Um...that doesn't defend anything. It merely makes the point that Luther's mistranslation had been used before. I don't think you want to defend sola fide by appealing to tradition in order to add to the Bible, right?
By the way, Augustine's Latin quote at the bottom from De fide et operibus aptly summarises the Catholic understanding about living faith and dead faith.
The Vulgate was the Church translation that was declared free of error in faith and morals, and it doesn't have the translation sola fide in Romans 3:28.
The Pope has never denied his own infallibility when the concept is rightly understood. It doesn't mean that he is necessarily right when he writes a book on theology -- as he himself understands very well. I told you this before.
"The Vulgate was the Church translation that was declared free of error in faith and morals..."
Too bad the early church didn't have the Vulgate. Those Hebrew and Greek versions must have cause all kinds of confusion in the church until Jerome came and straightened them out.
"The Pope has never denied his own infallibility when the concept is rightly understood."
Hmm. Maybe I don't understand it. Perhaps you can explain it a little further. You can start with this.
Papal infallibility is a church doctrine, and since the pope can't be wrong on church doctrine, he must be correct about not being infallible. Of course, he could be wrong about that and actually be infallible. But then how could be be wrong about being infallible if he is infallible?
Or is he selectively infallible, like when he speaks ex-cathedra. How convenient eh? He is infallible unless he is wrong. Now that's a revelation. Come to think of it, I'm infallible too except for when I'm wrong.
Thankfully, we can trust the inerrant Word of the Living God and not have to guess when the speaker is correct.
And when, as cardinal Ratzinger, he denied the bodily resurrection, he must have been infallible as well. Or maybe he's just a heretic.
I don't think the different versions caused a lot of confusion. After all, we are still struggling with different manuscripts and trying to figure out what the original texts really said, but those differences have hardly any impact on doctrine.
Never go to the mass media for information on church doctrine. If even the Reformed hardly understand the concept of infallibility, why should the Telegraph?
And yes, infallibility is restricted to those times when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals. Obviously, that does not mean that he is wrong the rest of the time; that is a really weird non sequitur.
Do you trust your father? Do you think he can be wrong? If you do, does that mean that you cannot trust him whenever he tries to instruct you in the faith?
I would like to see proof that Cardinal Ratzinger denied the bodily resurrection. That would be completely contrary to everything else he has said. Since everyone loves to misunderstand the Pope (especially now we have a subtle and nuanced thinker in the chair of Peter), I'm not simply going to take your word for it.
Turgonian:"I don't think the different versions caused a lot of confusion. After all, we are still struggling with different manuscripts and trying to figure out what the original texts really said, but those differences have hardly any impact on doctrine."
Response: What does that fact have to do with the idea that the Latin Vulgate is free of error in faith and morals?
Turgonian:"Never go to the mass media for information on church doctrine. If even the Reformed hardly understand the concept of infallibility, why should the Telegraph?"
Response: You dodged the issue. It was the pope himself who said that he work was not infallible. The Telegraph just reported it (unless you think they made it all up out of thin air.
Turgonian:"And yes, infallibility is restricted to those times when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals. Obviously, that does not mean that he is wrong the rest of the time; that is a really weird non sequitur."
Response: So the pope was wrong about being fallible?
Turgonian:"Do you trust your father? Do you think he can be wrong? If you do, does that mean that you cannot trust him whenever he tries to instruct you in the faith?"
Response: I do trust my father (assuming you mean my literal father). But he can be wrong.
And the pope is not my father.
Turgonian:"I would like to see proof that Cardinal Ratzinger denied the bodily resurrection. That would be completely contrary to everything else he has said. Since everyone loves to misunderstand the Pope (especially now we have a subtle and nuanced thinker in the chair of Peter), I'm not simply going to take your word for it."
Response:"To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the “fleshly body,” that is, the biological structure, an idea he expressly describes as impossible (“the perishable cannot become imperishable”), but in the different form of the life of the resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord." (Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p. 277. 1990)
Of course, he wrote this when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, so I guess he hadn't become "infallible" yet.
If Christ gave his keys to Peter only, then the church does not have them. See Happy Reformation Day
6 comments:
Um...that doesn't defend anything. It merely makes the point that Luther's mistranslation had been used before. I don't think you want to defend sola fide by appealing to tradition in order to add to the Bible, right?
