Originally posted by Catholicity
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines
Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Vatican 2's Infallibility-Where's the Beef?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostHow so?Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Originally posted by TimelessTheistProof? 'Cause I just gave you a quote from the document saying it wasn't.
Seriously? You're using novusodowatch.com as a reliable source?Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Pope St. John's opening statement is not an official council document (although it provides useful context), and anyone who argues that Vatican II followed anyone's blueprint (aside, perhaps, from the Holy Spirit's) is historically ignorant. The tone and approach of the council ended up changing radically over the course of the different sessions. To say that John did not intend it to make any dogmatic pronouncements does not necessarily mean that it would not.
"The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements..`` -Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II
You could dismiss the source out of hand without any explanation, or you could deal with the argument on it merits. Your choice.
There are two kinds of councils within the Church of Rome, synodal and ecumenical. The term "pastoral" is applied to those councils that address issues of pastoral concern as opposed to issues of teaching, that is, a dogmatic council. While it's true that a predominately pastoral council does not exclude the inclusion of dogmatic pronunciations in it, as you already said, there are only two Dogmatic Constitutions, and both of them only re-define already existing dogma, not create new dogma. So, anything other than those two Dogmatic Constitutions does not, and indeed, cannot invoke infallibility.Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Proof? No your quote did not support your assertion it is too short and out of context. Vatican II is both pastoral and dogmatic. Actually regardless it has the same role as obligating the faithful to follow it regardless.Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostWhich, if true, would matter exactly why?Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostAnd do you see a council on the horizon that will repudiate particular ideas promulgated by Vatican II?Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostWell, considering that it teaches against tradition and, at some points, teaches outright heresy, yes, eventually, though, it'll probably take a little while for the Church to shake off the philosophy of modernism that's so entrenched in members of the Church and, indeed, the majority of the world, at this time.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostShow me.
Here's a seven-parter.Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostDon't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostThe linked article is flimsy at best. As you put it in the thread title, where's the beef?Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostI agree, where 'is' the beef? As in, how is the article flimsy? Though, keep in mind that the first part is just a primer. They go into the more serious errors, such as ecumenicism and the requirement of religious liberty, in the later partsDon't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostIt is sublimely silly to subject an opening address to such pedantic analysis. It is entirely possible to reconcile what JXXIII said with what the authors would like for him to have said. It crosses the line between rigor and pedantry, then starts off on a 100-meter dash, always assuming the worst about Pope John's intentions.Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment