Contemporary Evidence For Papal Infallibility

[Macrina]

Paul, why do you keep posting these antagonistic threads? What do you hope to gain?

 

[Macrina]

You twisted it to have me generalizing all Protestant individuals, which I never wrote at all. Now you blame me for not being clear enough! Which part of the word denominations or churches do you not understand?

Dude, it was a misunderstanding. Chill.

 

[Cribstyl]

In my opening of this thread, this is what I wrote:

On a particular moral issue, the pope has proven to be right and all the other denominations have been wrong.

On this moral this moral issue, the pope has proven to be right, and all the other churches are wrong.
In writing this, I tried to very careful to compare the pope to other denominations and churches, not to individuals........

......I never wrote that there are no Protestants against birth control, I wrote that there are no Protestant denominations that are against birth control.

In my opinion the leadership of most Protestant denominations also have professional researchers that gives counsel on family life and various issues concerning our modern times. In most Protestant denominations the local pastors use the scripture as authority to teach families what God say about the marriage and fornication. The epidemic that results mostly from sin (unwanted children) should not cause the church to have an officail possition on birth control.

If the church perform it's primary commission of teaching the Gospel and the commandments of Christ, families would not need to wonder what God want us to do next. If we love God and our neighbors as ourselves, then the people will know that life is a gift and a blessing. Sin creates generational curses that only the blood of Jesus can reverse. We need to look at the root of the problem rather that creating an official statement outside of Godly counsel.

Is that your evidence of Pope infallability? The good news is that bible teaches us how to live Godly lives?

In Love
CRIBSTYL

 

[PaulAckermann]

Although that is the purpose of the pill, there is a slight chance that it will not be effective in preventing ovulation (no birth control, save abstinence, is 100% effective, after all). In the event that an egg is released, and subsequently fertilized, the hormones in the pill may prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. It is a slight chance, but one that many women are not willing to take.

If a pro-life woman is willing to take a chance that her birth control pill may cause an abortion, then she has no right in calling herself pro-life.

Murder is not acceptable just because there is a small chance that this will happen.

 

[Macrina]

If a pro-life woman is willing to take a chance that her birth control pill may cause an abortion, then she has no right in calling herself pro-life.

Murder is not acceptable just because there is a small chance that this will happen.

Uh, that has no relevance whatsover to my post. Leothelioness seemed unaware of certain effects of the bc pill, so I was explaining them to her. I said nothing about whether it was acceptable or not.

As a matter of fact, if I were married, I would NOT take the bc pill for precisely the reasons I described in my post (there are others, but that is the key deciding factor).

 

[PaulAckermann]

Paul, why do you keep posting these antagonistic threads? What do you hope to gain?

I also go on the section where we can interact with non-Christian. I will discuss with an atheist how I know that there is a God and why I know that Christ is God and is the only way to heaven. I am sure that many times these non-Christians think I am being antagonistic. But I am not. I do it because I care for souls. I want to see everyone make it to heaven. I have such a great joy in my relationship with Christ that I want to share it with others.

This is the same attitude I have with non-Catholics. Just as I desire non-Christians to become Christians, I desire all non-Catholics to become Catholic. The Apostle Paul once said that he desired all people to be as he was, expect for the chains he had to bear. In the same way, I desire all to me like me, except for all my bad stuff. And that includes being Catholic.

Without my Catholic faith, I would have rejected Christ. I could not go any further as a Protestant. I need the Eucharist. I need the Rosary. I need the Blessed Virgin Mary. I need the conviction of knowing the truth. I was tired of so many different interpretations from different Protestants. I was tired of the relativism inherent with Protestantism. I need to know the truth.

Since I felt that way as a Protestant, I know there are other Protestants who also feel that way. They feel that there is something missing. But they are afraid. They have been told by so many Protestants that we Catholics are legalists and idolators, that they are afraid to look into Catholicsm. These are the people I am trying to reach.

Maybe that is not you. Or maybe that is just not you now, but will be you in the future. Maybe you will find something is missing in Protestantism, as I did. I remember when I was in seminary, my roommate converted to the Catholic faith. I, too, felt that he was antagonistic. He just would not leave me alone. And I could not refute him. I remember that I could not stand him at one time. But all his arguments stuck with me. And when I could not go any further, I remembered his arguments. And I turned to the Catholic faith.

As a Protestant, there were many times I “went forward” after an altar call. I prayed. I had hands laid on me. But nothing helped. I started to question whether God was out there. But I remember taking the Eucharist for the first time. WHAM! Something happened to my heart. As a Protestant it for me was hard to obey God. From taking the Eucharist, I am amazed how much I am able to obey God. I am not saying that I am perfect. Far from it. But the difference is between night and day.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Uh, that has no relevance whatsover to my post. Leothelioness seemed unaware of certain effects of the bc pill, so I was explaining them to her. I said nothing about whether it was acceptable or not.

As a matter of fact, if I were married, I would NOT take the bc pill for precisely the reasons I described in my post (there are others, but that is the key deciding factor).

Teacher, chill thyself.

You wrote "It is a slight chance, but one that many women are not willing to take.". I just replied that any woman who is willing to take that chance is not a pro-life person. I did not accuse you being that kind of woman, so why are you on the defensive?

 

[PaulAckermann]

In my opinion the leadership of most Protestant denominations also have professional researchers that gives counsel on family life and various issues concerning our modern times. In most Protestant denominations the local pastors use the scripture as authority to teach families what God say about the marriage and fornication. The epidemic that results mostly from sin (unwanted children) should not cause the church to have an officail possition on birth control.

If the church perform it's primary commission of teaching the Gospel and the commandments of Christ, families would not need to wonder what God want us to do next. If we love God and our neighbors as ourselves, then the people will know that life is a gift and a blessing. Sin creates generational curses that only the blood of Jesus can reverse. We need to look at the root of the problem rather that creating an official statement outside of Godly counsel.

Is that your evidence of Pope infallability? The good news is that bible teaches us how to live Godly lives?

In Love
CRIBSTYL

Although the Bible is God's inerrant Word, it is not exhaustive on all issue.

150 years ago, many Bible-believing Christians in the sourth of the US had slaves. Those Southern "professional reseachers" back then would argue that there is nothing in the Bible against slavery. At the time that Bible-only Christians in the South were having slaves, the pope was condemning slavery.

It is not outside of God's counsel. God's counsel is through His Church, through his pope. Read Matthew 16. Christ built His Church on Peter, which means Rock. Jesus gave Peter, the Rock, the keys to the kingdom. He told Peter that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. The Bible itself says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. To believe in the Bible means to believe in God's Church, and on the successor of Peter.

To believe in the Bible and yet to believe that the Church is not God's counsel is contradictory, because the Bible was preserved by God through the Catholic Church. We do not have the original copies of the Bible. We have copies that were made from one generation to the next from the first 1,500 years of the Catholic Church. Until the printing press was created in the 1500's, we relied totally on monks writing copies from other copies. If you cannot trust God to work through the Catholic Church, then you cannot trust God to give you the Bible as it was originally written.

And how do you know that all the books in the Bible should be in there? On what basis do you have the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke in the Bible? They were not even apostles! And what about the book of Hebrews? We do not even know who wrote it. All Protestant scholars today say that it was not written by Paul. But they cannot agree who wrote it. So if we do not even know who wrote it, why is it still in your Bible. It is in my Bible because the Pope canonized the Bible, back in AD 405. But since you do not believe in the Pope, or any Magisterium, what rationale you have for leave the Book of Hebrews in your Bible? Is it because the Bible publisher put it in? But why should you trust the publisher? Do you believe the one who published the Bible in infallible. Or maybe you believe that the Book of Hebrews should stay in the Bible because it gives your a certain feeling of being close to God when you read it, so it must be part of the Word of God. But are your feelings are infallible? Could your feelings be wrong?

This what I realized. Without the Catholic Church, I had no reason to believe in the Bible. I had no way to know for sure that what I was reading accurately reflected what the original writers wrote. And I had no way of knowing what book should be in the Bible.

 

[leothelioness]

Although that is the purpose of the pill, there is a slight chance that it will not be effective in preventing ovulation (no birth control, save abstinence, is 100% effective, after all). In the event that an egg is released, and subsequently fertilized, the hormones in the pill may prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. It is a slight chance, but one that many women are not willing to take.

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

If there is even the slightest chance of a fertilised egg being expelled from the body then I am against the use of such a pill. I'm kinda glad I won't be able to take the pill.

BTW, I love your avatar. So cute.

 

[Macrina]

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

If there is even the slightest chance of a fertilised egg being expelled from the body then I am against the use of such a pill. I'm kinda glad I won't be able to take the pill.

BTW, I love your avatar. So cute.

You're welcome, and thanks.

I wasn't aware of the pill potentially being an abortifactant, either, until some years ago when my roommate was engaged and considering options -- I learned a little through what she had to say. Then I learned that several of my married friends chose not to use the pill for this reason, and that some pro-life groups were trying to raise awareness of this issue.

I believe the same problem goes for other hormonal methods, too, so it's wise for a couple to become well-informed on the issue before making any decisions.

 

[Macrina]

Paul, the reason why I'm on the defensive is because in several threads now, it has felt like you were attacking protestants rather than reaching out to us. I can accept that you have discovered something wonderful that you want to share -- but I'd like to offer the possibility that the tone you've been adopting isn't necessarily the most effective one. You may have been reached through tactics which offended you, but there may be others who would respond better if you were a bit less abrasive in presenting your case. Perhaps some of this has to do with the medium, and the fact that "tone" doesn't come through as easily on message boards as it would in person. But you need to know that you have come across not as someone reaching out in love, but as someone out to prove that he is right. There are times for overturning tables, yes... but there are also times to sit on a hill and teach. If you try a different technique, you might find us more willing to listen. I'm not saying I'd join your church, but right now you're driving me away from it more than anything. I always had a positive view of Catholics until I came on CF and started getting bashed by them.

 

[Splayd]

You can reduce everything to subjective doubt, which is why Protestantism has opened the doors to liberalism.

Protestants opened the doors to liberalism?

Hmmm... I don't doubt the protestant world is rife with "liberalism" but as an interesting observation - Of the thousands of protestants I personally know, there's maybe a couple dozen that I'd call liberal. Of the thousands of Catholics I know, there's probably a couple dozen I wouldn't. Maybe we have different meanings for the word.

Mind you - you seem to imply that it's a bad thing, while the Catholics here readily acknowledge their liberal leanings with pride, so maybe it's also a cultural thing.

Peace

 

[BBAS 64]

No. I believe in papal infallibility because Christ said it, not just the CC. Since it originates with Christ, it is not circular.



That is the Protestantism, it has watered down "Thus saith the Lord" to its just your subjective assumption, you could be wrong.

This can be said about anything believed in Protestantism, even the doctrine of salvation. Even the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy! You can reduce everything to subjective doubt, which is why Protestantism has opened the doors to liberalism.




So you then say that Christ may not have been God? That maybe you are wrong in believing that there is even a God? That you may not be saved? That maybe the Bible is not the Word of God? That maybe the Koran is the Word of God?

Somehow, I doubt you are as open to the possibility of being wrong as you say. Or maybe you are. Are you an agnostic?

You are you using the typical argument that a pro-abortion rights person would use. When in doubt, it’s OK to kill it. “You have your have your experts and I have mine”. One set of experts say that the fetus is a human being. Another set says its not. The pro-abort person takes comfort in the ambiguity of the experts and goes ahead and say it is OK to abort. And he accuses us pro-life people of not accepting the possibility that we pro-life people are wrong – that maybe the fetus is not a human being after all.

But this is like shooting a gun in a rustling bush without caring what is behind the bush – a rabbit or a child. Since we are not sure, we should err of the side that there just may be a child behind that bush. But the pro-abort is saying it is OK to shoot at the bush because a child may not be there. But what if there is a child behind the bush? It is reckless to shoot at a bush without knowing for sure that there is no one behind the bush.
In the same way, your position is totally reckless. You are saying that I have my experts and you have yours. You argue that I should admit the possibility that I could be wrong, and assert that you admit that you could be wrong. But then you do the reckless thing of assuming that it is OK to continue to take the pill, even though you admit that it is possible that this could be killing a human life! This is totally reckless! Once you admit that this could be killing a human life, you are being totally reckless and irresponsible to continue with it. It is like shooting at a bush after admitting that there may be a child in that bush.






The same can be said for RU-486. It is just a chemical compound.


And others would argue that abortion is just a medical procedure.

Good Day, PaulA

http://blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=papal+infallibilityhttp://www.blueletterbible.com

Word search for papal infallibility no matches.


Still a big circle.... Christ never said it, the church tells you he did still.... O circle.

Way to many red hearings/ strawmen here too chase.

In Him,

Bill

 

[PaulAckermann]

Paul, the reason why I'm on the defensive is because in several threads now, it has felt like you were attacking protestants rather than reaching out to us. I can accept that you have discovered something wonderful that you want to share -- but I'd like to offer the possibility that the tone you've been adopting isn't necessarily the most effective one. You may have been reached through tactics which offended you, but there may be others who would respond better if you were a bit less abrasive in presenting your case. Perhaps some of this has to do with the medium, and the fact that "tone" doesn't come through as easily on message boards as it would in person. But you need to know that you have come across not as someone reaching out in love, but as someone out to prove that he is right. There are times for overturning tables, yes... but there are also times to sit on a hill and teach. If you try a different technique, you might find us more willing to listen. I'm not saying I'd join your church, but right now you're driving me away from it more than anything. I always had a positive view of Catholics until I came on CF and started getting bashed by them.

You're right about the medium. You can cannot see into a person's eyes when he writes. You cannot hear the tone in his voice.

I do not want to come off as abrasive. Maybe you can give me some exact quotes I made so that I can work on it. Please keep me in your prayers. I really want to change if I am abrasive, but I need specific examples.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Good Day, PaulA

http://blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=papal+infallibility

Word search for papal infallibility no matches.


Still a big circle.... Christ never said it, the church tells you he did still.... O circle.

Way to many red hearings/ strawmen here too chase.

In Him,

Bill

Try a word search on the "Trinity". You won't find it in there, either. Does that mean we should not believe in the Trinity? Is the Trinity just a big O circle? Is the Trinity just a red herring/straw man to chase just becaues the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible?

 

[PaulAckermann]

Protestants opened the doors to liberalism?

Study Church History, and you will find that liberal infitrated Protestantism in the mid-1800's. This is when Protestant believed the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, that the Gospel of John was written by an unknow author in the mid-second century, that half of the letters of Paul were writtn by an unknow in the second century, that the Gospel of Matthew was written by an unknown, etc. Later on, the majority of the Protestant churches were into the social gospel. A minority of Protestant churches did not follow them - they were called Fundementalist. But most of the mainline denomination followed liberal. They formed organizations such as the Word Council of Christian Churches and the National Council of Christian Churches. These were so liberal that Fundementalists thought these organizations would be used by the anti-Christ. Most mainline Protestant churches today are members of these organizations. The Protestant scholars brought their liberalism into theology. Luther scholar Rudolf Bultman taught that the Bible was filled with myths, such as Christ's resurrection. Lutheran scholar Karl Barth taught that everyone would get to heaven. In the 1900's, some Christians came out of the liberalism and out of the stringent Fundementalism, and called themselves Evangelicals. But still, Fundementalist and Evangelical churche are in the minority. Most of Protestantism has fallen into liberalism.

Through all the this, the pope condemned liberal modernism. The Church has been good up until the 1960's of keeping the wolves in sheep's clothing out. But in the 60's many Catholics were tired of being viewed as so different as the Protestant neighbors. As a result, the wolves used "the spirit of Vatican II" as an excuse to Protestantized the Catholic Church. Anything that made us uniquely Catholic went out in many Catholic Churches. Many Catholic theologians were more interested in reading Protestant scholars like Bultman and Barth than reading Aquinas.

True, many Catholics have followed Protestants into liberalism, but liberalism originated withing Protestantism. Actually, the first liberal was Martin Luther. He was the first Christian who question whether certain books in the Bible should be in there. He called the Book of James an "epistle of straw". He also said that the Book of Hebrews and the Book of Revelation shopuld not be in the Bible. The Reformers actually did take 7 books out of the Bible, even though these books were always in the Bible before then. Liberal Protestants just following the Reformers in this attitude. If they Reformers could take the deutero-canonicals out of the Bible, why can't the modern liberals question the authenticity of some books in the Bible? Since we no longer have a Magisterium to tell us what should be left in the Bible, why not leave it to the modern "professional researchers" (as one Protestant in this thread had put it) to determine which books should be in the Bible?

Hmmm... I don't doubt the protestant world is rife with "liberalism" but as an interesting observation - Of the thousands of protestants I personally know, there's maybe a couple dozen that I'd call liberal. Of the thousands of Catholics I know, there's probably a couple dozen I wouldn't. Maybe we have different meanings for the word.
Mind you - you seem to imply that it's a bad thing, while the Catholics here readily acknowledge their liberal leanings with pride, so maybe it's also a cultural thing.
Peace

Currently there are as many liberal Catholics as there are liberal Protestants, in both they are the majority. That is not the issue. The issue is where did it start from. History show that liberalism started in Protestantism 100 years before it did in Catholicism. And it started in Catholicsm because many Catholics wanted to be like their Protestant neighbors. Maybe that is why your Catholic friends showe their liberal leanings with pride. They have more of a need to blend in with their neighbors.

 

[Splayd]

Thanks Paul. That was an interesting post.

There's a recurring theme I find in your posts that strikes me as inconsistent though. It seems that everything the Catholic church do right is confirmation that the Catholic church is the one true church, protected from error by God etc... etc... BUT every thing that the Catholic church get wrong is dismissed as a consequence of Protestantism. That's a beautiful paradigm to live in. You can never be wrong.

Although, it begs the question: How is it possible that the "one true church" could be so infected (on a practical, personable level) by Protestantism if God's protecting her from error?

 

[a_ntv]

Study Church History, and you will find that liberal infitrated Protestantism in the mid-1800's. This is when Protestant believed the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, that the Gospel of John was written by an unknow author in the mid-second century, that half of the letters of Paul were writtn by an unknow in the second century, that the Gospel of Matthew was written by an unknown, etc. Later on, the majority of the Protestant churches were into the social gospel. A minority of Protestant churches did not follow them - they were called Fundementalist. But most of the mainline denomination followed liberal. They formed organizations such as the Word Council of Christian Churches and the National Council of Christian Churches. These were so liberal that Fundementalists thought these organizations would be used by the anti-Christ. Most mainline Protestant churches today are members of these organizations. The Protestant scholars brought their liberalism into theology. Luther scholar Rudolf Bultman taught that the Bible was filled with myths, such as Christ's resurrection. Lutheran scholar Karl Barth taught that everyone would get to heaven. In the 1900's, some Christians came out of the liberalism and out of the stringent Fundementalism, and called themselves Evangelicals. But still, Fundementalist and Evangelical churche are in the minority. Most of Protestantism has fallen into liberalism.

Through all the this, the pope condemned liberal modernism. The Church has been good up until the 1960's of keeping the wolves in sheep's clothing out. But in the 60's many Catholics were tired of being viewed as so different as the Protestant neighbors. As a result, the wolves used "the spirit of Vatican II" as an excuse to Protestantized the Catholic Church. Anything that made us uniquely Catholic went out in many Catholic Churches. Many Catholic theologians were more interested in reading Protestant scholars like Bultman and Barth than reading Aquinas.

True, many Catholics have followed Protestants into liberalism, but liberalism originated withing Protestantism. Actually, the first liberal was Martin Luther. He was the first Christian who question whether certain books in the Bible should be in there. He called the Book of James an "epistle of straw". He also said that the Book of Hebrews and the Book of Revelation shopuld not be in the Bible. The Reformers actually did take 7 books out of the Bible, even though these books were always in the Bible before then. Liberal Protestants just following the Reformers in this attitude. If they Reformers could take the deutero-canonicals out of the Bible, why can't the modern liberals question the authenticity of some books in the Bible? Since we no longer have a Magisterium to tell us what should be left in the Bible, why not leave it to the modern "professional researchers" (as one Protestant in this thread had put it) to determine which books should be in the Bible?

Well, I agree with the first part of your post, not with the second.

The liberalism/modernism/positivism has his origins in the illuministic philosohpy of the XVIII century.
It touched in the same time both the Catholic Church and the Protestant world.

The reactions was very diferent due to the different types of churches: the Catholic Church closed in itself (see the Vatican I), and stayed closed in such a way for a very long time.

Do you know which are the only two reasons because most of the scolars of the XIX century stated that the Gospels were written after the 70 ?
a) because the Gospel predict the fall of Jerusalem, and the prophecy do not exist, so the Gospel are written after the fact
b) to let a quite long time to have created the mith of ressurection
I disagree with both these two reasons

Although, it begs the question: How is it possible that the "one true church" could be so infected (on a practical, personable level) by Protestantism if God's protecting her from error?

