Islam

[brvheart 1,752]

You can't be seriously thinking Pope is God's leader on Earth for the Catholicism. Noone can and should come between the God and the person. Popes always been so busy with politics that they never had a chance to fully focus on religion.

This is exactly what Catholics believe.

You obviously aren't catholic.

BigD has you pegged.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

One thing that islam does have going for it: you can indiscriminately beat your women. Xianity and Judaism got pussified on this long ago.

[BudBundy 0]

Well, if the Christian Kingdom's had been faithful too the pope's decree's, and put their whole effort towards the crusades, rathar than in the corrupt manor that they did, then Islam could have been wiped off the earth centuries ago, and I'd be able to take my fcking toothpaste on the airplanes today.

Uh...(sw)?...

[BudBundy 0]

One thing that islam does have going for it: you can indiscriminately beat your women. Xianity and Judaism got pussified on this long ago.

I hope you are being sarcastic or just desperate for attention.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I'm not a frequent contributor to the religion forum, so I don't reallly know the answer to this. Is there really that much Non-ironic nutball bullsht spewed in this forum that I have to spoon feed you sw's? Perhaps my brand of humor isn't suited for the religious forum.

[BudBundy 0]

I'm not a frequent contributor to the religion forum, so I don't reallly know the answer to this. Is there really that much Non-ironic nutball bullsht spewed in this forum that I have to spoon feed you sw's? Perhaps my brand of humor isn't suited for the religious forum.

I am new at Religion forum as well.If i haven't seen serious posts nearly identical to yours , i wouldn't doubt for one min that you were just messing.You can't believe how dumb and ignorant some people are.Therefore you can't do much wrong with a nicely put sw

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I am new at Religion forum as well.If i haven't seen serious posts nearly identical to yours , i wouldn't doubt for one min that you were just messing.You can't believe how dumb and ignorant some people are.Therefore you can't do much wrong with a nicely put sw

Yeah, but it's funnier to me when people don't get it.I'm a sadist at heart, I guess. I am sorry that someone with a lovely multi pass avatar had to fall victim to my joke.

[BWToth 0]

Pope John Paul II specifically denouced the Crusades as mistakes. I agree with him.Jesus didn't say to Peter, "...and on this sinless rock will I build my church." Men are sinful and popes are no exception nor is there any expectation for them to be.

Skillfully evaded. Ok, so who determines when the Pope makes a mistake? Only a later Pope? Logically only someone else 'ordained' by god would be qualified to denounce the acts of another person 'ordained' by god, right? So, say tha Pope Benedict, next week, says, "I know John Paul II said the Crusades were wrong but Islam is really being a pain in the butt again and God is guiding me to decree that the Crusade #1294?4856? should begin tommorrow, and we're going to go ahead and get rid of all muslims, because we know their religion isn't 'true' anyway. You would agree? How could you not? You aren't ordained by God, who are you to go against the word of someone who is? And, if you do follow the decree and then later it is deemed a mistake by a future Pope are you held repsonsible for your actions, or are you guiltess because you were merely following the will of the Pope at the time. Is it considered a sin to go against a direct order from the Pope? So you could sin by not following what the Pope says, but also sin by following what the pope says, if what the Pope says, it later deemed by another Pope to be a sin? Does this seem foolish to you? It does to me.

[semaj550 0]

Skillfully evaded. Ok, so who determines when the Pope makes a mistake? Only a later Pope? Logically only someone else 'ordained' by god would be qualified to denounce the acts of another person 'ordained' by god, right? So, say tha Pope Benedict, next week, says, "I know John Paul II said the Crusades were wrong but Islam is really being a pain in the butt again and God is guiding me to decree that the Crusade #1294?4856? should begin tommorrow, and we're going to go ahead and get rid of all muslims, because we know their religion isn't 'true' anyway. You would agree? How could you not? You aren't ordained by God, who are you to go against the word of someone who is? And, if you do follow the decree and then later it is deemed a mistake by a future Pope are you held repsonsible for your actions, or are you guiltess because you were merely following the will of the Pope at the time. Is it considered a sin to go against a direct order from the Pope? So you could sin by not following what the Pope says, but also sin by following what the pope says, if what the Pope says, it later deemed by another Pope to be a sin? Does this seem foolish to you? It does to me.

You're completely misunderstanding the concept of papal infallibility.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

You're completely misunderstanding the concept of papal infallibility.

Well then please explain it to us, don't leave us hanging like that!?! I'd LOVE to hear the explanation of Papal infailability, because it SEEMS like a ludacris concept, but perhaps I just haven't had it explained to me properly.

[jmkiser 0]

I'm not a frequent contributor to the religion forum, so I don't reallly know the answer to this. Is there really that much Non-ironic nutball bullsht spewed in this forum that I have to spoon feed you sw's? Perhaps my brand of humor isn't suited for the religious forum.

