The point has been made. Can we let the guy answer or shall we have a few more pages of repeat posts?

Is the pope infallable 'because he says so'

or is there some kind of proof available to prove that the paedophile helper and ex-nazi is the arbiter of morality on the planet?

(September 19, 2011 at 3:27 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Is the pope infallable 'because he says so'

or is there some kind of proof available to prove that the paedophile helper and ex-nazi is the arbiter of morality on the planet?

The concept goes back for centuries,and was a de facto doctrine for centuries. The doctrine was only made dogma by the First Vatican council,in 1870..

The term only refers to when the pope pronounces 'ex-cathedra', literally "from the seat [of St Peter]".There is only one case in which the ' power' was used since it became dogma; 1950,by Pius X11 and his declaration of the assumption of Mary as dogma. IE Her bodily ascension into heaven. (really)


Catholics claim the scripture cited below imparts papal infallibility. NO OTHER Christian Church agrees,including the Orthodox churches..

Argument from incredulity I know,but I have trouble understanding how any rational person could believe that drivel;especially looking at the corrupt, reactionary old fool currently in the Vatican.



0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Quote:Middle Ages

In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance the doctrine of papal infallibility first developed.

The first theologian to systematically discuss the infallibility of ecumenical councils was Theodore Abu-Qurrah in the 9th century.

In the year 1075, Pope Gregory VII asserted 27 statements regarding the powers of the papacy in Dictatus Papae: "22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness."

Several medieval theologians discussed the infallibility of the pope when defining matters of faith and morals, including Thomas Aquinas and John Peter Olivi. In 1330, the Carmelite bishop Guido Terreni described the pope’s use of the charism of infallibility in terms very similar to those that would be used at Vatican I.Middle Ages

In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance the doctrine of papal infallibility first developed.

The first theologian to systematically discuss the infallibility of ecumenical councils was Theodore Abu-Qurrah in the 9th century.

In the year 1075, Pope Gregory VII asserted 27 statements regarding the powers of the papacy in Dictatus Papae: "22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness."

Several medieval theologians discussed the infallibility of the pope when defining matters of faith and morals, including Thomas Aquinas and John Peter Olivi. In 1330, the Carmelite bishop Guido Terreni described the pope’s use of the charism of infallibility in terms very similar to those that would be used at Vatican I.

Quote:Scriptural support for the primacy of Peter

Believers of the Catholic doctrine claim that their position is historically traceable[13] to Scripture:

John 1:42, Mark 3:16 ("And to Simon he gave the name "Peter", "Cephas", or "Rock")
Matthew 16:18 ("thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"; cf. Matthew 7:24-28, (the house built on rock)
Luke 10:16 ("He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.")
Acts 15:28 ("For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, ...") ("the Apostles speak with voice of Holy Ghost")
Matthew 10:2 ("And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,...") (Peter is first.)
Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott points out[citation needed] several Scriptures which he believes show that the Apostle Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke 22:32, Luke 24:34, and 1 Corinthians 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Catholics just lowered their own bar here, which means a deeper trench is necessary for them to wallow in.

(September 19, 2011 at 9:28 pm)padraic Wrote:

(September 19, 2011 at 3:27 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Is the pope infallable 'because he says so'

or is there some kind of proof available to prove that the paedophile helper and ex-nazi is the arbiter of morality on the planet?

The concept goes back for centuries,and was a de facto doctrine for centuries. The doctrine was only made dogma by the First Vatican council,in 1870..

The term only refers to when the pope pronounces 'ex-cathedra', literally "from the seat [of St Peter]".There is only one case in which the ' power' was used since it became dogma; 1950,by Pius X11 and his declaration of the assumption of Mary as dogma. IE Her bodily ascension into heaven. (really)


Catholics claim the scripture cited below imparts papal infallibility. NO OTHER Christian Church agrees,including the Orthodox churches..

Argument from incredulity I know,but I have trouble understanding how any rational person could believe that drivel;especially looking at the corrupt, reactionary old fool currently in the Vatican.



0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Quote:Middle Ages

In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance the doctrine of papal infallibility first developed.

The first theologian to systematically discuss the infallibility of ecumenical councils was Theodore Abu-Qurrah in the 9th century.

In the year 1075, Pope Gregory VII asserted 27 statements regarding the powers of the papacy in Dictatus Papae: "22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness."

