How do you defend Papal Infallibility?

[IanGE]

It doesn’t? Of course it does!

Now… if what you mean is that “the Church doesn’t accept the particular examples of charisms that I accept, and accepts others that I don’t accept”, then that’s a completely different issue, and one that’s all about authority, not charism!
Please don’t put words in my mouth. The signs that follow the believer ARE a confirmatory authority. Hence, " the disciples preached and the Lord worked with them and confirmed His word by the signs that accompanied it" Mark 16:20, which is scriptural but unfortunately not doctrinal.

That’s just the thing: subjective is subjective, whether the subject is one person or one billion. As Fulton Sheen put it, “Wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong. Right is right even if nobody is right.” So, papal infallibility can’t be a matter of taking a straw poll and ‘deciding’ whether the pope is right or not; if it’s not an objective matter (and it is, as can be demonstrated Scripturally), then it’s nothing.
See my answer above. Also, according to Google, 36.9% of Catholics do not believe in Papal infallibilty; 36.9 do believe and the rest don’t know.

‘Ekklesia’ is the Greek word for ‘community’; in the early Christian Church, it’s the word that they chose to mean their Christian community – that is, their church! Later, the word ‘church’ came to be associated with ‘ekklesia’. You’re picking nits if you wish to separate ‘church’ from ‘community’ and say that you’re the latter but not the former…
Zonderman’s Greek anthology states that ecclesia is a compound, made up word: “lesia” means “called” and "ecc (ex) means “out”. Jesus’ word (and the word used throughout the NT) not mine.

Hmm… now you’ve confused me. When I asked what you would consider sufficient for saying, “yes, papal infallibility’s correct”, we had this exchange:

So, now I’m confused. Discernment is the sign you’re looking for; yet, discernment isn’t a sign you’d accept. Can you see why I’m having a hard time following your criteria for understanding whether papal infallibility is correct?
Of course I accept discernment: I demonstrate it myself. But Its not one of the overt signs Jesus promised in Mark 16. My discernment (or the Popes) can and will and is disputed. Tongues or healing or a dramatic driving out of a demon is indisputable> OK, skip tongues

Your assertion here is un-Scriptural! Paul says, “Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?”
Do clergy (all levels) demonstrate ANY of Paul’s list except administration - which can be learned at college or a seminary. Tongues seems the lowest and commonest (certainly amongst Charismatics) necessity. I’d be happy if administrators did.

Notice that there’s a distinction between an ‘apostle’ and gifts such as ‘healing’ and ‘tongues’. In fact, if one were to claim “I’m an apostle, and I heal, and I speak in tongues”, it would seem that he’s saying that Paul (and Scripture) was wrong! After all, not all are apostles! So, the pope, as a successor of the apostles, doesn’t need gifts of tongues or healing in order to ‘confirm’ his office and his charisms! By Paul’s very words, your assertion here cannot stand!
An apostle is one “Sent” - by God. All apostles (and Peter) had the various gifts of the Spirit, which helped them in their work. I, and a billion Charismatics, demonstrate the signs of the believer but very few, if any, are “sent”.
PS What, in scripture, justifies the Popes claim to be the successor of the apostles and in particular, Peter, who was never Pope (that is Bishop of Rome) or elected leader. The Pope is elected (according to dogma, by the Holy Spirit): I accept him as leader and I willingly take his advice on board as he he is much more learned (via Catholic seminary) and worldly wise than I will EVER be. There is no need for him to twist scripture to justify his leadership.

Please show me a Bible verse that says that someone who loves Mary doesn’t love Jesus. Show me a verse that shows that someone who loves Mary receives ‘charisms’ from her, rather than from Jesus. Be careful – it sure looks like you’re replacing the words of God with your own ‘human traditions’…! .
“I am the Gate; whoever enters through ME will be saved (Jn.10:9) et al: “I am the way and truth”; “no one goes to the father except through ME”; “come to ME all who are burdened…” etc etc. In John 1:28, the angel says to Mary, “greetings, you who are highly favoured! The Lord is with you.” In Jn 1:46 -56 Mary joyously sings praises to God and exults, “all generations will call me blessed.” I do, I even love her but her son Jesus is the son of God and is numero one in my life. But I am pretty sure it was Mary’s prayers that pushed me to giving my life to Her son!
If someone can quote a scripture in which Mary bestows charisms, I’ll be grateful. In Mark 16:17&18 Jesus outlines the signs that will accompany those who believe. In the preceding verses He qualifies “believer”. He commands the eleven to go out and preach the good news (of Jesus) to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptised (conditional?) will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

We quote from both. But, I would bring to your attention that the Catechism is filled with Scripture! So, when we quote from the Catechism – which offers explanations of Scriptural precepts – we’re quoting a text that’s fully backed up by Scripture!

