Catholics Have To Submit To The Pope No Matter How Wicked

[cmotherofpirl]

DAily or weekly probably depended on how many politicians he had to listen to that day.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1219093' date='Mar 25 2007, 01:19 AM']Yep. Pope John Paul II went every week.

Popes can and do sin (we'd be pretty blind to say that they don't, although I suppose ultimately we can't judge hearts). Infallibility only extends to the papal teaching office (the "cathedra") when speaking definitively in matters of faith or morals. As it stands, the popes have only ever made two infallible statements (and then only after consulting the world's bishops and getting widespread consent). Everything else comes out of councils and the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium.[/quote]
Uh huh.
So why doesn't the RC Church have a list of Infallible Statements?
I've pointed out that Infalliblity is not Supremacy and are two different things.
Why do Popes and Bishops tell the Catholic Lay to be obedient to them, even in matters where they aren't speaking infallibly, or risk condeming themselves to hell?
Most Catholic Bishops, Cardinals, and clergy will tell you the Papal writing regarding the Ordination of Women was an infallible decree. Hmmm.
Most Catholic Bishops, Cardinals, and clergy will tell you that the Theology of the Body is infallible.

There is a beg difference between telling someone you 'should' be obedient or telling someone you 'must' be obedient. Face it. Since RC Clergy are human, there is no problem with people who think they are doing the right thing for the Church, to mislead the faithful by substituting MUST for SHOULD. After enough time, people believe them.

Jesus warned the Apostles quite clearly about what it meant to be First among them. He made it crystal clear that being First was not about SUPREMACY like the gentile rulers.

Edited March 25, 2007 by Anomaly

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1219208' date='Mar 25 2007, 08:43 AM']Uh huh.
So why doesn't the RC Church have a list of Infallible Statements?
I've pointed out that Infalliblity is not Supremacy and are two different things.
Why do Popes and Bishops tell the Catholic Lay to be obedient to them, even in matters where they aren't speaking infallibly, or risk condeming themselves to hell?
Most Catholic Bishops, Cardinals, and clergy will tell you the Papal writing regarding the Ordination of Women was an infallible decree. Hmmm.
Most Catholic Bishops, Cardinals, and clergy will tell you that the Theology of the Body is infallible.

There is a beg difference between telling someone you 'should' be obedient or telling someone you 'must' be obedient. Face it. Since RC Clergy are human, there is no problem with people who think they are doing the right thing for the Church, to mislead the faithful by substituting MUST for SHOULD. After enough time, people believe them.

Jesus warned the Apostles quite clearly about what it meant to be First among them. He made it crystal clear that being First was not about SUPREMACY like the gentile rulers.[/quote]

Why is it that you've become increasingly hateful of the Catholic Church since you fell away? You know the answers to these questions and you know that the Church is innocent of your attacks. If you have an issue with the Church, try to figure it out, but don't use stereotypical attacks to fight against us when you clearly know better.

The only two times a pope has spoken ex cathedra are the declarations of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Dogma of the Assumption. You know that.

As you know, the Councils of the Church are also infallible. Further, as you know, the Ordinary Universal Magisterium carries infallibility.

If you look to the response by then Josef Cardinal Ratzinger on the matter of the infallibility of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, you will note that he responded not by indicating that it was an ex cathedra statement, but rather that it was a confirmation of an already held infallible teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. I have never heard a single person say that the theology of the body is infallible, although certainly those parts which restate already stated dogmas are.

Here is an excellent paper on the matter: [url="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jyoung.html"]http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jyoung.html[/url]

Finally, Jesus made it quite clear that being first was about being a servant. As the bishops are servants of God's people, and carry out that service by helping them to gain eternal life, and the pope, as head steward, carries out that service by leading his brother bishops in it, they are fulfilling Jesus' command.

