Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Papal Infalliblity - Fought By The Rcc Of That Day


Bruce S

Recommended Posts

This is the quote we have:

"...a work of the devil...the Father of Lies."

Not only are words deliberately taken out of the middle of it, but we don't even have a subject or verb. Nor do we have a source. He could have said anything about anything. If it's such an important quotation from the pope, why are they so afraid to post a complete sentence?

This isn't worth the keyboard it was typed on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK.

I only read about 12 paragraphs of your first post here, Bruce. And will say this for now:

Hans Kung's quotes re: Blessed Pius IX- if they be accurate- are WARPED. Even Pio Nono's (Bl. Pius IX) enemies revered that pope.

Are Catholics here aware that Pio Nono's body is incorrupt?

Papal Infalliblility came to the forefront of Vatican I in part due to masonic-liberal negative publicity. The squeaky wheel got the grease all right... and they hate it to this day. They can thank Cardinal Manning, that holy powerhouse and convert, contemporary of Cardinal Newman, for realizing the time had providentially come to define this doctrine, and for working for this holy end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I frankly don't care what COMMENTARY Catholic men said 1700 years ago.

Can you give us commentary from a father of your church 1700 years ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you give us commentary from a father of your church 1700 years ago?

Why?

Commentary is commentary.

There is plenty of good commentary being written even today.

I love reading commentary, teachings, and instructions.

However, I also do not consider the Bible, with the possible exception of the Deutercannonical books, as commentary, but more so, even the Word of God, if the fundamentalists be right.

Gotta love commentary. Some of that old stuff is fascinating reading, shame all the commentators never agreed, and don't now.

Even modern Catholic commentary isn't in agreement, goes to show the very nature of man is to fight over "jots and titttles" as the Jews call this squabbling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CatholicAndFanatical

yep, I caught that too foundsheep, typical prot two step..lol

I guess if we cant trust history and so called 'commentaries' then we need to rethink History, I mean how else do we know the Revelutionary War happened if not through History, how do we know when the Declaration of Independance was signed and how they came to the conclusions they did? We'll if we cant trust history to see how things were taught and done then we need to just through out everything and start to come up to our own conclusions.

Its funny how some prots like to use history when it benefits them, like say the inquisition and such, you know..to get the 'facts' about what happened. But show them History that deals with how the Church was ran back in 80AD - 100AD, well then, pfft - thats just commentary by infallable men and cant be trusted. Who needs to read them.

poor poor souls.

CatholicAndFanatical

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...