R
Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I?
- Status
S
shaky
Guest
Hi elvisman
Here are the scriptures showing all Gods people are saints: {Philippians1:1} {Philemon 1:5}
{2 corinthians 1:1} {Collossians 1:4}
E
elvisman
Guest
HUH***??****** ***
Acts 1 20:26** has to do with choosing Judas’ successor. **** Psalm 109:8**** has EVERYTHING to do with that. ANY Protestant minister would agree with that.**
Where are you getting your interpretations from?**
**
Why would they do that – if they thought it would all come to an end in their lifetime, as you say? Show me the**** verse **where Jesus told them to appoint more apostles and evangelists.
**
WHAT***??****** ***
Have you even READ 2 Pet. 3?? It has EVERYTHING to do with the end times.
Nothing was taken out of context. It’s all a matter of denial on your part.
E
elvisman
Guest
**Your post said “we are all saints”. the Greek term, “hagios” means “holy one”. **My contention is that SOME may be just that but others may not be.
Secondly, none of the verses you provided say that we are ALL saints. They are greetings to all of the saints (holy ones) in particular areas (Corinth, Philippi, etc.)
Lastly, as for a canonization of a saint by the Pope – it is not a declaration that somebody is holy – but that somebody is in heaven.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
That is why it was a question .Can a question be out of context ?Because when the Orthodox use this language, they mean to say that the Pope is Vicar as being dictator over all other bishops. When a Catholic uses Pope is Vicar of Christ Church, we are meaning as protector (one who tends) and teacher (one who feeds) of Jesus flock on earth, those teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ. Gurney and I were discussing an Orthodox position.
Please do not take my comments out of context again as you do the scriptures. Thank you
D
david_ruiz
Guest
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Sorry ,I did not know that when Orthodoxy says Rome believes the pope is Vicar over all Christendom, it really means the pope is a dictator. When a catholic says it, it means a benevolent shepherd/teacher . Do I have it right ?.. C.S.Lewis -“Those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past”. Indeed, “recently” the Pope is quite benevolent ,etc…Almost makes one forget that indeed some popes were worse than dictators. Your 2000 years is a long, long time. Would I be wrong in saying sometimes your benevolent view is correct , but that Orthodoxy’s negative view has also sometimes been correct ? You can always say it was only a few bad popes ,and Orthodoxy can say many more .Then we can all settle for somewhere in the middle.Because when the Orthodox use this language, they mean to say that the Pope is Vicar as being dictator over all other bishops. When a Catholic uses Pope is Vicar of Christ Church, we are meaning as protector (one who tends) and teacher (one who feeds) of Jesus flock on earth, those teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ. Gurney and I were discussing an Orthodox position.
Please do not take my comments out of context again as you do the scriptures. Thank you
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Well, you challenge me .Thank-you .So, I had to look up vicar , in hopes of getting out of la-la land. Merriam says, “serving as agent”,“administrative deputy” -origen: 14th century, where we get our word vicarious -is that living through? I would say many things fit for vicar of Christ .I will try not to be blasphemous. Is not the Body of Christ His agent , His finger and voice, His light on this earth ? Have not all disciples been deputized ? Now, can the Holy Spirit ,said to be acting as an agent for Jesus , or the Godhead ? Is not Jesus acting "through “the Holy Spirit” in this period of dispensation ? Who is it that convicts me of sin ? Who is it that convicts of Christ’s righteousness ? Who is it that convicts me of judgement to come? .Who is it that baptizes me ,in power and truth ? Who is it that indwells me ? Who am I a temple for ? Whose image is the Holy Spirit conforming me to ? The Holy Spirit seems to be quite busy doing the Lord’s work. Of course they are one in the same ,as if Jesus never left .So, yes a pope can be a vicar ,as an elder in such and such church ,as any Christian could shining forth the Light, as could the Holy Spirit .,Yes, we are all one. Is that what is blasphemous ? That I and the Holy Spirit are one ? Me being deputized , is that blasphemous ? What does it mean to be an ambassador for Christ ? Do I need to go to seminary and be ordained ?
Man, what are you thinking now ,after all that? .
A gathering of , functioning of believers.Church and Body of Christ are two in the same.according to the biblical definition? Gurney gave a great "picture 'of what it was in the beginning a few threads ago.(“independent” bodies).