A king went off to a foreign land and left a steward in his place to serve his people. When the king was gone and clearly out of sight, the people said to the steward, "steward, free us from these laws the king has established," and the steward, thinking to himself, "I am their servant, who am I to give them orders," did so. Then the people came to the steward and said, "steward, free us from these taxes, so that we may better spend our money on our passions," and the steward, thinking the same as before, did so. Then the people came to the steward and said, "steward, we know that our lord the king has stored up a great treasury of gold for the sake of public works and charity. Open this treasury for us, that we may take the gold and spend it now, for the king withheld it from us, in order to keep us from feeling as if we did not need him," and the steward, thinking the same as before, gave them the treasure. Then the people came to the steward and said, "steward, you are our servant, and we no longer need you, for we have everything we need. We dine sumptuously, we drink to the full, and we give ourselves over to loose women without the penalty of law. We no longer need you; but come, join us in our new freedom, for you are our servant, and we wish to reward you," and the steward, thinking the same as before, went with them. When the king returned to his land, and found the fields desolate and untilled, the streets running with blood and wine, the treasury empty, and all the women dressed as prostitutes, he called the steward and asked him, "how have you run my kingdom?" The steward said, "I have been a good servant to all, serving your people and not lording it over them, giving them everything they wanted, and providing them with freedom for their consciences." The king replied, "you have destroyed their consciences," and summoning the people, he said, "what have you done?" The people replied, "we have taken our freedom from you and we no longer wish to serve you." "You shall all be condemned and imprisoned, for you refuse to accept my gifts. I made laws for you, for your good, and I set aside funds for you, to keep you well-fed at the proper times, and I have asked nothing from you except your support, yet you have rejected me and turned my steward to corruption. And what about my steward," the king asked, "what shall I do with him? Shall I reward him and place him at my right hand?" "No," they replied, "it is his fault that we are to be imprisoned, for he gave us all we asked of him; imprison him below us, that we may spit on him and pummel him with our fists for the agony he has inflicted upon us," and so the king ordered.

There is a difference between lording it over and having supreme authority. The Lord tells us that those in authority are to serve. By holding supreme authority, the Magisterium is the lowliest of servants. It has the task of disciplining and teaching the people of God, of being shepherds, who feed their sheep at the proper hour (cf. Matthew 24:45-51). It does not say, "this is the faith we've created, so you must obey it," but rather, "this is the faith handed onto us, which, being lived faithfully, grants eternal life. You must obey these commands if you wish to have eternal life."

God bless,

Micah

[RezaMikhaeil]

What makes you think that he can be infallible some of the time and fallible other times? To me [thou I'm very fallable], thats like trying to seperate Christ's divine and human nature [which can't be seperated] {metaphor}. Maybe you could go more indepth on this for me.

Reza

Edited March 25, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[thessalonian]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1219309' date='Mar 25 2007, 02:52 PM']What makes you think that he can be infallible some of the time and fallible other times? To me [thou I'm very fallable], thats like trying to seperate Christ's divine and human nature [which can't be seperated] {metaphor}. Maybe you could go more indepth on this for me.

Reza[/quote]


Was the apostle Paul always infallible?
Was Peter always infallible?
Was (fill in name of apostle or scripture writer/speaker) always infallible?

Were they some of the time? Quite clearly they were.
Even the sinful high priest Caiphas was infallible when he said in John 11 that it was better for one man to die for the many. This was a prophecy so it was the Holy Spirit speaking through him.

Edited March 25, 2007 by thessalonian

[Budge]

I couldnt get on this board yesterday or day before, it was very slow...what gives with that?

Anamoly at least sees some of the discrepancies with this infallible stuff.
[b]
Im curious DO YOU ALL CONSIDER THE WORD OF GOD {THE BIBLE} to BE INFALLIBLE?[/b]



{be careful answering that one}

[got2luvjc]

I don't know whether you are asking that as an honest question looking for an honest answer, or you're waiting for a certain answer so that you can jump all over that person.


does infallable mean "true"? (serious question)

Edited March 25, 2007 by got2luvjc

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Budge' post='1219349' date='Mar 25 2007, 03:20 PM']I couldnt get on this board yesterday or day before, it was very slow...what gives with that?

Anamoly at least sees some of the discrepancies with this infallible stuff.
[b]
Im curious DO YOU ALL CONSIDER THE WORD OF GOD {THE BIBLE} to BE INFALLIBLE?[/b]



{be careful answering that one}[/quote]

I'm curious. Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is absolutely equal to the Word of God? The scriptures use the word scripture and also the WOG. So if someone has the scriptures do they always have the WOG? For example if they have a certain passage they are reading but have the wrong understanding of it do they have the WOG? Obviously not. Is what is floating around in the nuerons between your ears the WOG? Scripture is in fact inevitably interpretated. The Bible can be said to be inerrant but something that is interpreted cannot be said to be infallible. That says it cannot fail in giving you the truth. But that implies interpretation of the reader is infallible as well. We know that's not the case.

