Papal Infallibility

[jcrichton]

Again, you are simply trying to dismiss my points by misrepresenting them and then arguing against your own misrepresentations. And in case that fails, trying to associate my points with superficial hollywood entertainment concepts.

Why don’t you just say that you trust the Church’s teachings and oppose my points on the basis of pure loyalty to that Church. I could respect that. I do believe saints like Padre Pio have proven that it is possible to achieve spiritual results within the context of the Catholic Church.

founded a Church, and we only have Church documents and assertions as “proof”.

Your claims are the standards used by hollo-wood; though you may not see yourself as far gone as they are you ignore or demand the same things; it is only natural that I would clump you with them.

You want to know if your assumptions are wrong or if you are correct look into human history–wherever a society has attempted to eradicate Yahweh God from His place among the Believers that nation has succumb to its worst state; conversely, wherever the Church has established even the smallest of communities life has improved for all, even for those who are not Believers.

Jesus’ Command to “go and make disciples of all the nations” is the greatest testament of the Holy Spirit’s Teaching and Guiding His Church; the infallibility of the Pope arises from this very relationship: Christ’s Holy Spirit was sent to reveal the total Truth to the Church.

But as Christ foretold, the world will not accept Him for they do not know Him… the greatest infallible Teaching came from Christ Himself when He spoke through a parable and stated that even if a Man were to come back from the dead people would not Believe: He did and you still do not Believe!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Seraphim25]

Please state examples of how the pope exercises his right of infallibility.

Next problem would expand on this in as much show me an infallible act that is outside of the bible. Again I am not solely focused on the bible but in as much as it is the bench mark were I can reference to if there is a problem with somebodies claims.

My argument is that anybody can exercise infallibility, only because God himself already has said them. Example if this is not clear: I declare concerning gay marriage is a violation of Gods moral code that demands marriage to be withheld in high regard solely based on a man and female. This statement is infallible because it came out of my Gods mouth himself.
If I were to say the opposite then this statement is in itself a violation from God because he never wanted gay marriage to even enter our thoughts. Thus, rendering it fallible because it is coming out of my own subjective opinion.

What makes something fallible is there has to be a point of reference or a point of origin. For example: If we based our claim that Gay marriage is lawful we would typically declare it in the law of the society. If something is not lawful then we would declare it based on the society in where it was declared. In like manner we all look to God and his kingdom to render what society has infallible/subjective opinion for that society whether under or not under God. Since God calls me his son then I can make a statement that is in fact infallible because God himself stated I am as long as I am in Christ. Therefore, I know that I am a son of God because he himself has given me the power to proclaim it by is own name sake.

 

[jcrichton]

Please state examples of how the pope exercises his right of infallibility.

Next problem would expand on this in as much show me an infallible act that is outside of the bible. Again I am not solely focused on the bible but in as much as it is the bench mark were I can reference to if there is a problem with somebodies claims.

If you are addressing me… this is getting to be a circular argument…

My argument is that anybody can exercise infallibility, only because God himself already has said them. Example if this is not clear: I declare concerning gay marriage is a violation of Gods moral code that demands marriage to be withheld in high regard solely based on a man and female. This statement is infallible because it came out of my Gods mouth himself.
If I were to say the opposite then this statement is in itself a violation from God because he never wanted gay marriage to even enter our thoughts. Thus, rendering it fallible because it is coming out of my own subjective opinion.

…the problem you continue to ignore is that you are not the head of the Chuch–as much as Luther was right about some of the excesses and errors of the Church, he was not the head of the Church and his “good intentions” paved the hellish road that we are still taking today!

As for “it’s in the Bible,” that is such an ambiguous argument that thousands of people have been creating their own brand of theology and their own “true church” of Christ. Even the very narrow view “sola Scriptura” rejects the Holy Scriptures’ tenets when it comes to matters of Faith which they refuse to accept (Oral Tradition; One Baptism; One Faith; One Church…).

