Catholics Have To Submit To The Pope No Matter How Wicked

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217889' date='Mar 23 2007, 05:35 PM']I'm defining Papal Supremacy as being all authority of the Bishops come only from the Pope and the Pope rules over all the Bishops in all matters.[/quote]
Then your definition is not in line with Catholic teaching. The Church does not teach that episcopal authority comes from or through the pope.

Thanks for clarifying what your understanding was. Naturally, I'm not going to defend an incorrect view of papal supremacy.

This is my own personal writing on the authority of apostles...it's got plenty of Scripture to back it up: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=49644"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=49644[/url]

God bless,

Micah

[RezaMikhaeil]

1.) I'm going to say that I'm surprised the moderators are tolerating Budge's blatant disrespect for His Holiness, not because she disagrees but because she's not attempting to do it with tact.

[quote]Way to avoid the answer, Micah, unless you don't really know the questions. How did Papal Primacy become Papal Supremacy? What is the Traditional History of the development of this Doctrine? Isn't this Doctrine a development of the Latin Church after the Great Schism and was fueled more of geo-political desires than theological need? What about the Eastern Catholic theology that recongizes the Authority of Bishops but has limits their autonomy to their Diocese? What about the practical application of adherence to the complete Body of Tradition when the Church is faced with grave theological questions and must provide definitive (and infallible) answers? I have so many inconvient questions that are answered with 'the Church says so, when reality is, the Church is just the Latin rite that had benefitted from geography and politics, not theological 'supremacy'.[/quote] This is a much debated situation inside the church. I'm Coptic Orthodox and so I'm going to obviously believe that the Pope is just a man [we also have a pope, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III]. The other three rites [East, North, South] all have a Patriarch or "Pope" just as the Romans, we just dont consider them infallible [they even go to confession]. The theology is extensive on both sides, so you'd probably best get an answer through personal study.

Reza

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1218838' date='Mar 24 2007, 06:11 PM']1.) I'm going to say that I'm surprised the moderators are tolerating Budge's blatant disrespect for His Holiness, not because she disagrees but because she's not attempting to do it with tact.

This is a much debated situation inside the church. I'm Coptic Orthodox and so I'm going to obviously believe that the Pope is just a man [we also have a pope, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III]. The other three rites [East, North, South] all have a Patriarch or "Pope" just as the Romans, we just dont consider them infallible [they even go to confession]. The theology is extensive on both sides, so you'd probably best get an answer through personal study.

Reza[/quote]

The Pope goes to Confession. He's infallible, not impeccable.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1218937' date='Mar 24 2007, 09:48 PM']The Pope goes to Confession. He's infallible, not impeccable. [/quote]

Hahaha... You said it better than how I was goona say it...

[Socrates]

The statements regarding Papal Infallibility merely mean that the Pope's infallibility on teaching on faith and morals do not depend on the individual Pope's personal holiness. A wicked Pope could not teach wicked doctrines (though he would be judged severely for his personal wickedness).
The Pope will continue to uphold the Church's infallible teachings, whether he himeslf personally is holy or not. (And the vast majority of Popes, have indeed been very holy men.)

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1218937' date='Mar 24 2007, 06:48 PM']The Pope goes to Confession. He's infallible, not impeccable. [/quote]

Oh really? The Roman Pope goes to confession? I didn't think he did, thats pretty cool thou.

Reza

[thessalonian]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1218974' date='Mar 24 2007, 09:37 PM']Oh really? The Roman Pope goes to confession? I didn't think he did, thats pretty cool thou.

Reza[/quote]


Do your patriarchs?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1219072' date='Mar 24 2007, 09:04 PM']Do your patriarchs?[/quote]

yesyes

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1218974' date='Mar 24 2007, 08:37 PM']Oh really? The Roman Pope goes to confession? I didn't think he did, thats pretty cool thou.

Reza[/quote]
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.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I thought John Paul II went every [i]day[/i]... Carry on...

[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