Some thoughts on Authority

[MoreCoffee]

This is an interesting and thought provoking Catholic perspective on authority

 

[Josiah]

The RCC foundationally REJECTS any and all Authority. And it does so the same way all dictators do: by declaring self the Authority, the Infallible one, the Lord over all, the Judge, the Jury, the Mouth of God. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RC
Denomination # 87; see also "The Authority of the Chruch" by LDS Apostle/Prophet Bruce McConkie.

It could be argued, perhaps, that President Obama is the most powerful, most authorative man on the planet. But this has NOTHING to do with him being unaccountable, NOTHING with having unmitigated God power, NOTHING with being infallible, NOTHING with when HE alone speaks ergo God Himself in Heaven Above must submit and agree. AUTHORITY embraces accountability to something OUTSIDE and ABOVE and OTHER than self. What the RCC does is a pure dictatorship - a full renounciation of authority.

Protestants look to an Authority outside self: the objective, unchangable, knowable words of Scripture. The RCC looks in the mirror at itself and declares: I'M the Authority! I'M the Lord! I'M the Voice of God! I'M the Teacher. I'M the Interpreter. I'M the arbiter. I'M unaccountable. And the constant, perpetual din of the RCC is singular, powerful and LOUD: "Docilicly submit to ME as unto God Himself." Friend, that has nothing to do with authority, it's the purest most radical form of dictatorship: the obstruction, prohibiting of authority.




.

 

[Alithis]

i liked your post Josiah .. but .. way to poke the proverbial nest lol

 

[psalms 91]

Spot on

 

[MoreCoffee]

Spot on

Which is spot on? The teaching of a Catholic bishop (He is a bishop now, but was very likely not yet ordained as a bishop when he made the video clip)? Or is some comment made by somebody who is not a Catholic about their view of what Catholics "really believe" the "spot on" thing?

 

[psalms 91]

Josiah is spot on in that infallible has been proven wrong on numerous occasions when the vatican recanted or reversed itself. If the pope is infallible this should not happen

 

[MoreCoffee]

Josiah is spot on in that infallible has been proven wrong on numerous occasions when the vatican recanted or reversed itself. If the pope is infallible this should not happen

Name an occasion and an allegedly infallible dogma/doctrine.

 

[psalms 91]

divorce would be a good place to start

 

[MoreCoffee]

divorce would be a good place to start

Divorce is not a dogma or doctrine, but if you mean what does the Catholic Church teach about divorce the answer is the Catholic Church teaches what the Lord Jesus Christ teaches; namely,

Mark 10:2-12 KJV (2) And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. (3) And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? (4) And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. (5) And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; (8) And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. (9) What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (10) And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. (11) And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. (12) And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.​

It's useful to notice that it is remarriage after a 'divorce' that is called adultery the divorce itself is more a matter for sadness than condemnation as a sin in and of itself.

 

[Alithis]

Divorce is not a dogma or doctrine, but if you mean what does the Catholic Church teach about divorce the answer is the Catholic Church teaches what the Lord Jesus Christ teaches; namely,

Mark 10:2-12 KJV (2) And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. (3) And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? (4) And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. (5) And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; (8) And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. (9) What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (10) And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. (11) And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. (12) And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.​

It's useful to notice that it is remarriage after a 'divorce' that is called adultery the divorce itself is more a matter for sadness than condemnation as a sin in and of itself.

you see the very fact that you set out to immediately defend the claimed (and impossible ) Infallibility of a man born of Adam, puts the argument in direct opposition to the direct unambiguous Holy Scriptures . no such claim can be supported DIRECTLY and SOLELY from the scriptures about any one other then the Lord Jesus himself . ..

the apostle peter himself walked in errors and displayed his fallibility and had to be corrected by Paul.. no man born of adam is Infallible . NONE .
you really must begin to look deeper into the direct unambiguous scriptures and use the as the start and end post of things you've been taught from sources outside of the Holy Scriptures .. you just cant have it both ways .. no one can serve two masters ./

 

[Josiah]

Name an occasion and an allegedly infallible dogma/doctrine.

Read the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RC Denomination # 87. And remember, ALL the current doctrines of the individual RC Denomination are declared by it itself to be infallible - and thus unaccountable, indeed, they are from GOD HIMSELF.