What makes something fallible is there has to be a point of reference or a point of origin. For example: If we based our claim that Gay marriage is lawful we would typically declare it in the law of the society. If something is not lawful then we would declare it based on the society in where it was declared. In like manner we all look to God and his kingdom to render what society has infallible/subjective opinion for that society whether under or not under God. Since God calls me his son then I can make a statement that is in fact infallible because God himself stated I am as long as I am in Christ. Therefore, I know that I am a son of God because he himself has given me the power to proclaim it by is own name sake.

Your argument is flawed since you are arguing from both a religious and a secular position (ie: look how respectful you are of society that you highlight the “g” in gay while the secular/atheist makes it a point to use the lower case “g” when referencing Yahweh God); though we are all God’s Creatures, we are not all sons (children) of God (St. John 1:1-18); further, there’s an ancient warning from Yahweh God that is very specific when it comes to speaking in His name:

19 I shall put my words into his mouth and he will tell them everything I command him. Anyone who refuses to listen to my words, spoken by him in my name, will have to render an account to me. 20 But the prophet who presumes to say something in my name which I have not commanded him to say, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die." (Deuteronomy 18:19-20)

Conversely, Jesus puts it this way:

‘Anyone who listens to you listens to me; anyone who rejects you rejects me, and those who reject me reject the one who sent me.’ (St. Luke 10:16)

While we are all part of a Priestly Kingdom (we are so in respect to Chirst: High Priest, Prophet, King), not all are called to officiate as Priests:

29 Are all of them apostles? Or all prophets? Or all teachers? Or all miracle-workers? 30 Do all have the gifts of healing? Do all of them speak in tongues and all interpret them? (1 Corinthians 12:29-30–compare with St. James 3:1)

So while we all comprise the Body of Christ, few are charged as shepherds and only one is responsible for the shepherds:

31 ‘Simon, Simon! Look, Satan has got his wish to sift you all like wheat; 32 but I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail, and once you have recovered, you in your turn must strengthen your brothers.’ (St. Luke 22:31-32)

15 When they had eaten, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me more than these others do?’ He answered, ‘Yes, Lord, you know I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’ 16 A second time he said to him, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ He replied, ‘Yes, Lord, you know I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Look after my sheep.’
17 Then he said to him a third time, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ Peter was hurt that he asked him a third time, ‘Do you love me?’ and said, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know I love you.’ Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep. (St. John 21:15-17)

We are all responsible for studying the Holy Scriptures and building the Body of Christ but, as St. Paul said, since God is not a God of chaos but of order the millions of Catholics in the world cannot declare infallibility when we make a statement of Faith–even when we do not fully understand the Church’s Teachings we must submit to our leaders as they must submit to Christ!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[anon5216]

… Yahweh God from His place among the Believers …

…
you still do not Believe!

Maran atha!

Angel

No, I do not believe that the ancient Jew’s YHWH is actually God.
There is nothing Godly about the ancient Jewish YHWH.

 

[Seraphim25]

Maybe I am not being clear but contrite on maybe the lack of expressing myself in a more clear and definied manner. I.E the ambiguity of using the bible was merely to show that I know that God is NOT constrained to a book a wrote. But, like I said earlier it is the bench at which we place our trust.

Secondly, I would like to point out that I concur that God is a God of order and not chaos. Which is one of the many reasons why I am Catholic today. There is a lot of denominations that have deviated from the Church God set up. But from there I digress back onto topic.

like I said early maybe I can put this in a rhetorical question so that my point is more clear. If you were to say to a lesbian/gay individual that their particular life style is not right with God where would you give the credit to. Moreover, would you also note that statement with authority? I mean why make a moot point if it is not backed by some kind of authority? If we say the church then were does it get the authority from? Obviously, it comes from God and not any other place we all know that. OR likewise with any other moral statement euthanasia for example: should we eliminate a person because of a mental handicap or disabled person because he is disabled and is doing an injustice to humanity? Of course we should stand up to that but again on what authority do we make that solemn charge or position? Gods, authority is where it comes. Just as I made the declare that I am Gods son because he himself has given me that power to declare and I can say it with authority because he himself said I can call myself a son of his. Therefore, what I say is not fallible but is in fact infallible.

Thirdly, The pope is in charge of keeping these infallible statements in the eyes, hearts, and minds of all the believers out there. Since, therefore, we have plethora of negative and obstruction that can block or deviate us away from God. Such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia and some of the most heinous crimes against humanity. When I make a position or statement we ALL can say NO, that is not what God wants or has in store for your life if you follow these crimes. In fact we CAN declare it with authority because we all can.

 

[mark_a]

No, a sentence of excommunication from the Pope does not fall under papal infallibility. Vatican I infallibly taught that papal infallibility only applies under certain conditions:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church”
   Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4.

An excommunication is not a definition, nor is it a doctrine of faith or morals. Excommunications are a judgment of the prudential order, which fall under the fallible temporal authority of the Church.

Conditions that must be met for a papal statement to be infallible

• Must teach or in some way clarify
• Can’t contradict previous teachings
• Must involve faith and morals
• To be held by all
• Statement made of his own free will
• He must invoke the full authority of his office

 

[Seraphim25]

I am also going to make a note that you said that If people where to reject the one speaking in my name thus rejects Christ (God) in general. I would agree with you here but after that it does differ because in the context he was declaring that if anybody who listens to you and rejects you are thus rejecting me. I.E. you go out and preach the gospel to maybe lets say your neighbor and upon talking to him about Christ he wants nothing to do with you and tells you in kind a pleasant voice to leave, is he rejecting you or God? He is not rejecting you but God just as Christ said they are or would. So in that case anybody who goes and declares the truth to the world and the world rejects you they are not rejecting you but God specifically.

Again, I want to make certian that the pope is needed by the church just as all of the other hierarchy that makes up the body of Christ. But, The pope is in no better spot or place than anybody is because we are all Gods sons/daughters and God shows no partiality towards us. He does however, place trust in certian offices that require a lot of work and training, such as the pope, bishops, and the priests, miracle workers, speakers of the tongue, teachers, and so forth. And just as Paul states we NEED ALL of them! I am not perfect but maybe somebody who can show me a better way to live or re-examine the way I act towards people on certian days! The best way to learn is to have a teachable point of view. Or in other words, to be open to other peoples ideas that may help or require of you to be a better person to build up the body of Christ and NOT tear down.

Peace in Christ!

 

[jcrichton]

No, I do not believe that the ancient Jew’s YHWH is actually God.
There is nothing Godly about the ancient Jewish YHWH.

…and that is your perogotive; as Jesus said “those who have eyes…” if you chose to close yours, not even the Holy Spirit will force you to Believe!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Maybe I am not being clear but contrite on maybe the lack of expressing myself in a more clear and definied manner. I.E the ambiguity of using the bible was merely to show that I know that God is NOT constrained to a book a wrote. But, like I said earlier it is the bench at which we place our trust.

I think that you are correct… we are closer than it appears in our thoughts… language seems to be a hindrance at times…

like I said early maybe I can put this in a rhetorical question so that my point is more clear. If you were to say to a lesbian/gay individual that their particular life style is not right with God where would you give the credit to. Moreover, would you also note that statement with authority? I mean why make a moot point if it is not backed by some kind of authority? If we say the church then were does it get the authority from? Obviously, it comes from God and not any other place we all know that. OR likewise with any other moral statement euthanasia for example: should we eliminate a person because of a mental handicap or disabled person because he is disabled and is doing an injustice to humanity? Of course we should stand up to that but again on what authority do we make that solemn charge or position? Gods, authority is where it comes. Just as I made the declare that I am Gods son because he himself has given me that power to declare and I can say it with authority because he himself said I can call myself a son of his. Therefore, what I say is not fallible but is in fact infallible.

