/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>677613

Try Google

French arrogance. They wanted their own personal pope to be kept in Avignon. Thats it basically.

Could someone tell me which popes were the ones actually in the seat of Peter during that period?

>>677864

Roman ones.

>>677870

But Alexander 6 believed the Pisan line was the right one (that's why he gave himself the number 6), are you claiming to be wiser than a pope?

>>677903

Personal opinion of the Pope is not binding to anyone

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

>>677929

>I am wiser than the pope

>>678270

<what Jesus says is less wise then the pope

matthew 5:20

>For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

1 corinthians 1:19-29

>For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

>Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

>For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

>For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

>But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

>But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

>Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

>For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

>But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

>And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

>That no flesh should glory in his presence.

>>678270

>popes can't be wrong

>>678674

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

>>678687

a personal opinion of a pope is exactly when the papal infallibility doesn't apply

>>678695

Taking the papal name Alexander VI is a personal opinion?

>>678698

Stuff that isn't approved by the Magisterium or isn't a dogma promulgated under the papal infallibility, is just a personal opinion

>>678852

By definition, his name is not an opinion. In fact, the number is definitional of his papacy. If we can't trust him to even know who he was, how can we trust him to tell us who Jesus Christ is? Also, don't you only believe the Roman line is the correct one because that's the one the Vatican says was correct?

>>678852

>Stuff that isn't approved by the Magisterium

He IS the Magisterium

>>678695

>>678852

It's your personal opinion when infallibility does apply and when it doesn't apply.

>>678857

Isn't that literally not what latins believe

>>678856

Yes, of course, his name isn't an opinion. The case was only brought up in

>>678698 here which pointed out to this, so I don't see why the selection of a name should be an issue

>>678910

1. the Roman Pontiff (the Pope alone or with the College of Bishops)

2. speaks ex cathedra,

3. that is, when, (in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,)

4. he defines

5. a doctrine

a) concerning faith or morals

b) to be held by the whole Church

The rules of papal infallibility are lied out, so that means that the Pope does speak infallibilty in case of defining a dogma

>>678921

>1. the Roman Pontiff (the Pope alone or with the College of Bishops)

It's ultimately your own personal opinion whether the definition you gave is infallible. It's also up to personal opinion whether the conditions are met and how theoretically they are met. Finally, it's up to private interpretation what the words in particular actually mean, even if you hypothetically agreed on their infallibility, which again is up to each person's opinion whether it's infallible or not. And let's not even get started on translations.

At the end of the day a papist can believe whatever seems good to him and his own opinion. For every dogmatic statement proceeds a thousand different individual interpretations. After all, only Scripture itself has the infallible promise that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation (e.g. 2 Peter 1:20)