The Cadaver Synod

[EricH]

Well, if they could be wrong, which they can't, then it would be a problem, but since they are all right, even if they are wrong they are right, then where is the problem?

However, if instead you have hit on the very head a nail that no Catholic wants you to notice, and certainly they don't want you to hit it, then I suspect that the light of day will not shine on this dark corner for long.

I use a simple rule in observing stupid doctrines. If they are stupid, then God did not make the doctrine, and it is not found in the bible. This one is a classic.

Peter was rebuked by Paul in his later years. Does that sound like infallability?

You've actually explained the NEED for a doctrine of infallibility for the Church.

Whether you believe that it is granted to the Pope, or to the Church in some other way, it must exist for the Truth to be carried without perversion thru the ages.

Personal interpretation and formulation of doctrine does not work. It has resulted in the division and fragmentation we see today.

With the charism of infallibility, even though evil and stupid men may gain power and authority in the Church, the Holy Spirit will not allow them to corrupt the doctrine.

Peace,

Fiosh

This would be a NEED, only if that was the only way truth could be preserved (through a human agency). But there are several other ways God could choose (and I believe did acccording to scripture) to ensure that His truth is maintained.

Arguing from need (or result) is actually a form of arguing according to consequence. This says that something must be true because if it wasn't, something bad would happen (or the consequences would be undesirable).

However, there are several ways God could (and I think did) choose to preserve truth. Since there are numerous possible ways He could have chosen to do so, need is not sufficient to prove that one way is superior over others. There must be other proofs brought to bear to determine which is thwe way God has chosen to preserve truth.

Personal interpretation is not the only method that has resulted in error, division and schism. Those who believe that truth resides in their heirarchy (whether it be an organization or an individual) must apply that logic consistently. Your logic is that because individuals have made errors in judgement, individual interpretation cannot be a viable guide. Then using that same logic, because all institutions have made errors in judgement, none can be arbiters of the truth.

That is the weakness of arguing from result. If applied consistently, it rules out everything

Except that the argument from consequence shows that when speeking in this capasity the Pope through out the ages has never made an error. Therefore in this capasity history does bear out the arbiter of truth.

That in itself is another example of arguing from result. The logic is that because (in the eyes of the one arguing) there has never been an issue, the position is the correct one. The logic simply does not follow. First we would have to come to agreement on what would constitiute "an issue". Results to not guarantee that the ability to be inerrant and speak for God resides in the speaker. The real test is if God himself has said that it does

[CaritateDei]

Well, if they could be wrong, which they can't, then it would be a problem, but since they are all right, even if they are wrong they are right, then where is the problem?

However, if instead you have hit on the very head a nail that no Catholic wants you to notice, and certainly they don't want you to hit it, then I suspect that the light of day will not shine on this dark corner for long.

I use a simple rule in observing stupid doctrines. If they are stupid, then God did not make the doctrine, and it is not found in the bible. This one is a classic.

Peter was rebuked by Paul in his later years. Does that sound like infallability?

You've actually explained the NEED for a doctrine of infallibility for the Church.

Whether you believe that it is granted to the Pope, or to the Church in some other way, it must exist for the Truth to be carried without perversion thru the ages.

Personal interpretation and formulation of doctrine does not work. It has resulted in the division and fragmentation we see today.

With the charism of infallibility, even though evil and stupid men may gain power and authority in the Church, the Holy Spirit will not allow them to corrupt the doctrine.

Peace,

Fiosh

This would be a NEED, only if that was the only way truth could be preserved (through a human agency). But there are several other ways God could choose (and I believe did acccording to scripture) to ensure that His truth is maintained.

Arguing from need (or result) is actually a form of arguing according to consequence. This says that something must be true because if it wasn't, something bad would happen (or the consequences would be undesirable).

However, there are several ways God could (and I think did) choose to preserve truth. Since there are numerous possible ways He could have chosen to do so, need is not sufficient to prove that one way is superior over others. There must be other proofs brought to bear to determine which is thwe way God has chosen to preserve truth.

Personal interpretation is not the only method that has resulted in error, division and schism. Those who believe that truth resides in their heirarchy (whether it be an organization or an individual) must apply that logic consistently. Your logic is that because individuals have made errors in judgement, individual interpretation cannot be a viable guide. Then using that same logic, because all institutions have made errors in judgement, none can be arbiters of the truth.

That is the weakness of arguing from result. If applied consistently, it rules out everything

Except that the argument from consequence shows that when speeking in this capasity the Pope through out the ages has never made an error. Therefore in this capasity history does bear out the arbiter of truth.

If you ignore the inquisition, the crusades, and the fact that the pope seems to change his mind regarding certain "eternal" truths every few hundred years or so.

Right, because the inquisition, the crusades, and the changing of the mind all occured ex cathedra. Please research things before making baseless arguments.

[jc49]

THE POPE IS AN HUMAN INVENTION....JESUS IS MY POPE.....PAPA,DADDY!!!!!!!

Shalom

[rtwo]

Well, if they could be wrong, which they can't, then it would be a problem, but since they are all right, even if they are wrong they are right, then where is the problem?

However, if instead you have hit on the very head a nail that no Catholic wants you to notice, and certainly they don't want you to hit it, then I suspect that the light of day will not shine on this dark corner for long.

I use a simple rule in observing stupid doctrines. If they are stupid, then God did not make the doctrine, and it is not found in the bible. This one is a classic.

Peter was rebuked by Paul in his later years. Does that sound like infallability?

You've actually explained the NEED for a doctrine of infallibility for the Church.

Whether you believe that it is granted to the Pope, or to the Church in some other way, it must exist for the Truth to be carried without perversion thru the ages.

Personal interpretation and formulation of doctrine does not work. It has resulted in the division and fragmentation we see today.

With the charism of infallibility, even though evil and stupid men may gain power and authority in the Church, the Holy Spirit will not allow them to corrupt the doctrine.

Peace,

Fiosh

This would be a NEED, only if that was the only way truth could be preserved (through a human agency). But there are several other ways God could choose (and I believe did acccording to scripture) to ensure that His truth is maintained.

Arguing from need (or result) is actually a form of arguing according to consequence. This says that something must be true because if it wasn't, something bad would happen (or the consequences would be undesirable).

However, there are several ways God could (and I think did) choose to preserve truth. Since there are numerous possible ways He could have chosen to do so, need is not sufficient to prove that one way is superior over others. There must be other proofs brought to bear to determine which is thwe way God has chosen to preserve truth.

Personal interpretation is not the only method that has resulted in error, division and schism. Those who believe that truth resides in their heirarchy (whether it be an organization or an individual) must apply that logic consistently. Your logic is that because individuals have made errors in judgement, individual interpretation cannot be a viable guide. Then using that same logic, because all institutions have made errors in judgement, none can be arbiters of the truth.

That is the weakness of arguing from result. If applied consistently, it rules out everything

Except that the argument from consequence shows that when speeking in this capasity the Pope through out the ages has never made an error. Therefore in this capasity history does bear out the arbiter of truth.

If you ignore the inquisition, the crusades, and the fact that the pope seems to change his mind regarding certain "eternal" truths every few hundred years or so.

Right, because the inquisition, the crusades, and the changing of the mind all occured ex cathedra. Please research things before making baseless arguments.

How about if you address the point instead of being arrogant? These "mind changes" to which I'm referring are issues of doctrine. If the pope is infallible regarding issues of doctrine, how can he change his mind? It's a fair question, and you insulting me won't change the facts. God never established a pope, and the idea of infallibility is nowhere addressed in Scripture. Further, the inquisition and crusades were done with the pope's blessing, or those responsible would have been excommunicated. That they weren't implies complicity on the part of the Church, and therefore, of the Pope.

On the other hand, I suppose it's easy to say something if you can simply say that every piece of evidence to the contrary doesn't count.

I see you've edited some of the snottiness from your post, so I won't bring it up again.

[jc49]

Well, if they could be wrong, which they can't, then it would be a problem, but since they are all right, even if they are wrong they are right, then where is the problem?

However, if instead you have hit on the very head a nail that no Catholic wants you to notice, and certainly they don't want you to hit it, then I suspect that the light of day will not shine on this dark corner for long.

I use a simple rule in observing stupid doctrines. If they are stupid, then God did not make the doctrine, and it is not found in the bible. This one is a classic.

Peter was rebuked by Paul in his later years. Does that sound like infallability?

You've actually explained the NEED for a doctrine of infallibility for the Church.

Whether you believe that it is granted to the Pope, or to the Church in some other way, it must exist for the Truth to be carried without perversion thru the ages.

Personal interpretation and formulation of doctrine does not work. It has resulted in the division and fragmentation we see today.

With the charism of infallibility, even though evil and stupid men may gain power and authority in the Church, the Holy Spirit will not allow them to corrupt the doctrine.

Peace,

Fiosh

This would be a NEED, only if that was the only way truth could be preserved (through a human agency). But there are several other ways God could choose (and I believe did acccording to scripture) to ensure that His truth is maintained.

Arguing from need (or result) is actually a form of arguing according to consequence. This says that something must be true because if it wasn't, something bad would happen (or the consequences would be undesirable).

However, there are several ways God could (and I think did) choose to preserve truth. Since there are numerous possible ways He could have chosen to do so, need is not sufficient to prove that one way is superior over others. There must be other proofs brought to bear to determine which is thwe way God has chosen to preserve truth.

Personal interpretation is not the only method that has resulted in error, division and schism. Those who believe that truth resides in their heirarchy (whether it be an organization or an individual) must apply that logic consistently. Your logic is that because individuals have made errors in judgement, individual interpretation cannot be a viable guide. Then using that same logic, because all institutions have made errors in judgement, none can be arbiters of the truth.

That is the weakness of arguing from result. If applied consistently, it rules out everything

Except that the argument from consequence shows that when speeking in this capasity the Pope through out the ages has never made an error. Therefore in this capasity history does bear out the arbiter of truth.

If you ignore the inquisition, the crusades, and the fact that the pope seems to change his mind regarding certain "eternal" truths every few hundred years or so.

Right, because the inquisition, the crusades, and the changing of the mind all occured ex cathedra. Please research things before making baseless arguments.

How about if you address the point instead of being arrogant? These "mind changes" to which I'm referring are issues of doctrine. If the pope is infallible regarding issues of doctrine, how can he change his mind? It's a fair question, and you insulting me won't change the facts. God never established a pope, and the idea of infallibility is nowhere addressed in Scripture.

Some people ARE DEAF because they JUST dont want hear...

THE POPE IS SCIENCE FICTION STUFF...

JESUS IS THE ROCK

I MEAN,CAMON,JESUS IS THE ROCK upon which HE is BUILDING "HIS" CHURCH!!!!

HALLOOOOOO''''

NO POPE.....ONE GOD,FATHER SON HOLY SPIRIT and a bunch of sinners saved by grace that are all brothers and sisters NO POPE and PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.WAKE UP catholic brothers and sisters,WAKE UP

SHALOM

[CaritateDei]

Well, if they could be wrong, which they can't, then it would be a problem, but since they are all right, even if they are wrong they are right, then where is the problem?

However, if instead you have hit on the very head a nail that no Catholic wants you to notice, and certainly they don't want you to hit it, then I suspect that the light of day will not shine on this dark corner for long.

I use a simple rule in observing stupid doctrines. If they are stupid, then God did not make the doctrine, and it is not found in the bible. This one is a classic.

Peter was rebuked by Paul in his later years. Does that sound like infallability?

You've actually explained the NEED for a doctrine of infallibility for the Church.

Whether you believe that it is granted to the Pope, or to the Church in some other way, it must exist for the Truth to be carried without perversion thru the ages.

Personal interpretation and formulation of doctrine does not work. It has resulted in the division and fragmentation we see today.

With the charism of infallibility, even though evil and stupid men may gain power and authority in the Church, the Holy Spirit will not allow them to corrupt the doctrine.

Peace,

Fiosh

This would be a NEED, only if that was the only way truth could be preserved (through a human agency). But there are several other ways God could choose (and I believe did acccording to scripture) to ensure that His truth is maintained.

Arguing from need (or result) is actually a form of arguing according to consequence. This says that something must be true because if it wasn't, something bad would happen (or the consequences would be undesirable).

However, there are several ways God could (and I think did) choose to preserve truth. Since there are numerous possible ways He could have chosen to do so, need is not sufficient to prove that one way is superior over others. There must be other proofs brought to bear to determine which is thwe way God has chosen to preserve truth.

Personal interpretation is not the only method that has resulted in error, division and schism. Those who believe that truth resides in their heirarchy (whether it be an organization or an individual) must apply that logic consistently. Your logic is that because individuals have made errors in judgement, individual interpretation cannot be a viable guide. Then using that same logic, because all institutions have made errors in judgement, none can be arbiters of the truth.

That is the weakness of arguing from result. If applied consistently, it rules out everything

Except that the argument from consequence shows that when speeking in this capasity the Pope through out the ages has never made an error. Therefore in this capasity history does bear out the arbiter of truth.

If you ignore the inquisition, the crusades, and the fact that the pope seems to change his mind regarding certain "eternal" truths every few hundred years or so.

Right, because the inquisition, the crusades, and the changing of the mind all occured ex cathedra. Please research things before making baseless arguments.

How about if you address the point instead of being arrogant? These "mind changes" to which I'm referring are issues of doctrine. If the pope is infallible regarding issues of doctrine, how can he change his mind? It's a fair question, and you insulting me won't change the facts. God never established a pope, and the idea of infallibility is nowhere addressed in Scripture. Further, the inquisition and crusades were done with the pope's blessing, or those responsible would have been excommunicated. That they weren't implies complicity on the part of the Church, and therefore, of the Pope.

On the other hand, I suppose it's easy to say something if you can simply say that every piece of evidence to the contrary doesn't count.

I see you've edited some of the snottiness from your post, so I won't bring it up again.

I did a dissertation on the Inquisition, pal, and as a requirement did not use a single Catholic source. Not a single one of these non-Catholic sources say that the Inquisition was a Doctrinal issue. Neither is the crusades.

[jc49]

Well, if they could be wrong, which they can't, then it would be a problem, but since they are all right, even if they are wrong they are right, then where is the problem?

However, if instead you have hit on the very head a nail that no Catholic wants you to notice, and certainly they don't want you to hit it, then I suspect that the light of day will not shine on this dark corner for long.

I use a simple rule in observing stupid doctrines. If they are stupid, then God did not make the doctrine, and it is not found in the bible. This one is a classic.

Peter was rebuked by Paul in his later years. Does that sound like infallability?

You've actually explained the NEED for a doctrine of infallibility for the Church.

Whether you believe that it is granted to the Pope, or to the Church in some other way, it must exist for the Truth to be carried without perversion thru the ages.

Personal interpretation and formulation of doctrine does not work. It has resulted in the division and fragmentation we see today.

With the charism of infallibility, even though evil and stupid men may gain power and authority in the Church, the Holy Spirit will not allow them to corrupt the doctrine.

Peace,

Fiosh

This would be a NEED, only if that was the only way truth could be preserved (through a human agency). But there are several other ways God could choose (and I believe did acccording to scripture) to ensure that His truth is maintained.

Arguing from need (or result) is actually a form of arguing according to consequence. This says that something must be true because if it wasn't, something bad would happen (or the consequences would be undesirable).

However, there are several ways God could (and I think did) choose to preserve truth. Since there are numerous possible ways He could have chosen to do so, need is not sufficient to prove that one way is superior over others. There must be other proofs brought to bear to determine which is thwe way God has chosen to preserve truth.

Personal interpretation is not the only method that has resulted in error, division and schism. Those who believe that truth resides in their heirarchy (whether it be an organization or an individual) must apply that logic consistently. Your logic is that because individuals have made errors in judgement, individual interpretation cannot be a viable guide. Then using that same logic, because all institutions have made errors in judgement, none can be arbiters of the truth.

That is the weakness of arguing from result. If applied consistently, it rules out everything

Except that the argument from consequence shows that when speeking in this capasity the Pope through out the ages has never made an error. Therefore in this capasity history does bear out the arbiter of truth.

If you ignore the inquisition, the crusades, and the fact that the pope seems to change his mind regarding certain "eternal" truths every few hundred years or so.

Right, because the inquisition, the crusades, and the changing of the mind all occured ex cathedra. Please research things before making baseless arguments.

How about if you address the point instead of being arrogant? These "mind changes" to which I'm referring are issues of doctrine. If the pope is infallible regarding issues of doctrine, how can he change his mind? It's a fair question, and you insulting me won't change the facts. God never established a pope, and the idea of infallibility is nowhere addressed in Scripture. Further, the inquisition and crusades were done with the pope's blessing, or those responsible would have been excommunicated. That they weren't implies complicity on the part of the Church, and therefore, of the Pope.

On the other hand, I suppose it's easy to say something if you can simply say that every piece of evidence to the contrary doesn't count.

I see you've edited some of the snottiness from your post, so I won't bring it up again.

I did a dissertation on the Inquisition, pal, and as a requirement did not use a single Catholic source. Not a single one of these non-Catholic sources say that the Inquisition was a Doctrinal issue. Neither is the crusades.

Some people ARE DEAF because they JUST dont want hear...

THE POPE IS SCIENCE FICTION STUFF...

JESUS IS THE ROCK

I MEAN,CAMON,JESUS IS THE ROCK upon which HE is BUILDING "HIS" CHURCH!!!!

HALLOOOOOO''''

NO POPE.....ONE GOD,FATHER SON HOLY SPIRIT and a bunch of sinners saved by grace that are all brothers and sisters NO POPE and PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.WAKE UP catholic brothers and sisters,WAKE UP

SHALOM

[rtwo]

I did a dissertation on the Inquisition, pal, and as a requirement did not use a single Catholic source. Not a single one of these non-Catholic sources say that the Inquisition was a Doctrinal issue. Neither is the crusades.

So, the Pope is led by the Spirit when he talks about the Limbo -- oh, wait... now they're saying that doesn't exist, right? So... the Pope is infallible when he speaks of indulgences -- nope, they don't do that, anymore, either. Ah... the eucharist (I knew there had to be one they didn't change somewhere). The Pope is infallible and Spirit-led when discussing the eucharist, but not when agreeing to war and torture in the name of the church? And this doesn't seem incongruent at all?

And how about those doctrinal changes that I did mention?

[CaritateDei]

I did a dissertation on the Inquisition, pal, and as a requirement did not use a single Catholic source. Not a single one of these non-Catholic sources say that the Inquisition was a Doctrinal issue. Neither is the crusades.

So, the Pope is led by the Spirit when he talks about the Limbo -- oh, wait... now they're saying that doesn't exist, right? So... the Pope is infallible when he speaks of indulgences -- nope, they don't do that, anymore, either. Ah... the eucharist (I knew there had to be one they didn't change somewhere). The Pope is infallible and Spirit-led when discussing the eucharist, but not when agreeing to war and torture in the name of the church? And this doesn't seem incongruent at all?

And how about those doctrinal changes that I did mention?

That was never a doctrinal issue. You won't change my mind on this. I won't change yours. Let's agree to disagree, without telling any lies.

[rtwo]

I did a dissertation on the Inquisition, pal, and as a requirement did not use a single Catholic source. Not a single one of these non-Catholic sources say that the Inquisition was a Doctrinal issue. Neither is the crusades.

So, the Pope is led by the Spirit when he talks about the Limbo -- oh, wait... now they're saying that doesn't exist, right? So... the Pope is infallible when he speaks of indulgences -- nope, they don't do that, anymore, either. Ah... the eucharist (I knew there had to be one they didn't change somewhere). The Pope is infallible and Spirit-led when discussing the eucharist, but not when agreeing to war and torture in the name of the church? And this doesn't seem incongruent at all?

And how about those doctrinal changes that I did mention?

That was never a doctrinal issue. You won't change my mind on this. I won't change yours. Let's agree to disagree, without telling any lies.

Agreed. I have told and will tell no lies, and agree to disagree.