Ubenedictus:
you are speaking from ignorance because the pope is limited in infallibility, it can only be on issues of doctrine and must be ex cathedra statement. a pope isn't always infallible. and apology for mistakes made by ministers does not negate infallibility.

that they lived so long ago means you have to prove whatever accusations you make.

These false and perverse opinions [of democracy and individual freedom] are so much the more detestable, by as much as they ... hinder and banish that salutary influence which the Catholic Church, by the institution and command of her Divine Author, ought freely to exercise, even to the consummation of the world, not only over individual men, but [over] nations, [over] peoples, and [over] sovereigns.



There was a very special reason: Infallibility was the final desperate prop which Pius IX hoped would support the collapsing structure of Roman Catholic domination over the governments of the world and their citizens. To establish that dogma once for all, he convened the First Vatican Council December 8. 1869.



If you want more proof that the dogma extends beyond doctrines, I Wii continue

Nodogragra4me:



Assumption is the lowest form Of knowledge. You are assuming that his infallibility is limited but from history it was universal ...See this from history's archive

Much of the "dark side of the history of the Papacy" involving that "empire of force and oppression" resulted from the popes' claim to infallibility. People eagerly embraced the idea in spite of the popes' wickedness. After all, the pagan gods stole one another's wives and lived riotously, so why not the popes?


But the idea that a pope could be thought infallible even while blatantly contradicting himself was remarkable. Yet that fraud was maintained. Such was the case, for example, when Pope Clement XI (1700-21) confirmed King Philip V of Spain and then shortly thereafter King Charles III of Germany, both with the same titles and privileges, including the highly prized Bull of the Crusade. As a result, Charles went to war with Philip to claim the crown which the pope seemingly had given him.

Clement even confirmed two different candidates, one proposed by each sovereign, for the same bishopric. One would think that such blatant contradictions would be proof enough that the pope was not infallible. Yet the bishops arguing the case for Charles III, according to a contemporary observer, "did allege the Pope's infallibility, and that every Christian is obliged in conscience to follow the last declaration of the Pope, and blindly to obey it, without inquiring into the reasons that did move the Pope to it."4 Such is the illogical and unbiblical but absolute and infallible papal authority which had long been claimed by the popes and which became official Roman Catholic dogma at Vatican I.
That Council was coerced by Pius IX (1846-78) even to make submission to the pope a requirement of salvation:


If anyone therefore shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the prince of all the apostles and the visible head of the whole church militant or that the same directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only and not of true and proper jurisdiction [over the whole church], let him be anathema [excommunicated and thus damned]!



Please when replying I would want you to add the proof of the church apologies to the Jews and the Christians

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2000/03/13/world/pope-asks-forgiveness-for-errors-of-the-church-over-2000-years.html?referer=


the pope did apologize and you can read it up.




you are again speaking from ignorance, the confirmation of bishops is an administrative affair and has nothing to do with infallibility.

infallibility only concerns faith and morals ex cathedra, Administrative issues aren't infallible and they can be reversed.


I am not assuming, I am stating facts.

Nodogragra4me:



With regard to the origin of the Roman Doctrine of infallibility:..

. [it] did not slowly "develop" or "unfold," but rather was created in one stroke in the late 1200s [by] an eccentric Franciscan, Peter Olivi (d. 1298), repeatedly accused of heresy. At first no one took Olivi's notion seriously.... The medieval canonists ... had never claimed that the Church needed an infallible head to preserve its faith.... [And] the modern critical attack on the principles of infallibility has the backing of Scripture and the body of Catholic tradition.6

lol

copy and paste

Mr. That is no apology. And thankfully even Jews he choose to mention are not enamoured one bit.

An apology subsumed in a mass. A formal apology to first Christian, then.jews


If somebody wiped out your village and pick his campaign platform to apology would you consider that an insult or revernecs

Ubenedictus:


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2000/03/13/world/pope-asks-forgiveness-for-errors-of-the-church-over-2000-years.html?referer=


the pope did apologize and you can read it up.




you are again speaking from ignorance, the confirmation of bishops is an administrative affair and has nothing to do with infallibility.

infallibility only concerns faith and morals ex cathedra, Administrative issues aren't infallible and they can be reversed.


I am not assuming, I am stating facts.

Nodogragra4me:



What I expect from you is not just your personal opinion which amounts to nothing ... You did not live in the era those cruelty took place neither did I .... Support your claims that it must be excathederal with the official cannon of your church saying so ...Unless you can do this , I will continue to pour out from history, your church cannons.

these are the official canons that tell us that infallibility has to be ex cathedra statement on faith and morals.



