Morals and Alexander VI

[billcu1]

Yes, the charges of nepotism are not without merit. He placed his children, notably is son Cesare in high positions of power. The charge of simony may be true as well, but just in case you’re getting there, simony does not invalidate a papal election.

I was just saying it’s a sin. And of course can be forgiven. I have also read by questionable sources that he had 12 children by different women all during his papacy.

 

[porthos11]

I was just saying it’s a sin. And of course can be forgiven. I have also read by questionable sources that he had 12 children by different women all during his papacy.

False. Not all of Alexander’s children were born while he was Pope.

At least his four acknowledged ones by Vanozza dei Cattanei, which include Cesare and Lucrezia, were all born before he became Pope. Guilia Farnese’s daughter Laura may have been the Pope’s, born after his election, but her paternity is officially that of Giulia’s husband Orsino, so there is some dispute on this matter. There were five other children whose maternity is uncertain.

 

[Wesrock]

The notion of infallibility clearly does not stem from the apostles. Paul had occasion to correct Peter, just as Christians should correct the pope today. There is no basis for ex cathedra in scripture:

spectator.org/articles/54802/when-paul-corrected-peter

Papal infallibility does not mean being above correction. Peter was not teaching in error on faith and morals when Paul rebuked him. In fact, it was Peter who pronounced that gentiles be accepted into the faith and not be bound by dietary laws. His error was that, in trying not to scandalized the Jewish community, he presented a bad example which gave even greater scandal. But Peter’s concerns were not themselves in error, considering the warnings that Paul gives to those strong in faith about not scandalizing those weak in faith.

Jesus quoted Isaiah 22:22 when appointing Peter as first among the apostles, relating Peter to the position of chief steward in the Kingdom of Judah under the Davidic kings. Furthermore, there is attestation from the Church fathers about being in union in belief with the Church of Rome, and being in error if you are not – it clearly isn’t a 19th century invention.

And, neither Catholic nor Orthodox, whatever differences there are over the primacy of Rome, would agree that scripture is the only authoritative source for our religion.

 

[billcu1]

Vatican I clarified what had always been there.

Many have the opinion that the Catholic Church should stop teaching absolute truth, and go with relativism.

It’s already been said, Paul corrected Peter for his behavior, not his teaching. How Peter could be teaching while hiding is beyond me. You mean the Latin term is not in scripture. Peter wrote two infallible ex cathedra books, and there dozens of scriptures indicating Peter’s role as leader of the Apostles. What is not in scripture is the anti-Catholic definition and it’s not the same definition as historical Christianity.

Maybe you have an infallible document you can cite that takes scripture out of context, or contains errors in faith and morals.
Matthew 10:20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Luke 12:12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that very hour what you ought to say.”
Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.
Matt. 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
For Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.
Matthew 18:17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
The Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.
John 11:48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place[h] and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.” 51 He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. 53 So from that day on they planned to put him to death.

Some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus’ death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.
There are several more scriptures on this matter.
The rise of the Church, all things considered, was a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself. Since the canon of the Bible wasn’t completed until 397 , without apostolic succession there would be no authority to do so. Unless, of course, you are going by the latest anti-Catholic definition, plus a revised version of early church history.

http://s5.postimg.org/t7auuyw7b/church_bible_based.jpg

Peter wrote 2 infallible ex cathedra books. OK What were they? I don’t believe they are listed above from my view here. And how do we analyze ex cathedra here? Certain things are being said that are infallible right?

 

[billcu1]

There was one Pope to my knowledge who was going to change the Bible and I guess give it ex cathedra status. This Pope’s bible was full of errors. The day he was going to give it ex cathedra status he was found dead. Who was that?

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Several posts have been removed for off topic content or art.

Please remain on topic which is only related to Morals and Alexander VI