Posted on 12/17/2013 2:58:40 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
Let’s face it. We have a shallow, grinning, not-very-bright Pope. He doesn’t want “culture-warriors.” It doesn’t fit his happy-clappy, 1970s version of the Church.
It has happened before, just not in our lifetime.
I think the best course of action, mental-health-wise, is to stop expecting anything from him, and do our best to ignore news out of Rome.
I think you’re confusing “infallible” (able to teach without error) with “impeccable” (without sin).
Paul had a problem with Peter which you could say he told to the whole world of Christendom,
If Paul was right Peter was not impeccable.
If Paul was wrong Paul was not infallible.
Peter said he was chosen to give the word to the gentiles.
Paul said that he was.
Were both of them infallible?
I believe scripture is inspired by God but what was considered scripture in those days?
I doubt very much if Pauls letters were considered scripture at that time.
And i do believe that any thing any Church teaches that is not backed up in plain words by scripture has a good chance of being wrong.
Also of the many translations how many say exactly the same thing, they can not all be 100 percent infallible.
Infallibility is something i do not believe any one has except for God.
Cardinal Burke still has about six jobs in the Vatican.
It’s the elevation of Wuerl, a corrupt liar, that is so troubling. That the Pope can’t see through this Uriah Heep is what is really troubling.
Cardinal Burke still has about six jobs in the Vatican.
It’s the elevation of Wuerl, a corrupt liar, that is so troubling. That the Pope can’t see through this Uriah Heep is what is really troubling.
Real theologians—and Popes—do not rely on translations when doing serious work that involves Scripture. They go to the original Hebrew and Greek.
If you exclude all infallibility on the part of “men,” then you have to deny Jesus’ promise to remain with the Apostles and the Church (by sending the Holy Spirit) to maintain them in the truth.
No one claims that the Church is infallible about anything but the essentials of the Christian Faith. But to exclude ALL infallibility, you have to deny the promises of Jesus.
Then why does the Vatican II Church allow individual bishops to decide on whether to follow it?
What Catholic pope would not want Catholics?
I don’t buy that he doesn’t see.
I agree.
No one claims that the Church is infallible about anything but the essentials of the Christian Faith. But to exclude ALL infallibility, you have to deny the promises of Jesus.
Well—think about it.
If the Church enjoys NO infallibility, then what was Jesus talking about when he promised that the Church would teach the truth until the end of the world?
If the Church enjoys NO infallibility, then what was Jesus talking about when he promised that the Church would teach the truth until the end of the world?
I believe Jesus was with the Apostles in spirit until the end of their lives, by their word the new testament was written.
Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are the Gospels, i believe any one who believe we need something else is not really paying much attention to the Gospel.
There have been so much preached and written in order to explain the Gospel that it looks to me that it is only an act of God that we still have the Gospel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.