Roman Catholic and The Bible.

[Suzana]

God bless everyone on this Lord's day, and those for whom it is now Monday; I think it is the Lord's too.

Thank you, Homer. This Lord's day has been Monday for me for the last 18 hours.
God bless you too!

[darinhouston]

Tom, how do you see me referring in any way to "impeccability?"

From my understanding, this doctrine is (as RND suggests) normally raised in connection with Christ (and also Mary) as to whether they could sin. I did not mention anything about the Pope's ability so sin -- only to "get things wrong." That is "infallibility." Since you raised the Magisterium, I see it less likely statistically that a group of sinful men could get doctrine wrong (or even Doctrine), but I think it's still practically (and demonstrably) possible and since I don't believe in Apostolic succession, don't see how they could be considered infallible even en masse.

[darinhouston]

On a related note, isn't the Pope also considered to be infallible when he (or is that "He") makes a pronouncement "ex cathedra?" Isn't that separate from the pronouncemens of the Magisterium? Can a papal bull or encyclical or the like be wrong? Forgive my ignorance on some of these things -- it's such a convoluted system to me that, even as a lawyer, I have trouble keeping all these religious "rules" and "systems" straight. (sort of reminds one of the Pharisaic system, doesn't it?) When the RCC declares a person a heretic, who does that, exactly? When the church excommunicates an individual, how is that done? By the priest? Surely, the Magisterium doesn't consider all petitions of that sort -- therefore, could something as important as the eternal state of an individual's soul be decided by a fallible body?

This is related to Homer's question, I think.

Though I added a touch of sarcasm, please do help me understand this -- I'm indeed curious.

[Homer]

Hi Tom,

A statement you made to Darrin caught my eye:

Jesus Gave Us a Church! Not just a book for everyone to pick an choose. Can you imagine if every U.S. citizen were to read and interpret the U.S. Constitution for themselves?

I am glad you brought the constitution up as an argument. We have here a good analogy: the constitution and the supreme court to tell us what it means, and the scriptures and the Roman Pope to tell us what the scripures mean.

Men would do well to decide for themselves what is right, regardless of what either of these institutions say. Consider the supreme court, in the infamous Dred Scott decision, ruled that slaves were property and their owner's rights were protected by the Fifth Amendment. Chief Justice Taney wrote that the slaves "had no rights that any white man was bound to respect". Should a Christian decide for himself whether to give a slave any respect? I am reading a book, "Reviving the Ancient Faith", and found that a great many Christians in the south freed their slaves long before the civil war. And so the Supreme Courts decision turned out to be horribly wrong, and the decision was effectively overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments.

And history shows that Popes have been very wrong in the past, and we can be sure they will error in the future. Not just by committing sin themselves, but be wrong in their teaching. When they are, will you follow Jesus, and His word, as best you can, or will you follow the Pope?

Blessings, Homer

[christopher]

On the Pope's infallibility, I dug this up awhile back and it struck me as something to be very uncomfortable with (especially the "vicar" of Christ part).

From the Creeds (vol 1):

§33. The Vatican Decrees, Continued. The Infallibility Decree.

II. The First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (constitutio dogmatica prima de ecclesia Christi).
It was passed, with two dissenting votes, in the fourth public session, July 18, 1870. It treats, in four chapters—(1) on the institution of the Apostolic Primacy in the blessed Peter; (2) on the perpetuity of St. Peter's Primacy in the Roman Pontiff; (3) on the power and nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff; (4) on the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.
The new features are contained in the last two chapters, which teach Papal Absolutism and Papal Infallibility . The third chapter vindicates to the Roman Pontiff a superiority of ordinary episcopal (not simply an extraordinary primatial) power over all other Churches, and an immediate jurisdiction, to which all Catholics, both pastors and people, are bound to submit in matters not only of faith and morals, but even of discipline and government. [See Note #299] He is, therefore, the Bishop of Bishops, over every single Bishop, and over all Bishops put together; he is in the fullest sense the Vicar of Christ, and all Bishops are simply Vicars of the Pope. The fourth chapter teaches and defines, as a divinely revealed dogma, that the Roman Pontiff, when speaking from his chair (ex cathedra ), i.e., in his official capacity, to the Christian world on subjects relating to faith or morals, is infallible, and that such definitions are irreformable (i.e., final and irreversible) in and of themselves, and not in consequence of the consent of the Church. [See Note #300]

I'm sorry, but giving that much power and authority to any one man on earth crosses a very precarious line IMO.

[RND]

Hi Tom,

A statement you made to Darrin caught my eye:

Jesus Gave Us a Church! Not just a book for everyone to pick an choose. Can you imagine if every U.S. citizen were to read and interpret the U.S. Constitution for themselves?

I am glad you brought the constitution up as an argument. We have here a good analogy: the constitution and the supreme court to tell us what it means, and the scriptures and the Roman Pope to tell us what the scripures mean.

Men would do well to decide for themselves what is right, regardless of what either of these institutions say. Consider the supreme court, in the infamous Dred Scott decision, ruled that slaves were property and their owner's rights were protected by the Fifth Amendment. Chief Justice Taney wrote that the slaves "had no rights that any white man was bound to respect". Should a Christian decide for himself whether to give a slave any respect? I am reading a book, "Reviving the Ancient Faith", and found that a great many Christians in the south freed their slaves long before the civil war. And so the Supreme Courts decision turned out to be horribly wrong, and the decision was effectively overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments.

And history shows that Popes have been very wrong in the past, and we can be sure they will error in the future. Not just by committing sin themselves, but be wrong in their teaching. When they are, will you follow Jesus, and His word, as best you can, or will you follow the Pope?

Blessings, Homer

Homer, I'm guessing then you would be in total agreement that men should disobey the President when he signs an executive order that in some way tramples the rights of man?

[darinhouston]

Homer, I'm guessing then you would be in total agreement that men should disobey the President when he signs an executive order that in some way tramples the rights of man?

This is a very challenging question for me personally, and probably deserves its own thread. Not speaking for Homer, but I would only to the extent it conflicts with a command of Scripture or moral law otherwise established by God. Not a personal liberty of my own, but I would hope I would disobey an order that denied the humanity of a class of people and treated them as chattle. This does beg the question of whether even the American Revolution was warranted by Christian principles. Does man have the right to reject his own enslavement? I'm not so sure. We are to obey our slavemasters, not overthrow them, are we not? How about I start a thread here:...

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2624

[darinhouston]

Trying to merge posts to the Worldview topic on obeying government -- they weren't deleted -- just bear with me -- please try to respond there on that topic and keep this topic for discussion of the RC issues being discussed. To the extent that conversation is relevant, go ahead and discuss that relevance here, but that's really a separate discussion.

[SteveF]

I am glad you brought the constitution up as an argument. We have here a good analogy: the constitution and the supreme court to tell us what it means, and the scriptures and the Roman Pope to tell us what the scripures mean.

Men would do well to decide for themselves what is right, regardless of what either of these institutions say. Consider the supreme court, in the infamous Dred Scott decision, ruled that slaves were property and their owner's rights were protected by the Fifth Amendment. Chief Justice Taney wrote that the slaves "had no rights that any white man was bound to respect". Should a Christian decide for himself whether to give a slave any respect? I am reading a book, "Reviving the Ancient Faith", and found that a great many Christians in the south freed their slaves long before the civil war. And so the Supreme Courts decision turned out to be horribly wrong, and the decision was effectively overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments.

And history shows that Popes have been very wrong in the past, and we can be sure they will error in the future. Not just by committing sin themselves, but be wrong in their teaching. When they are, will you follow Jesus, and His word, as best you can, or will you follow the Pope?

Blessings, Homer

Hi Homer, I think I could also use your analogy of the Dred Scott case as an argument for RC tradition. It seems quite possible the courts felt they had been reading the constitution the way it was written/intended (i.e. all white men are created equal…interestingly; it’s my understanding that Abraham Lincoln saw it that way as well). At minimum, it certainly seems the constitution was ambiguous, hence the need for the Constitutional amendments. RC’s could possibly make the argument that ongoing tradition (amendments) could be needed to clear up any ambiguity or misunderstanding in the reading of scripture. Of course this still doesn’t address the larger question about the RC councils being wrong at times. If they are ever wrong then it seems to negate the unquestioned authority of their “amendments” in my mind.

Just trying to see the argument from both sides...

Steve

[Jill]

.