The "ex-cathedra" Quandry

[beng]

I particularly like Vigilius. He is another of my favorite confused Popes.

Who anathemized all the Bishops and Patriarchs attending the Council of Constantinope. Of course, he was forced to recant.

It is sort of nice to know that Bishops were allowed to remain Catholic after being excommunicated, gives hope to the rest of us heretics.

There are others.

And those doctrinal reverses are interesting too.

Especially how one has to be Catholic in order to obtain salvation, yet Vatican II specifically teaches one does not.

That one can't be reconcilled, it is just one that you have to take and ignore.

Excommunication is not infallible decision.

Excommunication can be reconciled.

Frederick of saxon (forget the number) for his refusal to join the crusade was excommunicated by the Pope (forget which). Later on Frederick did go. Sometime after the Pope reconciled him.

Infallible doctrines are never reversed. State your prove.

Vatican 2 Lumen Gentium doesn't contradict any previous doctrine. For someone who don't know anything you sprout a lot of lies. And you accuse Catholics of lies. Such hi[pocrisy.

Edited December 29, 2003 by beng

[Mateo el Feo]

I exclusively use the terms Catholic, or the abbreviation Catholic Church when discussing the faith.

Let's stick to the topic and not toss names at each other.

I ask again. The abbreviation for "Catholic" is not "Catholic Church." In charity, please respect my request.

AMDG,

Mateo

[cmotherofpirl]

I'm sorry, I cannot write Catholic Church as that may confuse others in my responses. The Catholic Church is much clearer, and it emphasizes the position I argue from.

But we are the Catholic Church. Not everybody is "roman", many are greek, anglican and other rites. Kindly get our name right.

[beng]

However, my sig tag does allude to the fact that Heretics, WERE allowed to be heretics and be accepted later by the Catholic Church. There is hope yet.

Why not?

If the heretic revokes his heresy.

[Bruce S]

OK.

Shall we start with Liberius?

Arian controversy time [good read those Arians, sort of the first new agers, they would like the Star Trek hologram rooms] exiled ... forced to condemn what he didn't want to, corrected himself, brought back after ex-communicting Athanasius, and recanted again.

Poor guy was all over the place. I guess those Star Trek shows were confusing him.

Oh, are you aware that the Catholic church may even BE the first protestant denomination?

Ask why?

[Bruce S]

Infallible doctrines are never reversed. State your prove.

As the OP stated. Where ARE the ENTIRE list of "Infallible Ex-Cathedra Rules"

There are none.

Gimmie the source where ALL are contained, so we may DEFINITIVELY know what is INFALLIBLE, and what is not.

The OFFICIAL LIST please.

Not just a summary of the main ones.

[cmotherofpirl]

Try the reading room under catechism

[beng]

OK.

Shall we start with Liberius?

Arian controversy time [good read those Arians, sort of the first new agers, they would like the Star Trek hologram rooms] exiled ... forced to condemn what he didn't want to, corrected himself, brought back after ex-communicting Athanasius, and recanted again.

Poor guy was all over the place. I guess those Star Trek shows were confusing him.

Oh, are you aware that the Catholic church may even BE the first protestant denomination?

Ask why?

What are you getting at?

PS

Catholic church is the first protestant argument? are you going to bring the whole thing about Orthodox? Let's not waste time.

[FlipFlopHead]

By the way, both Martin Luther and Calvin were Catholic priests...kinda sad for us...

I'm not so sure about Calvin, but Luther, yes.

[beng]

As the OP stated. Where ARE the ENTIRE list of "Infallible Ex-Cathedra Rules"

There are none.

Gimmie the source where ALL are contained, so we may DEFINITIVELY know what is INFALLIBLE, and what is not.

The OFFICIAL LIST please.

Not just a summary of the main ones.

I'll try to get official list.

In the mean time. State your supposedly erroneous infallible doctrines

[RJS]

Hey Bruce and Circle,

I think that Patrick Madrid can tell you better than anyone concerning the lies and distortions about the Papacy. If you really want to know the truth (which I doubt you do) then listen to some of his 12 part commentary called Pope Fiction based off his book Pope Fiction. If you dont want to buy the book then you can download the audio for free! All of the information you are getting from anti-catholic sources are pretty easily dismissed if you just have an open mind.....

Anyways to downolad them go here.

Pope Fiction

Search for Patrick Madrid and you then be able to download the audio.

Cmon Bruce, try it, you might just learn something about that Catholic Church that is the truth.

Edited December 29, 2003 by RJS

[Circle_Master]

If you really want to know the truth (which I doubt you do)

of course not, evil will win because good is dumb.

I'll look into that someday anyway.

[Bruce S]

Was I saying ALL Popes are bad, were bad? No. Of course not.

Just stating that Ex-Cathedra is an impossibility to "pin down" as the Catholic Church will dance around, by, anything that shows conclusively that Popes don't even agree with each other.

Heck, they have MURDERED each other, so disagreements on doctrine are not all that surprising in the grand scheme of things.

Again, INFALLIBLITY is your issue, not mine.

I EXPECT mere humans to disagree, squabble, and that doesn't concern me.

There are even oddities within the Bible itself that I'm still struggling to reconcile as a Protestant.

And half the time, I think whoever wrote Revelation was tripping on something.

