Christ Centered Gamer

ArcticFox wrote:

ChickenSoup wrote:Well, yeah. That's because that guy is an ignoramus, not because evolution is false.

:: I didn't say that proved Evolution is false. I just said that to illustrate that agreeing with it doesn't necessarily mean that person is knowledgeable.

We can agree on this. I just haven't been able to use the word ignoramus in a while

The Pope is a people pleaser. The Gospel is not going to please everybody, that's why he refuses to preach it.

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

Ex Cathedra, literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesia Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." (See Infallibility; Pope.)

This is the ONLY time when Pope speaks = Word of God, when there is critical matters of doctrine and after much prayer, meditation, study, the Pope then states he is speaking 'ex cathedra' not in general conversation or speeches.

It appears we finally have an actual Catholic to comment on this. Cool!

Are there any religious gurus that should be supported or do we rely on self-interpretation?

ChickenSoup wrote:

ArcticFox wrote:

ChickenSoup wrote:Well, yeah. That's because that guy is an ignoramus, not because evolution is false.

:: I didn't say that proved Evolution is false. I just said that to illustrate that agreeing with it doesn't necessarily mean that person is knowledgeable.

We can agree on this. I just haven't been able to use the word ignoramus in a while

Are there any religious gurus that should be supported or do we rely on self-interpretation?

Comotto wrote:Are there any religious gurus that should be supported or do we rely on self-interpretation?

The answer to that question varies from person to person. Catholics regard the Pope in high esteem, while a Southern Baptist may not. Having grown up in a strictly non-demoninational family, I can tell you that there are some Christians that regard anyone claiming to be a religious authority figure to be highly suspect, and the best way to determine what is right is through reading the Scriptures and prayer.

Sstavix wrote:

Comotto wrote:Are there any religious gurus that should be supported or do we rely on self-interpretation?

The answer to that question varies from person to person. Catholics regard the Pope in high esteem, while a Southern Baptist may not. Having grown up in a strictly non-demoninational family, I can tell you that there are some Christians that regard anyone claiming to be a religious authority figure to be highly suspect, and the best way to determine what is right is through reading the Scriptures and prayer.

I was curious as to who might be on the non-ignoramous list.

There are many good radio pastors like James McDonald, John McArthur, Alistair Begg, Ravi Zacahrius

ccgr wrote:There are many good radio pastors like James McDonald, John McArthur, Alistair Begg, Ravi Zacahrius

Does Chickensoup agree?

I think that the question ("Who's not on the ignoramus list?") brings up one of the core differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

The Catholic church has been a mainstay of History for close to 2000 years (depending on what date you use to signify the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church), whereas the Protestant movement is relatively new at almost 500 years old. Naturally, differences arise.

I cannot claim to be an expert on Catholicism, so feel free to correct me, but the Catholic Church is a very traditional church. Which is to say that the focus is on Liturgy, Rituals, and so forth. Catholicism places strong emphasis on Priests, as sins are confessed to God through them. The Pope is the head of the church, and can add to or amend Catechisms (which as I understand it are like summaries and expositions of teachings). I believe this is what you mentioned when you gave a (very enlightening, I might add!) summary on Ex Cathedra.

Again, feel free to correct me, I don't have enough experience with the Catholic Church to know everything.


Protestantism is a good deal different. Because the nature of Protestantism isn't centralized around any figurehead like the Pope, it's more difficult to ascribe any one set of beliefs to all Protestants. Protestants tend to value the personal relationship with God above liturgy, and believe that the Bible is the only source of God's word. The role of the preacher is in interpreting it (maybe kinda like Ex Cathedra, but with not near as much weight) They also believe that the individual is responsible for confessions, so Priests aren't held in as high esteem.

