|
Post by Tim Collins on Apr 30, 2009 6:43:36 GMT -7
Non-Catholics cannot speak to what is or is not a matter of Faith for Catholics. It is an internal matter reserved for the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Just as a Catholic could not tell an Hassidc Jew what is or is not Kosher. The Pope speaks "infallibly" to his congregation of believers not to the world theoretically yes, but the Pope speaks as the authority from Rome, he speaks for Christianity too snil. He doesn't speak just for the Church and for Catholics, he speaks for and to all Christians if he didn't do so as the Pope, there would be little reason for the Christian world to pay any attention to Catholics at all Possibly, but not all Christians recognize the authority of the Pope. They may respect his office, but not necessarily his pronouncements. Witness just for one The Church of England (Arch-Bishop of Canterbury), or even the Eatern Rite with its Patriarch, or Mormons, or...
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Apr 30, 2009 6:44:04 GMT -7
I guess I could put it a different way: the Pope's interpretation of scripture as infallible he is a human being; infallibility, "without error" implies a perfect distinction than that which could be understood by members of a different Christian denomination non-Catholics are subject to error because they don't speak from Peter's chair? I can answer that, sort of. As a non-denominational church hopper I can say that we are no doubt subject to error in interpretation of Scripture. I have been in services (and Mass) that I haven't agreed with what the pastor/priest has said. For me the best answer is to read and decide for myself even as I recognize my own limitations as a prideful, sinful human. Just an observation; it seems to me that anything spoken from the Chair of Peter could never be changed or reinterpreted if it's deemed to be infallable at the time it is spoken.
|
|
|
Post by badlygiven on Apr 30, 2009 6:48:01 GMT -7
no...it means that for the world's Catholics he speaks without error, based on BOTH Scripture and Tradition. Now, what does Tradition mean? It encompasses the whole history of the Church, successes as well as glaring mistakes. Tradition are the "glasses" through which we view Scripture...but both go into a pronouncement from "the Chair"...Those pronouncements are few and far between...
CORRECTION...CORRECTION...the deacon, in his drunken state, (hey, all the Precious Blood of Jesus has to be consumed!), has uttered a boo-boo...there is no EN Cahtedra, there is only Ex Cathedra...which means literally..."from the chair"...when a Pope does this, he will say "Ex Cathedra", leaving no doubt
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Apr 30, 2009 6:56:00 GMT -7
I guess I could put it a different way: the Pope's interpretation of scripture as infallible he is a human being; infallibility, "without error" implies a perfect distinction than that which could be understood by members of a different Christian denomination non-Catholics are subject to error because they don't speak from Peter's chair? I can answer that, sort of. As a non-denominational church hopper I can say that we are no doubt subject to error in interpretation of Scripture. I have been in services (and Mass) that I haven't agreed with what the pastor/priest has said. For me the best answer is to read and decide for myself even as I recognize my own limitations as a prideful, sinful human. Just an observation; it seems to me that anything spoken from the Chair of Peter could never be changed or reinterpreted if it's deemed to be infallable at the time it is spoken. And that is why such pronouncements are rare to my knowledge - Badly bail me out here
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Apr 30, 2009 7:07:53 GMT -7
no...it means that for the world's Catholics he speaks without error, based on BOTH Scripture and Tradition. Now, what does Tradition mean? It encompasses the whole history of the Church, successes as well as glaring mistakes. Tradition are the "glasses" through which we view Scripture...but both go into a pronouncement from "the Chair"...Those pronouncements are few and far between... CORRECTION...CORRECTION...the deacon, in his drunken state, (hey, all the Precious Blood of Jesus has to be consumed!), has uttered a boo-boo...there is no EN Cahtedra, there is only Ex Cathedra...which means literally..."from the chair"...when a Pope does this, he will say "Ex Cathedra", leaving no doubt So the Pope has no relevence outside Catholicism? If he's interpretting scripture infallibly so, shouldn't all Bible believing Christians recognize the infallability of his interpretation?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Apr 30, 2009 7:21:59 GMT -7
no...it means that for the world's Catholics he speaks without error, based on BOTH Scripture and Tradition. Now, what does Tradition mean? It encompasses the whole history of the Church, successes as well as glaring mistakes. Tradition are the "glasses" through which we view Scripture...but both go into a pronouncement from "the Chair"...Those pronouncements are few and far between... CORRECTION...CORRECTION...the deacon, in his drunken state, (hey, all the Precious Blood of Jesus has to be consumed!), has uttered a boo-boo...there is no EN Cahtedra, there is only Ex Cathedra...which means literally..."from the chair"...when a Pope does this, he will say "Ex Cathedra", leaving no doubt So the Pope has no relevence outside Catholicism? If he's interpretting scripture infallibly so, shouldn't all Bible believing Christians recognize the infallability of his interpretation? Not an issue of irrelevance outside Catholicism - again it is an issue of faith within a defined group. To Catholics the Pope is the leader of the faith, to Christians (non-Catholic types) he is the leader of the largest Christian denomination, but not necessarily their leader. What you suggest would be the equivelent in the secular world of another nation following the rulings of the US Supreme Court in matters of their own law.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Apr 30, 2009 7:53:13 GMT -7
I disagree Snil. The laws of different nations are, well, different, but, presumably at least, the Bible is the same for both Catholics and non-Catholics. Snil, I agree with how you say non-Catholic Christians see the Pope (although I'm a little puzzled at why you thought I wouldn't know that). Non-Catholics are a hugely diverse group and as such, do not even have a Pope equivelent nor do they (we) recognize any kind of central leadership (that's not to say that individual churches do not have there own hierarchy). "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (can't remember chapter and verse for that, I think it's in Romans).
