Errors Of The Pope

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1281798' date='May 26 2007, 01:35 PM']What about 2 of the 3 sources and your self mistaking where the quote is from? It is said to be from the Catechism of St. Pius X, but several people have been unable to find it in the Catechism. Would that not put doubt on the accuracy of the quote?[/quote] Just because they can't find it in an "online" catechism doesnt mean that it's not in the original Catechism written.

[quote]Would you agree that the statement is not what this thread is looking for as an 'error of the Pope'?[/quote] Here's what I think, I think most Roman Catholics, even if there were an error from the Pope, wouldn't accept it as an error and would find a "loop hole" to not believing that it was an error to begin with. Don't get me wrong, I ain't trippin over it, Muslims do the same thing with Muhammed.

Reza

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1281819' date='May 26 2007, 03:50 PM']Just because they can't find it in an "online" catechism doesnt mean that it's not in the original Catechism written.[/quote]
So, if I go get a written version, you are saying it will be in there? I've used 3 or so different online versions of the listed catechism, including a few sites that would be considered anti-catholic, and I still cannot find the statement you refered to. Could you inform me as to which section of the Catechism I can find it in? If you could even provide a page number, I'll be more then glad to stop at a Library to look it up, just include which copy you are refering to.


[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1281819' date='May 26 2007, 03:50 PM']Here's what I think, I think most Roman Catholics, even if there were an error from the Pope, wouldn't accept it as an error and would find a "loop hole" to not believing that it was an error to begin with. Don't get me wrong, I ain't trippin over it, Muslims do the same thing with Muhammed.[/quote]
I would think that most Roman Catholics would show how, as in this statement, that the error would be an error or theological speculation, but one given by the Pope as a personal theologian, not being given as an infallible teaching of the Church (as the majority of your given media sources show/claim).
But, that is beside the point. Would you agree that the statement is not what this thread is looking for as an 'error of the Pope'?

Edited May 26, 2007 by CatholicCid

[iggyjoan]

the pope can't make errors, he's infallible.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='iggyjoan' post='1281888' date='May 26 2007, 06:58 PM']the pope can't make errors, he's infallible.[/quote]

He actually is only infallible when speaking [i]ex cathedra[/i] on faith or morals.

[quote]Denzinger 1839 And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.
[url="http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma19.php"]http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma19.php[/url][/quote]

[quote]Just because they can't find it in an "online" catechism doesnt mean that it's not in the original Catechism written.[/quote]
I own a copy. I was reading it when I was writing post #24 of this thread.

If you want to get a copy you can go to your local orthodox or traditionalist Catholic bookstore (if there is one where you live) to buy it or buy it online here: [url="http://www.angeluspress.org/index.php?act=warehouse&info=4001"]http://www.angeluspress.org/index.php?act=...e&info=4001[/url]

I have read the copy of the book I own and have compared several parts to the online version and they are exactly the same.

Edited May 27, 2007 by StThomasMore

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1281909' date='May 26 2007, 06:24 PM']He actually is only infallible when speaking [i]ex cathedra[/i] on faith or morals.
I own a copy. I was reading it when I was writing post #24 of this thread.

If you want to get a copy you can go to your local orthodox or traditionalist Catholic bookstore (if there is one where you live) to buy it or buy it online here: [url="http://www.angeluspress.org/index.php?act=warehouse&info=4001"]http://www.angeluspress.org/index.php?act=...e&info=4001[/url]

I have read the copy of the book I own and have compared several parts to the online version and they are exactly the same.[/quote]

Can you buy older versions too?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1281916' date='May 26 2007, 07:34 PM']Can you buy older versions too?[/quote]

I don't think so. I know the one currently on the market is authentic though because of the following from the 1909 Catholic encyclopedia with my emphasis added:

[quote](a) The present pontiff,[b]Pius X, has prescribed a catechism for use in the Diocese of Rome and in its ecclesiastical province, and has expressed a desire that it should be adopted throughout Italy. It has been translated into English, French, Spanish, and German, and a movement has begun with a view to extending its use to other countries besides Italy, especially to Spain, where the conditions are similar. [/b](See "Irish Eccl. Record", March, 1906, p. 221; "Amer. Eccl. Rev.", Nov., 1906.) This catechism consists of two parts, or rather two distinct books: one for "lower classes" and one for "higher classes". The first, or "Shorter Catechism", is meant for those who have not made their first Communion;[b] the second, or "Longer Catechism", for those who have already been through the other. Both are constructed on the same lines: an introductory portion, and then five sections treating in turn of the Creed, Prayer, the Commandments, the Sacraments, the Virtues, etc[/b]. The "Longer Catechism" contains, in addition, in catechetical form, an instruction on the feasts of Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints, and a short "History of Religion" (the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Church) in the form of a narrative. But though the two catechisms are on the same main lines, they have very little connection with each other. Hardly any of the questions and answers are the same; so that a knowledge of the wording of the first is of little use, but rather an obstacle, in learning the second. It is worthy of note that, though texts of Scripture are not quoted, the second catechism contains a large number of questions and answers relating to the Holy Scripture, among others the following: "[u]Is the reading of the Bible necessary to all Christians? -- The reading of the Bible is not necessary to all Christians, because they are taught by the Church; still, the reading of it is very useful and recommended to all[/u]." Many of the answers in the second catechism are much longer than those in other catechisms. The catechism itself, without counting the lengthy instruction on the feasts and the "History of Religion", fills more than 200 pages 12mo in Bishop Byrne's translation.
[i]The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V. Published 1909. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York[/i]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm[/url][/quote]

The version now in print today is the "Longer Catechism" without the items listed after the words "in addition" in the above article.

The underlined above which is a quote from the Catechism of St. Pius X obviously is a different translation of the following from the edition of the Catechism in print today:

[quote]28 Q. Is the reading of the Bible necessary to all Christians?
A. The reading of the Bible is not necessary to all Christians since they are instructed by the Church; however its reading is very useful and recommended to all.
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM[/url][/quote]

Edited May 27, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Apotheoun]

The Roman Church teaches that the Pope, through his Ordinary Magisterium, can confirm or reaffirm that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as either [i]de fide credenda[/i] or [i]de fide tenenda[/i] (e.g., [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i], which restricted priestly ordination to men alone) without issuing an [i]ex cathedra[/i] definition.

See my paper: [url="http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/paper13b"]The Debate Occasioned by Lumen Gentium 25 regarding the Authority of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium[/url]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1281921' date='May 26 2007, 07:46 PM']The Roman Church teaches that the Pope, through his Ordinary Magisterium, can confirm or reaffirm that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as either [i]de fide credenda[/i] or [i]de fide tenenda[/i] (e.g., [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i], which restricted priestly ordination to men alone) without issuing an [i]ex cathedra[/i] definition.

See my paper: [url="http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/paper13b"]The Debate Occasioned by Lumen Gentium 25 regarding the Authority of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium[/url][/quote]

The Eastern Church teaches this as well, seeing as the Roman Church and Eastern Church are but two lungs of the Holy Catholic Church which teaches the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

[Apotheoun]

Not all the Eastern Churches teach that the Pope is infallible.

Only those in communion with Rome accept the primacy of the Pope.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1281936' date='May 26 2007, 07:57 PM']Not all the Eastern Churches teach that the Pope is infallible.

Only those in communion with Rome accept the primacy of the Pope.[/quote]

The Eastern Churches not in communion with the Pope of Rome are schismatical heretics, and the members of the aforementioned Churches are not members of the Holy Catholic Church founded by the God-Man Jesus Christ.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1281937' date='May 26 2007, 07:00 PM']The Eastern Churches not in communion with the Pope of Rome are schismatical heretics, and the members of the aforementioned Churches are not members of the Holy Catholic Church founded by the God-Man Jesus Christ.[/quote]
I do not agree. Moreover, the Vatican itself holds that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are true particular Churches, and that they manifest the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church whenever they celebrate the Eucharist (cf. CDF Instruction [i]Communionis Notio[/i])

May God bless you.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1281939' date='May 26 2007, 08:03 PM']I do not agree. Moreover, the Vatican itself holds that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are true particular Churches, and that they manifest the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church whenever they celebrate the Eucharist (cf. CDF Instruction [i]Communionis Notio[/i])

May God bless you.[/quote]

I didn't think that you would. Some of the things you have said at ByzCath are borderline heretical at best. A lot of the members over there sadden me by their heretical statements, especially the ones who state they are Catholic and not Greek Orthodox in their profiles.

Have a joyful Pentecost.

[Apotheoun]

I expected you to say that, i.e., based upon your past posts and your restrictive historical and theological views.

I hope that you have had a blessed Fifth All Souls Saturday, and I pray that you have a joyful Pentecost.

[thessalonian]

Seems reza cannot produce the proof that the quote was in the alleged catechism by Pius X and the evidence is to the contrary, but he has to claim it was in some version that is not online, though he has no proof of such a version. Perhaps some conspiracy by the Catholic Church to expunge the statement from the Catechism after the fact will be his next arguement.

As I thought reza, you dug your heals in. Very sad that you cannot admit there is a problem with your claim and address it. I'm done with you.

Edited May 29, 2007 by thessalonian

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]No what I proved was that your initial claim, that I had no evidence to support my beliefs, was wrong. That you pre-judged me, based upon what you didn't know and didn't bother to read the threads that came before it, proving my stance.

QUOTE
that the non-roman bishop had a lot of respect.
It wasn't "alot of respect", St. Athanasius was trusted throughout Christendom in the whole world. Now of course you could provide a "loop hole" of your own, that's fine but it's not based upon what was originally written. To say that there is no evidence that suggests a different view then your own, is foolish. I provided you with quotes, more then enough factual evidence to my position, you have yet to answer back in response to a single one of those quotes that were from very respected sources, so don't talk to me about "playing hardball" and having a good discussion.[/quote]

I don't think I said you had no evidence. You misunderstand me.
I did prejudge your motives. I didn't mean to be personal for the sake of being personal, I'm just saying from my perspective anytime I try to disprove the church and I start failing, I start falling back on personal reasons I just don't want to be catholic other than a substantial argument. When I challenged you, it was after you didn't show the Catholic church to be untrue. You can't deny there's a lot of evidence in its favor, yet you continue to simply fall back on possible interpretations from narrow sources. You have to admit it might be true, the CC. I didn't pick up any hint that you were truly examing the CC more beyond saying they have some good arguments.

With that said, the problems with your current argument remain, and the challege remains to find a contradiction or say why you think one does not need to exist. And I still question your motives, as anyone who isn't catholic I would. And the less you address the concerns, the more I question your motives.
I'm not saying you have no evidence, though.

Edited May 29, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c