Errors Of The Pope

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1284033' date='May 29 2007, 09:17 PM']Honestly Reza, you have some reading comprehension issues.[/quote]

And you have some serious... nevermind, I'm going to go back and fourth with someone that doesnt even read my full posts, if you ever get a min thou : [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] read it.

Edited May 30, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Mateo el Feo]

Since Reza's own evidence has proven him wrong, I'll bow out until something of substance is brought up.

[Katholikos]

[quote]"Limbo has never been a definitive truth of the faith," Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became Benedict XVI earlier this year, said in an interview in 1984, during his long term as Pope John Paul II's doctrinal watchdog. "Personally, I would let it drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis."

[b]. . .[/b]

Though limbo had no firm scriptural basis, and so was never official church doctrine, it remained a major part of church tradition - as well as one defining image of Catholicism - as either a neat theological compromise or as a bit mean, depending on whom one asked.[/quote]

These are quotes from the NY Times article Reza posted. Isn't Reza arguing that Limbo was official Church teaching? Not according to the NY Times. Am I missing something? Sign me, "Confused in AZ."

Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1284046' date='May 29 2007, 09:27 PM']These are quotes from the NY Times article Reza posted. Isn't Reza arguing that Limbo was official Church teaching? Not according to the NY Times. Am I missing something? Sign me, "Confused in AZ."

Likos[/quote]

No I'm arguing that the Pope wrote about it, and that it was in the catechism.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1284055' date='May 30 2007, 04:32 AM']No I'm arguing that the Pope wrote about it, and that it was in the catechism.[/quote]

Reza,

Here's the quote that Mateo (think it was he) wanted you to look at. It's at the bottom of this [url="http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/popes-limbo.htm"]site[/url]

Hope it helps, and God bless.

[quote]Update! Non-existent quote from Catechism of Pope Pius X



It has become clear that the passage maintaining the Limbo heresy is not in the early editions of the Catechism of Pius X. Thus the truth is that no pope has ever taught the version of the Limbo heresy that says that unbaptized infants go to a middle place where they do not suffer even the pain of loss. And yet almost all Catholics think that is what the Church has always taught on this matter! This well illustrates the necessity of looking to the ancient Fathers to see what the true Faith is.



Richard Ibranyi recently revealed as follows.



“I believe that my mistake in this case was providential because it proves a very important fact that I mention time and time again; that is, heretics misquote imprimatured books to defend their heresies. That is aside from the fact that many imprimatured books do contain heresy. I trusted the many sources that use the supposed following quote from the Hagan edition of the Catechism of Pope Pius X Catechism to defend the Limbo Heresy that dead unbaptized infants are not in hell.



“A Compendium of Catechetical Instruction (Also known as the Catechism of Pope Pius X), Monsignor John Hagan, 1910, English edition translated from a French version: ‘Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having original sin alone, they do not deserve paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory.’



“I knew that the Hagan edition of the Catechism of Pope Pius X contains the Salvation Heresy, so I assumed that it contained this Limbo Heresy that many said it contained. I should have checked the catechism to verify the quote before I used it in this section of my book. Upon investigation, I discovered that this Limbo Heresy is not in the Hagan edition of the Catechism of Pope Pius X. Therefore, beware of those who use this quote to defend their Limbo Heresy. This is just another example of obstinate heretics lying to defend their heresies, hoping their readers do not catch them lying.” (Damned Infants)[/quote]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1284127' date='May 30 2007, 03:30 AM']Reza,

Here's the quote that Mateo (think it was he) wanted you to look at. It's at the bottom of this [url="http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/popes-limbo.htm"]site[/url]

Hope it helps, and God bless.[/quote]

Oh I'm aware of what he was trying to get at, but again it doesn't prove that it wasn't a quote used by the Pope. Just that this author doesn't particularly agree with the particular version of the catechism that he used.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1284136' date='May 30 2007, 11:58 AM']Oh I'm aware of what he was trying to get at, but again it doesn't prove that it wasn't a quote used by the Pope. Just that this author doesn't particularly agree with the particular version of the catechism that he used.[/quote]

I suppose I misunderstood. I understood him to say that that quote is not in catechism, which would mean there wasn't an infallible statement made on it. Is it some other version of the catechism to which you are referring (note, I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I genuinely want to know)?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1284137' date='May 30 2007, 05:05 AM']I suppose I misunderstood. I understood him to say that that quote is not in catechism, which would mean there wasn't an infallible statement made on it. Is it some other version of the catechism to which you are referring (note, I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I genuinely want to know)?[/quote]

That's the golden question that we're discussing. Notice that he said in the quote thou, that it wasn't in the "Hagan edition", therefore that doesn't mean that it's not in other editions. I found the quote on a mass amount of websites [including the New York Times] that affirm the quote. Being that I'm not Roman Catholic it doesn't matter that much to me, but for those that are Roman Catholic, it seems to matter more and just for the sake of discussion, I'm showing the various positions that Roman Pope's have taken on this individual issue.

Reza

[dairygirl4u2c]

mateo said he thought i was expressing doubt that reza coud find evidence contrary to the CC. i said i agreed that he was right, that I didn't think Reza could do it. i can see as a plain menaing that you did find "evidence" contrary. when i agreed, i was agreeing to more than just evidence but definitive proof. i'll be the first to show circumstantial evidence contrary to the CC as that whole thread showed.
it wouldn't have made sense for me to think you couldn't find anything at all. but it was an innocent mistake. sorry for my unclarity.


there are many false claims about the CC circulating around the internet. it seems to me if you're going to claim it's official, you need to find the official source. that's basic scholarly intellectual honesty.
that way, the context of the quote can be given. and if it's false, it can be exposed as such.

i would be interested too if you think it's a scandal being perpetrated by the CC, if you have evidence. people often fall back on those types of ideas when they have nothing left.

the evidence i've seen shows overwhelmingly that it was in his catechism, but i've also seen it wasn't while he was pope or definitive.
if this gets into whether or not the catechism is infallible, i think i will see your point more. a teaching in the catechism could be just overall thought, not ordinary magisterium, and not definitivealy taught by a pope. but then, that allows the CC to make things up and then deny it as it goes, as it wasn't technically contradicting. i think the CC still has a legit argument, but it's much cheaper.

but with that said, i don't know of any errors in a catechism. in fact, if i do a search of key words from your quote about limbo in that catechism, it's not there... maybe you can find it? (use ctrl + f to find things)
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM[/url]

Edited May 30, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1284014' date='May 29 2007, 11:07 PM']The Orthodox Churches aren't "protesting" anything, this claim of yours is no different then your claim that the Orthodox Churches put emphesis on race [which isn't true either]. Before you make outlandish claims, make sure that you know our doctrines [/quote]

You misunderstand. Perhaps it's because English is not your first language? I've never written or even implied that the Orthodox Churches put emphasis on race. There is no such thing as "race." There's only one "race" -- the human race. There are, however, national identities and ethnic groups. You can't deny that Orthodox Churches are identified as national and ethnic entities (Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, etc.) But this is not related to this thread.

Anyway, my comment was about the attitude of Orthodox Church members, not Orthodox doctrine. Again, perhaps you misunderstand because of the English.

In case you hadn't noticed, you've lost this debate.

Peace be with you,

Likos

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1284265' date='May 30 2007, 11:55 AM']the evidence i've seen shows overwhelmingly that it was in his catechism, but i've also seen it wasn't while he was pope or definitive.[/quote]Hi Dairy,

It appears that the statement may have been added by a translator (at least that's what the anti-Catholic website seems to suggest). We've all tried our hardest to find the quote in the 1905 Catechism, but haven't been able to. I think that any statements beyond this would amount to pure speculation.

A couple more points:

1) Reza cited three sources: a Catholic website, an anti-Catholic website, and a secular website (NY Times). In all cases without exception, they agreed that Limbo was never held as a defined doctine/dogma in the Catholic Church.

