FSTDT Forums

Rubbish => Preaching and Worship => Topic started by: Jacob Harrison on November 09, 2018, 10:58:04 am

Title: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 09, 2018, 10:58:04 am
The doctrine of Papal Infallibility is misunderstood by non Catholics. They misinterpret it do mean that the Pope is a perfect being. That is not true. Papal infallibility is that the Pope "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church." The last time Papal Infallibility was used was in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith.

To test whether Papal Infallibility is true, you have to analyze if a Pope ever defined a doctrine concerning faith or morals that contradicts another Pope's defined doctrine concerning faith or morals. That would disprove Papal Infallibility. However, that has never happened throughout the 2000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church. It is miraculous considering all the Popes throughout history and all the doctrines concerning faith or morals that have been defined. It proves Papal Infallibility.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 09, 2018, 02:56:35 pm
They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 09, 2018, 03:00:29 pm
They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: dpareja on November 09, 2018, 04:47:11 pm
They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Because they have all that stuff documented and have tons of staff to check to make sure that none of what they're about to speak (supposedly) infallibly on contradicts what any other Child Abuser in Chief said?
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 09, 2018, 05:09:04 pm
They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Because they have all that stuff documented and have tons of staff to check to make sure that none of what they're about to speak (supposedly) infallibly on contradicts what any other Child Abuser in Chief said?

Papal Infallibility was not dogmatically defined until the First Vatican Council in 1870 so how do you explain how Popes from before then did not contradict other Popes who defined doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: dpareja on November 09, 2018, 05:39:42 pm
They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Because they have all that stuff documented and have tons of staff to check to make sure that none of what they're about to speak (supposedly) infallibly on contradicts what any other Child Abuser in Chief said?

Papal Infallibility was not dogmatically defined until the First Vatican Council in 1870 so how do you explain how Popes from before then did not contradict other Popes who defined doctrine concerning faith or morals.

See explanation above.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 09, 2018, 05:46:26 pm
They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Because they have all that stuff documented and have tons of staff to check to make sure that none of what they're about to speak (supposedly) infallibly on contradicts what any other Child Abuser in Chief said?

Papal Infallibility was not dogmatically defined until the First Vatican Council in 1870 so how do you explain how Popes from before then did not contradict other Popes who defined doctrine concerning faith or morals.

See explanation above.

Your explanation does not explain the cases before the First Vatican Council because before Papal Infallibility was dogmatically defined, there wouldn't be a need to check if their defining of doctrine concerning faith or morals contradicted other popes definitions of doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: dpareja on November 09, 2018, 05:56:06 pm
They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Because they have all that stuff documented and have tons of staff to check to make sure that none of what they're about to speak (supposedly) infallibly on contradicts what any other Child Abuser in Chief said?

Papal Infallibility was not dogmatically defined until the First Vatican Council in 1870 so how do you explain how Popes from before then did not contradict other Popes who defined doctrine concerning faith or morals.

See explanation above.

Your explanation does not explain the cases before the First Vatican Council because before Papal Infallibility was dogmatically defined, there wouldn't be a need to check if their defining of doctrine concerning faith or morals contradicted other popes definitions of doctrine concerning faith or morals.

It would avoid embarrassment if someone should point out that Child Abuser in Chief X contradicted Child Abuser in Chief Y.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 09, 2018, 06:04:16 pm
They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Because they have all that stuff documented and have tons of staff to check to make sure that none of what they're about to speak (supposedly) infallibly on contradicts what any other Child Abuser in Chief said?

Papal Infallibility was not dogmatically defined until the First Vatican Council in 1870 so how do you explain how Popes from before then did not contradict other Popes who defined doctrine concerning faith or morals.

See explanation above.

Your explanation does not explain the cases before the First Vatican Council because before Papal Infallibility was dogmatically defined, there wouldn't be a need to check if their defining of doctrine concerning faith or morals contradicted other popes definitions of doctrine concerning faith or morals.

It would avoid embarrassment if someone should point out that Child Abuser in Chief X contradicted Child Abuser in Chief Y.

Given that it is 2000 years and the tons of historical record's even the staff would be prone to making mistakes and could forget about a particular historical record that showed that the Pope is contradicting another Pope. And also, most Popes throughout the history of the church were not child abusers. The child abuse began in the 20th century. The Catholic Church was much more moral and holy during the Age of Christendom.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: dpareja on November 09, 2018, 07:02:26 pm
Yes, because Roderic de Borja was so moral and upstanding with all his mistresses.

The Catholic Church is one of the oldest organized crime syndicates in the world.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 09, 2018, 08:05:12 pm
Yes, because Roderic de Borja was so moral and upstanding with all his mistresses.

The Catholic Church is one of the oldest organized crime syndicates in the world.

