Originally posted by jbmitch
"Papal infallability" if the Pope cant be wrong because ,,,Riddle me that Batman

People keep bringing up "papal infallability' and they don't understand what it means. It DOES NOT MEAN that the pope is always right or that he can't sin. It means that when the pope makes a theological pronouncement EX-CATHEDRA and in union with all the bishops of the world, then it is supposed to be without error* (based on Matthew 16:18 - you are Peter the Rock ... the church will be built upon you and what you say goes on earth and in heaven ... and the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church ... etc etc etc)

* note - I said 'supposed to be' ... not that it was.

Popes can have opinions and catholics everywhere are free to ignore his opinions - or listen - as they like. Mostly I ignore Ratzingers opinions. They end up being mostly political and he's definately euro-centric. His encyclicals are interesting though.

Riddle me that Batman

back at you.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I had considered blatant littering a sin, even a crime, for as long as I can remember. Its an act done with conscious knowledge that it is wrong (er, sin defined no?) ..

Conscious knowledge of a sin = sin.
Unconscious knowledge of a sin = still a sin but you are held less accountable.

Littering is a sin .. yes. A cardinal sin ... no.

A sin and a cardinal sin are different. The Cardinal Sins are things that all other sins stem from. The seven deadly cardinal sins are those sins that every other sin has at it's roots. Example - A 'lesser' sin such as littering comes from being lazy. It isn't a root sin (cardinal sin) in itself.

Picture a flow chart with the cardinal sins in the starting blocks and the rest of the sins flowing from them.

As for "sharing the wealth" .. The Church and all major monotheistic religions require 10% of all your wealth per year to be shared among the community..

Sure. But for them to say that being wealthy is a sin in itself is dead wrong. There were plenty of wealthy people in the bible - and some were even friends with Christ. They were not 'sinners' for having wealth. The extreme that the Cardinals went to - calling wealth a Cardinal Sin - is marxism. The share-the-wealth rhetoric along with the rest of what they said smacks of marxism.

They want to punish the productive... those smart enough to know how to be successful ... those who have money that can rivel theirs.

you are the last person I would have expected to have an issue with these "new sins"

Surprise!

Its the church reiterating that its wrong.

Good. They should. But they need to get their Catholic theology straight. These could be sins .. but they are not 'cardinal sins'.

Originally posted by chromatico
If they can back it up with the Bible, fine. But in that case, the sins would not be "new" at all!

you're exactly right.

it must be in the Bible, not only this, but in the Commandments.

if the Church is holding the position that modern times need new, modern sins added to the list, then they are basically admitting that the original Commandments were given to Moses not by "God", but by an Extraterrestrial, aka an Alien?

because how could a God not have foresight into the future of his own creation, to know its' limits, and what shall come to pass? only something not so powerful .. like a collection or a race of Aliens, or other strange extraterrestrial/dimensional being(s).

Furthermore, in Genesis, when the Angels asked God why he gave dominion of the Earth to men (or it might be why they have to serve men i think), God simply replies, "because I know what you know not". now obviously that means he knows the future considering THAT was the beginning. Thus to add new sins is to play God in the most literal sense, and also to claim that the book of Genesis is lying about God! "knowing what they knew not" in regards to the future of the human race, and why it was so special, what it was the humans would/could accomplish.

I call Heresy on the Roman Catholic Church, from the Theological line of Arius the Presbyter, and his superior Saint Lucian of Antioch. Will these mighty ancestors of the true Christian Church, these bedrocks, rise to smash these infidels in Rome trying add onto the Bible.

Wow, I sound so totally like an islamic terrorist in that last line, lolz

[edit on 3/11/2008 by runetang]

excuse me sir,

what isn't human, nor even a normal animal?

a beast.

now, those ugly grey things that fly in from outer space, are they human or even a normal mammal, as we know normal mammals? no.

therefore, quite literally according to definition, they are the beast.

the roman catholic church is working for the beast, so it in turn must be the whore of babylon, mystery babylon the great. that clears hillary clinton of the suspicion lol.

ontop of this, the mark of the beast shall be an extraterrestrial technology after disclosure/contact is made, and a new world government under their influence is in power.

Originally posted by runetang
...now, those ugly grey things that fly in from outer space, are they human or even a normal mammal, as we know normal mammals? no.

therefore, quite literally according to definition, they are the beast...

I'd be willing to risk going to hell by betting you an obscene amount of money (and winning it) that when those "Beasts" show up in their cute little UFO's, there are going to be some people that will classify them as Heretics. And some others that will classify them as Infidels.

We all know what certain people like to do to Heritics, and what others like to do to Infidels.

Good thing we didn't get rid of all our nukes! We're gonna need em all to wipe those bubble-headed punks off the face of the earth when they show up.

P.S. wouldn't it be a bummer though, after we torch em all, if we were to find out that it was their intentions to share some insights into the Spiritaul side of reality that we just never seemed to catch on to?

Oh well, as long as they don't try to ram communism down our throats! God forbid that it be suggested that Humans share the planets resources so that everyone has food, clothes, shelter, medical care, etc. Why, that would be pure evil!

Originally posted by jbmitch
so there are things that the Pope says should be followed and accepted as church doctrine and times the church doesnt?

Yes.
- Sometimes he speaks for himself (we all are entitled to our opinion)
- other times he speaks for the Church
- and still other times - when he speaks ex-cathedra - when he speaks what is believed to be (allegedly) infallible and straight from heaven.

