Infallibility Disproven?

  • Thread starter Thread starter awfulthings9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
awfulthings9:
Concerning Papal Infallibility:
  1. Let me start with what I consider to the strongest statement against papal infallibilty by none other than Pope John XXII (1324 A.D.) a. He called the doctrine of “papal infallibility” the “work of the
    devil.” See: Bull "Qui Quorundam” That one statement alone, spoken by a pope, supposedly ex cathedra, should once for all disprove papal infallibility. It cannot simultaneously be true and papal infallibility be true. Logically, it would break all the laws of logic and common sense. It is also a direct contradiction of Pope Pius IX who, at Vatican I, said that anyone deny papal infallibility was lost and doomed to hell. Earlier, Pope Adrian VI (1523) said a similar thing: “It is beyond question that he (pope) can err even in matters touching the faith.”
Click to expand...
Awfulthings, Regarding your buddy Tim,

I know Dave and others addressed this, but let me say that this particular topic regarding Franciscan poverty is VERY complicated. I read several encyclicals, constitutions, and such regarding this topic. Some are short, a couple are very long. A comprehensive (I guess) list regarding this topic is here.

Now, I’m not Catholic, but I have to say 2 things in regards to this particular apologetical argument:
  1. The writings of the Popes in these documents themselves do not “disprove” Papal Infallibility.
  2. I can understand how, a cursory overview can make a few quotes look like there is some strength to the anti-Catholic argument.
Now that’s just what I got from reading the documents. I saw this argument set forth in Keith Mathison’s “Shape of Sola Scriptura” a very good Protestant work one of the Presbyterian/Reformed views.

If you take the documents in chronological order, you’ll see that “in the beginning” of this train of documents, Pope Nicholas III, said in his year 1279 “Exiit Qui Seminat” par. 26:

But if anything pertaining to some ambiguity in these matters would come forth, let it be submitted to the summit of the aforesaid Apostolic See, so that by Apostolic authority itself there may be manifested in regard to it the intention of him to whom alone it has been conceded in these matters to establish statutes and to clarify those things which have been established.

Now, in Quia Quorandum (1324), Pope John XXII himself quotes this very statement, in section 9, par. 3:

In his declaration that predecessor (Nicholas III) of ours also added that the explanation and ordering of them and of those things he had explained belonging to the Apostolic See, saying "If in these matters any doubt should arise… let it be brought… (etc.) But these assertors assert the opposite of this.

**Besides, it is clear that what they assert is false.
**
Truly, I made notes in several places of my printout of this particular document, Quia Quorandum, that Pope John 22 was a “heavyweight” when it came to intellectual matters. If you want to understand the intricacies of what was being discussed, at least read Quia Quorandum. Basically, the issue is whether or not you can own consumable objects, or if you can own the use of consumables and nonsumables. It’s very technical and I don’t pretend to understand all of the intricacies. Most of us won’t, unless we’re Supreme Court level people.

Can I give you another teaser?? Read my next post here.
 
Reformed Rob:
Can I give you another teaser?? Read my next post here.
Click to expand...
Allright, maybe some would be interested in reading Pope John 22’s discussion on the Key of Knowledge and the Key of Power, in reference to the Papal Infallibility question, and how he reacted to the “Spiritual Franciscan” assertions. It’s in the first few paragraphs of the document, Quia Quorundam."

In regards to this, let me comment that I believe that the Pontiff is asserting that no mere Priest has both the keys of power and knowledge. However, the Roman Pontiff does have both. If he were to have only one, then he would not be able to define in regards to faith and morals. He does, by the way, use the phrase “faith and morals” in the discussion.

Also, here’s a pretty good description of what the Pope himelf set out to prove, in regards to those complicated matters of right of use, and whether or not Christ and the Apostles actually owned anything themselves, or just as a community:
Code: 
     [9] From the foregoing, however, they try to infer (it is reported) that the definition of the above mentioned supreme pontiffs which they defined concerning the poverty of Christ and the Apostles and the Rule of the above mentioned Brothers Minor (as quoted above) could not be changed by us. Without doubt they assert falsehoods when they say that our predecessors defined such things, as has been proved above, and again when they speak in this way, when they try to attack our constitutions by such means, they show (if their false assertions were true) that the constitutions by which they support themselves would be invalid, erroneous and infirm.