[Budge]

[quote]Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is absolutely equal to the Word of God?[/quote]

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Budge' post='1219389' date='Mar 25 2007, 03:47 PM'] [/quote]


I know you don't know. Do you understand the question and it's significance?

Edited March 25, 2007 by thessalonian

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1219332' date='Mar 25 2007, 01:10 PM']Was the apostle Paul always infallible?
Was Peter always infallible?
Was (fill in name of apostle or scripture writer/speaker) always infallible?

Were they some of the time? Quite clearly they were.
Even the sinful high priest Caiphas was infallible when he said in John 11 that it was better for one man to die for the many. This was a prophecy so it was the Holy Spirit speaking through him.[/quote]

... to answer your question, no I dont think that the Apostles were infallible.

Reza

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1219309' date='Mar 25 2007, 01:52 PM']What makes you think that he can be infallible some of the time and fallible other times? To me [thou I'm very fallable], thats like trying to seperate Christ's divine and human nature [which can't be seperated] {metaphor}. Maybe you could go more indepth on this for me.

Reza[/quote]
It is his office which is infallible, not his person. As such, when he is acting from that office in a matter of competency for that office (faith or morals) and says that he is defining something dogmatically, he is infallible (in virtue of the office).

...and yes, Budge, the Bible is infallible.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1219288' date='Mar 25 2007, 02:51 PM']Why is it that you've become increasingly hateful of the Catholic Church since you fell away? You know the answers to these questions and you know that the Church is innocent of your attacks. If you have an issue with the Church, try to figure it out, but don't use stereotypical attacks to fight against us when you clearly know better.

The only two times a pope has spoken ex cathedra are the declarations of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Dogma of the Assumption. You know that.

As you know, the Councils of the Church are also infallible. Further, as you know, the Ordinary Universal Magisterium carries infallibility.

If you look to the response by then Josef Cardinal Ratzinger on the matter of the infallibility of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, you will note that he responded not by indicating that it was an ex cathedra statement, but rather that it was a confirmation of an already held infallible teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. I have never heard a single person say that the theology of the body is infallible, although certainly those parts which restate already stated dogmas are.

....

There is a difference between lording it over and having supreme authority. The Lord tells us that those in authority are to serve. By holding supreme authority, the Magisterium is the lowliest of servants. It has the task of disciplining and teaching the people of God, of being shepherds, who feed their sheep at the proper hour (cf. Matthew 24:45-51). It does not say, "this is the faith we've created, so you must obey it," but rather, "this is the faith handed onto us, which, being lived faithfully, grants eternal life. You must obey these commands if you wish to have eternal life."

God bless,

Micah[/quote]I'm not hateful. That's and emotion you transfer to me because my questions scare you.
There is much I love about the Catholic Church, but I won't swallow the human cr*p that gets mixed in with it. For one, the Ordinary Magisterium is not infallible. Two, the Church is not infallible in matters of Faith AND Morals. Three, if ever, Bishops are infallible ONLY in very limited circumstances when they are joined collegiately as a Council, and then, only in matters of Faith. Read a bit more Church History and pay attention to how often men have manipulated the power of Church Offices for political power. The True Church will always exist, just as God's Salvific Grace exists in many ways and forms. Never is God Grace held with exclusive control by men. That's what makes me ex-Catholic, because theo-beareaucrats have made man-made rules that aren't infallible and have caused Christianity to split asunder. It's human pride and mis-placed human loyalty for "Religion" as the priority that makes humans who love God enemies toward each other.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1219541' date='Mar 25 2007, 09:15 PM']That's what makes me ex-Catholic, because theo-beareaucrats have made man-made rules that aren't infallible and have caused Christianity to split asunder.[/quote]I'm trying to understand your claim. Are you saying that the divisions of non-Catholic Christianity, which has split into itsy-bitsy pieces, is somehow the fault of Vatican "theo-bureaucrats"?

Edited March 26, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1219545' date='Mar 25 2007, 09:24 PM']I'm trying to understand your claim. Are you saying that the divisions of non-Catholic Christianity, which has split into itsy-bitsy pieces, is somehow the fault of Vatican "theo-bureaucrats"?[/quote]YES. Going back to the Greatt Schism as a major malfunction that divided the Authority of the Bishops for geo-politcal reasons. Civil political agendas became more important than theological Faith objectives.