Maybe you shouldn't be on this thread.
You just argue and add nothing to the discussion.
The Chair of Peter
- Thread starter Mungo
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
You just argue and add nothing to the discussion.
I'm not sure. I don't know the man so I cannot attest to his personal holiness.
Catholics do not maintain that the pope is impeccable, that is, unable to sin. Infallibility does not mean a pope cannot commit a sin in his personal life. It is important not to confuse impeccability and infallibility. They are two totally different things.
Your question is based on a false premise that Scripture is the sole rule of faith. Catholics do not believe that. Revelation is not confined to the sacred Scriptures alone, but is also found in the Church's sacred tradition. (cf. 2 Thes 2:15)
When the pope is clarifying, defining or defending an issue of faith or morals, and is doing so in his role as supreme head of the Church, and binding the faithful to his decision, he is declaring with certainly what is or is not the faith of the Church.
Pope Francis has stated that he confesses his sins every week.
I'd also like to say that the closer one gets to God, the more sensitive he becomes to sin.
That’s good to know.
Based on my own personal experience, I have seen a direct correlation between personal holiness and frequent / regular confession. I don’t think it is merely a coincidence.
I'm not asking from a Protestant perspective. I'm not trying to debate this. I'm asking in an attempt to better understand the role and authority of the Pope from a Catholic perspective. Why not just answer my questions rather than injecting or inferring your own, possibly false, understandings of what I believe? I can't help but feel as though you are being defensive and believe I'm trying to trap you.
I don't believe a Pope can make an ex cathedra statement that is not based on either scripture or Tradition.
Pope Francis has done some things that have horrified traditional Catholics, I do add myself to the horrified part, and I'm a bit confused by some other declarations, but speaking ex cathedra is serious and other Bishops, members of the Magesterium would not allow it.
I think his reply was sincere.
Don't think there's much to add...
The question you asked is based on the presumption that the Scriptures are the sole rule of faith...
Again, for Catholics, the sacred Scriptures are not the sole rule of faith. Hence your question is based on a false premise. It would be like me you, "What happens if you want to make a confession and your pastor refuses to hear it and grant you absolution?" This question is based on a false premise.
I'm assure you I am not trying to be defensive. Nor do I believe you are trying to trap me. If my posts come off that way, please know that is not my intention. I have tried to answer your questions from the Catholic perspective. I think if you go back and read my posts, a rather clear articulation of infallibility is contained in them.
Jesus said he would build his church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Sooooooooooooooo his church is the one where hell does not prevail against it. This would delete those churches that have embraced the homosexual agenda. Those that have made the trappings more important than relationships. In churches where the pastor/leader is not a servant. Where the building is more important than the people. And so on and so on.
And more importantly it would delete all those churches with false teaching.
It is interesting to note that gates are defensive structures. Hence the Church is described by our Blessed Lord as being on the offensive.
The homosexual agenda is the fruit of the contraceptive agenda. They are condemnable and sinful because they are sterile. If you are not against contraception, it is hard to argue being against homosexuality.
Love is generative.
Well, looks like you don't have a correct understanding of what Jesus' Church is.
Here 's what it is...:
Jesus' Church consists of anyone who is a believer in Jesus. His disciples make up His Church.
The person could be of any denomination.
However, being mere creatures, we also need a church, an institution, where we could meet and learn and worship,,,and this is what holds the church together. Humans need fellowship.
How are contraception and homosexuality parallel roads?
What do you mean by sterile?
Procreation is the final end of marriage and thus the essence of the conjugal union between the spouses must be open to life, exclusive and permanent. This precludes homosexual relations and contraception since they are not, by definition, open to life.
Incidentally, the logic of the Church's teaching as a rational articulation of the essence of marriage and its dignity can only be maintained if this teleological understanding is rightly understood. Sadly, the Catholic Church is seemingly the last man standing when it comes to maintaining this truth.
That which is not open to life; non generative; non life-giving.
Good response. I've millions of times seen the sort of ploy against which you are dealing, here.
You asked him a simple, Yes/No question, which (due to whatever motivation) he chose to not answer:
To answer that question neither in the affirmative ("Yes, it is!") nor in the negative ("No, it is not!") is to not answer that question. He neither denied nor affirmed; he did not answer the question you asked him. Either it is Catholic belief that the current pope is controlled by God Himself and therefore infallible, or it is not.
I'm not going to presume speak for jaybo, here, but, were someone to ask me what Mungo asked jaybo, here is what I would say:
If by "your personal opinions" you are referring to the things I believe, then Yes, of course I think they are truth; that's why I believe them—because they are truth. I mean, think about it: Why would I believe them otherwise? Why would I believe them if I did not think they are truth?
And, I'd also say to the person who asked me that question: Do you think your personal opinions—the things you believe—are truth? If not, then why would you bother to believe them? Or, really, could you even believe that which you do not think is truth; could that which you do not think is truth even be your personal opinion? (And, for you to say that it could would amount to an advertisement from you that even you think your personal opinion is not worth being taken seriously by your audience.)
Last edited:
Well, on the contrary, the question WIP asked you, and which, thus far, you've not answered, is in fact not like that. The question he asked you is a Yes/No question:
Yes or No? Either it is Catholic belief that the current pope is controlled by God Himself and is therefore infallible, or it is not.
As a courtesy, please read through the thread before accusing me of not answering a question. Had you done so, you would've seen that I did answer his question. It can be found ---> Here
"Your question is based on a false premise. The pope is not controlled by anyone no more than you are controlled by anyone."
I then followed this answer by explaining what infallibility is.