Office of Pope?.

[New_Year_SMS]

I am a born again Christian and I wanted to post this video titled: “Is there evidence that Jesus Christ established the office of Pope over His church.” It is a very interesting debate between Christian apologist Walter Martin and Roman Catholic priest Mitchell Pacwa over the office of Pope.
youtube.com/watch?v=bR5mM…eature=related

.

 

[rdscheirer]

This has come before numerous times- When Jesus called Peter Cephas (rock) in Aramaic -there is no Greek translation for Rock because Greek has male and female nouns. Therefore the translation into the Greek makes Peter seem like - little rock. See Isaiah for the Keys to the Kingdom reference.

 

[thistle]

I am a born again Christian and I wanted to post this video titled: “Is there evidence that Jesus Christ established the office of Pope over His church.” It is a very interesting debate between Christian apologist Walter Martin and Roman Catholic priest Mitchell Pacwa over the office of Pope.
youtube.com/watch?v=bR5mM…eature=related

.

Your profile says you are Hindu but your comment says Christian. Which are you?

 

[inkaneer]

Johnny come lately christians have a problem where the early church did not. The Early church knew Peter was boss just as the Israelites knew Moses was boss. Look at the council of Jerusalem. The scripture tells us there was great debate. The Peter stood up and everyone shut up. Why? The boss was speaking, that’s why and they knew it.

 

[thistle]

Johnny come lately christians have a problem where the early church did not. The Early church knew Peter was boss just as the Israelites knew Moses was boss. Look at the council of Jerusalem. The scripture tells us there was great debate. The Peter stood up and everyone shut up. Why? The boss was speaking, that’s why and they knew it.

 

[inkaneer]

I am a born again Christian and I wanted to post this video titled: “Is there evidence that Jesus Christ established the office of Pope over His church.” It is a very interesting debate between Christian apologist Walter Martin and Roman Catholic priest Mitchell Pacwa over the office of Pope.
.

The basic premise of the OP is a sham. That is because there is no office of Pope. There is an office of Bishop. In the early church bishops because of their authority and oversight of local churches were seen as having the same authority as fathers over their family. They gradually were called papa which is Greek for ‘Father’. In the west that terminology papa] gravitated to the Bishop of Rome but in the Coptic and some Eastern Rites bishops are still called papa. Of course Johnny come lately christians have no knowledge of, nor do they want knowledge of, the early church. It was much too much Catholic for them.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I am a born again Christian and I wanted to post this video titled: “Is there evidence that Jesus Christ established the office of Pope over His church.” It is a very interesting debate between Christian apologist Walter Martin and Roman Catholic priest Mitchell Pacwa over the office of Pope.
youtube.com/watch?v=bR5mM…eature=related

.

I watched parts 1 to 5 (I might point out I don’t normally get into video watching, but I did this time).

My own position is as an ex-Protestant who believes the Catholic Church is the closest to the truth.

That Christ was establishing an office is beyond doubt. The Papacy has been going for 2000 years and will continue to do so, as “the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church”. What’s the use of having a church if you’re not going to give it any authority?

As for Petrine supremacy -

1. It was Peter who spoke at Pentecost, the first outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
2. It was Peter who declared the death sentence against Ananias & Sapphira.
3. It was Peter who first took the Gospel to the Gentiles.
4. It was Peter’s boat from which Christ preached the beatitudes.
5. In all lists of the apostles, Peter is listed first.
6. Peter is mentioned far in excess of then next most mentioned apostle, John.
7. It is Peter whom Christ declares the shepherd of his sheep.
8. It is Peter who declared Christ the Messiah.
9. It was Peter who confirmed the council’s decisions.
10. It was Peter who walked on water.
11. It was Peter to whom Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.
12. It was Peter to whom Christ said “Confirm your brethren”.
13. It was Peter who performed the first apostolic miracle after Christ’s resurrection (lame beggar at the temple).
14. It was to Peter that Paul went after his conversion and stayed with for 15 days.
15. It was Peter who spoke to the Sanhedrin in the name of the Apostles.

When Paul did rebuke Peter, he does not mention rebuking anybody else, but Peter, even though the others were doing the same thing ("… the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy…". Why? Because he recognised Peter’s authority, and by rebuking Peter, he rebuked them all.

