CivGeneral's Catholicism Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zarn said:
Oh, the irony of such a statement.

If CG should be more open minded, then why are those 3 previously mentioned freedoms forbidden by you?
Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

Perhaps if either of you were not so wrapped up in yourselves, you could get behind name-calling ("sedevacantist" "schismatic") and nonsensical dead-end bickering ("Vatican II", "Vatican II" "Vatican II") and arrive at some level of Catholic orthodoxy...just a thought...
 
Till said:
If i recall, Limbo was invented in the renaisance (by Dante). Maybe you are confusing it with purgatory? Or maybe both came about at that time.

I think you may be right.
 
Inqvisitor said:
Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

Perhaps if either of you were not so wrapped up in yourselves, you could get behind name-calling ("sedevacantist" "schismatic") and nonsensical dead-end bickering ("Vatican II", "Vatican II" "Vatican II") and arrive at some level of Catholic orthodoxy...just a thought...

Since when then I type 'sedevacantist', 'schismatic', or 'Vatican II?' Would it matter anyway? You are the one that is not falling in line with the Catholic Church.

Using another language does not help your arguement, either. You can also quote as many things as you like, but it won't make a difference, as the Catholic Church has still changed. It is going to move on with or without you.
 
No offense Inqvisitor but if orthodoxy means being grounded in the 19th century and refusing to accept the messages of your church, then there is a strong case to answer for your continued membership in said church surely? I think Civ Generals quotes, have as much if not more relevance than a 200 year old doctrine, I still can't equate past dry contextless doctrine as a reason to believe anything at all, it has no meat to it's bones, strangely in many cases it merely highlights were the church went wrong if anything.
 
And another question: On what grounds does that Catholic Church "stop" at Syllabus of Errors? Why is it acceptable, but not the words of the later popes? Surely the words of Jesus are enough, and all the popes after Peter valueless? :p
 
Erik Mesoy said:
And another question: On what grounds does that Catholic Church "stop" at Syllabus of Errors? Why is it acceptable, but not the words of the later popes? Surely the words of Jesus are enough, and all the popes after Peter valueless? :p
No, because the voice of Peter must continue to guide the Christian community as the world around it continues to change. A visible head must always remain as Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Church. Christ leads the Church through the Apostles.
 
I think you missed my point, Inqvisitor.

SoE was issued by one pope, the catechism posted by CivGeneral was posted by another pope.

What causes one of these popes to be so wrong in your opinion? Why does SoE seem to overrule both earlier and later dissent?
 
Erik Mesoy said:
I think you missed my point, Inqvisitor.

SoE was issued by one pope, the catechism posted by CivGeneral was posted by another pope.

What causes one of these popes to be so wrong in your opinion? Why does SoE seem to overrule both earlier and later dissent?

That catechism is not official Church position. The Syllabus of Errors was issued infallibly by the pope's own penstroke from the Sacred Magisterium of the Church. The "Catechism of Catholic Church" as it is called was written fallbly by other people in 1992.

I recommend reading through other more orthodox catechisms.
 
aussieboy said:
Reference for the Syllabus Errorum:

Not that a certain someone will listen…

Look carefully on the section, "Reactions by Catholics"
What is the point of posting that link? That's been posted already, and I responded with the CATHOLIC Encyclopedia as opposed to the FREE encyclopedia WHICH ANYONE CAN EDIT and HAS ZERO AUTHORITY.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm

The binding power of the Syllabus of Pius IX is differently explained by Catholic theologians. All are of the opinion that many of the propositions are condemned if not in the Syllabus, then certainly in other final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church, for instance in the Encyclical "Quanta Cura". There is no agreement, however, on the question whether each thesis condemned in the Syllabus is infallibly false, merely because it is condemned in the Syllabus. Many theologians are of the opinion that to the Syllabus as such an infallible teaching authority is to be ascribed, whether due to an ex-cathedra decision by the pope or to the subsequent acceptance by the Church. Others question this. So long as Rome has not decided the question, everyone is free to follow the opinion he chooses. Even should the condemnation of many propositions not possess that unchangeableness peculiar to infallible decisions, nevertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt. For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly.
 
I would like to admit that I made an error in posting the reference in regards to confession to a priest. I realised now that I did not looked closely looked at the site when I googled for the answer.

In the post, I made corrections and listed referances to passages found in the Bible as well as a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 
Inqvisitor said:

The binding power of the Syllabus of Pius IX is differently explained by Catholic theologians. All are of the opinion that many of the propositions are condemned if not in the Syllabus, then certainly in other final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church, for instance in the Encyclical "Quanta Cura". There is no agreement, however, on the question whether each thesis condemned in the Syllabus is infallibly false, merely because it is condemned in the Syllabus. Many theologians are of the opinion that to the Syllabus as such an infallible teaching authority is to be ascribed, whether due to an ex-cathedra decision by the pope or to the subsequent acceptance by the Church. Others question this. So long as Rome has not decided the question, everyone is free to follow the opinion he chooses. Even should the condemnation of many propositions not possess that unchangeableness peculiar to infallible decisions, nevertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt. For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly.

Read the article more closely.
 
It does very much seem that infallibility is only pertinent until another Pope finds reason to disgaree with a previous one. It's all very Machaeveliian don't you think? Just how many infallible decisions have been made and overturned, perhaps the Catholic church needs a dictionary on what infallible means?
 
Reading it in italics hurts my eyes a bit. Ill pull out some things that you bolded and repost them here.

here is no agreement, however, on the question whether each thesis condemned in the Syllabus is infallibly false, merely because it is condemned in the Syllabus.

So long as Rome has not decided the question, everyone is free to follow the opinion he chooses.

@aussieboy - Please let me know that I pulled the right ones out for better viewing for our readers. :)
 
Jawohl, mein Komissar.
 
Inqvisitor said:
That catechism is not official Church position. The Syllabus of Errors was issued infallibly by the pope's own penstroke from the Sacred Magisterium of the Church. The "Catechism of Catholic Church" as it is called was written fallbly by other people in 1992.

I recommend reading through other more orthodox catechisms.
From your own source posted bellow:
Many theologians are of the opinion that to the Syllabus as such an infallible teaching authority is to be ascribed, whether due to an ex-cathedra decision by the pope or to the subsequent acceptance by the Church. Others question this. So long as Rome has not decided the question, everyone is free to follow the opinion he chooses.
It seem like it is not at all clear, if the Syllabus has to be considered infallible.

Edit: Jeesh i'm slow.... aussie and CG beat me to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom