Catholic persicution.

[ThomistColin]

Papal infallibility is only to those statements made ex cathedra, or from the seat. Not everything the Pope says or believes is infallible, only those statements that are edicts to and about the morality and Canon within the Magistrium, or sacred tradition. So, if the Pope in an interview or giving a sermon says something incorrect that happens. If he is called or gives a papal edict from the seat of Peter on Scripture or the Canon of the Church, then and only then is what he is speaking infallible.

St. John Paul the Great's Papal Encyclical on Human Sexuality is an example of Papal infallibility.

 

[1still_waters]

Papal infallibility is only to those statements made ex cathedra, or from the seat. Not everything the Pope says or believes is infallible, only those statements that are edicts to and about the morality and Canon within the Magistrium, or sacred tradition. So, if the Pope in an interview or giving a sermon says something incorrect that happens. If he is called or gives a papal edict from the seat of Peter on Scripture or the Canon of the Church, then and only then is what he is speaking infallible.

St. John Paul the Great's Papal Encyclical on Human Sexuality is an example of Papal infallibility.

So it's confirmed, the Pope can add new revelation to scripture?

 

[ThomistColin]

So it's confirmed, the Pope can add new revelation to scripture?

No, the Canon of Scripture is closed. However, the Canon of the Church, meaning the Canon Law, is not complete. Also, the fullness of understanding Scripture is not complete either. So, the Papal edicts given ex cathedra by the Pope are the official interpretation and stance of the Catholic Church. It's these edicts that are held to be infallible by the Holy Spirit. The Pope is not infallible, the Holy Spirit's actions through the Pope are infallible.

 

[1still_waters]

No, the Canon of Scripture is closed. However, the Canon of the Church, meaning the Canon Law, is not complete. Also, the fullness of understanding Scripture is not complete either. So, the Papal edicts given ex cathedra by the Pope are the official interpretation and stance of the Catholic Church. It's these edicts that are held to be infallible by the Holy Spirit. The Pope is not infallible, the Holy Spirit's actions through the Pope are infallible.

So an ex cathedra statement claims to have direct divine straight from the throne of God revelation supporting it?

 

[1still_waters]

No, the Canon of Scripture is closed. However, the Canon of the Church, meaning the Canon Law, is not complete. Also, the fullness of understanding Scripture is not complete either. So, the Papal edicts given ex cathedra by the Pope are the official interpretation and stance of the Catholic Church. It's these edicts that are held to be infallible by the Holy Spirit. The Pope is not infallible, the Holy Spirit's actions through the Pope are infallible.

Or maybe another clarifying question.

When a Pope speaks ex cathedra, is he basically saying...

"God directly told me this, thus what I'm saying is straight revelation from God's mouth to my ears/heart/soul/whatever aspect you believe receives revelation."

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The present meaning of "ex cathedra" was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv as:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

The answer to your question is: YES.

So an ex cathedra statement claims to have direct divine straight from the throne of God revelation supporting it?

 

[1still_waters]

The present meaning of "ex cathedra" was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv as:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

The answer to your question is: YES.

So of the two options below, I'd say ex cathedra is more like option 2. Which means the pope is putting himself in the same status of divine revelation as Moses, Jeremiah, Paul. He's doing more than saying he studied, prayed, contemplated and arrived to a conclusion on his own. He's claiming direct from the throne revelation.

Option 1.
After much study, prayer, contemplation, seeking advice, I HAVE reached this conclusion, therefore it is official teaching.

Option 2.
God directly told me, this has little to do with me simply studying the scriptures, contemplating, seeking advice, and arriving to a conclusion on my own. Therefore what I'm saying is in fact straight from the throne of God and is not in any sense whatsoever the product of my own thinking, contemplation and conclusion making.

------

To me this is very concerning. He's either in the same line as Moses, Jeremiah and Paul, but most likely in the same line as Joseph Smith and other people who claim direct revelation from God, but clearly haven't heard from God.

