Peter could never be a POPE! need some help again

[mercygate]

Scripture diesagrees with you my friend. Scripture is the Living Word and it most certainly does perform actions. In fact, it convicts of sin. It leads one to salvation through Christ. It discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart. It goes out to DO that which God WILLS it to DO and does not RETURN to God void. Scripture is most certainly capable of action. It is inerrant AND infallible.

God convicts of sin. Not the printed word. Scripture is “the writings” – they cannot act without the Holy Spirit. The Living Word is Jesus Christ.

Scripture is inerrant – and not just in matters of faith and morals, otherwise God would be the author of error.

Infallibility, as applied to the Church, is a subset of indefectibility and it means the agent cannot fail. The specific Catholic understanding of the word, means that the Church, or the Pope, specifically teaching in his office as the Church on earth, cannot fail to teach correctly in matters of faith and morals.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Yes, you have. You see, it’s one thing to say God is infallible, another thing entirely to say “***I ***am infallible.”

Surely you don’t claim to be infallible? You must admit that your interpretations can be wrong!

I did not say I was infallible. What I did say was Peter wasn’t. And he wasn’t. And I have not created any sort of paradox. My interpretations can be wrong but that doesn’t discredit the infallibility of Scripture. Please. Peter “misinterpreted” plenty of things didn’t he?

It absolutely does not mean what you say. Now, you may use the word “infallible” any way you wish – but don’t expect us to accept that as the same as the Catholic doctrine of infallibility.

**I believe it does. And I believe that you and the Catholic church have made up your own definition. Peter was not infallible. He made mistakes. He was only “inspired” by God when he wrote Scripture. **

I’m sorry you feel that way, but I cannot accept that Martin Luther or any other person was justified in breaking away from the Church. The Kharisma of infallibility was not given to him.

It was given to him and each and everyone of us to contend for the faith. This he did. He was 100% justified in leaving the Catholic Church as the CC CHASED him out.

And he failed. Look around you – the Catholic Church continues to teach the consistent doctrine it has taught for nearly 2,000 years. Protestantism, however, in less than a quarter of that time has quarreled, split, broken up, quarreled again, re-split, and fragmented into literally thousands of sects – some of which teach things diametrically opposed to what the others teach.

**You have not proven the case for the CC nor have you proven the case against Protestantism. The CC has not preached consistent doctrine over 2000 years as they have changed things. If they HADN’T what was the need for “vatican 2”? I’ve already explained about denominations. I’m not doing it again. How many Protestant Christians teach different gospels from each other? The majority of them believe the same gospel. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing on secondary issues. Heck, your Church does the same thing. Fatima,anyone? **

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern>>Your understanding of Tradition is incorrect.

Ahh yes, the old “when you disagree your understanding is incorrect” assertion. I understand it. I reject it. 'nuff said?

And I reject your interpretation. And you must admit you could be wrong, right?

I know this. Remember though, that this was before Scripture was complete. Of COURSE they preached it orally, it hadn’t been all written down yet. It IS all written down now though. And anything that is written down in the New Testament is all that Jesus requires us to know in order to live holy before Him.

And which text in the Bible says this? Can you give us the chapter and verse that says, "The spoken word is to be ignored and only the written word trusted?

If you can’t, what is your authority for advancing this idea?

Exactly my point. Those things that were done are not required for us to know or else they would have been written down too. Since they weren’t written down in Scripture, they were not meant for us to know.

Now all you have to do is quote the chapter and verse where the Bible says this.

But were they required to believe them and obey them? No. We are only required to believe and obey Scripture as it and it alone is the highest authority when it comes to faith and practice. This is what I believe and I will not give it up easily as I believe that I believe the truth.

Again, which chapter and verse of the Bible says “Ignore the preaching of the Apostles. Ignore their explanations of the meaning of their preaching?”

Now let’s do a little exercise in Tradition – tell me exactly who wrote Revelation.

Uh…John. What does that have to do with Tradition? And who wrote a book is far from relevant when it comes to authority on faith and practice. I don’t have to accept extra-biblical sources when it comes to Catholic teachings just because you do an exercise on who wrote a book.

My grandfather’s name was John. My brother is named John. I have a cousin named John. **Which **John wrote Revelation?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

God convicts of sin. Not the printed word. Scripture is “the writings” – they cannot act without the Holy Spirit. The Living Word is Jesus Christ.

Scripture is inerrant – and not just in matters of faith and morals, otherwise God would be the author of error.

Infallibility, as applied to the Church, is a subset of indefectibility and it means the agent cannot fail. The specific Catholic understanding of the word, means that the Church, or the Pope, specifically teaching in his office as the Church on earth, cannot fail to teach correctly in matters of faith and morals.

God convicts of sin through the Word. Apart from hearing the Word NOBODY gets convicted of sin and nobody gets saved. You knew that though. You were just trying to make me look bad. I’m sorry I assumed that you knew what I was saying. Most Christians would know what I was saying so I assumed you would too. I’m sorry.

If the agent cannont fail how do you explain away all the differences within Catholicism? How do you explain the FACT that you have had some nasty popes? Peter was not infallible. God and His Word alone, are infallible.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

And I reject your interpretation. And you must admit you could be wrong, right?

Good. Cuz I reject yours…and your Church’s “interpretation”.

And which text in the Bible says this? Can you give us the chapter and verse that says, "The spoken word is to be ignored and only the written word trusted?

Can you give me the chapter and verse that says “Mary MUST be honoured”? Can you give me the chapter and verse that says “the Pope (and Peter) are infallible”? Can you give me the chapter and verse which says “Mary was sinless (another Christ if you will)”? I only have a few minutes though so please hurry. Now, I do recall a verse in Scripture saying “let God be true and EVERY man a liar”. I can have full confidence in the written Word of God. I can’t say the same for “man’s Traditions”. Sorry.

If you can’t, what is your authority for advancing this idea?

What you Catholics like to try and say “the plain, common sense” reason. My other authority? God Himself says that His Word is trustworthy. He alone is worthy to trust and He left us His Word so that we could KNOW Him and His will. He also said “let God be true and every man a liar”. This means we take the written Word above anything any man says. I’m sorry if you don’t interpret it this way but then you would be making yourself the authority now wouldn’t you?

Now all you have to do is quote the chapter and verse where the Bible says this.

I don’t have to do anything. God speaks to us through the written Word. Prove otherwise.

Again, which chapter and verse of the Bible says “Ignore the preaching of the Apostles. Ignore their explanations of the meaning of their preaching?”

**
Red herring. I don’t ignore the preaching of the Apostles! I HOLD to them. It is YOU who wants to go to outside sources and cast doubt upon the Word of God. And which chapters and verses in the Bible tell me the things that you Catholics believe that I firmly reject? I look forward to seeing them so that I can repent if I am in error.**

Now let’s do a little exercise in Tradition – tell me exactly who wrote Revelation.

My grandfather’s name was John. My brother is named John. I have a cousin named John. **Which **John wrote Revelation?

(Edited by Moderator)
**
The Apostle John wrote it. BTW, my grandfather’s name was John too. I never thought he wrote it.**

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hoosierdaddy said:

(Edited by Moderator)

The Apostle John wrote it. BTW, my grandfather’s name was John too. I never thought he wrote it.

Now prove the Apostle John wrote Revelation. Cite the chapter and verse that says that.

 

[mercygate]

God convicts of sin through the Word. Apart from hearing the Word NOBODY gets convicted of sin and nobody gets saved. You knew that though. You were just trying to make me look bad. I’m sorry I assumed that you knew what I was saying. Most Christians would know what I was saying so I assumed you would too. I’m sorry.

If the agent cannont fail how do you explain away all the differences within Catholicism? How do you explain the FACT that you have had some nasty popes? Peter was not infallible. God and His Word alone, are infallible.

I do not try to make people look bad.

I knew what you were saying. I have heard it enough times to have it engraved on my skull. What you were saying is that the Church teaches infallibility but is not infallible. But you are confusing impeccability and infallibility. You are confusing a word as it might be used in ordinary speech with the very specific definition we apply when defining infalliblity as a specific, narrow, theological concept (grounded in Scripture, by the way).

Infallibility, as defined by the Church, does not apply to ANYTHING other than official teaching on matters of faith and morals. Some of the “nastiest” popes upheld some of the most magnificent teachings.

Peter did not teach incorrectly: Peter failed to live up to his own teaching.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Hoosier boy said:

Now prove the Apostle John wrote Revelation. Cite the chapter and verse that says that.

Revelation 1:1-2
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.

This is the Apostle John because he bore witness to the Word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. Look…I got that all by myself…right out of Scripture.

Can I ask you though…why are you trying to discredit Scripture? I’ve never seen a Christian try to discredit Scripture until I came here. I’ve never seen such disrespect towards it. I am saddened by this and would like an explanation. I will NEVER be convinced that you are the original Church when I see such disrespect towards Scripture.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Hoosier boy said:

Now prove the Apostle John wrote Revelation. Cite the chapter and verse that says that.

And the next time you call me Hoosier boy will be the time you get dismissed as a troublemaker and put on the ole ignore list.

 

[janryboy]

Vern>>Infallibility refers only to matters of faith and morals.