 

[Gorgias]

Please don’t put words in my mouth. The signs that follow the believer ARE a confirmatory authority. Hence, " the disciples preached and the Lord worked with them and confirmed His word by the signs that accompanied it" Mark 16:20, which is scriptural but unfortunately not doctrinal.

Sorry for the offense, but I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth. I was trying to understand your statement that the Church “does not accept charisms”. I strongly disagree with that statement, and was wondering whether you meant that the Church doesn’t accept all claims of charisms. Would you mind explaining what you mean, then?

See my answer above. Also, according to Google, 36.9% of Catholics do not believe in Papal infallibilty; 36.9 do believe and the rest don’t know.

Again, you’re attempting to defend your assertion with a claim based in subjectivity. It doesn’t matter whether 36.9% or 99.9% of Catholics “believe in Papal infallibility”; it is either true or false, on its merits, regardless what the hoi polloi think.

Zonderman’s Greek anthology states that ecclesia is a compound, made up word: “lesia” means “called” and "ecc (ex) means “out”. Jesus’ word (and the word used throughout the NT) not mine.

Zonderman’s, then, is doing a good job of giving you the etymology of the word ‘ekklesia’; but it’s giving you none of its history. Its original usage, in the Greek, was meant to express the notion of a group gathered together. As memory serves, it was (naturally) used in a secular sense – so a club, or a gathering, or a meeting-group would be an ekklesia. The early Christian Church co-opted the word, and used it in a distinctive way, such that every time a Christian said ‘ekklesia’, he meant the ‘Christian ekklesia’. The fact that Jesus used the word himself probably was the reason that Christians took to it so strongly. Tell me, what version of the Bible do you use? Could you quote Matthew 18:17 for me, please? (My GNT says, “ἐὰν δὲ παρακούσῃ αὐτῶν, εἰπὸν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ· ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας παρακούσῃ, ἔστω σοι ὥσπερ ὁ ἐθνικὸς καὶ ὁ τελώνης.”)

Ekklesia is Church. There’s no such thing as “(my charismatic) ekklesia” in opposition to “(your) church”!

Do clergy (all levels) demonstrate ANY of Paul’s list

Of course they do! There are Catholic priests who preside at healing Masses and lay hands on people; there are Catholic priests who speak in tongues, and those who speak prophetically; and there are priests who are teachers. Catholic priests, as members of the body of Christ individually, have all the charisms mentioned by Paul! Now, if you’re asking whether any one priest has a particular charism, or a particular set of charisms, then you’re starting to run afoul of Paul. After all, he said that not all are teachers, or heal, or speak in tongues, or interpret tongues!

except administration - which can be learned at college or a seminary.

Uh-oh… now you’re getting into murky waters. Are you saying that there are charisms that can be learned, rather than given by the Spirit? Would you mind, then, if I ask whether it’s possible for Charismatics to learn tongues through their observations rather than as a gift by the Spirit? If so, then how does one possibly discern a gift (unintentionally) learned from one given by the Spirit? If not, then how can you claim that Catholic clergy only ‘learned’ their ‘charism’?

Tongues seems the lowest and commonest (certainly amongst Charismatics) necessity. I’d be happy if administrators did.

Can you please show me the Scripture that mentions that tongues are the most common gift? Can you show me where Paul asserts that some charisms are ‘lower’ than others? Can you show me where Paul asserts that administrators must necessarily have other charisms? If not, I would appreciate you to concede that you’re making up human tradition…

I’m going to stop here for the moment (another responsibility calls). I’d be delighted to show you in Scripture where claims about Peter and the papacy are justified!

 

[IanGE]

Sorry for the offense, but I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth. I was trying to understand your statement that the Church “does not accept charisms”. I strongly disagree with that statement, and was wondering whether you meant that the Church doesn’t accept all claims of charisms. Would you mind explaining what you mean, then?
This forum, which is representative of the Church, seems deeply suspicious of gifts of the Spirit, Born Agains, Signs of the believer (all scriptural) et al.

