Who really founded the Catholic Church?
-
so cheam .. are you playing semantics?Originally posted by NT2:i wont say i believe in TULIP, my salvation theology is summarised by TULIP though
-
Let's test my primitive Latin knowledge.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Sola Verbum Dei - Word of God alone. The Catholic Church position on Tradition and Scripture.
Difficult for a protestant to win a sola scriptura debate....not seen any Church Father that mentioned it. Most importantly, irnoically it is not even in scripture haha.
Papal infallibility is simple. Because the office of Peter contains the KEYS which allows binding and loosing. Christ cannot allow Peter or his successors to bind or loose error in heven hence he is protected with the gift of infallibility. Generally there has been very few instances of papal infallibility...i think less than 10.
Hmm...Hebrew Scripture vs Septugaint.
Sola == alone.
Dei == God.
Verbum == Word? Hmm .. I guess it is related to verbosity.
Well, this one I have to agree .. it is difficult for a protestant to win a sola scriptura debate. Their only argument seems to be "God will take care of everything", down to choosing the correct books with the correct content. So everything is God's will. IMHO, they are ignoring the historical aspect and that the formation of canon seems to be a contingent event.
Don't understand. How come very few instances of papal infallibility?
Haha .. studying biblical manuscripts and translations are also my interest. Actually Septuagint has errors here and there, some quite serious. More importantly the Septuagint we know now is corrupted because the original Septuagint was only a translation of the Torah, not the OT. -
Yes u are most certainly correct on the meaning of Sola Verbum dei.Originally posted by Icemoon:Let's test my primitive Latin knowledge.
Sola == alone.
Dei == God.
Verbum == Word? Hmm .. I guess it is related to verbosity.
Well, this one I have to agree .. it is difficult for a protestant to win a sola scriptura debate. Their only argument seems to be "God will take care of everything", down to choosing the correct books with the correct content. So everything is God's will. IMHO, they are ignoring the historical aspect and that the formation of canon seems to be a contingent event.
Don't understand. How come very few instances of papal infallibility?
Haha .. studying biblical manuscripts and translations are also my interest. Actually Septuagint has errors here and there, some quite serious. More importantly the Septuagint we know now is corrupted because the original Septuagint was only a translation of the Torah, not the OT.
The doctrine of papal infallibility states that when the Pope teaches ex cathedra his teachings are infallible and irreformable. Very few Popes ever made use of it. Even in Scripture, Peter onli made a few doctrinal decisions and the Father spoke to Peter only once.
Majority of our doctrines falls under Infallibility of the Church. This mainly comprises of the Eucinemical Councils and the Sacred Magisteruim.
Sola Scriptura usually falls flat when dealing with the Canon of the Scripture. -
My questions:Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:The doctrine of papal infallibility states that when the Pope teaches ex cathedra his teachings are infallible and irreformable. Very few Popes ever made use of it. Even in Scripture, Peter onli made a few doctrinal decisions and the Father spoke to Peter only once.
Majority of our doctrines falls under Infallibility of the Church. This mainly comprises of the Eucinemical Councils and the Sacred Magisteruim.
Sola Scriptura usually falls flat when dealing with the Canon of the Scripture.
1. How do Popes make use of ex cathedra?
2. How did Peter make use of ex cathedra?
Sola Scriptura cannot stand up to historical scrutiny .. haha. -
1) According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:Originally posted by Icemoon:My questions:
1. How do Popes make use of ex cathedra?
2. How did Peter make use of ex cathedra?
Sola Scriptura cannot stand up to historical scrutiny .. haha.
1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authorityÂ….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)
For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that it is definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following: (1) a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or (2) an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church. For example, in Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, there are attached these words: "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
2) In Acts 15:7
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel
IN Mat 16:17, the Father reveals things to Peter. He is a Father Figure like Moses etc etc. The Father usually speaks to onli 1 person. -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
How does this indicate it is ex cathedra?
2) In Acts 15:7
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that [b]through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel[/b]
Can you quote a negative example as a comparison? -
What is the significance of this to our discussion?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:IN Mat 16:17, the Father reveals things to Peter. He is a Father Figure like Moses etc etc. The Father usually speaks to onli 1 person. -
A negative example of?Originally posted by Icemoon:How does this indicate it is ex cathedra?
Can you quote a negative example as a comparison? -
Papal infallibility tend to arise from divine revelations like in Matthew.Originally posted by Icemoon:What is the significance of this to our discussion? -
In short, an example when it is not ex-cathedra.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:A negative example of? -
Liddat the whole of Revelations is Papal infallibility liao.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Papal infallibility tend to arise from divine revelations like in Matthew.
Wait .. Peter wasn't the author hor. -
LOL. The books written by the Apostles are inspired books. I dont see the link between them and Papal Infallibility. Even Pope John Paul 2 never invoke papal infallibility.Originally posted by Icemoon:Liddat the whole of Revelations is Papal infallibility liao.
Wait .. Peter wasn't the author hor. -
The link is God revealed to John one whole book but his words are not in the same league as Peter's who also received revelation. Very unfair right?
Pope John Paul 2 didn't have to, 'cos the major doctrines were already declared infallible by previous popes I guess .. -
Icemoon is a reformed Catholic.
-
Haha onli 6 instances of Papal infallibility.Originally posted by Icemoon:The link is God revealed to John one whole book but his words are not in the same league as Peter's who also received revelation. Very unfair right?
Pope John Paul 2 didn't have to, 'cos the major doctrines were already declared infallible by previous popes I guess .. -
Anything POpe JP2 said haha. Papal infallibility is rare...i doubt i see one in my lifetime.Originally posted by Icemoon:In short, an example when it is not ex-cathedra. -
Anything POpe JP2 said haha. Papal infallibility is rare...i doubt i see one in my lifetime.Originally posted by Icemoon:In short, an example when it is not ex-cathedra. -
I was referring to the Apostle Peter, not other popes.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Anything POpe JP2 said haha. Papal infallibility is rare...i doubt i see one in my lifetime. -
I cant recall him teaching error. I do understand he was critised by Paul in Galatians but that was more in reference to his conduct rather than his teachings.Originally posted by Icemoon:I was referring to the Apostle Peter, not other popes. -
Fei hua. Any erroneous teaching wouldn't even be recorded down.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:I cant recall him teaching error. I do understand he was critised by Paul in Galatians but that was more in reference to his conduct rather than his teachings.
My point was that he would have taught the wrong things to people before he was corrected. For example, any gentile wishing to join the Church would be required to follow Jewish customs. Only after the Council did Peter change his stand. -
It was Peter in the Council who decided the issue....Originally posted by Icemoon:Fei hua. Any erroneous teaching wouldn't even be recorded down.
My point was that he would have taught the wrong things to people before he was corrected. For example, any gentile wishing to join the Church would be required to follow Jewish customs. Only after the Council did Peter change his stand. -
You are not answering the question.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:It was Peter in the Council who decided the issue....
If a CEO made a mistake, someone corrected him, and he clarified during the press release, does this remove the fact that he has once made the mistake?
-
The Apostle Paul was only giving him face because he was after all the chief apostle of Christ.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:It was Peter in the Council who decided the issue....
To Paul, they only "seems to be pillars".
Peter couldn't be trusted, which was probably why Paul was chosen to preach to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews.
And the historical fact - Peter's mission to the Jews was a colossal failure. -
To be fair, we cannot discount the significance of Peter in the Early church
2 pivotal event after Christ's ascension
1) Acts 2
The coming of the Holy Spirit during Pentacost, preaching (probably to the Jews)
2) Acts 10
The preaching at Cornelius' house, which also mark the turning point regarding salvation being also brought to the Gentiles
-
Apostles are significant. Even John was pivotal in giving us Revelations.
But apostles have their failure (except Paul .. lol) and we cannot forget Peter's colossal failure in the early church.