Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Your reform depends on what your reforming? This Rock Jesus built upon Peter never needs reforming. How does man reform a Rock? The more protestantism reforms the more it splinters and the more it begs for a Vicar of Christ.

Reform is not new

.

The problem I see with your reading of the Church Fathers who many are made Catholic Saints, had no need to mention Peter as Rock to their contemporaries because this position is already held since apostolic times. Re-read your commentaries and you will find these early Church Fathers dealing with another subject matter, not Peter as the Rock Jesus built His Church upon. So no, at times you will not need to find mention of Peter as Rock, when it was already revealed from Scripture, which any Early Church Father did not contest, because you never find them contesting the scripture of authority in Peter as you have Protestants do today. In fact you have many confirming Peter and his successors in the Popes as holding the unity of the Catholic Apostolic Church.

All believers? Read John 17, this consecration that Jesus gives to His apostles and those after them does not apply to all believers. Learning your scriptures from an Apostolic Catholic Tradition will help you see things more clearly between divine authority and the laity. It will remove any doubt.

Quite a few Church fathers said Christ is the rock ,and make no mention of Peter .I am not denying that later Fathers (4th C. on) did put forth your argument.I have read that Catholics say Peter was made Vicar when the Holy Spirit revealed to Peter whom Jesus was. I am not sure they mean Jesus just happened to appoint Peter at that time ,or that was made in effect because of the revelation .If it was the latter , all the rest of the apostles had the same revelation from the Holy Spirit ,as do ALL believers.

Half gnostic? lol…The Gnostic’s claimed to have a “secret” revelation only for their select few. What I am holding to is not secret, I proclaim it from the roof tops. The Catholic Church revealed to the world from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition the “Trinity”, when the Trinity was never penned in scripture. Yet protestants believe in this Catholic revealed Apostolic oral Tradition handed down. God does not change, but men do…The Church is never the reflector of Truth, who has vexed you? The Church of the living God is the Pillar and foundation of Truth. Don’t add or subtract from this Apostolic written and Oral Tradition. Why do you try to invent something that is never there since the resurrection of our dear Lord Jesus Christ? Not everything Jesus said and did was written, there are not enough books which could contain them all according to John the beloved of Jesus.

Let me help you with the Church’s teaching of Vicar once again; The Pope, bishops, and pastors are all Vicars of Christ. When they conduct Mass and or hear confessions when they are in persona Christi. I can respect you being protestant did not take this Apostolic succession with you, so you can only invent or imagine what these biblical historical biblical revelations reveal from the perspective from man, so I hesitate going into these revealed Apostolic mysteries.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You have overwhelmed me with your lack of Catholic understanding. Thus far, your arguments you pose blow with the wind, because they reveal only your misunderstandings, not what the Catholic Church teaches from revealed Apostolic oral Tradition and Sacred Scripture. This becomes too numerous to respond here. If you can narrow it to one or two questions, then we can begin a serious dialogue regarding the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’s teachings and understandings more clearly in more dignified manner, without chasing subject matters between jargon which St.Augustine uses to refute non catholics, when you think as a protestant this Catholic bonafied Saint agrees with your new man made theology? I do see you have alot of unanswered questions that deserve an answer. Rest assured the Catholic Church has answered all of them. It just takes a little time, if you went to mass and begin “hearing and hearing” in the liturgy of the Word so that you can gain the faith and discern the body and blood of Jesus Christ. See 1Cor. 11:21-27

[This sounds half gnostic ,you know "special revelation ",just for some(apostles) ,and definitely not recorded in scripture.This is very poor ,and church fathers (1st and 2nd C) are rolling over at such popycok -that there was not enough room to put it in "writing "-God’s mode of operating since the beginning. God always had "lag time between when it was oral to “writing” .Matthew 16:15-19 what need do you need of another when God has spoken thus? This was already well grounded in the Catholic Faith during the 400 year persecution and after.

The problem with this argument about the 4th century does not deal with reality of the history of the Catholic Early Church Fathers, because the primacy of Peter was never in question, in fact the Early Church Fathers wrote and taught outside of unity with Peter there is no catholic church.

The Church of Chalcedon fell into heresy, which is recognized by both Catholic and Orthodox Church’s. Constantinople ursurped the authority from the Church of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem because the Roman Emperor made his capital there. The pagan Emperor gave wealth to the Eastern Church of Constantinople. This was such that many of the Early Saints left these great cities and became Monks, to free themselves from such hyprocisy. It is these desert Fathers who maintained the Apostolic Catholic Faith. But you were probably never informed of this Truth? What you are dealing with is power and politics. The Roman Catholic Church is the only recorded Catholic Church since the resurrection of Jesus that never fell into apastacy, heresy or error from her teachings. No One can contest this fact. History records the first 30+ popes accepting martrydom before rejecting their Apostolic Catholic faith in Jesus Christ. This Rock has been battled tested and will never cease proclaiming Christ Crucified. There is no saying, let the facts reveal themselves. Where is the Chalcedon Catholic church today?

I have heard it was around 4th century .When did the Catholic church begin using this scripture to prove papacy ? Please correct my “hearing”. Why did the Council of Chalcedon issue a cannon giving primacy to Constantinople for the Eastern churches. It did not recognize Rome over all. Why ? Is that when Catholics started to say the East was heretical ?..

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=shaky;7209516]Hi Gabrial

Where is say in timothy about somebody to become a bishop: Married only Once.
How Would this also Apply to a Person who has had his first marraige Annuled by The church?
Also how Would it Apply to a person whoes first wife died and he was married a second time?

Hi shaky; good to hear from you; In biblical times do not think of the Hebrews marrying as we do today. Sometimes they took on more than one wife because it was a custom for every maiden to have a husband, although a sexual marriage did not take place always. Jesus elevated marriage to a sacrament making it a covenant law to be married only once, just as Christ is the husband to His Church only one bride.

An annuled marriage never took place, and the person is free to marry. If a wife dies while in a sacramental marriage, the husband is free from the convenant because a death has occurred, releasing the husband from his matrimony and free to marry if he so choses.

 

[schaick]

`

…
Indeed, the HS does reveal to us that which is from Jesus. But a vicar is a servant who stands in the place of the Head, and the HS is equal to the Head, not lesser. This is why such a formulation reveals an heretical view of teh HS, who is God. The vicar only holds this position by authority of the King, not by nature or his personal status. The vicar has no authority in himself. Jesus set up His Church on the model of His own Body. It has a divine nature, and a human nature in hypostatic union. The HS is what makes the Church infallible. Though the human natures attached to the Church can fall from grace, the HS makes the Church inviolable. God chose to work through fallible humans to reveal himself to the world.

Any and all authority comes from God. The Church has authority only because He has given it to her.

I guess I wonder what you think He meant when He commissioned Peter to feed and care for His flock. Does not a shepherd have supreme, full, immediate and universal power over the sheep that are placed in his care? Is there any circumstance where such a shepherd can throw up his hands and deny responsibility?

The HS works through the Church to transform the believers. When the scriptures say “we have the mind of Christ” the “we” refers to the Apostles and those who are in union with them. Those who depart from the Apostolic unity separate themselves also from the “mind of Christ”, who established only one Church.

Do you imagine that the Spirit does not accomplish this transformation through the Church? Why do you think Jesus established the Church?

Standing in for one does not negate being co-equal. In fact only an equal would have the power to add to/develope new dogmas that are required for ones salvation not already mentioned in GOD’s Word.

Please don’t forget even though equal, Christ was a servant of HIS Father:

John 12
49For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Slight correction of what you said - The holy Spirit works through the message to transform the believers. A person hears the message understands and accepts it then they join the Church.

Feed my sheep =teach the Gospel message. Tend=provide a place for those to hear the message. Jesus did not say lord over them with supreme authority and make up new rules for them to follow for their salvation.

Whoever owns the sheep has supreme, full, immediate and universal power over the sheep. The sheperd must folllow the intructions and wishes of the owner of the sheep.

 

[schaick]

No. the fact that all scripture is profitable for teaching does not mean that all teaching must be found in the scripture.

The Written Word and the Oral Word do not contradict each other, they complement one another.

Sacred Tradition’s primary purpose is to help us understand what is written from the point of view of those who wrote it. They never intended to produce a full compendium of the faith in the memoirs and letters.

Where is this oral Word? Who is holding it? Is it a secret to only those that hold it?

What secret oral tradition do Catholics have that mere Christians do not have and how do Catholic’s test it’s reliability?

 

[schaick]

I don’t think this question has been answered:

**Infallible statements are made when not believing said belief endangers our salvation. ** Heretical belief arose surrounding The Father, Son and Holy Spirit so the Scriputral concept of the Trinity defined.

What heresies were the Mary Dogmas addressing?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Sorry, it was a sweeping generalization. I think Orthodoxy came to America to serve the faithful Orthodox that came here. I don’t think they came here to convert people.

You think wrong my friend. The Russian missionaries to Alaska came to minister to the local trading colonies and to evangelize the local population, no different than the Catholic missionaries to the Americas. In fact a number of the missionaries were martyred, included St Juvenaly, who was killed while engaging in evangelization among the native population.

I confess that I don’t know how Orthodoxy came to Japan. I have always presumed there were missionaries, but not on the scale of the Latin Catholics.

There were fewer missionaries because of a number of historical circumstances. The great world powers when the Age of Exploration began were all Western European, Catholic nations. Most of the Orthodox world was under Muslim domination or, in the case of Russia, grossly underdeveloped compared to their Western counterparts.

The Russian Church has always been active in missionary activity. They evangelized the Tartars, the Mongols and sent missionaries to China, to Alaska, to Japan. Currently the Orthodox Christian Mission Center has active missionaries in Cameroon, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Albania, Kosovo, Moldova, Romania, India, Indonesia, South Korea and Guatemala.

In Christ
Joe

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Did Jesus actually elevate it to a sacrament by only allowing one marriage? I often hear the Catholic argument that it was elevated to a sacrament because of Christ’s officiating at the Wedding of Cana? Still those like Luther adhere to the more strict understanding of what a sacrament is: Christ-instituted, must have a visible outward sign, must have an inner deep grace in it given by God.

So, for example, the Eucharist is a sacrament. Why?

Outward sign: bread and wine
Instituted by Christ: Yes, at the Last Supper
Inward Grace: Yes, the presence of Christ within us, body, soul, divinity

Or take baptism. Is it a sacrament?

Outward sign: water
Instituted by Christ: yes, with John the Baptist at the Jordan
Inward Grace: Yes, draws us near to God, unites us with the Holy Spirit, makes us a Christian

But Luther’s contention is that marriage existed LONG before Christ was even born. It has no outward sign. And is it supposed to convey grace?

I think it’s a fascinating argument.

As far as the Jewish part of your post, that’s debatable. I’ve read many views about ancient Israeli views of marriage. Sex was usually a requirement. People didn’t just marry for custom or social reasons. IN fact, the “onah” was the man’s OBLIGATION to give his wife sexual pleasure. But you’re correct in that women not married by the age of twenty were considered “cursed by God.” So there was a social urgency but I think a sexual one was understood. Procreation was also a key component as childbirth was an enormous gift of God in the eyes of the Hebrew people. And the Torah and Talmud discuss the importance of love, respect, and honoring one’s wife. So a Jewish marriage had little difference from Catholic marriage except the possibility of a dissolution of marriage due to adultery and a few other reasons. Both valued love, procreation, and teaching godly ways to their kids as well as faithfulness as the main virtues of a marriage. So, did Jesus establish marriage or was it already established?

Interesting issue to ponder, study, and pray about in any case…

Gabriel_of_12:
Hi shaky; good to hear from you; In biblical times do not think of the Hebrews marrying as we do today. Sometimes they took on more than one wife because it was a custom for every maiden to have a husband, although a sexual marriage did not take place always. Jesus elevated marriage to a sacrament making it a covenant law to be married only once, just as Christ is the husband to His Church only one bride.

An annuled marriage never took place, and the person is free to marry. If a wife dies while in a sacramental marriage, the husband is free from the convenant because a death has occurred, releasing the husband from his matrimony and free to marry if he so choses.

 

[cruisin]

i have yet to find in the Law given to Moses by God, that polygamy was allowed. If someone could show me chapter and verse, I would be greatful.

Anullments seem to me, a creation of Man not God.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Exodus 21:8
3 But if her master, who had destined her for himself, dislikes her, he shall let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreigner, since he has broken faith with her.
9
If he destines her for his son, he shall treat her like a daughter.
10
If he takes another wife, he shall not withhold her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
11
If he does not grant her these three things, she shall be given her freedom absolutely, without cost to her.

The old covenant records that only the Kings of Israel are not to multiply wives, horses, gold etc… Polygamy is discouraged, but God allowed Moses to give them a bill of divorce from the hardness of their hearts.

There are many examples of polygamy in the old testament, beginning with Lamech, Esau, Abraham down to King Solomon who had 300 wives? and 700 concubines?

i have yet to find in the Law given to Moses by God, that polygamy was allowed. If someone could show me chapter and verse, I would be greatful

.

