Your description was indeed popeless, and i did not say the pope changed Catholic teaching, but he can be looked to for the final word, and has doctrinally perpetuated errors, and has unhindered power, and cannot be deposed without his consent.
Therefore, as I have said, infallibility is not the point.
I did not restrict his primacy to PI, nor do the EO's in contending against his full roman role.
You really should stop trying to tell Catholics what Catholics do.
You really should stop trying to tell me what Catholics do. Ever hear of Trent, Vatican 1, and thus the schism and sects resulting from V2? Stick to painting.
I did not say you became good enough to enter purgatory, but that you become good enough to enter glory via purgatory.
A distinction without a difference. It is indeed a distinction with a difference, as rather than being good enough to enter purgatory, as you had me saying, it is a purported place for becoming purified.
One is either saved or not, and there are no back doors into heaven. Purgation is not what you think it is.
A mere assertion. Purgatory is what i said it was, a place one becomes good enough to enter glory.
after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1030).
It is also for making expiation:
These must be expiated [atoned, be compensated] either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments.” (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; cp. 1. 1967)
Nothing in this makes any sense.
You seem to be having a problem following the argument. go back and re read it. You accused me of misrepresenting it, when in fact the words i put in brackets brought it in line with what is elsewhere taught, unless you believe the promise is never to interpret Scripture except as per the UC of the fathers, versus never being contrary to it, where it exists. It is the V1 statement itself that is misleading.
It amuses me how you keep insisting on an exaggerated role of the pope while also simultaneously arguing against the legitimacy of it. It is very interesting that those who attack the Catholic Church are always the ones most in favour of papal power, even though they also love to go on about how evil it is.
What you imagine may assume you, but i did not exaggerate the role of the pope, and certainly did not express favour of papal power. But straw men burn easy. It is actually hard to exaggerate the role and power of the pope and magisterium more than Rome and popes or Catholics have or do, either in establishing doctrine or enforcing it, or in application etc. .
Rightly, therefore, has Leo X. laid down in the 5th council of Lateran "that the Roman Pontiff alone, as having authority over all Councils, has full jurisdiction and power to summon, to transfer, to dissolve Councils, as is clear, not only from the testimony of Holy Writ, from the teaching of the Fathers and of the Roman Pontiffs, and from the decrees of the sacred canons, but from the teaching of the very Councils themselves." Indeed, Holy Writ attests that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone, and that the power of binding and loosening was granted to the Apostles and to Peter; but there is nothing to show that the Apostles received supreme power without Peter, and against Peter. — Leo XIII - Satis cognitum; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html
"the Apostolic See has received and hath government, authority, and power of binding and loosing from the Incarnate Word Himself; and, according to all holy synods, sacred canons and decrees, in all things and through all things, in respect of all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world, since the Word in Heaven who rules the Heavenly powers binds and loosens there" - satis cognitum.
As Peter was given a new name so does the new Supreme Pontiff become known by another. After the election he extends his first blessing to the people -- a Benediction which was not given in the open for years until Pope Pius XI established the custom. The Coronation, one of the most magnificent of Vatican Ceremonies, takes place shortly after the election. With the Pope carried high in a golden chair and attended by brilliantly attired chamberlains and soldiers, the Coronation Mass is an unrivaled spectacle of beauty, dignity, and ancient pageantry. At the Coronation, in the midst of the pomp and splendor, a master of ceremonies recites in Latin: "Holy Father, thus does the glory of the world pass away." As the first Cardinal Deacon places the three-crowned Tiara on the head of the Pope, he says: "Receive the three-crowned Tiara, and know that thou are the Father of Princes and Kings, the Pastor of the earth, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, to Whom be honor and glory forever. Amen." The CORONATION of Pope Pius XII took place on the balcony of St. Peter's in March 1939. (From the book "The Vatican and Holy Year" by Stephen S. Fenichell & Phillip Andrews -- 1950 edition. http://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/ReunionOfChristendom.htm)
Dictatus papae
Only he [the Pope] can summon universal councils
No synod can be called valid without the pope's agreement.
The pope may be judged by no one, even if he should deny the faith, as is seen from [Pope] Marcellinus.
All others can do nothing without him.
The Roman church by a singular privilege closes and opens the heavens to whomever it wishes, as Pope Julius testifies.