By the way, Augustine's Latin quote at the bottom from De fide et operibus aptly summarises the Catholic understanding about living faith and dead faith.
Uh-oh. Do you mean to suggest that the church was wrong? When did it become infallible? (And why does the pope deny his own infallibility?)
The Vulgate was the Church translation that was declared free of error in faith and morals, and it doesn't have the translation sola fide in Romans 3:28.
The Pope has never denied his own infallibility when the concept is rightly understood. It doesn't mean that he is necessarily right when he writes a book on theology -- as he himself understands very well. I told you this before.
"The Vulgate was the Church translation that was declared free of error in faith and morals..."
Too bad the early church didn't have the Vulgate. Those Hebrew and Greek versions must have cause all kinds of confusion in the church until Jerome came and straightened them out.
"The Pope has never denied his own infallibility when the concept is rightly understood."
Hmm. Maybe I don't understand it. Perhaps you can explain it a little further. You can start with this.
Pope questions his infallibility
Papal infallibility is a church doctrine, and since the pope can't be wrong on church doctrine, he must be correct about not being infallible. Of course, he could be wrong about that and actually be infallible. But then how could be be wrong about being infallible if he is infallible?
Or is he selectively infallible, like when he speaks ex-cathedra. How convenient eh? He is infallible unless he is wrong. Now that's a revelation. Come to think of it, I'm infallible too except for when I'm wrong.
Thankfully, we can trust the inerrant Word of the Living God and not have to guess when the speaker is correct.
And when, as cardinal Ratzinger, he denied the bodily resurrection, he must have been infallible as well. Or maybe he's just a heretic.
I don't think the different versions caused a lot of confusion. After all, we are still struggling with different manuscripts and trying to figure out what the original texts really said, but those differences have hardly any impact on doctrine.
Never go to the mass media for information on church doctrine. If even the Reformed hardly understand the concept of infallibility, why should the Telegraph?
And yes, infallibility is restricted to those times when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals. Obviously, that does not mean that he is wrong the rest of the time; that is a really weird non sequitur.
Do you trust your father? Do you think he can be wrong? If you do, does that mean that you cannot trust him whenever he tries to instruct you in the faith?
I would like to see proof that Cardinal Ratzinger denied the bodily resurrection. That would be completely contrary to everything else he has said. Since everyone loves to misunderstand the Pope (especially now we have a subtle and nuanced thinker in the chair of Peter), I'm not simply going to take your word for it.
Turgonian: "I don't think the different versions caused a lot of confusion. After all, we are still struggling with different manuscripts and trying to figure out what the original texts really said, but those differences have hardly any impact on doctrine."
Response: What does that fact have to do with the idea that the Latin Vulgate is free of error in faith and morals?
Turgonian: "Never go to the mass media for information on church doctrine. If even the Reformed hardly understand the concept of infallibility, why should the Telegraph?"
Response: You dodged the issue. It was the pope himself who said that he work was not infallible. The Telegraph just reported it (unless you think they made it all up out of thin air.
Turgonian: "And yes, infallibility is restricted to those times when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals. Obviously, that does not mean that he is wrong the rest of the time; that is a really weird non sequitur."
Response: So the pope was wrong about being fallible?
Turgonian: "Do you trust your father? Do you think he can be wrong? If you do, does that mean that you cannot trust him whenever he tries to instruct you in the faith?"
Response: I do trust my father (assuming you mean my literal father). But he can be wrong.
And the pope is not my father.
Turgonian: "I would like to see proof that Cardinal Ratzinger denied the bodily resurrection. That would be completely contrary to everything else he has said. Since everyone loves to misunderstand the Pope (especially now we have a subtle and nuanced thinker in the chair of Peter), I'm not simply going to take your word for it."
Response: "To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the “fleshly body,” that is, the biological structure, an idea he expressly describes as impossible (“the perishable cannot become imperishable”), but in the different form of the life of the resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord." (Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p. 277. 1990)
Of course, he wrote this when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, so I guess he hadn't become "infallible" yet.
If Christ gave his keys to Peter only, then the church does not have them. See Happy Reformation Day
Post a Comment