Is the Pope infallible..?

[Kabowd]

I wonder if Bob Stanley even realizes he's in this debate. Discussions are never fun when people only regurgitate canned responses written by other people. C'mon people, posting articles and sections of books does not constitute a discussion. If you're capable of forming your own words and thoughts, please do so. Referencing an author occasionally is one thing...even posting a link or two occasionally is one thing...but repeatedly quoting one specific source shows a real lack of study, it's weak and personally I don't respect anyone who does it repeatedly.

Please, either stand on your own two feet and discuss an issue or get out of the discussion.

Again, I'm not saying it's wrong to quote someone here and there or reference outside sources (I do this with various sources occasionlly myself). But there are some in here who teeter on the edge of plagerism and/or copywrite laws by posting so much work done by other people.

Ciao.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tess,

Quoting someone who in my opinion is much more articulate than I am is a far better way to explain the topic at hand and I will continue to do so, it's quick and safe time. It is not plagiarism or infringement of any copy right laws if the source or author is acknowledged which I did. We form our thought based in this case on what we read and experience, surely you are no different. I regret that it doesn't sit well with you, however your concern is appreciated.

Unfortunately I didn't get any pay cheque (referring to your other respond) from Bob.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, you are incorrect. Copyright protection includes a clause that only allows the material to be used or reproduced with limitations..known as "fair use". You might want to check it out. While there is no set number of words a person can use, there is clear indication that one refrain from reproducing/copying large amounts (certainly entire sections such as you have) without permission from the author. Quotes and short excerpts are one thing, entire chapters is another. According to the Copyright Law, acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

[stevehut]

Copyright protection includes a clause that only allows the material to be used or reproduced with limitations..known as "fair use". You might want to check it out.

...According to the Copyright Law, acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is true. The fair use doctrine was originally established by the courts, and later legislated by Congress. And attribution does not substitute for permission.

But I don't think anyone in this forum is in danger of copyright violations, because we don't reproduce whole books or make money from it.

[vox]

Very well, Fiosh.

The Pope declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, attempting to make it into "official" church dogma for the first time.

Many bishops protested, claiming he didn't have such authority.

So the council was called to settle the issue of whether the pope has (or should have) such authority.

By the time the council was over, two doctrines were firmly defined for the first time:

Immaculate conception

Papal infallibility

Not just changed.

[vox]

I wonder if Bob Stanley even realizes he's in this debate. Discussions are never fun when people only regurgitate canned responses written by other people. C'mon people, posting articles and sections of books does not constitute a discussion. If you're capable of forming your own words and thoughts, please do so. Referencing an author occasionally is one thing...even posting a link or two occasionally is one thing...but repeatedly quoting one specific source shows a real lack of study, it's weak and personally I don't respect anyone who does it repeatedly.

Please, either stand on your own two feet and discuss an issue or get out of the discussion.

Again, I'm not saying it's wrong to quote someone here and there or reference outside sources (I do this with various sources occasionlly myself). But there are some in here who teeter on the edge of plagerism and/or copywrite laws by posting so much work done by other people.

Ciao.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tess,

Quoting someone who in my opinion is much more articulate than I am is a far better way to explain the topic at hand and I will continue to do so, it's quick and safe time. It is not plagiarism or infringement of any copy right laws if the source or author is acknowledged which I did. We form our thought based in this case on what we read and experience, surely you are no different. I regret that it doesn't sit well with you, however your concern is appreciated.

Unfortunately I didn't get any pay cheque (referring to your other respond) from Bob.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, you are incorrect. Copyright protection includes a clause that only allows the material to be used or reproduced with limitations..known as "fair use". You might want to check it out. While there is no set number of words a person can use, there is clear indication that one refrain from reproducing/copying large amounts (certainly entire sections such as you have) without permission from the author. Quotes and short excerpts are one thing, entire chapters is another. According to the Copyright Law, acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you can point out where I copy and paste the entire section please let me know. You can certainly go to the websites I quoted since the URL can not be posted here to verify your charge. To assist you in your quest so far I have used the Catholic Treasure Chest, The Catholic.com and the Catholic Encylopedia. Happy hunting!

[stevehut]

To be full of grace means one is free from all sins and stains. And

[stevehut]

Vox, please show me where the Immaculate Conception is found in Scripture. I've been searching for about 15 years now, and I can't find it.

[vox]

Vox, please show me where the Immaculate Conception is found in Scripture.  I've been searching for about 15 years now, and I can't find it. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Steve, 15 years is not too long a time if you know where to seek.

Firstly, to find out the precise teaching of an institution, the best way is to go directly to its source, wouldn't you agree? So to explain the many misconceptions about Catholic teachings the best way is to go directly to Catholic sources, there is nothing wrong in that. Of course you may elect to agree or disagree it still does not disqualify the teaching of the Church which is based on Apostolic Tradition, the holy scriptures and the countless writings of the early fathers of the Church.

Second, could you point out where in the bible the word Trinity is found? Yet we all believe in the holy Trinity. The same applies to the Immaculate Conception. These are concepts based on the scriptures which were taught by the Church.

Thirdly many bible Christians say if it is not in the bible than it can not be true. Yet we realise that the bible as we know it today was not in existence until the beginning of the fourth century. How then early Christians taught and worshipped?

[vox]

To be full of grace means one is free from all sins and stains. And

Edited May 18, 2005 by IslandRose

[stevehut]

1- Second, could you point out where in the bible the word Trinity is found? Yet we all believe in the holy Trinity. The same applies to the Immaculate Conception. These are concepts based on the scriptures which were taught by the Church.

2- Thirdly many bible Christians say if it is not in the bible than it can not be true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1- Not asking for a word. I'm asking for where the doctrine/principle is found.

2- Um, I believe you're the one who just told me that the IC is in the Bible. That's the reason why I asked about it.

[stevehut]

Vox, I saw the link to New Advent before it was taken away.

The definition you have was

"To be full of grace means one is free from all sins and stains."

There are several definitions on that website, and I don't see that one.