More proof that Catholicism is true

[Jacob Harrison]

Child Abuser-on-Child Abuser violence?

EDIT: Also, the second trial probably didn't happen. The first one did, though.

It really fucking pisses me of that you are calling all popes throughout history child abusers when there is no evidence that they abused children! The child abuse scandal is from the 20th and 21st centuries.

[Jacob Harrison]

Here is more proof of Papal Infallibility. God killed Pope Sixtus V before he could teach fallible error.

    Since the Church was much threatened by Protestant doctrines that were fast appearing throughout much of Europe and since there were numerous editions of the Vulgate in circulation, Pope Sixtus recognized that the Church required best biblical translation possible to meet Protestant arguments.  He acted forthrightly in assembling a team of scholars and linguists, headed by eminent theologians like Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and others.  They compiled as many Greek manuscripts as could be assembled and finished the revision process by the end of 1588. But apparently overcome by pride, the pope found the ten thousand readings they had diligently chosen inadequate, and angrily announced he would personally revise the Vulgate. He declared, ‘We, weighing the importance of the matter, and considering carefully the great and singular privilege we hold of God, and our true and legitimate succession from Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles . . . Are the proper and specially constituted Person to decide this whole question."

    Ill equipped for the task, Sixtus eliminated all the work done by the former commission, and started fresh. Unfortunately his abilities to translate, edit and make all the appropriate decisions were beyond his capabilities and the result was an error filled translation presented to the cardinals in early 1590.

    Cardinal Bellarmine and Fr. Toledo, another Jesuit scholar revealed their fears "…that by such mutilation he [Sixtus] was laying himself open to the attacks of the heretics, and was giving more serious scandal to the faithful than anything else the pope could do . . . "  If Sixtus had formally promulgated this distorted version, it would have allowed a strong case to be argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility since the Pope would have fulfilled the three requirements layed out by Vatican I for an infallible teaching.  But the weight of opposition was sufficient, thanks to Bellarmine and others, to stope the Pope from releasing it.  Still, he worked on correction of typographical errors with the apparent intention of releasing a corrected version soon. Patrick Madrid writes, "Expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him."  But at the last moment Sixtus, whose health and vigor were never questioned, took to his bed, dying on August 27, 1590 after a brief illness.  The Holy Spirit's promise to guide the Church to all truth seems to have been fulfilled again.  "Only God knows if Sixtus’ sudden death was dramatic proof of divine intervention-- the evidence that papal infallibility isn’t just a Catholic idea, but that God Himself will prevent, by death if necessary, the pope from teaching an error formally to the Church." (Madrid, pps. 242-51, Pope Fiction).

[dpareja]

Child Abuser-on-Child Abuser violence?

EDIT: Also, the second trial probably didn't happen. The first one did, though.

It really fucking pisses me of that you are calling all popes throughout history child abusers when there is no evidence that they abused children! The child abuse scandal is from the 20th and 21st centuries.

They headed an organization that has consistently taught the doctrine of hell to children too young to think critically about it (the "four to fourteen" window), which is one of the worst forms of child abuse imaginable.

That, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if evidence came to light that, in fact, actual sexual abuse of children was going on in the Church (and every other religion) long before it started to become general knowledge.

[Jacob Harrison]

Child Abuser-on-Child Abuser violence?

EDIT: Also, the second trial probably didn't happen. The first one did, though.

It really fucking pisses me of that you are calling all popes throughout history child abusers when there is no evidence that they abused children! The child abuse scandal is from the 20th and 21st centuries.

They headed an organization that has consistently taught the doctrine of hell to children too young to think critically about it (the "four to fourteen" window), which is one of the worst forms of child abuse imaginable.

That, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if evidence came to light that, in fact, actual sexual abuse of children was going on in the Church (and every other religion) long before it started to become general knowledge.