Well, Jesus simply promised that the powers of death shall not prevail against it. Not that everything would go plain

 

[PaulAckermann]

Thanks Paul. That was an interesting post.
There's a recurring theme I find in your posts that strikes me as inconsistent though. It seems that everything the Catholic church do right is confirmation that the Catholic church is the one true church, protected from error by God etc... etc... BUT every thing that the Catholic church get wrong is dismissed as a consequence of Protestantism. That's a beautiful paradigm to live in. You can never be wrong.

I can see how someone can think this way. But that is not what I think I am doing. I admit that there were things that the Church did that was wrong on its own. I think that the Church was very, very corrupt at the time of Luther. It was even more corrupt than many Protestants would think.

But in the area of liberalism, it is a historical fact that it infiltrated the Protestant churches in the 1850's, but it did not infiltrate the Catholic Church until the mid-1900's. So liberalism did come far later in the Catholic Church. And when liberalism did come, the Catholic theologians were studying the writings of liberal Protestant theologians.

Although, it begs the question: How is it possible that the "one true church" could be so infected (on a practical, personable level) by Protestantism if God's protecting her from error?

There is a Catholic saying: Don't blame Peter for Judas.

Even the original apostles who were personally selected by Jesus Christ were infected by evil, the Devil entered Judas. And yet Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to these apostles to lead them into all truth. This the great paradox throughout these centuries. God sovreignly protects. But God stills honors man's free will Man is free to rebel against Christ and His Church if he so chooses. Man is free to leave Christ and start in his own cult, such as David Koresh. And man is free to leave the Church and start his own denomination.

Anyway, I do not consider Protestantism "infecting" the Catholic Church. Luther and the Reformers left the church, so they did not infect it. But that does not mean that there is no infection in the Church. There are many priests, theologians, bishops, and laymen who have remained in the church but are not faithful to the Church's teachings. I have little patience for these kind of Catholics. At least the Reformers had the integrity to admit honestly that they disagree with the teachings of the Church and left it. But there are many leaders in the church who are unfaithful to the pope and the Church's teaching, but only behind the pope's back when he is not looking. They should be honest and leave the Church. But since they don't they are infecting the Church. They are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Why does God allow these people to stay in the Church to infect it? The same reason that He allowed Adam and Eve to fall. The same reason He allow serial killers to cause unspeakable acts.He created us with a free will. Free will means we are free to infect our world and our church. Christ promised that this infection will not come from Peter. But it can come from Judas.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

On a particular moral issue, the pope has proven to be right and all the other denominations have been wrong. For all these years, we Catholics have been mocked and criticized for the harsh stand the Catholic Church has been on birth control. We, now the evidence is in!

See http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

Because of the Catholic Church’s strong view against birth control, it has always warned its flock not to take the pill, as well as other birth control devices. Although there are many denomination that are pro-life, I do not know any Protestant that is against birth control.

So that means that there are thousands of Protestant pro-life wives, who rightly oppose RU-486 (the morning-after pill), and yet may have inadvertently had caused an abortion themselves because they took the birth control, with the approval of their ministers .

If my wife and I had been Protestant, and my wife was taking the pill, without my minister warning me that I could be killing an unborn child, I would be total scandalized.

I hear often “What makes you think your church is the only true church?” or “What makes you think that only the pope is right and no other denomination has it right”.

Well, here you have proof!

If the tables were turned, if the pope had approved the use of birth control, and when it came out that all this time the pill caused abortions, we Catholics would never hear the end of it! “How can the pope be infallible and allow his flock to practice something that kills unborn children?”

But that is not what happened. The popes have always warned the flock not to take the pill, even before it was not know that the pill could cause abortions. The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

On this moral this moral issue, the pope has proven to be right, and all the other churches are wrong. The odds for one person to get it right and everyone getting it is wrong is highly unlikely. But that is exactly what happened.

Of course, if you are not pro-life, this is not impressive. But if you are pro-life, how can this be explained except it be by the hand of God?

What this opening post has to do with the topic of the thread is completely unknown to me.



My $0.01


Pax!



- Josiah