 

[1still_waters]

The present meaning of "ex cathedra" was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv as:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

The answer to your question is: YES.

If ex cathedra simply meant the pope was trying to address a church issue by reading scripture, researching church history, getting wise advice, praying, contemplating, then coming to a conclusion, I wouldn't view that as too dangerous. That puts him on the same level as anyone else trying to reach a conclusion through study of scripture.

It's clear ex cathedra takes it a major leap beyond that. The pope is in fact claiming to a major extent "GOD TOLD ME". That's weighty stuff.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Allow me to explain this a little more in detail. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that supreme authority can be exercised in the Church either personally by the pope, or collegially by the whole episcopate which includes the pope as its head so that there are not two separate supreme authorities that could ever come into conflict.

The pope, as head of the body, remains free to decide whether a particular decision calls for collegial action or not. The other bishops, even collectively, have no authority to oblige the pope to choose the collegial rather than the personal exercise of supreme power in any given case. The fact that they can share in acts of universal jurisdiction does not give them such a right to do so as that would conflict with the pope’s liberty to exercise his supreme authority as he judges best [Nota explicativa 3–4; Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 (1965) 74–75] as per the doctrine of papal primacy with the plenitude of authority the Vatican Council I defined the pope to have.

This is why ex cathedra (canonized in the language of the Church in the definition of papal infallibility as per Enchiridion symbolorum, 3074) symbolically expresses the supreme authority within the Church of the Roman pontiff. Extended in the form of ex cathedra Petri, it symbolizes the Roman pontiff’s title to that supreme authority and to the infallibility that accompanies it as successor of Peter head of the college of the Apostles. The RCC teaches that through succession to his chair, or supreme office in the Church, the authority and infallibility of Peter lives on in the Roman pontiff.

All of that said, the answer is yes: more like option 2.

 

[1still_waters]

Allow me to explain this a little more in detail. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that supreme authority can be exercised in the Church either personally by the pope, or collegially by the whole episcopate which includes the pope as its head so that there are not two separate supreme authorities that could ever come into conflict.

The pope, as head of the body, remains free to decide whether a particular decision calls for collegial action or not. The other bishops, even collectively, have no authority to oblige the pope to choose the collegial rather than the personal exercise of supreme power in any given case. The fact that they can share in acts of universal jurisdiction does not give them such a right to do so as that would conflict with the pope’s liberty to exercise his supreme authority as he judges best [Nota explicativa 3–4; Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 (1965) 74–75] as per the doctrine of papal primacy with the plenitude of authority the Vatican Council I defined the pope to have.

This is why ex cathedra (canonized in the language of the Church in the definition of papal infallibility as per Enchiridion symbolorum, 3074) symbolically expresses the supreme authority within the Church of the Roman pontiff. Extended in the form of ex cathedra Petri, it symbolizes the Roman pontiff’s title to that supreme authority and to the infallibility that accompanies it as successor of Peter head of the college of the Apostles. The RCC teaches that through succession to his chair, or supreme office in the Church, the authority and infallibility of Peter lives on in the Roman pontiff.

All of that said, the answer is yes: more like option 2.

Yeah they can't really wiggle out of the fact that he's claiming to hear straight from God. They can say he's simply clarifying already revealed scripture all they want.

Claiming to hear straight from God, is still claiming to hear straight from God.

Which means he's either in the camp of Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Paul, or the camp with Joseph Smith, David Koresh, and the like. He's not claiming to simply be another scholar coming to an academic conclusion.

 

[DavidLOVESsnow]

Biblical requirements for salvation. 1. repent and believe. 2. be baptized for the remission of sins. 3. remain a part of the body of Christ by continued works.

This is incorrect. You forget about Grace with this statement Malachi.

 

[ThomistColin]

Nor should he. That's why the phrase is "Tu est Petri."

 

[1still_waters]

Nor should he. That's why the phrase is "Tu est Petri."

