Pope and the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter mommy_k
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fhansen said:
It’s not different. For whatever reason they’ve determined that the bible is infallible but nothing else can be. Then, of course, they may well go on to interpret the infallible bible differently from each other, all apparently acting as little popes themselves with their own infallible understandings.
Click to expand...
Dang it! The truth is out! As John Martignoni says, there is a shortage of vocations to the Priesthood, but an abundance of vocations to the Papacy.
 
fhansen said:
LOL
Click to expand...
Luke 12:47-48
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
47 And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.
 
Get their behind me, Satan.

Who said that? Who was being rebuked?
 
po18guy said:
“And when you have turned, strengthen your brothers” Who said that? And to whom?
Click to expand...
I don’t deny it, but it still seems like a rebuke which aims to push back a bishop who has got ahead of himself say, by claiming the right to make infallible declarations.
 
Indifferently said:
I don’t deny it, but it still seems like a rebuke which aims to push back a bishop who has got ahead of himself say, by claiming the right to make infallible declarations.
Click to expand...
So, do you view the Pope as an irascible dictator? Where are the sweeping changes in doctrine, the unilateral proclamations, the exiles, the sacking of Bishops to coincide with the concentration of absolute power in the Chair of Peter? Not there. Not even a hint. In 1,978 years, there have been exactly two (2.0) ex cathedra proclamations, and neither of them was made without the on-going and complete cooperation of the College of Cardinals. Does that sound like a tyranny? Rather, it sounds exactly like our Lord ordered His Church from the beginning. The unofficial title of the Pope? “Servant of the servants of God” (John 13:1-9)
 
po18guy said:
So, do you view the Pope as an irascible dictator? Where are the sweeping changes in doctrine, the unilateral proclamations, the exiles, the sacking of Bishops to coincide with the concentration of absolute power in the Chair of Peter? Not there. Not even a hint. In 1,978 years, there have been exactly two (2.0) ex cathedra proclamations, and neither of them was made without the on-going and complete cooperation of the College of Cardinals. Does that sound like a tyranny? Rather, it sounds exactly like our Lord ordered His Church from the beginning. The unofficial title of the Pope? “Servant of the servants of God” (John 13:1-9)
Click to expand...
I never said it was a tyranny. The power has only been exercised twice, yes, but the dogmas defined are hugely important. What will you say if Co Redemptrix is next? 2050 maybe?
 
Indifferently said:
I never said it was a tyranny. The power has only been exercised twice, yes, but the dogmas defined are hugely important. What will you say if Co Redemptrix is next? 2050 maybe?
Click to expand...
Probably not. Maybe some other term might be used to describe the privileges of the Blessed Virgin, if some such title is approved. And if so, it would only be approved to clarify/reinforce what we should know about some aspect of Christ’s person and/or mission to men.

As to the title, we are all co-heirs with Christ, as St. Paul tells us, and therefore have both the duty and privilege of sharing in his act of redeeming the world and saving of souls. It’s certainly no stretch to say that Mary fulfills that role in a most efficacious way.

As I recall, the title was discussed at a meeting of theologians who recommended it not be approved because of reservations about how far the title might be taken (putting Mary on par with the Holy Trinity, for example) and Protestants concerns. (I could be wrong about the conclusions since I’m writing this from memory.) But, if it ever is approved it will most likely not rise to the level of dogma, but rather simply as an approved title for the Virgin, just one of many.
 
JonNC said:
The difference is that they made no claim for themselves such as this. I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit works through the pope, who is a wonderful leader for the whole Church today, but He also works through many Church leaders. For example, when the LCMS President Matthew Harrison sat before the congressional committee to speak out boldly in support of the Catholic Church, and against the HHS mandate, the Spirit was working through him, yet we would make no claim of his infallibility.
Jon
Click to expand...
Right. And if the Pope were to speak before the committee with the Holy Spirit working through him, we wouldn’t make a claim of his infallibillity either.
 
mackbrislawn said:
Right. And if the Pope were to speak before the committee with the Holy Spirit working through him, we wouldn’t make a claim of his infallibillity either.
Click to expand...
Agreed. So, there is a difference between a claim of infallibility ex cathedra, and an acknowledgement that the pope is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Jon
 
mommy_k said:
When I speak with Protestant friends, the common thread is that they do not believe thsat the Pope or any man can be infalliable, do not believe in Saints, etc. and they go directly to the bible for answers.
What confuses me about this statement is that the bible was written by man with the Holy Spirit working through the writers, and the Holy Spirit works through the Pope.
How is this different?
Click to expand...
Mommy,