|
|
|
Post by badlygiven on Apr 30, 2009 8:04:47 GMT -7
I can answer that, sort of. As a non-denominational church hopper I can say that we are no doubt subject to error in interpretation of Scripture. I have been in services (and Mass) that I haven't agreed with what the pastor/priest has said. For me the best answer is to read and decide for myself even as I recognize my own limitations as a prideful, sinful human. Just an observation; it seems to me that anything spoken from the Chair of Peter could never be changed or reinterpreted if it's deemed to be infallable at the time it is spoken. And that is why such pronouncements are rare to my knowledge - Badly bail me out here They are rare...Most of what he speaks about are the thoughts of a theologian, who happens to be the Pope. Ex Cathedra statements are very rare, and therefore of importance...now, sometimes, those very statements have no "direct evidence" in Scripture, but are not "contrary to" Scripture... The assumption of Mary into Heaven...Scripture does not speak to it, but Scripture doesn't tell us anything about what happens to Mary. So the statements about her were blostered by: a) Bobily assumption had happened before (Elijah); b) In Scripture, Mary holds a special place "Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with Thee", and the words told to her by her cousin Elizabeth "Blessed art thou among women, and Blessed is the fruit of the womb Jesus" c) with both a and b in mind, and with the thought that one holds their mother in high esteem, Pope Pius XII declared the following: By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory[13] Since the declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I in 1870, this declaration by Pius XII has been the only ex cathedra use of Papal Infallibility. While Pope Pius XII deliberately left open the question of whether Mary died before her Assumption, the more common teaching of the early Fathers is that she did.[14][15]
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Apr 30, 2009 20:32:33 GMT -7
Badly, thank you for the explanations. I think you've answered all the questions I have (for now). If, at any time, you have felt that I was anything other than respectful, I apologize. Sometimes I lose sight of the forest for the trees (but then you probably know that about me by now ). You are an excellent representative of your faith and I have nothing but respect. 1 Corinthians 13: 1-13 bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1+Corinthians+13&version1=49
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Aug 7, 2009 6:35:23 GMT -7
Lately I've had occasion to think about the things I say and the way I say them. Turning to the Bible, I find this;
Matthew 12:33-37 (NIV) 33"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. 35The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."
Not really very comforting but definitely something to think a about. I want to be very clear here, I'm not directing that Bible quote at anyone but me.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Aug 7, 2009 6:59:36 GMT -7
Amen Webby!
Boy if we only thought before we "spoke", real reflective thought when dealing with serious issues.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Aug 7, 2009 20:59:32 GMT -7
Sometimes it can be hard for me to really take Biblical principles to heart until failure to do so ends up actually costing me something.
|
|
|
Post by badlygiven on Aug 10, 2009 12:45:54 GMT -7
I don't think there is anyone who has a clear sense of what God is about, or how we should go about interpreting His word, save for His Son. Some have a rough idea, and they try to follow Him as best as they can. Others think they know everything because they've "read the book", yet want others to follow God's word as they do, and if they don't they are "sinners", and worthy of shunning and casting out. The folks who do this usually feel exempt from the rules since they are "annointed" or "blessed". (This is a Catholic and Protestant problem). Most of their idea of perfection is firmly rooted in waht society considers perfection. The thing is, Scripture calls us to personally convert...it allows us to participate in the political process, but it frowns upon being used by the political process.
If we were to look at the life of Christ outside of our religious perspective, we would see that we were following a radical, who is also convicted of a crime, and was executed for that crime. If we applied our template of perfection to Jesus, He wouldn't qualify. He would fall short of the ideal, because of His past, His inablity to conform, and His criminal record.
Yet, we are called to charity and compassion, tenderness and mercy. It is through those eyes that we look at and understand Christ. The problem is, we put them away for each other. We say we love our brother, yet have no problem shunning him or her if they don't live up to our "standard of perfection"...
Lord, let us remember to have hearts of love, and not hearts of stone...teach us to see our brothers and sisters in Christ as worthy of the love we give you. Help us to be forgiving, give us hearts of understanding and justice. In your name we pray...
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Aug 10, 2009 22:46:36 GMT -7
You speak of interpreting the Bible, Badly. Would you agree with me that to interpret it, one must first read it?
|
|
|
Post by badlygiven on Aug 11, 2009 4:46:17 GMT -7
Oh, I agree my freind...
|
|