I will get into Revelation someday in the near future, keep getting caught up in all those interpretation sites.

I did find one that got me to thinking about the AntiChrist and the Reformation and Vatican and Jesuit response to the charge that the Pope were the Antichrist. This one went into some very interesting historical writings about who proposed the End Times scenario that all the radical Protestants love to write about.

I need to find that link and bookmark it for my own edification and further study. Went into how this came from the Jesuits, and into Protestanism.

If anyone has a link to that please provide it for me.

[MC Just]

"Did or did not Pope Liberius promote the Arian heresy and persuaded (sic) or coerced (sic) most of the Church's bishops to do likewise?"

That's an in-your-face kind of question, now isn't it? So, just to get into the spirit of the thing, I'll bluntly answer, "No, he didn't."

"Liberius later recanted." Not even a question here, but the answer is still the same: "No, because he never canted in the first place."

Eric John edited the collection, The Popes, which gives this account of Liberius:

Liberius was consecrated on 17 May, 352 and immediately found himself involved in the Arian dispute. He appealed to the Emperor Constantius to do justice to Athanasius. The imperial reply was to summon the bishops of Gaul to a Council at Arles in 353-4, where under threat of exile, they agreed to a condemnation of Athanasius. Even Liberius' legate yielded. When the pope continued to press for a council more widely representative, it was assembled by Constantius at Milan in 355. It was threatened by a violent mob and the emperor's personal intimidation: "My Will," he exclaimed, "is canon law." He prevailed with all save three of the bishops. Athanasius was once more condemned and Arians admitted to communion. Once more papal legates surrendered and Liberius himself was ordered to sign. When he refused to do so, or even to accept the emperor's offerings, he was seized and carried off to the imperial presence; when he stood firm for Athanasius' rehabilitation he was exiled to Thrace (355) where he remained for two years. Meanwhile a Roman deacon, Felix was intruded into his see. The people refused to recognize the imperial anti-pope. Athanasius himself was driven into hiding and his flock abandoned to the persecution of an Arianizing intruder. When he visited Rome in 357 Constantius was besieged by clamorous demands for Liberius' restoration. Subservient bishops around the court at Sirmium subscribed in turn to doctrinal formulas more or less ambiguous or unorthodox. In 358 a formula drawn up by Basil of Ancyra, declaring that the Son was of like substance with the Father, homoiusios, was officially imposed. Basil represented the party known as semi-Arians, which also included St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Liberius now so far yielded as to sign this Third Formula of Sirmium. He sought to safeguard his undoubtedly orthodox interpretation by adding a condemnation, signed by Basil, of all who say "the Son is not like the Father in substance and in all things." It is, however, possible, though not proved, that about the same time he signed another ambiguous formula. In any case he condemned Athanasius. His weakness has often been employed as an argument against papal infallibility. Common sense forbids us to regard a formula extorted by undue pressure, and in any case of doubtful meaning, as an ex cathedra definition and an article of faith."

Donald Attwater (A Dictionary of the Popes, p. 30) writes:

Even if the allegations against Liberius be true, papal infallibility is not involved. At the time of his alleged fall he was an exile in the emperor's power and his acts were not unconstrained; he made no doctrinal definition; and he did not attempt to impose any belief on the Church. All the circumstances required for an exercise of infallibility were lacking.

With the death of the emperor Constantius II in 361 the influence of Arianism began to decline, and Pope Liberius publicly annulled the acts of the Arian synod of Rimini, to which he had refused to send representatives. St. Athanasius once more returned to the see of Alexandria in 362."

Sincerely in Christ,

Father Mateo

http://www.cin.org/mateo/m931127d.html

[beng]

Bruce S

Was I saying ALL Popes are bad, were bad? No. Of course not.

Just stating that Ex-Cathedra is an impossibility to "pin down" as the Catholic Church will dance around, by, anything that shows conclusively that Popes don't even agree with each other.

Try pin me down with contradictive ex-cathedra statement.

Bring it on.

Heck, they have MURDERED each other, so disagreements on doctrine are not all that surprising in the grand scheme of things.

Like Protestant never murder anyone. Protestant inquisition killed more.

And, if we count the fat that Protestant approve abortion, I would say that overal, Protestants kill more than any major wars.

Again, INFALLIBLITY is your issue, not mine.

Correction, it's Christ' issue.

I EXPECT mere humans to disagree, squabble, and that doesn't concern me.

Cool, just like how you disagree with God on that making statue thing.

What else is new.

Protestant have disagree with the Bible. Going against God is the next step.

You can't

You don't have infallibility charisma

Wait, what am I talking about

YES YOU CAN!!! Just interpret them anything you like. Reconcile anyway you like. That's the mark of True Protestant. Luther would be proud.

Why don't you just throw Revelation away? You're a Protestant anyway.

Luther almost sacked Revelation too.

Why bother.

I thought Protestant said that the Bible is clear and not need clarification.

And Svendsen even dare to say that for the elect (of course he includes himself) the Bible is clear as crystal. Thus, those who're still confuse with the Bible (Protestant) must not be saved.

But then again it's funny how Svendsen himself can not grasp the clarity of the bible.

I found about

1. Bush is the 666. Cool music!!!

2. Ronald Reagen is 666

3. David Hasselhoff is 666. WHO WOULD'VE THUNK??!!

I