            For if it was not licit for us to enact anything common contrary to the constitution of our predecessor Nicholas III, on which they chiefly base themselves, neither was it licit for him to enact or declare anything contrary to the enactments of the above mentioned Gregory, Innocent and Alexander; but that he did so (according to their assertion) is evidently known
In other words, he’s saying that which those heretics were asserting is in itself false and contradictory. For even they (certain Franciscans) admitted that Nicholas III was in opposition to what previous Popes had defined, but they choose to go by what Nicholas III defined, because it favored them.

That’s what I mean when I said John XXII was a heavyweight, certainly no lightweight in argumentation!!
 
40.png
awfulthings9:
Letter from Timothy:

"I’m checking on what you gave me, which is
why I asked for your (name removed by moderator)ut in the first place. And, yes, I’ve looked at
the site and what I looked at did not list the second commandment
anywhere…am not saying I could have overlooked it, but I didn’t see
it.
Click to expand...
One thing about this whole 10 Commandments issue is that the commandments are just listings of a particular bit of scripture. Why does anybody get worked up over different lists of the 10 Commandments when we all (Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox) have the original scriptures in our canons? We Catholics have the originals in our bibles, so why are some people so anxious to beat us up because we don’t summarize them the way they do?

For the record, I happen to think it’s pretty convoluted to lump coveting goods with coveting one’s marriage partner, but I don’t go around beating Protestants over the head about the issue.

And by the way, how come the lists of the 10 Commandments don’t include the two commandments given by Christ? Should we complain back to Tim and others that they have rejected those commandments? 😉
 
I just sent Timothy a point-by-point refutation of his list. His was 11 pages long. As most of it was undocumented or irrelevant, many of the points were easily dismissed. I gave him documentation and arguments for everything else. He has, however, said he wants a two week break from the discussion, so it’ll be a while before I hear back. Maybe we’ll see him in here, but I don’t expect to.
 
By the way, for Nick, Ryan, and Chris, who once e-mailed Timothy and would have received his e-mail, if you (or anyone else in here) want my answer to each case, e-mail me. I can also send his e-mail to anyone who wants to see it in it’s entirety. I thought it was a fun and healthy mental exercise to address each one. E-mail me here.
 
Keeping in mind that Timothy’s job is as a hospise minister, how is this alarming (it is from his initial e-mail):

“The Bible teaches that we can “know” that we have salvation. 1 John 5:13 says, “These things have I written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” The Council of Trent, six, XVI, 13, says, “…to believe with certainty and without hesitation … that his sins are forgiven him, let him be anathema.” So, who are you going to believe? Both can’t be right? I recently read 1 John 5:13 to one of my Catholic patients near death. She looked up at her husband with a puzzled look and said, “Is this true?” He said, “Yes, honey. It’s written in the Bible.” – You go guy!”

Can you believe this? Timothy claims that he keeps his personal views to himself in his professional capacity as a non-denom hospise minister (as his employers would expect), yet here he is trying to sway a dying woman away from her faith with a proof-text. I’ve sent him, as part of my last e-mail, a note about this, asking if his employers are aware that he is using his job to convert patients.
 
Once again, I don’t think he’s actually read what Trent said.

From Canon XVI from Session VI:
God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits. And forasmuch as in many things we all offend, each one ought to have before his eyes, as well the severity and judgment, as the mercy and goodness (of God); neither ought any one to judge himself, even though he be not conscious to himself of anything; because** the whole life of man is to be examined and judged, not by the judgment of man, but of God, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness**, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then shall every man have praise from God, who, as it is written, will render to every man according to his works.
Click to expand...
This is exactly as the Bible says. If he doesn’t believe it, refer him to Matt 25:31 et seq.

Perhaps his employer should be notified of his actions…

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Also, WRT his “proof text”:
…What is often overlooked in this passage is St. John’s statement “I write* this* to you.” Well, what is the “this” that he wrote? Isn’t it important to look at all he wrote in this epistle in order to properly evaluate how we can know that we have eternal life *by *what he wrote? So let’s look at what he wrote, to the shock of many a Protestant: 1 John 3:6
No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.
Click to expand...
Code: 
             **1 John 3:23**
              And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name                    of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has                    commanded us.
Click to expand...
Code: 
             **1 John 5:2-3**
              By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love                    God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God,                    that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not                    burdensome.
Click to expand...
Code: 
                          So St. John writes* this* that we may be assured of eternal                  salvation. That changes the whole picture, doesn't it? And once                  we look at the "this" that he wrote in the Epistle,                  it becomes crystal-clear that the only authentic interpretation                  of 1 John 5:13 is that our salvation is assured *if* we obey                  God, i.e. *if* we die in a state of grace.
Click to expand...
Remember, a text without a context is a pretext. He should know better than to be so deceived by the winds of doctrine.

