Errors Of The Pope

[dairygirl4u2c]

Also, I agree saying that many catholics would not believe the error if they saw it.
but, that's just a theoretical agreement. you can't rest on the fact they'd do that to say you have an error. (i'm not saying you are, just saying)
so, the problems presented to you remain.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1283649' date='May 29 2007, 04:16 PM']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.[/quote] You havn't provided proof that it wasn't in the catechism, infact it wasn't just me that quoted it, but a grip of other sources, so just becuase you can't find it [for obvious reasons], doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that it's a fruitless claim.

[quote]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.
[/quote]And as I stated in the previous post, you couldn't provide any proof for your claims in the "bind and loose" thread, so you quit. However I didn't quit this thread, I simply havn't seen a single piece of evidence that proves that it wasn't in the catechism.

What's quite humorous, is that I havn't taken this thread that serious, and I didn't think that others were either, if I did, I could go through the numerous errors that the Pope has made, but I haven't yet.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1283686' date='May 29 2007, 05:09 PM']
I don't think I said you had no evidence. You misunderstand me.[/quote] go back and re-read what you wrote.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1283710' date='May 29 2007, 05:33 PM']Also, I agree saying that many catholics would not believe the error if they saw it.
but, that's just a theoretical agreement. you can't rest on the fact they'd do that to say you have an error. (i'm not saying you are, just saying)
so, the problems presented to you remain.[/quote]

That isn't a "theoretical agreement", just so you know but moreover, nobody has "proved" my quote wrong, they just said that they couldn't find it in the online versioin of that catechism, which is quite old. Nonetheless it's a fact, which is written in the Roman Catholic's own history, that numerous patriarchs have expounded upon the idea of "limbo", which is why it was such a big deal that Pope Benedict denounced it as a doctrine of the church.

Reza

[mortify]

Just as an aside, Reza goes nuts if someone talks about the errors of Islam, but he/she ardently tries to prove errors in Catholicism.

[Socrates]

[quote name='mortify' post='1283742' date='May 29 2007, 07:07 PM']Just as an aside, Reza goes nuts if someone talks about the errors of Islam, but he/she ardently tries to prove errors in Catholicism.[/quote]
I think we've all observed this, though Reza is a "he."

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='mortify' post='1283742' date='May 29 2007, 06:07 PM']Just as an aside, Reza goes nuts if someone talks about the errors of Islam, but he/she ardently tries to prove errors in Catholicism.[/quote]

No see, I got no problem with you talking about "the errors of Islam", what I do have a problem with is your lack of knowledge concerning it. See my belief that the Pope is fallible, is based upon various pope's that agree with limbo, then the modern pope abolishing it. Your accusations against Islam have been based upon nothing. Muslims don't believe in any infalliblity of men [much like protestants], and believe that the Quran [and some would consider the hadeeths] to be what should be the judge of Islam [much like Protestants sola scriptures theory]. You haven't based a single one of your accusations upon the Quran with proper interpretation.

Note: Catholic Annonymous [who is a Roman Catholic] has also been "irritated" by your false accusations of Islam, it's not just me.

Reza

Edited May 30, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[thessalonian]

[quote]You havn't provided proof that it wasn't in the catechism, infact it wasn't just me that quoted it, but a grip of other sources, so just becuase you can't find it [for obvious reasons], doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that it's a fruitless claim.[/quote]

Websites quoting a media outlet are better than the source itself. It is you that has given no proof (i.e. a source other than a reporter. Seems to me the one claiming infallibility is reza.

Edited May 30, 2007 by thessalonian

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1283770' date='May 29 2007, 10:07 PM']...then the modern pope abolishing it.[/quote]The "modern pope" didn't abolish limbo, and no previous pope claimed limbo to be a dogma. But, as always, don't let facts stand in your way.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1283771' date='May 29 2007, 07:11 PM']Websites quoting a media outlet are better than the source itself. It is you that has given no proof (i.e. a source other than a reporter. Seems to me the one claiming infallibility is reza.[/quote]

No that's you, you criticize me for not investing more time in this thread, and "dodging" [which I didn't do], while you dodge my questions in the "binding and loosing" thread.

Reza

[thessalonian]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1283775' date='May 29 2007, 09:14 PM']No that's you, you criticize me for not investing more time in this thread, and "dodging" [which I didn't do], while you dodge my questions in the "binding and loosing" thread.

Reza[/quote]


I dialogued with you plenty in that thread and you simply denied, denied, denied. I got bored with your antics and ranting as I am here. Do you have a particular question you want answered now?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1283839' date='May 29 2007, 07:37 PM']I dialogued with you plenty in that thread and you simply denied, denied, denied. I got bored with your antics and ranting as I am here. Do you have a particular question you want answered now?[/quote]

No you provided ZERO PROOF, you made ridiculous claims such as "well aren't the gospel writers infallible" to somehow "prove" that St. Peter was infallible, which by every logic would apply to every gospel writer according to your theology but once I'd challenged that, you just kinda didn't respond back [for obvious reasons].

