The "ex-cathedra" Quandry

[Bruce S]

So, provide a definitive LIST of what Catholic Church doctrine is correct BEFORE 1870 and what isn't?

Since official Ex-Cathedra doesn't exist before that date, and many Popes were "in error" are we to only accept statements made after that date as officially doctrine?

[cmotherofpirl]

nope.

you provide it.

We don't have popes teaching error.

[Circle_Master]

We don't have popes teaching error.

none? ever?

[Bruce S]

None?

1: Liberius? 2. Boniface VIII? 3. Sixtus V? 4. Zosimus? 5. Honorius?

Were they ALL not overridden by later doctrines?

I'm NOT talking here about the Popes that were merely corrupt, or a toddler, or even licensious, but Popes engaged in heresies?

[beng]

None?

1: Liberius? 2. Boniface VIII? 3. Sixtus V? 4. Zosimus? 5. Honorius?

Were they ALL not overridden by later doctrines?

I'm NOT talking here about the Popes that were merely corrupt, or a toddler, or even licensious, but Popes engaged in heresies?

Bruce S

No Pope EVER bind the Catholic Church with heresy!

They may embrace Heresy or might be even practice it (non-proven). BUT NEVER BIND THE CHURCH WITH THEIR HERESY.

Just for the heck of it I'll give you something on top of my head.

Honorious

Controversy upon his heresy. Some say he did embrace heresy, some say he didn't. Neverthless Christ' promise safeguarded the church and he never bind the church with any heresy.

Zosimus

Please. When did Zosimus ever teach or embrace heresy? If you're talking about Pelagius and Caesallius (Spelling) then you're talking out of your behind. This two heresiarch managed to deceive Zosimus. Zosimus welcomed them back to the church, after Innocent (forget the number) excomunicate them.

No more lies. Or be dealth with.

Edited December 29, 2003 by beng

[beng]

So, provide a definitive LIST of what Catholic Church doctrine is correct BEFORE 1870 and what isn't?

Since official Ex-Cathedra doesn't exist before that date, and many Popes were "in error" are we to only accept statements made after that date as officially doctrine?

Bible Canon

Marialogy

Two nature of Christ... which lead to

Nicean Creed

etc etc

Does assembly of God ever have a doctrine?

[Circle_Master]

Do you believe that what your church has accepted cannot be heresies based on your belief Christ is leading the Catholic Church? It seems most Catholics fall back on that, even for defending if the Catholic Church has been led by Peter's successor.

[Mateo el Feo]

So, provide a definitive LIST of what Catholic Church doctrine is correct BEFORE 1870 and what isn't?

Since official Ex-Cathedra doesn't exist before that date, and many Popes were "in error" are we to only accept statements made after that date as officially doctrine?

Hi Bruce,

Though "its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council," The term "ex cathedra" long pre-dates 1870. More importantly, the ability of the Catholic Church to articulate infallible doctrines (which really is the heart of "ex cathedra") goes back as far as the Church.

I don't know if there is a composite list of Catholic doctrines. You might want to read the Catechism if you're interested in learning about Catholic teachings. You also might want to read the documents of the Church Councils through the ages.

A few Catholic doctrines:

• The Trinity (3 persons, 1 God)
  
• The New and Old Testament Canons (with Deuterocanonical books)
  
• The Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist
  

Some doctrinal statements take a long time to get articulated for the simple fact that there is no significant effort to contest them.

Are you interested in infallibility in general, or just this term "ex cathedra?"

Also, I'd be interested in your definitive list of "many popes" in error. You can start with St. Peter. I can find a few places in the Gospels where he was in error. This man whom Our Lord called "Satan" actually got his writings into the New Testament...thanks to one of the Catholic Church's councils...the scandal!

Lastly, in charity, I ask you to refer to the Catholic Church as the "Catholic Church." We are not the "Catholic Church."

AMDG,

Mateo

[Circle_Master]

I'm sorry, I cannot write Catholic Church as that may confuse others in my responses. The Catholic Church is much clearer, and it emphasizes the position I argue from.

[Mateo el Feo]

None?

1: Liberius? 2. Boniface VIII? 3. Sixtus V? 4. Zosimus? 5. Honorius?

Were they ALL not overridden by later doctrines?

I'm NOT talking here about the Popes that were merely corrupt, or a toddler, or even licensious, but Popes engaged in heresies?

Bruce,

Just a little test. Since you could name these five popes, I wonder if you could name each of their alleged heresies...from memory. OK, just name one...

I suspect you are firing someone else's ammunition.

AMDG,

Mateo

[Bruce S]

I particularly like Vigilius. He is another of my favorite confused Popes.

Who anathemized all the Bishops and Patriarchs attending the Council of Constantinope. Of course, he was forced to recant.

It is sort of nice to know that Bishops were allowed to remain Catholic after being excommunicated, gives hope to the rest of us heretics.

There are others.

And those doctrinal reverses are interesting too.

Especially how one has to be Catholic in order to obtain salvation, yet Vatican II specifically teaches one does not.

That one can't be reconcilled, it is just one that you have to take and ignore.

:unsure:

Edited December 29, 2003 by Bruce S

[Mateo el Feo]

I'm sorry, I cannot write Catholic Church as that may confuse others in my responses. The Catholic Church is much clearer, and it emphasizes the position I argue from.

Then, may I call you a "heretic," since the term applied to you "is much clearer and it emphasizes the position I argue from?"

Your logic is faulty. I doubt anyone thinks "Catholic Church" is clear. Are you going to call us "Romish," too?

We belong to the Catholic Church, not the "Catholic Church." I asked in Christian charity. This is your opportunity to show that you are just as interested in practicing Christianity as you are in preaching it. I do hope you are.

AMDG,

Mateo

[beng]

Do you believe that what your church has accepted cannot be heresies based on your belief Christ is leading the Catholic Church? It seems most Catholics fall back on that, even for defending if the Catholic Church has been led by Peter's successor.

"Church has accepted"

What do you mean?

At times 80% of Christianity (there was no division) embraced Arianism. Is this acceptance? But Christ's promise prevail and the Church is never bound with the heresy.

What I'm saying is that the Pope NEVER bind the church with heresy.

[Mateo el Feo]

I particularly like Vigilius.

Who anathemized all the Bishops and Patriarchs attending the Council of Constantinope. Of course, he was forced to recant.

It is sort of nice to know that Bishops were allowed to remain Catholic after being excommunicated, gives hope to the rest of us heretics.

You listed five popes, now you're talking someone else?

By the way, both Martin Luther and Calvin were Catholic priests...kinda sad for us...

Back to your five popes... (insert cricket sounds)

AMDG,

Mateo

Edited December 29, 2003 by Mateo el Feo

[Bruce S]

Then, may I call you a "heretic," since the term applied to you "is much clearer and it emphasizes the position I argue from?"

If the shoe fits, you wear it.

Romish? Hmm. Never used that term.

I exclusively use the terms Catholic, or the abbreviation Catholic Church when discussing the faith.

Sorry, do you LIKE "Romish?" I don't, nor Whore of Babylon, inflammatory language isn't needed to make the differences more obvious than they are.

Let's stick to the topic and not toss names at each other.

However, my sig tag does allude to the fact that Heretics, WERE allowed to be heretics and be accepted later by the Catholic Church. There is hope yet.