Controversial: strange fire ... first presentation.

[MoreCoffee]

Correct me if I'm wrong here (it's entirely possible, not being a Catholic myself I don't imagine I know as much about the RCC as you do), but my understanding was that the Pope could speak ex cathedra in which case he was deemed to be infallible in the words he spoke.

There's a difference between someone saying things that are true (which we all do from time to time) and saying things that are considered to be infallible and therefore not open to question or discussion. If I tell you there's a telephone on my desk you might accept my words as being true or you might ask for a picture to prove it. When you see the picture you can accept that my words are true and that there is, in fact, a telephone on my desk. If I were to be regarded as infallible then there could be no question of whether there really was a phone on my desk.

I know what you mean about the charismatic leaders who claim to get special revelations from God. I've read a lot of the stuff on The Elijah List - when I first read it a friend had pointed me towards it and as I struggled more and more to find anything even remotely prophetic about it I did a bit of research into it and saw how so many of the so-called prophets were associated, and to be honest the more I read of it the more comical I found it. Were it not for the fact I personally know people who put a lot of credence in it I'd just write it off as a comedy site.

It is terrifying when people will accept new doctrines based on nothing more than one man's claim that God told him, especially since there are so many Biblical warnings about such things. But coupled with the soothing siren-song that "God won't let you be deceived" or "the power of God to protect you is stronger than the power of the devil to deceive you", people fall for it.

You are right that an infallible statement from the pope or from an oecumenical council is not only true but also unquestionably true much like the statements of holy scripture are considered to be unquestionably true by many Christians. Both the statements of holy scripture and the ex cathedra statements of the pope and oecumenical councils are open to debate and interpretation and as the time between the statement's first pronouncement and the time of the interpretation increases the amount of debate it is open to increases too. This is as it should be because the passage of time causes a loss of information relevant to the right understanding of statements made in the past.

Some charismatic and pentecostal leaders make claims about personal revelations received from God and intended for communication to the congregation/denomination/world as normative revelation. Some also warn their followers that questioning what God revealed (through them) is dangerously close to engaging in the unpardonable sin - they either expressly teach or imply in their teaching that attributing the words/works of the Holy Spirit to man or the devil is an (or the) unpardonable sin. I guess some Catholics might take a similar view of ex Cathedra statements but I do not - which is not to say that I reject infallibility but only that I think that even true statements that are regarded as unquestionably true are open to examination and interpretation. It is not a sin and certainly not an unpardonable sin to question, doubt, and examine such statements and it is quite wicked (in my opinion) to threaten (because it truly is threatening) people with warnings about questioning a statement as if the mere act of questioning is unpardonable sin.

 

[Alithis]

You are right that an infallible statement from the pope or from an oecumenical council is not only true but also unquestionably true much like the statements of holy scripture are considered to be unquestionably true by many Christians. Both the statements of holy scripture and the ex cathedra statements of the pope and oecumenical councils are open to debate and interpretation and as the time between the statement's first pronouncement and the time of the interpretation increases the amount of debate it is open to increases too. This is as it should be because the passage of time causes a loss of information relevant to the right understanding of statements made in the past.

Some charismatic and pentecostal leaders make claims about personal revelations received from God and intended for communication to the congregation/denomination/world as normative revelation. Some also warn their followers that questioning what God revealed (through them) is dangerously close to engaging in the unpardonable sin - they either expressly teach or imply in their teaching that attributing the words/works of the Holy Spirit to man or the devil is an (or the) unpardonable sin. I guess some Catholics might take a similar view of ex Cathedra statements but I do not - which is not to say that I reject infallibility but only that I think that even true statements that are regarded as unquestionably true are open to examination and interpretation. It is not a sin and certainly not an unpardonable sin to question, doubt, and examine such statements and it is quite wicked (in my opinion) to threaten (because it truly is threatening) people with warnings about questioning a statement as if the mere act of questioning is unpardonable sin.

twisty turny reply .you ever so slightly twisted his words ..tut tut

. if the pope can make an infallible statement that canot be questioned (challanged0) that is not already in the scripture (thus a quote) then it makes him an infallible being to do so.. and that would be to elevate him equal to god -but thats blasphemy.
ouuh wait.. you rcc folks dont seem to mind blasphemy you seem to embrace and defend it .

 

[MoreCoffee]

twisty turny reply .you ever so slightly twisted his words ..tut tut

. if the pope can make an infallible statement that canot be questioned (challanged0) that is not already in the scripture (thus a quote) then it makes him an infallible being to do so.. and that would be to elevate him equal to god -but thats blasphemy.
ouuh wait.. you rcc folks dont seem to mind blasphemy you seem to embrace and defend it .

