicism's false doctrines, but nowhere does it say to mock them.

--In Christ, Landon