I am going to suggest that you take a different route and order your thinking to address your Protestant friends. First I ask you, do you want to argue or do you want to evangelize? If you want to argue then trade Bible verses here and there and look somewhere to support your view, on the other hand if you were to look at the USA Catechism for Adults, I suggest the Audio version, based on the Universal Catechsim…The Church orders our thinking thus

Profession of Faith
Celebration/Life in Sacraments and grace
Modeling Christ, morality and the commandments
Prayer and asking for help

What follows is the profession of Faith…

Understand that God is the author of our Faith. Know this, understand this, believe this and then understand that what follows is a framework of what we believe. You would find that your Protestant friends if asked…

Do you believe in God, Jesus His only Son, The Holy Spirit, The Trinity, born of a Virgin, died on a cross for our sins, was resurrected for our salvation and will come again they would say yes and they have conceeded that they accept almost all of the profession of Faith, with one exception highlighted in red…
We believe (I believe ) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begottenSon of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God ) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for usmen and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man ; was crucified also for us underPontius Pilate, suffered and wasburied ; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe ) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son ), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by theProphets. **And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. **And we look for (I look for) theresurrection of the dead and thelife of the world to come. Amen."
Click to expand...
With that in mind, understand that you are dealing with a problem with Protestant understanding of Authority and an understanding of what it is the Church is or ecclesiology…now you can argue about it, trade Bible verses or do whatever else you want to do…

What you are dealing with is an understanding of God in many and various ways spoke to the Prophets in part and in these last days through His Son…all God wants us to know is summed up in one word…Jesus…they will admit this…

Jesus taught Apostles and the Apostles transmitted the Faith. If our God created the Universe and holds it in order is it possible to imagine that if He said He would build a Church that He has the capacity to maintain that likewise?🤷

Once you have that as a starting point then you have to get over the hurdle over the understanding that as the author of Faith, God gave us a Son and that Son founded a Church…and that Church is Apostolic…this is the dilema…once you can get to this root issue you can then discuss your belief in an Apostolic Church, Scripture Tradition and the Magesterium and how we come to know God. How? Through creation, the person inner self and Revelation…you need to know and understand and believe that the only reason you understand and accept the creed is because of a gift…Faith, recieved in Baptism, that if your Protestant friends having been baptized in the Trinitarian formula also Possess, ie the gift of Faith…so you are on equal footing here…

Next you have to get a copy of the Audio Catechsim and listen to it so that you can understand the deposit of Faith, as seen in what you just read, because once you understand that on your own you can do nothing and it is Faith working through you that you are able to believe, understand and express…as I just did…then you can and will be effective…Ok…🙂
 
Indifferently said:
I never said it was a tyranny. The power has only been exercised twice, yes, but the dogmas defined are hugely important. What will you say if Co Redemptrix is next? 2050 maybe?
Click to expand...
Note that I was asking questions, and not accusing. “What if”? I tend to dislike hypotheticals as they always seem to lead to “What if there’s no God?”
 
mommy_k said:
When I speak with Protestant friends, the common thread is that they do not believe thsat the Pope or any man can be infalliable, do not believe in Saints, etc. and they go directly to the bible for answers.
Click to expand...
Many today view the bible as an inspired self-help book. For example, the Gideon bibles, placed in hotels and motels worldwide, have self-help scriptures listed even before the title page or table of contents.

Yet, who interprets their scripture for them? Saint Peter wrote that all scripture is subject to twisting (2 Peter 3:16) so, honestly, how can they ever know if they are interpreting it correctly? The old-line protestant communities have guidance that traces back to their founding, but the newer bible groups have no one, other than their pastor, to go to for help. He or she, in effect, is their pope.
 
mommy_k said:
When I speak with Protestant friends, the common thread is that they do not believe thsat the Pope or any man can be infalliable, do not believe in Saints, etc. and they go directly to the bible for answers.
What confuses me about this statement is that the bible was written by man with the Holy Spirit working through the writers, and the Holy Spirit works through the Pope.
How is this different?
Click to expand...
They could have tried to meet the Holy Spirit before talking to Jesus about His representive on earth or one of the Protestants tried to baptize The Bible before the Catholics 😃

God bless
Merry Christmas
 
Indifferently said:
The Holy Spirit works through many Christians, including the Pope. I am not sure how that makes him infallible. Mind you, I’m not even sure the Bible is itself infallible. Can we truly say there are no passages therein that are not subject to human prejudices?
Click to expand...
The Bible is not a person the word is inerrant.

Merry Christmas
God bless You
 
JonNC said:
Agreed. So, there is a difference between a claim of infallibility ex cathedra, and an acknowledgement that the pope is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Jon
Click to expand...
It is a distinction without much difference. 'ex cathedra" sets the issue in concrete and stops the debate. It settled the canon and stopped “impious speculation” about Mary. Yet, and this may not be well known, any teaching from the “normal magisterium” of the Church is also considered infallible, i.e. the contents of the catechism. If not, why be Catholic?
 
JonNC said:
Agreed. So, there is a difference between a claim of infallibility ex cathedra, and an acknowledgement that the pope is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Jon
Click to expand...
Yes.

This is the way I see it: when President Harrison spoke we really don’t know if he were guided by the Holy Spirit. I like to think that he was, but that is simply my, and yours, opinion. Now, I don’t know why anybody else on the planet also can’t be guided or moved by the Holy Spirit; and if they were, it would mean that they would be infallible, or inerrant (whatever word you want to use) by the very fact of the Holy Spirit.

However, how do we actually know for a fact if they are indeed moved by Holy Spirit? We don’t, we have only our own opinion. And we want to know, not merely have opinion. That is where the infallibillity of the pope comes in. Even so, we must realize, infallibillity isn’t quite the same thing as being guided by the Holy Spirit. Because infallibillity is a negative guarantee, that is, the pope isn’t necessarily given the truth, but is merely prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking untruth (when speaking ex cathedra). Otherwise, the pope can have his own personal opinions, like everyone else. (But, like all opinions, his would have more weight than others.)

The idea is, when the pope speaks ex cathedra we know that he isn’t giving false opinion; we know he isn’t speaking wrongly, because the Holy Spirit won’t allow him to speak if it is wrong. (This is not because of any particular merit on his own part, but because of his office.)
 
tHe way I will answer is to leave out the word infallibilty, and say something like this with some bible quotes to back it up:
Because you believe that the bible writers of both old and new testament were guided by God to record the Truth, then you must also believe that the Pope is also led by God and the Holy Spirit, and the Pope is a direct sucessor of St. Peter and the apostles. It states so in these verses. (- will find some)

To not believe this, is saying the bible is in error.

The guidance and laws that come from the Papal office is written by apostles, albeit modern ones.
Any thing to add or change?
Thank you for your replies-
Mommyk
 
mommy_k said:
tHe way I will answer is to leave out the word infallibilty, and say something like this with some bible quotes to back it up:
Because you believe that the bible writers of both old and new testament were guided by God to record the Truth, then **you must also believe **that the Pope is also led by God and the Holy Spirit, and the Pope is a direct sucessor of St. Peter and the apostles. It states so in these verses. (- will find some)

To not believe this, is saying the bible is in error.

The guidance and laws that come from the Papal office is written by apostles, albeit modern ones.
Any thing to add or change?
Thank you for your replies-
Mommyk
Click to expand...
Mommy,

Sales 101…you will get nowhere by insisting that someone must believe anything…

What you must do is get your listener to concede yes to a series of questions to get the mind acceptable to acknowledge or at least consider something they reject. Here is an example.

Would you agree that Christians follow Christ…of course
Would you agree tha the Bible is the word of God…of course
Would you agree that Jesus and the Bible cannot lie and have the truth…of course
Would you agree that the Holy Spirit guides the writing of the Bible…of course

Now you need to transition and you may get resistance…

So now that we agree on these things…change the focus and reframe everything…

What Church do you go to…ask…get the name…and do you have a Pastor…

So you go to this Church and you have this Pastor…Yes…another Yes…
Would you agree that the duty of the Pastor is to lead the flock…Yes
Would you agree that the Pastor reads the Bible to guide the flock…Yes…

Now you have set the stage for…

So, I believe that the Bishop of Rome is the pastor and reads the bible and these verses cause me to believe and understand…that Jesus founded a Church, created leadership with Peter and subsequent pastors or bishops were like peter leading the flock…

They may accept it, they may reject it…

Ask, is your interpretation or understanding or your pastors belief and understanding of the Bible infallible…NO they will say…then here you can add that you believe that based on the deposit of Faith, Church teaching and the Pastor Bishop of Rome you believe that it is infallible…

no argument about that…and you get your point across…

The only one that must believe that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and infallible on Faith and Morals is you…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top