[joelsdad]

No, I pointed out that the Baltimore catechism was designed for the Church in America only to point out that it in itself is not an official teaching of the Church, and to point out that the Imprematur only states that the book is free from doctrinal error, which isn't the same as saying that everything in a book is Church teaching, or even correct for that matter excect insofar as it does not contradict doctrine.

So according to this statement of yours it is not official church teaching thAT UNBAPTIZED BABIES use to go to Limbo,but because it was in an ap[proved Cathoilic catechism it is correct doctrine and free from error--so I am right. It is either right or wrong--even if it is not "official" church teaching as you say it is still a RCC tacxhing that is free from doctrinal error. Thius sayeth you!

I can assure you that it does not. In order for something to be an official teaching of the Church,

Well if I can find it, I do have a church catechism that is the official church teaching for the RCC on the subjectsa it deals with. Why do you folks deny the teachings that were sao clearly taught. Just like before vatican 2 I remember trying to convert my little protestant friends to catholicism cause according to the official universal taching of the RCC protestants were condemned.

Also anyone holding to Scripture alone for promulgating doctrine were condemned, as well as anyone who call themselves a Christian and did not beleive in transubstantiation---condemened.

These are truths that are incontrivertable.

If the Church declared a teaching that appeared to you to contradict Scripture, would you oppose the teaching?

Your answer to this was wonderfully vague. Well anyoine who disagrees with what the church says is just wrong. Well we shall explore that but for now must go celebrate graduation at our Christian academy.

[Katholish]

So according to this statement of yours it is not official church teaching thAT UNBAPTIZED BABIES use to go to Limbo,but because it was in an ap[proved Cathoilic catechism it is correct doctrine and free from error--so I am right. It is either right or wrong--even if it is not "official" church teaching as you say it is still a RCC tacxhing that is free from doctrinal error. Thius sayeth you! - Joelsdad

No, I specifically said that an imprematur means that the contents to not contradict Catholic doctrine. I was very specific with my choice of words for a reason. If the existance of Limbo has not been settled officially, and is hence not a doctrine, then a book either claiming that it does exist or does not exist cannot be contradicting Catholic doctrine, because no Catholic doctrine has been settled on. You cannot contradict a non-existant law. The Imprematur means that the contents of the book do not contradict Catholic doctrine, and thus there is no inherent contradiction in my former post.

Well if I can find it, I do have a church catechism that is the official church teaching for the RCC on the subjectsa it deals with. Why do you folks deny the teachings that were sao clearly taught.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying that I deny the existance of a Post-Resurrection Limbo, I am just pointing out that it is not the official teaching of the Church. That the issue has not been settled. I am not denying any teaching of the Church, but am rather affirming those teachings in proper understanding.

Just like before vatican 2 I remember trying to convert my little protestant friends to catholicism cause according to the official universal taching of the RCC protestants were condemned.

Again, it is not, nor has it ever been, the teaching of the Church that all Protestants are "condemned" or rather living in a state of mortal sin. It is a mortal sin to be a formal heretic though, which some Protestants would classify as. The Church's teaching is that Protestants are made members of the Mystical Body through the sacrament of Baptism (if it is administered with proper Form, Matter, and Intent). That they are thus given sanctifying Grace and made heirs of Heaven, but however, that their state of Sanctifying Grace may be lost through mortal sin (just as it may with any Catholic). If, however, a properly baptised Protestant dies without the stain of mortal sin on their soul, they will be saved. As I mentioned though, Formal Heresy is a mortal sin, but material heresy (which might be te classification of many Protestants) is not, for it is holding heretical views, but unwittingly. If you want to go into this more, I would be happy.

Also anyone holding to Scripture alone for promulgating doctrine were condemned, as well as anyone who call themselves a Christian and did not beleive in transubstantiation---condemened.

Their heretical doctrines are condemned.