2) As St. Augustine wrote, "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity." For a pope to be in "Error" (as the title of the thread states), there has to be a defined Truth to contradict. According to St. Augustine (and basic logic), popes (along with any theologian) are free to hold differing views on non-essentials.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1284280' date='May 30 2007, 09:19 AM']You misunderstand. Perhaps it's because English is not your first language? I've never written or even implied that the Orthodox Churches put emphasis on race.[/quote] Yes you did, in our first discussions about orthodoxy.

[quote]There is no such thing as "race." There's only one "race" -- the human race. There are, however, national identities and ethnic groups. You can't deny that Orthodox Churches are identified as national and ethnic entities (Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, etc.) But this is not related to this thread.[/quote]If you were to read my initial response to you regarding this, the church doctrines have nothing to do with national, ratial or enthic entities, etc. Even Roman Catholicism has this, Melkite, Coptic Catholic, etc. As I pointed out before being of a particular race, culture, etc. doesn't help you in the spiritual realm. Even the Roman Catholic Church put's emphisis upon the culture that it was created upon. The Apostle St. Mark founded the Coptic Church in Egypt, why would he abolish that culture, and force it to conform to another culture? He wouldn't is the proper answer, and that's why he took everything in their culture and transformed it to fit in wit God's truth.

[quote]Anyway, my comment was about the attitude of Orthodox Church members, not Orthodox doctrine. Again, perhaps you misunderstand because of the English.[/quote] No your initial comments were in a thread about why you aren't orthodox and you used it as if it was something that the Orthodox have in their doctrines, etc.

[quote]In case you hadn't noticed, you've lost this debate.[/quote]

I'm sorry my friend, but you have, as your own church has ethnic entities, and you mentioned it as if it was a factor to why orthodoxy was false.

Peace be with

[dairygirl4u2c]

It looks like you and likos are quibbling over minor points. Here is the main point that you should address.
It'd also be nice if you'd point out some other errors/contradictions. No, I am not going to let up on this. I know you're busy, but I will always remind you that the challenge still stands.

[quote]It appears that the statement may have been added by a translator (at least that's what the anti-Catholic website seems to suggest). We've all tried our hardest to find the quote in the 1905 Catechism, but haven't been able to. I think that any statements beyond this would amount to pure speculation.

A couple more points:

1) Reza cited three sources: a Catholic website, an anti-Catholic website, and a secular website (NY Times). In all cases without exception, they agreed that Limbo was never held as a defined doctine/dogma in the Catholic Church.

2) As St. Augustine wrote, "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity." For a pope to be in "Error" (as the title of the thread states), there has to be a defined Truth to contradict. According to St. Augustine (and basic logic), popes (along with any theologian) are free to hold differing views on non-essentials.[/quote]

[Mateo el Feo]

Just in case I need another nail for this coffin, here are the actual quotes from each of the three websites, lest someone suggest that one of these sources believed in a "Catholic doctrine of limbo":

From "Is Limbo In Limbo?" by Dominic Farrel, LC:[quote]In fact, the Magisterium has [b]never doctrinally defined limbo[/b], even though some official papal documents mention it.[/quote]

Quoting from the anti-Catholic website romancatholicism.org (on the extended article on Limbo):[quote]Rome always made clear that [b]Limbo is not binding in any form [/b]and that we may keep to the tradition of the Fathers that unbaptized infants suffer fire.[/quote]
From the New York Times article By Ian Fisher:[quote]Though limbo had no firm scriptural basis, and so was [b]never official church doctrine[/b], it remained a major part of church tradition - as well as one defining image of Catholicism - as either a neat theological compromise or as a bit mean, depending on whom one asked.[/quote]

Everybody agrees...

[RezaMikhaeil]

As I'd said before, I never said that these sources agreed with me on anything, except the particular quote that I provided about a past Roman Catholic Pope.