Again, you’re attempting to defend your assertion with a claim based in subjectivity. It doesn’t matter whether 36.9% or 99.9% of Catholics “believe in Papal infallibility”; it is either true or false, on its merits, regardless what the hoi polloi think.
I could never truly understand “subjective v objective” at University and still don’t. I pointed out that only a minority of Catholics believe in Papal infallibility. Which means the majority (together with the don’t knows) are Protestants and further dwindles the Roman Catholic statistics. May I respectfully point out that the hoi polloi are also part of the body of Christ. Once, in church, the lord said to me, “here comes one of my most faithful and beautiful witnesses.” I looked around and it was an old Charismatic friend, scruffy and dressed as a bag lady as usual. If only we could see through the Lord’s eyes and understand He loves EVERYBODY, perhaps the down-trodden hoi polloi most of all.

Zonderman’s, then, is doing a good job of giving you the etymology of the word ‘ekklesia’; but it’s giving you none of its history. Its original usage, in the Greek, was meant to express the notion of a group gathered together. As memory serves, it was (naturally) used in a secular sense – so a club, or a gathering, or a meeting-group would be an ekklesia. The early Christian Church co-opted the word, and used it in a distinctive way, such that every time a Christian said ‘ekklesia’, he meant the ‘Christian ekklesia’. The fact that Jesus used the word himself probably was the reason that Christians took to it so strongly. Tell me, what version of the Bible do you use? Could you quote Matthew 18:17 for me, please? (My GNT says, “ἐὰν δὲ παρακούσῃ αὐτῶν, εἰπὸν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ· ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας παρακούσῃ, ἔστω σοι ὥσπερ ὁ ἐθνικὸς καὶ ὁ τελώνης.”)

Ekklesia is Church. There’s no such thing as “(my charismatic) ekklesia” in opposition to “(your) church”!

Of course they do! There are Catholic priests who preside at healing Masses and lay hands on people; there are Catholic priests who speak in tongues, and those who speak prophetically; and there are priests who are teachers. Catholic priests, as members of the body of Christ individually, have all the charisms mentioned by Paul! Now, if you’re asking whether any one priest has a particular charism, or a particular set of charisms, then you’re starting to run afoul of Paul. After all, he said that not all are teachers, or heal, or speak in tongues, or interpret tongues!
Yes, there are priests who speak in tongues, HEAL people in the name of Jesus, drive out demons IN THE NAME OF JESUS, prophecy etc. I have been blessed to meet a few through Charismatic circles, one of whom laid hands on me and blessed me with the Baptism of the Spirit! He still calls himself my foster father!

Uh-oh… now you’re getting into murky waters. Are you saying that there are charisms that can be learned, rather than given by the Spirit? Would you mind, then, if I ask whether it’s possible for Charismatics to learn tongues through their observations rather than as a gift by the Spirit? If so, then how does one possibly discern a gift (unintentionally) learned from one given by the Spirit? If not, then how can you claim that Catholic clergy only ‘learned’ their ‘charism’?
Tongues cannot be learned; healing cannot be learned; driving out of demons is dangerous unless authorised by Jesus through the Holy Spirit. I mentioned that these gifts are unmistakeable when witnessed; discernment and administration can be dismissed.

Can you please show me the Scripture that mentions that tongues are the most common gift? Can you show me where Paul asserts that some charisms are ‘lower’ than others? Can you show me where Paul asserts that administrators must necessarily have other charisms? If not, I would appreciate you to concede that you’re making up human tradition…
Human tradition? In Mark 16, Jesus puts tongues first. In 1Corinthians 23, Paul puts tongues last in his list. In Charismatic circles tongues is noticed as, usually, the first sign to be demonstrated when a believer is Born Again. No way is it lower than the other signs: I have used tongues for healing, for driving out demons but mostly for exultant praise of my God when my English, French, Dutch, Urdu vocabularies cannot capture what I want to express! We use tongues to weep, to laugh, to bless one another. When newly born again, I was perturbed that my veneration of Mary might take my eyes off Jesus. At mass I used tongues to pray the Hail Mary. At the end her young girl’s voice said: “I hear you, Ian” Giggle. She’s a great giggler: once she said something amusing and I said, “Oh you have a sense of humour in Heaven then, my Lady?” “Oh yes,” she affirmed, " sometimes the Father puts on His serious face and I remind Him I carried Him in my womb for nine months. He Laughs, then."

I’m going to stop here for the moment (another responsibility calls). I’d be delighted to show you in Scripture where claims about Peter and the papacy are justified!

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Sorry for the offense, but I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth. I was trying to understand your statement that the Church “does not accept charisms”. I strongly disagree with that statement, and was wondering whether you meant that the Church doesn’t accept all claims of charisms. Would you mind explaining what you mean, then?

