Kevin's Watch

The pope is only infallible when he says something that is ex cathedra, which has its own complex set of conditions that have to be met. He only speaks ex cathedra on important issues of doctrine. But that was only instated less than two hundred years ago. Before that, everything the pope said could be considered infallible.

Lord Mhoram wrote:The pope is only infallible when he says something that is ex cathedra, which has its own complex set of conditions that have to be met. He only speaks ex cathedra on important issues of doctrine. But that was only instated less than two hundred years ago. Before that, everything the pope said could be considered infallible.

I don't believe that's accurate. Infallibility wasn't strictly defined prior to 1870, and it's accepted that not everything said by the Pope prior to 1870 was infallible. Since 1870, the Pope has spoken ex cathedra once (the Assumption of Mary).

Uh-oh...

My comprehension of this is now going from bad to worse...

To further complicate things (don'cha just love it when I do this?), the Pope is not free from sin.

Cail wrote:To further complicate things (don'cha just love it when I do this?),

Frankly? No...

Cail wrote:the Pope is not free from sin.

Now this I can accept, as he is of Man. I have not read, much less studied, the New Testament at all, but I have heard that even JC did things while of Man that would be viewed as sinful. While he had divine reasons, would not his attack on the merchants in the Temple as a child be viewed as such?

Hyperception, while not practising but having been raised Lutheran, took one look at this before I sent it, bit his lip while shaking his head, and advised me not to post this. He claims I am opening up a huge can of worms, but refuses to elaborate with me. So...if I said anything offensive, just disregard it...

Again, I am in very muddy waters here, but I am willing to listen, if it helps me to comprehend my fellow Watchers better.

I hadn't really thought about that.

Hmmmmmm, it may well be.

Menolly wrote:

Cail wrote:To further complicate things (don'cha just love it when I do this?),

Frankly? No...

Cail wrote:the Pope is not free from sin.

Now this I can accept, as he is of Man. I have not read, much less studied, the New Testament at all, but I have heard that even JC did things while of Man that would be viewed as sinful. While he had divine reasons, would not his attack on the merchants in the Temple as a child be viewed as such?


Again, I am in very muddy waters here, but I am willing to listen, if it helps me to comprehend my fellow Watchers better.

Im thinking this was a pretty mild response from the Son of God. Especially when you consider that in the old testiment God would wipe out entire towns.. heck he wiped out the entire earth except for Noah and his group.

Cail wrote:I hadn't really thought about that.

Hmmmmmm, it may well be.

SoulBiter wrote:Im thinking this was a pretty mild response from the Son of God. Especially when you consider that in the old testiment God would wipe out entire towns.. heck he wiped out the entire earth except for Noah and his group.

Yes, but HaShem made the promise, and every rainbow after a storm is our constant reminder, that he will never do such again. So even his Son would not react in such a way, no?

Menolly wrote:

Cail wrote:I hadn't really thought about that.

Hmmmmmm, it may well be.

SoulBiter wrote:Im thinking this was a pretty mild response from the Son of God. Especially when you consider that in the old testiment God would wipe out entire towns.. heck he wiped out the entire earth except for Noah and his group.

Yes, but HaShem made the promise, and every rainbow after a storm is our constant reminder, that he will never do such again. So even his Son would not react in such a way, no?

Maybe.. but what I was alluding to was a pattern of doing these kinds of things even if there is a promise later to not do one of those again.

Menolly wrote:

Cail wrote:I hadn't really thought about that.

Hmmmmmm, it may well be.

SoulBiter wrote:Im thinking this was a pretty mild response from the Son of God. Especially when you consider that in the old testiment God would wipe out entire towns.. heck he wiped out the entire earth except for Noah and his group.

Yes, but HaShem made the promise, and every rainbow after a storm is our constant reminder, that he will never do such again. So even his Son would not react in such a way, no?

God still destroyed entire towns after Noah, though...