No one has to pay any attention to him when he expresses his opinion. EXAMPLE - he recently said something about how evil it would be for America to secure it's southern border. He basically said we should allow illegals to run amuk all over our country and not to worry about security - even though radical islam has vowed to wipe us out. OBVIOUSLY he was being his anti-American euro-centric self and OBVIOUSLY he doesn't give a rats backend about Americans and our well being and security. In this case, the pope was speaking for himself and his own opinion. (which, as far as I'm concerned, showed either his ignorance or his hatred of America)

When he speaks as head of the church Catholics are supposed to pay attention but Catholics have the free will to accept or reject his 'suggestions' or 'proposals'.

When he speaks ex-cathedra - and in union with all the bishops of the world - then Catholics are either supposed to accept that as 'infallible' or Catholics should get the heck out of the Catholic Church.

As far as I can tell, these new 'cardinal sins' are NOT excathedra. If they are .. then someone please post that information ... I'd like to read up on it more. Thanks.

If the pope said its the end of the world everyone run off a cliff,, imagine how many people would do just that

Same thing with any leader of a church or large group. There is danger in following a human being.

My B.S. meter is pegged way out.

What's not to understand? Look at it this way ....

Picture this ...
A man is the president of a company in America.
When he speaks, he speaks for himself and his own opinion.
Sometimes when he speaks, he speaks for the company.
Still other times when he speaks, he is setting down rules that the employees either abide by or they are fired.

so why did he bother if he didnt mean it as the Head of the CAtholic Church?

That's like saying that a president of a company shouldn't speak unless he is always speaking 'in the role of president of the company'.

That's like saying that a married man shouldn't speak unless he is always speaking as the head of a household.

Different roles ... different levels of importance ...

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Like for instance, when the Pope bows to Mecca and appologizes to Muslims.

Rockpuck .. you nailed it! (as usual! )
That was unfreak'n believable.

It looks like Bishop Gianfranco Girotti who is head of the Apostolic Penitentiary made up the list. He was bemoaning the fact that most Italian Catholics don't go to confession anymore. I guess he made up a list that would hit closer to home to make them feel guilt so they'd go in and go to confession.

Catholic = feeling guilty. It goes hand in hand.

He may have had good intentions, but his 'cardinal sin' list still aren't cardinal sins.

[edit on 3/11/2008 by FlyersFan]

Gotta love the religious outlook on things: 'beware of genetic manipulation or you are going to hell.'

Great stuff! Round of applause for the Pope.

If praying done us any good then we wouldn't have to grow organs or manipulate genetics to help people who are ill.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Bishops around the world do wonky things. When Bishops who work at the Vatican say wonky things then everyone points to the vatican and they say that it's now 'official catholic doctrine' or whatever.

Apparently it was just one bishops opinion and NOT anything ex-cathedra.

At least .. that's what I'm getting from this article.

But hes a Bishop from the Vatican! Surely that reflects the Vatican voice? If it didn't, why would they allow him to be a voice for the Vatican? I understand you're saying it would be more official if the Pope himself said "I officially declare 7 new sins", but still, I see this as the voice of the Vatican.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
But hes a Bishop from the Vatican! Surely that reflects the Vatican voice?

Nope.

This is no different than ...for example ... an engineer at Boeing stating an opinion .. he isn't the official voice of Boeing ... and this Bishop isn't the 'official voice' of the Vatican. Same thing. There is an office of public affairs that would release an official statement if it were really the 'voice of the Vatican'.

This is just a guy with an opinion... and he happens to work at the Vatican. Nothing more.

why would they allow him to be a voice for the Vatican?

1 - he's NOT the 'official voice of the Vatican'
2 - people have a right of free speech and he's expressing his opinion.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

1 - he's NOT the 'official voice of the Vatican'
2 - people have a right of free speech and he's expressing his opinion.

1. I didn't say he was 'The' voice of he Vatican FF, I said he was 'a' voice

I dont get it. He's a bishop... isn't he a representitive of the Church? Okay I understand the analogy you just described and that was a good point. BUT... isn't he, as a bishop of The Church, and intermediary to God!?

Also, what I was really trying to say was this:

He is part of the Vatican. Right? So he obviously communicates with other members of the Vatican. Why wouldn't his voice resonate the collective ideas of the Vatican? AND... if his "opinion" was so far off... surely The Vatican would revoke his position in the Church?

2. Free-speech, freedom of opinion, yes yes. But he's a leader and a representitive. His opinion is a collective opinion as ordained by his position within The Church.

Case in point, even if I am "wrong" about this... it's what I thought was "right" and I have many friends that sure this understanding. So regardless whether you and the Vatican agree with what I am suggesting here, many people not in the "know" of the Vatican's inner-workings, think this way.

[edit on 043131p://11u20 by Lucid Lunacy]

The Catholic Church are the biggest hypocrites (like most religions), one of their new sins is “Obscene Wealth”, but isn’t the Catholic Church one of the wealthiest institutions in the world?

Seem it’s only a sin for some, but not for the Catholic Church itself.

Another one of the new sins is Paedophilia, sorry, but isn’t that what the Catholic Church do?, isn’t that like their “thing”? I thought they where top of the list when it comes to being Paedophiles!

Talk about the biggest bunch of hypocrites!

Mikey


[edit on 11/3/2008 by Mikey84]