However, on the subject of limbo, here's a Roman Catholic website that you might enjoy:

[url="http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/popes-limbo.htm"]http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/popes-limbo.htm[/url] Notice that it also proclaims the same quote that I previously provided.

What's this? I found another Catholic Website that gives the same quote: [url="http://www.catholic.net/the_road_to_heaven/template_article.phtml?channel_id=16&article_id=3678"]http://www.catholic.net/the_road_to_heaven...article_id=3678[/url]

The New York Times concludes the same quote: [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/international/europe/28limbo.html?ei=5090&en=dc8aeb5ad3492762&ex=1293426000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print"]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/internat...agewanted=print[/url]

It must just be a coincidence huh? There's no way that any credible source would agree with Reza huh?

Reza

Edited May 30, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1283857' date='May 29 2007, 10:42 PM'][url="http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/popes-limbo.htm"]http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/popes-limbo.htm[/url] Notice that it also proclaims the same quote that I previously provided.[/quote]Of course, the casual reader would realize that this is an anti-Catholic website, not a Catholic website as you suggest.

In any event, you may want to re-read the bottom of the webpage you have cited, since it actually proves us right and you wrong.[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1283857' date='May 29 2007, 10:42 PM']It must just be a coincidence huh? There's no way that any credible source would agree with Reza huh?[/quote]Considering that your own citation of an anti-Catholic website actually confirms your error, maybe you would reconsider your obstinance.

[thessalonian]

Seems he's got some splainin to do.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1283899' date='May 29 2007, 08:12 PM']In any event, you may want to re-read the bottom of the webpage you have cited, since it actually proves us right and you wrong.Considering that your own citation of an anti-Catholic website actually confirms your error, maybe you would reconsider your obstinance.[/quote]

What you mean it proves you right? Thesselonian [among the others] said that the Roman Pope didn't say the quote that I provided, yet the numerous websites, proclaimed that he did say it.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1283899' date='May 29 2007, 08:12 PM']In any event, you may want to re-read the bottom of the webpage you have cited, since it actually proves us right and you wrong.Considering that your own citation of an anti-Catholic website actually confirms your error, maybe you would reconsider your obstinance.[/quote]

What you mean it proves you right? Thesselonian [among the others] said that the Roman Pope didn't say the quote that I provided, yet the numerous websites, proclaimed that he did say it.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1283931' date='May 29 2007, 11:30 PM']What you mean it proves you right? Thesselonian [among the others] said that the Roman Pope didn't say the quote that I provided, yet the numerous websites, proclaimed that he did say it.[/quote]Get back to me when you've actually read the webpage.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1283974' date='May 29 2007, 08:48 PM']Get back to me when you've actually read the webpage.[/quote]

LEt me post it:

Is Limbo In Limbo?
by Dominic Farrel, LC

While the Vatican’s document prohibiting the ordination of men with marked homosexual tendencies to the priesthood has been on the front pages, the International Theological Commission has been working on what may be a far more ground-breaking issue.


December 20, 2005 / While the Vatican’s document prohibiting the ordination of men with marked homosexual tendencies to the priesthood has been on the front pages, the International Theological Commission has been working on what may be a far more ground-breaking issue.

On 7 October 2004 John Paul addressed the members of the International Theological Commission (ITC) and set its agenda for the next year. The first problem he asked them to study “is the question of the fate of children who die without Baptism.”

In the same address the Pope also listed the Catholic doctrines ITC members would have to take into account in order to offer “a theological synthesis” for “consistent and enlightened pastoral practice.” If someone unfamiliar with the intricacies of theological debate reads this address, he may not see the problem the Pope was alluding to. So why has the fate of unbaptized infants always been such a thorny issue?

Catholics believe that all men, with the exception of Mary and Jesus, are born with original sin. By the first sin Adam lost the original holiness he had received from God and was meant to pass on to his descendants. As a result of his sins, he transmitted to his descendants a human nature wounded by his sin, and deprived or original holiness. Original sin is the deprivation of this holiness, without which there is no communion with God in this life, nor in the next.

Christ, however, redeemed us from sin and those who believe in him and are faithful to him regain holiness. Moreover, Baptism is necessary in order to receive Christ’s grace. For this reason the Church has always insisted that children be baptized as soon as possible. But what about children who die and have not been baptized? It is true that they have not committed any personal sins, and so cannot be condemned to hell. On the other hand they do bear original sin and have not received Christ’s grace. How then can they be admitted to heaven? An easy solution would be to say that God just has mercy on them. However, this solution is too easy because it forgets that every person needs Christ’s grace in order to be saved and plays down the gravity of original sin. Nor does it explain how deceased, unbaptized infants could receive Christ’s grace. Likewise, if they are going to be saved anyway, there would be no point in having young children baptized. And that is a position the Church cannot accept.

