Drawn to Catholicism...but have reservations.

[Thepeug]

ZoeTheodora:

Serafin wrote:

Could you clarify, please? Are you referring to the Latin Church vis-a-vis the various Eastern Churches faithful to Rome? Are you honestly arguing that this constitutes “fragmentation”? :ehh: Ever hear of “unity in diversity”?

ZT

ZT,

What about schismatic groups like the SSPX? Don’t they consider the Chair of Peter to be empty? Also, I’ve heard of groups such as the Old Catholic Church and the Christian Catholic Church that deny infallibility and the IC. What is their relation to Rome? Surely they’re not considered faithful to Rome if they deny the very authority of its leader. When and why were these groups formed?

In Christ,

Chris

 

[katiem]

My father once told me that he prayed,“Lord, I want the truth, I don’t care where it leads me, what denomination it lies in, I just want the truth.” He was led to the catholic church. I believe the Holy Spirit is the one drawing you to the church. You have to be open to the truth. God will lead you home. Christ prayed that we would all be one. My prayer is that one by one all lost sheep will come home.

You need to order Father Corapi’s teaching on the catechism of the catholic church. I cannot tell you what a blessing this series is. You can order the series from www.fathercorapi.com . You will not be sorry. He does a wonderful job explaining the teachings of the church, which are the teachings of Christ.I cannot say enough about this series. It will be very helpful.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From ***Libellus professionis fidei ***(AD 517)…

"[Our] first safety is to guard the rule of the right faith and to deviate in no wise from the ordinances of the Fathers; because we cannot pass over the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ who said: “*Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church” … *[Matt 16:18]. These [words] which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain. …

And therefore I hope that I may merit to be in the one communion with you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which there is the whole and the true and the perfect solidity of the Christian religion … I have with my own hand signed this profession of mine, and to you Hormisdas, the holy and venerable Pope of the City of Rome, I have directed it. **" **(Denzinger 171)

“This rule of faith, after it was proposed to the bishops who had been sharers of the Acacian schism, was subscribed to by all the bishops of the Orient, by the emperor Justinian, and by the Constantinopolitan partriarchs Epiphanius, John, Menna, and finally in the eighth ecumenical Synod (Constantinople VI), act. I, by the Greek and Latin Fathers” (Denzinger, pg 73, footnote 1)

From *Super quibusdam, *Clement VI, 1351:

the Roman Pontiff alone, when doubts arise regarding the Catholic faith, through authentic decision can impose the limit to which all must inviolably adhere, and that whatever by the authority of the keys handed to him by Christ, he determines to be true is true and Catholic, and what he determines to be false and heretical, must be so regarded. (Denzinger 570q)

God bless,

Dave

 

[Serafin]

Could you clarify, please? Are you referring to the Latin Church vis-a-vis the various Eastern Churches faithful to Rome? Are you honestly arguing that this constitutes "fragmentation

??? Ever hear of the Orthodox, the Oriental Churches, the Old Catholic Churches, not in communion with Rome? Of these at least the Orthodox claim Rome is schismatic. How can you deny fragmentation after the schim of 1054? Remember the Church of England, the Reformation and the other “separated brethren”…are they somehow not in the equation as part of the body of Christ?

Ever hear of “unity in diversity”?

Huh???..please ,I am Anglican!

All Christians in union with the successor of Peter comprise the Catholic Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Sez you. ! That is of course the definition of your particular church, which the rest of Christendom does not share… here is another one for you:

“We believe that all who have been duly baptized with water in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost, are members of the Holy Catholic Church…”

I assume you’ve read the entire extant patristic corpus?

No more than you! Certainly enough to know that what you assert about "infalible succesors of Peter just isn’t there.

As various contributors to this thread have already painstakingly pointed out, the fact that the term “papal infallibility” doesn’t occur in Scripture or in the earliest patristic writings does not mean the doctrine isn’t there

I am glad you admit to the fact that the term is explicitly not found in Scripture and early writings. As far as the doctrine being found there… that is stretching the imagination just a bit!

