Posted on 10/15/2008 11:17:09 AM PDT by Gamecock
The sources, found at the end of the article, are well respected.
It’s important too to (a) label the hate as such, and (b) drag out the thread long enough to see who steps forward to defend it.
You must be over the target, you are getting lots of flak.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
Where did that anger come from, Natchez Hawk? The original post identifies men who abused the office of the Pope, and you're attacking as heretical those who follow Christ differently from the way you do? "Calamity"?
So you *do* argue that the Popes are infallible, without sin? Or do you agree with history that some of them were corrupt men?
Agreed. The sucky part is, you and I will never get to bear the awesome responsibility of being among the Elect.
LOL! And is it merely a coincidence that the largest and loudest fonts on this thread were posted by you?
De Rosa is not a historian but an angry ex-Catholic who is a failed UK sitcom writer. He is not a "Father" and his publisher is a vanity publisher, not a serious press.
Boettner was an IRS hack whose books are famous for their lack of research and accuracy.
Ian Brown has no scholarly reputation - he is a complete unknown outside of whatever dubious circles he operates in.
None of the three cited are authorities in nay way on medieval history or Catholic theology.
Of course some of them were corrupt. All men are.
But the disappearance of Calvinism and Puritanism as paths that people follow show that ideas can be corrupt as well.
I know you’re paying no attention, but I forgot to ping you to post 30.
If you don't know what the word infallible means, why do you use it?
Perhaps you haven’t heard of the resurgence of Calvinism...
Your misunderstanding of “papal infallibility” negates your question. No one argues Popes are without sin.
This is the main inspiration for posts such as the OP: the mistaken belief that "infallibility"="impeccability", which it does not.
Each and every (honest) Catholic will admit that there have been plenty of sinful popes throughout the centuries, some maybe even in Hell. This fact should make one wonder then, "How can Catholics admit that, yet still believe the pope can be infallible?"
Unless one believes all Catholics are insane, then one must realize that there's a difference between "infallible" and "impeccable". The former is Catholic dogma, the latter is not. The former means, in Catholic dogma, that the pope is protected from making a mistake when teaching about matters of morals and faith, and no other time. It does *not* mean that the pope is guaranteed from being sinless; that's what "impeccable" means.
All of this has been explained before. But that doesn't stop the old canard of Boetner's "Roman Catholicism" being posted again and again from time to time, in different forms. Why it doesn't, I don't know, since it's a reasoned rebuttal to the entire OP.
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning Benedict IX:
“Taking advantage of the dissolute life he(Benedict) was leading, one of the factions in the city drove him from it (1044) amid the greatest disorder, and elected an antipope (Sylvester III) in the person of John, Bishop of Sabina (1045 -Ann. Romani, init. Victor, Dialogi, III, init.). Benedict, however, succeeded in expelling Sylvester the same year; but, as some say, that he might marry, he resigned his office into the hands of the Archpriest John Gratian for a large sum. John was then elected pope and became Gregory VI (May, 1045). Repenting of his bargain, Benedict endeavoured to depose Gregory. This resulted in the intervention of King Henry III. Benedict, Sylvester, and Gregory were deposed at the Council of Sutri (1046) and a German bishop (Suidger) became Pope Clement II. After his speedy demise, Benedict again seized Rome (November, 1047), but was driven from it to make way for a second German pope, Damasus II (November, 1048).”
Are these lies and misrepresentations?
Living a dissolute life and selling the papal office?
Popes warring for their office?
Where would this be?
I know his doctrines have been modified by a bunch of different folks.
I know many Presbyterians, never heard them say they believe in Pre-destination, has the terminology changed?
Well ... the problem is, of course, that "ideas" are no more God than any church is.
In fact, judging by the typical contents of the "Reformed theology" threads that get posted here, and the various "-isms" railed against therein, the chief contribution of Calvinist thought to the modern Church seems seems to be a tendency to splinter by pushing "wrong-thinking" Christians away.
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.