[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
“can can trace all of their popes back to St. Peter”
Are you including the female pope in this line?[/quote]
Perhaps you need to be more specific. I don’t know what you’re talking about.[/quote]
I don’t see why I should need to be more specific. Surely you’ve heard of the female pope.
He hadn’t heard of invincible ignorance either.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
I don’t see how you as a well reasoned protestant can be in the position to judge the catholic church. This is a church can can trace all of their popes back to St. Peter, therefore retaining the original teachings. I will agree with Catholic Church has become more theologically liberal but this is a good thing. Just 100 years ago it would have declared you anathema, and anyone else who isn’t catholic. Remember, the Church existed for over a thousand years before it even had an east/west schism, and nearly 1500 years before the protestant reformation. So it would seem silly to me that any protestant would argue with the teachings that have remained the same since its beginning. If you research how early christian communities in the first and second century worshiped, it was the same as a catholic mass. Refer to the Didache, a second century Manuel if you won’t believe me. [/quote]
Oh Fibro you haven’t been with us very long to know Trib’s long standing opinion on the RCC.
But let me grab my popcorn first THIS should be interesting!!
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
He hadn’t heard of invincible ignorance either.[/quote]
Yes I did. What you call invincible ignorance I call mercy for a reason. The Church coined up the term because invincible ignorance is A MERCY. Just like PURGATORY is a mercy.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
“can can trace all of their popes back to St. Peter”
Are you including the female pope in this line?[/quote]
Perhaps you need to be more specific. I don’t know what you’re talking about.[/quote]
I don’t see why I should need to be more specific. Surely you’ve heard of the female pope.[/quote]
BY DEFINITION there is no such thing.
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:<<< But let me grab my popcorn first THIS should be interesting!![/quote]Nothing to see here. I’m not goin round and round with this guy. I’m not even sure he’s fer real. Out of curiosity, what would have been more interesting here than as opposed to any other exchange?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:<<< But let me grab my popcorn first THIS should be interesting!![/quote]Nothing to see here. I’m not goin round and round with this guy. I’m not even sure he’s fer real. Out of curiosity, what would have been more interesting here than as opposed to any other exchange?
[/quote]
Well we keep debating in different forums so I get confused. Pick a forum to debate and I’ll stay there.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
“can can trace all of their popes back to St. Peter”
Are you including the female pope in this line?[/quote]
Perhaps you need to be more specific. I don’t know what you’re talking about.[/quote]
I don’t see why I should need to be more specific. Surely you’ve heard of the female pope.[/quote]
Then how could she hold the office for those years. Didn’t God protect pope’s line of succession. If it is legit as you say, He would have.
BY DEFINITION there is no such thing.
[/quote]
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
“can can trace all of their popes back to St. Peter”
Are you including the female pope in this line?[/quote]
Perhaps you need to be more specific. I don’t know what you’re talking about.[/quote]
I don’t see why I should need to be more specific. Surely you’ve heard of the female pope.[/quote]
Then how could she hold the office for those years. Didn’t God protect pope’s line of succession. If it is legit as you say, He would have.
BY DEFINITION there is no such thing.
[/quote]
[/quote]
First of all the story is folklore. If you you choose to believe it, then you choose to believe folklore. There are plenty of great Fairy tales. Listen, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS HAD ANTI POPES BEFORE. Do you know what an anti pope is? It is a person who called themself Pope, but never was actually pope. A woman cannot be pope because by definition a Pope must be male. If a female managed to hijack the papal seat, she would have no authority and nobody would be obliged to listen to her. Again, the story you’ve read is wishful thinking folklore, and if you want to believe legends, then you are free too.
I think there sure were MANY such “antipopes”. My question is still unanswered: Didn’t God protect the pope’s line of succession?
Below is a brief survey of popery. Murder, bribery, illegitimate children. Interesting history for sure:
A lot of the rumors about the “bad popes” are true, but let’s not get ridiculous. The female pope story is generally regarded as a fabrication. “Pope Joan,” who supposedly served from 855 to 858, was said to be an Englishwoman who disguised herself as a monk to be with her cleric boyfriend. She went to Rome, where she so impressed others with her learning that she was elected pope. Her secret was discovered when she gave birth during a procession, whereupon she was slain. The story is false, although it was possibly inspired by actual events, about which more in a moment.
But many other papal horror stories are entirely legit. In many cases, in fact, weaknesses of the flesh were the least of the popes’ sins. In the Middle Ages many popes were elevated to office following the murder of their predecessors. During one particularly grim period from 882 to 1046, there were 37 popes, some of whom served only a few weeks.
Leo V (903), for instance, had been pope for only a month before being imprisoned and tortured by one Christophorus, who then enthroned himself. Both men were killed in 904 on the orders of Pope Sergius III (904-911). Sergius later had a son by his teenaged mistress Marozia who became Pope John XI (931-935). In 914, according to one chronicler, Marozia’s mother Theodora installed her lover on the papal throne as John X (914-928). (Theodora and Marozia effectively controlled the papacy through their menfolk and may be the source of the Pope Joan legend.) John XII (955-963), who ascended to the papacy at 19, was accused, perhaps falsely, of sleeping with his father’s mistress, committing incest with his niece, and castrating a deacon.
Murder gave way to bribery as a route to the papacy in later centuries; some 40 popes are believed to have bought their jobs. But the lax attitude toward celibacy remained unchanged. In large part this was because the Church was an important route to wealth and power. Sons of influential families were pushed into Church careers much as we might send a kid to MBA school, apparently with similar expectations regarding morals. Noblemen with mistresses saw no reason to adjust their life-styles just because they had taken vows.
The spectacle of cardinals and popes putting their “nephews” into cushy jobs was a standing joke in Rome for centuries. Innocent VIII (1484-1492) had a son and daughter who lived with him in the Vatican. The notorious Alexander VI (1492-1503), born Rodrigo Borgia, had at least four illegitimate children while still a cardinal, among them the cutthroat Cesare Borgia and the reputed poisoner Lucrezia Borgia (actually, she probably never poisoned anybody). Clement VII (1523-1534), himself illegitimate, had a son whom he attempted to make duke of Florence. Paul III (1534-1539) had four kids; two teen grandsons he made cardinals. Pius IV (1559-1565) had three children, and the list goes on.
The Catholic Church has been reasonably forthcoming about the bad popes, having opened the Vatican archives to historians in the 19th century. The Church acknowledges that the office has been held by unworthy men, but maintains that their spiritual capacities were unimpaired by their temporal failings ? a line that one hears more often these days in connection with politicians. The doctrine of papal infallibility applies only to certain formal pronouncements on faith and morals, so it can be argued that the bad popes did not lead the church permanently astray. But it’s not a position I would care to defend before a congressional committee.
Excerpted from here: Was there once a female pope? - The Straight Dope
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I think there sure were MANY such “antipopes”. My question is still unanswered: Didn’t God protect the pope’s line of succession?
Below is a brief survey of popery. Murder, bribery, illegitimate children. Interesting history for sure:
A lot of the rumors about the “bad popes” are true, but let’s not get ridiculous. The female pope story is generally regarded as a fabrication. “Pope Joan,” who supposedly served from 855 to 858, was said to be an Englishwoman who disguised herself as a monk to be with her cleric boyfriend. She went to Rome, where she so impressed others with her learning that she was elected pope. Her secret was discovered when she gave birth during a procession, whereupon she was slain. The story is false, although it was possibly inspired by actual events, about which more in a moment.
But many other papal horror stories are entirely legit. In many cases, in fact, weaknesses of the flesh were the least of the popes’ sins. In the Middle Ages many popes were elevated to office following the murder of their predecessors. During one particularly grim period from 882 to 1046, there were 37 popes, some of whom served only a few weeks.
Leo V (903), for instance, had been pope for only a month before being imprisoned and tortured by one Christophorus, who then enthroned himself. Both men were killed in 904 on the orders of Pope Sergius III (904-911). Sergius later had a son by his teenaged mistress Marozia who became Pope John XI (931-935). In 914, according to one chronicler, Marozia’s mother Theodora installed her lover on the papal throne as John X (914-928). (Theodora and Marozia effectively controlled the papacy through their menfolk and may be the source of the Pope Joan legend.) John XII (955-963), who ascended to the papacy at 19, was accused, perhaps falsely, of sleeping with his father’s mistress, committing incest with his niece, and castrating a deacon.
Murder gave way to bribery as a route to the papacy in later centuries; some 40 popes are believed to have bought their jobs. But the lax attitude toward celibacy remained unchanged. In large part this was because the Church was an important route to wealth and power. Sons of influential families were pushed into Church careers much as we might send a kid to MBA school, apparently with similar expectations regarding morals. Noblemen with mistresses saw no reason to adjust their life-styles just because they had taken vows.
The spectacle of cardinals and popes putting their “nephews” into cushy jobs was a standing joke in Rome for centuries. Innocent VIII (1484-1492) had a son and daughter who lived with him in the Vatican. The notorious Alexander VI (1492-1503), born Rodrigo Borgia, had at least four illegitimate children while still a cardinal, among them the cutthroat Cesare Borgia and the reputed poisoner Lucrezia Borgia (actually, she probably never poisoned anybody). Clement VII (1523-1534), himself illegitimate, had a son whom he attempted to make duke of Florence. Paul III (1534-1539) had four kids; two teen grandsons he made cardinals. Pius IV (1559-1565) had three children, and the list goes on.
The Catholic Church has been reasonably forthcoming about the bad popes, having opened the Vatican archives to historians in the 19th century. The Church acknowledges that the office has been held by unworthy men, but maintains that their spiritual capacities were unimpaired by their temporal failings ? a line that one hears more often these days in connection with politicians. The doctrine of papal infallibility applies only to certain formal pronouncements on faith and morals, so it can be argued that the bad popes did not lead the church permanently astray. But it’s not a position I would care to defend before a congressional committee.
Excerpted from here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/432/was-there-once-a-female-pope[/quote]
What does this have to do with Catholicism? All this proves is that man can be evil. Have you ever heard of Judas Iscariot? He was AN APOSTLE who betrayed Christ. Does this make Christ or his Church untrue?
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
What does this have to do with Catholicism? All this proves is that man can be evil. Have you ever heard of Judas Iscariot? He was AN APOSTLE who betrayed Christ. Does this make Christ or his Church untrue?[/quote]
God planned for, and prophesied that a Judas would appear. It was part of the plan, and so does not make Christ untrue, or His church suspect.
However, popish shenanigans certainly do open the “one true church”, outside of which all are damned, open to criticism.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
What does this have to do with Catholicism? All this proves is that man can be evil. Have you ever heard of Judas Iscariot? He was AN APOSTLE who betrayed Christ. Does this make Christ or his Church untrue?[/quote]
God planned for, and prophesied that a Judas would appear. It was part of the plan, and so does not make Christ untrue, or His church suspect.
However, popish shenanigans certainly do open the “one true church”, outside of which all are damned, open to criticism.[/quote]
Papal Bulls can never be altered. I know what you are referring to. But they can be redefined. But they declare “Outside the Church No one will be saved” you must understand that the way the “Church” is defined today is a tad more lenient.
Moreover, Everyone at their deathbed who chooses Jesus will choose his church. The church is necessary for salvation because without it, no Christian would exist today.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
What does this have to do with Catholicism? All this proves is that man can be evil. Have you ever heard of Judas Iscariot? He was AN APOSTLE who betrayed Christ. Does this make Christ or his Church untrue?[/quote]
God planned for, and prophesied that a Judas would appear. It was part of the plan, and so does not make Christ untrue, or His church suspect.
However, popish shenanigans certainly do open the “one true church”, outside of which all are damned, open to criticism.[/quote]
Papal Bulls can never be altered. I know what you are referring to. But they can be redefined. But they declare “Outside the Church No one will be saved” you must understand that the way the “Church” is defined today is a tad more lenient.
Moreover, Everyone at their deathbed who chooses Jesus will choose his church. The church is necessary for salvation because without it, no Christian would exist today.
[/quote]
I would be glad to be a member of the church that Christ founded, but not the one that’s currently presided over by a line of corrupt popes.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
What does this have to do with Catholicism? All this proves is that man can be evil. Have you ever heard of Judas Iscariot? He was AN APOSTLE who betrayed Christ. Does this make Christ or his Church untrue?[/quote]
God planned for, and prophesied that a Judas would appear. It was part of the plan, and so does not make Christ untrue, or His church suspect.
However, popish shenanigans certainly do open the “one true church”, outside of which all are damned, open to criticism.[/quote]
Papal Bulls can never be altered. I know what you are referring to. But they can be redefined. But they declare “Outside the Church No one will be saved” you must understand that the way the “Church” is defined today is a tad more lenient.
Moreover, Everyone at their deathbed who chooses Jesus will choose his church. The church is necessary for salvation because without it, no Christian would exist today.
[/quote]
I would be glad to be a member of the church that Christ founded, but not the one that’s currently presided over by a line of corrupt popes.[/quote]
Popes are men. They can be as corrupt as you and I. No pope can alter Doctrine. The Popes can be pricks, but they can’t change the teachings because the magisterium has a say in it.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
What does this have to do with Catholicism? All this proves is that man can be evil. Have you ever heard of Judas Iscariot? He was AN APOSTLE who betrayed Christ. Does this make Christ or his Church untrue?[/quote]
God planned for, and prophesied that a Judas would appear. It was part of the plan, and so does not make Christ untrue, or His church suspect.
However, popish shenanigans certainly do open the “one true church”, outside of which all are damned, open to criticism.[/quote]
Papal Bulls can never be altered. I know what you are referring to. But they can be redefined. But they declare “Outside the Church No one will be saved” you must understand that the way the “Church” is defined today is a tad more lenient.
Moreover, Everyone at their deathbed who chooses Jesus will choose his church. The church is necessary for salvation because without it, no Christian would exist today.
[/quote]
I would be glad to be a member of the church that Christ founded, but not the one that’s currently presided over by a line of corrupt popes.[/quote]
Popes are men. They can be as corrupt as you and I. No pope can alter Doctrine. The Popes can be pricks, but they can’t change the teachings because the magisterium has a say in it.
[/quote]
His ex cathedra pronouncements become doctrine.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
The idea of papal succession, and the hierarchy it sits on top of, is not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
The idea of papal succession, and the hierarchy it sits on top of, is not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament.[/quote]
‘I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.’-Matthew 16:18
peter was the first pope.
There is also such a thing as oral tradition and the didache you know
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
The idea of papal succession, and the hierarchy it sits on top of, is not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament.[/quote]
‘I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.’-Matthew 16:18
peter was the first pope.
There is also such a thing as oral tradition and the didache you know[/quote]
Peter is one person, not papal succession. And I reject your oral tradition as “the commandments of men”. Especially where they contradict the clear teaching of scripture, as in the above case.
Since this thread is about how we know, I will just say surely trusting in doctrines promulgated by an organization whose hierarchy is full of murderers, extortioners, and pedophiles would not be wise.
I end here.