By rejecting his authority to speak without error when teaching the univeral church about faith and morals, you are indeed rejecting the pope.
I have scanned the entries in this thread and I would have to tell you, Mr. garysibio, to find a book by Dave Hunt called “A Woman Rides the Beast.” There is quite the extensive discussion of Papal infallabillity in the early chapters and is well worth reading.
I have read other books by Hunt and portions of the one you mentioned. They are utter garbage.
Not true. I acknowledge that Obama is president of the United States but I disagree with him on almost everything.
The book documents that there are only secular (and no scriptural) bases for the doctrine of papal infallibility.
Your ignorance grows!
Someone asks for bread and you hand him a stone. :tsktsk:
Oh yeah…Hunt’s a real scholar of merit. NOT! Hunting the Whore of Babylon and The Whore of Babylon
Bravo Sir! :clapping::clapping::clapping: You are quite correct about that.
To me that infallibility just makes sense when Our Lord plainly states and “18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 16)
That’s just how it is.Hunt assumes the entirely unbiblical premise of sola scriptura of course, so it is certainly ironic he would argue this.
If Hunt told me the sun rose in the east this morning, I’d still check for myself. He is not a credible source for anything. His denial of the doctrine is probably the strongest evidence for it that has been presented so far.
While humorous, we need to be careful in phrasing. Otherwise someone might be led to think that Hunt’s denial is the strongest evidence, which is of course false.
What a terrific way to start off your defense of Catholicism! After I respond to your bad logic I will be adding you to my ignore list. I have no desire to communicate with people who can’t be civil.
You are not the first to mention this passage but it hasn’t changed any since the last person used it. Apparently you are the one having trouble understanding it. There is nothing in the passage which mentions a thing about St. Peter being infallible. Earthly head of the Church, yes but nothing on infallibility. I don’t have a problem with the pope as the leader of the Church.
I wish the passage did teach all this. It would resolve my problem. However you are reading all this into the plain text of the passage.
Again, you are reading quite a bit into this passage. None of this is in any Bible I have.
It has to be there for me to hear it. People who hear things that aren’t there are called delusional.
I’ve addressed Matt 16 before so I won’t go over it again. I just don’t see infallibility there.Oh yeah…Hunt’s a real scholar of merit. NOT! Hunting the Whore of Babylon and **The Whore of Babylon**Bravo Sir! :clapping::clapping::clapping: You are quite correct about that.To me that infallibility just makes sense when Our Lord plainly states and “18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 16)
Look at the authority given there! Why would He have done so if it was not meant to endure to the entire church through the office of Peter. (It’s the same with John 20:21-23)
The fruit of the “Reformation” also speaks for it because the only other option is theirs which opened up the modern cascade of errors that began with Sola Scriptura and have given birth to so very many more.
The n-Cs have no authority, and since Sola Scriptura is not itself found in the Word of God, (which is their appeal for authority…) then they flounder in every manner of error that the minds of men can imagine.
Papal Infallibility is a good article on this topic. It most certainly is scriptural.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
In that entire passage, all you see is the appoinment as head of The Church?
God worked directly through each of the Scripture authors. This is an example of God getting into Peter’s head. God was in the head of each of the Scripture authors as they wrote. But each of their descendants are not considered infallible as Peter is.In that entire passage, all you see is the appoinment as head of The Church?
The Father gets into Peter’s head, and declares that Jesus is ‘The Christ! Son of The Living God’!…and apparently that is up for OPEN DISCUSSION?
God’s own declaration, out through Peter’s lips can be…what ?! May be infallible? What of Scriptures and any of the authors? God may have spoken through them?
Peter and Thomas are the only ones who make the declarations that ‘makes’ us Christians! But according to Christ, only one of them spoke from Divine ‘Interference!’
I say ‘your ignorance grows’ and you add to your Ignore list? You do have a sense of humour.
A Pope** closed the canon **of Scriptures! Since he is not infallible in your eyes when he does ‘stoopid’ things like that, maybe there should be more books in there; or less; or the whole thing can be biffed!
See the back of my head? That’s me ignoring you.
I looked for the text of the papl bull you mentioned but scrolling through a few pages of Google didn’t turn up a copy. From what was there I gather that it was a statement from the pope saying that the Earth did not move which, we now know, is wrong.
