Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]

Author Topic: Resisting An Infallible Pope?  (Read 954 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TomGubbinsKimmage

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?
« Reply #45 on: Today at 02:05:03 AM »
Quote from: SoldierofCtK on Yesterday at 10:09:59 PM
Who do you think pushed for the council? The same Modernists condemned by Pope St. Pius X, you dunce.

I actually dont know where to begin with such a stupid remark.
Logged

Offline TomGubbinsKimmage

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?
« Reply #46 on: Today at 02:07:51 AM »
Quote from: InNomineDomini on Yesterday at 07:07:36 PM
Eusebius of Dorelayum was a layman in Constantinople, he was present in the Haiga Sophia when Nestorius went to the pulpit and preached heresy for the first time. He also later challenged Eutyches for monophysitism. If you remember, it took Rome years to condemn Nestorius, but Eusebius recognized heresy instantly and challenged him from the congregation. He didn't sit in the pew twiddling his thumbs saying "ooh I can't fink he's a hewetic, I gotta wait till he's decwaired wone fwom Wome."


Secondly, Modernism is Modernism, it is the same heresy that Pope Pius X condemned, if what came from V2 is not a heresy, and Leo XVI is teaching it, you can't judge as a layman as you said, and you must submit.

More dogmatic sede low IQ remarks. This is almost too easy.

My friend, despite all your sneering, there is a reason that the Church formally condemns heresy.

And no "modernism is modernism" is not true. JThere was semi arianism etc. Look it up. Do you know anything about the history of heresies?

please go get a basic education on these topics and come back to me.
Logged

Online DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?
« Reply #47 on: Today at 02:17:25 AM »
Quote from: Angelus on Yesterday at 02:14:37 PM
You are conflating instructions relevant for the period BEFORE the age of the Church with the period AT THE END of the age of the Church. When Jesus spoke of the Chair of Moses, he had not yet founded His Church.

After its foundation, His Church's doctrine is infallible, as are the true Successors of Peter when teaching ex Cathedra. The High Priest and Pharisees were not graced with the charism of infallibility. They simply had authority. Their teachings were obviously perverse.

So, do you understand the conflation you are making?

And Peter and Paul, acting AFTER the Church was founded, did not submit in anyway to the authority of the High Priests or pharisees. They were imprisoned and persecuted and executed because they refused to submit to those false authorities.

No one is disputing the infallibility of the pope speaking ex cathedra, so what are you talking about? You, I, everyone here, none of us are rejecting an ex cathedra teaching of a pope.

There has been no change in the people of God with respect to those in the seat. Israel was commanded to obey the high priest, as we are commanded to obey the pope:

Quote
Dt 17:10  And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, that preside in the place, which the Lord shall choose, and what they shall teach thee

The same exceptions of obedience also apply under the New Covenant. Or are you saying we should obey commandments of popes/bishops which "transgress the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3)?


Quote
And Peter and Paul, acting AFTER the Church was founded, did not submit in anyway to the authority of the High Priests or pharisees. They were imprisoned and persecuted and executed because they refused to submit to those false authorities.

Yes, Peter did not obey the commandment of the high priest and Sanhedrin when he was told not to preach of Christ:


Quote
Acts 5:28-9  Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.

You say the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, and we agree.

You say Peter did not obey the high priest or the pharisees, and I agree - as Scripture clearly tells us, when commanding contrary to God.

What incident regarding Paul are you talking about? I gave an incident: where he called the high priest a "whited wall," and when struck by a guard, responded, effectively, "sorry, I didn't know he was the high priest":


Quote
Acts 23:2-5  And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to strike him on the mouth.  3 Then Paul said to him: God shall strike thee, thou whited wall. For sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and contrary to the law commandest me to be struck?  4 And they that stood by said: Dost thou revile the high priest of God?  5 And Paul said: I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest. For it is written: Thou shalt not speak evil of the prince of thy people.

So what's your point?
 


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
« previous next »