You are correct, all Authority comes to us from Yahweh God–I think that we are coming to the same convergence from opposite directions… the difference I find is that you emphasize a direct connection to God and the Bible while I accentuate that same connection through the Church; relying solely on the Bible as the reference for our Faith (Doctrinal Belief and Truth) is an open window to error; this is attested to by the numerous groups that claim some of the Doctrines of the Church while rejecting others and still adopting principles which are contrary to Scriptures–these end up serving the creature rather than the Creator.

Thirdly, The pope is in charge of keeping these infallible statements in the eyes, hearts, and minds of all the believers out there. Since, therefore, we have plethora of negative and obstruction that can block or deviate us away from God. Such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia and some of the most heinous crimes against humanity. When I make a position or statement we ALL can say NO, that is not what God wants or has in store for your life if you follow these crimes. In fact we CAN declare it with authority because we all can.

I understand what you are saying; as childrend of God we have the obligation to reject erroneous teachings even when society embraces them. As Catholics we have the advantage of having the Pope to guide and lead the Church–this, of course, does not preclude us from having a direct relationship with God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I am also going to make a note that you said that If people where to reject the one speaking in my name thus rejects Christ (God) in general. I would agree with you here but after that it does differ because in the context he was declaring that if anybody who listens to you and rejects you are thus rejecting me. I.E. you go out and preach the gospel to maybe lets say your neighbor and upon talking to him about Christ he wants nothing to do with you and tells you in kind a pleasant voice to leave, is he rejecting you or God? He is not rejecting you but God just as Christ said they are or would. So in that case anybody who goes and declares the truth to the world and the world rejects you they are not rejecting you but God specifically.

Though the passage is directed at the Eleven (and those who would follow them), in a similar fashion it does apply to all Believers in general–that is why it is so important to have complete agreement ("…if you love one another the world will know that you are My disciples…") and follow a clear Doctrine ("…if you love Me you would Keep my Commandments…").

Again, I want to make certian that the pope is needed by the church just as all of the other hierarchy that makes up the body of Christ. But, The pope is in no better spot or place than anybody is because we are all Gods sons/daughters and God shows no partiality towards us. He does however, place trust in certian offices that require a lot of work and training, such as the pope, bishops, and the priests, miracle workers, speakers of the tongue, teachers, and so forth. And just as Paul states we NEED ALL of them! I am not perfect but maybe somebody who can show me a better way to live or re-examine the way I act towards people on certian days! The best way to learn is to have a teachable point of view. Or in other words, to be open to other peoples ideas that may help or require of you to be a better person to build up the body of Christ and NOT tear down.

Peace in Christ!

Actually, the Pope is in a more difficult situation than we are… when Judgment comes I will be responsible for only the few people that I lead or mislead; the Pope will be held responsible for all of the people under his leadership–including those outside the Body of Christ!

As it stands, the Pope is just as any of us… capable of joy, laughter, sadness, anger, error, and yes even the once in a while overindulgence of his favorite ice cream or pizza! And just like us, he goes to Confession to seek God’s forgiveness–how often? …that’s between him and God!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[anon5216]

…and that is your perogotive; as Jesus said “those who have eyes…” if you chose to close yours, not even the Holy Spirit will force you to Believe!

Maran atha!

Angel

Ah, but which one of us actually has the “eyes to see” and has them open?
That’s the question, isn’t it.

 

[jcrichton]

Ah, but which one of us actually has the “eyes to see” and has them open?
That’s the question, isn’t it.

Yes; yet, you be the judge:

22 Who is the liar, if not one who claims that Jesus is not the Christ? This is the Antichrist, who denies both the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son cannot have the Father either; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father too. 24 Let what you heard in the beginning remain in you; as long as what you heard in the beginning remains in you, you will remain in the Son and in the Father. (1 St. John 2:22-24)

2 You remember that, when you were pagans, you were irresistibly drawn to inarticulate heathen gods. 3 Because of that, I want to make it quite clear to you that no one who says ‘A curse on Jesus’ can be speaking in the Spirit of God, and nobody is able to say, ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:2-3)

When you deny One you deny the Other: “The Father and I are One.” (St. John 10:30)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[anon5216]

