GraceSaves
New Member
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.
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.