Yes there were Popes such as Alexander VI who had moral shortcomings, but overall, the Catholic Church was a moral holy institution that helped keep order in Europe, kept Kings in check, and contributed greatly to Western Civilization. For example they contributed greatly to modern science having “the most important scientists of all time, including Rene Descartes, who discovered analytic geometry and the laws of refraction; Blaise Pascal, inventor of the adding machine, hydraulic press, and the mathematical theory of probabilities; Augustinian priest Gregor Mendel, who founded modern genetics; Louis Pasteur, founder of microbiology and creator of the first vaccine for rabies and anthrax; and cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, who first developed scientifically the view that the earth rotated around the sun.” https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/catholic-contributions/the-church-opposes-science-the-myth-of-catholic-irrationality.html
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 10, 2018, 12:02:36 am
So they're a protection racket that rode on the coattails of those better and smarter than they, got it.

Who are you trying to convince Jacob. Seriously, why are you here?
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: niam2023 on November 10, 2018, 04:38:53 am
I'd point Jacob in the direction of the ridiculous and hilarious Cadaver Synod - where one Pope apparently so angered another Pope, the latter Pope did not let the passage of time and the former Pope's death stop him from trying the guy on all sorts of ridiculous offences. The dead Pope was apparently operated by an assistant who made the dead guy say "BECAUSE I'M EVIL!" whenever a question was asked about why he did something.

Ultimately, the dead guy was found guilty, and rather than put him to death (which would've just created an unkillable zombie Pope) they hacked off the fingers he used to bless people, and every act of his papacy was declared null and void. Then they reburied him. Then they un-reburied him and tossed him in a river.

Then another Pope later on decided Pope Formosus had not suffered enough, and so managed to find that fucking corpse, try it AGAIN and then behead the dead body (savvy fucker, chopping off the head).
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: dpareja on November 10, 2018, 07:01:03 am
Child Abuser-on-Child Abuser violence?

EDIT: Also, the second trial probably didn't happen. The first one did, though.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 10, 2018, 07:46:45 am
I'd point Jacob in the direction of the ridiculous and hilarious Cadaver Synod - where one Pope apparently so angered another Pope, the latter Pope did not let the passage of time and the former Pope's death stop him from trying the guy on all sorts of ridiculous offences. The dead Pope was apparently operated by an assistant who made the dead guy say "BECAUSE I'M EVIL!" whenever a question was asked about why he did something.

Ultimately, the dead guy was found guilty, and rather than put him to death (which would've just created an unkillable zombie Pope) they hacked off the fingers he used to bless people, and every act of his papacy was declared null and void. Then they reburied him. Then they un-reburied him and tossed him in a river.

Then another Pope later on decided Pope Formosus had not suffered enough, and so managed to find that fucking corpse, try it AGAIN and then behead the dead body (savvy fucker, chopping off the head).

This is from Catholic.com

Quote
Not surprisingly, anti-infallibilists have held up the case of Formosus as a contradiction of the doctrine of papal infallibility. The case was raised last century by Ignaz von Döllinger and more recently by former Catholic priest Peter de Rosa (Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy) and by Fundamentalist apologist Dave Hunt (A Woman Rides the Beast). It is alleged the case involves a series of contradictory ex cathedra declarations made by successive popes regarding Formosus’s guilt and the validity of his ordinations. Further, Hunt argues the "nullification" of Formosus’s ordinations has resulted in the interruption of apostolic succession for those "ordained" in line from Formosus. As a consequence, Hunt says, the validity of Catholic sacraments is thrown into doubt, since one cannot be sure which priests or bishops administering the sacraments to the Catholic faithful derive their "null" orders by succession from Formosus. Such is the ominous shadow the case of Formosus is said to cast upon the doctrine of papal infallibility, apostolic succession, and the Catholic sacraments.

To respond to the anti-infallibilist, it is important to recall what an ex cathedra declaration is and what it is not. For a papal declaration to be considered ex cathedra, and thereby infallible, the pope must intend to speak to the Church with his full authority as supreme teacher on a matter of faith and morals. Ex cathedra statements are not only rare, but in scope they exclude a great deal. Dr. Hergenroth, in his book on Vatican I, noted that "Not every papal expression, still less action, can be taken to be a definitio ex cathedra. Mere mandates of the pope for special cases, and for particular persons; judgments on individuals resting on the testimony of third persons, and in general on human evidence; declarations and answers to the inquiries of individuals; private expressions in learned works, and in confidential letters—even mere disciplinary decrees—belong not to this category." The essential question is: Do the declarations regarding Formosus’s guilt and the nullity of his ordinations meet the criteria to be considered ex cathedra?