It is ironic , but your insistence on what is “one” has led to “two”. Used to be simple , in that bible .Now you have to go all the way to believing Mary is Immaculate and Assumed and the Pope is infallible to be “One”.You created division with Immaculate when there was unity before .You created division with Assumption when before we were still one . You created division when you insisted on infallibility ,when before there was peace. All the way back when Rome denied the East it’s apostolically founded day of Easter .Tragic. But alas ,you are "One’ shining triumphant, leaving us vicarless, forcing to rely again on the Good Shepherd ,as best we can ,looking so ununified, except that we have all come out of ,and somewhat reformed from our "past’
You know ,I really do not know my cathechism on this .Paul says of some, “I am glad I did not baptize any of you” -that must be water baptize . Yet Jesus says we will be baptized with the Holy Ghost ".Paul says I came not to baptize but to preach the gospel (and by God’s grace this may lead to ones Spirit baptism.
"You treat this quite shallowly .Perhaps for some ,but no worse than infant regeneration.Please, the story of blind now I see is HUGE. Even as a 10 year old I struggled with billy graham on tv .I said let us listen carefully to this Protetstant-for I did not know any .I did have a Jewish family next door. Well, I could not kick against the pricks of Grahams words .which were all in my catholic bible and understanding (heaven, hell, judgement ,good ,bad,sin,faith Jesus sacrifice.I thought so far no heresy ,sounds O.K., what is wrong with asking Jesus into your heart ,can not hurt.I said the prayer ,but as you say I was not born again-but it was my first protetstant seed ,to go along with my Catholic seeds). Don’t let our negatives hide our positives ,and that goes for me to .We have been programmed to sort and separate. Apostles did it and Christ had to correct them .That is no small matter when one is indeed in the body ,or written in the book of life ,regenerated ,born again ,made new in Christ .right? .
Do you see it , the incongruity ? The church is pillar of truth NOT the bible , then you say the bible reveals the church ? Who said anything about circular ? I believe you mean just what you said.
Could I say why ? Should I not apply the church revelation to what church is ,as you do .I am not saying it may not be biblical , but should I not follow your example with emphasis on church revelation first, and “not the bible”.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Than-you ,but you miss my point ,yes there ended up 3 classes or division ,but what I was suggesting was that before their sin on their desert journey , they were to be all priests with no division.After their sin ,God institututed the division .A little bit like in the beginning ,there was no divorce ,but God finally allowed it because of their hard hearts.Or ,God allowed Israel their king ,but it was not His perfect will for them ,but Israel insisted .Hey David:
They WERE a kingdom of priets. I already laid it out for you:
There were three levels of Priests: Aaron, the High Priest, the Levitical or ministerial Priesthood, and the rest of the people were a general priesthood of believers.
’Nuff said?
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Thank-you ,but I believe those are two different events and not inferred by torn veil .Paul implies this something is for now , the present ,to make known our own petitions before Him now,with no priest in between .Indeed ,the kingdom is in our future after death …Jesus however ,brings the kingdom down to us -hence the kingdom is at hand ,and for now .That could not happen fully under the old “tabernacle”, and the wall or veil between God and his Body .Hence it was torn in two .Else why did He bother bringing the kingdom down , if it was only for after this life …
" is merely a translation of “Presbyter”.
Sorry.still does not compute with me. Priest is latin for presbyter,O.K. ,so then what is latin for priest ? You can not get around (well you did)the fact that priest is used 1000 times in O.T. but only a handful in N.T (for High priest or that we all are priests).It introduces several new terms ,bishop ,presbyter -why .They chose not to use the greek word for priest ,but the greek word for bishop or presbyter perhaps .Why if as you say ,it is the same as O.T.?
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Hopefully none of your Augustine quotes were any that he recanted on ,for that would be…Apparently,Augustine did attribute "rockmass’ to Peter ,but later recanted .The retractions,book 1.Cyprian had similar experience ,after he saw the abuse ,the ramifications of such dogma ,as it could lead to Lording over , he revised his position away from Rome’s position.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
The fact that Augustine said, “Rome has spoken; the case is closed” does not imply the See of Rome was infallible, supreme in jurisdiction, or presiding OVER the other patriarchates and bishops. I was talking in another post about how frequently churches would have an ecclesiastical issue and bishops would want a third party to intervene, ask another opinion, or have another See settle the matter. Bishops didn’t see it as superiority of other Sees if they asked their advice or judgments, they saw it as good governance. If a diocese in North Africa had an ecclesiastical or heretical crisis and needed a third party, Rome obviously had great stature. It was the capital of the Empire, huge, founded by Paul and Peter, and was possessed of great wisdom. It only made sense to ask Rome’s opinion. We can read examples of other churches also asking Constantinople to step in at times and in other situations many would go to Antioch or to Alexandria, etc. to judge a situation, etc. Many Catholics in here interpret asking a second opinion or asking another See to rule on something as an admission that the See being sought out is superior, infallible, all-powerful, and the heart and soul of the Church.
