Ex Cathedra
While he sits in Peter's seat, he is allegedly incapable of error.
I feel sorry for people closed minded to Catholicism
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
Ex Cathedra
While he sits in Peter's seat, he is allegedly incapable of error.
Cruciform
New member
I've read the sixteen documents of Vatican II, and bits and pieces of the decrees of Vatican I.
Cruciform
New member
No doctrinal difference at all, as to their essence. As for matters of emphasis and/or detail, however, Vatican II did indeed move the Church's teaching of apostolic doctrine forward.
It would be rather difficult to go through the eight years of seminary required by the Church for the priesthood, and not be familiar with the writings of Vat. I and II. There may be a few priests who somehow managed to avoid reading them, but it certainly wouldn't be the norm.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Yes, they reject that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which he declared that the powers of death would never prevail (Mt. 16:18; 1 Tim. 3:15). What could possibly be sadder, since to reject Christ's Church is to reject Christ himself (Lk. 10:16)?
So, you agree with me that, some Priests haven't even read them.
There wouldn't have been a necessity, if Vatican one was sufficient.
There are doctrinal differences between the two.
Cruciform
New member
Yes, under certain formal conditions, the Bishop of Rome (Pope) may indeed teach infallibly with respect to doctrine and morals.
Nanja
Well-known member
No, their tenets are so far from God's Word, that if they have the appearance of having any godliness at all,
it is only to the Lost! And that applies to all religious denominations of man. They're ALL putrid in God's sight.
The Elect of God are called to come out Rev. 18:4, and they shall!
1Pet. 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people;
that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
~~~~~
Cruciform
New member
The Catholic Church recognizes that binding doctrine continues to develop in the Church over time throughout Christian history. While no essentially new doctrines are introduced, the original apostolic deposit of faith (body of divine truth) is further expounded and explained in ever more detail and insight. It's in this specific sense that we say that "doctrine develops." That's why Vat. I was not "sufficient," and why doctrine has continued to develop in the Church, as it did with Vat. II.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Hedshaker
New member
Cruciform
New member
:darwinsm:... HA!I used to be agnostic but now I'm not so sure
I said
I feel sorry for anyone who believes outside the Word of God. And Catholicism doctrine isn't in the Word of God. A true believer doesn't even think beyond what is written. And you seem to be a way out there some where else.
1 Cor 4:6
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
(NKJ)
lifeisgood
New member
Especially since Mary is the savior :nono: of the world according to RCC dogma:
Genesis 3:15Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
Imagine that, God had it wrong all the time :nono: when He said that His Unique Son was the Savior of the world and not the RCC savior's Mary.
lifeisgood
New member
Just under 'certain' formal conditions?
The RCC says he is INFALLIBLE.
Either the pope is infallible or the pope is fallible.
RCC does not make the distinction of 'certain' formal conditions as you declare when the laity is told the pope is infallible.
Infallible means 'incapable of making mistakes or being wrong' EVER
synonyms: unerring, unfailing, faultless, flawless, impeccable, etc. imagine that!
I guess there has never been a pope making any mistakes at all, as they are infallible. Oh, maybe not, as you propose that he is only in 'certain formal conditions' infallible.
Either the pope is infallible as the RCC declares or the pope is only infallible in 'certain formal conditions' as you propose.
It has to be one or the other.
It cannot be both.
Wait for the Catholic Texas two step. Listen carefully now... we're about to hear the smoke and mirrors of it. That, or they do a disappearing act, classical Catholic disconnect. Catholics speak with forked tongue, double-speak, aka iniquity and deceit. By the time their audience's eyes glaze over, and ears become dull of hearing (Matthew 13:15 KJV), they begins speaking of the divine qualities of antiquity for two millennia. They'll put on their dog and pony show with incense, posh attire, and rituals bragging on Peter.
They gloss right over the fact Peter denied the Holy Spirit three times at Pentecost. Once when Peter wasn't standing and preaching the Pentecostal Gospel as were his peers (Acts 2:14 KJV). Secondly, Peter began speaking another gospel in Acts 2:22 KJV. Thirdly, Peter was addressing those mockers (Acts 2:13 KJV), who clearly heard the Pentecostal Gospel as did everyone else... but, among those mockers were those non-Israelites (John 8:33 KJV) who instigated Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:37 KJV). Those non-Israelite instigators among the mockers were NOT lost sheep of the house of Israel, speaking of feed my sheep THREE times, alone!
So, the members of Peter's alleged one historic Catholic Church included those non-Israelite mockers. Wonder why Catholics are and have been so Scripturally deficient on such matters for the last two millennia? Catholics have surrendered, yielded, forfeited their God-given spiritual and Scriptural curiosity to a pack of hypocrites: Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29.
kayaker
republicanchick
New member
then throw out all your pastors ASAP!
and u may want to consider a little factoid that you seem to be glaringly ignoring, namely that Jesus came to us through MARY
And believe it or not, GOD did that...
true story
+++
republicanchick
New member
catholicism is not contrary to God's Word, and the Church preceded the written Word... You would know this if you studied history. The written Bible didn't come along until the printing press was invented in 1440... Even then Bibles were prohibitively expensive so only the Church had them..
HisServant
New member
Have you ever even tried to do an honest historical study of the Bible?
The books of the Bible predated the RCC by centuries.
Cruciform
New member
The Church says that the Pope's teaching is infallible when it is delivered in a formal or official capacity. That's what the doctrine of papal infallibility entails.
Rather, just as Peter taught infallibly under certain specific conditions---for example, when he wrote his New Testament epistles---so his successors (the popes) teach infallibly under certain specific conditions. Not everything Peter said was infallible, after all.
On the contrary. The distinction is spelled out right there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Try again.
This is merely your Straw Man Fallacy. See above.
Now go ahead and post the passage in the Catechism that supposedly states that "The Pope is incapable of making mistakes or being wrong EVER," as you claim above.
That's exactly what the Church teaches. Sorry for your confusion/ignorance.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+