According to historian J. N. D. Kelly, Formosus was found guilty by Stephen VI of "perjury, violating the canons prohibiting the translation of bishops, and coveting the papacy." He was not accused of professing or teaching a heretical doctrine contrary to the Catholic faith. The main charge of those brought against Formosus was the ostensible violation of the fifteenth canon of the Council of Nicaea, which forbade the translation or transfer of a bishop from one see to another, as occurred upon his election to the papacy.

The wording of the canon at the center of the dispute makes it clear that the transfer of bishops involved no irreformable doctrine of faith and morals. Rather, this custom was quite mutable and reformable. In adopting the canon, the council fathers at Nicaea noted the transfer of bishops was a hitherto accepted custom, even as they outlawed future instances. Even after the Council, dispensations from the canon were granted and recognized, proving that the canon was never considered by the Church to be an irreformable dogmatic one. Since the verdicts involved judgments related to a reformable ecclesiastical rule and not a matter of faith and morals, they cannot be considered to have been made ex cathedra.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 10, 2018, 07:51:56 am
Child Abuser-on-Child Abuser violence?

EDIT: Also, the second trial probably didn't happen. The first one did, though.

It really fucking pisses me of that you are calling all popes throughout history child abusers when there is no evidence that they abused children! The child abuse scandal is from the 20th and 21st centuries.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 10, 2018, 10:26:53 am
Here is more proof of Papal Infallibility. God killed Pope Sixtus V before he could teach fallible error.
Quote
    Since the Church was much threatened by Protestant doctrines that were fast appearing throughout much of Europe and since there were numerous editions of the Vulgate in circulation, Pope Sixtus recognized that the Church required best biblical translation possible to meet Protestant arguments.  He acted forthrightly in assembling a team of scholars and linguists, headed by eminent theologians like Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and others.  They compiled as many Greek manuscripts as could be assembled and finished the revision process by the end of 1588. But apparently overcome by pride, the pope found the ten thousand readings they had diligently chosen inadequate, and angrily announced he would personally revise the Vulgate. He declared, ‘We, weighing the importance of the matter, and considering carefully the great and singular privilege we hold of God, and our true and legitimate succession from Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles . . . Are the proper and specially constituted Person to decide this whole question."

    Ill equipped for the task, Sixtus eliminated all the work done by the former commission, and started fresh. Unfortunately his abilities to translate, edit and make all the appropriate decisions were beyond his capabilities and the result was an error filled translation presented to the cardinals in early 1590.

    Cardinal Bellarmine and Fr. Toledo, another Jesuit scholar revealed their fears "…that by such mutilation he [Sixtus] was laying himself open to the attacks of the heretics, and was giving more serious scandal to the faithful than anything else the pope could do . . . "  If Sixtus had formally promulgated this distorted version, it would have allowed a strong case to be argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility since the Pope would have fulfilled the three requirements layed out by Vatican I for an infallible teaching.  But the weight of opposition was sufficient, thanks to Bellarmine and others, to stope the Pope from releasing it.  Still, he worked on correction of typographical errors with the apparent intention of releasing a corrected version soon. Patrick Madrid writes, "Expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him."  But at the last moment Sixtus, whose health and vigor were never questioned, took to his bed, dying on August 27, 1590 after a brief illness.  The Holy Spirit's promise to guide the Church to all truth seems to have been fulfilled again.  "Only God knows if Sixtus’ sudden death was dramatic proof of divine intervention-- the evidence that papal infallibility isn’t just a Catholic idea, but that God Himself will prevent, by death if necessary, the pope from teaching an error formally to the Church." (Madrid, pps. 242-51, Pope Fiction).
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: dpareja on November 10, 2018, 02:37:55 pm
Child Abuser-on-Child Abuser violence?

EDIT: Also, the second trial probably didn't happen. The first one did, though.

It really fucking pisses me of that you are calling all popes throughout history child abusers when there is no evidence that they abused children! The child abuse scandal is from the 20th and 21st centuries.

They headed an organization that has consistently taught the doctrine of hell to children too young to think critically about it (the "four to fourteen" window), which is one of the worst forms of child abuse imaginable.

That, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if evidence came to light that, in fact, actual sexual abuse of children was going on in the Church (and every other religion) long before it started to become general knowledge.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 10, 2018, 02:43:05 pm
Child Abuser-on-Child Abuser violence?

EDIT: Also, the second trial probably didn't happen. The first one did, though.

It really fucking pisses me of that you are calling all popes throughout history child abusers when there is no evidence that they abused children! The child abuse scandal is from the 20th and 21st centuries.

They headed an organization that has consistently taught the doctrine of hell to children too young to think critically about it (the "four to fourteen" window), which is one of the worst forms of child abuse imaginable.

That, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if evidence came to light that, in fact, actual sexual abuse of children was going on in the Church (and every other religion) long before it started to become general knowledge.