Having said all that, I haven’t got much admiration for the “Infallibility” doctrine. It was brought in at a time of ultra-montanism, using dishonest means, and all it does is provide one more unnecessary barrier to eventual unification. I haven’t got much admiration for the artificial contraception argument either, as far as that goes. But that’s another story.

But I believe the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, but we need to separate the man from the office. As one priest said to me, “infallibility” doesn’t mean the Pope is infallible, but only when he speaks* ex cathedra * on a matter of faith and morals, and to the whole church. As far as I know, it’s only been invoked twice since Vatican I, well over a century ago.

But I don’t see the necessity for it. The pope’s authority comes from Christ, not a bunch of ultramontanists. Taken at face value, the Pope could give you a tip for next Saturday’s races and call it infallible.

 

[inkaneer]

I watched parts 1 to 5 (I might point out I don’t normally get into video watching, but I did this time).

My own position is as an ex-Protestant who believes the Catholic Church is the closest to the truth.

That Christ was establishing an office is beyond doubt. The Papacy has been going for 2000 years and will continue to do so, as “the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church”. What’s the use of having a church if you’re not going to give it any authority?

As for Petrine supremacy -

1. It was Peter who spoke at Pentecost, the first outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
2. It was Peter who declared the death sentence against Ananias & Sapphira.
3. It was Peter who first took the Gospel to the Gentiles.
4. It was Peter’s boat from which Christ preached the beatitudes.
5. In all lists of the apostles, Peter is listed first.
6. Peter is mentioned far in excess of then next most mentioned apostle, John.
7. It is Peter whom Christ declares the shepherd of his sheep.
8. It is Peter who declared Christ the Messiah.
9. It was Peter who confirmed the council’s decisions.
10. It was Peter who walked on water.
11. It was Peter to whom Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.
12. It was Peter to whom Christ said “Confirm your brethren”.
13. It was Peter who performed the first apostolic miracle after Christ’s resurrection (lame beggar at the temple).
14. It was to Peter that Paul went after his conversion and stayed with for 15 days.
15. It was Peter who spoke to the Sanhedrin in the name of the Apostles.

When Paul did rebuke Peter, he does not mention rebuking anybody else, but Peter, even though the others were doing the same thing ("… the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy…". Why? Because he recognised Peter’s authority, and by rebuking Peter, he rebuked them all.

Having said all that, I haven’t got much admiration for the “Infallibility” doctrine. It was brought in at a time of ultra-montanism, using dishonest means, and all it does is provide one more unnecessary barrier to eventual unification. I haven’t got much admiration for the artificial contraception argument either, as far as that goes. But that’s another story.

But I believe the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, but we need to separate the man from the office. As one priest said to me, “infallibility” doesn’t mean the Pope is infallible, but only when he speaks* ex cathedra * on a matter of faith and morals, and to the whole church. As far as I know, it’s only been invoked twice since Vatican I, well over a century ago.

But I don’t see the necessity for it. The pope’s authority comes from Christ, not a bunch of ultramontanists. Taken at face value, the Pope could give you a tip for next Saturday’s races and call it infallible.

Your protestant past is showing, badly. First of all regarding the doctrine of Papal infallibility you make the sa,me mistake that protestants make by taking the date that the doctrine was formally defined as the date of it’s inception. That is totally wrong. There are no ‘new’ doctrines. Doctrines have always been there although not defined. The Doctrine of the Trinity is a good example. God did not become a triune God in the Fifth century when the Trinity doctrine was defined. God was always a triune God. The definition added nothing to the doctrine but only made our understanding of it better. And isn’t that the whole purpose of definition in the first place? Same is true with Papal infallibility. Mt 16:18,19 was not inserted into the Bible in the 19th century. It has always been there. The only thing that happened in the 19th century was our understanding of it was improved due to formal definition.

As for Papal infallibility CA has a good tract on it which you can access here:

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Three more things to consider. Firstly, imagine if, in the Old Testament, God did not send prophets who could infallibly declare, “Thus sayeth the Lord…” What could keep the OT Israelites in line? A reading of the OT shows clearly that they certainly had a hard enough time even with the prophets. Secondly, imagine that Jesus established a church and then prayed that it be one but made no provision how it could remain as one. What do you think will happen? Third, look at the so called protestant “reformation” and its resultant divisions and thousands of sects. That’s the end result when there is no one in authority to declare infallibly the word of God. I embrace papal infallibility as one of the greatest gifts to the church other than the Eucharist. For as Augustine once said:

“…two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Your protestant past is showing, badly. First of all regarding the doctrine of Papal infallibility you make the sa,me mistake that protestants make by taking the date that the doctrine was formally defined as the date of it’s inception. That is totally wrong. There are no ‘new’ doctrines. Doctrines have always been there although not defined. The Doctrine of the Trinity is a good example. God did not become a triune God in the Fifth century when the Trinity doctrine was defined. God was always a triune God. The definition added nothing to the doctrine but only made our understanding of it better. And isn’t that the whole purpose of definition in the first place? Same is true with Papal infallibility. Mt 16:18,19 was not inserted into the Bible in the 19th century. It has always been there. The only thing that happened in the 19th century was our understanding of it was improved due to formal definition.

As for Papal infallibility CA has a good tract on it which you can access here:

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Three more things to consider. Firstly, imagine if, in the Old Testament, God did not send prophets who could infallibly declare, “Thus sayeth the Lord…” What could keep the OT Israelites in line? A reading of the OT shows clearly that they certainly had a hard enough time even with the prophets. Secondly, imagine that Jesus established a church and then prayed that it be one but made no provision how it could remain as one. What do you think will happen? Third, look at the so called protestant “reformation” and its resultant divisions and thousands of sects. That’s the end result when there is no one in authority to declare infallibly the word of God. I embrace papal infallibility as one of the greatest gifts to the church other than the Eucharist. For as Augustine once said:

“…two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

The church got along without a formal doctrine of “infallibility” for nearly two millenia. But faced with the challenge of modernity, and revolutionary times, the ultramontanists suddendly deemed it necessary to put it in formal writing.

I’ll stick to my opinion. It’s unnecessary.

 

[inkaneer]

The church got along without a formal doctrine of “infallibility” for nearly two millenia. But faced with the challenge of modernity, and revolutionary times, the ultramontanists suddendly deemed it necessary to put it in formal writing.

I’ll stick to my opinion. It’s unnecessary.

So it is the formal definition that you don’t care for. Is that it? Pray tell us what then is your definition of papal infallibility?

As for for your charge that it was due to the ultramontanists that it was deemed necessary to formally define papal infallibility I say the reason is a moot point. The early church did not define the Trinity doctrine because they felt like it. There was a need to define it and that need was due to a heresy. Same with Papal Infallibility. Most of the formal definitions of doctrine in the Church are due to some heretical teaching that muddies the water. Thus the doctrine is defined and the muddy water is made clear. That is something that cannot happen in protestantism where they are forced to adopt a “big tent” type of christianity and accept other denominations despite the differences in doctrine.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

So it is the formal definition that you don’t care for. Is that it? Pray tell us what then is your definition of papal infallibility?

As for for your charge that it was due to the ultramontanists that it was deemed necessary to formally define papal infallibility I say the reason is a moot point. The early church did not define the Trinity doctrine because they felt like it. There was a need to define it and that need was due to a heresy. Same with Papal Infallibility. Most of the formal definitions of doctrine in the Church are due to some heretical teaching that muddies the water. <Snip)

I said it was unnecessary and it wasn’t even honest. No doubt the source of the following quotes is not Catholic, but you might note he quoted Hans Kung, Catholic theologian.

I’ll say it again, I haven’t got much time for it.

catholicshaveachoice.com/Against%20Papal%20Infallibility.htm

"

It was Pope Pius IX (pope from 1846-78) who initiated the infallibility movement. Pope Pius IX called Vatican I Council which met 93 times between December 8, 1869, and September 1, 1870. He was Machiavellian in his approach. In pursuit of the enactment of the doctrine, he violated the very tenet of Christian ethics: “The end never justifies the means. The realization that the end of Roman Catholic domination over the government of the worlds and their citizens was coming to an end. Theologian Hans Küng: “Pius IX had a sense of divine mission which he carried to extremes; he engaged in double dealing; he was mentally disturbed; and he misused his office.” (For his critique, his license to teach theology in the name of the Catholic Church was revoked in 1979.)

“…So repressive were the agenda and official procedures; so one-sided and partisan
were the selection of main theological experts and the composition of both the conciliar
commissions and the conciliar presidium; so numerous were the means of pressure
(moral, psychological, church-political, newspaper campaigns, threatened withdrawal of
financial support, harassment by the police) to which the bishops of the anti-Infallibilist
minority and the Infallibilist majority were exposed; so varied were the forms of
manipulation applied, at the pope’s behest, to advance the definition before, during, and
after the Council that…as painful and embarrassing as it may be to admit, this Council
resembled a well-organized and manipulated totalitarian party congress rather than a
free gathering of Christian people.”

“How the Pope became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion- 1979.” **Father August Bernhard Hasler, Catholic priest, historian, and former staff member of the Vatican’s Secretariat for Christian Unity . In his book, Hasler described Pope Pius IX:

"* Insane, dishonest**

• Used coercion (financial pressure on the bishops) and intimidation, slave driver (“bullied the bishops directly, “drove the bishops mercilessly”

• The council was not permitted to postpone or recess under any circumstances, despite
  meeting in the harsh summer heat and in the middle of a malaria epidemic which caused
  a number of bishops to fall seriously ill. Upon learning of the spreading disease among
  the ranks of his bishops, Pius reportedly declared “Che crepino pure” (Let them croak)

• Pius stacked the council. (There were 96 consulting positions, and among them 59
  were filled by Italians (his biggest supporters) and just 37 to officials from other countries. Out of those last 37, a mere 6 had any prior experience working with the Vatican.)

• “Other bishops, like Bishop Henri Manret, openly called Pius IX a liar, so the charge was not at all unusual or suspect.”

** * “Cardinal Gustav von Hohenlohe told a friend:” ‘In my entire life, I have never met a man who was less particular about the truth than Pius IX.” “**He never admitted to the things he had done in his efforts to have infallibility declared an official Church dogma.”

• “Bishop Felix Dupanloupe wrote in his diary: "I’m not going to the Council anymore. The violence, the shamelessness, even more the falsity, vanity, and continual lying force me to keep my distance."

• “Bishop Lecourtier from France, who was so discouraged that he threw his notes into
  the Tiber river and simply went home only to have his bishopric taken away for his
  trouble, complained:

An imposing minority, representing the faith of more than one hundred million
Catholics, that is almost half the entire Church, is crushed beneath the yoke of a
restrictive agenda, which is contradicts conciliar traditions. It is crushed by
commissions which have not been truly elected and which dare to insert
undebated paragraphs in the text after debate has closed. It is crushed by the
absolute absence of discussion, response, objections,

“Pius had the council convened in Saint Peter’s Basilica. What’s wrong with that? Well,
that place has some of the worst acoustics possible, making it incredibly difficult for
anyone to actually hear what was going on, … .

Bishop Hefele wrote on this: “I now sit right next to the Secretary’s desk, in the immediate vicinity of the cardinals…but often I can’t hear what is being said from the speaker’s platform.”

• “…the pope exacerbated it by refusing to allow any copies of the speeches to be
  printed, preventing the cardinals from actually taking the time to study them carefully.
  Moreover, small group discussions in which issues could be debated and collectively
  reviewed were expressly prohibited …Finally,
  only committee members were given permission to reply to a speech immediately after it
  had been given - coincidentally, all committee members supported infallibility.”

 

[inkaneer]

Your first error was to believe Hasler. August Bernhard Hasler attributed the following quote regarding scripture to Bishop Stossmayer:

“I do not find one single chapter, or one little verse in which Jesus Christ gives to St. Peter the mastery over the apostles, his fellow-workers. . . . What has surprised me most, and what moreover is capable of demonstration, is the silence of St. Peter himself!”

The problem is that Stossmayer never said it. It is a fraud. The quotation quoted by Hasler and also reproduced by a former priest named Fr. Alexey Young in his article in the October 1995 issue of *The Christian Activist *did not come from Strossmayer at all. It was a forgery composed by a former Augustinian priest named Jose Augustin de Escudero.