Your answer to this was wonderfully vague. Well anyoine who disagrees with what the church says is just wrong. Well we shall explore that but for now must go celebrate graduation at our Christian academy.

I would be happy to explore it further.

[Chrysostom]

(Katholish) The Church, however, is appointed and protected by God to be the final arbitor in matters of interpretation.

(Me) Thus, in the Roman Catholic theory of knowledge, Sola Ecclesia replaces Sola Scriptura. The Scripture is "an authority," but its content is completely determined by the Church. Therefore, the Roman Catholic theory of knowledge teaches the Church alone as our infallible rule of faith.

However, I fully admit that this doesn't mean that it is a false theory of knowledge. My argument intends to show only the nature of the Roman Catholic theory of knowledge.

[Katholish]

Thus, in the Roman Catholic theory of knowledge, Sola Ecclesia replaces Sola Scriptura. The Scripture is "an authority," but its content is completely determined by the Church. Therefore, the Roman Catholic theory of knowledge teaches the Church alone as our infallible rule of faith. - mustbenothing

I suppose that it sort of depends on your usage of "authority". When we refer to Sola Scriptura, we mean that Protestants hold that the Scriptures are the "only infallible source" of knowledge that we here on earth have access to. We have never meant it to mean authority, for if it did mean authority, it wouldn't make much sense in my opinion. For if their are differing interpretations of the Scriptures, wouldn't the final authority, be the coorect interpretation? In essense we would be saying that the final authority is unknown, would we not?

Now, in Catholic thinking, there are of course other sources of infallible knowledge, including the Scriptures, Divine Tradition, and Ex Cathedra teaching (which must be from the other two). As for who has the authority to correctly interpret those sources, the Church does. The Vicar of Christ must act in coordination with the Church on his teachings. He cannot invent a new one. When defining what the Church is, though, we are not merely speaking of the living body of believers, so it isn't exactly required that the pope take an opinion poll. Christ gave his vicars the authority to bind and loose though, and they are protected from abusing that authority by the Holy Spirit, the paraclete, Who was given to the Church to preserve her, the chaste bride of Christ.

What I am trying to emphasize though (I hope my point wasn't lost), was the difference between a source and an authority.

[joelsdad]

Again, it is not, nor has it ever been, the teaching of the Church that all Protestants are "condemned" or rather living in a state of mortal sin.

Katholish--you are woefully ignorant of the Roman Catholic churches teachings. You need to study its unrevised history and you will find that from the Protestant reformation until The Vatican 2 era Protestnats were excluded formthe kingdom ( I am nott referring to the orthodox or Episcopalians the RCC accepted them alot longer than they have Protestants)

No, I specifically said that an imprematur means that the contents to not contradict Catholic doctrine. I was very specific with my choice of words for a reason. If the existance of Limbo has not been settled officially, and is hence not a doctrine, then a book either claiming that it does exist or does not exist cannot be contradicting Catholic doctrine, because no Catholic doctrine has been settled on.

Boy does this sound like a line from a JW or MOrmon. The teaching is not official but it does not contradict any church teaching thus it cannot be a law. Well I befuddled ICTHUS when he found out that the line of succesion of Popes was based on a document that the Catholic church admits is fraudulent ands I will befuddle you with the falsehoods about what you say the Catholic church has taught as late as the 1960's.

Now, in Catholic thinking, there are of course other sources of infallible knowledge, including the Scriptures, Divine Tradition, and Ex Cathedra teaching (which must be from the other two). As for who has the authority to correctly interpret those sources, the Church does. The Vicar of Christ must act in coordination with the Church on his teachings. He cannot invent a new one

And when you study the exhaustive volumes of RCCcanonlaw you find many. The Pharisees also said much the same things with their centuries of teachings, and that all their teachings were gleaned from the Bible and because they also were the guardians of the light of God for their day, God also preserved them from error in their extra biblical writings. Jeus said to them--"Woe untoi Scribes, Pharisees , Hypocrites all! You make void the law of God by your traditions." Tell me How many ex-Cathedra revelations have theor been and do you know their content?

