Why I left the RCC

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
But this negates the argument. The argument is not whether one or more Catholics persecuted the Jewish people. It's whether the article written was fully erronous. You just admitted it's not necessarily erronous without taking in mind the persecutions. However, people's actions are not church doctrine, and it is only church doctrine that is protected from corruption; humans will always thorughout time sin, and this is separate.

After reading the whole paragraph from the other thread again, it does seem that the attitude towards the Jews is one of contempt. The problem seems to be that the Jews had one formula for deciding when the passover was and the council had another. These statements in particular suggest an attitude of hatred towards the Jews in the eyes of the council:

"And in the first place, it seemed very unworthy of this most sacred feast, that we should keep it following the custom of the Jews; a people who having imbrued their hands in a most heinous outrage, have thus polluted their souls, and are deservedly blind."

"For on what subject will they be competent to form a correct judgment, who after that murder of their Lord, having been bereft of their senses, are led not by any rational motive, but by an ungovernable impulse, wherever their innate fury may drive them?"

"Surely we should never suffer Easter to be kept twice in one and the same year! But even if these considerations were not laid before you, it became your prudence at all times to take heed, both by diligence and prayer, that the purity of your soul should in nothing have communion, or seem to do so with the customs of men so utterly depraved. Moreover this should also be considered, that in a matter so important and of such religious significance, the slightest disagreement is most irreverent."

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
After reading the whole paragraph from the other thread again, it does seem that the attitude towards the Jews is one of contempt. The problem seems to be that the Jews had one formula for deciding when the passover was and the council had another. These statements in particular suggest an attitude of hatred towards the Jews in the eyes of the council:

"...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."

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

It is usually better to actually understand that which you are attacking.

"Infallibility" as defined by the Church makes your arguement moot.

The only infallibility which the Church is claiming is as it defines it for itself.

In other words, try to look beyond the word "infallible" and understand what is meant by it.

That is the real purpose of words, is it not? To express a meaning?

Ron