Zobel said:

---

I do not condemn anyone. I do need your prayers, and I appreciate them.

There's nothing loving about ignoring or excusing sin. Christ Jesus never did so, nor did the Apostles.

We all must repent, deny ourselves, and take up our crosses.

---

this is what many people can't get their heads wrapped around.

"there is nothing loving about ignoring or excusing sin"


I can agree with this attitude if the first action begins with mercy. Jesus gave the best example when he responded to the Pharisees who had brought a woman caught in adultery -

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her"

This is what I feel Pope Francis is attempting to do - instead of focusing on the act itself, he is focusing on the mercy and desire these people have to be one with God. I think there are people, even today, that want to see a blood bath or a "stoning" of sinners.

It's not about mercy or their desire to be with God. It is not his job to create new pathways to God. It is his job to proclaim the gospel which includes the Lord's return to judge men for what they have done.

Rather addressing it as the Lord did - go and sin no more - he seems to want to excuse, ignore, condone, or legitimize it. Pick your own word, I'm not trying to argue about the degree to which he is acting.

If they want to be with the Lord, the way is clear because the Lord cleared it Himself. The way is the same for them as all of us - repentance, obedience, humility, and love.

There is a bit of a bait and switch going on here though. You've subtly implied anyone who says that engaging in sexual immorality is a sin and that unrepentant sinners (of any kind) should not approach the chalice for their own good are standing in judgment like the Pharisees in the pericope of the woman caught in adultery. That's not what is happening and it isn't the topic at hand.

BluHorseShu said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Not Catholic so excuse my ignorance. But isn't it literally impossible for the Pope to be heretical? Isn't Church teaching pretty much whatever he says it is? Couldn't he theoretically excommunicate the entire church and be the only Catholic left?

---

Have gone from being a member of protestant churches to being Catholic, I still see the Pope as fallible except when speaking ex Cathedra (which I believe there's only been 2 teachings historically). My pastor of the baptist church I grew up attending was viewed somewhat the same, in that most of the congregation believed his interpretation of scripture....until he said something that wasn't supported by it.

---

With all respect, no man born of a man and a woman (and not the Holy Spirit) is infallible is any facit of his life. Putting on a gown and a mitre and receiving the votes of fallible men doesn't make one infallible.

I don't believe in papal infallibility, so don't take this the wrong way. But they don't believe that the voting or the gown or the mitre are what confers infallibility.

Zobel said:

---

I don't believe in papal infallibility, so don't take this the wrong way. But they don't believe that the voting or the gown or the mitre are what confers infallibility.

---

Is it your belief then that Jesus has abandoned the Church he put into motion? I mean he did say something along the lines that he would be with us always until the end of time. Is it possible then, that he did indeed keep his word and through the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church in matters of Faith? This is what Roman Catholics profess... makes sense to me.

I think you are affirming what we as RCC believe.. .it is the Holy Spirit at work in matters of Faith not a former boxer.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

e teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,

1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

---

This is ridiculous and I openly reject it.

---

Now you understand. For Roman Catholics, this is a critical aspect of church authority. It is not invoked often, twice in the 2000+ years of church history from what I am reading.

But - I do want to point out something important about this understanding. For one, does it not make sense that God would give this type of assurance to the Church on earth? I like to think that God is active in our midst - not passive. He chooses to work through people - young, old, wise, foolish - all out of love and in mercy. In a way, it is comforting to know that we can trust God to guard the Church here on earth in matters of faith and morals.

A critical aspect of church authority that wasn't defined until 1870? And wasn't used except in 1854 and 1950? Whatever did we do for the previous centuries?

Quote:

---

For one, does it not make sense that God would give this type of assurance to the Church on earth? I like to think that God is active in our midst - not passive. He chooses to work through people - young, old, wise, foolish - all out of love and in mercy. In a way, it is comforting to know that we can trust God to guard the Church here on earth in matters of faith and morals.

---

This is a non sequitur. Your logic here is:

God gives assurance to the Church (true)
God is active in our midst (true)
He chooses to work through people out of love and mercy (true)
We can trust God to guard the Church here (true)
Therefore the pope is imbued with some kind of infallibility including above and over the consent of the whole Church (??????)

Zobel said:

---

It's not about mercy or their desire to be with God. It is not his job to create new pathways to God. It is his job to proclaim the gospel which includes the Lord's return to judge men for what they have done.

Rather addressing it as the Lord did - go and sin no more - he seems to want to excuse, ignore, condone, or legitimize it. Pick your own word, I'm not trying to argue about the degree to which he is acting.

If they want to be with the Lord, the way is clear because the Lord cleared it Himself. The way is the same for them as all of us - repentance, obedience, humility, and love.

There is a bit of a bait and switch going on here though. You've subtly implied anyone who says that engaging in sexual immorality is a sin and that unrepentant sinners (of any kind) should not approach the chalice for their own good are standing in judgment like the Pharisees in the pericope of the woman caught in adultery. That's not what is happening and it isn't the topic at hand.

---

I think he is doing both, proclaiming the good news AND being a good shepherd. Jesus was very direct about this aspect when he asked Saint Peter, the first Pope, to feed his sheep. So, in a sense, the Pope has an added aspect of the mission that many of the rest of us do not. That was what I was trying to point out about mercy being at the center.

I have read more about what he did say, and the more I read, the more I stand by my understanding that Pope Francis is taking a careful pastoral angle in addressing a very important topic in our time. This should be applauded and I do not see any of the teaching coming out of the recent synods as "excuse, ignore, condone, or legitimize" - to use your words. Quite the opposite if you care to read.

I highlighted something you wrote, that the way is the same for all of us, regarding salvation. If I understand you correctly, I can understand your frustration with people like Pope Francis who takes a different approach, than say Pope Benedict or even Rev. Billy Graham. I had this same 'hang up' for a while until it was pointed out to me that none of us have a monopoly on the mission. This was pointed out by Jesus when the Apostles reported to him about other people driving out demons in his name (MK 9:38). Let's see where this goes. He hasn't said anything against the foundational teachings.

You have understood me correctly that we cannot judge others. Especially when it comes to the state of their soul. That was the point of the parable mentioned. Those men went way beyond the sinful act she was caught doing (another story) and had rocks in hand to pass final judgement. Jesus was not saying they were wrong in what they accused her of doing, but that they cannot cast a stone since they, themselves, were sinners.

I'm not seeing a bait and switch as you have mentioned. Just tapping the brakes, if you will, on the criticism of Pope Francis's pastoral approach. Let's hear him out and let have a much needed dialogue about LGBTQ people in the Roman Catholic Church.

Why is there much needed dialogue? Is the teaching of the Church on matters of faith and morals unclear? Who will teach whom?

First council said - citing the Law - no sexual immortality for gentiles who come to the faith. It hasn't changed since.

Papal infallibility is an age old debate that I think we can agree to disagree. I think you have understood it and have rejected it along with many others. When the Bishop of Rome sits in the Chair of Peter, well at that moment, he is by grace from God, infallible. It's right up there with transubstantiation and other miraculous aspects of God's promise to his people.

Well, believe it if you like. A fairytale promise to give rational certainty where none is promised or required, which has been rejected by the majority of Christendom throughout history. Not the first time the popes have pitched a fit and tried to excommunicate anyone who opposed them, and surely not the last. Sad, really.

A personal question - you don't have to answer - do you have children?

I have 8.

Seriously... 8 kids.

I do not have a different rule about homework for each - how I bring each kid to understanding this rule is unique to each. For some, I don't even have say anything. For some, I have to talk to them about the importance of staying on top of homework and doing it before playing outside. For one in particular, she seems to learn by making mistakes no matter how much I try. So I make an extra effort to guide her along. It is in small steps. She may have some mental issues that I have to take into account when I talk to her.

But always - we talk and the goal is the same - homework is important. Each kid is at a different stage.

I have 3.

People who sin in defiance... the Hebrew term is with a high hand... - any sin - should not approach the chalice without repentance. It is an abdication of pastoral responsibility and love to not call people to repentance. You can do this with extreme love and humility. But at the end of the day, it is what it is.