(The terms “Trinity,” “Hypostatic Union,” and “Divinity of the Holy Spirit” also don’t appear in Scripture or the earliest patristic writings. Yet I assume you wouldn’t reject those doctrines merely because they are not explicit in the earliest Christian writings. )

The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit are explicitly testified to both in Scripture and early christian writings, if not using those terms. The same cannot be said about papal infalibility.

The Vatican I formulation of the dogma is more crystallized, more explicit, more precise than earlier formulations found in Scripture and the Fathers. But it is still the same doctrine, with the same DNA, as it were. (Teeny mustard seed grows into large bush…looks different, but it’s the same organism with the same DNA…hmmm, where have I seen that analogy before? )

Yep …the mustard seed, tiny, grows …agreed……but there is no way that from the DNA of a mustard seed a mango tree or a cactus should grow! Cancers grow on people and funguses on plants…but they are not “normal development” and should not be there. Sometimes things look odd and sound extraneous because they are…enter Vatican I…!

BTW, there are key patristic passages that almost seem to anticipate Vatican I in the remarkable explicitness of their testimony to papal infallibility. I’m at work right now, but I will try to find 'em for you later. IIRC, St. Cyprian is the author of one such passage; Maximos the Confessor of another; and there are others as well.

While you are at it , will you comment on the passage of the “infalible fisherman” from St John Christotom…its really explicit there! :ehh:

Blessings to you

Serafin +

 

[Serafin]

itsjustdave1988:

Bishops appointed by Peter are not successors of Peter.

God bless,

Dave

Really , I though apostolic succession had to do with just that!

Blessings

Serafin

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Thepeug,

What about schismatic groups like the SSPX? Don’t they consider the Chair of Peter to be empty?

No. You are thinking of sedavacantists. The SSPX profess “filial devotion and loyalty to Pope John Paul II, the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ.” However, the SSPX assert “Vatican II adulterated Catholic teaching.” Pope John Paul II states regarding the SSPX movement:

I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law. (*Ecclesia Dei, *1988)

Also, I’ve heard of groups such as the Old Catholic Church and the Christian Catholic Church that deny infallibility and the IC. What is their relation to Rome?

They are not part of the Catholic Church. The Old Catholics could not abide by the decrees of Vatican I. I have no clue who the Christian Catholic Church are, but if they deny infallibility, they are also heretics who incur automatic excommunication, no matter what they call themselves.

Every Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church had those who disagreed. The Arians disagreed with the Council of Nicea, the Nestorians disagreed with the Council of Ephesus, the Monophysites disagreed with the Council of Chalceon, etc. etc.

St. Irenaeus, who Protestant patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly states “summarized orthodoxy of the second century”, asserted the following:

we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

This is as true now as it was in the 2nd century.

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Really , I though apostolic succession had to do with just that!

Well, perhaps you should study it further. Apostolic succession has been maintained in Greek/Oriental Orthodox Churches, as well as in the Catholic Church. It is not the same as the successorship of St. Peter as keeper of the keys of the kingdom.

For example, my Bishop was ordained by a Bishop, who was ordained by a Bishop, etc. etc. who was ordained by an apostle. That is apostolic succession. However, although my Bishop’s ordination is a result of apostolic succession, it doesn’t mean that my bishop is Peter’s successor. In fact, my Bishop was appointed to his diocese by Pope John Paul II, much like St. Evodius of Antioch was appointed to his metropolitan by St. Peter. Neither of the two appointments mean they are the successors of St. Peter. Ya see, Pope John Paul II is still the Pope, just like Pope St. Peter was still the Pope, after the appointments they make.

St. Peter did not appoint the successor to his office as chief minister of the Universal Church for the very simple reason that he held that chair until his death. After Peter’s death, his successor, Pope St. Linus was appointed.

That’s why the testimony of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (AD 431) asserts the successor to Peter is Pope Coelestine and the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) asserts that Peter’s successor is Pope Leo I.

Are you trying to convince us you know more than the Bishops of these great synods as to who the successor of St. Peter really is?

God bless,

Dave

 

[prodromos]

ZoeTheodora:

Jesus seems to disagree with you. He told His disciples to obey the teaching of the Jewish authorities because they “sat in Moses’ chair”–not because they were exemplary people.

IOW, their authority stemmed from their God-given office, not from their persons. “Do what they say, not what they do,” Jesus urged.

Whereas in Matthew 12:11, Jesus appears to be telling us to do as they do, not as they say

Yes, Jesus told His disciples to obey the teaching of the Jewish authorities but He did not tell them that their teaching was correct. Why don’t you read the rest of Matthew 23 where Jesus had spoken of the scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses’ chair.
Matthew 23:13-33:

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men; for ye do not enter, nor do ye suffer those that are entering to go in. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye compass the sea and the dry [land] to make one proselyte, and when he is become [such], ye make him twofold more [the] son of hell than yourselves. 16 Woe to you, blind guides, who say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor. 17 Fools and blind, for which is greater, the gold, or the temple which sanctifies the gold? 18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it is a debtor. 19 [Fools and] blind ones, for which is greater, the gift, or the altar which sanctifies the gift? 20 He therefore that swears by the altar swears by it and by all things that are upon it. 21 And he that swears by the temple swears by it and by him that dwells in it. 22 And he that swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him that sits upon it. 23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithes of mint and anise and cummin, and ye have left aside the weightier matters of the law, judgment and mercy and faith: these ye ought to have done and not have left those aside. 24 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat, but drink down the camel. 25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within they are full of rapine and intemperance. 26 Blind Pharisee, make clean first the inside of the cup and of the dish, that their outside also may become clean. 27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye are like whited sepulchres, which appear beautiful outwardly, but within are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Thus also ye , outwardly ye appear righteous to men, but within are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. 29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets and adorn the tombs of the just, 30 and ye say, If we had been in the days of our fathers we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 So that ye bear witness of yourselves that ye are sons of those who slew the prophets: 32 and ye , fill ye up the measure of your fathers. 33 Serpents, offspring of vipers, how should ye escape the judgment of hell?

I’ll let you draw your own conclusions as to what the above scripture says regarding those who sit in Peter’s chair.

John.

 

[Serafin]

Hi:

You might as well comment on these…

6th Ecumenical Council , thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, "…After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to** Pope**

Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign…to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor…them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, …we punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine."

…the sixth Ecumenical Council sixteenth session, on August 9, 681… “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus”

…“Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them.”

September 16, 681"…The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however,** the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison**, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome.

blessings

Serafin

 

[Thepeug]

Serafin has a point…if the Bishop of Rome was anathema, how could he have been protected from error by the Spirit?

 

[Serafin]

Are you trying to convince us you know more than the Bishops of these great synods as to who the successor of St. Peter really is?

Relax brother “dude”, asking is not “trying to convince”

Blessings

Serafin +

 

[MariaG]

Hi Serafin,

If you already said or listed it, sorry, I must have missed it. But could you please list the source of these quotes? I would like to go look at them myself.

God Bless

 

[itsjustdave1988]

if the Bishop of Rome was anathema, how could he have been protected from error by the Spirit.

He is not ALWAYS protected by the Holy Spirit. He’s just a Christian, capable of sin, to include heresy, just like you and I. His protection is quite limited to his role as pastor and teacher of all Christians when he speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals. That is, when he formally proclaims that a doctrine on faith and morals must be believed by all the faithful.

As stated by Vatican I:

“The Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, i.e., when, exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, according to his supreme Apostolic authority, through the divine assistance promised to him in St. Peter, he defines doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, then under those circumstances he is empowered with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be equipped in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals.”

Pope John XXII held an erroneous view of the afterlife. It happens. Yet the Pope never taught such a thing as an infallible doctrine of the faith that must be held by all the faithful. Neither did Pope Honorius with his letter to Sergius mentioning “one Will of our Lord.”

This is why I really don’t understand why the doctrine of infallibility is a stumbling block for anyone. The doctrine is so limited. It’s been used twice in the last 150 years, perhaps three times if you count Pope John Paul II’s decision about the priesthood remaining all-male. The doctrine is merely the Church saying that it can be absolutely certain (infallibly so) that Jesus has a divine nature, for example, yet is fairly certain (but not infallibly so) that Mary was perpetually sinless.

Protestants are certain about some things too, and less certain about others. The difference being that they do not have a coherent dogmatic theology which can definitely tell us what they are absolutely certain about and what they are less certain about, because they deny all authority for doing so even exists. That’s why Protestant scholars describe even the Holy Bible as a “fallible list of infallible books.” How can they be certain about anything is they aren’t even infallibly certain about what books are Biblical and what books are not?

As for the details of Pope Honorius, I suggest you read the article below on Honorius to learn more about what really occurred.

Catholic Encyclopedia - "Pope Honorius I"
newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Honorius was neither declaring a dogma nor teaching officially to all the faithful. Rather, Honorius, in a letter to Sergius condemned two ambiguous theological expressions of Sergius–one of which can be understood in an orthodox way. John Symoponus, the man who wrote the letter of condemnation said that the Pope only meant to condemn that Christ has to *contrary *wills. Nonetheless, his letter to Sergius contained no ex cathedra doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by all the faithful of the universal Church. Therefore, he was not protected from error by the Holy Spirit and could make such an error.

His error was condemned by the 6th Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. However,** Pope Agatho never confirmed the council’s decrees** because he had died months before the decrees arrived in Rome. **Pope Leo II confirmed the council’s decree but in his letter of confirmation, made it clear that Honorius had not endorsed the Monothelitism of Sergius, but had failed in his duty to condemn it. **

From Warren Carroll, *The History of Christendom, *vol. 2: the Building of Christendom (Front Royal: Christendom College Press, 1987), p. 254:

Writing to the Emperor … Pope Leo II wrote that Pope Honorius was condemned because “he permitted the immaculate Faith to be subverted.” Writing in Latin to the Spanish bishops, he declared that Honorius was condemned for not at once extinguishing the flames of heresy, but rather gaining them by his negligence. To King Erwig he wrote that Honorius was condemned for negligence in not denouncing the heresy and for using an expression which the hertics were able to employ to advance their own cause …

… Pope Honorius, therfore, was never condemned for heresy by the supreme Church authority, but only for negligence [in] allowing a heresy to spread and grow, when he should have denounced it.

Remember the Constantinopolitan Bishop Anatolius’ letter to Pope Leo I regarding canon 28 of Chalcedon? Until ratified by the Pope, the councilar decrees have no force. If confirmed by the Pope, they are only confirmed in the form that he confirms them.

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Holy Scripture states that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” We simply trust that this is so, and under certain circumstances, what the Church teaches to be true, is infallibly so, acting in a way to truly be that “pillar and foundation of truth” that the Bible claims it is.

Why do Protestants refuse to assert that at least some of what it knows to be true, it knows is infallibly true? Or do they, but don’t like to use the “I” word?

By what authority, for example, do the Protestants claim that the Bible only consists of 66-books? Do they know this infallibly? If not, why ought I to trust their fallible opinion over any other? Luther excluded Revelation, James, Jude, and Hebrews from the NT. Can we be absolutely certain (infallibly so) that he was incorrect? A Catholic can, because the Catholic Church, as the “pillar and foundation of truth,” has defined infallibly what the canonical books of the Bible are. It is, for a Catholic, known INFALLIBLY to be a Sacred collection of INERRANT, and DIVINELY INSPIRED books–all 73 of them.

God bless,

Dave

 

[Serafin]

Dave:

Independent ofthe RC spin on this, one thing is clear, the council fathers did condemn Honorious, Pope of old Rome of heresy… ! Anyone can read that for themselves and you would do well to admit it!

“Ex cathedra” definitions aside, it does seem they were not aware of the modern take on “papal infallibility”. Pope Leo II’s letters do not lessen the significance of this event!

It is things like these that make the rest of us less receptive to RC claims! Sometimes RC apologists give the impression that they would explain away the sun if it contradicted any of your Churches dogmas! I do understand that you are bound to this by the regulations of your church… and am very thankful that I am not!

By the way, would this seem to be ex-cathedra to you?

Boniface, Bishop, Servant of the servants of God. For perpetual remembrance:

Urged on by our faith, we are obliged to believe and hold that there is one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. And we firmly believe and profess that outside of her there is no salvation nor remission of sins… Therefore, this one and single Church has one head and not two heads- … that is, Christ and Christ’s vicar, Peter and Peter’s successor. So, when the Greeks and others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ’s sheep …Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation. [7]

A little scary…Huh? Maybe “unclear”, “harmless”, “private opinion” in retrospect, but during his reign I wonder if any questioned wether this literary beauty was ex-cathedra or an optional belief for RC’s?

