Author Topic: Michael Voris's Authority Argument  (Read 1187 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline serbknight

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Michael Voris's Authority Argument
« on: August 26, 2013, 02:24:58 PM »
I was watching a traditionalist Catholic show on "ChurchMilitantTV" with Michael Voris. It was on contraception and baptists.Usually I agree with catholics when they talk about scripture and authority but this one made me think.He said that without the authority of the Church, protestants are lost in endless bible interpretations.I accept the catholic and pre-1970's orthodox approach to contraception so i am in agreement with Voris. But then i thought about how diverse orthodoxy is now split on the subject and it disturbed me. I then realized what this post is about. Concerning this issue, catholics are on the same "authority" ground as us.Yeah they have a Pope but humane vitae is nor infallible nor is the consensus of bishops. It is entirely possible in catholic teaching  for the pope and 90% of bishops to be heretics as long as they are not speaking ex cathedra or in council.So on contraception,we are speaking with the same authority that they are: from the mind of the Fathers. I think this blows away their "you dont have a pope so your lost on this subject" argument. I post this because I am looking for holes in my argument.Do any of you guys see any?

Offline Bianconeri

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Michael Voris's Authority Argument
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2013, 09:41:59 PM »
I was watching a traditionalist Catholic show on "ChurchMilitantTV" with Michael Voris. It was on contraception and baptists.Usually I agree with catholics when they talk about scripture and authority but this one made me think.He said that without the authority of the Church, protestants are lost in endless bible interpretations.I accept the catholic and pre-1970's orthodox approach to contraception so i am in agreement with Voris. But then i thought about how diverse orthodoxy is now split on the subject and it disturbed me. I then realized what this post is about. Concerning this issue, catholics are on the same "authority" ground as us.Yeah they have a Pope but humane vitae is nor infallible nor is the consensus of bishops. It is entirely possible in catholic teaching  for the pope and 90% of bishops to be heretics as long as they are not speaking ex cathedra or in council.So on contraception,we are speaking with the same authority that they are: from the mind of the Fathers. I think this blows away their "you dont have a pope so your lost on this subject" argument. I post this because I am looking for holes in my argument.Do any of you guys see any?

Their argument fails because of:

St Meletius and the 2nd oecumenical Council
Their mindchanges about the 8th oecumenical council
The 5th oecumenical council behavior with the Pope of Rome
The failure of St Victor and St Leo to impose their viewpoint on the Church
The western schism with 3 popes and no one able to tell us who was the true authority
The heresy of Honorius

Etc etc etc
« Last Edit: August 26, 2013, 09:42:41 PM by Bianconeri »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,156
Re: Michael Voris's Authority Argument
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2013, 09:53:25 PM »
I was watching a traditionalist Catholic show on "ChurchMilitantTV" with Michael Voris. It was on contraception and baptists.Usually I agree with catholics when they talk about scripture and authority but this one made me think.He said that without the authority of the Church, protestants are lost in endless bible interpretations.I accept the catholic and pre-1970's orthodox approach to contraception so i am in agreement with Voris. But then i thought about how diverse orthodoxy is now split on the subject and it disturbed me. I then realized what this post is about. Concerning this issue, catholics are on the same "authority" ground as us.Yeah they have a Pope but humane vitae is nor infallible nor is the consensus of bishops. It is entirely possible in catholic teaching  for the pope and 90% of bishops to be heretics as long as they are not speaking ex cathedra or in council.So on contraception,we are speaking with the same authority that they are: from the mind of the Fathers. I think this blows away their "you dont have a pope so your lost on this subject" argument. I post this because I am looking for holes in my argument.Do any of you guys see any?
Not on their claims.  Since they cannot say when their supreme pontiff is speaking ex cathedra, their dogma is useless.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline serbknight

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Michael Voris's Authority Argument
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2013, 03:44:53 PM »
I was watching a traditionalist Catholic show on "ChurchMilitantTV" with Michael Voris. It was on contraception and baptists.Usually I agree with catholics when they talk about scripture and authority but this one made me think.He said that without the authority of the Church, protestants are lost in endless bible interpretations.I accept the catholic and pre-1970's orthodox approach to contraception so i am in agreement with Voris. But then i thought about how diverse orthodoxy is now split on the subject and it disturbed me. I then realized what this post is about. Concerning this issue, catholics are on the same "authority" ground as us.Yeah they have a Pope but humane vitae is nor infallible nor is the consensus of bishops. It is entirely possible in catholic teaching  for the pope and 90% of bishops to be heretics as long as they are not speaking ex cathedra or in council.So on contraception,we are speaking with the same authority that they are: from the mind of the Fathers. I think this blows away their "you dont have a pope so your lost on this subject" argument. I post this because I am looking for holes in my argument.Do any of you guys see any?
Not on their claims.  Since they cannot say when their supreme pontiff is speaking ex cathedra, their dogma is useless.

Thats what i was thinking.The whole "ex cathedra" thing is so vague. Also it is strange the church even has ecumenical synods if we have a pope. If Peter really was the pontiff of the universal church,why was the council of jerusalem even held?