The RCC simply has entirely displaced any and all Authority with itself. It has declared IT ITself the Dictator. Dictators are the antithesis of authority.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Please ease up on morecoffee. He may be Catholic, but we are all fallable and based on many of his posts he is rightly guided. Just because the higher ups and hidden ones in power are manipulative doesn't make all Catholics wrong in Faith. I know he is of the faithful. We have to help in a peaceful positive manner or else our attempts will be in vain. No disrespect meant whatsoever as I hold much respect for you based on your posts.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Protestants look to an Authority outside self: the objective, unchangable, knowable words of Scripture.

For the Protestant, scripture is only objective and unchangeable as long as it is out of the hands of those that would do with it as they please. The statement sort of makes the point of the speaker. Everyone who claims "thus saith the Lord" is speaking objectively, relying on their own sense, or on their own particular church culture. For may (and no offense to our Catholic friends), we speak out of what we hear, what we're taught, what we're trained, and so on. Some have the "umpires" they appeal to for truth, and some appeal to no authority but their own Spiritual sense. Perhaps the former is on more solid ground than the latter - I would even go so far as to say they are, but in the end analysis we are left with a subjective rendering of truth that will never be clear until a day that may be soon or far off. But, eventually, we will know.

 

[MoreCoffee]

you see the very fact that you set out to immediately defend the claimed (and impossible ) Infallibility of a man born of Adam, puts the argument in direct opposition to the direct unambiguous Holy Scriptures . no such claim can be supported DIRECTLY and SOLELY from the scriptures about any one other then the Lord Jesus himself . ..

the apostle peter himself walked in errors and displayed his fallibility and had to be corrected by Paul.. no man born of adam is Infallible . NONE .
you really must begin to look deeper into the direct unambiguous scriptures and use the as the start and end post of things you've been taught from sources outside of the Holy Scriptures .. you just cant have it both ways .. no one can serve two masters ./

I can't help but notice the glaring errors in logic in the above quote.

Since the Lord Jesus Christ is a man and he is the one who said what it most pertinent in my earlier post; specifically he said "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." there is no way anybody can reasonably argue that mankind is incapable of making infallibly true statements. Furthermore "infallibility" appertains to statements and not to persons - even God is infallible in what he communicates rather than infallibility being some kind of personal 'gift' or 'essential quality' with which he is endowed. Now since Adam's son is the Lord Jesus Christ (see especially Luke 3:23 & 38) I cannot help but think that the claim in the above quote which says " no man born of adam is Infallible . NONE ." is either hyperbole that was not intended to be accepted as truth or that it was made in error.

And since the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter of divorce and remarriage is demonstrably the teaching of Christ it seems entirely absurd to claim that the Catholic Church is in error on "divorce"; but even more to the point, the Catholic Church's views on divorce do not appear to be even remotely implicated in any theologian's claim to having made an infallible pronouncement of any kind. So what is the point of the poorly constructed argument against infallibility in this thread?

Besides the original post in this thread does not make any claims about divorce; surely if any of you want to argue about Catholic teaching it would be useful to actually present some specific Catholic teaching as the basis for whatever case you want to make. And for something to be Catholic teaching it needs to be something that the Catholic Church actually does teach rather than some vague or wholly imagined teaching that somebody says Catholics teach.

 

[Alithis]

I can't help but notice the glaring errors in logic in the above quote.

Since the Lord Jesus Christ is a man and he is the one who said what it most pertinent in my earlier post; specifically he said "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." there is no way anybody can reasonably argue that mankind is incapable of making infallibly true statements. Furthermore "infallibility" appertains to statements and not to persons - even God is infallible in what he communicates rather than infallibility being some kind of personal 'gift' or 'essential quality' with which he is endowed. Now since Adam's son is the Lord Jesus Christ (see especially Luke 3:23 & 38) I cannot help but think that the claim in the above quote which says " no man born of adam is Infallible . NONE ." is either hyperbole that was not intended to be accepted as truth or that it was made in error.