An annulment of a marriage is reached when it is proven that the couples married find out that they are blood related, their marriage was prearranged, forced to marry, outside of Love of the couple for each other. When it is proven this marriage took place under circumstances such as mentioned but not limited to them. The Church excercising her God given authority can annul this marriage as never taken place in the eyes of God who is Love. Just as every Vicar of God from the Patriarchs, Law and prophets possessed such authority in God’s Kingdom such as Abraham, Moses and the Davidic Kings to judge the difference between the things of God and the things of men.

A marriage by the law of the land does not constitute a valid marriage in the eyes of God.

Anulments bring justice and peace to those couples who never desired to enter into a covenant relationship for life and it is proven that one or both entered marriage without full consent. God allowed Moses a bill of divorce. Jesus takes marriage to another level in the sacramental marriage;

Luke 16:18
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

An anulled marriage does not subject this law of committing divorce from a married couple who’s marriage never took place.

Anullments seem to me, a creation of Man not God.

There is an unlawful marriage. But this deals with Jews marrying Pagans, or Christians marrying unbelievers. Now this takes on a whole other topic.

1Cor. 7:10
To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): 7 a wife should not separate from her husband
11
–and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband–and a husband should not divorce his wife.
12
To the rest 8 I say (not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her;
13
and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce her husband.
14
For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy.
15
If the unbeliever separates, 9 however, let him separate. The brother or sister is not bound in such cases; God has called you to peace.
16
For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband; or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Where

is this oral Word? Who is holding it? Is it a secret to only those that hold it?

What secret oral tradition do Catholics have that mere Christians do not have and how do Catholic’s test it’s reliability?

It’s no secret; The Catholic Church has the True presence of Jesus body,blood soul and divinity in her midst. ICor. 11:23
11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
**Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12 **
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
**For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself. **

Here is another revelation that Catholics are partakers of Jesus divinity through His sacramental life in the sacraments;

2 Peter 1:4
Through these,** he has bestowed on us **the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.

Catholics do not test the reliability of Jesus sacraments, we live them out.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

“Theotokos” Mary is Mother of God, against the persistance of arian heresy and the nestorius hersey which denied Jesus nature as fully human and fully divine. Council of Ephesus 431 a.d

The council held at Chalcedon in 451 a.d promulgated this “Theotokos” decision and made it “DOGMA”.

Mary Mother of God “dogma”, was able to seperate all the sheep from the goats. This Marian dogma proclaimed by the Early Church Fathers and councils protected and kept the apostolic Catholic church revelations and teachings handed down from Jesus and His apostles from error and disarray into heresies.

I don’t think this question has been answered:

**Infallible statements are made when not believing said belief endangers our salvation. **

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thanks for the color print, it helps out when your reading late at night; forgive my grammar and sentence structure when I posted late last night. Although I do welcome your criticism about my writing skills, so as to improve on them.

So as to eliminate any confusion, I have been writing on the subject of infallibility. The Bishops world wide united with the Pope possesses an infallibility. The Pope by himself can proclaim a revealed teaching of Jesus Christ “without error” (Infallibly) on faith and morals (where do you get this self proclaimed dogma stuff from Peter and the Popes?). Taking this position, now reread my posts. There is no conflict of argument.

I did mention elsewhere when Jesus prayed just for the 12 and those who would succeed them, and consecrate them to himself. John 17.

Interesting argument. You seem to argue against yourself here though. On one hand you’re saying Peter must have the rest of the apostles present in a true conciliar body to properly exercise his custodial declarations. Yet at the end you focus on how Peter alone is prayed for by Christ and protected and blessed and guided. This seems to suggest he is totally able to declare and teach and dictate dogma without the others? You don’t mention Christ praying for them all and the rest of the apostles so I’m assuming all your focus here is on Peter. What need is there for the others from this angle?

What is this language you are using? “Orthodox are religious scavengers living off the carcass of the old Church?” I don’t know where you are going with this type of false innuendos. Your choice of words here are never my intention nor definition. I would really like to know how the Orthodox would respond to “your views expressed here”? never mine.

In summary; “Authority is the issue”

Boy I’m Dr. Wrong tonight! You’re essentially saying that the Orthodox are religious scavengers living off the carcass of the old Church laid out with the pope at the helm. Since the pope left and they’re on their own, they live off the old carcass of the past and have nothing new under the sun, no real living, breathing, vibrant spirit-filled guidance but rather a sad attempt to preserve what the popes laid out. I wonder how they’d respond to that?

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=Louie1983;7209563]Cop-out? you saying you can judge who goes to heaven and who goes to hell?

Yes,partly. The catholic church has also thru the ages.

Paul is no liar, you just have an erroneous understanding of the faith.

