Infallibility or Ecumenical Error?

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
But for argument's sake, why don't you define "infallibility" and "error" so the conversation can continue.

Jim, this is a good place to start.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

I direct you to this paragraph in particular since it directly addresses your concern.

"and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached."

Give me your thoughts after you have read the article.

Ron

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
Ron,

You are still assuming that Catholic definitions it developed for itself are true and then turning around and using those definitions to establishe truth.

But for argument's sake, why don't you define "infallibility" and "error" so the conversation can continue.

Jim

Jim,

Since you are attacking the nature of a Catholic argument on the basis that it is "infallible," you canNOT use a variant definition of the word. It must be understood in a strictly Catholic sense or you are taking things out of context. You must understand what a Catholic means when he says that something is "infallible" in order to attack said infallibility.

 

[jimraboin]

Ron and Grace,

Don't reference a web address without you personally defining. I am well aquainted with this source. You quibble with my definition. So please state as you understand Catholic definition of infallibility and error.

Then we can continue.

Jim

 

[jimraboin]

Ron,

Aren't you able to define in your own words Catholic definition of "infallibility" and "error"?

Jim

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
Ron,

Aren't you able to define in your own words Catholic definition of "infallibility" and "error"?

Jim

Work is just a little busy today. And I am also preparing to teach my catechism class tonight.

I'll get with you later.

Ron

 

[jimraboin]

Should be an easy task for you, Ron, to provide Catholic definitions in your own words. What are you afraid of?

Jim

 

[LaRae]

Infalliblity only applies to faith and morals.

It does not apply to judicial or civil matters.

LaRae

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
Should be an easy task for you, Ron, to provide Catholic definitions in your own words. What are you afraid of?

Jim

Jim, in offering you my definition of infallibility within the context of the Catholic Church, understand that I am not representing to "speak for the Church". My definition is meant only as a reference for further discussion and is not meant to be all inclusive nor exhaustive in scope.

Agreed?

Good.

Infallibility applies to the Pope or the Bishops when speaking in union.

The Pope is infallible when he speaks from his position of universal pastor of the Church, defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals, addressed to all the Church.

Key words:
Pastor of the Church - not as a theologian, not as Bishop of Rome, not as patriarch of the West.

Defining a doctrine - conclusively pronounces a doctrine with precision, certainty, and to the exclusion of any alternatives.

The Bishops are infallible when declaring a doctrine concerning matters of faith and morals in their authoritative teaching capacity, and they are in agreement that the particular teaching is to be held definitively by the Church.

Infallibility is not tied to the state of perfection or imperfection of any individual.

Infallibility concerns the final doctrine declared, not the motives or process involved in arriving at the doctrine.

You “hate as error” fails on all levels.

Ron

 

[jimraboin]

Ron,

Is "hate" an issue of morals? Does it affect our faith? If a ecumenical council implements doctrines of hate outlined by an individual, isn't that included among the many definitions of infallible since the supposed pope of that assembly is said to be in full agreement even though he may have not made public his view?

Jim

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
[QB]Ron,

Is "hate" an issue of morals? Does it affect our faith? If a ecumenical council implements doctrines of hate outlined by an individual, isn't that included among the many definitions of infallible since the supposed pope of that assembly is said to be in full agreement even though he may have not made public his view?

I refer back to my definition.

"Infallibility concerns the final doctrine declared, not the motives or process involved in arriving at the doctrine."

Hatred is not the doctrine being declared.

Ron

 

[jimraboin]

Separation from the people who supposedly killed Jesus is not hatred doctrinally? Separation from the people in whom the body's foundation was laid is not doctrinal hatred? Removal of all things Israel from Rome's version of Christianity is not doctrinal hatred. All these led to fierce persecutions, crusades, and inquisitions against Jews from Israel. And this you say is not a doctrine of hatred?

Maybe you had better define exactly what hatred is according to Catholic doctrine?

Jim

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
Separation from the people who supposedly killed Jesus is not hatred doctrinally? Separation from the people in whom the body's foundation was laid is not doctrinal hatred? Removal of all things Israel from Rome's version of Christianity is not doctrinal hatred. All these led to fierce persecutions, crusades, and inquisitions against Jews from Israel. And this you say is not a doctrine of hatred?
Jim

Jim, again, the doctrine was a seperation from practices of those who did not accept Jesus (do not observe Passover, observe Easter).

That is the doctrine.

Do you still insist that the doctrine was to exclude Jews from "the way" as you previously insisted?

Do you still insist that "oppressed in silence" means that some people were kept silent?

I ask these questions repeatedly, without answer or acknowledgement of them from you, to determine if you are rigidly fixed in your initial comprehension of the writings which you previously posted.

Further, you have never answered my many questions concerning your church. Do Jews who do not accept Christ attend and hold membership in your church? Does your church observe Passover?
If not, why not? Hatred?

I think that an answer to these questions is long past due.

I can imagine an equivalent discussion with an athesist who insists that Christians believe in three gods (Father, Son & Holy Spirit)and no amount of explanation is going to change his mind; too busy being stuck on "three persons".

BTW, perhaps it would be helpful to provide the entire final work of the Council. You seem to have posted a short portion of the whole. Context may be illuminating. What you posted did not seem like a definitively declared statement to me.

Ron

 

[jimraboin]

Come on Ron,

Define in Catholic terms exactly what hate is?

Jim

 

[LaRae]

Ron,

I wouldn't waste any further time with this.....he's playing games with you. Next you will be asked to define what "is" is.

LaRae

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
Come on Ron,

Define in Catholic terms exactly what hate is?

Jim

Jim, in all fairness, you need to answer the questions that I have already asked several times.

After we get the old stuff out of the way, we can look at your new question.

Would a Jew who did not accept Christ be allowed membership in your church?

Does your church observe Passover?

If not, why not? Hatred?

BTW what is your denomination? I do not see it listed in your profile. Why is that?

Ron

 

[jimraboin]

Not so Larae,

Every time I offer my thinking based upon the facts at hand, Ron tells me I am ignorant of Catholic definitions. It seems logical to have him then supply Catholic definitions in order so we can both approach this discussion on the same playing field. Yet I sense apprehension in him to do this knowing he will be hung by his own words.

Jim

 

[jimraboin]

Ron,

Am I to conclude that you do not know Catholic definition of hatred? If so, then my reasoning is sound against Nicaea's prejudice and separation.

Jim

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
Ron,

Am I to conclude that you do not know Catholic definition of hatred? If so, then my reasoning is sound against Nicaea's prejudice and separation.

Jim

Not at all. But a discussion is a two way street. You make continual demands of me, but offer nothing in return.

It is only fair and honorable for you to show good faith by answering the very simple questions that I have asked over and over.

Ron

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
Ron,

Am I to conclude that you do not know Catholic definition of hatred? If so, then my reasoning is sound against Nicaea's prejudice and separation.

Jim

Jim, this is completely lacking in logic.

In what possible way would a lack of a definition of hatred on my part (not a given by the way) prove the soundness of your reasoning concerning Nicea's prejudice (also not a given)?

Critical thinking skills, my friend!!!!

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by LaRae:
Ron,

I wouldn't waste any further time with this.....he's playing games with you. Next you will be asked to define what "is" is.

LaRae

That's ok, LaRae. I'm going to stick with it until he answers my very simple questions.

I must admit, it doesn't appear to me that he is operating on good faith.

Ron