[Katholish]

Katholish--you are woefully ignorant of the Roman Catholic churches teachings. - Joelsdad

I am willing to back up anything I say with reason and sources. I do not portend to be an eminent Catholic theologian, and I fully admit that my representation of the Church may not be perfect, but that shall be through no lack of study or effort on my part. If however, at anytime you wish me to corroberate my position with that of a priest, I shall gladly do so.

You need to study its unrevised history

Most of the history that I read was published before the Second Vatican Council.

The teaching is not official but it does not contradict any church teaching thus it cannot be a law.

I am merely explaining what an imprematur is, and what it garentees, and pointing out that in the case that you cited, an imprematur does not reflect upon any content concerning the existance of a Post-Resurrection Limbo. As I stated, the imprematur is only concerned with those teachings officially declared by the Church.

Well I befuddled ICTHUS when he found out that the line of succesion of Popes was based on a document that the Catholic church admits is fraudulent ands I will befuddle you with the falsehoods about what you say the Catholic church has taught as late as the 1960's.

If you wish to cover the topic of the historical accuracy of the line of succession, I would be willing to discuss that issue as well. As for the first 6 pontiffs, their record is kept by St. Irenaeus of Lyon, a Father of the Church.

And when you study the exhaustive volumes of RCCcanonlaw you find many.

No, you will not. If you had something in mind, let me know what it is.

Tell me How many ex-Cathedra revelations have theor been and do you know their content?

"Revelations" would not be the correct term; "teachings" would be more fitting. As for the number of times that this protection has been used throughout the 2,000 year history of the papacy and ecumenical councils, I am not aware. If I am not mistaken, the exact number may not be readily available, for there are possibly instances when it is questionalbe if a declaration was ex-Cathedra. Among the infallible teachings of the Church though, are the Canon of Scripture, the nature of the Trinity, the Two Natures in the One Divine Person of Christ, the necessity of Faith for Salvation, the necessity of Grace, the Immaculate Conception, etc.

I look forward to the apparently many conversations that we will be having in the future.

[Chrysostom]

(Katholish) Now, in Catholic thinking, there are of course other sources of infallible knowledge, including the Scriptures, Divine Tradition, and Ex Cathedra teaching (which must be from the other two).

(Me) Define "Divine Tradition," as you view it.

[joelsdad]

Revelations" would not be the correct term; "teachings" would be more fitting. As for the number of times that this protection has been used throughout the 2,000 year history of the papacy and ecumenical councils, I am not aware. If I am not mistaken, the exact number may not be readily available, for there are possibly instances when it is questionalbe if a declaration was ex-Cathedra

Since the reformation (the only timew frame when records are considered solidly accurate in this matter) there have bbewn 2 -The bodily assumption of Mary to heaven. And that MAry was the only other human (other than Adam and Eve) that was conjceived without a sin nature and that she was kept pure by God. Or these are known as The Assumption of MAry and the Immaculate Conception. Both run contrary to the clear teaching of In fallible Scripture.

[Katholish]

Originally posted by mustbenothing
(Katholish) Now, in Catholic thinking, there are of course other sources of infallible knowledge, including the Scriptures, Divine Tradition, and Ex Cathedra teaching (which must be from the other two).

(Me) Define "Divine Tradition," as you view it.

