Papal Infallibility.

[lilymarie]

I really liked the last pope. I mourned when he died. He always seemed like a real person and often showed himself as just a mere person who loved Christ who died for him and everyone.

He seemed very down to earth.

I am a protestant, and I will miss him.

I don't know much about this new pope. Nothing really, except something about "limbo"? Not really sure what that will have to do with my life?

Pope Paul, sorry I don't know his official name... I will miss him. I think the world was better with him.

I see popes as peacemakers. I think that is what their real job is.

Well Pope Paul seemed like a real peacemaker for the catholics and protestants and the world crises of the needy to me.

He seemed like a really humble man of Christ, as his servant.

I especially like when Pope Paul wore Bono's sunglasses in his 80's and Pope Paul seemed like such a big kid at heart. I think that is what I will miss most about him.

Then Bono said after meeting Pope Paul that he [Bono] thought he'd make a good pope. Pope Paul laughed at Bono.

 

[Tonks]

I understand the point about under specific conditions, he has to sit on the throne.

nb: he doens't actually have to be sitting on the chair.

 

[lilymarie]

Oh yes and then, Pope Paul gave Bono a special rosary. That is the black rosary Bono wears around his neck in honor of Pope Paul, who gave it to him.

And Bono gave the Pope a cigar, I believe, and the pope got a big laugh about that. Pope Paul and Bono had a blessed time.

 

[BrightCandle]

Whatever reasoning one uses to disregard the popes authority can be applied exactly to the Bible as well.

I would beg to differ with you view of inspiration. The Bible was written by many men over a period of many centuries, before and after the Christian church was established, and yet it had a consistent message regarding the plan of salvation. But, when one looks at the history of the Papacy, we see many centuries of political intrigue, conspiracy, and violence, and of men endeavouring to exhalt themselves over their brethren and even to the point of taking the title of "Great" as Pope Leo and Gregory claimed for themselves. Below is an article regarding the "Antipopes" which sheds more light on what I stated above.

antipope
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

antipope




in the Roman Catholic church, one who opposes the legitimately elected bishop of Rome, endeavours to secure the papal throne, and to some degree succeeds materially in the attempt. This abstract definition is necessarily broad and does not reckon with the complexity of individual cases. The elections of several antipopes are greatly obscured by incomplete or biased records, and at times even their contemporaries could not decide who was the true pope. It is impossible, therefore, to establish an absolutely definitive list of antipopes. Historically, antipopes have arisen as a result of a variety of causes; the following are some examples:

1. Doctrinal disagreement. The spread of Monarchianism (a Trinitarian heresy) led a Roman priest, Hippolytus, to try to replace Pope Calixtus I in the 3rd century. Hippolytus was later reconciled to Pope Pontianus during the persecution of Maximinus and died a martyr's death (235).

2. Deportation of the pope. The Arian emperor Constantius II exiled Pope Liberius for his orthodoxy (355) and imposed the archdeacon Felix on the Roman clergy as Pope Felix II. Eventually, Liberius was allowed to return, and Felix lived in retirement until his death.

3. Double elections arbitrated by the secular authority. In 418 the archdeacon Eulalius was elected by a faction partial to him, and he was supported by the imperial prefect and the Byzantine court. The rest of the clergy, however, chose the priest Boniface I, who was eventually given official recognition by the emperor.

4. Double elections and subsequent recourse to a third candidate. In the 7th century Paschal and Theodore were rivals for the papacy, and both were unwilling to renounce their claims. Finally, a part of the community more inclined to moderation gained the papacy for Sergius I.

Somewhat similarly, in the 14th century the official residence of the papacy was moved to Avignon, Fr. This led to a schism (the Great Western Schism) beginning in 1378 that resulted in a papacy in Rome (regarded as canonical), a papacy in Avignon (regarded as antipapal), and eventually a third papacy established by the Council of Pisa (also regarded as antipapal). Unity was finally achieved by the election of Martin V on Nov. 11, 1417.

5. Change in the manner of choosing the pope. In 1059 a new procedure for electing popes, proclaimed by Pope Nicholas II, deprived the German emperors of the leading role that they had played in earlier papal elections and also limited the influence of the Roman nobility. This led to the election of the antipope Honorius II in opposition to the canonically elected Alexander II, who was eventually recognized by the emperor. See also papacy (table).
To cite this page:


APA style:
antipope . (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9007880

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Note: the following is not a defense of the doctrine, but an explanation of what it means to Catholics. You'll probably still disagree with the truth of the doctrine, but now at least you'll know what to actually disagree with:

First off, "Ex cathedra" or "from the chair" is a figure of speech--it doesn't mean he has to literally sit on a special chair. It is a figure of speech that means he is exercising his authority over the whole Church (which is what the phrase "chair of Peter" is symbolic of; like the Jewish phrase "chair of Moses").

We as Catholics believe the Church will never lose the Truth. So any teaching that must be held by the entire Church must be faithful to the original deposit of faith delivered by the Apostles. Throughout history, doctrinal disputes have arisen. To settle those disputes, the Church will issue a definitive proclamation to be held by the entire Church as to what the Truth is on the matter. If the definitions were false, the truth will have been lost.

Since the Successor of St. Peter has the special ministry from God to make such definitive judgments (to confirm the brethren in the faith), his proclamations that are to be held by the entire Church are infallible. Even the definitions of ecumenical councils cannot be binding on the entire Church without his approval.

Infallibility is not inspiration--the Pope doesn't get new revelation from God like the LDS folks. he also doesn't automatically get the correct answer or the best way to explain it .in his head What it does mean is that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth who preserves the Truth in the Church, does not allow Him to definitively bind the entire Church to a false doctrine.

Rather than exalting the Pope above God, the doctrine of Papal infallibility asserts God's sovereignty over the pope.

That is the most lucid and cogent explanation I have seen to date. Now no one can any longer post those misrepresentations of the belief with any pretext of honesty.

Wonderful post. God Bless.

 

[WarriorAngel]

How does the Pope use infallibility?

He defines doctrines and dogma that have been around since the beginning, and are eluded to in scriptures based on the early teachings and the scriptures, and the Tradition of both.

The Pope does not go out and make NEW ones contrary to popular belief.

For instance, he will address an age old doctrine and perhaps make it dogma IF someone is arguing against it.

BUT let us acknowledge that the doctrines have always been taught. AND are included in scriptures, and early Church writings...so NO, the Pope doesnt come up with new material.

Just takes the old stuff and dusts it off. And when the Pope puts his seal on it, those who belong in the Church cannot argue with it.

He also does so with a load of proof BTW.

This is a rare occurence, but that is why he is the keeper of the keys. To make sure no one comes along to plant anything new in the Church, or remove anything old.

SEE?

 

[epistemaniac]

[FONT=&quot]given the Marian dogmas, as just one example of many that could be brought forward... its really hard to believe this.... but if there were really no new doctrines, then many of the papal authoritative proclamations would never need to have ever been made in the first place no would they???..... if the church always and everywhere believed that Mary ought to be co-redemptrix, that she was a perpetual virgin, that she was born an immaculate conception, that she was assumed into heaven not experiencing physical death, then why did the church take so long to proclaim that which was always and everywhere believed?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It (papal infallibility) also seems to me to be on the worst examples of circular reasoning there is. The pope is infallible, why? Because the pope says he is…. and even the doctrine of papal infallibility itself was not declared until 1870.... early in the church's history there was much disagreement concerning popes and their ability and authority to proclaim doctrine. Mathison says
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"In the century between 1150 and 1250, a study of the writings of the canon lawyers and theologians reveals that they did not know of any magesterium conferred on Peter with the power of the keys; they believed that in matters of faith a general council was greater then a pope; they did not maintain that papal pronouncements were irreformable ex sese. As Tierney points out, `Above all the canonists did not teach that the pope was infallible. Instead the position that was generally held contrasted the indefectability of the church's faith with the fallibility of individual popes...... In 1254 a dispute arose between the mendicant friars and secular masters at the University of Paris. Both Dominicans and Franciscans were involved, but it is the Franciscans who require our attention. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Their order had received papal privileges beginning as early as 1230, and their dependence on these privileges would prove to be problematic. The problem stemmed from their assertion that their doctrine of `apostolic poverty’ was not simply a good way of life or the best way of life but that it was an essential aspect of the perfect way of life Christ taught His apostles. Many of them claimed that St. Francis was the first Christian to correctly understand the gospel since the time of the Apostles and the Franciscans were the only members of the church leading truly Christian lives. Of course these were highly controversial claims that raised no small opposition. Bonaventure, the head of the Franciscan order, responded to the arguments against the order by developing a theory of poverty that he termed `condescension’. Without going into All the details, suffice it to say that in 1279, the bull Exiit qui seminat, Pope Nicolas III gave papal sanction to the doctrine of Bonaventure and asserted that the `Franciscan way of life did indeed correspond to the way of perfection that Christ had taught to the apostles. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The first major medieval Christian to assert a doctrine of papal infallibility was peter Olivi, a highly influential Franciscan in the decades following the death of Bonaventure. He lived and wrote at a period of time when the Franciscans were splitting into two major camps: the larger and less strict `Community’ and the rigorous `Spirituals.’ Olivi himself was a prominent spokesman for the Spirituals. The reason that Olivi, unlike Bonaventure, developed a theory of papal infallibility was that he, unlike his predecessor, lived under the constant fear of the possibility that a future pseudo-pope would seek to overturn the true faith (i.e., the Franciscan way of life). It was necessary in the mind of Olivi that the decrees of true popes (such as Nicolas III) `should be regarded as, not only authoritative for the present, but immutable, irreformable for all time to come.’ This, however, was impossible within the framework of the canonist’s doctrine of papal sovereignty. They recognized that a doctrine of infallibility would limit the sovereignty of an individual pope. Olivi recognized this as well. His `new theory of papal infallibility was designed to limit the power of future popes, not to loose them from all restraints. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Olivi’s new doctrine was virtually ignored for forty years, but in 13 The2 Pope John XXII revoked the pro-Franciscan provisions of Exiit and issued a new statement on the doctrine of Christ’s poverty. The Franciscans were dismayed and reacted by issuing two encyclical letters defending their doctrine. Pope John responded in late 13 The2 in the Bull Ad conditorem. To John, `the idea that any decisions of his predecessors might be irreformable presented itself…. Simply as a threat to his own sovereign authority. This Bull evoked an impassioned response from the Franciscans who appealed against the Bull to the Pope himself. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In November of 1324, Pope John issued his final judgment on the issue of Christ’s poverty ion the Bull Cum inter nonnulos. The Bull refers to the view that `Jesus Christ and his apostles did not have anything singly or in common’ as erroneous and heretical. Because the Bull explicitly contradicted the earlier Bull Exiit, the Franciscans began to assert the irreformability of the former to the degree that they condemned John’s view as heretical. As Tierney notes `The first overt condemnation of the pope’s bull came from …. A group of dissident Franciscans who had taken refuge at the court of the excommunicated Emperor Lewis of Bavaria. Their protest included as a sort of excursus in the emperors Sachsenhausen Appeal of May 24, 1324, not only defended the doctrine of evangelical poverty and denounced John XXII as a heretic for attacking the doctrine, but also presented a novel formulation of the theory of papal infallibility. In this work, for the first time, the ancient teaching that one of the keys conferred on Peter had been a `key of knowledge’ was used to support a doctrine that the pope was personally infallible when he used this key to define the truths of faith and morals. It was a major theological breakthrough. The Sachsenhausen Appeal drew the discussion into the mainstream of Catholic thought for the first time.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In November 1324, John responded to the Bull Quia quorundam that the `father of lies’ had led his enemies to maintain the erroneous thesis that `what the Roman pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals with the key of knowledge stands so immutably that it is not permitted to a successor to revoke it.’ Tierney comments on the significance of this:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The exchange of 1324 are of fascinating interest for a historian of the doctrine of papal authority. Here, for the first time, a doctrine of infallibility based on the Petrine power of the keys was overtly propounded. But the doctrine was fathered by anti-papal rebels not by curial theologians. And, far from embracing the doctrine, the pope indignantly denounced it as a pernicious novelty.’[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The striking thing about the doctrine of papal infallibility is that it `was invented almost fortuitously because an unusual concentration of historical circumstances arose that made such a doctrine useful to a particular group of controversialists.’ There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The doctrine of papal infallibility was not declared official Roman Catholic dogma until Vatican I in 1870, but it’s origins can be traced to the obscure thirteenth-century battle between radical Franciscans and the papacy. (The Shape of Sola Scriptura, p58-61)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Further, using Peter as an example of the first pope, if the declaration that popes do not declare that which is doctrinally in error, then why is it that Peter was so wrong regarding his association with the Judiazers, such that Paul had to oppose him “to his face” regarding his serious doctrinal error… error touching the very heart of the gospel itself…..? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Galatians 2:11-21) But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]blessings, Ken[/FONT]

