No retardstein, Catholics don't owe complete obedience to the Pope. We do only on religious matters where we believe he to be infallible. Regarding zionism and the jewish question the Pope is respectfully wrong because one is a political matter while the other is a justice matter. The Vatican II murked the waters on purpose under jewish influence.
Regarding your replies I read it in passing as I consider everything to be hogwash as you made clear in the conclusion of your previous reply.
No retardstein, Catholics don't owe complete obedience to the Pope.
I love it when Catholics are not aware of their own religion. Here's Vatican I:
when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,
he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals;
We do only on religious matters where we believe he to be infallible.
No, according to Vatican I you have to submit to **all faith and moral ** doctrinal teachings with humility. Besides, how is the covenantal relation of jews to God, or of Muslims and Hindus worshipping the same God as Christians (ecumenism) not a religious teaching? Trad Cath cope is hilarious. I know your system and documents better than you do because I did my research before deciding what the true Church is.
It's also in the canons. Canon 720 states that anyone who doesn't submit to teachings taught by a solemn judgment (like papal definition) or by the ordinary and universal magisterium is a heretic. You're a heretic according to the definitions of your own Church, dude. According to Canon 752, even non-infalliable papal teachings require religious submission of intellect and will (Nostra Aetate is an infallible doctrinal teaching though - every single f-ing word in it).
Now cope and seethe more foreskinstein.
Nostra Aetate, which you're bound to if you call yourself a Catholic:
“True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.
Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.”
“Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of antisemitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.”
And 1985 Vatican document “Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis”
“The Church believes that Christ, who died and rose for all, can and must be the center of her preaching.
However, she also recognizes that the mystery of Israel remains, according to St. Paul (cf. Rom 11:25–29), a mystery of divine election.”
“The Church, which rejects nothing of what is true and holy in other religions, regards with sincere respect that religious self-understanding of Judaism.
In preaching and catechesis, therefore, the Church should take care not to present the Jews as rejected or accursed by God.”
No, according to Vatican I you have to submit to all faith and moral doctrinal teachings with humility.
And as a Protestant I say there are zero faith and moral doctrinal teachings (but you can be a good Catholic and think there's only one in all history).
Besides, how is the covenantal relation of jews to God, or of Muslims and Hindus worshipping the same God as Christians (ecumenism) not a religious teaching?
Simon didn't say!
Canon 720 states that anyone who doesn't submit to teachings taught by a solemn judgment (like papal definition) or by the ordinary and universal magisterium is a heretic.
Sure, but Simon didn't say u/RealWildRanter was a heretic, and neither Orthodox nor Catholics are allowed to make their own judgments and call them the Church's judgment. See how easy it is?
And as a Protestant I say there are zero faith and moral doctrinal teachings (but you can be a good Catholic and think there's only one in all history).
Nobody's asking your opinion and what any person, be it Catholic or Protestant thinks, is irrelevant here. I'm doing internal critique of the RC position. Catholics can't reject infallible teachings of the Holy Roman See. Vatican II's Nostra Aetate is such a teaching. Case closed.
Sure, but Simon didn't say u/RealWildRanter was a heretic, and neither Orthodox nor Catholics are allowed to make their own judgments and call them the Church's judgment. See how easy it is?
What? Do you understand how apostolic and papal succession works? RC believe each pope to be equal in authority and jurisdiction to Peter. Stop trolling me please.
Yes, and no pope every said any teaching was infallible, they only said some teachings would be infallible if conditions are met but they never told us infallibly that all those conditions have ever been met. Simon didn't say. Not a troll.
To criticize RC for rejecting beliefs held to be infallible misses the point. The correct critique of the RC position is that the popes let everyone think infallible teachings had been issued, and then let them argue freely over how many (one, two, or hundreds), but Simon never said any infallible teachings had been issued. The pope always waits until everyone agrees or is dead and then declares the doctrine, he's much cagier than you give him credit for.
Catholics don't owe complete obedience to the Pope. We do only on religious matters where we believe he to be infallible.
And, as has been pointed out since the 19th century, the Pope never infallibly declared infallibility, even today, so we don't owe the Pope obedience on anything. Catholics disagree how many times the Pope has invoked infallibility, ranging from one to hundreds, so my view of zero is right there in the mix. The fact is that Simon says certain statements are theoretically infallible, but Simon didn't say which statements are infallible, and you have the original game of Simon Says so you ought to know how to play.
No retardstein, Catholics don't owe complete obedience to the Pope. We do only on religious matters where we believe he to be infallible. Regarding zionism and the jewish question the Pope is respectfully wrong because one is a political matter while the other is a justice matter. The Vatican II murked the waters on purpose under jewish influence.
Regarding your replies I read it in passing as I consider everything to be hogwash as you made clear in the conclusion of your previous reply.
Now cope and seethe more foreskinstein.
I love it when Catholics are not aware of their own religion. Here's Vatican I:
No, according to Vatican I you have to submit to **all faith and moral ** doctrinal teachings with humility. Besides, how is the covenantal relation of jews to God, or of Muslims and Hindus worshipping the same God as Christians (ecumenism) not a religious teaching? Trad Cath cope is hilarious. I know your system and documents better than you do because I did my research before deciding what the true Church is.
It's also in the canons. Canon 720 states that anyone who doesn't submit to teachings taught by a solemn judgment (like papal definition) or by the ordinary and universal magisterium is a heretic. You're a heretic according to the definitions of your own Church, dude. According to Canon 752, even non-infalliable papal teachings require religious submission of intellect and will (Nostra Aetate is an infallible doctrinal teaching though - every single f-ing word in it).
Nostra Aetate, which you're bound to if you call yourself a Catholic:
And 1985 Vatican document “Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis”
Crikey!
And as a Protestant I say there are zero faith and moral doctrinal teachings (but you can be a good Catholic and think there's only one in all history).
Simon didn't say!
Sure, but Simon didn't say u/RealWildRanter was a heretic, and neither Orthodox nor Catholics are allowed to make their own judgments and call them the Church's judgment. See how easy it is?
Nobody's asking your opinion and what any person, be it Catholic or Protestant thinks, is irrelevant here. I'm doing internal critique of the RC position. Catholics can't reject infallible teachings of the Holy Roman See. Vatican II's Nostra Aetate is such a teaching. Case closed.
What? Do you understand how apostolic and papal succession works? RC believe each pope to be equal in authority and jurisdiction to Peter. Stop trolling me please.
What did you say devil's little humper?
Yes, and no pope every said any teaching was infallible, they only said some teachings would be infallible if conditions are met but they never told us infallibly that all those conditions have ever been met. Simon didn't say. Not a troll.
To criticize RC for rejecting beliefs held to be infallible misses the point. The correct critique of the RC position is that the popes let everyone think infallible teachings had been issued, and then let them argue freely over how many (one, two, or hundreds), but Simon never said any infallible teachings had been issued. The pope always waits until everyone agrees or is dead and then declares the doctrine, he's much cagier than you give him credit for.
Stop nosing around.
Shoo jew!
And, as has been pointed out since the 19th century, the Pope never infallibly declared infallibility, even today, so we don't owe the Pope obedience on anything. Catholics disagree how many times the Pope has invoked infallibility, ranging from one to hundreds, so my view of zero is right there in the mix. The fact is that Simon says certain statements are theoretically infallible, but Simon didn't say which statements are infallible, and you have the original game of Simon Says so you ought to know how to play.
Attabot!