Read the link, especially the “logical reasoning” section at the bottom.

What’s also interesting is that these “no one infallibly interprets scripture, especially the Pope” folks will say that they have 100% certainty of their salvation with less than 100% certainty of their interpretation (as no one can infallibly interpret). How you can be “not sure” about a verse’s correct interpretation and then draw “absolute, 100% assurance” from it is beyond me…

God Bless,
RyanL
 
40.png
RyanL:
Perhaps his employer should be notified of his actions…

God Bless,
RyanL
Click to expand...
Well, and I think you, Ryan, were one of the ones who, with me, e-mailed him about his site www.4seekers.com, which had a very anti-Catholic “Bible Study” on it for “dedicated Catholics”. The problem is that he provided links to this site for patients on the material he handed out to them. He doesn’t seem to be able to make a professional divide between what his job is (to pray with and comfort the patients) and his personal evangelical mission. I’m not saying I would do any better, but that’s why I don’t have a job like this.
 
Popes Have Added New Conditions to Salvation:

Remember the words of Paul in Galatians 1:8,9 “But even if I or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”
Click to expand...
O.K. lets keep this in mind then.
  1. Pope Boniface VIII in the bull, “unam sanctam” (1302) made obedience to the pope a new condition of salvation. [so much for Gal. 1:8,9!] In a recent worldwide poll, if I am not mistaken, upward of 90% of all Catholics do not believe this.
Click to expand...
“Whoever hears you hears me, and whoever despizeth you deispiesth me”, wernt those the words of Jesus? So much For Galatians 1:8,9 😛
  1. The Council of Trent, 7, General 4, states that there is “no
    salvation apart from accepting the laws of the Catholic
    Church.”–whatever happened to; “Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.”? (Romans 10:9)
Click to expand...
“Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven”, again isn’t this Jesus speaking.
  1. The Catholic church has added to Paul’s conditions for salvation (Eph. 2:8,9…salvation by grace through faith). Now only must one receive Christ by grace through faith, but onemust also be baptized, and “observe the commandments (of the church)” --Vatican II
Click to expand...
Doesn’t the church just show and command us on how to love God and love our neighbor(the two great commandment), Love being of coarse being more than just a phrase but and action, (“Faith without works is dead”, The parable of the goats and Rams one helping those in need and the others not, and the parable of lazerous and the rich man just to name a few).

I have never heard of the last one on this of the new bible in 1585 and will leave that to someone who is more knowledageable but, from these few is seems he is betraying his own scripture (just me though).
 
40.png
awfulthings9:
  1. The Vatican strongly supported Hitler and following the war were responsible for helping thousands of former SS soldiers and war criminals escape to other countries, including Adolph Eichmann. Sam Donaldson, in May 5, 1994 on the TV show, Prime Time Live, documented this. The Vatican tried to deny it, but the evidence was too overwhelming. Numerous books have been written document this. ! I know that this is a lie. Hitler hated Christianity. Jesus was Jewish remeber 😉 . I remeber watching on the history channel that Pope Pius and written a encylical condeming such actions and wildly protested the actions of hitler. P.S. read the book The mythbuster on Pope Puis XII (I think that is the title I might be a little off) it will help.
The Catholic Church, with Papal blessing, has knowingly tried to change the Word of God and deceive the laity.
  1. I know these are strong words, but would you please get your
    Catholic Bible and read Exodus 20:1-17, where God gives Moses the Ten Commandments. Now, go to your Catholic Catechism and read what are very clearly listed as “The Ten Commandments.” [You can also go online at, Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church of Picayune, MS - Faith - Catechism of the Catholic Church - Table of Contents”]Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church of Picayune, MS - Faith - Catechism of the Catholic Church - Table of Contents
Click to expand...
, and read the Ten Commandments as listed in the official Catholic Catechism.] Did you notice anything missing from the Catholic version of the Ten Commandments? Actually, under papal authority and the Vatican Counsel, the second commandment has totally been deleted from the Ten Commandments and the 10th commandment, about coveting, has been divided into two parts to make it appear that there are still Ten Commandments.—I know this is shocking. I
could hardly believe it when I first heard about it. It was not until I
went online and read it for myself that I became convinced.
What does the real second commandment say? It says, “You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them…” (Exodus 20:3-4, New Jerusalem Bible, Catholic edition). Why would the church remove this commandment? I think you know
better than I.—Because idolatry has become the major sin of the Catholic Church. to be saved. Worldwide, there are thousands of shrines to Mary, but by comparison relatively few to Jesus.
Click to expand...
My aunt (who isn’t Catholic) wondered about that and she and I went over the commandment (mostly looking at the scriptures relateing to the sabbath) comparing the KJV and mine and it was the same.
 