Yes; yet, you be the judge:

22 Who is the liar, if not one who claims that Jesus is not the Christ? This is the Antichrist, who denies both the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son cannot have the Father either; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father too. 24 Let what you heard in the beginning remain in you; as long as what you heard in the beginning remains in you, you will remain in the Son and in the Father. (1 St. John 2:22-24)

2 You remember that, when you were pagans, you were irresistibly drawn to inarticulate heathen gods. 3 Because of that, I want to make it quite clear to you that no one who says ‘A curse on Jesus’ can be speaking in the Spirit of God, and nobody is able to say, ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:2-3)

When you deny One you deny the Other: “The Father and I are One.” (St. John 10:30)

Maran atha!

Angel

You are quoting a document created by fallible humans and interpreted by fallible humans.
We really don’t know definitive quotes of Jesus. The one about “The Father and I are One.” sounds exactly like Adwaita Vedanta from India and I wholly accept that claim in that context.

Jesus’ alleged teachings in general sound much more Buddhist and Hindu than anything Jewish.

The parable about not putting new wine into old wineskins sounds to me like an instruction to not put Jesus’ teachings in the wrappings of the old Jewish scriptures - and yet that’s precisely what the fallible early Church did.

 

[jcrichton]

You are quoting a document created by fallible humans and interpreted by fallible humans.
We really don’t know definitive quotes of Jesus. The one about “The Father and I are One.” sounds exactly like Adwaita Vedanta from India and I wholly accept that claim in that context.

Jesus’ alleged teachings in general sound much more Buddhist and Hindu than anything Jewish.

The parable about not putting new wine into old wineskins sounds to me like an instruction to not put Jesus’ teachings in the wrappings of the old Jewish scriptures - and yet that’s precisely what the fallible early Church did.

…you know?, …you’re right! …you’ve convinced me… the fallible Church produced a fallible Bible which only you can decipher! …if not for your wisdom I would never have known that Jesus was instructing the Church to not wrap His Teachings in the Old Testament… pheeew! Thanks so much for sharing!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[anon5216]

…you know?, …you’re right! …you’ve convinced me… the fallible Church produced a fallible Bible which only you can decipher! …if not for your wisdom I would never have known that Jesus was instructing the Church to not wrap His Teachings in the Old Testament… pheeew! Thanks so much for sharing!

Maran atha!

Angel

I’m not trying to convince you of my point of view.
Don’t be sore because you can’t convince me of yours.

I don’t claim to be able to decipher the Bible. Because it is not the inerrant Word of God, there is nothing to decipher. We can speculate on possibilities and what the actual seeds of Truth might be that are coated with layers of layers of misleading human overlays and additions, but no more.

Hang on to your beliefs. Padre Pio accomplished much spiritually, in spite of Church mythology - you could as well.

 

[jcrichton]

I’m not trying to convince you of my point of view.
Don’t be sore because you can’t convince me of yours.

My responsibility is not convincing you or anyone else; my only task is sharing the Word of God.

I don’t claim to be able to decipher the Bible. Because it is not the inerrant Word of God, there is nothing to decipher. We can speculate on possibilities and what the actual seeds of Truth might be that are coated with layers of layers of misleading human overlays and additions, but no more.

You stated rules and you stated reason; hence, you are claiming that you are the rule and law when it comes to Christ, the Bible and the Church.

My point is not invalid: while you state fallibility on the part of the Catholic Church and the Bible you claim a portion of that faliible text to determine the true doxology that Christ demands of the Church!

Hang on to your beliefs. Padre Pio accomplished much spiritually, in spite of Church mythology - you could as well.

Thank you, I will! May I suggest, in kind, that you seek a different venue… one where your opinions might gain some followers.

May the Holy Spirit guide you to the Truth!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[anon5216]

My responsibility is not convincing you or anyone else; my only task is sharing the Word of God.

Nice concept, but no one has proven that any writing from any religion anywhere on the planet is actually the “Word of God”.

You stated rules and you stated reason; hence, you are claiming that you are the rule and law when it comes to Christ, the Bible and the Church.

