@Florida Man anyway perhaps I do but I must dine at a suppertime feast first

Alright then

<@&588707615643795456> Daily Question 🔖

-Do you think that the Christians actually started the fire during Nero's reign in the Roman Empire? Why would they do so, and did Nero do well that he blamed them?

no

I think the filthy disgusting city started the fire

Probably not

It's very unlikely, and well, considering Christians were Nero's enemies, he did well. He did what he had to do, destroy his enemies.

Not really

Hmm. No, I do not think Christians did it. I don't see a motive. They were already outcasts as is, easy targets, hence why Nero blamed them so easily.

I agree, Christians had no motive for starting the fire

That and Nero was a bit paranoid

They had a motive, and a very good one, but they just didn't.

the houses were build pretty closely together.
it got started by accident but spread really fast.

wasnt nero the only emperor to convert to judaism?

yeah he was lmao http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11445-nero

I normally dislike Catholics but I'll make an exception because this one is very polite

I have 5 questions for Eoppa

Question 1. Christ stated that the church cannot fail, and that the church is that body which is comprised by the offices passed down by the apostles. But it is also true that the church is that body which possesses the true interpretation of scripture. According to Catholic doctrine, is it a) impossible for the current church to misinterpret scripture or b) possible for the church to misinterpret scripture upon which point the offices will be taken up by people who have not been anointed by a predecessor but possess the true interpretation?

Question 2. It is Catholic doctrine that a person possessing an office of the church cannot spread false doctrine while acting in his office. When do we know whether or not he is acting in his office? Is it when he is influenced by God? How do we know when that is? Is it just when he is speaking the truth? How do we know what the truth is if not verified by the grace of his office?

Question 3. Are you aware of any historical claims made by the Eastern Orthodox Church to apostolic legitimacy? Are they false or unfalsifiable? Or does that church claim to be the true church simply by the truth of its doctrine?

Question 4. Suppose a place where the true church has not ever visited. Suppose also a genuine bible makes its way into that place. Suppose lastly that a person reads the bible and comes to the same interpretation of the scripture disseminated by the true church. This person does not have church authority, but if they acted according to the accidentally (or perhaps divinely) inspired true interpretation of the scripture, would they then be acting with church authority?

Question 4.5: Do you agree with Vatican II?

Question 5. The officials of the church in the medieval ages were meant to disseminate the truth of the scripture to the people who could not read the bible. But the masses were held in Latin. Is this a contradiction or were the priests also supposed to teach the scripture in vernacular alongside the mass? Bonus: If the conduction of the mass in Latin did not have to do with teaching the scripture to the masses, why, then did Vatican II demand that the mass be conducted in vernacular?

Bonus question: Orthodox architecture is superior to Catholic architecture. Sorry, this is not a question, this is a fact.

@Eoppa done

Who the hell takes a 1 hour walk

me

Just one? I tend to meander slowly so it takes me a few hours to get around.

Oh here he is

Hello God man

1) It is A) impossible for the church to misinterpret scripture, in regards to the universal magisterium
2) There is specific times and language use to know when ecumenical councils or ex Cathedra statements and such are made.
3) The Orthodox do hold Apostolic succession, the Anglicans would too if their Holy Orders were valid. Schism from the Holy See separates you from the church though.
4) Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus, there is no salvation outside the church. 4.5) And I won't speak on sedevacantism, I'm not sure.
5) This is a question I wouldn't be too sure on, but Latin was developed enough to hold the mass in, most vernaculars were not. Priests and such were educated on Catholic doctrine and kept a community in line in plenty of ways.

@AncienMedecin

What is the universal magisterium?

Can the language which is used to signify such statements be abused, as in be used to disseminate false doctrine under church authority? Does its use automatically invoke some sort of divine power?

What provision is there in death for those humans who did not come into contact with the true church in their lifetime?

@Eoppa

The universal magisterium is the infallible teachings of the church, as compared to the ordinary magisterium.

No, if a Pope acts ex Cathedra or such, he acts with the authority of the divine.

Some believe in Baptism of Desire, some like Aquinas believe a good ignorant person would be baptized by an angel if they truly deserved it.

What is the ordinary magisterium? Fallible teachings?

Logically a Pope or such would prepare his statements ahead of time. Does that mean that there is divine influence over him before his statement?

But is there official church doctrine regarding these people?

Extra: Does Dante's Divine Comedy have a theological basis? I am ignorant.

@Eoppa

<:smug:591181720565579807> 🍿

m8 these are interesting questions

Yes, ordinary magisterium is fallible.

Possibly, exactly how the divine works through a person I don't think has been layed out exactly.

If you accept V2 then yes, it is possible for them to if they live a certain way. If you don't then they must go through the Aquinas way if they are to go to heaven.

Regarding Dante's inferno I know there are some spared from punishment and some receiving worse punishment, it has *some* authenticity, but certainly isn't canon.

Ordinary magisterium is fallible, that means that there are some offices within the church that do not have divine influence?