Essentially, those teachings taught by Christ, but not written in the Scriptures, passed orally on by the Apostles. That is the simple answer. Of course though, that can be expounded upon. For an example, I might point to the sacraments, which, while all receiving mention in onr form or another in the Scriptures themselves, were presented by the Apostles who explained, promoted, and ministered them. To add to the simple definition though, there it would also include such things that the Holy Spirit caused to be understood in the Church from its earliest time. I should point out, that at one time Divine Tradition was the main source of Infallible knowledge, of course Peter's authority to promulgate ex-Cathedra teachings existed, but such promulgations had not taken place in any great number. Before the Spritures were written (referring to the New Testament works of course) they were not available to guild the Church in matters resulting from the New Covenant. As far as an infallible source, Divine Tradition was all the early Church had to go on concerning those matters not cover or changed from the Old Testament. Obviously my answer cannot be comprehensive, but please ask for clarification on specific points if you so wish.

there have bbewn 2 - Joelsdad

There have been more than two. The Councils of Trent and Vatican I produced many infallible declarations. There were certainly more than two, as I can name more than that myself.

Both run contrary to the clear teaching of In fallible Scripture.

I would love to take this up with you if you so wish. Neither of these doctrines contradict the Scripture in anyway, nor can I even understand how they could appear to do so to you. Particularly the Assumption, being that its occurance was well after many of the events that the New Testament covers, if not all (except Revelation of course).

[joelsdad]

Again, it is not, nor has it ever been, the teaching of the Church that all Protestants are "condemned" or rather living in a state of mortal sin. It is a mortal sin to be a formal heretic though, which some Protestants would classify as.

Well once again confounded language to hide the fact that they condmen nearly all Protestants (excepty the orthodox sects) and now we shall why.

Lateran Council of 1139---" We expel ansd condemn as heretics those who, simulating religion, reject the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, baptism of children, the priesthood and other ecclesiastical orders.

Lateran council of 1179---" We forbid under anathema anyone to have in their home or to favor, or have dealings with the Albigensians, or with their defenders.

Church canons 1391,1399,1400, forbid catholics to read vernacular(common language) translations of the bible which do not have the approval of the Holy See, and are not published under the vigilence of the bishops and are not furnished with notes from Cathiolic interpreters/

Council of Trent (1545-1563) "If anyoen should deny that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is contained truly, really, ands substantially, the body and blood together with the sould and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and therefore the whole Christ; but should say that he is there metaphorically or figuratively or by His power, let him be anathema." "No one, no matter how long he lives, ought to presume that it is certainly determined that he is amongst the number of the predestined, as if it were true, that being justified he can sin no more.If anyone should say that justifying faith is nothing other than a trust in Gods mercy remitting sins on account of Christ or that it is simply trust itself by which we are justified, let him be anathema."


Council of Florence (1438-1443) " We also define that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over all the wqoorld, and thsat the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, the true Vicar of Christ, the head ofthe whole church, the father and teacher of asll Christians." the Pope is king of the whole world in his opinion.

Council of Trernt (1545-1563) "If aqnyone should say that in the three sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation, Hol;y Ordersd there is not impressed on the soul a character, that is , a certain spiritual and indelible sign, whence cannot be repeated let him be anathema.

Council of Trent (same dates) " If anyone should say that confirmation of those already baptized is an idle ceremony, or that originally it was only a species of catechism wherin those on the threshold of adolescence made profession of their faith in the presence of the Church let him be anathema."zx

Limbo--"From the latin meaning a border or hem. It is a place adjoining or bordering hell where the just who died in the grace of God before Christianity remained until they were liberat4ed by Christ, and where the unbaptized dwell and remain forever if they have no personal sins on their souls."

Council of trent(same dates) " I f anyone shall say that by the words: Do this in rembrance of me, Christ did not make his apostles priests or did not appoint them so that they and other priests might offer his body and blood, let him be anathema.,"

According to these councils (which according to the RCC were Bishops preseerved from error) all protestants are condemend to hell forever. So though they can technically say " we have never condemend anyone specifically" It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see , especially the council of trent--that they were going after spewcific people and groups.

