Replies

in the Reformation[sic].

I have noticed you do this a lot. I guess we should then say (when referring to your church): Catholic [sic].

Indeed. dignan3, I think it goes without saying that Catholics don't regard the Reformation as a good development, or as a reforming of anything. There is no need to belabor the point or be overly pedantic. We can't very well expect all of these Protestants here to accept being called "Protestant" by default, because of common usage, if we object to the commonly used term "Reformation."

Indeed. dignan3, I think it goes without saying that Catholics don't regard the Reformation as a good development, or as a reforming of anything.

Indeed. For me, the only good thing to come out of that era was the Council of Trent and subsequently, the quite needed reforms the Church imposed on Herself, and the Jesuits(that one is for Havoc).

I'm kidding when it comes to the last one :)

Pray for John Paul II

It is not just a question of having someone laying hands on one to ordain him. The man doing so must have the authority to do so. This authority only comes from a direct succession. The Orthodox have maintained this succession and their bishops and priests are validly ordained. The Anglicans used to have a claim to maintaining Apostolic succession. In some cases their priests are valid, but it is largely not so anymore. They've ordained women and practicing homosexuals. It can not be said that any given Anglican priest is valid.
------------------------------------------------------------

I take this a a slight modification of your initial statement which, to me at least, implied valid Apostolic Succession only to the RCC.

Please elaborate on this statement:

They've ordained women and practicing homosexuals.

1. Are you aware of scriptural prohibitions toward women and/or practicing homosexuals in the clergy?

2. If a practicing homosexual was validly ordained and, over the course of time, ordained others, who also ordained others; would any or the ordinations be valid.

(REGGIE) "How many infallible pronouncements have been made and what were they."

(SD) As far as I know there are three. Possibly four.
1. The Infallibility of the Pope
2. The Immaculate Conception of Mary
3. The Assumption of Mary
4. The impossibility of ordaining women

The last is still debated by some agitators for priestesses and Rome has not definiteively identified this statement (which on its surface seems to be preaching infalllibly) as infallible.

------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your reply. You are the only person who has attempted an answer. To my knowledge, there is no unanimity within the RCC as to what actual "Infallible" pronouncements have been made. I believe you will get more arguments on your choices from within the fraternity than from non-Catholics.

For example; from allend:

"Because Vatican II issued no solemn definitions, it is all just Ordinary Magisterium. About 21 councils have issued solemn definitons, and the Pope (not our present Pope) has done it twice. There are something like 250 doctrines which have been solemnly defined."

It would be interesting to see how the two of you can come up with such widely varying answers.

A skeptic might say the definition of "Infallibility" is purposely obscure in order to facilitate the withdrawal of a supposed "infallible" pronouncement in the future.