The pope's judicial decision may not be overturned by anyone except him himself or one of his successors.
He may change kingdoms, as did Gregory, Stephen, and Adrian. - http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/churchhistory511/topic%20three/DictatusAvranches.htm
But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ.. - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm
“The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, 'orbi,' (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” - Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations (Fordham University Press), by MacDougall, p 119 - 120 )
"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " - Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam.
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God . This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;...
He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ) http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10law.htm.
the pope certainly has definite prerogatives and authority, but it is all placed within a larger framework. Just as the president is not all-powerful in the USA, or shouldn't be, the pope cannot simply do as he wills at all times.
No, it is not as the Presidential limitations. Who will impeach the pope if he oversteps his bounds? You have gone from describing a popeless Catholicism with no mention of the magisterium to now having to minimizing his claim to unhindered excise of power.
He is bound by law too, and that really bothers those who dislike the Church.
Which means he does not need the consent of the bishops to declare a truth infallible, and who can depose the pope? Actually, it is the autocratic nature of Rome itself that is disturbing. For in essence, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Even if the pope were a raging heretic it wouldn't change the teaching of the Church one bit.
Worse, he can take a tradition of men, such as the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary and declare it as infallible, with submission to it binding, which was not the case in the early church.
Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church.. - http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p9ineff.htm
And yet "[It is error to believe that], if the Pope were a reprobate and an evil man and consequently a member of the devil, he has no power over the faithful." - Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe, Session VIII, and Hus: Session XV; DNZ:621, 617, 588)
And also we have this esteem of popes:
"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom." ( St. Catherine of Siena: A Biography By Anne B. Baldwin, p. 125,
But, that cannot be true for the attacker, and every word from every pope must be another gospel for Catholics.
Well, when you get back to me let me know. Word of popes often may not reflect RC doctrine, but it is when they do that it is often a problem, while their role and esteem by RCs is manifest by how they publish daily what he pope say on FR. Do a search!
And, when I hold a Catholic view of the pope, grounded in centuries of teaching and practice, you call me "popeless."
No, i called you that because in your description of the church and how it acts in passing on doctrine you did not even mention the pope, or the place of the magisterium. And which place in history is not manifest in you description.
Your description was indeed popeless, and i did not say the pope changed Catholic teaching, but he can be looked to for the final word, and has doctrinally perpetuated errors, and has unhindered power, and cannot be deposed without his consent.
Erroneous.
I did not restrict his primacy to PI, nor do the EO's in contending against his full roman role.
I do not read pointless and vague acronyms, and the rest of this is irrelevant.
It is indeed a distinction with a difference, as rather than being good enough to enter purgatory, as you had me saying, it is a purported place for becoming purified.
Contradictory, and irrelevant.
A mere assertion. Purgatory is what i said it was, a place one becomes good enough to enter glory.
No, it isn't.
after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1030).
This contradicts your own point.
You seem to be having a problem following the argument. go back and re read it.
No. It was incomprehensible. Example is not a verb, and it only goes downhill from there.
What you imagine may assume you...
Nothing is assuming me. I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.
It is actually hard to exaggerate the role and power of the pope and magisterium more than Rome and popes or Catholics have or do, either in establishing doctrine or enforcing it, or in application etc. .
Assertion is not fact. The rest of the cut and paste I will pass over.
No, it is not as the Presidential limitations. Who will impeach the pope if he oversteps his bounds?
Who will impeach the Supreme court justice? An irrelevant point.
You have gone from describing a popeless Catholicism with no mention of the magisterium to now having to minimizing his claim to unhindered excise of power.
Interesting, false and irrelevant.
No, i called you that because in your description of the church and how it acts in passing on doctrine you did not even mention the pope, or the place of the magisterium.
Quite amusing. Of course, as I have stated, unlike those attacking the Church I have no need of inserting papal prerogatives into every discussion of Catholic life. Why is that? Because I have a balanced and historically sound view of the faith. If you are obsessed with popes, by all means write about them, but I am only interested in responding to those issues which are related to the actual topic under discussion. As for my original point regarding the war on tradition and the effect it has had on Mass attendance, I believe I have covered it quite clearly. I have even responded to any meaningful, and many less than meaningful, questions which have arisen from those original comments. There is nothing new in any of this. You are merely repeating your already refuted claims.