Teaching about Hell is not child abuse, it in fact is the opposite because warning children about Hell will save them from going there. It also helps make the children good behaved in fear of going to Hell.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

To respond to the anti-infallibilist, it is important to recall what an ex cathedra declaration is and what it is not. For a papal declaration to be considered ex cathedra, and thereby infallible, the pope must intend to speak to the Church with his full authority as supreme teacher on a matter of faith and morals. Ex cathedra statements are not only rare, but in scope they exclude a great deal. Dr. Hergenroth, in his book on Vatican I, noted that "Not every papal expression, still less action, can be taken to be a definitio ex cathedra. Mere mandates of the pope for special cases, and for particular persons; judgments on individuals resting on the testimony of third persons, and in general on human evidence; declarations and answers to the inquiries of individuals; private expressions in learned works, and in confidential letters—even mere disciplinary decrees—belong not to this category." The essential question is: Do the declarations regarding Formosus’s guilt and the nullity of his ordinations meet the criteria to be considered ex cathedra?

"If we decide we don't like it later, we flee in both directions with goalposts in hand."

Colour me not surprised!

[Jacob Harrison]

To respond to the anti-infallibilist, it is important to recall what an ex cathedra declaration is and what it is not. For a papal declaration to be considered ex cathedra, and thereby infallible, the pope must intend to speak to the Church with his full authority as supreme teacher on a matter of faith and morals. Ex cathedra statements are not only rare, but in scope they exclude a great deal. Dr. Hergenroth, in his book on Vatican I, noted that "Not every papal expression, still less action, can be taken to be a definitio ex cathedra. Mere mandates of the pope for special cases, and for particular persons; judgments on individuals resting on the testimony of third persons, and in general on human evidence; declarations and answers to the inquiries of individuals; private expressions in learned works, and in confidential letters—even mere disciplinary decrees—belong not to this category." The essential question is: Do the declarations regarding Formosus’s guilt and the nullity of his ordinations meet the criteria to be considered ex cathedra?

"If we decide we don't like it later, we flee in both directions with goalposts in hand."

Colour me not surprised!

It is not fleeing with goalposts, it is using common sense to determine that it doesn’t even fit the definition of ex cathedral “since the verdicts involved judgments related to a reformable ecclesiastical rule and not a matter of faith and morals.”

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

To respond to the anti-infallibilist, it is important to recall what an ex cathedra declaration is and what it is not. For a papal declaration to be considered ex cathedra, and thereby infallible, the pope must intend to speak to the Church with his full authority as supreme teacher on a matter of faith and morals. Ex cathedra statements are not only rare, but in scope they exclude a great deal. Dr. Hergenroth, in his book on Vatican I, noted that "Not every papal expression, still less action, can be taken to be a definitio ex cathedra. Mere mandates of the pope for special cases, and for particular persons; judgments on individuals resting on the testimony of third persons, and in general on human evidence; declarations and answers to the inquiries of individuals; private expressions in learned works, and in confidential letters—even mere disciplinary decrees—belong not to this category." The essential question is: Do the declarations regarding Formosus’s guilt and the nullity of his ordinations meet the criteria to be considered ex cathedra?

"If we decide we don't like it later, we flee in both directions with goalposts in hand."

Colour me not surprised!

It is not fleeing with goalposts, it is using common sense to determine that it doesn’t even fit the definition of ex cathedral “since the verdicts involved judgments related to a reformable ecclesiastical rule and not a matter of faith and morals.”

Using common sense, after the last 'infallible' CEO of kid diddlers international is safely interred beneath the sod. Righto.

[Sigmaleph]

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Hey Jacob quick question. How many infallible statements have popes made? The number matters for this argument, you see. If it was only a handful talking about different things, well, no surprise there, of course they don't contradict each other. If there's been hundreds, or thousands, that's certainly interesting. Might be worth a look.