[Katholish]

According to these councils (which according to the RCC were Bishops preseerved from error) all protestants are condemend to hell forever. So though they can technically say " we have never condemend anyone specifically" It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see , especially the council of trent--that they were going after spewcific people and groups. - Joelsdad

No, all Protestants are not condemned to Hell forever by these councils. I defined the difference between Formal and Material Heresy for this reason. The Council documents are and were directed at those people who were members in the institutional Catholic Church. Thus any person who is or was a member of the institutional Church, and held those heresies are and were condemned, and justly so. Those, however, who are or were not ever part of the institutional Catholic Church would not be under excommunication, for the punishment of excommunication can only be used against those who are or were in the Church.

Lateran Council of 1139---" We expel ansd condemn as heretics those who, simulating religion, reject the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, baptism of children, the priesthood and other ecclesiastical orders.

Yes, by definition, they would then be Formal Heretics, guilty of mortal sin. As stated earlier, this expulsion can only be against those in the Church, for how can you expel one who is not inside?

Lateran council of 1179---" We forbid under anathema anyone to have in their home or to favor, or have dealings with the Albigensians, or with their defenders.

This is very clearly an inter-Church disciplinary action, and one that finds its origins in the Scripture:

Titus 3:
10. A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:
11. Knowing that he that is such an one is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.

2 John 1:
9 Whosoever revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.
11 For he that saith unto him: God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.

Church canons 1391,1399,1400, forbid catholics to read vernacular(common language) translations of the bible which do not have the approval of the Holy See, and are not published under the vigilence of the bishops and are not furnished with notes from Cathiolic interpreters/

Once again, and inter-Church discipline. It is similar instance as abstanence of Friday.

The next four quotes from Trent and Florence would be addressed by my response to the Second Latern quote.

Limbo--"From the latin meaning a border or hem. It is a place adjoining or bordering hell where the just who died in the grace of God before Christianity remained until they were liberat4ed by Christ, and where the unbaptized dwell and remain forever if they have no personal sins on their souls."

There was no Source listed for that quote. I would appreciate one.

The last Trent quote, is also addressed by my response to the second Latern quote.

[Chrysostom]

(Previous) Define "Divine Tradition," as you view it.

(Katholish) Essentially, those teachings taught by Christ, but not written in the Scriptures, passed orally on by the Apostles. That is the simple answer. Of course though, that can be expounded upon. For an example, I might point to the sacraments, which, while all receiving mention in onr form or another in the Scriptures themselves, were presented by the Apostles who explained, promoted, and ministered them. To add to the simple definition though, there it would also include such things that the Holy Spirit caused to be understood in the Church from its earliest time. I should point out, that at one time Divine Tradition was the main source of Infallible knowledge, of course Peter's authority to promulgate ex-Cathedra teachings existed, but such promulgations had not taken place in any great number. Before the Spritures were written (referring to the New Testament works of course) they were not available to guild the Church in matters resulting from the New Covenant. As far as an infallible source, Divine Tradition was all the early Church had to go on concerning those matters not cover or changed from the Old Testament. Obviously my answer cannot be comprehensive, but please ask for clarification on specific points if you so wish.

(Me) I was mostly looking for partim-partim, material sufficiency, etc.

Second question: when the Pope teaches Ex Cathedra, is he simply presenting/interpreting the deposit of Divine Tradition which was passed on orally by the Apostles, or has he sometimes had a new revelation? In other words, is an Ex Cathedra teaching to be understood an the imparting and interpreting of Divine Tradition (or Scripture) to the masses, or is it to be understood as a source of information on top of Tradition and Scripture?

[Katholish]

Second question: when the Pope teaches Ex Cathedra, is he simply presenting/interpreting the deposit of Divine Tradition which was passed on orally by the Apostles, or has he sometimes had a new revelation? In other words, is an Ex Cathedra teaching to be understood an the imparting and interpreting of Divine Tradition (or Scripture) to the masses, or is it to be understood as a source of information on top of Tradition and Scripture? - Mustbenothing

An Ex-Cathedra teaching must be concerning the areas of either Faith or Morals. In one sense, neither of these change, as they both have objective standards. So it can be said that what is true in the realm of Faith and Morals, in the objective sense for the Early Church, and the Church today must be the same. Thus, the an Ex-Cathedra teaching cannot directly contradict anything in the Sacred Scriptures or Divine Tradition, as all are sources of infallible knowledge, and those infallible truths do not change.