Translate into English please. Also please give us the implications of this part of the statement.

Does this aspect mean he's not hearing straight from God?
Does this aspect put him closer to option 1 or 2?

Option 1.
After much study, prayer, contemplation, seeking advice, I HAVE reached this conclusion, therefore it is official teaching.

Option 2.
God directly told me, this has little to do with me simply studying the scriptures, contemplating, seeking advice, and arriving to a conclusion on my own. Therefore what I'm saying is in fact straight from the throne of God and is not in any sense whatsoever the product of my own thinking, contemplation and conclusion making.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Not only "God told me" but ultimately I have the authority of God to unilaterally issue bulls that have the authority and will of God behind them if I so choose to.

It's the same thinking Obama uses... lol. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

If ex cathedra simply meant the pope was trying to address a church issue by reading scripture, researching church history, getting wise advice, praying, contemplating, then coming to a conclusion, I wouldn't view that as too dangerous. That puts him on the same level as anyone else trying to reach a conclusion through study of scripture.

It's clear ex cathedra takes it a major leap beyond that. The pope is in fact claiming to a major extent "GOD TOLD ME". That's weighty stuff.

 

[1still_waters]

Not only "God told me" but ultimately I have the authority of God to unilaterally issue bulls that have the authority and will of God behind them if I so choose to.

It's the same thinking Obama uses... lol. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I'm fine if they want to grant the pope authority to rule and reign based off of his own arrived conclusions. Have at it! But as soon as you start saying things like ..GOD TOLD ME...that takes things to a whole new level.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Indeed. .

But as soon as you start saying things like ..GOD TOLD ME...that takes things to a whole new level.

 

[DavidLOVESsnow]

Why some titles in Catholicism are Blasphemous:

" Vicar of Christ (from Latin Vicarius Christi) is a term used in different ways, with different theological connotations throughout history. As the original notion a vicar is of "earthly representative of God or Christ" but also used in sense of "person acting as parish priest in place of a real parson"[SUP][1][/SUP] The title is now used in Catholicism to refer to the bishops[SUP][2][/SUP] and more specifically to the Bishop of Rome (the pope).[SUP][3]" ([SUP]Vicar of Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/SUP])

Pretty sure that speaks for itself.

About the Mary part of Catholicism "
[SUP]
[SUP]31 [/SUP]There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
[SUP]32 [/SUP]And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
[SUP]33 [/SUP]And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
[SUP]34 [/SUP]And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
[SUP]35 [/SUP]For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. ([SUP]Mark 3 :31-35 KJV - There came then his brethren and his - Bible Gateway[/SUP])

As for Communion, as you know Malachi I have not been able to bring up anything on Communion to disagree with you yet. So I won't say that Communion is necessarily bad.

About the comments on not celebrating the Sabbath on Sunday being sinful:


[SUP]16 [/SUP]Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: ([SUP]Colossians 2:16 KJV - Let no man therefore judge you in meat, - Bible Gateway[/SUP])


Just some stuff to put out there since I didn't see many Bible quoted answers.





[/SUP]

[/SUP]

 

[1still_waters]

Why some titles in Catholicism are Blasphemous:

" Vicar of Christ (from Latin Vicarius Christi) is a term used in different ways, with different theological connotations throughout history. As the original notion a vicar is of "earthly representative of God or Christ" but also used in sense of "person acting as parish priest in place of a real parson"[SUP][1][/SUP] The title is now used in Catholicism to refer to the bishops[SUP][2][/SUP] and more specifically to the Bishop of Rome (the pope).[SUP][3]" ([SUP]Vicar of Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/SUP])

Pretty sure that speaks for itself.

About the Mary part of Catholicism "
[SUP]
[SUP]31 [/SUP]There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
[SUP]32 [/SUP]And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
[SUP]33 [/SUP]And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
[SUP]34 [/SUP]And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
[SUP]35 [/SUP]For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. ([SUP]Mark 3 :31-35 KJV - There came then his brethren and his - Bible Gateway[/SUP])

As for Communion, as you know Malachi I have not been able to bring up anything on Communion to disagree with you yet. So I won't say that Communion is necessarily bad.