And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the
exigencies of times and circumstances, sometimes
assembling Ecumenical Councils, or asking for the
mind of the Church scattered throughout the
world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes
using other helps which Divine Providence
supplied, defined as to be held those things which,
with the help of God, they had recognized as
conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and
Apostolic Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not
promised to the successors of Peter that by His
revelation they might make known new doctrine,
but that by His assistance they might inviolably
keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the
Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.

And indeed, all the venerable Fathers have
embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have
venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine;
knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter
remains ever free from all blemish of error,
according to the Divine promise that the Lord our
Savior made to the Prince of His disciples: "But I
have prayed for you, so that your faith may not
fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm
your brothers." (Lk 22:32). [21]
This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was
conferred by heaven upon Peter and his
successors in this Chair, that they might perform
their high office for the salvation of all; that the
whole flock of Christ, kept away from the
poisonous food of error by them, might be
nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine;
that the occasion of schism being removed, the
whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on
its foundation, might stand firm against the gates
of Hell.
But since, in this very age in which the salutary
efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all
required, not a few are found who take away from
its authority, We judge it altogether necessary to
assert solemnly the prerogative which the only-
begotten Son of God found worthy to join with the
supreme pastoral office.

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition
received from the beginning of the Christian faith,
for the glory of God Our Savior, the exaltation of
the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian
people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach
and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that
the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra,
that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor
and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his
supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine
regarding faith or morals to be held by the
Universal Church, by the divine assistance
promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of
that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer
willed that His Church should be endowed for
defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and
that therefore such definitions of the Roman
Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not
from the consent of the Church.





that is pretty clear.

This stuff you pasted here say he is infallible in faith or moral issues ...There are issues I would have asked you to clarify your opinion on them from this particular post of yours but let us make progress .... Just explain what is meant by the exaltation of the catholic religion.


Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition
received from the beginning of the Christian faith,
for the glory of God Our Savior, the exaltation of
the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian
people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach
and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma

Ubenedictus:



these are the official canons that tell us that infallibility has to be ex cathedra statement on faith and morals.



And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the
exigencies of times and circumstances, sometimes
assembling Ecumenical Councils, or asking for the
mind of the Church scattered throughout the
world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes
using other helps which Divine Providence
supplied, defined as to be held those things which,
with the help of God, they had recognized as
conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and
Apostolic Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not
promised to the successors of Peter that by His
revelation they might make known new doctrine,
but that by His assistance they might inviolably
keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the
Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.

And indeed, all the venerable Fathers have
embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have
venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine;
knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter
remains ever free from all blemish of error,
according to the Divine promise that the Lord our
Savior made to the Prince of His disciples: "But I
have prayed for you, so that your faith may not
fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm
your brothers." (Lk 22:32). [21]
This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was
conferred by heaven upon Peter and his
successors in this Chair, that they might perform
their high office for the salvation of all; that the
whole flock of Christ, kept away from the
poisonous food of error by them, might be
nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine;
that the occasion of schism being removed, the
whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on
its foundation, might stand firm against the gates
of Hell.
But since, in this very age in which the salutary
efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all
required, not a few are found who take away from
its authority, We judge it altogether necessary to
assert solemnly the prerogative which the only-
begotten Son of God found worthy to join with the
supreme pastoral office.

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition
received from the beginning of the Christian faith,
for the glory of God Our Savior, the exaltation of
the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian
people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach
and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that
the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra,
that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor
and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his
supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine
regarding faith or morals to be held by the
Universal Church, by the divine assistance
promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of
that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer
willed that His Church should be endowed for
defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and
that therefore such definitions of the Roman
Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not
from the consent of the Church.





that is pretty clear.

Today, in the prayer dedicated to ''confession of sins against the people of Israel,'' John Paul did not mention the church's behavior during the Holocaust, just as he did not elaborate on other sins of the church. He said, ''We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.''



The document explains that the church is holy, but is stained by the sins of its children, and requires ''constant purification.'' It implies but does not directly address the delicate issue of whether past church leaders also erred.

'The document should have put it in bold print that 'children of the church' includes popes, cardinals and clergy, and not just people in the pews,'' the Rev. Thomas Reeves, editor of the Jesuit magazine America, commented. ''The pope had a great idea that some in the Vatican are obscuring with a fog machine.''


