Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
-=d=- said:It should be pretty clear...I'm currently bewildered that the reply I just gave is all you needed...lol
Kathianne said:Right Free. What they were trying to get to, which is part of Catholic teaching, is that suffering is unavoidable, not constant, but unavoidable on earth. It is 'our cross' to carry to the best of our ability. If we accept our cross and help others with theirs, we are following what Jesus did, in His footsteps if you will.
It's the idea of 'offering up' our burdens, if they cannot pass, then let good come from them. All the time keeping God in mind. That is the melding of suffering with Jesus' suffering. Not that the Pope was God.
-=d=- said:Kathianne said:Merely speculating on the condition of his soul is judging him? Okay...sure.
I care about the Pope as a Man. As a soul. Nothing more or less. There is no contempt...again...my question - this thread - is about speculation. It seems too much for some people to even CONSIDER the spiritual condition of their leader, it appears.
Again, you are off. How could I have written that God may judge him to have 'wronged'? He is a man, again your understanding of infallibility is wrong. I won't go into it, it is easy enough for you to read up on-but I would choose a site like the following:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
I. TRUE MEANING OF INFALLIBILITY
It is well to begin by stating the ecclesiological truths that are assumed to be established before the question of infallibility arises. It is assumed:
that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society;
that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them;
that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship; and that
in order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy -- and on them exclusively -- the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed.
And this being assumed, the question that concerns us is whether, and in what way, and to what extent, Christ has made His Church to be infallible in the exercise of her doctrinal authority.
It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church's infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church's teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value. It will be best therefore to confine our attention to active infallibility as such, as by so doing we shall avoid the confusion which is the sole basis of many of the objections that are most persistently and most plausibly urged against the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility.
V. WHAT TEACHING IS INFALLIBLE?
A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been already explained in this and in other articles will suffice.
As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under tbe scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
Said1 said:Not with the song and dance you gave me after I asked the original question. Especially after you read Mathew, 7:15-22 I find it hard to believe you really didn't know what was taking about. It was like you were doing it on purpose.
Kathianne said:-=d=- said:Again, you are off. How could I have written that God may judge him to have 'wronged'? He is a man, again your understanding of infallibility is wrong. I won't go into it, it is easy enough for you to read up on-but I would choose a site like the following:
What does your comment have to do with what you quoted me saying?
I care about the Pope as a Man. As a soul. Nothing more or less. There is no contempt...again...my question - this thread - is about speculation. It seems too much for some people to even CONSIDER the spiritual condition of their leader, it appears.
Or was your comment just a lead in to the text which follows? I found that same piece via google a few mins ago, btw..good reading
freeandfun1 said:Oh, I understand that, yes. A matter-of-fact, on one of the shows, a Catholic Priest corrected the news anchor and stated that NOBODY on earth ever has, or ever will, suffer as Christ suffered. As I said, it was the news folks making the comparison; a comparison I think the Pope would not have agreed with. Not only did Christ suffer on earth, but he spent three days in hell for those that accept him so that we don't have to spend even one second there.
(gee hope that isn't sacriligious). Right, the Pope is not God. The Pope himself is NOT infallible. We do NOT worship Mary or statues.
-=d=- said:I didn't mean to hurt anyone; merely expressing that is John Paul hadn't found Christ based on what the Bible says, he should do so asap.
-=d=- said:Kathianne said:What does your comment have to do with what you quoted me saying?
Or was your comment just a lead in to the text which follows? I found that same piece via google a few mins ago, btw..good reading
I'm afraid I'm lost on the top. I found the bottom off google, didn't want you getting lost in some weird Catholic site, there are enough of those out there.
-=d=- said:...but, using your statistic, the 1/3 that DO follow Biblical guidlines are the only people who have it 'right'.
Christianity makes allowance for no other way to God. None. Nobody gets to God except via Jesus Christ.
Bullypulpit said:And now you know why I'm no longer a Christian.
Bullypulpit said:And now you know why I'm no longer a Christian.
Said1 said:More coke sprayed all over my monitor! I've got to stop doing that!
Bullypulpit said:And fully 2/3 of the world's population knows or cares nothing about Christian doctrine. There are as many paths to that which is sacred and holy and good as there are people. Deal with it.
Bullypulpit said:
MissileMan said:To insinuate that a man who dedicated his entire worldly existence to Christianity might need to arrange his spiritual affairs in a hurry is what I believe some of the folks here are finding offensive. I've seen a lot of posts that call Christianity a religion of acceptance, but apparently, there are some who think it a highly-exclusive club.