Teaching about Hell is not child abuse, it in fact is the opposite because warning children about Hell will save them from going there. It also helps make the children good behaved in fear of going to Hell.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 10, 2018, 03:44:08 pm
Quote
To respond to the anti-infallibilist, it is important to recall what an ex cathedra declaration is and what it is not. For a papal declaration to be considered ex cathedra, and thereby infallible, the pope must intend to speak to the Church with his full authority as supreme teacher on a matter of faith and morals. Ex cathedra statements are not only rare, but in scope they exclude a great deal. Dr. Hergenroth, in his book on Vatican I, noted that "Not every papal expression, still less action, can be taken to be a definitio ex cathedra. Mere mandates of the pope for special cases, and for particular persons; judgments on individuals resting on the testimony of third persons, and in general on human evidence; declarations and answers to the inquiries of individuals; private expressions in learned works, and in confidential letters—even mere disciplinary decrees—belong not to this category." The essential question is: Do the declarations regarding Formosus’s guilt and the nullity of his ordinations meet the criteria to be considered ex cathedra?
"If we decide we don't like it later, we flee in both directions with goalposts in hand."

Colour me not surprised!
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 10, 2018, 04:01:17 pm
Quote
To respond to the anti-infallibilist, it is important to recall what an ex cathedra declaration is and what it is not. For a papal declaration to be considered ex cathedra, and thereby infallible, the pope must intend to speak to the Church with his full authority as supreme teacher on a matter of faith and morals. Ex cathedra statements are not only rare, but in scope they exclude a great deal. Dr. Hergenroth, in his book on Vatican I, noted that "Not every papal expression, still less action, can be taken to be a definitio ex cathedra. Mere mandates of the pope for special cases, and for particular persons; judgments on individuals resting on the testimony of third persons, and in general on human evidence; declarations and answers to the inquiries of individuals; private expressions in learned works, and in confidential letters—even mere disciplinary decrees—belong not to this category." The essential question is: Do the declarations regarding Formosus’s guilt and the nullity of his ordinations meet the criteria to be considered ex cathedra?
"If we decide we don't like it later, we flee in both directions with goalposts in hand."

Colour me not surprised!

It is not fleeing with goalposts, it is using common sense to determine that it doesn’t even fit the definition of ex cathedral “since the verdicts involved judgments related to a reformable ecclesiastical rule and not a matter of faith and morals.”
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 10, 2018, 05:08:06 pm
Quote
To respond to the anti-infallibilist, it is important to recall what an ex cathedra declaration is and what it is not. For a papal declaration to be considered ex cathedra, and thereby infallible, the pope must intend to speak to the Church with his full authority as supreme teacher on a matter of faith and morals. Ex cathedra statements are not only rare, but in scope they exclude a great deal. Dr. Hergenroth, in his book on Vatican I, noted that "Not every papal expression, still less action, can be taken to be a definitio ex cathedra. Mere mandates of the pope for special cases, and for particular persons; judgments on individuals resting on the testimony of third persons, and in general on human evidence; declarations and answers to the inquiries of individuals; private expressions in learned works, and in confidential letters—even mere disciplinary decrees—belong not to this category." The essential question is: Do the declarations regarding Formosus’s guilt and the nullity of his ordinations meet the criteria to be considered ex cathedra?
"If we decide we don't like it later, we flee in both directions with goalposts in hand."

Colour me not surprised!

It is not fleeing with goalposts, it is using common sense to determine that it doesn’t even fit the definition of ex cathedral “since the verdicts involved judgments related to a reformable ecclesiastical rule and not a matter of faith and morals.”
Using common sense, after the last 'infallible' CEO of kid diddlers international is safely interred beneath the sod. Righto.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Sigmaleph on November 10, 2018, 06:35:53 pm
But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Hey Jacob quick question. How many infallible statements have popes made? The number matters for this argument, you see. If it was only a handful talking about different things, well, no surprise there, of course they don't contradict each other. If there's been hundreds, or thousands, that's certainly interesting. Might be worth a look.

Actually, to make it more precise, since we don't want anyone saying there's been goalpost shifting going on, how many statements by popes are generally agreed by Catholic theologians to be cases of papal infallibility? If we look just at that list we don't have to worry about anyone saying 'well, it's common sense that this one doesn't count'.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 10, 2018, 07:54:56 pm
But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Hey Jacob quick question. How many infallible statements have popes made? The number matters for this argument, you see. If it was only a handful talking about different things, well, no surprise there, of course they don't contradict each other. If there's been hundreds, or thousands, that's certainly interesting. Might be worth a look.

Actually, to make it more precise, since we don't want anyone saying there's been goalpost shifting going on, how many statements by popes are generally agreed by Catholic theologians to be cases of papal infallibility? If we look just at that list we don't have to worry about anyone saying 'well, it's common sense that this one doesn't count'.

