Cardinal says evolution is incompatible

Originally posted by no1marauder
There's a certain amount of written historial evidence that Peter was head of the Church of Rome. There's certain historical written evidence on who his successors were. There's not much doubt about the names after say 150 AD at the latest.

That's irrelevant. There's historical evidence about who the latest popes were also. My point is that even if Jesus did declare Peter to be the rock, what makes the Catholics think that even Peter's very first successor was a continuation of that rock?

For example, perhaps Jesus intended there to be no successor, just like he himself has no successor; the Church can live on without Jesus' physical presence, and without Peter's physical presense. For another example, maybe Jesus did intend for there to be successors, decided by a World Series of Poker. If this is the case, and if Peter's successor was chosen by vote, then the whole chain was ruined.

So, given that there is a historical record of Peter's successor, what evidence do Catholics have that he was a legitimate successor in the eyes of Jesus? Or do they just assume it?

Originally posted by no1marauder

I don't think it's a requirement to accept or perform the sacraments or take part in a Catholic Mass that you believe in Papal Infallibility.

Nobody ever asked me at the door or while they were handing out the wafers at Communion.

Interesting. In the Lutheran church, you are asked to affirm a short list of beliefs before receiving communion.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
That's irrelevant. There's historical evidence about who the latest popes were also. My point is that even if Jesus did declare Peter to be the rock, what makes the Catholics think that even Peter's very first successor was a continuation of that rock?

For example, perhaps Jesus intended there to be no successor, just like he himself has no su have that he was a legitimate successor in the eyes of Jesus? Or do they just assume it?

I can get the relevant Scripture if I must, but creating a Church and making someone the head of it implies that the Church as an organization is always going to have a head. If you create a softball team and name a guy manager, it is presumed that when he leaves another manager will take his place. A Church is a continuing organization and setting it up in a certain way seems to me to imply that it is supposed to continue that way.

Assuming that the Church was meant to continue (a logical assumption) and Jesus made no specific rule for how a successor to Peter should be chosen, the logical assumption is that the method of choosing the successor was not important to Jesus. If the only way he would have considered the chain to be valid is to have a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, he would have said so. Since he didn't, it's not theologically crucial.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I can get the relevant Scripture if I must, but creating a Church and making someone the head of it implies that the Church as an organization is always going to have a head. If you create a softball team and name a guy manager, it is presumed that when he leaves another manager will take his place. A Church is a continuing organization and setting it up ...[text shortened]... Rock, Paper, Scissors, he would have said so. Since he didn't, it's not theologically crucial.

If it's not important to Jesus how the successor is chosen, why do they go through such an elaborate ritual to choose a new pope? Why don't they just have a foot race, say, a 50 meter dash, and be done with it in under a minute?

Further, if you accept that all popes are infallible, why does it matter who gets picked? In other words, what are they really voting on, since there is no best candidate, as any will be infallible once the Holy Spirit learns that he is the new pope. What sense does it make to vote on equally good candidates? What could they be contemplating during the voting session?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If it's not important to Jesus how the successor is chosen, why do they go through such an elaborate ritual to choose a new pope? Why don't they just have a foot race, say, a 50 meter dash, and be done with it in under a minute?

I never really thought about it since it doesn't matter. Do you want me to look it up? I'm sure the RCC has a rationale for it; they've been coming up with elaborate rationales for 2000 years. It's probably pretty good; there's been some pretty smart people working on such things.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I never really thought about it since it doesn't matter. Do you want me to look it up?

To tell you the truth, I don't really give a damn, since it's reasoning from a false premise anyway.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
To tell you the truth, I don't really give a damn, since it's reasoning from a false premise anyway.

It's been democracy in action from the beginning (well after Peter anyway):

As to the earliest ages, Ferraris (op. cit. infra) says that St. Peter himself constituted a senate for the Roman Church, consisting of twenty-four priests and deacons. These were the councillors of the Bishop of Rome and the electors of his successors. This statement is drawn from a canon in the "Corpus Juris Canonici" (can. "Si Petrus", caus. 8, Q. 1). Historians and canonists, however, generally hold that the Roman bishopric was filled on its vacancy in the same manner as other bishoprics, that is, the election of the new pope was made by the neighbouring bishops and the clergy and faithful of Rome.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If it's not important to Jesus how the successor is chosen, why do they go through such an elaborate ritual to choose a new pope? Why don't they just have a foot race, say, a 50 meter dash, and be done with it in under a minute?

Further, if you accept that all popes are infallible, why does it matter who gets picked? In other words, what are th ...[text shortened]... vote on equally good candidates? What could they be contemplating during the voting session?

The Pope doesn't just make infallible pronouncements on dogma; he runs the RCC. Who knows the reasoning of why the Cardinals vote for who they do? Maybe some vote for the best organizer, or the best with numbers, or the snappiest dresser or best speaker.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Pope doesn't just make infallible pronouncements on dogma; he runs the RCC. Who knows the reasoning of why the Cardinals vote for who they do? Maybe some vote for the best organizer, or the best with numbers, or the snappiest dresser or best speaker.

But that's getting wacky. The premise is that the Holy Spirit can give the pope the gift of infallibility but none of those other traits? That's just fantasy. Surely if the pope is sufficiently important in the eyes of the Holy Spirit to need infallibility, he is sufficiently important to receive any other gifts necessary to fullfill the role of the leader of Jesus' rock. To vote on the best organizer is to believe that the Holy Spirit won't bless the new pope with whatever organizational skills he needs. The mix of premises is completely convoluted, like something that a terrible mystery writer would concoct.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But that's getting wacky. The premise is that the Holy Spirit can give the pope the gift of infallibility but none of those other traits? That's just fantasy. Surely if the pope is sufficiently important in the eyes of the Holy Spirit to need infallibility, he is sufficiently important to receive any other gifts necessary to fullfill the ro ...[text shortened]... mises is completely convoluted, like something that a terrible mystery writer would concoct.

The RCC can't go around teaching dogma that is incorrect and still be God's Church. So the Holy Spirit has to make sure it doesn't, I guess. I don't think that Papal Infallibility is considered a gift like something Santa leaves under the tree; it's considered an attribute that the Head of the Church MUST have in the eyes of God. He needn't have any other attributes.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The RCC can't go around teaching dogma that is incorrect and still be God's Church. So the Holy Spirit has to make sure it doesn't, I guess. I don't think that Papal Infallibility is considered a gift like something Santa leaves under the tree; it's considered an attribute that the Head of the Church MUST have in the eyes of God. He needn't have any other attributes.

I'd rather hit the discount rack for such convoluted tales. Do you really not see it for what it is?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The RCC can't go around teaching dogma that is incorrect and still be God's Church.

Why not? What does it matter, since the Catholics don't believe any of it anyway, and God knows this and still accepts them as Catholics.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'd rather hit the discount rack for such convoluted tales. Do you really not see it for what it is?

I never said I believed it; just that it's no more wacky than a lot of Christian beliefs. I personally grade it in the mid-wacky range saving the high-wacky items for Coletti's predestination, Freaky's Divine Decree and RBHILL's You Can Eat Children Once You're Saved.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I never said I believed it; just that it's no more wacky than a lot of Christian beliefs. I personally grade it in the mid-wacky range saving the high-wacky items for Coletti's predestination, Freaky's Divine Decree and RBHILL's You Can Eat Children Once You're Saved.

I see. I suppose I'd rate it about the same.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Why not? What does it matter, since the Catholics don't believe any of it anyway, and God knows this and still accepts them as Catholics.

Actually the RCC says you can never know whether a particular individual will be entitled to God's salvation. It's a good point you raise though; why does Church dogma have to be infallible? You'll have to take the rest up with LH; trying to defend Papal Infallibility is straining even my Devil's Advocate skills.