Your reasoning is faulty. That a man can make an infallible statement does not make that man himself incapable of error. To think that it does is an obvious error in logic.

 

[psalms 91]

Yet isnt that how many see him that follow the Catholic faith?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yet isn't that how many see him that follow the Catholic faith?

It appears to be how many who decry him as wicked or as corrupt or as a false teacher see him that way so that they can beat the straw man they've created into a pile of lifeless stubble. For those who are Catholics he is not infallible even though some statements of some popes have been so.

 

[psalms 91]

I seem to remember back when I was growing up how the Catholics viewed him and it seems to me that it was as a man who when he spoke had to be obeyed and not questioned. Maybe that has changed since I dont know

 

[MoreCoffee]

I seem to remember back when I was growing up how the Catholics viewed him and it seems to me that it was as a man who when he spoke had to be obeyed and not questioned. Maybe that has changed since I don't know

Maybe, and maybe your memory is not entirely accurate? Have you read a Catholic Catechism intended for adults?

 

[psalms 91]

Maybe, and maybe your memory is not entirely accurate? Have you read a Catholic Catechism intended for adults?

Nope, I never really wanted to be Catholic

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nope, I never really wanted to be Catholic

Okay. You can read one without converting

 

[psalms 91]

I knid of get stuck with the meaning of the word Catholic which says universal church but yet any outside the Catholic faith are not considered good christians if christian at all, thta is the hidden meaning and if you dont believe that then just go to a Catholic church and try to join in communion

 

[MoreCoffee]

I kind of get stuck with the meaning of the word Catholic which says universal church but yet any outside the Catholic faith are not considered good christians if christian at all, that is the hidden meaning and if you don't believe that then just go to a Catholic church and try to join in communion

I think you would benefit from reading a Catholic Catechism for adults.

 

[tango]

I seem to remember back when I was growing up how the Catholics viewed him and it seems to me that it was as a man who when he spoke had to be obeyed and not questioned. Maybe that has changed since I dont know

I'm not particularly interested in defending Catholicism but this seems like a rabbit trail based on all sorts of faulty logic here.

If the Pope is entitled to speak ex cathedra and be considered infallible when doing so, it doesn't mean everything else they say is considered to be infallible. It just means that those specific pronunciations are deemed to be infallible (whether such a thing is theologically correct or not is another discussion).

If a bunch of people who identify as Catholics believe that nothing the Pope ever says can be questioned, that doesn't mean that it's an actual teaching of the RCC. Taking that stance makes no more sense than claiming Christians believe in prosperity based on the people who follow the likes of Kenneth Copeland.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm not particularly interested in defending Catholicism but this seems like a rabbit trail based on all sorts of faulty logic here.

If the Pope is entitled to speak ex cathedra and be considered infallible when doing so, it doesn't mean everything else they say is considered to be infallible. It just means that those specific pronunciations are deemed to be infallible (whether such a thing is theologically correct or not is another discussion).

If a bunch of people who identify as Catholics believe that nothing the Pope ever says can be questioned, that doesn't mean that it's an actual teaching of the RCC. Taking that stance makes no more sense than claiming Christians believe in prosperity based on the people who follow the likes of Kenneth Copeland.

I know how wrong it is to assume that Presbyterians teach such and such because one's Calvinist friend who attends a Presbyterian church said this or that. The same is true for Baptist doctrine and Lutheran doctrine yet some in CH seem to think that vague impressions from childhood or the gossip passed around between friends about Catholicism is truly official Catholic Church teaching. It's amazing how double standards work.

 

[tango]

One other thing, which is a general comment because it makes threads so much easier to follow and avoids rabbit trails, is to keep to the discussion and take tangentially related objections to another thread.

In this particular thread MC, a Catholic, is discussing the "strange fire" concept. Issues we may have with Catholic teaching aren't related to the "strange fire" discussion so really belong in another thread. An argument that's little more than "but your lot have their own issues" doesn't change the theological accuracy or otherwise of the premise in the original post.

Put in other terms, if I say "Thou shalt not steal" it's a theologically fair statement. If it were demonstrated that I were an adulterer and a drunkard who beat his wife and fiddled his taxes, "Thou shalt not steal" doesn't cease to be theologically sound. And if I were to proclaim "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law" then even if I were demonstrated to be the holiest man to walk this earth in 1000 years the teaching wouldn't become any more Scriptural.