<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Martyn:
I firmly belive that ordinary people are capable of completely selfless acts - instinctive actions, and premeditated actions.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bounty Hunter 4 Hire:
You misunderstand what the word "catholic" means. It describes the Church, catholic meaning "universal."</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Emon:
My dog is very compassionate and caring, and somehow I doubt she is at all aware of any higher being.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Sarn_Cadrill:
Ironic, coming from someone defending Catholicism...</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Martyn:
Oh yeah, to Bounty Hunter, does your loyalty to the Catholic church mean you're condemming most of (Anglican) England to the firey depths?</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Regardless of it's meaning, it's still denominational, yes?</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bounty Hunter 4 hire:
It is called a "Catholic Bible" because it contains the canon that the Catholic Church as a whole determined to be divinely inspired through the magisterium of the Church.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Yes, you could call it "denominational," but it is fair to call it "Catholic," because it is wholy different from a Protestant Bible, both in terms of extended content and the accompanying notes.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The Pope's supremacy is only that his diocese is the rule of faith. he's still a bishop, but his official teaching on faith and morals is infallible, since his dioces is what keeps the church teaching uniform.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The rocks knit together would be the Bishops, but the Bishop of Rome keeps them together, as specifically promised by Christ: the head.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
EDIT post v. 2.0 I forgot to proofread.


Of course people are empathetic. That's because there is a God.


</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tracer:
Empathy is part of your brain! YOUR BRAIN!</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:


No one has come up with a reason for an atheist to keep morals.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">DogSRoOL:
So how is it that other non-Catholic churches are not divinely inspired?</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I don't believe *any* church to be infallible, including my own. People are fallible, the church is composed of people, so it, too, is fallible.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Define "protestant Bible." I've never heard of such a thing. </font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Haven't there been popes in the past who were fallible in these matters? I could point out an example</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It goes deeper than that, I'm afraid. Each rock represents a member of the body of Christ; collectively, they forming one whole.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mort-Hog:
No, I think all six pages are just one big flame.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bounty Hunter 4 Hire:
If a God revealed the truth to man and formed a Church to spread, and to protect that truth, why would he inspire one to turn away from it?</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And Catholic teaching confirms that the Church will be imperfect until the day Christ brings all to order.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Even a Pope can be a bad man, and say and do thing contrary to the truth, but when he makes a statement ex officio (by the power of his office) it is infallible.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I was refering to the canon of most protestant sects. They often have a separate part labeled "Apocrypha."</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I don't see why He would single out Peter anyway as a rock absolutely no different than the rest, and no one else.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:
Then again, we could just do something a friend of mine suggested, and allow gays to get married, but call it "garried" instead.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by FastGamerr:




</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">DogSRoOL:
Didn't you say you believed the church as a whole was infallible? Or did I misunderstand?</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I don't understand why. He is the same man with the same views whether he's ex officio or not.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The English language sucks.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dormouse:
Utter and eternal infallability of the Church/Pope, as instituted in 1075 by Pope Gregory VII along with a number of other absolutely mindbogglingly pervasive and arrogant rulings, was in fact to my knowledge finally revoked by Pope John Paul II in 1999. Perhaps your local branch just hasn't gotten the memo yet

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">OBJECTIONS ALLEGED

The only noteworthy objections against papal infallibility, as distinct from the infallibility of the Church at large, are based on certain historical instances in which it is alleged that certain popes in the ex cathedra exercise of their office have actually taught heresy and condemned as heretical what has afterwards turned out to be true. The chief instances usually appealed to are those of Popes Liberius, Honorius, and Vigilius in the early centuries, and the Galileo affair at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

Pope Liberius. Liberius, it is alleged, subscribed an Arian or Semi-Arian creed drawn up by the Council of Sirmium and anathematized St. Athanasius, the great champion of Nicaea, as a heretic. But even if this were an accurate statement of historical fact, it is a very inadequate statement. The all-important circumstance should be added that the pope so acted under pressure of a very cruel coercion, which at once deprives his action of any claim to be considered ex cathedra, and that he himself, as soon as he had recovered his liberty, made amends for the moral weakness he had been guilty of. This is a quite satisfactory answer to the objection, but it ought to be added that there is no evidence whatever that Liberius ever anathematized St. Athanasius expressly as a heretic, and that it remains a moot point which of three or four Sirmian creeds he subscribed, two of which contained no positive assertion of heretical doctrine and were defective merely for the negative reason that they failed to insist on the full definition of Nicaea.

Pope Honorius. The charge against Pope Honorius is a double one: that, when appealed to in the Monothelite controversy, he actually taught the Monothelite heresy in his two letters to Sergius; and that he was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the decrees of which were approved by Leo II. But in the first place it is quite clear from the tone and terms of these letters that, so far from intending to give any final, or ex cathedra, decision on the doctrinal question at issue, Honorius merely tried to allay the rising bitterness of the controversy by securing silence. In the next place, taking the letters as they stand, the very most that can be clearly and incontrovertibly deduced from them is, that Honorius was not a profound or acute theologian, and that he allowed himself to be confused and misled by the wily Sergius as to what the issue really was and too readily accepted the latter's misrepresentation of his opponents' position, to the effect that the assertion of two wills in Christ meant two contrary or discordant wills. Finally, in reference to the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, it is to be remembered that there is no ecumenical sentence affirming the fact either that Honorius's letters to Sergius contain heresy, or that they were intended to define the question with which they deal. The sentence passed by the fathers of the council has ecumenical value only in so far as it was approved by Leo II; but, in approving the condemnation of Honorius, his successor adds the very important qualification that he is condemned, not for the doctrinal reason that he taught heresy, but on the moral ground that he was wanting in the vigilance expected from him in his Apostolic office and thereby allowed a heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its beginnings.

Pope Vigilius. There is still less reason for trying to found an objection to papal infallibility on the wavering conduct of Pope Vigilius in connection with the controversy of the Three Chapters; and it is all the more needless to delay upon this instance as most modern opponents of the papal claims no longer appeal to it.

Galileo. As to the Galileo affair, it is quite enough to point out the fact that the condemnation of the heliocentric theory was the work of a fallible tribunal. The pope cannot delegate the exercise of his infallible authority to the Roman Congregations, and whatever issues formally in the name of any of these, even when approved and confirmed in the ordinary official way by the pope, does not pretend to be ex cathedra and infallible. The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements, but in doing so he must comply with the conditions already explained -- which neither Paul V nor Urban VIII did in the Galileo case.

Conclusion. The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DogSRoOL:
Don't care.
God didn't give us free will so people could force their morals on others. It's supposed to be choice, and I suggest leaving it as such.

Similarly, the constitution grants us freedom of choice, so long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights. I don't see homosexuality infringing on others' rights, nor am I aware of anything that gives congress the right to pass laws based completely on moral opinion.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited July 16, 2004).]</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Emon:
Agree or disagree with it, like it or not, it isn't anyone's place to put restrictions on it. It's simply unconstitutional, anything else is just a childish matter of semantics.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DrkJedi82:
+1

</font>