Here’s my answer (in addition to linking him to the James Akin article someone gave earlier):

"What I am going by
is the official catechism, which I have in front of me right now. It does
include the graven images in the first commandment. It appears, though,
that the sites are giving a one-sentence summary of
EACH commandment. For instance, our commandment for “Remember the Sabbath
day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but
the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do
any work” is simply summed up on the Vatican site as “Remember to keep holy
the Lord’s day”.

You may consider it bad judgment (and I would agree) to put only a summary
on the site, but whoever did so was probably trying to keep it simple. However, the fact that my hard copy of the catechism contains the
entire thing does indicate that it would be a little dishonest to say that
the church simply “deleted” the commandment.

See, here’s the way I look at it - do you agree: To bow down before graven
images in worship (and let’s save the debate about whether Catholics
actually do this for a moment, here) is the exact same thing as “having
strange Gods before” us. I guess what I’m getting at is that, to me,
worshiping some pagan God is no different from worshiping a piece of
ceramic - both are strange Gods, which is why the author of the Vatican page
(which was probably not the Pope, so it’s not a matter of infallibility)
knew that to sum it up by “have no strange Gods before thee” would cover it
all. I know this is the Vatican website, but it is not an official
document, Papal Bull or decree. Whereas the hard copy that I have is more
official and does include the graven images reference.

However, we see the coveting of your neighbor’s wife as being lust and
adultery. Yet the coveting of your neighbor’s goods is greed. In my
opinion, and apparently the opinion of the Church, they are two separate
commandments, warranting numbering one as 9 and one as 10. To me, this is
the real reason for the way we interpret the numbering, not to hide
anything.

You may disagree, and that is fine. My point is that the list in Exodus and
Deut. don’t actually tell us how it is to be numbered, so for numbering it
differencing that you, the Church can’t be accused of “deleting” a
commandment. You may believe, in your heart, that something sneaky or
underhanded is going on here, but I think it is
shaky grounds to make the kind of accusation that you have."
 
Hey, awfulthings9,

Just worked through a good bit of this thread. Just want to say that I’ve found it pretty interesting. Keep up the good work.
:clapping: :clapping:
 
40.png
awfulthings9:
Here’s my answer (in addition to linking him to the James Akin article someone gave earlier):

"What I am going by
is the official catechism, which I have in front of me right now. It does
include the graven images in the first commandment. It appears, though,
that the sites are giving a one-sentence summary of
EACH commandment. For instance, our commandment for “Remember the Sabbath
day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but
the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do
any work” is simply summed up on the Vatican site as “Remember to keep holy
the Lord’s day”.

You may consider it bad judgment (and I would agree) to put only a summary
on the site, but whoever did so was probably trying to keep it simple. However, the fact that my hard copy of the catechism contains the
entire thing does indicate that it would be a little dishonest to say that
the church simply “deleted” the commandment.

See, here’s the way I look at it - do you agree: To bow down before graven
images in worship (and let’s save the debate about whether Catholics
actually do this for a moment, here) is the exact same thing as “having
strange Gods before” us. I guess what I’m getting at is that, to me,
worshiping some pagan God is no different from worshiping a piece of
ceramic - both are strange Gods, which is why the author of the Vatican page
(which was probably not the Pope, so it’s not a matter of infallibility)
knew that to sum it up by “have no strange Gods before thee” would cover it
all. I know this is the Vatican website, but it is not an official
document, Papal Bull or decree. Whereas the hard copy that I have is more
official and does include the graven images reference.

However, we see the coveting of your neighbor’s wife as being lust and
adultery. Yet the coveting of your neighbor’s goods is greed. In my
opinion, and apparently the opinion of the Church, they are two separate
commandments, warranting numbering one as 9 and one as 10. To me, this is
the real reason for the way we interpret the numbering, not to hide
anything.

You may disagree, and that is fine. My point is that the list in Exodus and
Deut. don’t actually tell us how it is to be numbered, so for numbering it
differencing that you, the Church can’t be accused of “deleting” a
commandment. You may believe, in your heart, that something sneaky or
underhanded is going on here, but I think it is
shaky grounds to make the kind of accusation that you have."
Click to expand...
Good job. I mean, if the all-powerful Catholic Church wanted to hide a whole commandment, it would have been gone from the Bible long before those Protestants came along. Maybe that’s why the Church backed the Holocaust! The Jews still had a record of the second commandment, and the Pope’s cover-up operation was at risk. All of this is just silly. If he insists on holding on to this one issue, it shows that the Truth really has him against the ropes. Maybe he’ll realize that soon.
 
40.png
awfulthings9:
Timothy is still obsessed about the 10 commandments:

"Hi Spencer…just a quickie…I’m trying to do my homework. Would you
check out the following web sites and let me know what you think. The
traditional second commandment about Graven Images is totally
missing…or am I overlooking something? Are these a legitimate web
site?..appreciate your feedback.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
catholicism.about.com/cs/basicbeliefs/a/tencommand04.htm"
Click to expand...
Hey awfulthings I did go check out the first link Timothy cited. It is basically a contents page of the Catechism, with links to (what I assume is) the full text. But even in the contents page - which Timothy must surely have read - Timothy’s version of the second commandment is listed:

CHAPTER ONE: “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOU GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND”
Code: 
ARTICLE 1: THE FIRST COMMANDMENT

      I. "You Shall Worship the Lord Your God and Him Only Shall You Serve"
     II. "Him Only Shall You Serve"
    III. "You Shall Have No Other Gods before Me"
     IV. "You Shall Not Make for Yourself a Graven Image"
         IN BRIEF
It is there, clear as day. Therefore it is not “totally missing” as Timothy asserts. How he could have missed this is totally beyond me.
 
Here’s the latest in our discussion:

From Timothy:

Thanks for acknowledging that the second commandment has been left out
of several major renderings of the Ten Commandments…I knew I wasn’t
crazy. The web site I listed in my first email, when I reopened it, did
not go to where I saw it missing. ???

From me to Timothy:

You have to remember, you
refer to “graven images” as the second commandment, but we don’t, and
neither did the Jewish people (see the link I provided you), which is my
point that it is misleading to say that “the second commandment had been
left out of major renderings”. The graven images is, in our view, PART OF
the commandment against worshiping false Gods and the entire thing can be
summed up in that line. For you to say we left out a commandment simply
because we disagree on numbering would be like me saying:

“You Protestants leave out the commandment on not coveting thy neighbor’s
wife.”

And then going on a rant about how it’s so that you can commit adultery as
much as you want.

That would be silly, of course. You simply number them differently (since
the Old Testament text is unclear), and I don’t have a beef with that. But,
honestly, unless you at least admit that we didn’t “leave out a commandment”
but number them differently and then summarize on the sites you found, I
have to be done with this discussion. I feel like we’re going in circles.

But keep in mind, even summarizing the commandments is not unheard of in
Protestant circles. Every Protestant “10 Commandments” I see at government
monuments (such as the one at our capitol), is done in summary. For
instance, number 10 is worded “Thou shalt not covet” - period. Would that
be grounds for me going around (or posting an essay on my website) that says
that Protestants are trying to delete the 9th commandment? Of course not,
because like on the Vatican site, in this Protestant rendering, all ten of
them are reduced to four or five line commandments, even though they are
much longer in the original text. You can’t fault Catholics for doing the
same without coming off as a little hypocritical.
 
I can’t get past the fact that protestant Tim was caught having not even read the proof he found “incontrovertible.”

I believe the board was charitable in letting him save face, which is of course a credit to Catholicism.
 
Maybe making some headway. Timothy’s last e-mail:

"Point made…Akin’s essay was illuminating.

Enjoy your snow day.

Timothy"

(Incidentally, I teach 8th grade language arts at a public school in Missouri, in case anyone notices the snow day part.) I went sledding and took a long nap yesterday with my daughter … how many of you had to sit at work?? Ha, ha, ha, ha.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top