 

[BrightCandle]

[/COLOR]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It (papal infallibility) also seems to me to be on the worst examples of circular reasoning there is. The pope is infallible, why? Because the pope says he is…. and even the doctrine of papal infallibility itself was not declared until 1870.... early in the church's history there was much disagreement concerning popes and their ability and authority to proclaim doctrine. ”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]blessings, Ken[/FONT]

It would seem that Pope Leo, had what you mentioned above, in mind when he added the appellation of "Great" to his title, thereby even exhalting himself above all other Popes.

 

[Trento]

It would seem that Pope Leo, had what you mentioned above, in mind when he added the appellation of "Great" to his title, thereby even exhalting himself above all other Popes.

The title Great is given to a Pope after his death and after his life is examined by a group of Bishops. One important accomplishment in his minestry was having convinced Attila the Hun to turn back from the gates of Rome during a military campaign in 452.
Leo enforced his authority in 445 against Dioscurus, Cyril's successor in the patriarchate of Alexandria, insisting that the ecclesiastical practise of his see should follow that of Rome; since Mark, the disciple of Peter and founder of the Alexandrian Church, could have had no other tradition than that of the prince of the apostles.

 

[BrightCandle]

The title Great is given to a Pope after his death and after his life is examined by a group of Bishops. One important accomplishment in his minestry was having convinced Attila the Hun to turn back from the gates of Rome during a military campaign in 452.
Leo enforced his authority in 445 against Dioscurus, Cyril's successor in the patriarchate of Alexandria, insisting that the ecclesiastical practise of his see should follow that of Rome; since Mark, the disciple of Peter and founder of the Alexandrian Church, could have had no other tradition than that of the prince of the apostles.

Yes, you are right about the title "Great". However, it would seem to be more than just a coincidence, that both Pope Gregory the Great and Pope Leo the Great were the two strongest proponents in the history of the Papacy of the Pope's supreme authority in the religious and secular realms?



Encyclopædia Britannica Article

Saint Leo I

born 4th century, Tuscany?
died November 10, 461, Rome; Western feast day November 10 ([formerly April 11]), Eastern feast day February 18


Leo I, detail of a miniature from the menologion of Basil II, 10th century; in the Vatican Library …
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana

byname Leo The Great pope from 440 to 461, master exponent of papal supremacy. His pontificate—which saw the disintegration of the Roman Empire in the West and the formation in the East of theological differences that were to split Christendom—was devoted to safeguarding orthodoxy and to securing the unity of the Western church under papal supremacy.
Consecrated on Sept. 29, 440, as successor to St. Sixtus III, Leo immediately worked to suppress heresy, which he regarded as the cause of corruption and disunity. Yet his most significant theological achievement was not his negative suppression of heresy but his positive formulation of orthodoxy.

His treatment of the monk Eutyches of Constantinople provides an example. The monk had founded Eutychianism, an extreme form of monophysitism holding that Christ had only one nature, his human nature being absorbed in his divine nature. Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople excommunicated Eutyches, who then appealed to Leo. After examining the case, Leo sent Flavian (449) his celebrated Tome, which rejected Eutyches' teaching and presented a precise, systematic doctrine of Christ's Incarnation and of the union of both his natures. The Council (451) of Chalcedon (modern Kadikoy, Turkey), summoned to condemn Eutychianism, declared that Leo's Tome was the ultimate truth. Furthermore, the council recognized Leo's doctrine as “the voice of Peter.” Thus for the church Leo's Tome established the doctrine that Christ's natures coexist and his Incarnation reveals how human nature is restored to perfect unity with divine, or absolute, being.

Leo's 432 letters and 96 sermons expound his precept of papal primacy in church jurisdiction. He held that papal power was granted by Christ to St. Peter alone, and that that power was passed on by Peter to his successors. In one letter, for example, he cautioned the Bishop of Thessalonica that although he had been entrusted with office and shared Leo's solicitude, he was “not to possess the plenitude of power.”

Leo further enhanced the prestige of the papacy and helped to place Western leadership in its hands by dealing with invading barbaric tribes. He persuaded the Huns, a nomadic people terrorizing northern Italy, not to attack Rome (452), and the Vandals, a Germanic people, not to sack Rome when they occupied it three years later. Leo was declared a doctor of the church by Pope Benedict XIV in 1754.

Leo I, Saint . (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved November 17, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9047787

 

[She]

How does the Pope use infallibility?

He defines doctrines and dogma that have been around since the beginning, and are eluded to in scriptures based on the early teachings and the scriptures, and the Tradition of both.

The Pope does not go out and make NEW ones contrary to popular belief.

For instance, he will address an age old doctrine and perhaps make it dogma IF someone is arguing against it.

BUT let us acknowledge that the doctrines have always been taught. AND are included in scriptures, and early Church writings...so NO, the Pope doesnt come up with new material.

Just takes the old stuff and dusts it off. And when the Pope puts his seal on it, those who belong in the Church cannot argue with it.

He also does so with a load of proof BTW.

This is a rare occurence, but that is why he is the keeper of the keys. To make sure no one comes along to plant anything new in the Church, or remove anything old.

SEE?

No, not exactly. What about the doctrine of limbo which has recently been removed? And what about all the doctrines based on apparitions, which have been added?

Since joining the Anglican Church, I have noticed all the additions to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church has evolved and changed since splitting with the Anglican Church less than 500 years ago.

It is just a pity that it has not changed for the better.

 

[WarriorAngel]

[FONT=&quot]given the Marian dogmas, as just one example of many that could be brought forward... its really hard to believe this.... but if there were really no new doctrines, then many of the papal authoritative proclamations would never need to have ever been made in the first place no would they???

[/FONT]

Regarding Marian devotion, check out the ancient writings on the catacombs.
Regarding no need for proclamation, you are correct....if men would not try to bring in new foundations or arguments against the ancient teachings, then the Pope would never have to define the doctrines.

How it works??
Say Marcion comes along and claims 'this and that' so the Pope pulls out the scriptures and the fore fathers and proclaims as proof of these what has been taught.
Then in proclaiming the doctrine as unchanged, it becomes dogma. Meaning, it cannot be argued against. Case closed.

Do you understand it now?
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

..... if the church always and everywhere believed that Mary ought to be co-redemptrix, that she was a perpetual virgin, that she was born an immaculate conception, that she was assumed into heaven not experiencing physical death, then why did the church take so long to proclaim that which was always and everywhere believed?

[/FONT]

Not every address is adequately explained.... but futher explained later.
For example; proclaimed Mary as Co redemtrix is not explained in the address of her title...but it is laid out what this means.
Quite simply, she [like us] goes to Christ with our requests.
But we know that He listens to her....via the Cana wedding.

[FONT=&quot]It (papal infallibility) also seems to me to be on the worst examples of circular reasoning there is. The pope is infallible, why?

[/FONT]
Because Jesus set Peter apart. His chair of successors are apart, and leader.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Because the pope says he is…. and even the doctrine of papal infallibility itself was not declared until 1870.... early in the church's history there was much disagreement concerning popes and their ability and authority to proclaim doctrine. Mathison says

[/FONT]

Again, the use of Peter's chair is known thru time...giving his authority a name from an ancient concept does NOT make the whole issue new. See?



[FONT=&quot]

"In the century between 1150 and 1250, a study of the writings of the canon lawyers and theologians reveals that they did not know of any magesterium conferred on Peter with the power of the keys; they believed that in matters of faith a general council was greater then a pope; they did not maintain that papal pronouncements were irreformable ex sese.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Their opinions doesnt really conincide with scriptures and ECF's then.
Incidently....since lay ppl did not possess the Bible, how so did they come about this information?