Nah, 95% of us understood what you're saying and probably about 50% laughed :PNo one has to be an uptight intellectual just to talk in these forums

[Loismustdie 0]

Well then please explain it to us, don't leave us hanging like that!?! I'd LOVE to hear the explanation of Papal infailability, because it SEEMS like a ludacris concept, but perhaps I just haven't had it explained to me properly.

No, it's ludacris, like many of the Catholic traditions.

[semaj550 0]

Well then please explain it to us, don't leave us hanging like that!?! I'd LOVE to hear the explanation of Papal infailability, because it SEEMS like a ludacris concept, but perhaps I just haven't had it explained to me properly.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htmThat should be adequate.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htmThat should be adequate.

can you nut shell it for me? i was looking for a paragraph or two of explanation, not an hour or two's worth of reading. I really don't care that much.

[BWToth 0]

can you nut shell it for me? i was looking for a paragraph or two of explanation, not an hour or two's worth of reading. I really don't care that much.

QFT.And yes, semaj, surely the the answer is simple, logical, and clear right? Just like most things regarding Catholocism.

[semaj550 0]

QFT.And yes, semaj, surely the the answer is simple, logical, and clear right? Just like most things regarding Catholocism.

At least it is clear how you have come to know the things you argue. If you can't take the time to understand something then I won't take the time to discuss it with you.

[BWToth 0]

At least it is clear how you have come to know the things you argue. If you can't take the time to understand something then I won't take the time to discuss it with you.

So,First of all the circumstances for when and how the infallibilty of the Pope is determined is CREATED BY THE CHURCH, NOT THE BIBLE, which in an of itself takes away pretty much all the credibility.But, the infallibility of the pope exists only under the condition of 'ex cathedra' which is:"he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church""The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians""Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible""Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church.""It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy"So if the Pope does something within this spectrum he is infallible. However:"The only noteworthy objections against papal infallibility, as distinct from the infallibility of the Church at large, are based on certain historical instances in which it is alleged that certain popes in the ex cathedra exercise of their office have actually taught heresy and condemned as heretical what has afterwards turned out to be true"But for these instances such as the condemnation of Galileo a loophole was made up so that the actions of the pope were done done under 'ex cathedra' and therefore are excused.Could you explain to me how or why the decrees of the Pope during the Crusades did not meet the demands of 'ex cathedra' I can't figure out how the didn't. But the church says they must not of because:"The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous."In any case how can this article be deemed to be fact, or infallible itself. It's not the Bible, the Pope didn't write it. It's merely: "Written by P.J. Toner. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York"Do you not see how this is perfect example of how rules and guidelines are created with some vague biblical reference to make all the crazy contradictions and interworkings of Catholicism become justified to people like you.All of this above, comes from these passages:"Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep.""Thou art Peter (Kepha)", said Christ, "and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" Looks like a pretty big leap to go from these verses to the intricacies of 'ex cathedra' described above.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

From wikipedia:In Roman Catholic theology, papal infallibility is the dogma that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly promulgates, or declares, to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. The Holy Spirit also works through the body of the Church to ensure that all infallible teachings will be received by all Catholics.This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the Infallibility of the Church. Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin[1].According to the Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Catholicism, "In reality, the pope seldom uses his power of infallibility. The last time an infallible doctrine was declared was in 1950 when Mary's assumption into heaven was proclaimed an article of faith. In other words, rather than being some mystical power of the pope, infallibility means the Church allows the office of the pope to be the ruling agent in deciding what will be accepted as formal beliefs in the Church."This was the kind of nut shell I was looking for. Was that so hard? Did you really have to be such an assshole about it?

[semaj550 0]

lol...I started to respond to you bit by bit but again you're just wrong.You're wrong about Galileo. You're wrong about the Crusades.To aid you in your understanding about the scriptural basis for papal infallibility I'll copy the commentary below the passages you quote in the hopes that you'll read it this time.

Here the complete and supreme pastoral charge of the whole of Christ's flock -- sheep as well as lambs -- is given to St. Peter and his successors, and in this is undoubtedly comprised supreme doctrinal authority. But, as we have already seen, doctrinal authority in tbe Church cannot be really effective in securing the unity of faith intended by Christ, unless in the last resort it is infallible. It is futile to contend, as non Catholics have often done, that this passage is merely a record of Peter's restoration to his personal share in the collective Apostolic authority, which he had forfeited by his triple denial. It is quite probable that the reason why Christ demanded the triple confession of love was as a set-off to the triple denial; but if Christ's words in this and in the other passages quoted mean anything, and if they are to be understood in the same obvious and natural way in which defenders of the Divine authority of the episcopate understand the words elsewhere addressed to the Apostles collectively, there is no denying that the Petrine and papal claims are more clearly supported by the Gospels than are those of a monarchical episcopate. It is equally futile to contend that these promises were made, and this power given, to Peter merely as the representative of the Apostolic college: in the texts of the Gospel, Peter is individually singled out and addressed with particular emphasis, so that, unless by denying with the rationalist the genuineness of Christ's words, there is no logical escape from the Catholic position. Furthermore, it is clear from such evidence as the Acts of the Apostles supply, that Peter's supremacy was recognized in the infant Church (see PRIMACY) and if this supremacy was intended to be efficacious for the purpose for which it was instituted, it must have included the prerogative of doctrinal infallibility.

