Simple question?

Quote: FrGamble

and loved them and cared for them in their last days when no one else would. Love wins.

You should really get into the details of
how her 'love' manifested itself in her
hospitals/clinics, whatever they were.
You have no idea what you're talking about,
except for what the Church has fed you.

Quote: FrGamble

He tried that already.

The all-powerful, all-knowing tried and failed?

Was it not his plan to sacrifice his son and not be present with us anymore?

The premise is the saints can not sin because they are in the presence of god and have no desire to sin.

Provide the real presence of god (not just "the presence of god is all around you"), remove the desire to sin.

Or does not being in the presence of god remove the desire to sin?

Quote: Evenbob

You should really get into the details of
how her 'love' manifested itself in her
hospitals/clinics, whatever they were.
You have no idea what you're talking about,
except for what the Church has fed you.

Ha, I laugh at you. Even Christopher Hitchens would admit that Mother Teresa took people off the streets where they were dying alone and in squalor. Yes, she didn't run a hospital and didn't have all the newest equipment, etc. but would you rather she didn't care about these people who every one else forgot. Did you know the faulty Canadian study you often quote never once talked to a single person who helped Mother Teresa or was helped by her and her sisters. Most of the criticisms are unfounded claims by people who have no experience of what Mother Teresa and her sisters did. I think it is you who should get some details about this before you continue to embarrass yourself by attacking a modern day saint.

Quote: Dalex64

Then why doesn't god present himself to us so that we can be in complete communion with him, have no desire to sin, and still retain our free will?

You have to understand "God" faces a fundamental ontological conundrum: he doesn't exist. That's the reason he cannot do any of the things he's expected to do. This is a common problem for non-existent beings, like Santa Claus or Zeus.

Quote: Dalex64

The all-powerful, all-knowing tried and failed?

Was it not his plan to sacrifice his son and not be present with us anymore?

The premise is the saints can not sin because they are in the presence of god and have no desire to sin.

Provide the real presence of god (not just "the presence of god is all around you"), remove the desire to sin.

Or does not being in the presence of god remove the desire to sin?

I think you aren't realizing that the presence of God is not enough for us to magically have our desire to sin vanish. Remember God is not about forcing us to do anything, everything is going to require of us a free act of the will. A saint got to be a saint by constant effort, vigilance, perseverance, forgiveness, grace, and humility. You and I are in the presence of God right now but we can still chose to sin. If God manifested His glory before us right now and a big booming voice said, "I am!" You and I still would have a choice to believe and follow or not. I think you are mistaking the sinlessness of the saints in Heaven as only because they are in the full presence of God and you are overlooking their choices on earth that lead them to respond so completely to God. If you or I were whisked to Heaven today, without a stop in purgatory, we would most likely still have attachments to sin or worldly things and just being in God's presence would not immediately force us to let go of those things. In fact we might be angry and get defensive about the little things we desire or want to hold onto to.

Quote: Dalex64

False equivalence. I think we see plenty of times in sports when the referee whose word is final is wrong. Referees and judges are not infallible, nor do they claim to be.

Actually referees are second-guessed after every game, with all their major decisions reviewed. Most often these decisions cannot be changed to affect the game, but the referees' career can suffer from too many mistakes.

Quote:

I have been trying to think of any groups outside of the religious ones who claim infallibility, or the inability to err.

None, really. In ancient times there were god-kings or divine kings who would claim to be infallible, but that's tainted with religion. Likewise the divine-right monarchies that arose in Europe.

Talleyrand famously said about one of Napoleon's blunders: "It was worse than an outrage. It was a mistake."

Quote: Dalex64

False equivalence. I think we see plenty of times in sports when the referee whose word is final is wrong. Referees and judges are not infallible, nor do they claim to be.

Of course they are wrong. The need for a infallible judge though is still required. I was not saying that referees are infallible! I was simply stating that the need for some type of unquestioned judge is necessary.

Quote:

I have been trying to think of any groups outside of the religious ones who claim infallibility, or the inability to err.

Again, practically this happens all the time but it is not a lasting characteristic. After the boss goes home or the referee leaves the field he isn't infallible. In a similar way the Pope is not infallible in all things or all the time. It is only when he proclaims something very formally to be infallible, which I think has happened 4 times, that he is. This must be strictly something regarding faith and morals. Also infallibility is not revealing "new" revelation, it is only used to clarify truths already established. Therefore Papal infallibility would be more like the head referee who reviews in great detail the controversial call on the field using instant reply and all the information and then proclaims the truth about if they got it right or wrong.

Quote: FrGamble

Therefore Papal infallibility would be more like the head referee who reviews in great detail the controversial call on the field using instant reply and all the information and then proclaims the truth about if they got it right or wrong.

Is there something to be gained by re-reading the Bible more slowly?

BTW, since there are two living popes, are both infallible? If not, when and how did Benedict lose his powers, and how can you tell? Further, what about the time of the papacy at Avignon, which eventually led to three popes in Europe simultaneously? Did they share infallibility, or did each have all of it on equal measure? Are Patriarchs also infallible?

Quote: Nareed

BTW, since there are two living popes, are both infallible? If not, when and how did Benedict lose his powers, and how can you tell? Further, what about the time of the papacy at Avignon, which eventually led to three popes in Europe simultaneously? Did they share infallibility, or did each have all of it on equal measure? Are Patriarchs also infallible?

Infallibility is a charism or gift of the one who is the Bishop of Rome, Servant of the Servants of God, and the successor of St. Peter. Even if there is a living former Pope or other invalidly elected Popes they do not have the charism of infallibility. Also this gift is not effected if you live in France or in Italy. The gift is not shared or split and only the Patriarch of Rome has it because he is the successor of St. Peter who received this gift to safeguard the Church in the Bible by Jesus Himself.

Quote: FrGamble

Even if there is a living former Pope or other invalidly elected Popes they do not have the charism of infallibility.

How do you know they were "invalidly" elected?

I wonder why Catholics don't cringe when they consider the Renaissance popes were infallible.