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Serafin]

Holy Scripture states that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” We simply trust that this is so, and under certain circumstances, what the Church teaches to be true, is infallibly so, acting in a way to truly be that “pillar and foundation of truth” that the Bible claims it is.

People are the church Dave…not just old bishops and theologians in Rome! To us all Christians are the Church, not just the Pope and his bishops! People, even well meaning ones can and have been wrong on a number of issues!

Your definition of the Church seems to me a little disembodied and limited…“The Church” is people…not just in Rome, or dead! Some of us people who are part of the Church, think some of you people are wrong! Your call to “trust” does not convince in the light of history . You say trust, we say dialogue, you say submit, we say compromise!

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Serafin]

Hi Dave:

As for the details of Pope Honorius, I suggest you read the article below on Honorius to learn more about what really occurred.

Catholic Encyclopedia - "Pope Honorius I"
newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Honorius was neither declaring a dogma nor teaching officially to all the faithful. Rather, Honorius, in a letter to Sergius condemned two ambiguous theological expressions of Sergius–one of which can be understood in an orthodox way. John Symoponus, the man who wrote the letter of condemnation said that the Pope only meant to condemn that Christ has to *contrary *wills. Nonetheless, his letter to Sergius contained no ex cathedra doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by all the faithful of the universal Church. Therefore, he was not protected from error by the Holy Spirit and could make such an error.

Thank you for the Catholic Encyclopedia link…for another perspective let me respectfully offer this one…

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-131.htm

I shall therefore say nothing further on this point but shall simply supply the leading proofs that Honorius was as a matter of fact condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

1. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the xiiith Session, near the beginning.

1. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session.
2. In the xvith Session the bishops exclaimed “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.”

1. In the decree of faith published at the xviijth Session it is stated that “the originator of all evil … found a fit tool for his will in … Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.”

1. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that “Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome” they had “punished with exclusion and anathema” because he followed the monothelites.

1. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it “has slain with anathema Honorius.”

1. The imperial decree speaks of the “unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed” and mentions among them “Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.” The Emperor goes on to anathematize “Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.”

1. Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.4

1. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the Trullan Canons (No. j.).

1. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.

1. Honorius’s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)

1. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus5 taken by each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II., "smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, "

1. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. Upon this we may well hear Bossuet: "They suppress as far as they can, the Liber Diurnus: they have erased this from the Roman Breviary. Rave they therefore hidden it?

With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Thepeug]

itsjustdave1988:

The doctrine is merely the Church saying that it can be absolutely certain (infallibly so) that Jesus has a divine nature, for example, yet is fairly certain (but not infallibly so) that Mary was perpetually sinless.

Dave,

I thought that the IC was Catholic dogma and that it was proclaimed infallibly at Vatican I. Is this not the case?

In Christ,

Chris

 

[ZoeTheodora]

OK, it’s official. Serafin has posted enough sneering contra-Catholic drivel to merit being serenaded with my very own ditty (sung to the tune of “Sailing, Sailing”):

Trolling, trolling,
Over the Catholic boards!
Though “free” from Rome,
We froth and foam
At clueless Papist hoardes.

Ohhhh!

Trolling, trolling,
Never let up a smidgen.
We’d rather bait
The Church we hate
Than practice our own religion.

“Don’t pinch it; it’s copyright.” – Psmith in Leave It to Psmith

God bless,

ZT

 

[Serafin]

OK, it’s official. Serafin has posted enough sneering contra-Catholic drivel to merit being serenaded with my very own ditty (sung to the tune of “Sailing, Sailing”):

Seranede to Zoe…to the sound of trumpets and conga drums, pick your tune!

Have no fear friendly folk
I don’t mean to sneer,
I have nothing against Rome…
but for me it is not home!

Mother Mary pray for us,
Serafin does love the Pope…
he has given us all hope,
but infallible… well “nope”!

Our religion is the same
Christ has taken all our shame,
There is One God, there is Christ
and the Spirit who gives light.

One day when we see his face
this all will seem like a jest,
and all our disagreements
nothing other than a test.

Blessings

Serafin