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[icedtea]

No, not exactly. What about the doctrine of limbo which has recently been removed? And what about all the doctrines based on apparitions, which have been added?

Since joining the Anglican Church, I have noticed all the additions to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church has evolved and changed since splitting with the Anglican Church less than 500 years ago.

It is just a pity that it has not changed for the better.

Really? I got saved in 1978, and from my first non denom church, through baptist, pentecostal, assemblies, foursquare churches, I haven't heard any doctrine changed at all.

 

[lionroar0]

No, not exactly. What about the doctrine of limbo which has recently been removed? And what about all the doctrines based on apparitions, which have been added?

Limbo was never a doctrine. Those doctrines were already belived by the Church as part of Tradition before they were officially elevated to doctrines.

Since you did not mention what these doctrines are I'm assuming that you mean The Immaculate conception and the Assumption of Mary.

Peace

 

[PaulAckermann]

I believe this view is flawed. It is only when The Pope sits in a special throne and makes a statement that he is infallible...
somehow, I think this is putting the pope above God.

Anyway, I have had about 5 threads picking on Evanglicals and one picking on Anabaptists so I figured I would start a thread about Roman Catholics.

Equal opportunity.

Infallibity does not mean equality with God. The Bible is infallible. That does not mean its writers are equal with God. In both circunstances, whether it be the Holy Spirit inspiring the Pope to write an encyclical or the Holy Spirit inspiring a Biblical writer to write a gospel or a letter, it is still God who is the Source of Truth.

 

[PaulAckermann]

No, not exactly. What about the doctrine of limbo which has recently been removed?

The doctrine of limbo was never an official doctrine of Catholic Church. Thomas Aquinas believed that there was a limbo. Augustine did not. Up until recently a Catholic was free to believe one way or another. So the Church did not remove a doctrine. It was never an official doctrine to begin with.

And what about all the doctrines based on apparitions, which have been added?

Again, you are showing your ignorance of the Catholic Church. The Church has taught that any valid private revelation would not add, change, or remove a doctrine. It could only reinforce an already official doctrrine, but it could never start one.

I have studied the Marian apparitions in-depth, and there is not one Church-approve apparition that has added a doctrine to the Catholic Church. Please document this if you know of one that does.

Since joining the Anglican Church, I have noticed all the additions to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church has evolved and changed since splitting with the Anglican Church less than 500 years ago.

It is just a pity that it has not changed for the better.

Considering that you believed that the Church officially taught limbo and that apparitions have added doctrines to the Church, it is obvious that you are ignorant of the the Catholic Church and its teachings. It matters not that you were once Catholic. You were poorly cathechized. This is not a knock on you. I also was poorly catechized. I though I knew what the Church was about, but I was wrong.

It reminds me what Bishop Fulten Sheen once said. There are very few people who hate the Catholic Church as it really is. Most hate only what they think the Catholic Church is all about.

 

[bdarien]

considering the popes of the catholic church supported such theories as the flat earth, burning of supposed heretics for the horrible crime of daring to want to read and study the bible for themselves, and the catholic leaderships tacit support of nazi germany how can anyone realistically believe any sort of papal infallibility?

 

[icedtea]

and the catholic leaderships tacit support of nazi germany how can anyone realistically believe any sort of papal infallibility?

I read about this recently (Jerusalem Countdown) and was surprised. I hadn't known the pope of that time, and for a while after never excommunicated Hitler nor spoke against those crimes against humanity. Shame.

 

[Rhamiel]

Matt 23:2 Jesus speaks about the seat of Moses, and tells people to do what the pharasis say but do not live as they live, the same could be applied to many popes in the middle ages, the whole "Hitlers Pope" thing is exsagerated, do you think Hitler would care if he got excomunicated, the Church was trying to save as many people as it could and drawing attention to yourself does not help the whole saving people in seacret, what do protastants think happened to the chair of moses, I hink it was transfered to Peter

 

[icedtea]

Your post doesn't make much sense, even without the glaring spelling errors.
Making a statement against mass murder would make a church look good, I would think. But then, the real church doesn't have a denomination.