Much like the abortion issue, here you can't seem to acknowledge the problem without provisos, qualifiers, and obfuscation.

Peter himself was far from infallible. Why then would HIS particular chair imbue the person sitting upon it with supernatural infallibility?

I do not recall any scriptural reference or council declaration or creed that purports to establish this claim.

There has only ever been one infallible man. He, and he only, is the source of our salvation.

No other man, before or since, is infallible, regardless of the chair upon which he sits.

I hear ya Zobel.. just a different approach to the same goal I believe.

Cavscout96,

Here is a link to the history of this relic. I have actually touched, as have millions, the foot of the bronze statue in the Basilica of St. Peter. I visited Rome and Assisi, Italy almost 20 years ago. Like the Holy Land (I imagine) the whole city is steeped in history.

The logic is what I alluded to above - authority. As a Roman Catholic, we have it in a very real way. I find this very comforting. As you can see on this board - we can disagree all we want, but at the end of the day, as a Catholic, I look to the Bishop of Rome to lead the way.

PabloSerna said:

---

Cavscout96,

Here is a link to the history of this relic. I have actually touched, as have millions, the foot of the bronze statue in the Basilica of St. Peter. I visited Rome and Assisi, Italy almost 20 years ago. Like the Holy Land (I imagine) the whole city is steeped in history.

The logic is what I alluded to above - authority. As a Roman Catholic, we have it in a very real way. I find this very comforting. As you can see on this board - we can disagree all we want, but at the end of the day, as a Catholic, I look to the Bishop of Rome to lead the way.

---

Sometimes your get lucky, sometimes you get Alexander VI. I doubt many found comfort there.

Cavscout96... 31V myself...

Here is a link to a site that will do a much better job of explaining this than I could.

You got that right. Rarely invoked. Only relates to matters of faith not the Lotto.

Good interview with Cardinal Raymond Burke, Prefect Emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura on IssuesEtc today.

Interview

He clearly isn't a fan of Pope Francis sharing his personal thoughts with the media.

Keep reading Aquinas, it is worth it!

Just remember that even he understood that what he was writing, "was like straw" compared to the "lumen gloria - a mystical insight" God blessed him to experience just months before he passed away.

So even he knew there was more, much more to God than he could ever capture in words.

Did you really just respond about a required core belief with "well Aquinas didn't know everything" ?

PabloSerna said:

---

Keep reading Aquinas, it is worth it!

Just remember that even he understood that what he was writing, "was like straw" compared to the "lumen gloria - a mystical insight" God blessed him to experience just months before he passed away.

So even he knew there was more, much more to God than he could ever capture in words.

---

You surely know what Aquinas heard of his writings during his mystical experiences.

The dude would not have missed an opportunity to explain something important; that was his life's work that he was uniquely motivated and gifted to deliver. Among the things he explained is how we can not know the nature of God, he was quite thorough there.

Had unchanging tradition understood that our membership in the Body of Christ required belief in a simple binary choice of how precisely sin factored into Mary's conception, I think Aquinas would have mentioned it when talking about eight different ways sin was involved in Mary's conception. Unless it was a novel idea created later.

Kinda gives way to the belief that Roman Catholics teach the faith handed down from the Apostles doesn't it?

AgLiving06 said:

---

Kinda gives way to the belief that Roman Catholics teach the faith handed down from the Apostles doesn't it?

---

Certainly, though many in good faith think that they are doing just that, the mental gymnastics required to justify the position when specific examples are cited is telling to those not predisposed to mentally shut down if offered the slightest avenue to go back to the party line.

The link I posted above literally stated that Aquinas talked around how sin was or wasn't involved in Mary's conception eight different ways, but he simply didn't consider what was later pronounced as dogma by the Infallible Pontiff.

Catholic apologists do a lot of good work explaining away much of the secular and Protestant misconceptions about the faith, but there are blind spots that they won't acknowledge when pressed, much of it around the Papacy, and that's no coincidence.