And since the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter of divorce and remarriage is demonstrably the teaching of Christ it seems entirely absurd to claim that the Catholic Church is in error on "divorce"; but even more to the point, the Catholic Church's views on divorce do not appear to be even remotely implicated in any theologian's claim to having made an infallible pronouncement of any kind. So what is the point of the poorly constructed argument against infallibility in this thread?

Besides the original post in this thread does not make any claims about divorce; surely if any of you want to argue about Catholic teaching it would be useful to actually present some specific Catholic teaching as the basis for whatever case you want to make. And for something to be Catholic teaching it needs to be something that the Catholic Church actually does teach rather than some vague or wholly imagined teaching that somebody says Catholics teach.

i note the way you redirected the topic of my post -which was about the fallibility of all men born of Adam (the flesh) and nothing to do with marriage & divorce,,
the lord Jesus alone ..was born forth as flesh .. but he was not born from flesh .-as it is written the child within is "of the Holy Ghost " ..{not of adman not of flesh not of sin }the lord Jesus was born forth from the spirit of God .. not the blood of Adam.

so there is no error in anything i said .. -man can repeat the infallible words of God ..
but he cannot speak infallibly of himself,that is of his own volition -for he is not God .he is man .and if he speaks ANYTHING that does not agree and remain in perfect concord with the word of God .. then he is in error and his words are false . again.. you cant have it two ways .
i stand by whjat i said

which was "-you see the very fact that you set out to immediately defend the claimed (and impossible ) Infallibility of a man born of Adam, puts the argument in direct opposition to the direct unambiguous Holy Scriptures . no such claim can be supported DIRECTLY and SOLELY from the scriptures about any one other then the Lord Jesus himself . ..

the apostle peter himself walked in errors and displayed his fallibility and had to be corrected by Paul.. no man born of Adam is Infallible . NONE .
you really must begin to look deeper into the direct unambiguous scriptures and use the as the start and end post of things you've been taught from sources outside of the Holy Scriptures .. you just cant have it both ways .. no one can serve two masters ./"

 

[MoreCoffee]

Infallibility is a grace, a gift, from God and it applies to specific utterances and specific acts but not to created persons; specifically if a man or a woman receives a revelation from God that he commands to be made public then the public utterance of the revealed truth is infallible because it is true. In fact anything that is true is also infallible even if it is not given by supernatural revelation. And the infallible decisions of the Catholic Church are not, generally speaking, given by inspiration and revealed from heaven but are in fact the result of careful research and consideration of the things revealed in holy scripture, holy tradition, and the right use of truthful reasoning as the Spirit guides the church. They are infallible because they are true and not because the person who publicly states them is personally infallible.

As bishop Barron says ...

 

[psalms 91]

Not to be argumenative but if they were infallible they would not be reversed, and please donty ask me which as I am not Catholic but I am sure that you would know and lets face it, it has happened

 

[MoreCoffee]

Not to be argumentative but if they were infallible they would not be reversed, and please don't ask me which as I am not Catholic but I am sure that you would know and lets face it, it has happened

It has not happened; no dogma, no doctrine of the faith, and no infallibly decreed decision on morals has been reversed.

 

[psalms 91]

It has not happened; no dogma, no doctrine of the faith, and no infallibly decreed decision on morals has been reversed.

If that is the case then why the softening on divorce, that was a serious one that got people kicked out of the church, and what of the popes stance on gay marriage?

 

[MoreCoffee]

If that is the case then why the softening on divorce, that was a serious one that got people kicked out of the church, and what of the popes stance on gay marriage?

Divorce was never 'hard' it was just not recognised as a godly and real dissolution of a properly formed and sanctioned sacramental marriage. People have divorced for centuries, the Church rejects divorce now as she did 2,000 years ago. The only thing softened is the attitude of pastors and tribunals to the way an annulment is to be handled - the amount of effort required to receive one has been reduced but the doctrine regarding divorce is still exactly the doctrine taught by Christ; namely:

And he arose from thence and cometh into the borders of Judaea and beyond the Jordan: and multitudes come together unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? trying him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house the disciples asked him again of this matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:1-12)​

This is and remains the teaching of Christ which is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Regarding "gay marriage" the Catholic Church does not sanctify such marriages and never has. There is no change here.