Protestantism and the Enlightenment ''created a new historiography of the church, claiming that it was not just stained by sin but completely corrupt, so the church had to build up a Catholic historiography to combat it,'' he explained. He said the collapse of atheist, totalitarian systems had left the church ''in a new situation of freedom to return to our sins.''

But the difficulty for theologians and church historians to determine what exactly constituted knowable error during the Crusades, the Inquisition, holy wars, the burning of heretics and the forced conversions of Indians and Africans, led to a more elliptical reference to ''sins committed in the service of truth.'' Cardinal Ratzinger prayed that Catholics would recognize ''that even men of the church in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel.''

Ubenedictus:


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2000/03/13/world/pope-asks-forgiveness-for-errors-of-the-church-over-2000-years.html?referer=


the pope did apologize and you can read it up.




you are again speaking from ignorance, the confirmation of bishops is an administrative affair and has nothing to do with infallibility.

infallibility only concerns faith and morals ex cathedra, Administrative issues aren't infallible and they can be reversed.


I am not assuming, I am stating facts.

Nodogragra4me:



Millions of Catholics from whom the historical truth has been hidden have looked upon John XXII as an exceptionally holy man. Was he not favored above all popes by "Our Lady of Mount Carmel" with one of her rare personal appearances? John swore that the "Virgin Mary" appeared to him to present the Great Promise: that she would personally go into purgatory the Saturday after their death and take to heaven all those who, having met certain other conditions, died wearing her brown scapular.


In reliance upon this special Sabbatine [Saturday] Privilege, which was confirmed by other popes, untold millions of Roman Catholics have since worn (and still wear today) the brown scapular of "Our Lady of Mount Carmel" as their ticket to heaven.

John XXII was eventually denounced as a heretic by Emperor Louis of Bavaria, who deposed him and appointed another pope in his place. But the emperor's purging of the papacy turned embarrassing when, shortly after the new pope took office, his wife appeared on the scene. The emperor quickly decided that John XXII wasn't so bad after all.

this only show your ignorance again, pope John xxii isn't considered a holy man unless you speak in terms of Hera, pope John wasn't canonised a saint after his death so I'm surprised you say Catholics consider him exceptionally holy.

2ndly an emperor in medieval times couldn't depose a Pope, he can persecute him or even set up an antipope but he can't legally depose him. emperor Louis set up an antipope pope because he had problems with pope John xxii , john proclaimed excommunication after a while he repented and backed down...

Nodogragra4me:
Today, in the prayer dedicated to ''confession of sins against the people of Israel,'' John Paul did not mention the church's behavior during the Holocaust, just as he did not elaborate on other sins of the church. He said, ''We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.''



The document explains that the church is holy, but is stained by the sins of its children, and requires ''constant purification.'' It implies but does not directly address the delicate issue of whether past church leaders also erred.

'The document should have put it in bold print that 'children of the church' includes popes, cardinals and clergy, and not just people in the pews,'' the Rev. Thomas Reeves, editor of the Jesuit magazine America, commented. ''The pope had a great idea that some in the Vatican are obscuring with a fog machine.''


Protestantism and the Enlightenment ''created a new historiography of the church, claiming that it was not just stained by sin but completely corrupt, so the church had to build up a Catholic historiography to combat it,'' he explained. He said the collapse of atheist, totalitarian systems had left the church ''in a new situation of freedom to return to our sins.''

But the difficulty for theologians and church historians to determine what exactly constituted knowable error during the Crusades, the Inquisition, holy wars, the burning of heretics and the forced conversions of Indians and Africans, led to a more elliptical reference to ''sins committed in the service of truth.'' Cardinal Ratzinger prayed that Catholics would recognize ''that even men of the church in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel.''

you can complain about the apology all day but by doing so you'll only be confirming my point, I.e an apology was made.
whether or not it is considered sufficient doesn't negate the FACT that an apology was given.

Nodogragra4me:
This stuff you pasted here say he is infallible in faith or moral issues ...There are issues I would have asked you to clarify your opinion on them from this particular post of yours but let us make progress .... Just explain what is meant by the exaltation of the catholic religion.


Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition
received from the beginning of the Christian faith,
for the glory of God Our Savior, the exaltation of
the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian
people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach
and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma

that stuff I pasted is a council, the very council which you were misinformed about and claimed it says the pope is infallible in every thing. that is the Vatican I council you've been lying about and it clearly defines the extent of infallibility to only include excathedra statement on faith and morals.


The Catholic religion is said to be "exalted" when the truth is proclaimed, errors condemned and the people of God allowed to practice their faith in peace.

