Infallibility or Ecumenical Error?

Jim,

Admit that your whole arguement is baited. We'll define hatred, you'll say, "And this council is obviously promoting hatred by your own definition, and thus the Catholic Church is not the true Church." It's pretty obvious.

So, instead of giving in to this vain attempt to discredit the Church, what Trying2Understand is consistently trying to prove is that the means are not infallible. The doctrine being established was over Passover, not about how to treat the Jews. You've made it a personal goal to get nitpicky and find faults in things that do not meet the criteria for infallibility and are trying to use them to your own advantage.

Reread what we've shown you about infallibility. Could the Church have been speaking in a hateful way in this document? Perhaps; I'm not going to judge by your few paragraphs of text without any other context. I refuse to jump to conclusions as you so obviously are doing. Either way, though, the sentences you picked out are infallible statements; they are not defining official, binding doctrine of the Church.

The Catholic Church has made two infallible statements in the last two hundred years, and yet in the same time, we've had the Second Vatican Council. Every word in that council, while we should read it with utmost sincerity and use it as a guide to explaining the preexisting truths of the Church, each and every word is not infallible. The same is true, no doubt, with the council of Nicea.

 

Like I said: baited.

Did you not have the courage to come out and just say this in the first place? No, you rather drag it out, draw much attention to it, and then shake the dust off your feet at us.

Your attitude has been so thoroughly Chrisitian throughout this thread. Tell me, Jim, DO the means justify the end? You should know.

 

Does your church allow Jews who do not accept Christ to be members? If not, why? Hatred?

Does your church observe Passover? If not, why? Hatred?

Would your church allow a person who observes Sabbath starting a sundown on Friday as a member? If not, why? Hatred?

Do you still believe that "oppressed in silence", in your original post to another thread, means that some person was kept silent?

Since you have not answered my questions, we may all assume that your church hates and has seperated from the Jews and thus is a false church and teaches a false gospel.

 

Jim,

So, because I wasn't here on the board when you posted these threads...that makes your argument right? I have a lot going on right now, and I've posted a little here and there (one or two last night), but I haven't had time to respond to everything. Cut me some slack.

When did you "prove" that the Catholics Church was "hating" the "BELIEVING" Jews?

And since you think you've definitively answered your own question, please answer Trying2Understand's questions.

[ September 21, 2002, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

I would have to say yes. If the means are right (i.e. in line with God's principles) then the ends, whatever it is, would have to be God's will. Althought I do understand many might try to find shelter for their position under such an umbrella.

By the way:
I appologize for the delayed response. I actually lost this thread. I just found out how to do a search and found it again (stinkin newbies).

and now a question:
I have read through everything and inserted my first question and opening comment above on limited information. I am trying to understand the main thrust of this debate but don't quite get it yet.

Grace, could you or T2U explain to me the basic point in question and/or the relevance of the questions 'trying' has asked but not been answered on?

SoCM

 

You don't see the relevance in his questions, and I don't see the relevance of your post in general. How about we close the thread, since neither side wants to listen to the other?

 

I see. You need to know how your answers will be used against your arguement before you are willing to give them.

Ron

 

before we skip straight to verbally beating the snot out of each other could I get my questions answered? I don't think I have done anything to merit not being answered, have I?

SoCM

 

No, you have not done anything to merit not being answered. This thread was started by Jim with the intent of proving that the Catholic Church taught "error" and thus proving the Church is not infallible and thus a "false church" that teaches a "false gospel".

You must first understand the meaning of "infallible" as defined by the Church. The Church is using the word within a specific context, that being when offically declaring a doctrine as infallible and to be held by all the faithful of the Church. I have given a proper definition earlier in the thread.

Jim does not understand what was declared as doctrine by the Council which he has quoted (not in entirety but only partially). He says that the doctrine declared was "Hate Jews". He is incorrect.

I have asked several questions repeatedly for a specific purpose. His refusal to answer them, despite their immediate relevance to his arguement, demostrates, to me anyway, that he is not acting in good faith. I have taken a position that I will not engage him further until he has the courage to answer them.

Nothing against you. It's just where we are.

Ron

 

Just in case you missed my questions, Jim.

 

T2U,

I have been trying to keep up by reading the old posts but have not quite gotten it yet.

Could you restate what you mean by "infallibility" when refering to the Catholic church?

SoCM

 

SoCM, above is my original post defining infallibility.

[ September 23, 2002, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]