[semaj550 0]

From wikipedia:In Roman Catholic theology, papal infallibility is the dogma that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly promulgates, or declares, to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. The Holy Spirit also works through the body of the Church to ensure that all infallible teachings will be received by all Catholics.This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the Infallibility of the Church. Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin[1].According to the Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Catholicism, "In reality, the pope seldom uses his power of infallibility. The last time an infallible doctrine was declared was in 1950 when Mary's assumption into heaven was proclaimed an article of faith. In other words, rather than being some mystical power of the pope, infallibility means the Church allows the office of the pope to be the ruling agent in deciding what will be accepted as formal beliefs in the Church."This was the kind of nut shell I was looking for. Was that so hard? Did you really have to be such an assshole about it?

Yes, because Wikipedia isn't an adequate source. There is much more to the doctrine and the certainly ensuing argument than that entry conveys. If we're going to dicuss something we may as well discuss what it actually is and not a nutshell provided by Wikipedia.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Yes, because Wikipedia isn't an adequate source. There is much more to the doctrine and the certainly ensuing argument than that entry conveys. If we're going to dicuss something we may as well discuss what it actually is and not a nutshell provided by Wikipedia.

I don't really care to discuss it. I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, so debating the details of the dogma of his church has no interest to me. I only wanted to know what it was, if not what was stated before.

[BWToth 0]

lol...I started to respond to you bit by bit but again you're just wrong.You're wrong about Galileo. You're wrong about the Crusades.To aid you in your understanding about the scriptural basis for papal infallibility I'll copy the commentary below the passages you quote in the hopes that you'll read it this time.

Well, the problem is... I got that from the link you posted. If I'm wrong why aren't you going to correct me. Give me your personal interpretation of what that passage describes.

[semaj550 0]

Well, the problem is... I got that from the link you posted. If I'm wrong why aren't you going to correct me. Give me your personal interpretation of what that passage describes.

That link said nothing of a made-up loophole regarding Galileo and didn't even mention the word Crusades. You got that stuff on your own somehow and it is very much incorrect.Basically the passage says that Peter and his successors were given the task of maintaining and unifying the faith that Christ began. To these ends Christ commissioned and empowered them, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, with complete doctrinal authority.

[BWToth 0]

That link said nothing of a made-up loophole regarding Galileo and didn't even mention the word Crusades. You got that stuff on your own somehow and it is very much incorrect.Basically the passage says that Peter and his successors were given the task of maintaining and unifying the faith that Christ began. To these ends Christ commissioned and empowered them, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, with complete doctrinal authority.

Galileo IS in there (perhaps YOUR the one that didn't read the text thoroughly enough. The Crusades is the example I gave earlier and have still yet to get a response regarding. How are the Crusades unaffected or not under this 'ex cathedra'? I want to know. If the Pope himself stated that it was the mission of the Church to eradicate the infidels of Islam, then I don't see how it couldn't fall under 'ex cathedra'

Basically the passage says that Peter and his successors were given the task of maintaining and unifying the faith that Christ began. To these ends Christ commissioned and empowered them, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, with complete doctrinal authority.

I know this is what it is saying. And those verses I quoted somehow, give you that.How do you get the above from either of:

"Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep.""Thou art Peter (Kepha)", said Christ, "and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"

^-----These are the Biblical passages from which the SITE claims what YOU claim comes from.I don't see anything about "complete doctrinal authority" do you?

[semaj550 0]

Galileo IS in there (perhaps YOUR the one that didn't read the text thoroughly enough. The Crusades is the example I gave earlier and have still yet to get a response regarding. How are the Crusades unaffected or not under this 'ex cathedra'? I want to know. If the Pope himself stated that it was the mission of the Church to eradicate the infidels of Islam, then I don't see how it couldn't fall under 'ex cathedra'I know this is what it is saying. And those verses I quoted somehow, give you that.How do you get the above from either of: ^-----These are the Biblical passages from which the SITE claims what YOU claim comes from.I don't see anything about "complete doctrinal authority" do you?

I told you the site says nothing about inventing a loophole to escape the issue of Galileo. That is absolutely correct.Again, you clearly don't understand the doctrine. The calling of the Crusades did not possess any of the qualities of an ex cathedra teaching. It's actually quite plain and simple.If you continue reading Matthew 16, in verse 19 Jesus goes on to say, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."So clearly Jesus is telling Peter that whatever he holds truth for the Church on Earth, in-so-far as it pertains to one attainment of Heaven, it will receive Divine assention.