The Charism of Infallibility

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:36 PM']I'm not sure....hey, how about we talk about the primacy of Peter....I think that one has never been breached.
[right][snapback]644894[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And endless ramblings on Galileo and the authorship of scripture acording to Raymond Brown are always fascinating!

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:42 PM']RESPONSE:

No. I haven't been there before nor had the opportunity to cite the various Church documents involved.

You aren't trying to "close" the topic because it's something you don't want to face, are you?
[right][snapback]644899[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yeah, we're afraid of facing it because it's something we've never seen before, and find the prospect of the unknown terrifying!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 15 2005, 07:58 PM']You know what would be way more interesting? The  Church's view on slavery. .. 
Why don' t we discuss that?  Has it ever been brought up before?
[right][snapback]644869[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

We have already proven from Church documents that the Church supported the moral legitimacy of slavery based on its interpretation of scriptural teaching and the natural law at least until 1866.

But if you like I can cite the documents again.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:36 PM']I'm not sure....hey, how about we talk about the primacy of Peter....I think that one has never been breached.
[right][snapback]644894[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes, and I think from the Acts of the Apostles and the writings of Paul we demonstrated that the original followers of Jesus remained a sect within orthodox Judaism ,and that their leader was James the Brother of Jesus. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Pauline Christianity became dominant obviously led by Paul.

Peter wasn't the leader of either.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:42 PM']And endless ramblings on Galileo and the authorship of scripture acording to Raymond Brown are always fascinating! 
[right][snapback]644900[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes, aren't they. A bit different than what Catholic apologists try to tell you isn't it?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:44 PM']Yeah, we're afraid of facing it because it's something we've never seen before, and find the prospect of the unknown terrifying!
[right][snapback]644902[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

In the case of some traditional and conservative Catholics, it certainly is!

[Cam42]

a 1 and a 2 and a 3 and 4 and a spam-a-lama-ding-dong.

Only 4 spams to his own thread. Sheesh......

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:49 PM']RESPONSE:

Yes, and I think from the Acts of the Apostles and the writings of Paul we demonstrated that the original followers of Jesus remained a sect within orthodox Judaism ,and that their leader was James the Brother of Jesus. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Pauline Christianity became dominant obviously led by Paul.

Peter wasn't the leader of either.
[right][snapback]644911[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You've demonstrated nothing of the sort. Your bogus claims are thoroughly refuted in [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp"]this article[/url]

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:42 PM']And endless ramblings on Galileo and the authorship of scripture acording to Raymond Brown are always fascinating! 
[right][snapback]644900[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Wait Socrates.... Are you saying there was something that happened between the Church and Galileo?

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:53 PM']RESPONSE:

In the case of some traditional and conservative Catholics, it certainly is!
[right][snapback]644914[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Evidently, you miss the irony in my statement. Oh well, enough feeding the troll. . . :sleep:

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:51 PM']RESPONSE:

Yes, aren't they. A bit different than what Catholic apologists try to tell you isn't it?
[right][snapback]644913[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yeah, unlike Littleles and Raymond Brown, the Catholic Apologists make sense!

Edited July 16, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 15 2005, 09:16 PM']Yeah, unlike Littleles and Raymond Brown, the Catholic Apologists make sense! 
[right][snapback]644939[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Really? Lets take that most famous apologist, Thomas Aquinas, and see what he claimed about papal teaching authority.

This is from his Summa Theologica, 2/2, question 1:
“Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5].”

But the problem here is that Thomas cited as his reference Decretals (Dist xvii, Can. 5]. This is contained in the spurious False Decretals, a collection of writings from the ninth century developed and used to support papal claims to authority. They also formed the basis for canon law.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
"False Decretals is a name given to certain apocryphal papal letters contained in a collection of canon laws composed about the middle of the ninth century by an author who uses the pseudonym of Isidore Mercator, in the opening preface to the collection.

"Nowadays every one agrees that these so-called papal letters are forgeries.

"A list of sixty apocryphal letters or decrees attributed to the popes from St. Clement (88-97) to Melchiades (311-314) inclusive. Of these sixty letters fifty-eight are forgeries."

So we have to write off this apologist's claim!

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 16 2005, 08:00 AM']"Nowadays every one agrees that these so-called papal letters are forgeries.

"A list of sixty apocryphal letters or decrees attributed to the popes from St. Clement (88-97) to Melchiades (311-314) inclusive. Of these sixty letters fifty-eight are forgeries."

So we have to write off this apologist's claim!
[right][snapback]645269[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And just where did that quote come from? More quoting without sourcing. Typical......no credence.