Several medieval theologians discussed the infallibility of the pope when defining matters of faith and morals, including Thomas Aquinas and John Peter Olivi. In 1330, the Carmelite bishop Guido Terreni described the pope’s use of the charism of infallibility in terms very similar to those that would be used at Vatican I.Middle Ages

In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance the doctrine of papal infallibility first developed.

The first theologian to systematically discuss the infallibility of ecumenical councils was Theodore Abu-Qurrah in the 9th century.

In the year 1075, Pope Gregory VII asserted 27 statements regarding the powers of the papacy in Dictatus Papae: "22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness."

Several medieval theologians discussed the infallibility of the pope when defining matters of faith and morals, including Thomas Aquinas and John Peter Olivi. In 1330, the Carmelite bishop Guido Terreni described the pope’s use of the charism of infallibility in terms very similar to those that would be used at Vatican I.

Quote:Scriptural support for the primacy of Peter

Believers of the Catholic doctrine claim that their position is historically traceable[13] to Scripture:

John 1:42, Mark 3:16 ("And to Simon he gave the name "Peter", "Cephas", or "Rock")
Matthew 16:18 ("thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"; cf. Matthew 7:24-28, (the house built on rock)
Luke 10:16 ("He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.")
Acts 15:28 ("For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, ...") ("the Apostles speak with voice of Holy Ghost")
Matthew 10:2 ("And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,...") (Peter is first.)
Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott points out[citation needed] several Scriptures which he believes show that the Apostle Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke 22:32, Luke 24:34, and 1 Corinthians 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

^ That. And by the way the reason no other church agrees with it is relatively obvious. You cannot rebel against what Church says if you HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE POPE in matters ex catholico. Also that brings me to the point of saying there should be only one catholic and apostolic church. Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. For the record I am NOT pro inquestion. I believe makes a faith weak rather than strong. Morality is from the Church. The question comes up then "How many good Christians do you know!?!?!", this shows my point earlier, don't judge a religion by the people in it or what the Church did 300 years ago! If this were true then I can blame any white person directly because my people were butchered at their hands, in fact most everybody can make that claim, Are we all murderers? No.

Yes we all disagree that Jesus meant Peter in that way. We do believe, however in the one catholic and apostolic church (small 'c').

(September 20, 2011 at 1:00 am)Liu Bei mixed with Leondias Wrote: ^ That. And by the way the reason no other church agrees with it is relatively obvious. You cannot rebel against what Church says if you HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE POPE in matters ex catholico. Also that brings me to the point of saying there should be only one catholic and apostolic church. Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. For the record I am NOT pro inquestion. I believe makes a faith weak rather than strong. Morality is from the Church. The question comes up then "How many good Christians do you know!?!?!", this shows my point earlier, don't judge a religion by the people in it or what the Church did 300 years ago! If this were true then I can blame any white person directly because my people were butchered at their hands, in fact most everybody can make that claim, Are we all murderers? No.

But what is a church if not the people in it?

And we don't judge the church for what happened hundreds of years ago.

We are looking at what's happening NOW.
The mass cover ups of child abuse, the crap about condoms, the stance against homosexuals, in fact all the crap that the church is spewing out right now.

LOL. Of course, the holy see is slowly leaning toward science in some areas. Too bad it resists, kicking and screaming in others: I have a hope that one day, the greedy catholic church will openly admit that it has been a rapist of its followers, will turn over its museum pieces to real museums, and will give over its wealth to all of the afflicted whom it has never helped with anything other than propaganda.


It won't happen, though, because the church would rather die fighting than admit it has been a sham for sixteen centuries.

(September 20, 2011 at 7:32 am)Zen Badger Wrote: But what is a church if not the people in it?

And we don't judge the church for what happened hundreds of years ago.

We are looking at what's happening NOW.
The mass cover ups of child abuse, the crap about condoms, the stance against homosexuals, in fact all the crap that the church is spewing out right now.

It this context I could ask you the same thing:
What is a race without people in it?

The only one I agree with that should have stopped a hell of a long time ago is the child abuse. THATS it. You really think that because of the stance on birth control there is more STDs? Heck, STD rates are lower in Catholic dominated countrys! To fr0d0: I think that even if you disagree then that is no reason to split the faith and makes us weaker as religion. Have you read the bible from ancient greek? Or Latin for that matter? Modern translation is kinda decieving.

I fail to see how the Catholic church is anything more than a hierarchal cult of personality.