Yes, through the Authority of Christ, as you say.
Amen, His late Holiness had a zero tolerance of any sort of ‘vulnerable’ abuse. He was greatly outspoken on the issue and swift to dismiss not only weak Priests but additionally any Bishop who allowed such Priests to remain in Office.
Please see my post above.
I have read your post and as much as I would like to subscribe to what you have said here, I just cannot. So many innocent children were abused on this man’s watch and that’s not to say that it hasn’t happened in Protestant churches as well but the Catholic church is the one in the spotlight right now. History has shown many popes to be very tolerant of some horribly despicable behavior and that is not to be nasty but to properly put it into perspective. I just think that so much more needs to be done for “Christ’s church” to really look like Christ’s church again.Please see my post above.
His late Holiness acted swiftly and effectively. His Pontificate was significant for his Ambassador-ship and good Stewardship of defending the most vulnerable in society.
To criticise him as he has been, is in my view not only error but tantamount to slanderous.
What is not being made extant is the fact that sadly some men gained entry to seminaries who were insincere in their intentions to be a Priest of God, rather seeing it as an opportunity to gain access to working with children.
It is very difficult to screen for that. But screen they now do.
This is nothing new, it is well known that during the time of Communist Russia, seminaries were ‘hit en-masse’ by men whose sole purpose was to inflitrate the Catholic Church in a communist plot to attempt to dismantle the Church from within.
It was also hoped that if enough agents got in, some would find their way upto the highest office so that they could influence Church teaching that was favourable to the communists.
True to His promise [Mt 16:18], none found their way into the Chair of Peter. His late Holiness and his current Holiness bear witness to the fact of their failure
Quite sure. This Anglo-Papist parish was only millimeters from the Chair of Peter. I must say a very rare and unusual community indeed. Anglicanism in ecstasy.
Hello Laura:
Never mind-I got it.
I used to say so myself until I locked in the piece about what Apostolic succession means when you’re not quibbling about it. I was “more” Catholic than a lot of Catholics in doctrine, devotion and praxis. In some ways I was a better evangelist to Catholics before I jumped the river because of that.
Affirmative. As a High Church Anglican I accepted all of the Marian dogmas (because they are TRUE!). My quibble was that I found it difficult to accept the latter promulgations ON THE SAME FOOTING AS THE ARTICLES OF THE CREED. I do now, but when I came into the Church, I was only at the point where I knew that if I could not deny the primacy of the See of Peter, then I could not deny these doctrines either, even if I didn’t quite “get it.”
Heavens, MG. I don’t quibble about Apostolic succession. Ya either got it or you don’t.
Yes, my friend. Catholics do need evangelizing to the fullness of their own faith. So many of them (us) reject core teachings.
I must admit that, about 35 years ago, I made a habit, merely out of curiousity, of asking my RC friends (I met a variety of such in my AF career) to explain the Immaculate Conception. This habit grew out of what I found was the almost invariable reply. I think you can guess what I usually got as an explanation.
Can we get to a point where we can differentiate between papal infailability and papal impeccability?