Vatican City State: Pope Francis accession/Inauguration & Current Events:March 2013-


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Papal infallibility

Archduchess Zelia said:
In MY opinion it's the wrong views, to ME it's wrong that my gay brother isn't allowed to marry his boyfriend like I'm able to marry a future husband, to ME it's wrong in every way that because someone's homosexual they're not allowed to have the same human rights as someone heterosexual. I could go on, but this is a discussion for another thread, I think ;) You may be butthurt all you want because someone don't agree with you and some point of views in Catholicism (mind you, that I'm still a member of the Catholic Church, and I'm perfectly content being a "liberal" Catholic), because to ME it's not being offensive to disagree.

I'm not being all over you or any other religious person, saying "Stop it! I think this is wrong and therefore you MUST think it's wrong too". What I am saying is that I think that that part of Catholicism is wrong, people don't have to agree with me, but I use my freedom of speech to say on a public forum that as sweet and kind as this new Pope probably is, I think he's completely wrong on subjects such as abortion and gay peoples right to marry etc., but I also know that he's not "allowed" to publicly say anything else than that he's against it.

In other words, I'm not forcing anyone to share my opinions, however I do use my liberty to state aforementioned opinion, and I still don't see what's the offense in saying that I think that some of his opinions are wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually the pope, unlike a reigning monarch doesn't have to toe the line and say what is expected of him. Thanks to papal infallibility he can say whatever he wants and it is considered right and divinely inspired allowing him to change any church law he sees fit. I think you rushed to judge Pope Francis based on the views of his predecessor Benedict just as Benedict went against the views of pope JPII in his views in gays. JPII declared that being gay want a sin, it was natural but the act if sex outside of marriage was a sin, but he took no stance on gay marriage publicly. Benedict overturned that almost instantly. Now Francis with the meek words "as long as they are good people who am I to judge" turned a who new church view on the situation. H is taking a "do good Abdul good things happen approach" which being gay myself means a lot to hear someone saying that as opposed to the "evil, worst thing to happen to the world" remarks that Benedict lived to say.
 
I apologise for asking a little out of topic question.

Actually I know enough things about Catholicism, even being Eastern Orthodox. First of all, in my family there are Catholics, though they are practically non-practicing.

Watching Vatican Holy messes so far, I've observed different ways of taking communion (Eucharist). There was once when I saw members receiving at Holy Communion wine and host, but mostly only host.

On Wiki it is said that both variants are possible. But mostly I observed that Catholics take at Holy Communion only the host.

When I was In France I visited a church, where people received the host and wine at Communion.

Does it depend of preasts or do different Catholic national churches have their own "rules" of taking Eucharist?

Thanks in advance.
 
theway2004 said:
Actually the pope, unlike a reigning monarch doesn't have to toe the line and say what is expected of him. Thanks to papal infallibility he can say whatever he wants and it is considered right and divinely inspired allowing him to change any church law he sees fit. I think you rushed to judge Pope Francis based on the views of his predecessor Benedict just as Benedict went against the views of pope JPII in his views in gays. JPII declared that being gay want a sin, it was natural but the act if sex outside of marriage was a sin, but he took no stance on gay marriage publicly. Benedict overturned that almost instantly. Now Francis with the meek words "as long as they are good people who am I to judge" turned a who new church view on the situation. H is taking a "do good Abdul good things happen approach" which being gay myself means a lot to hear someone saying that as opposed to the "evil, worst thing to happen to the world" remarks that Benedict lived to say.
Click to expand...


Don't know where you got your info about papal infallibility and how things work in changing things within the Church but it's in error.

Your understanding of pope Francis's position on homosexual actions may be in error as well....not sure what you actually think he said. Pope Benedict ...I would like to see a link to those remarks because I am pretty sure you are not quoting him accurately.

None of the popes you mentioned have said homosexual acts are natural...not sure where you heard that one either.


LaRae
 
Last edited:
Lenora said:
I apologise for asking a little out of topic question.

Actually I know enough things about Catholicism, even being Eastern Orthodox. First of all, in my family there are Catholics, though they are practically non-practicing.

Watching Vatican Holy messes so far, I've observed different ways of taking communion (Eucharist). There was once when I saw members receiving at Holy Communion wine and host, but mostly only host.

On Wiki it is said that both variants are possible. But mostly I observed that Catholics take at Holy Communion only the host.

When I was In France I visited a church, where people received the host and wine at Communion.

Does it depend of preasts or do different Catholic national churches have their own "rules" of taking Eucharist?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...


The bishop of a dioceses can make some changes but whatever he changes can't be a contradiction to what is allowed by the Church itself.

As far as the Church is concerned....you may receive either species, the Body and the Blood both or you can just receive one. You may receive in the hand or on the tongue.

There are not any 'national' Catholic Churches. There are different rites such as the Eastern rite where I believe they actually use the method of intinction when they receive the Body and Blood.


LaRae
 
Pranter said:
Don't know where you got your info about papal infallibility and how things work in changing things within the Church but it's in error.

Your understanding of pope Francis's position on homosexual actions may be in error as well....not sure what you actually think he said. Pope Benedict ...I would like to see a link to those remarks because I am pretty sure you are not quoting him accurately.

None of the popes you mentioned have said homosexual acts are natural...not sure where you heard that one either.


LaRae
Click to expand...


Papal infallibility doctrine comes from a papal bull issued in the last quarter of the 19th century.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here in the US, our long running prime time News show, 60 minutes did a piece on Pope Francis.

This links to the text of the show and to video links as well. They spoke to people who know him, were and still are friends. See what you think. The most surprising thing to me is the change they see in their friend - that he has taken on the role of hope-bringer since his election.

Pope Francis' first year filled with surprises - CBS News
 
Last edited:
casualfan said:
Papal infallibility doctrine comes from a papal bull issued in the last quarter of the 19th century, and it's been used as an excuse for the Church's complicity in genocide on at least one occasion- Rwanda 1994 (and before anyone asks about the verifiability of my last claim, see the example of Wenceslas Muyeshyaka). See Philip Gourevitch's book (We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families) pages 307-318.
Click to expand...

The papal infallibility was used only once : in 1950 for the dogma of Assumption. This doctrine doesn't come from a papal bull, but from Council Vatican I.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM
 
JulieS said:
The papal infallibility was used only once : in 1950 for the dogma of Assumption. This doctrine doesn't come from a papal bull, but from Council Vatican I.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM
Click to expand...


Actually I was wrong-it can be traced to as early as the 13th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Infallibility

But you are mistaken that it was only used in the mid-20th century. That may be when it was "officially" used, but it has been invoked unofficially several times and can be linked to several other incidents as well (for instance, some historians argue that it was made harder for Germans and Italians during the Second World War to resist the regimes of Hitler and Mussolini because of the Lateran Accords and the Reichskonkordat).

And I've heard the argument that the Church isn't responsible for things argued in its name--that's complete bunk. The Church's silence on many issues continues to stand in my mind as some of the greatest crimes in human history, rendering the Church's so-called moral high ground absolutely moot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

An Ard Ri
Pope Francis Current Events Part 5
4 5 6
Replies
167
Views
10K
iceflower
iceflower
An Ard Ri
  • Locked
Pope Francis Current Events Part 4
13 14 15
Replies
447
Views
21K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Zonk
Royal Family of Jordan Current Events 3: Aug 2023 -
2
Replies
51
Views
8K
iceflower
iceflower
Blog Real
Vatican City State: History and Residences
2 3 4
Replies
119
Views
9K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
  • Locked
Pope Francis Current Events Part 3
12 13 14
Replies
401
Views
22K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom