Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Gerard.P
For the sake of argument, where is this an impossibility in Catholic doctrine?

"Impossibility"? First you talk "precedent", now you move the goalposts to "impossibility"?

Your entry into this thread addressed the issue of papal irresistibility. As precedent you cited the case of St. Paul rebuking St. Peter. My response to this was to point out that what is now being alleged with respect to the last four popes has no precedent because of the scale and breadth of the impropriety of which they are accused.

So you say, "OK, but you can't say it's not impossible".

It isn't. Very little is. It's not "impossible" that the real Paul VI was held prisoner in the basement of the Vatican as the Palmar de Troya people claimed. To use your words, "there's nothing in Catholic doctrine which says it's impossible".

We're both agreed, aren't we though, that there is a not insignificant difference between saying that something is not "impossible" (me) and saying that something is almost certain (you).

You're betting your eternal salvation on the proposition that you know better than the Pope what the Holy Spirit wants for the Church.

Good luck.

82 posted on 12/02/2004 9:13:43 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]


To: marshmallow
For the sake of argument, where is this an impossibility in Catholic doctrine?

"Impossibility"? First you talk "precedent", now you move the goalposts to "impossibility"?

I didn't move any goalposts. I'm starting at the doctrinal level and moving towards a plausible analysis of the situation. Simply put, it would be foolish to assert that something "can't be happening." if the evidence prooves otherwise and their is no doctrinal promise to prevent it from happening.

Your entry into this thread addressed the issue of papal irresistibility. As precedent you cited the case of St. Paul rebuking St. Peter. My response to this was to point out that what is now being alleged with respect to the last four popes has no precedent because of the scale and breadth of the impropriety of which they are accused.

The scale and breadth has no bearing on the truth of the principal. Popes can err. and multiple times. They can have a disequilibrium of mind and the natural factors of the modern world can exascerbate it.

So you say, "OK, but you can't say it's not impossible".

You stipulated that rebuke of a Pope has happened multiple times in history. I asked what makes you think this era is somehow exempted from this situation.

It isn't. Very little is.

The point is, that some things are. The Doctrine of the Church cannot change. The Church will survive somehow, somewhere, it is indefectible. There is no Salvation Outside the Church, that will not change no matter how modernists try and reformulate the dogma, we have no non-Catholic saints from the post resurrection era.

It's not "impossible" that the real Paul VI was held prisoner in the basement of the Vatican as the Palmar de Troya people claimed. To use your words, "there's nothing in Catholic doctrine which says it's impossible".

Your using an example that I suspect you think is silly. The FACT that several Popes in a row have been tainted with liberalism is far more probable than someone thinking that the Pope would have to don a disguise and flee the Vatican as Pius IX had to in 1848.

We're both agreed, aren't we though, that there is a not insignificant difference between saying that something is not "impossible" (me) and saying that something is almost certain (you).

No. There is a negative charism of infallibility that rules out certain possibilities. The problem that most people won't face in this day and age is the idea that something "can't possibly be happening" when it is happening in plain sight and there is no promise of Christ that prevents it, but somehow many Catholics pretend there is a doctrine that prevents this reality from happening. Even when Cardinal Ratzinger refers to the "ruins" of the current Church and apologizes for his role, neo-Catholics just pretend he never said it.

You're betting your eternal salvation on the proposition that you know better than the Pope what the Holy Spirit wants for the Church. Good luck.

The Holy Spirit doesn't work in secret. I have access to all revelation that is necessary for salvation. It has all been revealed publicly. The Holy Spirit does not call the Pope on the phone and tell him to engage in ecumenism (which has nothing to do with Catholic doctrine) it is a pet project of the Pope and his disaster alone to make an accounting for. Given a choice between JPII's views on the Church and her priveleges and the papacy itself and St. Pius X's views, I will follow the tried and true path of the Pope that I know is in Heaven and pray for his intercession for the one that is not.

83 posted on 12/02/2004 10:05:14 PM PST by Gerard.P (If you've lost your faith, you don't know you've lost it. ---Fr. Malachi Martin R.I.P.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson