You are confused. My pointing out calmly why some of your arguments are stupid (like citing to Vatican I when you're trying to argue there isn't support for my view on the Papacy) isn't anger. It's just showing why you're off the mark.
Why do you, a devout Catholic, fail to go along with what Rome puts out?
I do go along. Conduct isn't always perfect, but then again we all fall short of the ideal mark as to what we profess, no? (Let she who is without sin . . . ). Vatican I defined the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. I agree with the theory, which is grounded on a long line of thought relating to the historic orthodoxy of the Roman See. Augustine is exemplary on this point:
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Here Augustine affirms the doctrine of the infallibility of the church and in particular cites to the succession of bishops from Peter ("Apostolic Succession") to support his argument about the historic orthodoxy of the Roman See.
What Vatican I said in the 19th Century makes more explicit what what Augustine said in the 5th Century.
What are you contending I'm not following?
So how does one know that the pope is speaking infallibly?
Because he says so?
The "church" is infallible? Seriously? Was the "church" infallible when they said no one who is not in subjection to the pope is saved or when they changed that to say that even those who are not subject to the pope are saved?
>>Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement<<
What is it with Catholics who simply take the rewritten made up history put out by the Catholic Church? Anyone who does a serious study of the history of the church in Rome should know that to assign a single "leader" in Rome for some sort of "single church" is total nonsense. Here is just one statement as an example.
"Very little is known about Linus. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 200) and the historian Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca. 339) identified him with the companion of Paul who sent greetings from Rome to Timothy in Ephesus (2 Timothy 4:21), but Scripture Scholars are generally hesistant to do so...It should be remembered that contrary to pious Catholic belief--that monoarchical episcopal structure of church governance (also known as the monarchical episcopate, in which each diocese was headed by a single bishop) still did not exist in Rome at this time (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 33-34). [McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 33-34.]
McBrien was a Catholic priest and Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. Information on him can be found here. He was also the general editor of the Encyclopedia of Catholicism.
The Catholic Church claims Linus succeeded Peter. That is neither shown in scripture or history. Anyone who does a cursory study can easily see that what the Catholic Church claims is fallacy.
O...
K...
One man's stupidity is anothers denial.
And it only took 14 centuries to clarify it.
I see...