If the pope changed his mind...

[Heidi]

If the pope changed his mind and said that Mary was not sinless, and not a virgin all of her life, would you believe him? :o

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

there is no point in answering this question. it would never happen. end of story. lets let this thread die now.

 

[Heidi]

there is no point in answering this question. it would never happen. end of story. lets let this thread die now.

No, it actually shows who each person worships.

So why wouldn't the pope change his mind? He's a human being. Or do you think he's God? :o

 

[Solo]

there is no point in answering this question. it would never happen. end of story. lets let this thread die now.

No, it actually shows who each person worships.

So why wouldn't the pope change his mind? He's a human being. Or do you think he's God? :o

The Roman Catholic dogma is that the Pope is taking Jesus' place until Jesus returns.

• A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.
  
  In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. "Inter corporalia", 2, "De trans. ep."). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. "Quanto", 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman Pontiff who is "the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ" (cap. "Licet", 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. "Fundamenta ejus", 17, "De elect.", in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ. From the Catholic Encyclopedia at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

Here is an excerpt from an article at http://www.letusreason.org/RC24.htm

• The True Vicar of Christ
  
  Because there is a direct connection between the redemption of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, it is a soul damning error to mistake the work of the Holy Spirit as Vicar of Christ with the position or work of any man. As Christ Jesus had been the Master, Counselor and Guide to the believers, He promised to send the Holy Spirit as His substitute so that He might abide with them for ever.â€Â[4] In believers’ lives the Holy Spirit has full, immediate, and universal influence, as the Scripture so wonderfully teaches, “now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.â€Â[5] The work of the Spirit is transforming; we are changed from one degree of glorious grace unto another, until by that same grace one day we will be perfect in with Him in glory forever. How much therefore should Christians prize the full and complete ministry of the Holy Spirit! In the face of these awesome truths concerning the role and ministry of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, it is horrendous to learn that the Vatican proclaims, “The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.â€Â[6] Persuading men and women that Christ the Lord left a mortal man to be His vicar on earth attempts to gainsay the very purpose of Christ Jesus.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

there is no point in answering this question. it would never happen. end of story. lets let this thread die now.

No, it actually shows who each person worships.

So why wouldn't the pope change his mind? He's a human being. Or do you think he's God? :o

Its a moot point. The protection of the Holy Spirit as shown in Matthew would not allow such a thing on a matter of doctrine. A matter of practice, such as the celibacy of priests, perhaps. But this thread is pointless because it wont happen.

And if you are trying to bait the Catholics, try harder. We worship God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The pope is a leader, and we do not worship him. Not even the Latin Americans.

 

[Heidi]

there is no point in answering this question. it would never happen. end of story. lets let this thread die now.

No, it actually shows who each person worships.

So why wouldn't the pope change his mind? He's a human being. Or do you think he's God? :o

Its a moot point. The protection of the Holy Spirit as shown in Matthew would not allow such a thing on a matter of doctrine. A matter of practice, such as the celibacy of priests, perhaps. But this thread is pointless because it wont happen.

And if you are trying to bait the Catholics, try harder. We worship God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The pope is a leader, and we do not worship him. Not even the Latin Americans.

Sorry, but the doctrine of Mary didn't come into being until the 1870's. So the pope did change doctrine! The Mary thing wasn't in early church doctrine because it's nowhere in the bible. So I thought you said the Holy Spirit would never allow doctrine to be changed. Which it is? :o

So if you don't worship the pope, then were did you get the doctrine that Mary was a virgin all her life and sinless? :o Can you make one honest statement? :o

Also the doctrine of Mary didn't come into being until the 1870's. So the pope did change doctrine! The Mary thing wasn't in early church doctrine because it's nowhere in the bible. So I thought you said the Holy Spirit would never allow doctrine to bechanged. So which it is? :o

 

[Heidi]

Also, if you don't worship the pope, then why are you having such a hard time answering my OP? :o

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

Okay, first of all, the Church has a habit of not officially defining things until someone challenges them. There are plenty of references from early writers about her Immaculate Conception. (Do you want to take me at my word, or do you want me to produce them? I will if you want, but right now, middle of a movie... hey, im a college student) Currently, the next statement of doctrine will probably be about Mary as the Mediatrix of all graces. This is a widely held belief, and has been taught for literally centuries (the earliest I read was Louis DeMontfort and he wrote I think in the 1500s or 1600s, but this is the earliest simply because I havent read a great deal from the really early guys on the subject, so I cant pull up a name off the top of my head).

And sorry if I seem dense. I dont understand what "OP" stands for. Im sorry.

So we dont worship the pope. Trust me on this one. I would know if we did and could admit to it. We also dont worship the Blessed Mother. Hyperdulia. Not adoration, but not dulia either! (Dulia is latin for the type of veneration due to saints. Hyberdulia is veneration due to Mary).

And just to humor you, is the pope speaking ex cathedra or not?

 

[Heidi]

Okay, first of all, the Church has a habit of not officially defining things until someone challenges them. There are plenty of references from early writers about her Immaculate Conception. (Do you want to take me at my word, or do you want me to produce them? I will if you want, but right now, middle of a movie... hey, im a college student) Currently, the next statement of doctrine will probably be about Mary as the Mediatrix of all graces. This is a widely held belief, and has been taught for literally centuries (the earliest I read was Louis DeMontfort and he wrote I think in the 1500s or 1600s, but this is the earliest simply because I havent read a great deal from the really early guys on the subject, so I cant pull up a name off the top of my head).

And sorry if I seem dense. I dont understand what "OP" stands for. Im sorry.

So we dont worship the pope. Trust me on this one. I would know if we did and could admit to it. We also dont worship the Blessed Mother. Hyperdulia. Not adoration, but not dulia either! (Dulia is latin for the type of veneration due to saints. Hyberdulia is veneration due to Mary).

And just to humor you, is the pope speaking ex cathedra or not?

You still haven't answered the OP (original post). True followers of Christ would have no problem answering it.

And why doesn't the catholic church simply use the bible as its doctrine? Why does it make up its own if they believe the bible is the Word of God? :-?

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

You still haven't answered the OP (original post). True followers of Christ would have no problem answering it.

If the pope changed his mind and said that Mary was not sinless, and not a virgin all of her life, would you believe him?

Speculation, Speculation, Speculation.
Like belovewolfofgod was saying.

He would not change:
He could not change:
He should not:
Becuase it goes against the three pillars of the Church: Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium.

Sorry, but the doctrine of Mary didn't come into being until the 1870's. So the pope did change doctrine! The Mary thing wasn't in early church doctrine because it's nowhere in the bible. So I thought you said the Holy Spirit would never allow doctrine to be changed. Which it is?

Like beloved was saying, the Church often doesn't tackle an issue until it is disputed.

To say that the Pope changed doctrine is a harsh and false claim.
In this case the Pope did not change doctrine he clarified it.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

^^^^^^^
What he said.

And why doesn't the catholic church simply use the bible as its doctrine? Why does it make up its own if they believe the bible is the Word of God?

And the Church doesnt make up its own doctrine. But I have a question. Is this quoted question a genuine question, or is it some kind of trap? If its genuine, I will genuinely answer it. If not, I wont waste my time.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

(doulbe post)

 

[Heidi]

(doulbe post)

I'm Christian! :angel:

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

Im really not following that one...

And you didnt answer my question... Is it a yes or is it a no about really wanting an answer out of real curiousity.

 

[Heidi]

Im really not following that one...

And you didnt answer my question... Is it a yes or is it a no about really wanting an answer out of real curiousity.

Absolutely. I want to find our who is loyal to the pope no matter what he says, biblical or not.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

Thats not the question I will answer.

You didnt even humor me as to whether he was speaking ex cathedra or not.

But the question was:

And why doesn't the catholic church simply use the bible as its doctrine? Why does it make up its own if they believe the bible is the Word of God?

Do you really want me to answer that?

 

[Heidi]

Thats not the question I will answer.

You didnt even humor me as to whether he was speaking ex cathedra or not.

But the question was:

And why doesn't the catholic church simply use the bible as its doctrine? Why does it make up its own if they believe the bible is the Word of God?

Do you really want me to answer that?

:o Why wouldn't I? But since you haven't answered any of my previous questions then of course, I don't expect you to answer this one either. It simply appears that you have no answers. ;-)

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

Heidi, I did answer your question. Its speculation, and what is the sense in doing that. First, it depends on if he is speaking ex cathedra. If he is not, it may very well be a matter of practice or a matter of opinion. That would need to be ascertained. So, it really depends. Now, he wouldnt say something contradictory to the bible (on this point we obviously disagree, esp. cause this includes the immaculate conception). Its not that i wont answer your question. Its that I cant. Its just not applicable. If I could give you a straight answer, I really would. But your statement has implications that can be taken out of context or proportion, so I need to make sure that what I say is more accurate. As for your other question, the answer is coming right up.

 

[Heidi]

Heidi, I did answer your question. Its speculation, and what is the sense in doing that. First, it depends on if he is speaking ex cathedra. If he is not, it may very well be a matter of practice or a matter of opinion. That would need to be ascertained. So, it really depends. Now, he wouldnt say something contradictory to the bible (on this point we obviously disagree, esp. cause this includes the immaculate conception). Its not that i wont answer your question. Its that I cant. Its just not applicable. If I could give you a straight answer, I really would. But your statement has implications that can be taken out of context or proportion, so I need to make sure that what I say is more accurate. As for your other question, the answer is coming right up.

Oh but the pope has said things contradictory to the bible:

Mathew 23: 9, "And do not call anyone on earth 'Father' for you have one Father and he is in heaven."

Matthew 6:18, "But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father who has seen what you have done in secret, will reward you." Nevertheless, the catholics put ashes on their foreheads during lent to be seen by men.

1 Corinthians 11: 7, "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God;..." But the catholics not only cover their heads in church, they wear pointy hats like the Ku Klux Klan.

Leviticus 26:1, "And do not make idols or set up an image or carved stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the Lord your God." Yet the catholics erect carved stones of people and bow down before them as is evidenced in the pictures of Pope John Paul bowing down to a statue of Mary.

The bible also said that Jesus had siblings and makes no mention of them being from another marriage so the perpetual virginity of mary is a made-up gospel.

But I can answer it without reservation. When the pope disgarees with the bible, he is simply wrong plain and simply. And since the sinlessness of Mary is not mentioned in the bible nor is her perpetual virginity, then why do you believe it? :o

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

1 Corinthians 11: 7, "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God;..." But the catholics not only cover their heads in church, they wear pointy hats like the Ku Klux Klan.

Can you come up with better analogies? I dont call you a dirty heretic and compare you to something horrible (by the way, the Klan is comprised of protestants who hate catholics). I have no desire to insult you and make really bad analogies.

Charity.