The key difference here is that because Protestantism is divided into "Denominations" (loose usage, categorizing Non-Denom as a Denomination for the sake of grouping), some of which have ruling bodies. For instance, there's the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church in the United States, and so on that are organizations. Meanwhile Non-Denominational churches are about as varied as the people of the world, while Churches of Christ (who resent being called a Denomination) are more "peer-to-peer" in that each church is autonomous, but you have a decent idea of what you're getting into if you go to a different one. Some ideologies are independent of denomination, for instance Arminianism vs Calvinism

Asking who a member of a Church of Christ holds in high regard for scriptural authority may yield some of their influential thinkers, such as David Lipscomb. A Methodist might answer John Wesley. If we're considering living people, some Calvinists revere Mark Driscoll, and some non-Calvinists think he's dragging the perception of Christianity down. Another controversial figure: Rob Bell. Among my friends, he's either a brilliant, enlightened preacher or a heretic.



So, sorry for the wall of text. But Protestantism is quite decentralized, and attempting to identify a unifying figure such as the Pope is probably an exercise in futility. As Sstavix said, it varies from person to person.

Comotto wrote:

ccgr wrote:There are many good radio pastors like James McDonald, John McArthur, Alistair Begg, Ravi Zacahrius

Does Chickensoup agree?

I'll actually have to plead ignorance on this one, as I actually have never listened to radio pastors

Deepfreeze32 wrote:I think that the question ("Who's not on the ignoramus list?") brings up one of the core differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

The Catholic church has been a mainstay of History for close to 2000 years (depending on what date you use to signify the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church), whereas the Protestant movement is relatively new at almost 500 years old. Naturally, differences arise.

I cannot claim to be an expert on Catholicism, so feel free to correct me, but the Catholic Church is a very traditional church. Which is to say that the focus is on Liturgy, Rituals, and so forth. Catholicism places strong emphasis on Priests, as sins are confessed to God through them. The Pope is the head of the church, and can add to or amend Catechisms (which as I understand it are like summaries and expositions of teachings). I believe this is what you mentioned when you gave a (very enlightening, I might add!) summary on Ex Cathedra.

Again, feel free to correct me, I don't have enough experience with the Catholic Church to know everything.


Protestantism is a good deal different. Because the nature of Protestantism isn't centralized around any figurehead like the Pope, it's more difficult to ascribe any one set of beliefs to all Protestants. Protestants tend to value the personal relationship with God above liturgy, and believe that the Bible is the only source of God's word. The role of the preacher is in interpreting it (maybe kinda like Ex Cathedra, but with not near as much weight) They also believe that the individual is responsible for confessions, so Priests aren't held in as high esteem.

The key difference here is that because Protestantism is divided into "Denominations" (loose usage, categorizing Non-Denom as a Denomination for the sake of grouping), some of which have ruling bodies. For instance, there's the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church in the United States, and so on that are organizations. Meanwhile Non-Denominational churches are about as varied as the people of the world, while Churches of Christ (who resent being called a Denomination) are more "peer-to-peer" in that each church is autonomous, but you have a decent idea of what you're getting into if you go to a different one. Some ideologies are independent of denomination, for instance Arminianism vs Calvinism

Asking who a member of a Church of Christ holds in high regard for scriptural authority may yield some of their influential thinkers, such as David Lipscomb. A Methodist might answer John Wesley. If we're considering living people, some Calvinists revere Mark Driscoll, and some non-Calvinists think he's dragging the perception of Christianity down. Another controversial figure: Rob Bell. Among my friends, he's either a brilliant, enlightened preacher or a heretic.



So, sorry for the wall of text. But Protestantism is quite decentralized, and attempting to identify a unifying figure such as the Pope is probably an exercise in futility. As Sstavix said, it varies from person to person.

How do we then reconcile the directive of 1 Corinthians Unity in the Church?
…11For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. 12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?…

He didn't say for everyone to be in one group, he said not to get split because of loyalties to church leaders. That includes the Pope.

ChickenSoup wrote:He didn't say for everyone to be in one group, he said not to get split because of loyalties to church leaders. That includes the Pope.

How do you interpret?
17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."…