| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The Church As Truth And Infallible; correct answer-explanation debateable | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sunday, 3. June 2007, 18:03 (544 Views) | |
| jimc1 | Sunday, 3. June 2007, 18:03 Post #1 |
|
Unregistered
|
I have found as a Catholic that Christ,His Bible and His Ghurch have the correct answers but the full and correct explanations and interpretations are not always given at the same time-e.g. as Catholics we are often besought by other Christians that we "must be born again" but this was said by Christ to a Jew not to a Christian likewise in imho the 1st Commandment was for the Jews, updated by Christ and His Church from "I am the LORD THY GOD who brought ye out of the land of EGYPT and out of the house of bondage" etc via Christ to "ye shall love the LORD THY GOD with thy whole mind body and soul and thy neighbour as thy self"[imho]-jimc |
|
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 3. June 2007, 21:27 Post #2 |
![]()
Administrator
|
jimc you sub title your thread "correct answer-explanation debateable" Jesus appointed Simon to be in charge of His Church. He called Simon "Peter" meaning "The Rock" and said he would give Pete the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it. When Peter died a successor was appointed. That process has continued. The Papacy has the keys to the Kingdom. The gates of Hell will not prevail. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| jimc1 | Sunday, 3. June 2007, 22:15 Post #3 |
|
Unregistered
|
Rose-the answer is correct so is it an explanation or interpretation you have given-I accept the answer but not entirely the explanation or interpretation-if it ever seems that the Church or Bible are faulty in all humility it must be accepted that I am or you are- Peter[imho]definately means stone as petrified means turned to stone-now whilst sandstone is a rock but not as solid as a rock as a gemstone Peter was to be solid and precious-imho whilst Christ is the rock of ages I sure He and Peter understood this exchange[imho] somewhat along these lines and so should we[imho]-jimc |
|
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 3. June 2007, 22:36 Post #4 |
![]()
Administrator
|
jimc you said in a posting above, that you are a Catholic. Neither my personal interpretation nor yours are relevant. Holy Mother Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, from teaching error. You say "Peter was to be solid and precious-imho whilst Christ is the rock of ages I sure He and Peter understood this exchange[imho] somewhat along these lines and so should we[imho]" Sorry jimc, you are in no position to say how I should understand doctrine. I am more inclined to take note of the Holy Father and his predecessors. To avoid a lengthy discussion about the Church's reasons for claiming infallibility, you can go straight to the horse's mouth - Encyclicals and Vatican Documents Section of this forum includes the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There, you will find an approved explanation of the doctrine. The Catholic Church is the one that claims to be authorised, by Jesus Christ, to proclaim the Truth. All other churches were founded by human beings who were not persons of the Blessed Trinity. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| jimc1 | Sunday, 3. June 2007, 22:52 Post #5 |
|
Unregistered
|
Rose-I see no problem or disagreement-I am talking about individual interpretations and explanations where in our individual imaginations we add our own gloss whilst trying to understand and accept the crux of the matter which of course we must-jimc |
|
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 3. June 2007, 23:18 Post #6 |
![]()
Administrator
|
jim I am not sure whether you grasp the importance of the Doctrine of Infallibilty. If we do not accept it we cannot claim to be Catholics. Of course we all do our best to understand, but individual interpretation of major doctrines is not a Catholic concept. Adding our own gloss? I leave it to The Holy Father to apply the gilt. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| jimc1 | Sunday, 3. June 2007, 23:47 Post #7 |
|
Unregistered
|
Rose - be assured more so than most I grasp the doctrine of infallibility of bare bones- in most cases-we add the gilt or gloss in most cases either for our own understanding or that of others-jimc |
|
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 4. June 2007, 00:40 Post #8 |
![]()
Administrator
|
jimc my friend, if I were not a lady, still influenced by a convent school education, I would say: Speak for yerself, mate. Faithful Catholics who are well versed in Catholic Doctrine keep gloss for the front door, and gilt for decorations around expensive bone china. We do not alter doctrine to suit ourselves. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| jimc1 | Monday, 4. June 2007, 01:11 Post #9 |
|
Unregistered
|
Rose-in every way shape and form I regard myself as a faithful Catholic from the cradle and also as a fid.def and a scourge of dissident Protestants,pagans and Catholics-jimc |
|
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 4. June 2007, 01:40 Post #10 |
![]()
Administrator
|
ay up, so did Henry VIII! |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| jimc1 | Monday, 4. June 2007, 15:40 Post #11 |
|
Unregistered
|
No comparison he had five wives and chopped their heads off-had he still been around he would probably have had his own website and forum and we would all have lost our heads as heretics as faithful Catholics-jimc |
|
|
| MickCook | Monday, 4. June 2007, 16:49 Post #12 |
![]()
|
And ironically enough it was the Pope who gave him the title, "Defender of the Faith" for defending Catholicism against Protestantism!!! |
|
:) Mick The Cook Companies | |
![]() |
|
| Jamie | Monday, 4. June 2007, 17:38 Post #13 |
|
I've never been entirely sure that the Doctrine of Infallibility was a good move.....he wrote in the smallest font he could find while hoping Clare - and indeed Rose - are distracted ....
|
![]() |
|
| jimc1 | Monday, 4. June 2007, 19:33 Post #14 |
|
Unregistered
|
Jamie-I do accept that some confuse the issue and so confuse others whilst being confused themselves "for the light shines in the darkness but the darkness comprehends it not thinking it as darkness is light to enlighten the world-now I am going to lay myself open to charges of heresy in some quarters but I could never see or accept how any human being could be infallible-for in my understanding only the Holy Ghost is infallible "Blessed art thou Peter for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee"and "I will send the Paraclete to you and when He the Spirit of truth,is come,he will teach you all fruth for he shall not speak of himself,but what things soever he shall hear he shall speak-so I hope this helps to your understanding as it did me that really it is the Holy Ghost that is infallible who guides the Pope to infallibility ex cathedra-I do think this is what leads to a lot of misunderstanding and division-correct me if I"m wrong-jimc jimc |
|
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 4. June 2007, 20:22 Post #15 |
![]()
Administrator
|
jimc did you follow up my suggestion that you read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about the dogma of infallibility? |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






3:44 PM Jul 11