About the comments on not celebrating the Sabbath on Sunday being sinful:


[SUP]16 [/SUP]Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: ([SUP]Colossians 2:16 KJV - Let no man therefore judge you in meat, - Bible Gateway[/SUP])


Just some stuff to put out there since I didn't see many Bible quoted answers.





[/SUP]

[/SUP]

Catholicism loves to give lofty titles to things, only to turn around and write a 200 page encyclicals about how the lofty title really doesn't seem to mean what it seems to mean.

"Mary Queen of Heaven" becomes..

Well uh..erm...she was the mother of the king, and ya know...moms were queens in stuff. So no biggy.

Mary as co redemptrix becomes..

Well she did give birth to the redeemer, so in away she is sorta "co". But really that's it.

For crying out loud why give such a lofty title in the first place if you're just going to explain it away in a 200 page encyclical?

 

[Angela53510]

You do realize that argument doesn't prove that Peter wasn't the first Pope, it just argues that the word Pope wasn't used then.

Based on your argument, David and Solomon weren't Kings, since the word King didn't exist until the English language.

Very faulty argument, since the word "King" did exist in the Hebrew language at the time of David and Solomon!

Melech or מלך is "king" in Hebrew. That is like saying the French didn't have kings because they used the word "roi". Seriously, if that is your logic, no wonder you got sucked into the lies of the Catholic Church. At the most, Peter was an overseer or deacon, and certainly an apostle. Even the term "bishop" did not come to be used till the 2nd or 3rd century, and all the bishops of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Rome were equal in status in the developing hierarchy.

The Bible does not use the word pope, nor is the concept ever touched on in it. Christ is the highest authority on earth, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. We don't need some kind of magical Christ substitute to have authority over us, when each believer has the Kings of Kings and Lord of Lords as their authority.

Jesus last words to his disciples clearly establish Christ as the only authority. Not some silly man in white sitting on a throne in the Vatican.

"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matt 28:18

 

[Angela53510]

Regarding Mary being the "Queen of Heaven" I have to wonder if any Catholics actually read the Old Testament. This is the name for a very pagan idol and goddess. Jeremiah thoroughly prophecies judgement on those who would worship the "Queen of Heaven."

"Jeremiah said to all the people and all the women, “Hear the word of the Lord, all you of Judah who are in the land of Egypt. [SUP]25 [/SUP]Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: You and your wives have declared with your mouths, and have fulfilled it with your hands, saying, ‘We will surely perform our vows that we have made, to make offerings to the queen of heaven and to pour out drink offerings to her.’ Then confirm your vows and perform your vows! [SUP]26 [/SUP]Therefore hear the word of the Lord, all you of Judah who dwell in the land of Egypt: Behold, I have sworn by my great name, says the Lord,that my name shall no more be invoked by the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, ‘As the Lord God lives.’ [SUP]27 [/SUP]Behold, I am watching over them for disaster and not for good. All the men of Judah who are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by famine, until there is an end of them. [SUP]28 [/SUP]And those who escape the sword shall return from the land of Egypt to the land of Judah, few in number; and all the remnant of Judah, who came to the land of Egypt to live, shall know whose word will stand, mine or theirs. [SUP]29 [/SUP]This shall be the sign to you, declares the Lord, that I will punish you in this place, in order that you may know that my words will surely stand against you for harm:" Jer. 44:24-29

The Israelites trusted in the "Queen of Heaven" rather than the Lord God himself. It was during the life of Jeremiah that Judah was carried into captivity by the Babylonians, in 586, and it was because of this kind of idolatry. It makes me wonder what God will do about modern Catholics who worship this supposed "Queen of Heaven" who was only a woman chosen to bear the Messiah.