The Issue Of Infallibility

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1288038398' post='2182464']
It's still wrong, but I fixed your statement so you're saying what you meant to say. I also put in the entire paragraph so that you're no longer deceiving anyone with a convenient portion of the quote.

You're welcome.
[/quote]



I will thank you not to cross out my words when you have provided no proof for it's inaccuracy. I quoted to you directly from the catechism which says the church "here at [u]Rome[/u]" is the Mother & Mistress of all churches, and in my new topic post on infallibility, further quotes displaying the acceptability of the word "Roman", especially as it regards the "Roman Pontiffs".
I assume you must be a member of some splinter Catholic group such as the St. Pius X Society who are extremely critical of changes brought about from V-2, and as far as I can recall, are bent on believing that the Tridentine Mass is the only acceptable form to follow.

Your welcome.

[sixpence]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288039102' post='2182468']
I'm going to be very hard on you by saying, [i]do you mean to tell me that since 10 years old, you have not taken the effort to go to any Christian bookstore, or even attempt to find an answer on-line by a reliable source to see what others smarter than yourself have concluded? Do you even own a Bible commentary by one who has spent their entire life expounding upon the text?[/i]
[i]
[/i]
Your attitude smacks of the reason why there are so many false beliefs that keep on circulating within your ranks. People never get up and check things out for themselves. I would remind you that we are to, [i]"Study to show yourself approved" [/i](2 Tim 2:15).

Now I pulled out the very first Bible commentary I have on my shelf (and I have quite a few), and instantly, I read:

"There is no contradiction between the mode of Judas' death here (in Matt 27), and that which is found in Acts.



[font="Verdana, Arial, sans-serif"][size="2"]
[b]Judas committed suicide by hanging[/b]

[indent][[url="http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=NIV&passage=Matthew+27:5"]Matt 27:5[/url]][/indent]
[b]Judas allegedly did not hang himself, but died another way[/b]

[indent][[url="http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=NIV&passage=Acts+1:18"]Acts 1:18[/url]][/indent]Matt 27:5 states that Judas "threw the pieces of silver....and he went away and hanged himself."Acts 1:18 states, "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out."

It's rather easy to reconcile these: Committing suicide is not always successful. He could have tried (Matt 27) and then failed (Acts 1:18) wherein the rope probably broke, pitching his body forward and causing it to burst open upon impact from the height he was at (since obviously you have to get some space between your feet and the ground to hang yourself)."




[/size][/font]
[/quote]

Lol nice description! Seems a little contrived...but what can I say...
Why did I not "look this up"?

1. It was not that important to me, it was just a little something I wondered when I was 10 BEFORE I REALIZED I WAS NOT A LITERALIST

2. Are you saying that I should trust these "commentaries"??? Are they [u][i]INFALLIBLE[/i][/u]???
If not they must be garbage right?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288039598' post='2182476']
I will thank you not to cross out my words when you have provided no proof for it[s]'[/s]s inaccuracy. I quoted to you directly from the catechism which says the church "here at [u]Rome[/u]" is the Mother & Mistress of all churches, and in my new topic post on infallibility, further quotes displaying the acceptability of the word "Roman", especially as it regards the "Roman Pontiffs". [/quote]
The entire quote rejects your interpretation. A direct quote also would have included ellipses to show you were not providing a complete quote, but instead only the bit that would fit into your theory. Which was incorrect, by the way.

Since it is my job to dismiss unworthy arguments, I actually must cross out incorrect words. I'm helping you be more accurate. When you're quoting from the CCC, unless it's some discipline peculiar to the rite, you're not talking about the rite, but about the Catholic Church. You're not referring to the "Roman Pontiff." You're simply following a habit taught you by inferior intellects.


[quote]I assume you must be a member of some splinter Catholic group such as the St. Pius X Society who are extremely critical of changes brought about from V-2, and as far as I can recall, are bent on believing that the Tridentine Mass is the only acceptable form to follow.[/quote]
Is the SSX hell bent on people not providing dishonest half-quotations to bolster incorrect theories? If so, I have sympathy with that but as the Regular Catholic Church supports that as well in her moral theology, I needn't slide over to them.

[quote]Your welcome.
[/quote]
My welcome what?

Edited October 25, 2010 by Winchester

[Winchester]

[url="http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe"]How to use an apostrophe.[/url]

You're welcome.

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1288039326' post='2182471']
Yeah, that ain't true at all. Sorry.
[/quote]

[mod]MIKolbe-inappropriate content[/mod]

Anyone knows, it would be a complete failure.


You've obviously lost this argument, so one wonders why you even blitz in with a comment of no value. I assume you just like to hear yourself talk.

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1288031479' post='2182417']
Could you please provide a link and/or context for the Vat II quotes.


Thanks
[/quote]



I'm happy to supply the following, but like I told you before.....you obviously have no desire to do any research for yourself, but prefer to let others do it for you. The following link could have popped up on your screen in 5 seconds flat after putting the words I provided in Google. But I'm glad to do it so as to remind you that on Judgment Day, we will each be judged individually, and I get the strong impression you think that you'll be judged merely by having subsumed your beliefs under the Roman hierarchy, content not to check anything out, and then convincing yourself that all will be well.

Anyway, scroll to chapter 3....(18b).



[color="#2A2A2A"][font="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html"]http://www.vatican.v...gentium_en.html[/url][/size][/font][/color]
[font="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif"][size="3"][color="#2A2A2A"] [/color][/size][/font]

Edited October 25, 2010 by Shadyrest

[Winchester]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288040456' post='2182483']
Then I would suggest you go try hanging yourself and then come back and tell us if positioning your body a few feet off the ground made the attempt successful.

Anyone knows, it would be a complete failure.[/quote]
Spoiler to hide details for those who wish not to see.
[spoiler]So how many hangings have you seen?

I assure you it's possible to use one's body weight with legs relaxed and thereby hang yourself.

The proper idea of hanging is to break one's neck so that it is quick. When that doesn't work, it's death by strangulation if you're unlucky and your arteries are not compressed.
[/spoiler]


[quote]You've obviously lost this argument,[/quote]
You spoke too soon, cavalier.

[quote] so one wonders why you even blitz in with a comment of no value. I assume you just like to hear yourself talk.
[/quote]
I don't talk as I type. All I hear is clicking. I do like the sound of clicking.

[sixpence]

You seem to be harping on the idea that none of us have any idea why we do or believe anything, aside from someone (our Family, the Pope, whoever) telling us to....

why is that? I think that may be true of some members of every religion, including yours; however, it is rather insulting that you generalize in this fashion.

Your probable response (to save time): "Because the "someone" leading us to Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit and the someone leading you is the Pope; and I know this because [b]I [/b]am led by the Holy Spirit and [b]I [/b]don't agree with the Pope"
condensed: I assume that I (Shady) and the Pope cannot Both be guided by the Holy Spirit; and since I am so AWESOME, I must be correct automatically"

my response (to save time): WHAT????

lol

well I have to go eat a bunch of sushi tonight!! TTYL!

Peace

[sixpence]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1288040919' post='2182486']

I don't talk as I type. All I hear is clicking. I do like the sound of clicking.
[/quote]

I personally prefer the sound of sharp scissors....

[Winchester]

Shady,

You get some points for making me be all serious and "I know this because." I totally look like that face from the evolution of a poster comic that was running around. I couldn't find it, but it's really funny. You would have lol'd at me getting all superior for reals. Because I did for a minute there.

[mommas_boy]

Listen, to detractors of papal infallibility -- you guys don't give Christ that much credit. So, Jesus leaves the earth with his apostles as his teachers. And wouldn't you know it, it didn't take long for disagreements about theology to crop up. Let's see, the Council of Jerusalem was in and around year 50; we know at least that Peter and Paul were alive at the time. The purpose of the Council was to settle disagreements that had cropped up since Jesus had left. Then, there were about 21 more (based on my quick cursory research). That's 21 times where there were disagreements on the matters of faith and morals that were all based on the same Scripture.

Heck, we have precisely HOW MANY protestant churches nowadays, each one preaching something different? But don't they all have the same Scripture? How is this possible? Shouldn't we all believe the same thing? I mean, we have the SAME SCRIPTURE, the source of our beliefs is the same, and therefore the beliefs themselves should all be the same, right?

Jesus understood that these disagreements were going to crop up, and he also understood that the only way to settle those coming disagreements was to have one office to keep it all together. Otherwise, the Church would fracture. And wouldn't you know it, as soon as people disregarded the one office that Jesus Christ established in Peter -- that is PRECISELY when the Church began to fracture.

I argue for the Infallibility of the Pope and his bishops in communion with him on the grounds of necessity. Christ foretold the schisms when he prayed, "May they all be one as we are one". He established the office of Pope in order to counteract fracture. And as soon as people disregarded that office is precisely when schism occurred. I argue for it from necessity, which history has demonstrated time and time again.

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1288039668' post='2182477']
Lol nice description! Seems a little contrived...but what can I say...
Why did I not "look this up"?

1. It was not that important to me, it was just a little something I wondered when I was 10 BEFORE I REALIZED I WAS NOT A LITERALIST

2. Are you saying that I should trust these "commentaries"??? Are they [u][i]INFALLIBLE[/i][/u]???
If not they must be garbage right?
[/quote]



You said in a previous post that I seemed to think every Catholic just believes what they do because one person told them something and that was that. Then you wondered why this was so. I already answered that question in detail, which shows you have ears, but don't hear. You had asked

[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"]"PS~ It would be awesome if you could give a good answer... I had wondered this since I noticed it when I was about 10... "[/size][/font][/color]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"]
I gave you a completely sane and rational answer, but instead of sticking with the sane explanation, you prefer to wear a straight-jacket and revert to the only other explanation I can think of; namely, that the Bible contains a contradictory account of Judas' death and the Holy Spirit is a complete failure. I'm simply astonished.[/size][/font][/color]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"][color="#595959"] [/color][/size][/font]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"]You don't understand however, different ways of saying things and stressing certain aspects of a story, does [i]not [/i]mean that an account is contradictory, as any witness to a car wreck will perhaps phrase and emphasize one aspect of the incident, while another will articulate it in another fashion. Face it....you wouldn't even believe the 4 gospels if you saw that they were [i]exactly the same in every detail, yet claimed to be written by [u]different[/u] people. [/i]That being so, the fact that you still find fault, even when the accounts are in perfect symmetry based on the common sense reason I furnished, is quite insane. And being a "literalist" has nothing to do with the straight-foward accounts as they are written and are easily harmonized, as the Holy Spirit who inspired them would agree. More, since there never has been an infallible person who walked this earth, save One, commentaries are under no compulsion to be infallible, nor do they need to be.....to be correct.


[/size][/font][/color]

[Winchester]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288042840' post='2182497']
...I already answered that question in detail, which shows you have ears...
[/quote]
Do you hear our posts?

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='mommas_boy' timestamp='1288042472' post='2182494']
Listen, to detractors of papal infallibility -- you guys don't give Christ that much credit. So, Jesus leaves the earth with his apostles as his teachers. And wouldn't you know it, it didn't take long for disagreements about theology to crop up. Let's see, the Council of Jerusalem was in and around year 50; we know at least that Peter and Paul were alive at the time. The purpose of the Council was to settle disagreements that had cropped up since Jesus had left. Then, there were about 21 more (based on my quick cursory research). That's 21 times where there were disagreements on the matters of faith and morals that were all based on the same Scripture.

Heck, we have precisely HOW MANY protestant churches nowadays, each one preaching something different? But don't they all have the same Scripture? How is this possible? Shouldn't we all believe the same thing? I mean, we have the SAME SCRIPTURE, the source of our beliefs is the same, and therefore the beliefs themselves should all be the same, right?

Jesus understood that these disagreements were going to crop up, and he also understood that the only way to settle those coming disagreements was to have one office to keep it all together. Otherwise, the Church would fracture. And wouldn't you know it, as soon as people disregarded the one office that Jesus Christ established in Peter -- that is PRECISELY when the Church began to fracture.

I argue for the Infallibility of the Pope and his bishops in communion with him on the grounds of necessity. Christ foretold the schisms when he prayed, "May they all be one as we are one". He established the office of Pope in order to counteract fracture. And as soon as people disregarded that office is precisely when schism occurred. I argue for it from necessity, which history has demonstrated time and time again.
[/quote]


I'll answer your question in detail as time permits. But since you think that the gift of infallibility was given to the Roman hierarchy, detractors such as myself have a very simple question:

[i]Kindly tell us how many times the Magisterium has spoken infallibly.[/i]
[i]
[/i]
To save you a little trouble, I have already thoroughly and exhaustively researched that question, and I've discovered that the Roman Church cannot answer it, and all Catholic apologists have different answers. That is a fact.

Having established the non-answer to the question being asked, doesn't it seem strange to you that a religious entity that claims to have a gift, but cannot tell us how many times they have used it, should have the nerve to be taken seriously? All non-catholics who have studied the issue agree. And if, per chance, you do not, then please explain why it isn't necessary to know how many times your church has spoken infallibly, but rather, it is only important that we believe she is, based on her "infallible" say-so; and also explain how this pronouncement shouldn't classify Catholicism in any way with cults like Jim Jones, who simply told his followers to drink the poisoned fruit juice---or be shot trying to run away if refusing to do so.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288044139' post='2182501']
I'll answer your question in detail as time permits. But since you think that the gift of infallibility was given to the Roman hierarchy, detractors such as myself have a very simple question:

[i]Kindly tell us how many times the [s]Magisterium[/s] pope has spoken [s]infallibly[/s] Ex Cathedra.[/i]
[i]
[/i]
[/quote]
Fxd


[quote][s]To save you a little trouble, I have already thoroughly and exhaustively researched that question, and I've discovered that the Roman Church cannot answer it, and all Catholic apologists have different answers. That is a fact.

Having established the non-answer to the question being asked, doesn't it seem strange to you that a religious entity that claims to have a gift, but cannot tell us how many times they have used it, should have the nerve to be taken seriously? All non-catholics who have studied the issue agree. And if, per chance, you do not, then please explain why it isn't necessary to know how many times your church has spoken infallibly, but rather, it is only important that we believe she is, based on her "infallible" say-so; and also explain how this pronouncement shouldn't classify Catholicism in any way with cults like Jim Jones, who simply told his followers to drink the poisoned fruit juice---or be shot trying to run away if refusing to do so.[/s]
[/quote]
Dismissed.

You must wait for the answer, even if you think you know it (and even when it's based upon poor wording).

Also, you cannot claim to thoroughly and exhaustively have researched the answer when it's obvious you spend all your time either on the interwebs or [s]eating your weight in Snickers[/s](apologies. I had you confused with Socrates, there) wrestling bears.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Winchester