Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
LightAngel

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick Resigns

168 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

LightAngel

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LightAngel
On 13/8/2018 at 1:24 PM, Truthseeker007 said:

I wouldn't go with a sentence of death because that would be to easy for them. I would say castration so they can't do it again and live with it.

 

I think prevention is better than cure!

I also want to castrate them, but it wouldn't solve the problem!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
On 8/16/2018 at 5:58 AM, GlitterRose said:

I understand it just fine. I just don't agree with it.

Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "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."[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

 

If you understand it, even if you disagree, then you shouldn't represent that you don't understand it by making blanketly false statements like "And somehow, they're all "infallible."" as you did in a previous post.   Pope's are not infallible and an ex cathedra declaration is an extremely rare occurrence and doesn't happen in a vacuum by a Pope, but in deep consultation with all upper influences of the Catholic magisterium. 

Plus, every denomination of Christianity must theologically hold a belief in some level if infallibility upon which their faith is based.  Catholics are no different, we hold that the Church teaches the infallible truth of Christ in it's well established theology, based on the infallibility of scripture who's interpretation is guided by tradition through the influence of the Holy Spirit.  Protestants believe in the infallibility of scripture based in individual revelation.  A slightly different concept and which is why there's thousands of different protestant denominations out there with wildly different interpretations of that infallible document.  And so on and so forth with all other Christian sects, they all rely on the infallibility of something for their theological understandings and faith.  So it's no different with Catholicism.  Only non-Christians can make the "you can't be infallible" argument as every Christian denomination believes in some level of infallibility.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
2 minutes ago, Noxasa said:

If you understand it, even if you disagree, then you shouldn't represent that you don't understand it by making blanketly false statements like "And somehow, they're all "infallible."" as you did in a previous post.   Pope's are not infallible and an ex cathedra declaration is an extremely rare occurrence and doesn't happen in a vacuum by a Pope, but in deep consultation with all upper influences of the Catholic magisterium. 

Plus, every denomination of Christianity must theologically hold a belief in some level if infallibility upon which their faith is based.  Catholics are no different, we hold that the Church teaches the infallible truth of Christ in it's well established theology, based on the infallibility of scripture who's interpretation is guided by tradition through the influence of the Holy Spirit.  Protestants believe in the infallibility of scripture based in individual revelation.  A slightly different concept and which is why there's thousands of different protestant denominations out there with wildly different interpretations of that infallible document.  And so on and so forth with all other Christian sects, they all rely on the infallibility of something for their theological understandings and faith.  So it's no different with Catholicism.  Only non-Christians can make the "you can't be infallible" argument as every Christian denomination believes in some level of infallibility.

They are always presented as infallible as it relates to Church teachings, and the fact is that Church teachings change.

So they are clearly not infallible in actuality...in any way.

Edited by GlitterRose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

Only non-Christians can make the "you can't be infallible" argument as every Christian denomination believes in some level of infallibility.

You can call me whatever you like, but the fact remains that there are plenty of Christian people who don't follow a Pope and don't believe in his infallibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
11 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

They are always presented as infallible as it relates to Church teachings, and the fact is that Church teachings change.

So they are clearly not infallible in actuality...in any way.

Again, you show you don't understand Ex Cathedra teachings.  Infallible Catholic Church teachings and deposits of faith have never changed!  EVER! Non Infallible Church teachings and practices have sometimes changed into new understandings but those teachings were never considered by the core of the Church in Rome to be infallible, so their changes were completely valid in Catholic theology and practice. 

Again, same thing happens in every Christian Church.  When a Protestant Church leader comes to new understandings and interpretations of scripture it usually means a new denomination is born unless the entire leadership of the denomination can be convinced of the new interpretation, and that doesn't happen very often.  In Protestantism, each denomination's creation is essentially a schism in interpretation of infallible scripture from some previous interpretations. 

In Catholicism, because of the reliability of tradition, the initial deposit of faith given to the Apostles by Christ and as taught to the early Church Fathers has not changed and cannot change under the Catholic faith.  Changes of the less clear aspects of theology only means an understanding of previous interpretations have evolved into a better understanding based on new information or analysis.  Typically, this doesn't result in a schism because Catholic theologians know what teachings are infallibly core to Catholicism and which ones are essentially best guesses based on incomplete evidence and may change in the future.  EXAMPLE: That's why Pope Francis' recent private representation that non-believers will never experience Hell, essentially disappearing from existence in a spiritual puff of smoke, was so widely condemned by most theologians in the Church.  The concept of Hell is an infallible Church teaching and not even Pope Francis' can change it even if he personally believes differently due to the corruption of his Jesuit influences.  His ideas around what Hell is, is a perfect example of how a Pope is not infallible by the Church's own measure of infallibility under Ex Cathedra teachings.  And that's not the only thing Pope Francis is personally wrong about, both theologically and politically.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
11 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

Only non-Christians can make the "you can't be infallible" argument as every Christian denomination believes in some level of infallibility.

You can call me whatever you like, but the fact remains that there are plenty of Christian people who don't follow a Pope and don't believe in his infallibility. 

You miss the point, the fact is that non-Catholic Christians still believe in a concept of infallibility somewhere in their faith.  If they didn't then their faith would mean nothing.  And anyone can then turn around and say your concept of infallibility is wrong for the exact same basis of reason.  My point is that it is naive and disingenuous for a Christian to make a claim about some other Church's concept of infallibility when they have their own concept of infallibility that their faith relies on and the same exact claim can be made against them and their reliance on an infallibility concept in their faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
8 hours ago, Noxasa said:

You miss the point, the fact is that non-Catholic Christians still believe in a concept of infallibility somewhere in their faith.  If they didn't then their faith would mean nothing.  And anyone can then turn around and say your concept of infallibility is wrong for the exact same basis of reason.  My point is that it is naive and disingenuous for a Christian to make a claim about some other Church's concept of infallibility when they have their own concept of infallibility that their faith relies on and the same exact claim can be made against them and their reliance on an infallibility concept in their faith.

The Pope is simply not infallible.

What he's doing is evil.

And people of conscience should leave the Church. 

No amount of word manipulation will change that. 

No one needs to believe that a human person is infallible in any way in order to be Christian. 

They don't need to follow some charismatic leader or some hierarchical leader who has been appointed to tell them what God thinks. 

Edited by GlitterRose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
8 hours ago, Noxasa said:

Again, you show you don't understand Ex Cathedra teachings.  Infallible Catholic Church teachings and deposits of faith have never changed!  EVER! Non Infallible Church teachings and practices have sometimes changed into new understandings but those teachings were never considered by the core of the Church in Rome to be infallible, so their changes were completely valid in Catholic theology and practice. 

Again, same thing happens in every Christian Church.  When a Protestant Church leader comes to new understandings and interpretations of scripture it usually means a new denomination is born unless the entire leadership of the denomination can be convinced of the new interpretation, and that doesn't happen very often.  In Protestantism, each denomination's creation is essentially a schism in interpretation of infallible scripture from some previous interpretations. 

In Catholicism, because of the reliability of tradition, the initial deposit of faith given to the Apostles by Christ and as taught to the early Church Fathers has not changed and cannot change under the Catholic faith.  Changes of the less clear aspects of theology only means an understanding of previous interpretations have evolved into a better understanding based on new information or analysis.  Typically, this doesn't result in a schism because Catholic theologians know what teachings are infallibly core to Catholicism and which ones are essentially best guesses based on incomplete evidence and may change in the future.  EXAMPLE: That's why Pope Francis' recent private representation that non-believers will never experience Hell, essentially disappearing from existence in a spiritual puff of smoke, was so widely condemned by most theologians in the Church.  The concept of Hell is an infallible Church teaching and not even Pope Francis' can change it even if he personally believes differently due to the corruption of his Jesuit influences.  His ideas around what Hell is, is a perfect example of how a Pope is not infallible by the Church's own measure of infallibility under Ex Cathedra teachings.  And that's not the only thing Pope Francis is personally wrong about, both theologically and politically.

The Pope has changed the Catechism. 

It's you who don't understand infallibility.

A Pope, by Catholic standards of infallibility, is infallible whenever he is in teaching mode.

When he's telling the people of the Church what God wants from them. 

It seems what God wants changes as the Popes change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

You are totally free to idolize and imagine supernatural qualities for the old man in the funny hat who is harboring pedophiles.

But this idea that no one can be a real Christian without accepting the belief that a human person can be infallible in any way...that's a lie. 

Plenty of people are Christian without believing that their pastors or their church hierarchy somehow have an infallible and unquestionable direct line straight to God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
32 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

You are totally free to idolize and imagine supernatural qualities for the old man in the funny hat who is harboring pedophiles.

But this idea that no one can be a real Christian without accepting the belief that a human person can be infallible in any way...that's a lie. 

Plenty of people are Christian without believing that their pastors or their church hierarchy somehow have an infallible and unquestionable direct line straight to God. 

You clearly didn't read the whole post earlier, the poster outlined that they don't think the Pope is infallible, and disagree's with his notion of hell as do most Catholics, and it was clearly pointed out that his policies and political stance's are also causing disagreement.

However I will point out that there certainly is Papal Infallibility in place and is one of the corner stones of Catholicism in relation to Petrine supremacy and this literally means the Pope can dictate what are held as beliefs in Catholicism, like the Assumption of Mary in 1950. However the infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, sacred tradition and Scripture, that is why people have such an issue with his stance on hell. However hell isn't in the Bible except for Revelations so it's a debatable topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
5 minutes ago, danydandan said:

You clearly didn't read the whole post earlier, the poster outlined that they don't think the Pope is infallible, and disagree's with his notion of hell as do most Catholics, and it was clearly pointed out that his policies and political stance's are also causing disagreement.

However I will point out that there certainly is Papal Infallibility in place and is one of the corner stones of Catholicism in relation to Petrine supremacy and this literally means the Pope can dictate what are held as beliefs in Catholicism, like the Assumption of Mary in 1950. However the infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, sacred tradition and Scripture, that is why people have such an issue with his stance on hell. However hell isn't in the Bible except for Revelations so it's a debatable topic.

Right there is a prime example of why he isn't really infallible in any way...regardless of what Catholic doctrine says. 

Like I said, if people want to buy into Catholic doctrine about papal infallibility, that's certainly their prerogative. 

I'm certainly not buying it, think it's obviously false, and also that good people of conscience should leave the Church. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

Each Pope is said to have a direct line to God on the big stuff. 

Yet they can't seem to make up their minds about purgatory, limbo, hell...you know...the big stuff. 

So I call bs on the so-called direct line to God. 

It's obvious they don't have one, or they'd all be in agreement.

And if people are sticking with them, even as they harbor pedophiles, because they think they're getting correct information about salvation...

I don't understand why they would think that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
11 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

Right there is a prime example of why he isn't really infallible in any way...regardless of what Catholic doctrine says. 

Like I said, if people want to buy into Catholic doctrine about papal infallibility, that's certainly their prerogative. 

I'm certainly not buying it, think it's obviously false, and also that good people of conscience should leave the Church. 

Your still not getting it, to billions of Catholics the pope is infallible. So to about 1/7th of the Earths population it's true.

You might think differently, and that's fine. Do you have any idea the amount of good the Church does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
Just now, danydandan said:

Your still not getting it, to billions of Catholics the pope is infallible. So to about 1/7th of the Earths population it's true.

You might think differently, and that's fine. Do you have any idea the amount of good the Church does?

I get it just fine.

Everyone seems to keep insisting that I don't.

I get Church doctrine. I was raised with it. 

I just think it's complete bs and that people of conscience should leave an obviously false and corrupt system that is feeding on their money and their children, and doing so much harm. 

Lots of organizations do lots of good without harboring pedophiles or falsely claiming any of their people have a direct line to God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
6 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

I get it just fine.

Everyone seems to keep insisting that I don't.

I get Church doctrine. I was raised with it. 

I just think it's complete bs and that people of conscience should leave an obviously false and corrupt system that is feeding on their money and their children, and doing so much harm. 

Lots of organizations do lots of good without harboring pedophiles or falsely claiming any of their people have a direct line to God. 