Well the Pope is infallible whenever he defines doctrine concerning faith or morals and lots of doctrine was defined over the centuries so there are lots of infallible statements.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 10, 2018, 08:11:05 pm
'Lots'

Not an answer, a dodge.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 10, 2018, 08:14:49 pm
'Lots'

Not an answer, a dodge.

Too many to count.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: dpareja on November 10, 2018, 10:31:35 pm
'Lots'

Not an answer, a dodge.

Too many to count.

"Too many to count."

Not an answer, a dodge.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 11, 2018, 07:56:31 am
'Lots'

Not an answer, a dodge.

Too many to count.

"Too many to count."

Not an answer, a dodge.

It is an answer because the question was about how many infallible statements have Popes made. There is so much doctrine defined over the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church that it is too many to count. It shows how amazing it is that none of them contradict each other.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 11, 2018, 07:58:04 am
Here is more proof of Papal Infallibility. God killed Pope Sixtus V before he could teach fallible error.
Quote
    Since the Church was much threatened by Protestant doctrines that were fast appearing throughout much of Europe and since there were numerous editions of the Vulgate in circulation, Pope Sixtus recognized that the Church required best biblical translation possible to meet Protestant arguments.  He acted forthrightly in assembling a team of scholars and linguists, headed by eminent theologians like Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and others.  They compiled as many Greek manuscripts as could be assembled and finished the revision process by the end of 1588. But apparently overcome by pride, the pope found the ten thousand readings they had diligently chosen inadequate, and angrily announced he would personally revise the Vulgate. He declared, ‘We, weighing the importance of the matter, and considering carefully the great and singular privilege we hold of God, and our true and legitimate succession from Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles . . . Are the proper and specially constituted Person to decide this whole question."

    Ill equipped for the task, Sixtus eliminated all the work done by the former commission, and started fresh. Unfortunately his abilities to translate, edit and make all the appropriate decisions were beyond his capabilities and the result was an error filled translation presented to the cardinals in early 1590.

    Cardinal Bellarmine and Fr. Toledo, another Jesuit scholar revealed their fears "…that by such mutilation he [Sixtus] was laying himself open to the attacks of the heretics, and was giving more serious scandal to the faithful than anything else the pope could do . . . "  If Sixtus had formally promulgated this distorted version, it would have allowed a strong case to be argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility since the Pope would have fulfilled the three requirements layed out by Vatican I for an infallible teaching.  But the weight of opposition was sufficient, thanks to Bellarmine and others, to stope the Pope from releasing it.  Still, he worked on correction of typographical errors with the apparent intention of releasing a corrected version soon. Patrick Madrid writes, "Expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him."  But at the last moment Sixtus, whose health and vigor were never questioned, took to his bed, dying on August 27, 1590 after a brief illness.  The Holy Spirit's promise to guide the Church to all truth seems to have been fulfilled again.  "Only God knows if Sixtus’ sudden death was dramatic proof of divine intervention-- the evidence that papal infallibility isn’t just a Catholic idea, but that God Himself will prevent, by death if necessary, the pope from teaching an error formally to the Church." (Madrid, pps. 242-51, Pope Fiction).

I am baffled that you have not converted after seeing this irrefutable proof of papal infallibility.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 11, 2018, 02:44:38 pm
Meanwhile, I'm baffled that you and anyone else takes this bullshit seriously.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: davedan on November 11, 2018, 05:18:12 pm
The name of the source is 'Pope Fiction'. Besides isn't it more likely that the Cardinals poisoned him.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Sigmaleph on November 11, 2018, 09:04:32 pm
Too many to count.

Wrong, actually. The answer is two. I'm sure everyone here including you can count that high.

Quote
Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact confirmed by the Church's magisterium. However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.

Everything other than those two statements is in dispute.

So there's why you can't convince anyone of Catholicism via the doctrine of papal infallibility. Because if anyone looked through statements made by popes, and found a contradiction, you could say 'well, that one isn't infallible', and you'd have theologians agreeing that of course that one isn't.

Forgive me for not being impressed that the Catholic Church has managed to make two whole statements without obviously contradicting themselves. I guess it's better than one, at least.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 11, 2018, 09:38:27 pm
Too many to count.

Wrong, actually. The answer is two. I'm sure everyone here including you can count that high.

Quote
Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact confirmed by the Church's magisterium. However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.

Everything other than those two statements is in dispute.

So there's why you can't convince anyone of Catholicism via the doctrine of papal infallibility. Because if anyone looked through statements made by popes, and found a contradiction, you could say 'well, that one isn't infallible', and you'd have theologians agreeing that of course that one isn't.

Forgive me for not being impressed that the Catholic Church has managed to make two whole statements without obviously contradicting themselves. I guess it's better than one, at least.

