LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006 From: Stourport-England Status: offline
|
Whats always puzzled me about the Catholic church (and its descendants) is that it proposes that the head of the church is in direct apostolic succession, whence he derives authority and infallibility. What this means, should the succession, authority and infallibility be valid, is that decisions made by previous heads of the church were valid and right; crusades, inquisitions et al, and the persecution and vilification of Jewry. There is no need to apologise for any of it, and any such apology demonstrates that previous decisions were in error and that the notion of infallibility is therefore equally erroneous. In addition, the head of the church and all the bishops etc are guided by the holy spirit, which is specifically requested to guide them from the moment they are appointed to their positions. What this means is, that every decision they make is guided by God, and given that this God is unchanging in nature, those decisions must remain valid at all times, forever. Where apologies are made for prior decisions then, the church makes a mockery of the holy spirit and thus God, by going against the original guidance given. Either that, or the holy spirit is non existent or ineffective - both blasphemies too, or the holy spirit is found not willing to guide the church, thus breaching any notion of apostolic succession and any authority and infallibility arising from that succession. Can anyone clarify all this for me please, and explain why anyone should listen to a word that comes from the Catholic church or any of its descendants (Church of England, for instance)? E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|