Replies

NWU, thank you for responding cogently and fairly. I am certainly not saying that there was any proclamation of infallibility about JPII's death penalty comments.

I merely disagree that the Pope's authority or that of the bishops acting in mass is limited by the past--Vatican II revised YEARS of church teaching and it didn't matter that Latin was spoken in Mass and Catholics couldn't eat meat on Fridays for years, and it was all gone. GONE. You may or may not be happy about that, but for the Roman Catholic church, it was DONE. No lay protest could have changed it. Only the Pope or bishops acting in concert could change it back, and if they disagreed, there'd be schism.

If the Pope or Magisterium wanted to declare ANYTHING was now church policy (yes, Meg, even if it was something that could be debatably in contradiction of Jesus' words), certainly, there would be schism or a substantial decline in church membership if it was too radical, but I have no doubt that he or they could do so, and not one of you have said a darn thing to show otherwise. You all seem to think precedent binds one who rules absolutely. It certainly plays a role in people's acceptance of those rules, but if he wants it, he can have it.

I'm sorry, not one of you has had a comment on what I posted, other than to call names or just deny it can happen. Whether you disagree or not, you should be able to point to where church doctrine STATES the Pope or bishops are so bound. I'm not saying I want it to be the truth, I'm not saying it's a bad thing it is the truth, I'm not saying the Catholic Church is awful or great because it's the truth. It just IS the truth.

And I'm not discussing my religion, all the 'you don't know jack about the RC church' and 'you're no RC' baiting notwithstanding. I'm not here to bash Catholics or pat Catholics on the backs. I actually have a pretty good record on here smacking down anti-Catholic comments simply because it's wrong to unfairly bash any religion.

I'm sad some of you automatically assume that anything that is said about the Catholic faith must be against it. I'm stating what is the truth--if you don't like it, show me false. Don't childishly call me a "Papolator," whatever that is. Show me I'm wrong about what Catholicism is and means by telling me exactly where the Church says other than what I've said here.

I know what I've said here is exactly what the Church says, and if you don't believe in the Pope's ultimate authority, you are no Catholic. You think you get to decide on what the church is and means instead of its leader, the vicar of Christ, and you should join some other church now which better fits your viewpoint.

Old Madprof98, the logician who is a bit daft, will be happy to explain to you that 'some things are proven only by the absence of their contrary.'

When you say that the Pope can declare, infallibly, that (e.g.,) the Assumption did NOT occur, and claim that the Pope has such power, you are running up against the rule above.

No Pope has EVER declared, infallibly, that which is NOT true. And it's never gonna happen, per the 1st Vatican Council. Until you find and furnish evidence to the contrary, (trust me, I won't hold my breath) you cannot hold the opposite.