Well there are also the ecumenical councils which are said to be infallible when they define doctrine concerning faith or morals and none of the councils contradict each other despite there being 20 of them over a period of 2000 years(Excluding Vatican 2 because Vatican 2 did not define doctrine)
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: dpareja on November 12, 2018, 12:10:31 am
Each of which had the records from the previous ones.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 12, 2018, 10:05:52 am
It is amazing that only two statements are known to be infallible. If Papal Infallibility is not true, then there would have been a Pope over the last two thousand years that would have defined a doctrine that turned out to be in error. That never happened thus proving Papal Infallibility.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 12, 2018, 02:59:22 pm
Yeah well the RCC has an easy out where it can declare erroneous statments to be not infallible thereby saving the "infallible" ones from being in error. Nothing miraculous about 20 20 hindsight and obtuse wording Jakey.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 12, 2018, 05:23:31 pm
Yeah well the RCC has an easy out where it can declare erroneous statments to be not infallible thereby saving the "infallible" ones from being in error. Nothing miraculous about 20 20 hindsight and obtuse wording Jakey.

But a non Catholic could easily prove a erroneous statement to be ex cathedra by showing how it was a doctrine defined concerning faith or morals. The fact that no non Catholics found an erroneous statement defining doctrine concerning faith or morals, proves that the Popes never defined erroneous doctrines concerning faith or morals.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Skybison on November 12, 2018, 08:16:50 pm
Aren't they the guys who threatened to torture a guy for saying the earth goes around the sun?
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 12, 2018, 08:46:48 pm
Aren't they the guys who threatened to torture a guy for saying the earth goes around the sun?

But that is a matter of science not a matter of faith and morals, so the Pope did commit error when condemning Galileo but it wasn’t an ex cathedral error, so it does not disprove papal infallibility.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: dpareja on November 12, 2018, 09:08:38 pm
Aren't they the guys who threatened to torture a guy for saying the earth goes around the sun?

But that is a matter of science not a matter of faith and morals, so the Pope did commit error when condemning Galileo but it wasn’t an ex cathedral error, so it does not disprove papal infallibility.

Except that at the time it was a matter of faith that the Earth was the centre of the universe.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 12, 2018, 11:45:43 pm
Aren't they the guys who threatened to torture a guy for saying the earth goes around the sun?

But that is a matter of science not a matter of faith and morals, so the Pope did commit error when condemning Galileo but it wasn’t an ex cathedral error, so it does not disprove papal infallibility.

Except that at the time it was a matter of faith that the Earth was the centre of the universe.
Also Galileo's trial was coached entirely in terms of faith and morals. It didn't argue against his thesis by presenting a counter theory or disputing his evidence. His evidence was problematic for the RCC because it put the biblical contention that the Earth doesn't move in doubt.

The neat division between matters of science and matters of faith didn't exist back then, that's a modern viewpoint that was entirely alien in Galileo's time.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 13, 2018, 10:41:19 am
Aren't they the guys who threatened to torture a guy for saying the earth goes around the sun?

But that is a matter of science not a matter of faith and morals, so the Pope did commit error when condemning Galileo but it wasn’t an ex cathedral error, so it does not disprove papal infallibility.

Except that at the time it was a matter of faith that the Earth was the centre of the universe.
Also Galileo's trial was coached entirely in terms of faith and morals. It didn't argue against his thesis by presenting a counter theory or disputing his evidence. His evidence was problematic for the RCC because it put the biblical contention that the Earth doesn't move in doubt.

The neat division between matters of science and matters of faith didn't exist back then, that's a modern viewpoint that was entirely alien in Galileo's time.

This is from a Catholic on Patheos.

Quote
How did the Roman Catholic Church at the time of Galileo know that the Pope’s discipline of Galileo was not infallible?

It’s very simple:

1. It wasn’t made by a pope.

2. It wasn’t made by an ecumenical council (in agreement with, or ratified by a pope).

[technically, neither papal and conciliar infallibility were expressly defined at that time at the highest levels of Catholic authority, though very widely believed and accepted by many centuries of practice; papal infallibility was made ex cathedra dogma in 1870 at the First Vatican Council; the Second Vatican Council treated conciliar infallibility, as I understand, in greater depth than ever before]

3. No accepted formula was expressed, in which all Catholic faithful were bound to hold this opinion as an article of the Catholic faith.

4. Even if #3 were true, the condemnation would be neither binding on all the faithful nor infallible, because of the source of the statement (per #1 and #2).

To clarify, the condemnation of Galileo and heliocentrism was done by an ecclesiastical tribunal commissioned by the Pope, not the Pope himself. The Pope therefore never made an Ex Cathedra decree on the matter.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Skybison on November 13, 2018, 12:19:32 pm
To clarify, the condemnation of Galileo and heliocentrism was done by an ecclesiastical tribunal commissioned by the Pope, not the Pope himself. The Pope therefore never made an Ex Cathedra decree on the matter.