Nodogragra4me:
Mr. That is no apology. And thankfully even Jews he choose to mention are not enamoured one bit.

An apology subsumed in a mass. A formal apology to first Christian, then.jews


If somebody wiped out your village and pick his campaign platform to apology would you consider that an insult or revernecs

sorry no Catholic today wiped out anyone's village, a Catholic today isn't legally responsible for crimes committed by another person 500 years ago, nor is a Nigerian today responsible for crimes committed in the civil wars. nor is American today responsible for the sin of his forebears. So any apology is but an acknowledgement of past sins so as to forge ahead not a declaration of personal culpability.


so yes an apology subsumed into a mass is still an apology, a recognition of sins, a expression of sorrow for them and an invitation to move forward.

Ubenedictus:
that stuff I pasted is a council, the very council which you were misinformed about and claimed it says the pope is infallible in every thing. that is the Vatican I council you've been lying about and it clearly defines the extent of infallibility to only include excathedra statement on faith and morals.


The Catholic religion is said to be "exulted" when the truth is proclaimed, errors condemned and the people of God allowed to practice their faith in peace.

What does ....infallibity in faith or moral ....mean to you.



The word used by the Catholic Church is exaltation not exulted. Both Carry's different meaning ...why are you now doctoring their word

If there is generational blessing and curse there must be generational sin ..eg Adams and Eve


Or you are going to approach heaven and inform Jesus that he had no reason to have died because you don't know Jack about Adam

Ubenedictus:
sorry no Catholic today wiped out anyone's village, a Catholic today isn't legally responsible for crimes committed by another person 500 years ago, nor is a Nigerian today responsible for crimes committed in the civil wars. nor is American today responsible for the sin of his forebears. So any apology is but an acknowledgement of past sins so as to forge ahead not a declaration of personal culpability.


so yes an apology subsumed into a mass is still an apology, a recognition of sins, a expression of sorrow for them and an invitation to move forward.

Ubenedictus:
sorry no Catholic today wiped out anyone's village, a Catholic today isn't legally responsible for crimes committed by another person 500 years ago, nor is a Nigerian today responsible for crimes committed in the civil wars. nor is American today responsible for the sin of his forebears. So any apology is but an acknowledgement of past sins so as to forge ahead not a declaration of personal culpability.


so yes an apology subsumed into a mass is still an apology, a recognition of sins, a expression of sorrow for them and an invitation to move forward.

What is the name of the sin ...every sin in the scripture can be summarize .....Adam is sin of disobedience...what is the name of the sin of the Catholic Church against Christians who refused the idea of an infallible pope, who believe that the Mary making the rounds is not from heaven but Rev 17 ... Because her messages as recorded by your church had no and still has no scriptural support

You stated that it is in doctrinal issues.

Ubenedictus:
that stuff I pasted is a council, the very council which you were misinformed about and claimed it says the pope is infallible in every thing. that is the Vatican I council you've been lying about and it clearly defines the extent of infallibility to only include excathedra statement on faith and morals.


The Catholic religion is said to be "exulted" when the truth is proclaimed, errors condemned and the people of God allowed to practice their faith in peace.

Ubenedictus:


this only show your ignorance again, pope John xxii isn't considered a holy man unless you speak in terms of Hera, pope John wasn't canonised a saint after his death so I'm surprised you say Catholics consider him exceptionally holy.

2ndly an emperor in medieval times couldn't depose a Pope, he can persecute him or even set up an antipope but he can't legally depose him. emperor Louis set up an antipope pope because he had problems with pope John xxii , john proclaimed excommunication after a while he repented and backed down...

The man who received your scapular revelation from your Mary is not one of your saints but a mindless murderer that John Paul went to csnnonised but was bogdown by protest by indigenous people for the man's humanity and his sins wasn't good enough for the sainthood of your church


Why then did your church accept such ridiculous message that a brown pirceofcloth can get one into heaven

A simple Google check would have revealed whether a pope was imprisoned upon removal from office or not. ..in the link you sent me I read where your church stated that they are building their own version of history to combat that of their victims...

Ubenedictus:


this only show your ignorance again, pope John xxii isn't considered a holy man unless you speak in terms of Hera, pope John wasn't canonised a saint after his death so I'm surprised you say Catholics consider him exceptionally holy.

2ndly an emperor in medieval times couldn't depose a Pope, he can persecute him or even set up an antipope but he can't legally depose him. emperor Louis set up an antipope pope because he had problems with pope John xxii , john proclaimed excommunication after a while he repented and backed down...

Nodogragra4me:

A simple Google check would have revealed whether a pope was imprisoned upon removal from office or not. ..in the link you sent me I read where your church stated that they are building their own version of history to combat that of their victims...

not John xxii, he wasn't imprisoned,

you can quote where the link says so

...

Nodogragra4me:



What is the name of the sin ...every sin in the scripture can be summarize .....Adam is sin of disobedience...what is the name of the sin of the Catholic Church against Christians who refused the idea of an infallible pope, who believe that the Mary making the rounds is not from heaven but Rev 17 ... Because her messages as recorded by your church had no and still has no scriptural support

the Catholic Church doesn't sin... Catholics sin

correct yourself.


I should also ask you, what is the sin of Protestants who murdered Catholics just because they rejected the heresy called Protestantism?

Nodogragra4me:

If there is generational blessing and curse there must be generational sin ..eg Adams and Eve


Or you are going to approach heaven and inform Jesus that he had no reason to have died because you don't know Jack about Adam

there is original sin not generational sin

The one who sins is the one who will die. The child
will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the
parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness
of the righteous will be credited to them, and the
wickedness of the wicked will be charged against
them.

ez 18:20.

Nodogragra4me:
You stated that it is in doctrinal issues.

exactly, faith and morals ex cathedra

Nodogragra4me:



What does ....infallibity in faith or moral ....mean to you.



The word used by the Catholic Church is exaltation not exulted. Both Carry's different meaning ...why are you now doctoring their word

it is a typo I made, I'll correct it.



you should start from the beginning, read up the indefectibility of the church

Nodogragra4me:



The man who received your scapular revelation from your Mary is not one of your saints but a mindless murderer that John Paul went to csnnonised but was bogdown by protest by indigenous people for the man's humanity and his sins wasn't good enough for the sainthood of your church


Why then did your church accept such ridiculous message that a brown pirceofcloth can get one into heaven

the man who received the scapular revelation is called st Simon stock, pope John xxii was never canonized by anyone.


the Church doesn't teach that a piece of cloth gets you to heaven, she allows one to teach a "belief of Mary's aid and prayerful assistance for wearers of the Brown Scapular that live and die in the state of grace, observe chastity according to their state in life, and live a life of prayer and penitence".


so you have to live righteously and die in righteousness and in chastity to get to heaven and this life and participation in the prayers of the Carmelite through the scapular also means those in heaven will keep cheering for u and praying with you esp Mary.

I am surprised you think the Church teaches that a Brown cloth take u automatically to heaven.

Ubenedictus:
the Catholic Church doesn't sin... Catholics sin

correct yourself.


I should also ask you, what is the sin of Protestants who murdered Catholics just because they rejected the heresy called Protestantism?

The catholics killed in England was in the defence if the state. When the king left the catholic church because if the pope refusal to grant him annulment, he made a proclamation severing England from the catholic church and making himself the head of the church of England


This the pope riled against and threatened him with excommunication which in those era meant a loss of his kingdom brput the lord's and nobles were already fed up with the catholic church and their rev fathers who enjoyed immunity from prosecution and therefore sided with Charles

The next line of the pope was to declare a kind of fatua against him promising whoever kills him a straight passage to heaven without the need for purgatory. The black Jesus known as Jesuit took it upon themselves and were massing in England from every corner of Europe, the king in trying to secure his kingdom went all out against them as threats to the state.... He won and reigned until he died of I'll health and was replaced by bloody Mary a catholic queen who once again returned England to catholism and started one of the bloodiest inquisition in history sizing men for having the Bible


Off course, that history of the Serbs and the croats is very recent for anyone not to know the genesis. The Serbs murdered the croats in their thousands for being Pentecostalism and when the Corata had their opportunity they returned the favour


In all cases, it has being a retaliation of the earlier acts if the catholic church. I wouldn't blame the Jews if today they decide to wipe out the Vatican because it was the Vatican that authorised their murder because of Jerusalem. ... Hitler said it when he met with catholic bishops and cardinal in Germany that what he is doing is no different from what the church had done for ages that the only difference is that his method was more effective.

Ubenedictus:
the man who received the scapular revelation is called st Simon stock, pope John xxii was never canonized by anyone.


the Church doesn't teach that a piece of cloth gets you to heaven, she allows one to teach a "belief of Mary's aid and prayerful assistance for wearers of the Brown Scapular that live and die in the state of grace, observe chastity according to their state in life, and live a life of prayer and penitence".


so you have to live righteously and die in righteousness and in chastity to get to heaven and this life and participation in the prayers of the Carmelite through the scapular also means those in heaven will keep cheering for u and praying with you esp Mary.