There have been times where my wife was considering letting my son have something as a reward and she told my son, “let me ask your dad. We’ll see.” When I came home they brought it to me and I told them, “maybe next month. We don’t have the money right now.” My wife would say, “Ok, Luke, your daddy said next time. So be patient and wait.” Well, one could say, “daddy has spoken.” Does that make me infallible and my fatherhood and husbandness perfect and supreme? No, my wife just wanted a second opinion and was on the fence about the issue herself. That’s much the way the Church was. Rome’s wisdom WAS sought. But it wasn’t required and paramount and a necessity.
There have been times where my wife was considering letting my son have something as a reward and she told my son, “let me ask your dad. We’ll see.” When I came home they brought it to me and I told them, “maybe next month. We don’t have the money right now.” My wife would say, “Ok, Luke, your daddy said next time. So be patient and wait.” Well, one could say, “daddy has spoken.” Does that make me infallible and my fatherhood and husbandness perfect and supreme? No, my wife just wanted a second opinion and was on the fence about the issue herself. That’s much the way the Church was. Rome’s wisdom WAS sought. But it wasn’t required and paramount and a necessity.
L
Louie1983
Guest
It doesn’t mean that your husbandness is perfect and supreme but then again you don;t have to be perfect to deliver a perfect/infallible teaching or be a good father.
You correctly said no to your family for a legitimate reason and because you are guided by a (i’m assuming having good parents by the sounds of things
) sound upbringing (tradition) you have made a good decision.Now think about the popes and bishops who were given the gifts of the holy spirit!
It’s just for me it can’t be more clearer, there was an idea that we should be united under one pope/church and I don’t think Jesus would change Peter’s name, change his status, hand him the keys, and say you will be a fisher of men, feed my lambs x 3 for no reason. If he said this to all of the apostles then i think the orthodox have a fair point, But we know this isn’t the case.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Many, including Orthodox scholars I’ve read, would tell you that Peter’s confession and change of name was an archetype for all of us and how we change and are given a new life when we confess Christ as Lord and saviour. Was it the man or the confession that was the rock? The Fathers held varying opinions on it. Peter can be any of us. Any of us can come to recognize who Jesus really is—not just a prophet or teacher or Elijah come back or a great rabbi, but the Christ, the Son of the Living God. And at that moment, we become grounded as rocks. I have read such an opinion more than once!
Peter was given the opportunity to take back his three denials of Jesus. Peter denied Jesus three times before the cock crowed, in his cowardice and human weakness. In the resurrection event’s wake, Christ gives Peter a second chance. He lets Peter AFFIRM him three times! Was this to make him an infallible pope or to give him a chance to make good his sins and rejections into a new man?
Was the Church ever meant to be one world Church headed by one man? The early church doesn’t point to that? The early church shows a monepiscopacy in which the fullness of Christ was manifested in each local parish and diocese. The entirety and totality of Church wasn’t in the fact that it was ruled by one character on a global scale but that at each parish there was apostolic presence and governance, the Eucharist, the sacraments, and Christ Himself. And Christ does indeed give the keys to all the apostles. They were not told they’re the Rock because they weren’t the first to recognize who Jesus was. Orthodox have always recognized Jesus as “coryphaeus,” the big brother and first among the 12. Not higher, not better, not universally supreme and infallible, just first and highly-regarded.
If we are to go by Jesus’s gifts and special blessings, all the apostles are equal. Look at John! Given the singular gift of being the steward and protector of the Blessed Virgin Mary!? Or Paul, made an apostle AFTER Christ had ascended and blinded, blessed, made an apostle apart from the others in Antioch far away. All the apostles were called, blessed, and leaders in their own right who died for Christ in martyrdom.