Why didn't he?  Why didn't the pope make a pro-heliocentrism decree if he's so infallible?
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 13, 2018, 12:21:44 pm
To clarify, the condemnation of Galileo and heliocentrism was done by an ecclesiastical tribunal commissioned by the Pope, not the Pope himself. The Pope therefore never made an Ex Cathedra decree on the matter.

Why didn't he?  Why didn't the pope make a pro-heliocentrism decree if he's so infallible?

Because he was a geocentrist. It is a miracle that he did not make a pro geocentrist decree proving that God prevented him from doing so, this proving Papal Infallibility.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Skybison on November 13, 2018, 12:36:11 pm
Why didn't God tell him Galileo was right?

Why didn't he explain germ theory to the Pope?

Or electricity?

I don't believe in Papal infallible because of what the Pope's don't say, not because of what they did.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 13, 2018, 01:33:01 pm
Why didn't God tell him Galileo was right?

Why didn't he explain germ theory to the Pope?

Or electricity?

I don't believe in Papal infallible because of what the Pope's don't say, not because of what they did.

Because it wasn't necessary for God to do so at that time because he knew that Heliocentrism would be proved true in the future and that Galileo would be vindicated. It wasn't necessary for God to explain germ theory, or electricity to the Pope because other people discovered those things.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 13, 2018, 03:06:41 pm
Being a geocentrist is failure. Failure to prioritize observed phenomena over scripture.

Jacob, if the only way you think you'll win a battle fir hearts and minds is via appeal to semantics then you've lost. Why are you here?
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 13, 2018, 03:26:35 pm
Being a geocentrist is failure. Failure to prioritize observed phenomena over scripture.

Jacob, if the only way you think you'll win a battle fir hearts and minds is via appeal to semantics then you've lost. Why are you here?

It is a failure but it is not an ex cathedra failure because he didn’t define geocentrism as a doctrine to be upheld by the entire church. I was responding to and debunking Skybison’s argument that the Galileo incident disproves Papal Infallibility.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 13, 2018, 03:59:37 pm
Being a geocentrist is failure. Failure to prioritize observed phenomena over scripture.

Jacob, if the only way you think you'll win a battle fir hearts and minds is via appeal to semantics then you've lost. Why are you here?

It is a failure but it is not an ex cathedra failure because he didn’t define geocentrism as a doctrine to be upheld by the entire church. I was responding to and debunking Skybison’s argument that the Galileo incident disproves Papal Infallibility.
Galileo's entire trial was because Heliocentricism contradicted the literal word of the bible, it posited that the Earth moved. If the bible doesn't constitute a "doctrine to be upheld by the entire church" I dunno what is.

And you haven't answered my question, why are you here? What are you trying to achieve?

If the net result of your advocacy is more hostility and scepticism of the thing you're advocating, you're doing it wrong.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 13, 2018, 04:26:48 pm
Being a geocentrist is failure. Failure to prioritize observed phenomena over scripture.

Jacob, if the only way you think you'll win a battle fir hearts and minds is via appeal to semantics then you've lost. Why are you here?

It is a failure but it is not an ex cathedra failure because he didn’t define geocentrism as a doctrine to be upheld by the entire church. I was responding to and debunking Skybison’s argument that the Galileo incident disproves Papal Infallibility.
Galileo's entire trial was because Heliocentricism contradicted the literal word of the bible, it posited that the Earth moved. If the bible doesn't constitute a "doctrine to be upheld by the entire church" I dunno what is.

And you haven't answered my question, why are you here? What are you trying to achieve?

If the net result of your advocacy is more hostility and scepticism of the thing you're advocating, you're doing it wrong.

But Galileo's trial was done by an Ecclesiastical Tribunal not the Pope himself, so the tribunal's condemnation of heliocentrism is not an infallible statement of the Pope.

And it is obvious why I am here. I am here trying to convert you guys to Catholicism and am therefore making arguments in favor of Catholicism and refuting arguments made against Catholicism such as Skybison's.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 13, 2018, 06:41:50 pm
1. Said tribunal answers to the Pope, like everything inthat organization, they certainly don't rule in a high profile case without his blessing.

2. It's. Not. Working. It hasn't worked and it won't work, it's pointless. Unless you're here to troll, that is working for what it's worth I guess.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 13, 2018, 08:12:17 pm
1. Said tribunal answers to the Pope, like everything inthat organization, they certainly don't rule in a high profile case without his blessing.

2. It's. Not. Working. It hasn't worked and it won't work, it's pointless. Unless you're here to troll, that is working for what it's worth I guess.

1. But the specific decree made by the tribunal was not formally signed by Pope Urban VIII.

2. I keep trying because I want to give you as many opportunities as possible to save your souls.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: dpareja on November 13, 2018, 08:26:47 pm
souls.

Oh good. Let's start there. Proof that souls even exist, please?
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 13, 2018, 08:52:36 pm
souls.

Oh good. Let's start there. Proof that souls even exist, please?

This video is scientific proof that during near death experiences, people’s souls actually leave the body. Therefore people’s near death experiences of either heaven or hell are therefore real. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s0F5F4hp3mY
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 13, 2018, 08:58:34 pm
1. Said tribunal answers to the Pope, like everything inthat organization, they certainly don't rule in a high profile case without his blessing.

2. It's. Not. Working. It hasn't worked and it won't work, it's pointless. Unless you're here to troll, that is working for what it's worth I guess.

1. But the specific decree made by the tribunal was not formally signed by Pope Urban VIII.

2. I keep trying because I want to give you as many opportunities as possible to save your souls.
Nothing that high profile gets done in the RCC without papal approval, particularly during that period in history. Context: in his Dialogue on Two World Systems Galileo, which was only done that way because of church pressure he sets up a Socratic dialogue between a Gary Stu character representing himself and Simplicio, whose name has implications that aren't hard to work out who's a stand in for the Pope.

Galileo dissed the Pope, subtlety but it was there so don't tell me the Pope had nothing to do with his persecution.

Also if you genuinely believed in souls and the need for their salvation you'd think that you would employ methods that weren't do consistently mocked and derided around here that you keep repeating despite the consistent negative feedback. Your schtick does not work!

You don't think name calling, fuck-yous and rolling on the floor laughing at you are signals of receptivity and approval, do you?

Protip: Youtube mockumentaries and docudramas of dubious authenticity have never worked, this one will not work.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Skybison on November 14, 2018, 01:03:21 am
It is a failure but it is not an ex cathedra failure because he didn’t define geocentrism as a doctrine to be upheld by the entire church. I was responding to and debunking Skybison’s argument that the Galileo incident disproves Papal Infallibility.

And you miss my point.  I don't believe in Papal Infallibility because it's only been used on stuff that's impossibly to verify.  If the Pope was always right about stuff that could be double checked I'd believe it.  But plenty of stuff he's said has been proven wrong, and Ctholic say that doesn't count.  If he was infallible why doesn't he use it for anything useful?
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Skybison on November 14, 2018, 01:11:29 am
It wasn't necessary for God to explain germ theory, or electricity to the Pope because other people discovered those things.

How many people died, or lived more awful and miserable lives because God didn't explain that stuff to us earlier?
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Jacob Harrison on November 14, 2018, 07:40:25 am
1. Said tribunal answers to the Pope, like everything inthat organization, they certainly don't rule in a high profile case without his blessing.

2. It's. Not. Working. It hasn't worked and it won't work, it's pointless. Unless you're here to troll, that is working for what it's worth I guess.

1. But the specific decree made by the tribunal was not formally signed by Pope Urban VIII.

2. I keep trying because I want to give you as many opportunities as possible to save your souls.
Nothing that high profile gets done in the RCC without papal approval, particularly during that period in history. Context: in his Dialogue on Two World Systems Galileo, which was only done that way because of church pressure he sets up a Socratic dialogue between a Gary Stu character representing himself and Simplicio, whose name has implications that aren't hard to work out who's a stand in for the Pope.

Galileo dissed the Pope, subtlety but it was there so don't tell me the Pope had nothing to do with his persecution.

Also if you genuinely believed in souls and the need for their salvation you'd think that you would employ methods that weren't do consistently mocked and derided around here that you keep repeating despite the consistent negative feedback. Your schtick does not work!

You don't think name calling, fuck-yous and rolling on the floor laughing at you are signals of receptivity and approval, do you?

Protip: Youtube mockumentaries and docudramas of dubious authenticity have never worked, this one will not work.

I did more research on it and found out that “In 1870 a Roman Catholic clergy man in England, the Rev. Mr. Roberts, evidently thinking that the time had come to tell the truth, published a book entitled The Pontifical Decrees against the Earth's Movement, and in this exhibited the incontrovertible evidences that the papacy had committed itself and its infallibility fully against the movement of the earth. This Catholic clergyman showed from the original record that Pope Paul V, in 1616, had presided over the tribunal condemning the doctrine of the earth's movement, and ordering Galileo to give up the opinion. He showed that Pope Urban VIII, in 1633, pressed on, directed, and promulgated the final condemnation, making himself in all these ways responsible for it.”

I am therefore in another spiritual crisis.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 14, 2018, 07:45:40 am
Ok, have fun.
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: KingOfRhye on November 14, 2018, 08:47:06 am
Best way to avoid spiritual crises: Don't be spiritual.   :P
Title: Re: More proof that Catholicism is true
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 14, 2018, 01:54:59 pm
Is a spiritual crisis anything like a time crisis? Because if so, shooting a couple of hundred terrorists tends to solve the problem.