Listen if you want to be Catholic then be Catholic. You cannot straddle the fence and claim you are a Catholic but hold onto Protestant beliefs and frequent radical protestant websites. Quite frankly I don’t think you are Catholic. I think you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing. You would not be the first one to come on here lying about being Catholic and you probably won’t be the last either.

 

[inkaneer]

I said it was unnecessary and it wasn’t even honest. No doubt the source of the following quotes is not Catholic, but you might note he quoted Hans Kung, Catholic theologian.

I’ll say it again, I haven’t got much time for it.

catholicshaveachoice.com/Against%20Papal%20Infallibility.htm

"

I went to this site, “catholicshaveachoice” that you posted the URL to; Guess what I found? This little gem on their home page:

“…We have all the Jewels of Catholicism without the obstacles. Our founding Bishop, Carlos Duarte-Costa, who broke from the Roman Catholic Church in 1945, had a prophetic vision for a more compassionate and Christ-like Church.”

Note they say Bishop, Carlos Duarte-Costa, "broke with the Roman Catholic Church in 1945’’. In actuality in 1945 Bishop, Carlos Duarte-Costa was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII for doctrinal and canonical error.

In short, these guys are no better than anti Catholic protestants. You say you are Catholic. I say you are not. Maybe that is why you say, “I haven’t got much time for it.”
If you were Catholic, you would have time for it.
After all, what protestant does?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I went to this site, “catholicshaveachoice” that you posted the URL to; Guess what I found? This little gem on their home page:

“…We have all the Jewels of Catholicism without the obstacles. Our founding Bishop, Carlos Duarte-Costa, who broke from the Roman Catholic Church in 1945, had a prophetic vision for a more compassionate and Christ-like Church.”

Note they say Bishop, Carlos Duarte-Costa, "broke with the Roman Catholic Church in 1945’’. In actuality in 1945 Bishop, Carlos Duarte-Costa was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII for doctrinal and canonical error.

In short, these guys are no better than anti Catholic protestants. You say you are Catholic. I say you are not. Maybe that is why you say, “I haven’t got much time for it.”
If you were Catholic, you would have time for it.
After all, what protestant does?

I don’t care where the quotes came from. If they’re accurate, then I’ll draw my own conclusions. No doubt if I were to give quotes denigrating Martin Luther from a non-Catholic source you wouldn’t have much trouble with them, would you?

Even if they were accurate.

And I said, no doubt the quotes came from a non-Catholic source, if you re-read my post.

So this time, I’ll quote from “Saints and Sinners - A History of the Popes” - by Eamon Duffy, a Catholic.

"The leading English Ultramontanist Henry Edward Manning, whose main ally at Rome was Monsignor George Talbot, for many years Pio Nono’s (Pope Pius IX) most trusted confidant. Talbot ended his life in a lunatic asylum, and was probably unbalanced for years before his breakdown. He was certainly devious, feline, wreathed in intrigue, his view of the world and the Church a perpetual game of cowboys and Indians, heroes and villains. The villains included most of the English bishops, whom he thought disloyal anti-papalists, and Newman himself, in Talbot’s view ‘the most dangerous man in England’, still half a Protestant, and a leader of rebels - “his spirit must be crushed”. (My comment - how’s that for loving Christian advice from a papal adviser re. Cardinal Newman??) Talbot had the Pope’s ear, and was the key mover in the surprise appointment of Manning to succeed Cardinal Wiseman as archbishop of Westminster in 1865. (Note - my comment - this is the sort of adviser Pius IX had).

…“Both sides lobbied and plotted frantically. Manning recorded that the inopportunist minority 'met often, and we met weekly to watch and counteract. When they went to Pius XI we went also. It was a running fight.” (My comment - is this the apostolic Magisterium in action? If so, I wouldn’t give their rulings much credence). The Pope’s hand was shown on 18 June, when the Dominican theologican Cardinal Guidi, Archbishop of Bologna, criticised the heading of the draft decree on infallibility, which ran “On the infallibiilty of the Roman Pontiff”. This was erroneous, Guidi insisted: the Pope was not infallible, though his teaching might be. Infallible teaching is irreformable, the teacher is not. Guidi went on to argue that a condition of infallibility was that it should not be exercised rashly. The Pope teaches in consultation with other bishops, and this needed to be indicated in the decree. He proposed that the wording should state that the Pope is assisted by the “counsel of the bishops manifesting the tradition of the churches”. This intervention was all the more powerful because Guidi was an infallibilist, basically in favour of the definition. His careful theological intervention, one of the weightiest of the whole council, was designed to rule out any notion of an inspired or personally infallible Pope, and to protect the truth that the Pope taught not as an isolated monarch, but as first among bishops. He was embraced by members of the minority as he descended from the podium. But Pio Nono was enraged. He summoned Gaudi and berated him, as a cardinal and a bishop of the Patrimony, for treachery. Guidi replied that he had only said that bishops are witnesses to the tradition. “Witnesses of tradition?” the Pope replied, “I am the tradition”.

There’s more. I still haven’t got much time for it - it is merely an unnecessary barrier.

I know this much - no matter how much the Catholic Church desires unification of all under the Pope, while this particular doctrine stands as stated, there isn’t a hope in hell of reunification.

 

[Abu]

Bob Crowley
I haven’t got much admiration for the “Infallibility” doctrine. It was brought in at a time of ultra-montanism, using dishonest means, and all it does is provide one more unnecessary barrier to eventual unification. I haven’t got much admiration for the artificial contraception argument either, as far as that goes.

How extraordinary and incorrect.

The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21: 15-17; Mt 28:19-20; 1 Tim 3:15), and for the final proposed dogma of Vatican I there were 471 bishops for and 130 against; more than two-thirds bishops for. Sixty-six bishops then returned to their dioceses before the Public Session, but all eventually declared full acceptance of the defined doctrine. [Dr Leslie Rumble, *Questions People Ask, Chevalier, 1975, p 159].

The denigration of the dogma of papal primacy and infallibility is a monstrous fantasy, and Vatican II repeats this teaching in the *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church *(Lumen Gentium) (#18):
“This sacred synod following in the steps of the First Vatican Council… This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful….”

I haven’t got much admiration for the artificial contraception argument either, as far as that goes. As far as I know, it’s only been invoked twice since Vatican I, well over a century ago.

Incorrect.
**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

Donum Veritatis, CDF 1990 (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian), is also very helpful and authoritative on the truth of doctrine:
“36. The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent. In fact this freedom does not indicate at all freedom with regard to the truth but signifies the free self-determination of the person in conformity with his moral obligation to accept the truth.”

 

[inkaneer]

I don’t care where the quotes came from. If they’re accurate, then I’ll draw my own conclusions. No doubt if I were to give quotes denigrating Martin Luther from a non-Catholic source you wouldn’t have much trouble with them, would you?

Even if they were accurate.

And I said, no doubt the quotes came from a non-Catholic source, if you re-read my post.

I have no problems with anything that denigrates the Church as long as it is accurate and true. Hasler committed fraud by atributing a statement to Bishop Stossmayer that the bishop never made and which subsequently was traced to a fraudulent work by an excommunicated priest. Therefore it was neither accurate nor true. That I do have problems with.

So this time, I’ll quote from “Saints and Sinners - A History of the Popes” - by Eamon Duffy, a Catholic.

Quote:
"The leading English Ultramontanist Henry Edward Manning, whose main ally at Rome was Monsignor George Talbot, for many years Pio Nono’s (Pope Pius IX) most trusted confidant. Talbot ended his life in a lunatic asylum, and was probably unbalanced for years before his breakdown. He was certainly devious, feline, wreathed in intrigue, his view of the world and the Church a perpetual game of cowboys and Indians, heroes and villains. The villains included most of the English bishops, whom he thought disloyal anti-papalists, and Newman himself, in Talbot’s view ‘the most dangerous man in England’, still half a Protestant, and a leader of rebels - “his spirit must be crushed”. (My comment - how’s that for loving Christian advice from a papal adviser re. Cardinal Newman??) Talbot had the Pope’s ear, and was the key mover in the surprise appointment of Manning to succeed Cardinal Wiseman as archbishop of Westminster in 1865. (Note - my comment - this is the sort of adviser Pius IX had).