I am surprised you think the Church teaches that a Brown cloth take u automatically to heaven.

If one dies with all the qualifications you listed what then would be the need for the piece of cloth or the so called prayer of Mary from heaven which has not scriptural support, in any case.

Ubenedictus:
not John xxii, he wasn't imprisoned,

you can quote where the link says so

At a news conference last week, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who heads the Vatican's Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the modern successor to the Inquisition, addressed the issue of why the church feels ready to concede error now, and not in earlier times.

Protestantism and the Enlightenment ''created a new historiography of the church, claiming that it was not just stained by sin but completely corrupt, so the church had to build up a Catholic historiography to combat it,'' he explained.

Nodogragra4me:



If one dies with all the qualifications you listed what then would be the need for the piece of cloth or the so called prayer of Mary from heaven which has not scriptural support, in any case.

because no qualification gets one into heaven, it is grace that opens that door that is why Catholics never wary in asking God for grace and asking the prayer of all Gods people.

Nodogragra4me:


At a news conference last week, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who heads the Vatican's Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the modern successor to the Inquisition, addressed the issue of why the church feels ready to concede error now, and not in earlier times.

Protestantism and the Enlightenment ''created a new historiography of the church, claiming that it was not just stained by sin but completely corrupt, so the church had to build up a Catholic historiography to combat it,'' he explained.

how does this answer the fact that john wasn't imprisoned

Nodogragra4me:




The catholics killed in England was in the defence if the state. When the king left the catholic church because if the pope refusal to grant him annulment, he made a proclamation severing England from the catholic church and making himself the head of the church of England


This the pope riled against and threatened him with excommunication which in those era meant a loss of his kingdom brput the lord's and nobles were already fed up with the catholic church and their rev fathers who enjoyed immunity from prosecution and therefore sided with Charles

The next line of the pope was to declare a kind of fatua against him promising whoever kills him a straight passage to heaven without the need for purgatory. The black Jesus known as Jesuit took it upon themselves and were massing in England from every corner of Europe, the king in trying to secure his kingdom went all out against them as threats to the state.... He won and reigned until he died of I'll health and was replaced by bloody Mary a catholic queen who once again returned England to catholism and started one of the bloodiest inquisition in history sizing men for having the Bible


Off course, that history of the Serbs and the croats is very recent for anyone not to know the genesis. The Serbs murdered the croats in their thousands for being Pentecostalism and when the Corata had their opportunity they returned the favour


In all cases, it has being a retaliation of the earlier acts if the catholic church. I wouldn't blame the Jews if today they decide to wipe out the Vatican because it was the Vatican that authorised their murder because of Jerusalem. ... Hitler said it when he met with catholic bishops and cardinal in Germany that what he is doing is no different from what the church had done for ages that the only difference is that his method was more effective.

lol.
it is okay for Protestant kings to murder Catholics but it is wrong if Catholics kill Protestant, sorry to say but you are a double speaking hypocrite.

Ubenedictus:
lol.
it is okay for Protestant kings to murder Catholics but it is wrong if Catholics kill Protestant, sorry to say but you are a double speaking hypocrite.

You clearly didn't finish reading my rejoinder before reply ... The king was first a catholic and only fell out with the pope because he refused to grant him annulment. Then he protested and joined those against the catholic church. The pope in return excommunicated him and declare him anathema to the faith and promised whoever succeeded in killing him straight passage to heaven without the need for purgatory ... He had to defend himself and his throne and the state


That night he Croat and the Serb is still very recent ..The Croat are or were catholics and murdered the Serbs who were Protestant, when the Serbs had the opportunity they returned the favour and mass murderd the croats until America came to their rescue. ...Min the entire south America and Australia, this is what is being played out ...Revenge for the sins of the past.


Get this very clear, the Catholics murdered millions of Christians and Jews not because they were christians or Jews nut because they didn't include the belief of the catholic doctrine as part of their life. The catholic church didn't allow individual ownership of the Bible, it was a smuggled item back in they heydays of the catholic church.

Ubenedictus:


because no qualification gets one into heaven, it is grace that opens that door that is why Catholics never wary in asking God for grace and asking the prayer of all Gods people.

That Mary that makes appearances in different corners of the earth is not one of God's People. I mean the one called lady of Fatima. And not one single saints not living in this earth prays for you or anyone ...Intercessory prayer is from the earth based saints... Living people.