Yes, (1) it is directly under your post, and (2) your name is even mentioned in the post! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />
Quote
You responded to some post titled Popish Heresy, the one I wrote was Papal Infallibility...Catholic Definition.
No, I was responding to the INFORMATION in YOUR post calling it what it is: Popish Heresy. With over 1/2 million individuals accessing the Highway per month I desire there to be NO miscommunication that what YOU are telling them is FALSE, HERETICAL, etc. IMHO it should be banned as well!
Quote
Perhaps it has escaped your consideration that as a member here, Catholic or not, I am entitled to the same respect and cordial treatment as anyone else
James, perhaps you should re-read my post. It is directed at the FALSE teachings of the Catholic Church, asking YOU to explain them if you could (which I see you still haven't or can't <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />). In addition, YOU are NOT the Pope and the phrase Popish Heresy is clearly AGAINST the teachings of the CC (as the examples also demonstrate) and not YOU personally! Please stop these criminal attempts of attempted manipulation.
As far as your statement on being treated with respect perhaps you should re-read the words of Christ against false teachings--what did He call them and the people who taught them? (hint: ye generation of vipers (Mt 12:24); full of inner corruption (Mt. 23:27ff); guilty of persecuting the true people of God (Mt. 23:34-35); and designated as “the synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9).
Now, you have attempted to wiggle worm your way out of answering yet another post--it is not going to work. Please remain on topic and answer the question(s) asked in the post?
Then you must have an argument with Vatican II, which Clinging Vine quoted:
"Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Savior wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience."
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
not even the Apostles were infallible, but only those things which they spoke and wrote by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which have been preserved for us in Holy Scripture.
Right on! I see we're really not arguing the main point about Peter. You seem to understand perfectly.
Well, if I'm understanding perfectly, you must not be, because the Popes do NOTHING by the direct inspiration of the Spirit.
EDIT: On private v. public:
Quote
Sir, perhaps we're not connecting because we have two differing definitions of "private." For instance, Pope John Paul expressed certain "private" beliefs in his book, Crossing The Threshold Of Hope. And as you know, the book went on to be published and became an instant best seller, so in a sense, his beliefs were publicized.
Perhaps you missed the point I made earlier that the Pope is considered inerrant when he addresses the church in an official capacity and renders judgements of doctrinal and administrative matters. None of Peter's recorded indescretions fits this criteria.
I've heard this innumerable times but I'm afraid I've never seen it expounded in any satisfactory way. When is it considered "official"?
Last edited by CovenantInBlood; Thu Oct 21, 200411:27 PM.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Actually, just to give you a heads up, James, my evening has filled up suddenly and this was my last chance to post before a busy weekend. Just so you don't think I've absconded on this discussion, I'll be getting back to you Mondayish.
You're right, sir. Even though it wasn't the main point of the article, I did use Apostolic succession to defend Papal infallibility, and therefore have incurred an obligation to defend it. A full article is forthcoming sir, thank you for your patience.
This is how I see it, Joe is an experienced carpenter, there is another man who spends a great part of his time on the construction site,likes to talk, hang out with the carpenters,one day the other man, said in so many words, you are going about your work the wrong way,believing in his self,that since he has spent so much time with the carpenters, he is also now able to tell right from wrong, because he is a carpenter too.
Joe then picks up a hammer and nail, with one hit it is driven flush into the wood, now a true carpenter knows also how to remove the nail from the wood. Joe says to the other man if you can take this nail out of the wood with no damage done to it you can then call yourself a carpenter. The other man looks puzzled staring at the nail embedded in the wood. He then will look at Joe an say, I can't remove this nail. You can plainly see I have no tools of my own. For me to remove this nail I would have to use your tools.
J_Edwards, Csoldier does not have any tools right now, and you know even if he comes about with some tools, he does not have the experience or know how to remove the nail.
Using some of your analogy I see it a little different. CS does have some tools, a deformed hammer (his Catholic tradition) and poor eyesight (his understanding). He knows how to use his hammer very well to drive a spread of nails (a false gospel). But, when his driving is shown to be defective (crooked nails, due to poor eyesight and a defective hammer), as above, instead of removing the nails (admitting his error), he embraces his hammer (his Catholic tradition) even more so and attempts to drive other crooked nails. Only God can make a true carpenter that drives straight nails....and give eyes to know when they are straight.
Simply put, Noah has built the Ark and he will not (can not "yet"?) enter (here).
But, we really need to remain on topic and thus await James reply to my initial post --if he has one <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