Since God’s Word is infallible, this is why I and other Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura. The Bible is the final authority on faith and morals. Peter wasn’t infallible; he was human like the rest of us. You recall all the mistakes he made right?

As for the OP, why are you off debating Protestants if you have to come back here for help over everything? I’m not perfect but I don’t engage in debate if I’m going to have to keep going to ask for help on it. However, since I don’t know everything maybe that would be a good idea?

Sir, actually I was not up for a debate…and I never tried to challenge anyone for a debate…

It was actually posted from a certain forum, and I, as a Catholic, just can’t bear not to justify…CAF is my helping hand, aside from learning…deepening my Faith…I got to defend Mother Church from these bash…I’m also concern to my fellow Cardle Catholics…that’s why I’m up to justify their posts with CAF’s help…

Peace

janry

 

[hoosierdaddy]

mercy, I see what you are saying and will think upon this. Thank you. I apologize too. I thought wrong about your motive.

I see what you mean mercy. I will take time to think upon that. I am sorry I misunderstood your motive. Please forgive me.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Just to let you guys know I’m not backing out of the discussion because I’m scared or anything. I’m just backing out of it. God bless.

 

[janryboy]

Vern>>Infallibility refers only to matters of faith and morals.

Since God’s Word is infallible, this is why I and other Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura. The Bible is the final authority on faith and morals. Peter wasn’t infallible; he was human like the rest of us. You recall all the mistakes he made right?

As for the OP, why are you off debating Protestants if you have to come back here for help over everything? I’m not perfect but I don’t engage in debate if I’m going to have to keep going to ask for help on it. However, since I don’t know everything maybe that would be a good idea?

Sir, I am not up for a debate, i never tried challenging someone for a debate…

I just want to justify those post…I just can’t resist…you know, ignoring…for I am concern to my fellow Cradle Catholics…I’m concern, maybe or somehow they will doubt…and so on.

CAF has been my helping hand…aside from learning, deepen faith…defending Mother Church!

 

[janryboy]

Vern>>Infallibility refers only to matters of faith and morals.

Since God’s Word is infallible, this is why I and other Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura. The Bible is the final authority on faith and morals. Peter wasn’t infallible; he was human like the rest of us. You recall all the mistakes he made right?

As for the OP, why are you off debating Protestants if you have to come back here for help over everything? I’m not perfect but I don’t engage in debate if I’m going to have to keep going to ask for help on it. However, since I don’t know everything maybe that would be a good idea?

Sir, I am not up for a debate, i never tried challenging someone for a debate…

I just want to justify those post…I just can’t resist…you know, ignoring…for I am concern to my fellow Cradle Catholics…I’m concern, maybe or somehow they will doubt…and so on.

CAF has been my helping hand…aside from learning, deepen faith…defending Mother Church!

 

[Church_Militant]

Vern>>Infallibility refers only to matters of faith and morals.

Since God’s Word is infallible, this is why I and other Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura.The Word of God is all you need huh? So how do you know that your fallible reading of it has given you the right interpretation Brian?

The New Testament says many things like pluck out an eye or cut off a hand or poisonous snakes will not harm you. Do you apply those as they are written or do you take them literally. knowing that they don’t mean precisely what they are suggesting?

Some believers do handle snakes. One lady was in the news here recently because she was bitten and died. was she some sort of great sinner?

The Bible is the final authority on faith and morals.

Where exactly does it say that? I’ve read the Bible several times and I don’t think that’s in there.

Peter wasn’t infallible; he was human like the rest of us. You recall all the mistakes he made right?

Irrelevant. Infallibility is not based on the man but on the promise of Christ that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church that he built upon the rock (Kepha) of the man that we call Peter. The power of the Holy Spirit in keeping the promise of Christ cannot be overcome.

You cannot cite a single doctrine that was tinkered with by any unworthy pope in the 2,000 year history of the church.

As for the OP, why are you off debating Protestants if you have to come back here for help over everything? I’m not perfect but I don’t engage in debate if I’m going to have to keep going to ask for help on it. However, since I don’t know everything maybe that would be a good idea?

We encounter errors, misrepresentations of our most holy faith, and anti-Catholic propaganda in many places. The same could even be asked of you, because I have no doubt that if you cannot refute me or some other Catholic on here. you will straight away be off to find a source to find a counter argument that perhaps you haven’t heard before.

You “witness” for your faith. Why shouldn’t this Catholic?
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[mercygate]

Revelation 1:1-2
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.

This is the Apostle John because he bore witness to the Word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. Look…I got that all by myself…right out of Scripture.