Cail,

Infallibility wasn't strictly defined prior to 1870, and it's accepted that not everything said by the Pope prior to 1870 was infallible.

Right, now we are aware that not everything popes said pre-1870 was infallible, but since infallibility wasn't strictly defined as you say, the pope could construe any statement he liked as infallible. Within general reason, of course.

Menolly,

I might be wrong, but it has always been my impression that at least in Catholicism, it is accepted that Christ and Mary are the only two humans (who are still divine at the same time) to have never sinned. I can't think of anything either of them ever did that could have been sinful. I know though that Christ as a child got angry at a playmate and used his divine powers to zap him, but this was in a Gnostic gospel (Thomas, I think) and was stricken from canon millennia ago.

Thanks LM. I had no idea.

That thought sits ill with me though. How can one forgive sin, having come from Man themself, if they do not know it themselves?

*I'm not phrasing that well...sorry*

Menoly wrote:How can one forgive sin, having come from Man themself, if they do not know it themselves?

Well, if absolution genes are paternaly inherited, that could be the explanation

And then again, there seems to be some lack of consensus as to the genealogy (post David)
www.d.umn.edu/~jbelote/bible1.html

LM wrote:I can't think of anything either of them ever did that could have been sinful.

Technically, Maria DID cheat on her husband.

Edit: This is actually interesting stuff!
www.d.umn.edu/~jbelote/bible.html

Edit2: Try to go here and search for Jesus.....

Menolly,

Great question. I don't know. That contradiction is one reason I am not a Christian.

*casting eyes downward*

Did you never go through with the confirmation, or whatever it was you posted about last year then, LM? I stopped visiting The Close for a long time, and do not know how that issue was resolved...

I went through with the confirmation. It was probably a mistake. But I know that a huge portion of my class was either apathetic about religion (Does God exist? 'I don't know, I guess...' or at best agnostic). I have become even more convinced since then that I do not want to call myself a Christian.

I remember a big concern for you was your family. I am sure you did the right thing in regards to that. Our own personal journey should be just that, except for what we are comfortable sharing with others. If the Lubavitch rabbi here knew of my own tendencies towards the teachings of Jewitchery, I would probably not be as welcome as they make Beorn and me whenever we go there.

The journey to finding what resonates for you can be an intense one, full of confusion, yet rewarded with bliss and joy once your personal path is found. If you are still searching I will pray your path becomes clear to you as you search.

Thanks, Menolly. I see religion as an internal and obviously very personal choice. I made the "public" decision of becoming a Christian (officially) because that's just what (my mom's) family does. Had I not done it, it would have caused a lot of unnecessary drama and would have seriously hurt my relationship with my family. If there is a god, it knew what I was thinking when I made that decision.

Lord Mhoram wrote:Thanks, Menolly.

Welcome, LM.

Lord Mhoram wrote:I see religion as an internal and obviously very personal choice. I made the "public" decision of becoming a Christian (officially) because that's just what (my mom's) family does. Had I not done it, it would have caused a lot of unnecessary drama and would have seriously hurt my relationship with my family.

*nod*

I remember all that being part of the turmoil you faced in the posts I read. My hope is Beorn will some day face such concerns with as much seriousness and consideration as you showed.

Lord Mhoram wrote:If there is a god, it knew what I was thinking when I made that decision.

I can not make the decision for you if there is a G-d or not. But please know from my own POV, that I totally agree with your assesment of how s/he would view your actions and decision.

I do believe there are shades of gray when it comes to an action and the thought behind the action. Not all actions can be forgiven because of the reason behind them, but I do believe the reasons are taken into consideration.

Menolly wrote:My hope is Beorn will some day face such concerns with as much seriousness and consideration as you showed.

My hope is, that Beorn won't have to worry about other peoples religious feelings, but will make his own choice, and be accepted by his family and friends no matter what.

(and I'm sure that you, of all people, will make that possible Menolly)