…“Both sides lobbied and plotted frantically. Manning recorded that the inopportunist minority 'met often, and we met weekly to watch and counteract. When they went to Pius XI we went also. It was a running fight.” (My comment - is this the apostolic Magisterium in action? If so, I wouldn’t give their rulings much credence). The Pope’s hand was shown on 18 June, when the Dominican theologican Cardinal Guidi, Archbishop of Bologna, criticised the heading of the draft decree on infallibility, which ran “On the infallibiilty of the Roman Pontiff”. This was erroneous, Guidi insisted: the Pope was not infallible, though his teaching might be. Infallible teaching is irreformable, the teacher is not. Guidi went on to argue that a condition of infallibility was that it should not be exercised rashly. The Pope teaches in consultation with other bishops, and this needed to be indicated in the decree. He proposed that the wording should state that the Pope is assisted by the “counsel of the bishops manifesting the tradition of the churches”. This intervention was all the more powerful because Guidi was an infallibilist, basically in favour of the definition. His careful theological intervention, one of the weightiest of the whole council, was designed to rule out any notion of an inspired or personally infallible Pope, and to protect the truth that the Pope taught not as an isolated monarch, but as first among bishops. He was embraced by members of the minority as he descended from the podium. But Pio Nono was enraged. He summoned Gaudi and berated him, as a cardinal and a bishop of the Patrimony, for treachery. Guidi replied that he had only said that bishops are witnesses to the tradition. “Witnesses of tradition?” the Pope replied, “I am the tradition”.

There’s more. I still haven’t got much time for it - it is

There’s more. I still haven’t got much time for it - it is merely an unnecessary barrier.

I know this much - no matter how much the Catholic Church desires unification of all under the Pope, while this particular doctrine stands as stated, there isn’t a hope in hell of reunification.

You dwell on the machinations of the political activity of the council but what you lose sight of is that this was a general council and was fully infallible in its results. So if you are not a ultramontanist and thus lean to the concilliarist view of church authority you have to accept the results of the council as infallible. That means the Holy Spirit was fully involved in guiding the Church into the truth. So any problems one may have with the political machinations during the council is a moot point. The outcome, whether you like it or not is infallible. Now, if you check your Bible in Acts 15 there were dissenters in the Council of Jerusalem until the Pope, Peter, in that instance, stepped in. Then everyone shut up. So why do you even bother to think that it would be different in any other council, to include first Vatican? Every council has had opposig views and that is the reason for the very existence of the council to settle such controversies. Like I said before, to be Catholic means you accept the doctrines of the Church in their totality and that includes Papal Infallibility. This is no cafeteria christianity like protestantism where you can pick and choose what you want to believe. There is one truth and only one truth and you either embrace it or you don’t. Like I said before, my discernment is that you are no Catholic but rather a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

As for unification with protestant denominations the message should be clear. You left the Church. The Church did not leave you. If you want the truth you come back to the Church but we will not appease you by compromising even one of our doctrines and that includes Papal infallibility and all the Marian dogmas.

 

[WFS5801]

Having said all that, I haven’t got much admiration for the “Infallibility” doctrine. It was brought in at a time of ultra-montanism, using dishonest means, and all it does is provide one more unnecessary barrier to eventual unification. I haven’t got much admiration for the artificial contraception argument either, as far as that goes. But that’s another story.

Once a doctrine has been defined as dogma, you really can’t “pick and choose” what you want to accept. Personally I would rather retain the full truth instead of compromising on it to placate others. That’s a slippery slope and it goes nowhere good. It’s the job of the Church to “transform the world, not conform to it.”

 

[FCEGM]

I said it was unnecessary and it wasn’t even honest. No doubt the source of the following quotes is not Catholic, but you might note he quoted Hans Kung, Catholic theologian.

And you might note that in 1979, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithformally announced that Küng “can no longer be considered as a Catholic theologian” and that he is barred from teaching in theological faculties of universities affiliated with the Church. In his most recent book (published this year) he continues with his attack against the Church and encourages lay Catholics to reject the authority of the Church. So, he’s not anyone a faithful Catholic would want to emulate. . . .is he?