And incidentally,
[quote]This is from his Summa Theologica, 2/2, question 1:
“Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5].”

But the problem here is that Thomas cited as his reference Decretals (Dist xvii, Can. 5]. This is contained in the spurious False Decretals, a collection of writings from the ninth century developed and used to support papal claims to authority. They also formed the basis for canon law.[/quote]

That is not from question two article one of the Prima Pars; Secunda Pars. [url="http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FS/FS002.html#FSQ2OUTP1"]This[/url] is:
[quote name='Summa Theologica II:II:I']Whether man's happiness consists in wealth?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in wealth. For since happiness is man's last end, it must consist in that which has the greatest hold on man's affections. Now this is wealth: for it is written (Eccles. 10:19): "All things obey money." Therefore man's happiness consists in wealth.

Objection 2: Further, according to Boethius (De Consol. iii), happiness is "a state of life made perfect by the aggregate of all good things." Now money seems to be the means of possessing all things: for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 5), money was invented, that it might be a sort of guarantee for the acquisition of whatever man desires. Therefore happiness consists in wealth.

Objection 3: Further, since the desire for the sovereign good never fails, it seems to be infinite. But this is the case with riches more than anything else; since "a covetous man shall not be satisfied with riches" (Eccles. 5:9). Therefore happiness consists in wealth.

On the contrary, Man's good consists in retaining happiness rather than in spreading it. But as Boethius says (De Consol. ii), "wealth shines in giving rather than in hoarding: for the miser is hateful, whereas the generous man is applauded." Therefore man's happiness does not consist in wealth.

I answer that, It is impossible for man's happiness to consist in wealth. For wealth is twofold, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 3), viz. natural and artificial. Natural wealth is that which serves man as a remedy for his natural wants: such as food, drink, clothing, cars, dwellings, and such like, while artificial wealth is that which is not a direct help to nature, as money, but is invented by the art of man, for the convenience of exchange, and as a measure of things salable.

Now it is evident that man's happiness cannot consist in natural wealth. For wealth of this kind is sought for the sake of something else, viz. as a support of human nature: consequently it cannot be man's last end, rather is it ordained to man as to its end. Wherefore in the order of nature, all such things are below man, and made for him, according to Ps. 8:8: "Thou hast subjected all things under his feet."

And as to artificial wealth, it is not sought save for the sake of natural wealth; since man would not seek it except because, by its means, he procures for himself the necessaries of life. Consequently much less can it be considered in the light of the last end. Therefore it is impossible for happiness, which is the last end of man, to consist in wealth.

Reply to Objection 1: All material things obey money, so far as the multitude of geniuses is concerned, who know no other than material goods, which can be obtained for money. But we should take our estimation of human goods not from the foolish but from the wise: just as it is for a person whose sense of taste is in good order, to judge whether a thing is palatable.

Reply to Objection 2: All things salable can be had for money: not so spiritual things, which cannot be sold. Hence it is written (Prov. 17:16): "What doth it avail a fool to have riches, seeing he cannot buy wisdom."

Reply to Objection 3: The desire for natural riches is not infinite: because they suffice for nature in a certain measure. But the desire for artificial wealth is infinite, for it is the servant of disordered concupiscence, which is not curbed, as the Philosopher makes clear (Polit. i, 3). Yet this desire for wealth is infinite otherwise than the desire for the sovereign good. For the more perfectly the sovereign good is possessed, the more it is loved, and other things despised: because the more we possess it, the more we know it. Hence it is written (Ecclus. 24:29): "They that eat me shall yet hunger." Whereas in the desire for wealth and for whatsoever temporal goods, the contrary is the case: for when we already possess them, we despise them, and seek others: which is the sense of Our Lord's words (Jn. 4:13): "Whosoever drinketh of this water," by which temporal goods are signified, "shall thirst again." The reason of this is that we realize more their insufficiency when we possess them: and this very fact shows that they are imperfect, and the sovereign good does not consist therein.[/quote]

Where do you come up with this stuff? I honestly think that you don't think that we will check your sources.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 08:47 AM']And just where did that quote come from?  More quoting without sourcing.  Typical......no credence.

And incidentally,
That is not from question two article one of the Prima Pars; Secunda Pars.

Where do you come up with this stuff?  I honestly think that you don't think that we will check your sources.
[right][snapback]645308[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

When you check my "sources," please begin to do so correctly. Note that my reference is to 2/2, that is the second section of the second part, not the second section of the first part as you quoted.

And perhaps I did presume too much in thinking that you were aware of Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

Once again: "I answer that, As stated above (Objection 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5.].

[Paladin D]

Delete.

Edited July 16, 2005 by Paladin D