Rep. Patrick Kennedy Denied Communion

Of course, you wouldn't know this but, John Paul II went to confession DAILY. Does that sound like someone who considered himself sinless??

 

Oh of course he did. In later Vatican edicts, the pope became infallible for certain special times that God needed him. He is subject to sin in periods he is not infalliable. How else can you explain popes dying? By the way, how do you explain Mary dying?

 

Sorry about that, John Paul II went to confession weekly, not daily.

How does the Church 'backpeddle' on sinlessness with infallibility? Did the church once assert the pope was sinless and then when they couldn't defend that then say, oh actually he speaks infallibly when he speaks Ex Cathedra??

 

Oh well, I tried.

 

Oh, hang on - we've gone from talking about sinless Popes to infallible Popes in one post. Do try to be consistent: are we talking about sinlessness or infallibility?

 

Well you did not read the thread very well. We started discussing the fact that your theological genius friend denied the Catholic church only recognized that marriages within the church. She was proven wrong (again). Then came the subject of the sinless pope. Later vatican edicts (whatever that means) said the pope was infallible, but only during given periods of time. Otherwise he was in a sinful state. So which is it, is he a sinner, or is he infallible. It must be some third position between sinless and sinful since it is obvious he sins like anyone else. The fact is there is no third position. One is either sinful or not. And believe me, he is sinful, just like the rest of us, and just like Mary, despite what you or anyone else thinks. There is catholic doctrine posted which proves the church believes Mary to be sinless, which establishes the fact that the Catholic church has no problem assigning the status of sinlessness to a created being. It also points out that the Catholic church is quite capable of believing sin is imputed to someone outside the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

I do have a question for you though. During those time periods of pope infaliblity, does he glow a bright white?

 

Now you're being silly!

Can you not tell the difference between sinlessness and infallibility? Do you believe that when the human writers of the Bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote or dictated the words that appear in the Bible you have, that those words were infallible? I'm sure you do. But do you believe the authors were sinless? No! You don't have a problem with distinguishing the two concepts there which rather leads me to conclude that you are equally capable of understanding the two concepts with regard to the person and office of the Pope and that you "protest too much".

 

No I do not believe the writers were infalliable. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and their writing is infallible, not them, or anything in their being. It is quite sad to compare the writers of the Bible used by God to write His word with a pope who heads the organization that is the greatest internal threat to Christianity today. In fact, you are assigning a special "third" status to the pope above a sinful state.

It takes a lot of nerve to compare a pope, chosen by an evil entity, to men God chose to be inspired to write His Word. Either way, the writers remained in a sinful state, their writing is infallible.

You did not answer my question, does the pope glow a bright white during periods of infallibility?

 

No I didn't answer it, because you were being stupid about it. In fact, the more you post arrant drivel like that, the more you convince me that the Catholics have got it right - or at least a heck of a lot more right than the Baptists.

OK, you don't believe the writers of Scripture were infallible, but their writings were. So you acknowledge that it is possible to be a sinful human and yet produce an infallible statement under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Well, that's just what the Catholics believe about the Pope: he remains a fallen human being like the rest of us, but certain of his statements are adjudged to be infallible. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

 

No they dont, they believe the person becomes infallible, just like you believe mary is sinless, or that dead saints hear your prayers. It is all in totality nothing but a cult. I am not obligated to convince you of anything, but I am obigated to confront evil doctrine.

 

You are incorrect in your understanding of infallibility. The relvant section of the Catholic catechism is here:

Note it is in the act of proclamation that the infallibility lies.

 

You need to reword that. The idea that the pope in infallible is a lie.

 

Oh, I don't believe it myself, but I just wanted to correct your misapprehension of what you think Catholics believe. Job done, I trust.

 

If you are not a Catholic, which we have been over before, and do not believe their doctrine, then why do you spend endless posts defending it?

 

Because much of what you post about Catholic doctrine is quite simply incorrect, and I don't like letting prejudiced errors go uncorrected.

 

Not true, on every point from Mary, to marriage, to purgatory, to regenerational baptism, we have shown what they believe, a works salvation.

 

I mean when it comes down to it. Don't we believe in a works based salvation? Its just we put it foreward this way. If you are elect you are regenerated before you have faith. You have faith which results in works. If you claim to be a christian and aren't doing works you're probably not saved to begin with. Both systems seem pretty reliant on works. Both are evidence of one's salvation. Both state that even if works are in place its not a guarantee of salvation but that guarantee is only in Faith which only God can judge. Just a thought.

 

I think you're confusing impeccability with infallibility. It's like the Supreme Court of the United States. They have the last word on matters of law and legal interpretation in the United States. There is no appeal from their decrees. Yet if one of these justices is arrested for drunk driving, or other crimes, he is subject to the same penalties we are. That is how Catholics see the pope. When he speaks ex cathedra (which only happens very rarely) what he says is infallible. I don't think they regard their pope as sinless. Certainly John Paul II didn't regard himself as sinless because he went to confession at least once a week.

And I posted this before reading all the more recent posts. As I stated before, maybe on this thread, SN gets his facts fairly straight. It's just the conclusions he draws from them that are sometimes off base. However, he didn't get the marriage post exactly right. Catholics recognize as valid the marriage of a baptized noncatholic man and woman if it is done under the auspices of their noncatholic church. The don't recognize the marriage of a Catholic to a noncatholic, or of two Catholics to each other, unless it is in the Catholic church or they get a dispensation from the bishop.

 

And hence we come to the crux of the problem with Catholics.

They don't believe in "sola scriptura." They believe that authority comes from Scripture plus church teachings.

WHen that step is made, then you have...

 

I think you have it backwards for a case in point. Catholics believe that Authority comes from the Church and Scriptures. Both are equal in authority both are considered the word of God. The Teachings of the Church are not an additive to a primary source but the source itself. Just clearing that up.