This forum, which is representative of the Church, seems deeply suspicious of gifts of the Spirit, Born Agains, Signs of the believer (all scriptural) et al.

I have two reactions to your thoughts. First, I think I would say that this forum isn’t necessarily “representative of the Church”, but I do understand what you’re saying – there are Catholics of all types here, and there seems to be the type of suspicion that you mention. Yet, would it be fair to say that we’re suspicious of “gifts of the Spirit” and “signs”? I think if you asked, people would generally agree that gifts of the Spirit are real, and the signs of these gifts are real. The suspicion, where it exists, would seem to fall into the realm of discernment: are these claims of gifts and signs real or not? After all, John tells us to “discern every spirit”! Where there is suspicion, then, I suspect (!) that what’s happening is that people are critically discerning the claims they’ve been presented with. In addition, I think there’s a bit of a cultural divide, as well. Over the past few generations, Catholics seem to have been generally more reserved with their overt expressions of spirituality; for such Catholics, charismatic expressions are foreign to their experience and can be jarring or frightening.

Secondly, though, it seems we have quite the conundrum. You assert that Catholics are deeply suspicious of those who exhibit gifts and signs; meantime, you have said that you’re deeply suspicious of papal infallibility, because popes don’t exhibit gifts and signs. It seems we’re at an impasse! How might we best resolve this mutual suspicion?!?

IanGE:

I could never truly understand “subjective v objective” at University and still don’t.

Objectivity is the thing in itself, while subjectivity is the thing as perceived by another. It can get interesting, philosophically, when you ask how we can come to know a “thing in itself”, if all we have is the ability to perceive other things. However, if we trust in God and in God’s revelation, then we know that we have a truly objective “thing in itself” – God and revelation! So, then, in our context, the objective thing we have is the Deposit of Faith, from which proceeds the doctrine of papal infallibility. Whether someone perceives papal infallibility is subjective; whether it exists or not is objective. Does that help?

IanGE:

I pointed out that only a minority of Catholics believe in Papal infallibility. Which means the majority (together with the don’t knows) are Protestants and further dwindles the Roman Catholic statistics.

I think I would assert that only a minority of Catholics understands papal infallibility; of the “majority” of Catholics are simply poorly informed about what papal infallibility means, or they are informed and disbelieving, is a question for another day. Of course, if Catholics are poorly informed, then it isn’t a great stretch to assert that Protestants generally misunderstand the doctrine! Now – if people had no clue how to diagnose a heart attack, because they don’t understand the symptoms, would you trust 100 people who are looking at you and saying, “well, you’re laying on the ground, clutching your chest, and gasping. I’m not certain this is a heart attack…” ??

 

[IanGE]

In addition, I think there’s a bit of a cultural divide, as well. Over the past few generations, Catholics seem to have been generally more reserved with their overt expressions of spirituality; for such Catholics, charismatic expressions are foreign to their experience and can be jarring or frightening.

Secondly, though, it seems we have quite the conundrum. You assert that Catholics are deeply suspicious of those who exhibit gifts and signs; meantime, you have said that you’re deeply suspicious of papal infallibility, because popes don’t exhibit gifts and signs. It seems we’re at an impasse! How might we best resolve this mutual suspicion?!?

QUOTE]

Thanks for your patient reply, Gorgias, especially the explanation of objective/subjective. I must be thick: at uni I was constantly lambasted “that’s subjective, you cant use it!” but the lambasting Prof never explained.
As to how best to resolve: why not suck it and see? Asking Jesus to be your personal Lord and Master is not banned by the church, is it? On the other hand putting Jesus above the church (and letting HIM lead you to being Born Again) is not recommended. I once mentioned to our Deacon the importance of giving your life to Jesus. He bristled: “I’m a DEACON: OF COURSE I made my vows to Jesus!” I suggested, “No, you made your vows to the CHURCH!” He glowered, made the sign of the cross with his fingers and threw garlic at me!
It must be difficult for Charismatic priests. They have given their lives to Jesus but are still lumbered by the unbreakable vows made to the church. I know some recent Popes have made tentative acknowledgements to Charismatics, but this has not filtered down, much as Vatican two somehow dissipated into thin air. I asked my last Parish priest, “why don’t you have some jolly hymns, Father.” “I’m not having all that waving of hands in MY church”. My wife said, “it’s not YOUR church, Man, its OURS.” He laughed (he liked Anne), “Woman! Be silent in church!”
Our present PP put it more gently: “its not for everyone, Ian”. I wanted to trade cudgels with John 3:3, but Jeremy is a lovely man. He may not speak in tongues but he has other Charisms which have multiplied church attendance and offerings!

 

[wisedom]

IanGE:
Again, you’re attempting to defend your assertion with a claim based in subjectivity. It doesn’t matter whether 36.9% or 99.9% of Catholics “believe in Papal infallibility”; it is either true or false, on its merits, regardless what the hoi polloi think.

---

I could never truly understand “subjective v objective” at University and still don’t. I pointed out that only a minority of Catholics believe in Papal infallibility. Which means the majority (together with the don’t knows) are Protestants and further dwindles the Roman Catholic statistics. May I respectfully point out that the hoi polloi are also part of the body of Christ. Once, in church, the lord said to me, “here comes one of my most faithful and beautiful witnesses.” I looked around and it was an old Charismatic friend, scruffy and dressed as a bag lady as usual. If only we could see through the Lord’s eyes and understand He loves EVERYBODY, perhaps the down-trodden hoi polloi most of all. quotes

Reply:

what i wanted to say to the moron you are responding to as regards his foolish arguments to the statistics put forth by you, you have expressed most profoundly…
the imbecile is beyond understanding ( meaning his limitless knowledge does not permit him to comprehend a simple TRUTH!), and of course, he is doing the impossible of defending the indefensible, like the majority of our christian brothers who do not feel the hurt of the weaker and innocent members of the BODY OF CHRIST, which body they claim to represent, when they stoutly defend the predatory presbyterians as against the HOLY INNOCENTS! (I AGREE THAT THIS SENTENCE IS QUITE LONG AND HOPEFULLY NOT INCORRECT!)

i am back after a 1 month ban by this idiotic management for having spoken the Truth at all times…it appears that the rcc site characterises a TRAVESTY OF TRUTH AND MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE!

NOTE TO TEACHERS OF THE LAW- KINDLY DO NOT BAN ANY MEMBER WHO IS WEDDED TO THE WORD/word if the TRUTH that he reveals or manifests makes a mockery of catholicism which JESUS NEVER TAUGHT, OR EXPOSES the hypocrisy of the church (so-called) WHICH JESUS ALWAYS CONDEMNED IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS!

TO ALL- note to understand WHO IS THE CHURCH???..

could anyone positively state, that even for a moment, EVIL in the church (so-called) is conspicuous…by its absence?..surely? or surely not?

to conclude: if majority of Catholics believe that infallibility of the ceo is a myth, it can’t be written off just like that, for we have done our home-work and are guided by the HOLY SPIRIT who makes a mockery of the hierarchy- if you see what i mean!

 

[Gorgias]

what i wanted to say to the moron you are responding to as regards his foolish arguments to the statistics put forth by you, you have expressed most profoundly…
the imbecile is beyond understanding

wisedom,

Your ‘religion’ is ‘LOVE’, eh?

to conclude: if majority of Catholics believe that infallibility of the ceo is a myth, it can’t be written off just like that

A majority of Catholics do not go to Mass. Far too many Catholics do not understand the teachings of their faith. If ones such as these are the ones who “believe that infallibility of the ceo is a myth”, then yeah, this claim is very likely one that can be “written off just like that”…

for we have done our home-work

OK… you’re making a claim. Please substantiate it: please tell me, how is it that you believe that papal infallibility isn’t a reasonable assertion? What is it that demonstrates that papal infallibility isn’t true?

guided by the HOLY SPIRIT who makes a mockery of the hierarchy

Jesus instituted the hierarchy. the Holy Spirit mocks it? the Holy Spirit mocks the institution of Jesus? Friend, you’re confused…

 

[steve_b]

The dogma of Papal Infallibility rests upon the character of Pope as one who has inherited the office of Peter and the one who bears the keys to the Kingdom of God. By his authority he can declare anything and everything to be dogma. The Catholic Church believes this is done by the guidance of the Holy Spirit (sounds like a Pentecostal tract if you ask me).

What is highlighted is incorrect .

Here’s the exact dogma defined. It’s clear and simple. Please save this for your own future reference.

1. 
   *
   • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • that is, when,
     1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
     2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
     3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
     4. he possesses,
     5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
     6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
     papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
     
     iow, 3 points are key
     
     The pope
     
     1. • In exercise of his office
        • ***Must Define *a doctrine concerning faith or morals only, not on all kinds of other subjects outside this narrow range. **
        • Must define to be held by the whole church. It can’t be on some local issue for a local concern.
        By definition then, If these 3 points aren’t met, then the charism of infalliblility isn’t met.