“My” bible says

[2 Thessalonians 2:15
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

It appears Paul then contradicted himself when he said ALL scripture is good for dogma,according to your statement that truth is found outside the bible (tradition). Why do you insist on the contradiction , that Paul , and all the other apostles, left out important dogma in their writings ? I would insist on the harmony of scripture and the oral gospel .Otherwise one could say Paul held "confessions"on Saturday night, and prayed for souls in purgatory , etc ,and talked to the "Assumed " Mary, and regenerated infants with sprinkling of water etc.
[/quote]

 

[Louie1983]

[Yes,partly. The catholic church has also thru the ages.

It appears Paul then contradicted himself when he said ALL scripture is good for dogma,according to your statement that truth is found outside the bible (tradition). Why do you insist on the contradiction , that Paul , and all the other apostles, left out important dogma in their writings ? I would insist on the harmony of scripture and the oral gospel .Otherwise one could say Paul held "confessions"on Saturday night, and prayed for souls in purgatory , etc ,and talked to the "Assumed " Mary, and regenerated infants with sprinkling of water etc.

No he didn’t, again it’s just your understanding that is flawed. The fact that all scripture is profitable for teaching does not mean that all teaching must be found in the scripture, it simply isn’t. Even John in his gospel said that not all of the teachings are written as they would not be able to fill all the books of the world!

The Written Word and the Oral Word do not contradict each other, they complement one another. You like to think that Paul keeps contradicting himself since you play that card a lot, well we know Paul couldn’t have contradicted himself as he was led by the holy spirit.
[/quote]

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m just giving you a rough time, Gabe, just being silly with ya. I totally understand what you’re trying to say. I had been grading so many sixth grade essays that I was in English mode and in the mood to be silly. I’m not serious about that grammar stuff!

When you talk about the fact you’ve “been writing on the subject of infallibility,” do you mean in here at CAF or for a college paper or something? What do you do for a living?

Gurney

Thanks for the color print, it helps out when your reading late at night; forgive my grammar and sentence structure when I posted late last night. Although I do welcome your criticism about my writing skills, so as to improve on them.

So as to eliminate any confusion, I have been writing on the subject of infallibility. The Bishops world wide united with the Pope possesses an infallibility. The Pope by himself can proclaim a revealed teaching of Jesus Christ “without error” (Infallibly) on faith and morals (where do you get this self proclaimed dogma stuff from Peter and the Popes?). Taking this position, now reread my posts. There is no conflict of argument.

I did mention elsewhere when Jesus prayed just for the 12 and those who would succeed them, and consecrate them to himself. John 17.

What is this language you are using? “Orthodox are religious scavengers living off the carcass of the old Church?” I don’t know where you are going with this type of false innuendos. Your choice of words here are never my intention nor definition. I would really like to know how the Orthodox would respond to “your views expressed here”? never mine.

 

[ron77nyc]

I did mention elsewhere when Jesus prayed just for the 12 and those who would succeed them, and consecrate them to himself. John 17.

I’m not sure if Jesus had the successors of the apostles in future generations in mind when He prayed this prayer.
John 17:20 “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

In other gospels He spoke as if the end was coming soon.

**Matthew 24:34 **I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
**Matthew 16:28 **I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
**John 8:51 **I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."
**Matthew 16:28 **I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Jesus is certainly praying the John 17 prayer for us as our intercessor in heaven but how much did He know when He walked the earth?

How does this relate to infallibility? How much did popes know when they were making infallible statements? They weren’t able to see into the future.

 

[ron77nyc]

Sorry gurney. I misquoted the quote. It belongs to Gabriel.

I did mention elsewhere when Jesus prayed just for the 12 and those who would succeed them, and consecrate them to himself. John 17.

 

[david_ruiz]

No he didn’t, again it’s just your understanding that is flawed.

The fact that all scripture is profitable for teaching does not mean that all teaching must be found in the scripture, it simply isn’t.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That’s not my quote, it’s Gabriel of 12’s.

I’m not sure if Jesus had the successors of the apostles in future generations in mind when He prayed this prayer.
John 17:20 “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

In other gospels He spoke as if the end was coming soon.

**Matthew 24:34 **I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
**Matthew 16:28 **I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
**John 8:51 **I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."
**Matthew 16:28 **I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Jesus is certainly praying the John 17 prayer for us as our intercessor in heaven but how much did He know when He walked the earth?

How does this relate to infallibility? How much did popes know when they were making infallible statements? They weren’t able to see into the future.