Nothing of the sort. I’m only claiming that most of what we pretend to know regarding God’s Word and Will is what we fallible humans have made up.

My point is not invalid: while you state fallibility on the part of the Catholic Church and the Bible you claim a portion of that faliible text to determine the true doxology that Christ demands of the Church!

I’m not claiming any sort of infallibility - just making rational comments/speculations on some human composed text.

Hang on to your beliefs. Padre Pio accomplished much spiritually, in spite of Church mythology - you could as well.

Thank you, I will! May I suggest, in kind, that you seek a different venue… one where your opinions might gain some followers.

You’re welcome - I hope you do accomplish as much spiritually as Padre Pio did.

Regarding the venue: It seems quite logical for me to discuss Catholic Apologetic related things here - being a born and raised Catholic who doesn’t believe the claims.
It may be a standard agenda of religious groups to gain as many followers of their religion as possible, but I’m not a member of any religion, nor am I in any way interested in starting one. What ever gives you the impression I’m interested in any way with gaining followers.

May the Holy Spirit guide you to the Truth!

Ah! Now here we can agree!

(As long as we’re talking real Divine Truth, and not just some text or other that’s just some human concept of truth masquerading as the real thing).

 

[jcrichton]

Nice concept, but no one has proven that any writing from any religion anywhere on the planet is actually the “Word of God”.

Were you there when Creation happened? Were you there when Jesus, the Word Incarnate, came to the world? Were you there at the Church’s infancy? Yet, your limited existence gives you a wider girth than all who came before you.

Nothing of the sort. I’m only claiming that most of what we pretend to know regarding God’s Word and Will is what we fallible humans have made up.

But that is only your conception.

I’m not claiming any sort of infallibility - just making rational comments/speculations on some human composed text.

Yet, you use the human composed text to determine what is right and what is wrong–do you not see your temerity?

Regarding the venue: It seems quite logical for me to discuss Catholic Apologetic related things here - being a born and raised Catholic who doesn’t believe the claims.

The point I intended to make is that since you are not a Believer (akin to neither God nor Satan do I serve) why spend so much time seeking answers or wishing to instruct others in a forum that is markedly Catholic?

It may be a standard agenda of religious groups to gain as many followers of their religion as possible, but I’m not a member of any religion, nor am I in any way interested in starting one. What ever gives you the impression I’m interested in any way with gaining followers.

One of the standard defintions for “religion” is: ‘4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith’–Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition.

Though you may not be Catholic, you are practicing a religion and you are instructing (at least attempting) others in your personal belief/beliefs system.

(As long as we’re talking real Divine Truth, and not just some text or other that’s just some human concept of truth masquerading as the real thing).

…which only you are capable of determining, I suppose!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[anon5216]

jcrichton,

You are again resorting to the political tactic of rephrasing other’s words and framing those new words in a negative way.

Then you go and debate against these fabrications you yourself make up, while claiming those fabrications belong to the other person.

Done.

 

[jcrichton]

jcrichton,

You are again resorting to the political tactic of rephrasing other’s words and framing those new words in a negative way.

Then you go and debate against these fabrications you yourself make up, while claiming those fabrications belong to the other person.

Done.

Nope… you simply do not understand that when you make a statement it has more than one meaning; though you may be sincere in your fervor to find the truth all I have read from you is that you hate the Catholic Church because it forced you to believe in the Word of God which you do not accept because you see God as some superior being, somewhere in a different dimension which only certain enlightened individuals (gifted and talented–this is me twisting it in) can reach…

Your statements are viewed by others not necessarily in the way you have conceived them… instead of negating them you should accept them or correct yourself or offer a clearer meaning for them.

I could revisit the very first statement from this thread in which I engaged you and dissect it into manageable parts so we can readdress them… but I think that would take us deep into tangents–though since the OP is about Papal infallibility the administration may excercise some leniency, as long as we keep each segment brief and as relevant as possible to the OP.

Maran atha!

Angel