Pope Francis Rents Out Sistine Chapel For Corporate Event

http://www.inquisitr.com ^ | October 16, 2014

[not2be4gotten.com]

First, the Sistine Chapel is not Saint Peters Basilica.

Second, it cost me 16 Euros to see it last month. It is part of a museum, actually.

It is a wonderful room!

[yldstrk]

The Pope is supposed to be that, but what he says and does must be tested against the Bible and pass in order to be considered infallible.

[kenmcg]

What a Pope! From pro-gay to selling the church. Just shows how the fat cats get influence.

[xp38]

Indeed. Porsche? Ferrari is not pleased.

[piusv]

Here’s another blasphemous use of a Catholic church, but something quite common in the Vatican II Church:

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20140930/news/140939973/

An here is Francis hiding his crucifix while visiting with rabbis:

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/05/jerusalem-francis-hid-his-pectoral.html

And no, it wasn’t a “coincidence”. There are other photos of Francis where the cross hangs just fine outside of his cincture.

[Petrosius]

From what I gather from Catholics, he is only considered to be infallible when he’s speaking infallibly, and even then, only if his infallible speech doesn’t turn out to be fallible. Sounds a bit convoluted but what do I know?

The circumstances of when the pope speaks infallibly is quite clear. It is only when he speaks ex cathedra (i.e. officially in his capacity as pope. Just as a judge's words are binding only when he is speaking from the bench) on matters of faith or morals which he declares are binding upon all the faithful. In doing so he is just exercising the authority of the Church to teach the faithful as mandated by Jesus Christ. This is actually something that happens quite rarely.

If you are going to deny this, fine. It is unChristian, however, to try to win cheap debating points by exaggerating and misrepresenting what Catholics teach on this question.

[Campion]

Uh, no. Popes teach infallibly (that is, without error) when all of these conditions are met:

1. They teach in their supreme apostolic authority, not, e.g., as bishop of Rome, or as a private doctor, etc.
2. Their teaching is addressing the whole Church, not, e.g., an individual or a particular locality
3. They teach definitively (no "perhaps" or "this is my opinion" or "for the time being, this is what ...")
4. They teach a doctrine concerning faith or morals (e.g., church discipline or administrative acts don't count)

Renting out the Sistine Chapel is incredibly tacky. It also fails every one of the four conditions for infallibility.

[Campion]

That is a fine statement of evangelical Protestant belief.

It is not Catholic belief.

Catholic belief is that Jesus died to give us something greater in every respect, not less, than the Old Covenant. We could spend some time on why you think the Old Covenant had anything that is not present in bigger, better, and more perfect form in the New, when Jeremiah 31 and the Epistle to the Hebrews are completely clear that the New Covenant is superior in every way.

While, in the Old Covenant, God was literally present in his fullness on earth only in the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem, he is literally present in an even greater fullness in every Catholic church in which the Blessed Sacrament is reserved.

That is because the consecrated Eucharistic elements contain Jesus Christ, the whole Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

While God is present in every Christian soul in the state of grace, Christ Jesus, God the Son, in his human nature is not. But he is present in his human nature in the Holy Eucharist.

[Cats Pajamas]

Good one. Not a fan of religious buildings. Seems to me there is too much time, effort and money going into creating and upkeeping buildings instead of saving souls. JESUS didn’t need a building to preach HIS GOSPEL in. I argue with my Aunt Pat about when I can call her. She’s big into her church and says don’t call me on Mondays and Thursdays because I am a money counter at my church. I just roll my eyes. She is a big Democrat and absolutely bananas for Hillary Clinton. The older I get the harder it is for me to call and listen to her twaddle. Makes me wanna go bang my head on a pole.

[EDINVA]

Is this a reliable source or is everyone getting in a snit over a fraudulent or distorted story?

[piusv]

I don’t know. Is Porsche lying?

http://www.porsche.com/international/motorsportandevents/travelclub/tours/rom/

[NKP_Vet]

Well I see right now I should have made this CATHOLIC CAUCUS.
Never fails that a protestant will make make fun of the Holy
Eucharist.

[Vermont Lt]

Jeez...how long does it take to count the money. Or is it Count DnMonet?

[Boogieman]

“That is a fine statement of evangelical Protestant belief.

It is not Catholic belief.”

Every point of fact I made is drawn directly from the Bible. If Catholics don’t believe the same, then I’m afraid they have some homework to do. They are theological points explained by the apostles, so there isn’t even any “private interpretation” excuse that you can wave around.

“We could spend some time on why you think the Old Covenant had anything that is not present in bigger, better, and more perfect form in the New, when Jeremiah 31 and the Epistle to the Hebrews are completely clear that the New Covenant is superior in every way.”

I think you must not have understood my comment at all, since I never said any thing wasn’t present in the New Covenant. I said the New Covenant temple was a different thing than the Old Covenant temple (one is spiritual, the other physical). I don’t see how anyone who has read the New Testament can dispute that.

“While God is present in every Christian soul in the state of grace, Christ Jesus, God the Son, in his human nature is not. But he is present in his human nature in the Holy Eucharist”

Fair enough, that is a distinction I am not trying to argue against, at least not on this thread. My main point was to argue against a clear misinterpretation of the nature of the temple in the New Covenant era. Matthew 21 is simply a poor Scripture to apply to a building in this era.

[Boogieman]

If you thought I was “making fun” then you haven’t understood my comment.

Nor did you answer my serious theological question. You merely deflected. I wonder why.

[Boogieman]

“Uh, no. Popes teach infallibly (that is, without error) when all of these conditions are met:”

Hmm, but I have definitely been told by Catholics that if a Pope were to make a declaration that met all of those criteria, that was in conflict with existing doctrine, it would not be an infallible statement. Perhaps they were confused.

[Boogieman]

“If you are going to deny this, fine.”

I’m not denying it, in fact I think you just restated most of what I said in a simpler manner.

[Ransomed]

Tomorrow there will probably be a different thread full of outrage concerning the Vatican’ architectural riches and art that don’t make any money for charity besides people paying in order to see them.

Freegards

[Boogieman]

Here, from your catechism, is an illustration of my point, so you cannot claim it is some “evangelical Protestant” misinterpration:

” III. THE CHURCH IS THE TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

797 “What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”243 “To this Spirit of Christ, as an invisible principle, is to be ascribed the fact that all the parts of the body are joined one with the other and with their exalted head; for the whole Spirit of Christ is in the head, the whole Spirit is in the body, and the whole Spirit is in each of the members.”244 The Holy Spirit makes the Church “the temple of the living God”:245

Indeed, it is to the Church herself that the “Gift of God” has been entrusted. . . . In it is in her that communion with Christ has been deposited, that is to say: the Holy Spirit, the pledge of incorruptibility, the strengthening of our faith and the ladder of our ascent to God. . . . For where the Church is, there also is God’s Spirit; where God’s Spirit is, there is the Church and every grace.246”

[nanetteclaret]

Cardinal Burke should have been elected last time. What if he was, but refused to serve, believing that Pope Benedict XVI was still the Holy Father? I just had this thought and now I’ve blown my mind with it.