From 28 November to 2 December the ITC has discussed this issue and prepared the draft of a document on it. Its plenary sessions have been chaired by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop William Levada. Up to his election to the See of Rome, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had chaired the ITC’s sessions during recent years.

But why did John Paul II put this issue at the top of the ITC’s working agenda for this year?

The Church teaches that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Currently, however, so many children die without being baptized, chiefly because of abortion, or sometimes because nominally Catholic parents neglect to have them baptized. In this case, what happens to their souls?

For centuries Catholics supposed that such children were destined to limbo. In Latin, limbo means “frontier”, “limit”. Theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas, developed the concept of limbo infantium. Whereas those who die in God’s grace and friendship enjoy the vision of God and supernatural communion with him, souls in limbo would only have a far inferior, natural happiness, deprived of the possibility of contemplating God directly. Unlike the heavenly state of supernatural bliss, this would only be a state of natural happiness. They would be more like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, than the saints in heaven. It seemed necessary to presuppose this state of existence since babies had not committed personal sins and therefore could not be destined to hell or purgatory.

Limbo, however, has fallen out of favour in recent years, mainly because it has no basis in the Bible nor in the belief of the first Christians.

In fact, the Magisterium has never doctrinally defined limbo, even though some official papal documents mention it. In 1794 Pope Pius VI condemned the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia’s accusation that the theory of limbo was a fable adopted from Pelagianism. However, Pius VI only condemned an offensive accusation made against a respectable theological theory. He did not define a doctrine.

The 1905 Catechism of St Pius X teaches that children who die without being baptized are destined to limbo. However, the Catechism, which Pius X wrote before his elevation to the papacy, was never directed to the universal Church. It is not an authoritative papal definition.

More authoritative is the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, significantly, does not mention limbo. Rather, n. 1261 teaches that the Church entrusts children who have died without Baptism to God’s mercy. It does not say what the Church believes, but only that it hopes that there is a “way of salvation” for them. It therefore leaves the issue open.

The first edition of Evangelium Vitae n 99, however, raised the issue anew. John Paul II counselled women who had resorted to abortion on how to heal their personal guilt. Among other things he pointed out that they are able to ask forgiveness from their aborted child, “who is now living in the Lord”. This phrase implied that the souls of aborted infants are currently in heaven. However, it was removed from the official Latin version. It seems the Pope had taken too strong a position on a question still under discussion. The official edition says instead, “However, you can entrust your baby to the Father and his mercy with hope.” It basically repeats the Catechism’s position.

Georges Cardinal Cottier, the former Theologian of the Papal Household, probably had a hand in that change. In an 29 November interview with an Italian newspaper, La Stampa, the former ITC member shed light on the current proceedings. “Many children die because they are victims,” he noted. “Martyrs is too strong a term, but they are certainly victims. They are victims of sin, and do not die a natural death as we do at a certain age, and after living a whole life.”

As pope, Benedict XVI has not expressed his opinion., In his 1984 book-length interview with Vittorio Messori, however, he gave his personal view as a theologian. He noted that the Church has never defined limbo as a truth of the faith and that he would be in favour of dropping the idea altogether. “It is a thesis of secondary importance at the service of a truth that is absolutely primary for the faith: the importance of Baptism.”

Although the ITC documents do not form part of the Church’s Magisterium, the Pope will certainly be taking their considerations into account. Indeed, we should all pray that God enlighten the Pope as he ponders this delicate issue. It will certainly help us all to value the importance of Baptism. It will also strengthen the culture of life, because whatever the outcome, the Church is teaching that aborted children are real persons. It may also bring greater hope to the parents of so many deceased children.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1283974' date='May 29 2007, 08:48 PM']Get back to me when you've actually read the webpage.[/quote]

It's important to note that I wasn't arguing on the side of the article, but simply that your former patriarch nonetheless did say those words.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='mortify' post='1283742' date='May 29 2007, 08:07 PM']Just as an aside, Reza goes nuts if someone talks about the errors of Islam, but he/she ardently tries to prove errors in Catholicism.[/quote]

Protestants are defensive. The Orthodox are generally defensive; at least the ones I've encountered certainly are. They're both protesting against the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and trying to justify their separation from it. That's my take on it!

Likos

[Mateo el Feo]

Wow, you can't even post the correct link's text.

When you figure out which of your links we were actually discussing, you can look at the section, "Update! Non-existent quote from Catechism of Pope Pius X."