Can I ask you though…why are you trying to discredit Scripture? I’ve never seen a Christian try to discredit Scripture until I came here. I’ve never seen such disrespect towards it. I am saddened by this and would like an explanation. I will NEVER be convinced that you are the original Church when I see such disrespect towards Scripture.

Nobody is discrediting or disrespecting Scripture. The fact is that at the time the canon was confirmed, it was by no means certain that the author of Revelation was the Apostle John. The point is that what we all take for granted in the canon of Scripture is the product of the Church rendering an infallible judgment. We would not know what the Bible is if it were not for the Church.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Church_Militant:
The Word of God is all you need huh? So how do you know that your fallible reading of it has given you the right interpretation Brian?

I trust the Holy Spirit. If I make a mistake, I change my belief. I submit to the Scriptures. How do you know your Church gets it right? Why do you trust untrustworthy Tradition and not Scripture alone?

Nope. There is a certain way to study Scripture. You use the common sense plain as day method unless the result doesn’t make sense. One only need pray, study Scripture, and understand that “plucking out one’s eye” is not to be taken literally. Jesus was emphasizing to make a point.

The lady that handled a snake that died, she wasn’t some great sinner. She was confused. She didn’t understand; I fear maybe she was one of those people who would have jumped off a cliff if an “angel” claiming to be from the Lord told her to do it.

Ah, but not prevailing is not the issue. I too believe the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. However, I take a look around and realize that they have won some of the battles. If Peter was infallible, then the Church would not lose any battles. The enemy wins some battles but will not win the war. Praise God!

So you’re saying that it is still ok to sell indulgences? I thought the Church outlawed that? I’m not off to look for anything as I don’t have the time nor the desire. The fact is you have changed things at times. Vatican 2 itself is proof of this. I don’t need to look for anything. I just have to know that Vatican 2 happened. Therefore, your Church has changed.

You “witness” for your faith. Why shouldn’t this Catholic?
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
Who said he shouldn’t have witnessed for his faith? I don’t appreciate the slight right there. You say “witness” as if you think I don’t do it or that you are smarter than I am. Maybe you are, however, I don’t need to be smart. I do need to have Jesus and gosh darn it, guess what? I have Him. I have “the fullness of truth”. Ponder that…

 

[hoosierdaddy]

mercy>>

Nobody is discrediting or disrespecting Scripture. The fact is that at the time the canon was confirmed, it was by no means certain that the author of Revelation was the Apostle John. The point is that what we all take for granted in the canon of Scripture is the product of the Church rendering an infallible judgment. We would not know what the Bible is if it were not for the Church.

Fair enough. It appears to me that they are but I am open to your viewpoint.

I don’t know, I read Revelation and see that it says John wrote it. The same John who wrote the Gospel of John and the epistles. The same John who beheld the Lord Jesus. I would come to this conclusion through reading alone, whether I heard anyone say it was John or not. No, we would not know what the Bible is if it were not for the Holy Spirit. As it stands now, I don’t know what the Bible is. The RCC wants to put some good historical books and a book about a dragon in Scripture whereas we don’t.

 

[mercygate]

mercy>>
Fair enough. It appears to me that they are but I am open to your viewpoint.

I don’t know, I read Revelation and see that it says John wrote it. The same John who wrote the Gospel of John and the epistles. The same John who beheld the Lord Jesus. I would come to this conclusion through reading alone, whether I heard anyone say it was John or not. No, we would not know what the Bible is if it were not for the Holy Spirit. As it stands now, I don’t know what the Bible is. The RCC wants to put some good historical books and a book about a dragon in Scripture whereas we don’t.

FWIW, I believe John the Apostle wrote Revelation – but then, I believe Paul (or an amanuensis close enoug to him to be trustworthy in transcribing his intent) wrote Hebrews. But at the time the canon was ratified, there was no certainty at all about either one of them. And there still is not.

Cahtolics believe that the Holy Spirit guided the Church in compiling the table of contents of the Bible. Why is that such a stretch for belief?

Those books you say the RCC wants to put in were “in” until the Reformation took them out. The Catholic Church didn’t add them; they were demoted by 16th century Protestants who put “scholarship” above the charism of the Holy Spirit that put them “in” in the first place.

Also, keep in mind that “deutero” canonical means just that: “deutero” – not necessarily less important, but arguably, in the overall scheme of things not on the same level as Isaiah. Even with the primary canon, we tend to hold certain books above others in importance: the Gospel of John above the Epistle to Philemon, for example. It’s not about falsely elevating less deserving texts but more about including all that has been handed down to us. Ya outta read Sirach some time – magnificent stuff!

 

[chet]

You could also see my post. May give you some additional ideas.“Apostolic Tradition: The Office Peter Occupied.” forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=201779