Did benny deny the unam sanctum?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus Question...If Unam Sanctum is so controversial and divisive within Christianity, as has been seen in this thread, what is preventing the present RC pope to simply "renounce" that document and issue a new papal Bull in it's place?

Rome cannot renounce it because it is "infallible dogma".

To renounce Unam Sanctum would mean Rome renounces it's false claim of being the sole, exclusive, infallible voice of God on earth, and that would destroy the papacy and Roman heirarchy upon which the church of the Romans political power is built.

Short answer though is, PRIDE!

Seems I have heard that word used a few times before

http://www.christianforums.com/t6905007-8/#post51481354

Originally Posted by chestertonrules

It is much worse to reject the Church out of pride or a disagreement on moral teaching than to reject it from ignorance.

 

[TraderJack]

Originally Posted by TraderJack

Eggsackly.

Had not God used Luther and the Reformers to set the captives free of the Roman Pharoah and broke the power of the Roman Pharoahs, Arminius would have been tried and "punished" by the Inquisitors.
​

LOL!
Most people who step forward to trash Calvin for the death of Servetus, don't know he had escaped the Inquisitors who were about to execute him themselves.
Not many know the story of Arminius either. It is often very reaveling to know the personal histories & situational circumstances of the times when these issues fomented in defining moments.

I find it is the lazy and pompous who rely on the myths they find suitable for their own tirades against Godly truth, as evidenced by the full frontal assaults here by those who oppose the Sovereign Free Will of God in Election, and exalt the will of man above God.

But then, that is the promise of Satan from the beginning, "You WILL be LIKE GOD".

 

[Polycarp1]

Rome cannot renounce it because it is "infallible dogma".

To renounce Unam Sanctum would mean Rome renounces it's false claim of being the sole, exclusive, infallible voice of God on earth, and that would destroy the papacy and Roman heirarchy upon which the church of the Romans political power is built.

Short answer though is, PRIDE!

You got proof that Rome regards Unam Sanctam as infallible? Because it's my experience that they're very selective in what they class under the "infallible" head. They teach a lot of doctrine that is not, strictly, deemed infallible.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by TraderJack

Eggsackly.

Had not God used Luther and the Reformers to set the captives free of the Roman Pharoah and broke the power of the Roman Pharoahs, Arminius would have been tried and "punished" by the Inquisitors.
​

I find it is the lazy and pompous who rely on the myths they find suitable for their own tirades against Godly truth, as evidenced by the full frontal assaults here by those who oppose the Sovereign Free Will of God in Election, and exalt the will of man above God.

But then, that is the promise of Satan from the beginning, "You WILL be LIKE GOD".

Hmm, sounds a lot like what was spoken in Dan 11:26

Genesis 3:22 And YHWH 'Elohiymis saying "behold! the 'adam he became as one from Us, to know of good and evil. And now lest he is stretching-forth his hand and he takes moreover from tree of the lives and he eats and he lives for an age/eon

Dan 11:36 And the King does as acceptable of him and he shall exalt and he shall magnify Himself over every of 'El and on 'El, of 'Els he shall speak marvelous/pompous things.
And He prospers until concluded menace that one being decided she is finish.

 

[Rick Otto]

You got proof that Rome regards Unam Sanctam as infallible? Because it's my experience that they're very selective in what they class under the "infallible" head. They teach a lot of doctrine that is not, strictly, deemed infallible.

I was going to quibble with TJ over that language.
The ambiguity between infallible & inerrant is often confused &/or exploited.
Inerrancy is claimed for it's teachings on the notion that an error equate with "the gates of hail prevailing" against the church. Sounds like grandiose delusion born of meglomania to me.

Infallability is attributed to faith & morals statements from "Peter's Chair" only. Rumored to have been invoked maybe twice.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Where the heck are the RCs at on this thread

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Polycarp1 You got proof that Rome regards Unam Sanctam as infallible? Because it's my experience that they're very selective in what they class under the "infallible" head. They teach a lot of doctrine that is not, strictly, deemed infallible.

I was going to quibble with TJ over that language.
The ambiguity between infallible & inerrant is often confused &/or exploited.

Inerrancy is claimed for it's teachings on the notion that an error equate with "the gates of hail prevailing" against the church. Sounds like grandiose delusion born of meglomania to me.

Infallability is attributed to faith & morals statements from "Peter's Chair" only. Rumored to have been invoked maybe twice.

Thank RO. Perhaps we can make a thread on that

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I saw this posted on another board and wonder if anyone knows the source of this? The poster is offline right now........Thanks

Originally Posted by TraderJack Leo I, bishop of Rome said that whatever bishop laid claim to being the "universal/supreme" bishop of the entire church IS The Antichrist.

Soon after, Damasus, bishop of Rome declared himself and Roman bishops to be the "universal/supreme" bishops of the entire church.

 

[simonthezealot]

and you need to stop twisting the context JPII reworded Unum Sanctum to inclulde all Christians . Stop twisting

He did NO such thing.

 

[simonthezealot]

I saw this posted on another board and wonder if anyone knows the source of this? The poster is offline right now........Thanks

Originally Posted by TraderJack Leo I, bishop of Rome said that whatever bishop laid claim to being the "universal/supreme" bishop of the entire church IS The Antichrist.

Soon after, Damasus, bishop of Rome declared himself and Roman bishops to be the "universal/supreme" bishops of the entire church.

I'm fairly confident it was not Leo but Gregory whose comments were quoted in the decretals where he said the “forerunner of Antichrist” would stake the claim of “Universal Bishop” or something to that line of speaking.

 

[simonthezealot]

he spoke of the Church Universal, the Church of Christ, so please do stop twisting his context to suite you agenda..

Maybe take a little time study up on JPII before trying to trash him.

Where did i trash him?
Oh you mean by saying he supported a papal bull thats trashing him? in this thread I showed that link. Yet you have done no such thing.

Time and again your comments show your trying to move from milk to meat to soon... Maybe you should hang out with your buddies at obob.

No offense intended, but your trying to defend Rome and actually seem to be making there view look even odder. Unam Sanctum is a papal bull, one which you will NOT and could NOT ever find an official DENIAL of.

 

[mont974x4]

This isn't about trashing any pope, it's about holding up the truth.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

who is benny?

Tis a nickname me thinks.

 

[roseygrl]

A Bull is not et cathedra (sp?) is it?

2/3

3/5 I believe.

 

[tz620q]

Where the heck are the RCs at on this thread

With the amount of un-Christian hate flowing on this thread right now, don't be surprised if Catholics just read it all and pray.

 

[tz620q]

Rome cannot renounce it because it is "infallible dogma".

To renounce Unam Sanctum would mean Rome renounces it's false claim of being the sole, exclusive, infallible voice of God on earth, and that would destroy the papacy and Roman heirarchy upon which the church of the Romans political power is built.

Short answer though is, PRIDE!

TraderJack, We went 200 posts on this no more than 15 months ago. You couldn't show me any official Catholic documents that showed it was considered infallible back then and instead tried to pump up the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia as being infallible itself. Give it a rest.

 

[TraderJack]

You got proof that Rome regards Unam Sanctam as infallible?

Yes and it has already been given. I suggest that you go back and read it.

 

[simonthezealot]

This isn't about trashing any pope, it's about holding up the truth.

Amen my brother!
How ya been?

 

[simonthezealot]

How could papal bulls NOT be infallible, wasn't it a papal bull that officially condemned luther according to Rome?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes and it has already been given. I suggest that you go back and read it.

Hi TJ. To be fair I went back thru every post on this thread and the only time "infallible" was mentioned was by you.
Is there a source or anything you can bring up on whether the word "infallible" was ever used for Unam Sanctum?
Just trying to get an honest assesement and when is something claimed as infallible?. Thanks

Edit to add.......I just saw this post by TJ after I made this post......

Wrong!

I cited a litany of Romanist documents defining unam sanctum as an infallible instrument.

Rome cannot renounce it because it is "infallible dogma".

To renounce Unam Sanctum would mean Rome renounces it's false claim of being the sole, exclusive, infallible voice of God on earth, and that would destroy the papacy and Roman heirarchy upon which the church of the Romans political power is built.

Short answer though is, PRIDE!