Comments on: →

By: Whozep68

Whozep68 — Sun, 24 Apr 2005 10:48:00 +0000

by the way, you inspired me. . . see my site

By: Whozep68

Whozep68 — Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:03:00 +0000

First of all, left behind and others have always though the have always thought that about the Pope. I don't care what they say that is psyco (too much to go into right now. But any ways, It is important way the Pope says because according to Catholics, he is infallible. What does that mean?

From my notes:

§ In 1870 – Papal infallibility approved 535 to 2 At Vatican 1 council

· Ex cathedra

o When the Pope speaks in the area of doctrine and Morals – w/o error

o And only “from the chair”

§ This has never been defined

§ Taken as when he speaks officially

§ Hedin – Will never be defined

§ One exception – Assumption of Mary by Pius XII in 1950 because he specifically said he was ex cathedral

By: oregonianyahoo

oregonianyahoo — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:26:00 +0000

Yeah Brent... that's great and all... but how do you really feel? Heh heh... man that's messed up.

Luke

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:35:00 +0000

Oh.... somehow I missed that, sorry.

That is somewhat based in reality.... or something Eagle, I heard someone talking about how Revelation implied that the Pope (or some equivilent great religious figure) would align himself with the anti-christ, however... I don't remember seeing that or anything like that when I read Revelation.

By: milkboy31

milkboy31 — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:43:00 +0000

Reinhart…. read my reply to her comment. It saves me from repeating myself.

By: EagleEye14

EagleEye14 — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 05:52:00 +0000

May I point out something. According to the “Left Behind” book seiries. The Pope took a very similar stance, he along with the Anti-Christ formed the One-World Religion fortold in Revelation. Im not saying that its GOING to happen like that, or that this Pope is going to have part in the end of the world, but it is something to think about.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 05:35:00 +0000

That is freightening i’m not a Catholic, but like LauraBelle says, we shouldn’t judge all Catholics based on the Pope.

By: Anysay

Anysay — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:20:00 +0000

::about the comment you left at my site::

I'll bring you one this weekend...SUNDAY!

By: milkboy31

milkboy31 — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:59:00 +0000

Wow T…. We actually agree on something. The only difference with Bush is that when offerred a choice between two men for president. I had to go with the one who would stick up for what my beliefs were… even if his motives weren’t the same or his faith the same… It didn’t matter. It was either that or go with the other guy that blatently was against my values… There were other reasons I supported Bush over Kerry as well… such as the speed it takes each of them to make a decision… Bush has far better “leadership” skills in many areas that aid in being president. So I’m not saying Bush is great… but he’s by far the best choice I could make.

The Pope on the other hand is a different story… when he changes the doctorine of the Catholic Church to now go AGAINST the Bible’s teachings… Suddenly if I called myself Catholic and followed / supported the Catholic church, I’d feel just as bad as if I supported Kerry in the election and voted for the guy that was blatently against my values. It doesn’t make sense to me… but such is the apathetic culture of this world….. “Let it ride.”

By: tbernard

tbernard — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:55:00 +0000

Some conservatives must be like, "Oh, he's against gay rights and abortion so he must be okay" because they associate that with Christian values. The same can be said for George Bush, that he appears to be the guy following the Bible because of those superficial things. But if people are being that superficial about their apprasial of a world leader, that seems like a problem to me.