Actually, to make it more precise, since we don't want anyone saying there's been goalpost shifting going on, how many statements by popes are generally agreed by Catholic theologians to be cases of papal infallibility? If we look just at that list we don't have to worry about anyone saying 'well, it's common sense that this one doesn't count'.

[Jacob Harrison]

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Hey Jacob quick question. How many infallible statements have popes made? The number matters for this argument, you see. If it was only a handful talking about different things, well, no surprise there, of course they don't contradict each other. If there's been hundreds, or thousands, that's certainly interesting. Might be worth a look.

Actually, to make it more precise, since we don't want anyone saying there's been goalpost shifting going on, how many statements by popes are generally agreed by Catholic theologians to be cases of papal infallibility? If we look just at that list we don't have to worry about anyone saying 'well, it's common sense that this one doesn't count'.

Well the Pope is infallible whenever he defines doctrine concerning faith or morals and lots of doctrine was defined over the centuries so there are lots of infallible statements.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

'Lots'

Not an answer, a dodge.

[Jacob Harrison]

'Lots'

Not an answer, a dodge.

Too many to count.

[dpareja]

'Lots'

Not an answer, a dodge.

Too many to count.

"Too many to count."

Not an answer, a dodge.

[Jacob Harrison]

'Lots'

Not an answer, a dodge.

Too many to count.

"Too many to count."

Not an answer, a dodge.

It is an answer because the question was about how many infallible statements have Popes made. There is so much doctrine defined over the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church that it is too many to count. It shows how amazing it is that none of them contradict each other.

[Jacob Harrison]

Here is more proof of Papal Infallibility. God killed Pope Sixtus V before he could teach fallible error.

    Since the Church was much threatened by Protestant doctrines that were fast appearing throughout much of Europe and since there were numerous editions of the Vulgate in circulation, Pope Sixtus recognized that the Church required best biblical translation possible to meet Protestant arguments.  He acted forthrightly in assembling a team of scholars and linguists, headed by eminent theologians like Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and others.  They compiled as many Greek manuscripts as could be assembled and finished the revision process by the end of 1588. But apparently overcome by pride, the pope found the ten thousand readings they had diligently chosen inadequate, and angrily announced he would personally revise the Vulgate. He declared, ‘We, weighing the importance of the matter, and considering carefully the great and singular privilege we hold of God, and our true and legitimate succession from Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles . . . Are the proper and specially constituted Person to decide this whole question."

    Ill equipped for the task, Sixtus eliminated all the work done by the former commission, and started fresh. Unfortunately his abilities to translate, edit and make all the appropriate decisions were beyond his capabilities and the result was an error filled translation presented to the cardinals in early 1590.

    Cardinal Bellarmine and Fr. Toledo, another Jesuit scholar revealed their fears "…that by such mutilation he [Sixtus] was laying himself open to the attacks of the heretics, and was giving more serious scandal to the faithful than anything else the pope could do . . . "  If Sixtus had formally promulgated this distorted version, it would have allowed a strong case to be argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility since the Pope would have fulfilled the three requirements layed out by Vatican I for an infallible teaching.  But the weight of opposition was sufficient, thanks to Bellarmine and others, to stope the Pope from releasing it.  Still, he worked on correction of typographical errors with the apparent intention of releasing a corrected version soon. Patrick Madrid writes, "Expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him."  But at the last moment Sixtus, whose health and vigor were never questioned, took to his bed, dying on August 27, 1590 after a brief illness.  The Holy Spirit's promise to guide the Church to all truth seems to have been fulfilled again.  "Only God knows if Sixtus’ sudden death was dramatic proof of divine intervention-- the evidence that papal infallibility isn’t just a Catholic idea, but that God Himself will prevent, by death if necessary, the pope from teaching an error formally to the Church." (Madrid, pps. 242-51, Pope Fiction).

I am baffled that you have not converted after seeing this irrefutable proof of papal infallibility.

[Art Vandelay]

Meanwhile, I'm baffled that you and anyone else takes this bullshit seriously.