Peter was given the opportunity to take back his three denials of Jesus. Peter denied Jesus three times before the cock crowed, in his cowardice and human weakness. In the resurrection event’s wake, Christ gives Peter a second chance. He lets Peter AFFIRM him three times! Was this to make him an infallible pope or to give him a chance to make good his sins and rejections into a new man?
Was the Church ever meant to be one world Church headed by one man? The early church doesn’t point to that? The early church shows a monepiscopacy in which the fullness of Christ was manifested in each local parish and diocese. The entirety and totality of Church wasn’t in the fact that it was ruled by one character on a global scale but that at each parish there was apostolic presence and governance, the Eucharist, the sacraments, and Christ Himself. And Christ does indeed give the keys to all the apostles. They were not told they’re the Rock because they weren’t the first to recognize who Jesus was. Orthodox have always recognized Jesus as “coryphaeus,” the big brother and first among the 12. Not higher, not better, not universally supreme and infallible, just first and highly-regarded.
If we are to go by Jesus’s gifts and special blessings, all the apostles are equal. Look at John! Given the singular gift of being the steward and protector of the Blessed Virgin Mary!? Or Paul, made an apostle AFTER Christ had ascended and blinded, blessed, made an apostle apart from the others in Antioch far away. All the apostles were called, blessed, and leaders in their own right who died for Christ in martyrdom.
It doesn’t mean that your husbandness is perfect and supreme but then again you don;t have to be perfect to deliver a perfect/infallible teaching or be a good father.
You correctly said no to your family for a legitimate reason and because you are guided by a (i’m assuming having good parents by the sounds of things
Now think about the popes and bishops who were given the gifts of the holy spirit!
It’s just for me it can’t be more clearer, there was an idea that we should be united under one pope/church and I don’t think Jesus would change Peter’s name, change his status, hand him the keys, and say you will be a fisher of men, feed my lambs x 3 for no reason. If he said this to all of the apostles then i think the orthodox have a fair point, But we know this isn’t the case.
S
schaick
Guest
What statements did I make that were gleaned from anti-Catholic websites?
No Catholic on this thread has been able to give a list of infallible sttements.
I have mentioned this before on this thread- I think one would add Pope Infallibilty to the list of infallible statements. ** Is it on the list?**
E
elvisman
Guest
So - you don’t think that God already knew they would sin? You don’t believe he is omniscient? God’s salvific plan was in place from the beginning – but he is outside of time (2 Pet. 3:8) and is not subject to the consequences of our actions.
Look - Christ’s Kingdom is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom. This is PRECISELY why there have THREE priestly classes** High Priest/Christ (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25), ****Ministerial/Ordained Priests (James 5:14-15) and the General/All of us (1 Peter 2:5-9). **
His Kingdom also has the Keeper of the Keys Isaiah 22:15-25 /Matt. 16:16-19, Queen Mother/Gebirah (Mary) (1 Kings 2:19-20).****
A fuller knowledge of Scripture is needed to understand his Kingdom.
This is why Augustine in his wisdom said, "The New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old is revealed in the New."
E
elvisman
Guest
***What ***statements?
Your claim that there are only 2 infallible statements in the history of the Church.
That is patently false and would not have been acquired from a legitimate Catholic source. It would have only come from a source seeking to paint Catholic doctrine in a negative light.
If you didn’t get it from an anti-Catholic source – WHERE did you get this false claim from?
YOU** are the one making this fanciful claim, so the onus is on YOU to prove it.**
E
elvisman
Guest
**First of all – Augustine’s “Retractations” (NOT “Retractions”) was not a refutation of ANY of his previous sermons or writings. It was return to – a re-examination of them. **
Augustine never recanted his statements about Peter OR the Papacy. I challenge you to provide proof of this.
E
elvisman
Guest
Wrong**.**
You can twist his words all you want – and those of any of the Fathers on this matter – but you’ll still be wrong in the end.
**The plain fact is that **this is *not ***like your household, where you and your wife have the final say. **
**Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, **Clement of Rome, Cyprian of Carthage, Eusebius, Julius I, Optatus, Damasus I, Jerome, Ambrose of Milan, Peter Chrysologus and on and on – they taught that the Bishop of Rome had the final say.
Augustine****
“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’”
“The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: – Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found.”
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Thank-you .Quite solid and insightful.
- Status