I don't think the Pope's say they have a direct line to God. They say they are God's Emissaries on Earth. Which is as preposterous as the aforementioned claim.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

The only reason people would stay in such a corrupt and evil organization that feeds off of their money and predates on their children is that they still believe the Church holds their hope for salvation. 

They believe this because they believe that the Pope has an infallible line to God on the big stuff.

It's similar to why the FLDS folks still stand by their prophet.

I call bs on it and I stand by my earlier statement that people of good conscience should leave such organizations.

Indeed, if we were talking salvation...if there was any to be had...it would probably be in jeopardy by continuing to support such an organization. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
5 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

...

They believe this because they believe that the Pope has an infallible line to God on the big stuff.

...

It's happened once since it was said to be a thing. You could just admit that raising Papal Infallibility was not relevant and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
49 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

It's happened once since it was said to be a thing. You could just admit that raising Papal Infallibility was not relevant and move on.

It's happened a number of times prior to 1870, when Infallibility was defined, one example is Ineffabilis Deus which is based on the Immaculate Conception.

However a number of Pope's have said they aren't or weren't infallible, the last John Paul said he wasn't, Pope Benedict said he was in very rare occasions.

It's not like the Pope can degree child abuse OK and part of Christian dogma, he'll never have that power. So yes your right Papal Infallibility is irrelevant to this discussion.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
20 minutes ago, danydandan said:

It's happened a number of times prior to 1870, when Infallibility was defined, one example is Ineffabilis Deus which is based on the Immaculate Conception.

However a number of Pope's have said they aren't or weren't infallible, the last John Paul said he wasn't, Pope Benedict said he was in very rare occasions.

It's not like the Pope can degree child abuse OK and part of Christian dogma, he'll never have that power. So yes your right Papal Infallibility is irrelevant to this discussion.

One that was declared ex cathedra retrospectively. 

https://www.uscatholic.org/church/2011/05/there-list-infallible-teachings

However, other doctrines may be immutable because they are seen as fundamental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
17 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

 

A Pope, by Catholic standards of infallibility, is infallible whenever he is in teaching mode.

 

Wrong, but it's useless discussing this with you, you don't listen to any contra-arguments.  Good luck!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
15 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

The only reason people would stay in such a corrupt and evil organization that feeds off of their money and predates on their children is that they still believe the Church holds their hope for salvation. 

They believe this because they believe that the Pope has an infallible line to God on the big stuff.

It's similar to why the FLDS folks still stand by their prophet.

I call bs on it and I stand by my earlier statement that people of good conscience should leave such organizations.

Indeed, if we were talking salvation...if there was any to be had...it would probably be in jeopardy by continuing to support such an organization. 

Well, that's a nice thought but just because someone in the church does something bad does not mean the Church whole is corrupt.  Apostle Paul railed against certain early churches in cities that he thought were being led astray, both theologically and morally sinful.  He did not abandon them, he admonished them but still went to them to teach them and bring them back to the fold.  Anyone who abandons Christ's founded earthly Church because of a very small minority of bad apples, and does not engage the church in weeding out those bad apples, had no faith to begin with.  It's not surprising that your lack of faith advises abandonment of Christ's Church.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
16 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

The only reason people would stay in such a corrupt and evil organization that feeds off of their money and predates on their children is that they still believe the Church holds their hope for salvation. 

They believe this because they believe that the Pope has an infallible line to God on the big stuff.

It's similar to why the FLDS folks still stand by their prophet.

I call bs on it and I stand by my earlier statement that people of good conscience should leave such organizations.

Indeed, if we were talking salvation...if there was any to be had...it would probably be in jeopardy by continuing to support such an organization. 

So many lies, not enough time to correct for someone that doesn't have good intent in their heart for the discussion.  Good luck to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 8/19/2018 at 8:29 AM, GlitterRose said:

Each Pope is said to have a direct line to God on the big stuff. 

Yet they can't seem to make up their minds about purgatory, limbo, hell...you know...the big stuff. 

So I call bs on the so-called direct line to God. 

It's obvious they don't have one, or they'd all be in agreement.

And if people are sticking with them, even as they harbor pedophiles, because they think they're getting correct information about salvation...

I don't understand why they would think that. 

Interesting. So if a teacher at a high school slept with a student. The math or science that was taught should be suspect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.