Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did the Bishops at the 1st Vatican Council, who voted on Papal Infallibility, possess infallibility?
3/31/2014 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

Posted on 03/31/2014 7:35:15 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist

A.) When the vote was taken on July 1870, at the First Vatican Council, with 433 votes in favour (placet) and only 2 against (non placet) against defining as dogma the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra, did those Bishops possess infallibility when (or at least only when) voting? Did any of them keep this infallibility (did it remain with all of them or any of them) after they left and returned home? Did any of these Bishops possess any infallibility at anytime before the vote was cast?

B.) Was Mary's (the Mother of Jesus) mother immaculately conceived as Mary was? Was Mary's grandmother immaculately conceived, too? If so, was there near-infinite regression of these immaculate conceptions? If so, how far back did these immaculate conceptions go? If they did not go back farther than two, why were only two and not say three or four immaculate conceptions needed?

C.) When the Apostle Paul confronted Peter (when Peter was being hypocritical concerning his eating with Jews and Gentiles), did the Apostle Paul possess infallibility when stating that Gentiles did NOT have to be circumcised as a requisite for being a Christian? If so, how many other Apostles possessed infallibility in their actions that were later recorded in the Book of Acts?

D.) During the time of the Western Great Schism of 1378, if papal infallibility was in existence at that time (and only later just codified), how could any person who was not one of the two Popes infallibly know (if they did not possess any measure of infallibility) which POpe was legitimate until this was later worked out? What about that period of time? Were people left "twisting in the wind?"


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; General Discusssion; History; Orthodox Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; excathedra; frmagisterium; infallibility; papacy; pontifexmaximus; pope; religion; romancatholic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-260 next last
To: Alex Murphy

I think your point is to be argumentative, unnecessarily so. As it is a fact that there are certainly thousands of churches that are NOT the Latin Rite Catholic Church or even aligned with Rome. So how many ‘Christian’ churches are there? Show us your exactitude. Do you include the Mormons and their dozens of schisms. The Mormons certainly call themselves Christian.

My only point is that if you do not want to follow or believe in what the Roman Catholic Church teaches chose another church. There are certainly many to chose from. The exact number is irrelevant.

There is absolutely no backpedalling. Regardless if there are thousands or tens of thousands. There are certainly plenty of churches that claim to be ‘Christian’ Hell, if you don’t find one you like, start your own church. Luther did, Henry VII did, Joe Smith did, L. Ron Hubbard did.


121 posted on 03/31/2014 2:17:31 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

What’s wrong with it?

Nothing.

What’s wrong with a priest being married, especially since God allows for this to be the case?


122 posted on 03/31/2014 2:20:26 PM PDT by Gamecock (If the cross is not foolishness to the lost world then we have misrepresented the cross." S.L.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Nothing.

There are married priests now. The Church has admitted many former Anglican priests that have sought to align with Rome many of them where married and continue to be married. The Church has allowed married priests in the past and may do so in the future.

The Church has never claimed that celibate Priests is a matter of Faith and Morals. No Pope has never spoken Ex Cathedra as to celibate priests.


123 posted on 03/31/2014 2:26:29 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
However, I do not know who Jesus married or how many children he fathered.

WHAT????? Are you saying that Jesus was married and fathered children? That sure seems like that is what you are saying. I read it 4 times.

124 posted on 03/31/2014 2:27:35 PM PDT by lupie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: lupie

No. I am saying the exact opposite. Jesus was not married. Jesus did not father children.


125 posted on 03/31/2014 2:29:23 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

One of my Lay Dominican Homies is a Ukrainian Catholic. Every Lent he teases me because we give up the A-word and they don’t. And they have married priests, I believe.


126 posted on 03/31/2014 2:36:17 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (In te, Domine, speravi: non confundar in aeternum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
There is absolutely no backpedalling. Regardless if there are thousands or tens of thousands. There are certainly plenty of churches that claim to be ‘Christian’ Hell, if you don’t find one you like, start your own church. Luther did, Henry VII did, Joe Smith did, L. Ron Hubbard did.

And 2,999 to 7,999 Catholics did, too, yet Catholics still claim to have only one church. That is, if we're supposed to believe your sources.