 

[steve_b]

St. Peter is such. He is the leader of the Apostolic Choir, but he is not a Soloist.

Yet we all know at times, a choir is silent when a soloist sings. True?
C:

Other Apostles do not report to him or need his permission to do anything. But definitely they look up to him.

in today’s terms, here’s where that analogy fails.
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=46930
C:

The point of the speech was Peter’s witness to the acceptance of God of the Gentiles as is. And such a revelation was accepted because it was a revelation of God bore witness by Peter, not because Peter as supreme head said they should accept it.

It begs the question, define how you know what is revealed truth vs what is not?

iow, regarding revelation from God, how do you know which statements from Peter are from God’s mouth to Peter’s ears?

 

[neophyte]

Or that it never existed in the First Millennium. Look it up and find where it was exercised in the first 1500 years of the Church

That would be the Council of Jerusalem, the Pope at the time was St. Peter.

 

[wisedom]

hon. gorgias…
time constraints at this juncture compel me to respond to only1 point- your winking at my religion…you can wink till eternity…

JESUS DID NOT FOUND ANY RELIGION!

SO IT FOLLOWS THAT CATHOLICISM IS MAN-MADE!

JESUS IS AVAILABLE TO ALL OF HUMANITY AND HIS ONLY MESSAGE IS LOVE…LOVE…LOVE…
THAT IS ALL THAT ONE MUST KNOW IN ORDER TO RESERVE HIS SEAT IN HEAVEN!

I AM BAFFLED WHY MEMBERS WHO SPEAK THE TRUTH, FOR THE TRUTH, BY THE TRUTH ARE EX-COMMUNICATED FROM THIS SITE THAT DOES UPHOLD TRAVESTY OF TRUTH AND MIS-CARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

PERHAPS THIS IS LIKE A SUPREME COURT WHERE THE BEST LAWYER GRABS ALL THE ATTENTION FOR THE WRONG REASONS OF COURSE, SO LONG AS HE DEFENDS THE INDEFENSIBLE, WHICH IS THE HALLMARK OR TRADEMARK OF THIS SITE, ERRONEOUSLY NAMED!

so when Jesus himself did not found any religion, why is it this site is banning members who follow Jesus more fully, much better than you or your henchmen can understand?, on the grounds that they attack catholicism, which is as good or as bad as any other ‘religion’…it surely is not incorrect to say that all religions are myths OR MAN-MADE , which includes what you profess and ram down the throats of more conscientious and righteous followers of Jesus, who hold in awe the ‘PERSONIFICATION OF GOD’S LOVE’, who is the WORD!

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

hon. gorgias…
time constraints at this juncture compel me to respond to only1 point- your winking at my religion…you can wink till eternity…

JESUS DID NOT FOUND ANY RELIGION!

SO IT FOLLOWS THAT CATHOLICISM IS MAN-MADE!

JESUS IS AVAILABLE TO ALL OF HUMANITY AND HIS ONLY MESSAGE IS LOVE…LOVE…LOVE…
THAT IS ALL THAT ONE MUST KNOW IN ORDER TO RESERVE HIS SEAT IN HEAVEN!

I AM BAFFLED WHY MEMBERS WHO SPEAK THE TRUTH, FOR THE TRUTH, BY THE TRUTH ARE EX-COMMUNICATED FROM THIS SITE THAT DOES UPHOLD TRAVESTY OF TRUTH AND MIS-CARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

PERHAPS THIS IS LIKE A SUPREME COURT WHERE THE BEST LAWYER GRABS ALL THE ATTENTION FOR THE WRONG REASONS OF COURSE, SO LONG AS HE DEFENDS THE INDEFENSIBLE, WHICH IS THE HALLMARK OR TRADEMARK OF THIS SITE, ERRONEOUSLY NAMED!

so when Jesus himself did not found any religion, why is it this site is banning members who follow Jesus more fully, much better than you or your henchmen can understand?, on the grounds that they attack catholicism, which is as good or as bad as any other ‘religion’…it surely is not incorrect to say that all religions are myths OR MAN-MADE , which includes what you profess and ram down the throats of more conscientious and righteous followers of Jesus, who hold in awe the ‘PERSONIFICATION OF GOD’S LOVE’, who is the WORD!

And what all of this have to do with whether the Catholic definition of papal infallibility is true or not, which you do not seem even to understand what it is? I have read your posts in this thread, and I am not convinced that you even know what you are trying to argue against.

 

[wisedom]

+JMJ+

And what all of this have to do with whether the Catholic definition of papal infallibility is true or not, which you do not seem even to understand what it is? I have read your posts in this thread, and I am not convinced that you even know what you are trying to argue against.

indeed the def. of papal infallibility is only theoretically admissible or valid

it has no practical relevance as pontifs have implied by their statements or confirmed by the acts of ommission and/or commission that the said statement lacks universal validity

it is unfortunate that those who present their genuine views are ex-communicated!

hence no debate is possible and we have a theory that the mass, who really matter, would sweep under the carpet!

 

[wisedom]

Yet we all know at times, a choir is silent when a soloist sings. True?

iow, regarding revelation from God, how do you know which statements from Peter are from God’s mouth to Peter’s ears?

1.but do we know of a choir that is silent all the time, when a soloist sings?

1. how do you know that all statements from peter are from God’s mouth to peter’s to your ears?

 

[wisedom]

wisedom,

“A majority of Catholics do not go to Mass. Far too many Catholics do not understand the teachings of their faith. If ones such as these are the ones who “believe that infallibility of the ceo is a myth”, then yeah, this claim is very likely one that can be “written off just like that”… ”

My response to the above:
1.your HYPOCRISY is the root-cause of a majority of catholics dispensing with the obligation of mass…how can you suppose or affirm that they are not enlightened, but you are?..LOVE, not mass-ritual is the way to HEAVEN! in what way do you imply or infer that they are inferior to the hierarchy, that they cannot make a simple decision or identify a profound TRUTH? your arrogant dispensing with the humble and simple laity, makes you a target of being written off!

Jesus instituted the hierarchy. the Holy Spirit mocks it? the Holy Spirit mocks the institution of Jesus? Friend, you’re confused…

Reply…2. Jesus’ institution of the hiearchy is not to make the laity - the heart of his Church- subservient to it…rather it has to be the servant or even the slave of the laity in order to fulfil Jesus’ teachings…that’s why the Spirit rightly enlightens the laity in critical matters at critical times to abide directly to Jesus’ teachings, thus making a mockery of the rules and regulations of the teachers of the law, who present these as if they are GOD’S LAW AND COMMAND!

as Scripture says to this effect: ‘you hypocites, you thrust down the throats of innocent people, your man-made rules and regulations, as if they were GOD’S LAW AND COMMAND’

 

[Gorgias]

hon. gorgias…
time constraints at this juncture compel me to respond to only1 point- your winking at my religion…you can wink till eternity…

Oh, I’m not winking at your religion! I am, however, rolling my eyes at you! You claim your religion to be ‘love’, and then your statements are full of only vitriol and hate!

JESUS DID NOT FOUND ANY RELIGION!

Hmm… you believe in the Bible, don’t you? Then, how can you say that Jesus didn’t found a religion if his literal words were “on this rock I will build my church” (Mt 16:18)?

(In fact, it’s even more emphatic in the original Greek: “οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν”. We see the word εκκλησιαν (‘ecclesia’) there, and that’s exactly what the first Christians called their Church, and what the Church has been called throughout the millennia! More striking, though, is the verb: οικοδομησω (oikodomaiso). This is a compound word, made from oikos (house) and domeo (to build). See, it’s not just that Jesus intended to build a building – his intent was explicitly to build a Church which would be our home!)

SO IT FOLLOWS THAT CATHOLICISM IS MAN-MADE!

Just the opposite, my friend: what follows is that all the offshoots of the Church are the man-made edifices!

so when Jesus himself did not found any religion, why is it this site is banning members who follow Jesus more fully, much better than you or your henchmen can understand?

I think you’ve answered your own question, haven’t you? Since Jesus did found the Church, any attacks on it are therefore also attacks on Jesus. Why do you persist on attacking Jesus? :sad_yes:

ram down the throats of more conscientious and righteous followers of Jesus

So, the “more conscientious and righteous followers of Jesus” call people ‘morons’, ‘fools’, ‘imbeciles’, and ‘idiotic’? And in doing so, they’re following a religion of ‘love’? :nope:

 

[Gorgias]

Reply…2. Jesus’ institution of the hiearchy is not to make the laity - the heart of his Church- subservient to it…rather it has to be the servant or even the slave of the laity in order to fulfil Jesus’ teachings

We agree! The hierarchy is a ministry of service to the Church!

that’s why the Spirit rightly enlightens the laity in critical matters at critical times to abide directly to Jesus’ teachings

This is the heart of the matter. Where do you see it asserted that the action of the Spirit is an action exclusively in the laity and against the hierarchy?

thus making a mockery of the rules and regulations of the teachers of the law, who present these as if they are GOD’S LAW AND COMMAND!

as Scripture says to this effect: ‘you hypocites, you thrust down the throats of innocent people, your man-made rules and regulations, as if they were GOD’S LAW AND COMMAND’

Yet, you toss away the ‘teachers of the law’, while Jesus said something completely different: “the scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you” (Mt 23:2-3).

 

[mercytruth]

There are three principle reasons why the doctrine of the infallibility of the Papacy of the Roman Catholic church over all Christians is unsustainable, and not necessarily in this order.

1. St Peter, the apostle never referred to himself as the sole source of teaching authority. He in fact said that he was a **co-**presbyter, or teacher with the presbyters of the churches of the diaspora. (1 Peter 5:1).
2. We have two early church documentations of the bishop of Rome attempting to assume such authority and both were rebuffed.

Bishop Stephen of Rome was in opposition to Bishop Cyprian of Carthage and the African Synod of bishops who stated that individuals who were baptized by heretics had to be re-baptized if they were to enter the catholic church because such baptisms lacked intent, and the proper person ministering baptism.

Bishop Stephen of Rome said form and matter is sufficient. As of 2001, the Vatican ruled that form and matter were not sufficient in the case of LDS baptisms, intent and the person ministering baptism were deemed as greatly suspect. Now, former LDS members who desire to join the Roman Catholic church must be re-baptized. Bishop Cyprian was correct all along.

1. This is the most important factor to myself. Where is the fruit of this doctrine of infallibility? It has divided God’s church. This in itself should prove that the doctrine is wrong, and definitely contrary to the Spirit of St. Peter who referred to himself as a
   co-presbyter.

God’s peace prevails

micah

 

[steve_b]

1.but do we know of a choir that is silent all the time, when a soloist sings?

Never said it would be. Just that there are times when it happens
w:

1. how do you know that all statements from peter are from God’s mouth to peter’s to your ears?

I didn’t say all statements.

 

[Gorgias]

Hi, mercy! Mind if I ask you a few questions about your assertions?

the doctrine of the infallibility of the Papacy of the Roman Catholic church over all Christians

Your formulation is interesting. What does “over all Christians” mean, in this context? It seems that you’re saying that ‘infallibility’ is ok, as far as it goes, as long as it doesn’t attempt to assert itself ‘over all Christians’. Is this a reasonable take-away from your statement?

1. St Peter, the apostle never referred to himself as the sole source of teaching authority.

What does this prove? In the Gospels, Jesus never says, “I am the Second Person of the Trinity”, yet we believe it to be true…!

He in fact said that he was a **co-**presbyter, or teacher with the presbyters of the churches of the diaspora. (1 Peter 5:1).

Yes, he is one of the elders – he’s a co-elder, along with others. This doesn’t establish (or disprove) his prominence among them, but rather, only identifies that he is an elder and that there are many.

1. We have two early church documentations of the bishop of Rome attempting to assume such authority and both were rebuffed.

I’m not certain that your case holds up under scrutiny…

Bishop Stephen of Rome was in opposition to Bishop Cyprian of Carthage and the African Synod of bishops who stated that individuals who were baptized by heretics had to be re-baptized

In other words, the question was whether a Christian, who was legitimately part of the Church, but who left the communion of the Church by virtue of heresy, was able to baptize.

As of 2001, the Vatican ruled that form and matter were not sufficient in the case of LDS baptisms, intent and the person ministering baptism were deemed as greatly suspect. Now, former LDS members who desire to join the Roman Catholic church must be re-baptized. Bishop Cyprian was correct all along.

No… Cyprian was talking about heretics, who had been part of the Christian Church but had later embraced heresy. We’re talking about people who had never been part of the Christian Church at any part of their lives, but had been members of the LDS all their lives. Big difference!

1. This is the most important factor to myself. Where is the fruit of this doctrine of infallibility? It has divided God’s church.

Really? 'cause, from where I’m sitting, “God’s Church” was divided far in advance of any assertion of this doctrine…

This in itself should prove that the doctrine is wrong

Why’s that? After all, that’s what Jesus predicted, wasn’t it?