In another sense though, while these truths do not change, they are not always fully known or understood at all times, and in some instances in the area of Morality, new technology creates needs for pronouncements on certain issues, Human cloning and artificial Birth Control for examples.

Ex-Cathedra though, is generally though, a translation or re-emphasization of Divine Tradition and the Holy Scriptures. This is as I understand it.

[joelsdad]

No, all Protestants are not condemned to Hell forever by these councils. I defined the difference between Formal and Material Heresy for this reason. The Council documents are and were directed at those people who were members in the institutional Catholic Church. Thus any person who is or was a member of the institutional Church, and held those heresies are and were condemned, and justly so.

Sadly this is a lie of the first magnitude. The council of lforence delclared the pope ruler of the world and thus gave him authority (according to RCC teacxhing ) over everyone. And I have a hard time beleiving that you wish to be a catholic apologist and don't even know that the council of trent was convened to deal with the growing Protestant reformation and that the decrees of the council were aimed at those who had left the RCC and were becoming members of the protestant churches.

And by the way, if you study your Bible, and look at the greek verbs and their tenses, in all the passages listed, you will not find one passage where Jeus, or Peter or Paul ever said invoking church discipline gave the church the right to kick someone outr of their salvation. Paul said the jsut the opposite in 1 Corinth.

[Katholish]

Sadly this is a lie of the first magnitude. - Joelsdad

Joelsdad, you seem to be merely repeating your accusation that I am lying. Of course by definition of a lie, you are implying that I am purposely deceiving. Is that indeed your opinion? That I am purposely, willfully, and maliciously stating an untruth?

Regardless, of what you think of my personal character though, I hope that you can appreciate the fact that a debate would be somehow fundamentally flawed if arguements were only presented by one side. I repectfully request that if you think me in error, try to prove it.

The council of lforence delclared the pope ruler of the world and thus gave him authority (according to RCC teacxhing ) over everyone.

While I am not familiar with that council document, it is nevertheless true in a sense. As Christ's Vicar on Earth the pope has a unique position among men. Clearly though, there was no implication that that authority was temporal. I would add though, that the Council of Florence didn't give the pope any authority. (If this issue was addressed by the Council) It would merely have affirmed that this authority exists, and has always existed since Christ first appointed Peter head of the Church, giving to him the power to bind and loose.

And I have a hard time beleiving that you wish to be a catholic apologist and don't even know that the council of trent was convened to deal with the growing Protestant reformation and that the decrees of the council were aimed at those who had left the RCC and were becoming members of the protestant churches.

I would have a hard time believing that as well, for it isn't true. What would have lead you to that conclusion. I in fact have a copy of all of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, and am also somewhat familiar with the Catechism promulagated by the Council and St. Pope Pius V. While I do not profess to by an expert in the area of 16th Century Religious history, I have had some backing in historical studies.

And by the way, if you study your Bible, and look at the greek verbs and their tenses, in all the passages listed, you will not find one passage where Jeus, or Peter or Paul ever said invoking church discipline gave the church the right to kick someone outr of their salvation. Paul said the jsut the opposite in 1 Corinth.

Actually Paul did say that, yes. Paul said that he condemns himself, and the Church is just affirming to the public that this has taken place. The Church cannot excommunicate without a grave offense having occured, and the Church reserves this declaration almost solely for those who publically, willfully, and despite reproach hold fast unto heresy. I have already quoted from this passage in Titus, but I apparently need to do so again.

Titus 3:
10. A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:
11. Knowing that he that is such an one is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.

I had also quoted from the Second Epistle from John which shows almost the exact same point. You however claim that Paul says something to the contrary to that which he said in Titus? Would you please quote this passage for us?