127 posted on 03/31/2014 2:39:11 PM PDT by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

They can call themselves anything they want. It doesn’t make it so.


128 posted on 03/31/2014 2:43:59 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

No one wants to consider what the miracle of birth does to a woman. She might have been a virgin at conception. But let’s be real...there was some stretching done during the birthing process.

The whole lifelong virgin thing becomes moot when you’ve given birth.


129 posted on 03/31/2014 2:47:27 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
Nice job on this thread. You have more patience than I would ever have. It's hard to understand what motivates these Catholic bashers, though I have heard that Catholic bashing is a common trait in homosexuals, which I think is who you may be dealing with here.

I just don't even respond to their posts.

130 posted on 03/31/2014 2:52:35 PM PDT by safeasthebanks ("The most rewarding part, was when he gave me my money!" - Dr. Nick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

Ok. So you can buy that the infinite God becomes man and dwells among us, but you ball at the idea of an intact hymen?

And you do know that it is not the hymen that defines the virgin, right? It’s the lack of sex.


131 posted on 03/31/2014 2:58:29 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town; Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
>> That is why the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Church is so important.<<

Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.

132 posted on 03/31/2014 3:03:07 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

You mean adultery? ;-)


133 posted on 03/31/2014 3:04:21 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

23 particular churches all united in one faith under one leader.

That is what “catholic” means.

What definition are you using?


134 posted on 03/31/2014 3:06:24 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: safeasthebanks
It's hard to understand what motivates these Catholic bashers, though I have heard that Catholic bashing is a common trait in homosexuals, which I think is who you may be dealing with here.

Interesting logic. Sodomites bash Catholics, and since people here on this thread (according to you) bash Catholics, they must be sodomites. What brilliant logic./s

Using your "logic": The Pope and Roman Catholic Church oppose sodomite "marriage." The Westboro "Baptist" "Church" opposes sodomite marriage, therefore Fred Phelps must be the Roman Catholic Pope and Westboro must be the Catholic church.

135 posted on 03/31/2014 3:12:53 PM PDT by redleghunter (But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
They can call themselves anything they want. It doesn’t make it so.

What's your own point, then? Anyone can claim there are tens of thousands, or even just one single church, and it "doesn't make it so". Catholics claim both with such disparity even from hour to hour, that they demonstrate that it's impossible for Catholics to be "one" and yet have so many disparate beliefs over this single question. Tracking Catholic-provided numbers of "Christian denominations" is an exercise in hilarity.

136 posted on 03/31/2014 3:17:20 PM PDT by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
23 particular churches all united in one faith under one leader. That is what “catholic” means. What definition are you using?

Doesn't matter what definition I was using. What matters is what definition the Catholic-quoted source used in claims of "35,000 Christian denominations", why matching claims of 3,000 and 8,000 are given for Catholics by the same source using the same definition, and the implications of those numbers when applied to Catholics.

137 posted on 03/31/2014 3:30:27 PM PDT by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

LOL! Nah, you can say THAT during Lent ...


138 posted on 03/31/2014 3:42:57 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (In te, Domine, speravi: non confundar in aeternum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
How do you know that it is?
Its been many, many years since my freshman course in logic, but I seem the remember that the absence of knowledge that something does not exist does not mean that it does exist. Proof of existence requires positive affirmation. The burden of proof is on the one who asserts.
We know that God exists due to reason and revelation. Are you claiming a revelation that the Seat of Wisdom exists other than residing in the Trinity?
The only individual on whom God bestowed the blessing of wisdom superior to that of other humans was Solomon. Can you cite Scriptural evidence of another instance of such a Divine blessing?
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but neither is it evidence of existence.
I've learned the Wisdom God is very frequently difficult or impossible for humans to understand. And the absence of understanding is not understanding.
Does any Scriptural evidence exists that Mary was afflicted by any sort of illness, intractable or otherwise?
139 posted on 03/31/2014 3:47:02 PM PDT by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
Did I say anything about the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra?

Not talking about Anglican priests sneaking in the back door either.

The average Papist even know that the average parish priest isn't going to get married because the church frowns upon doing so.

140 posted on 03/31/2014 5:13:06 PM PDT by Gamecock (If the cross is not foolishness to the lost world then we have misrepresented the cross." S.L.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-260 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson