The infallable pope

[Cinette]

I looked into the Arians. They are like the Jehovah’s Winesses. They have a different Jesus. They (the Arians) reject His divinity and the trinity. Hey that rhymes doesn’t it? They don’t worship the same Lord and they have a different gospel.

**I had heard someone say that Constantine was Arian. However, after your response I checked. Apparently he had a vision of the cross in Rome which he used on his soldiers shields - he was the son of St Helena. He built the most beautiful basilicas in Rome (over the tombs of Peter and Paul) amd Jerusalem. He seems to have been originally a pagan worshipping the sun god and was gradually converted to Catholicism and was baptised on his death bed. He was the first emperor to stop persecutions of Christians and made Sunday a holiday. He summoned the Council of Nicaea in 325 to settle the Arian dispute. **

 

[ron77nyc]

Just so. One Catholic might say “I don’t call Orthodox or Protestants ‘heretics’. I only apply ‘heretics’ to those who don’t believe that Christ is God, such as the Arians.”

Another Catholic might call Protestants “heretics” but not Orthodox.

Yet another Catholic might call Protestants and Orthodox “heretics”.

We each draw the line in a different place – but I think the differences between those different usages of “heretic” are largely a matter of semantics.

It’s another cause for differences of opinion but not hatred.
Look at this old encyclical. Pius IX had it right many years ago.
Encyclical of Pope Pius IX promulgated on August 10, 1863

1. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.

 

[Cinette]

After all these posts I still dont see any proof.

Why don’t u indicate which posting came close and I will do some research and expand on it?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, please tell us what you would ‘accept’ for proof.

Apparently documents such as the Catechism which explain both the charism and how it is to be applied, and give the relevant Scripture from which the Holy Spirit has guided us to the understanding that the charism as explained has ‘come from’ that Scripture isn’t enough proof?

 

[ron77nyc]

This is quite true Ron; I have questioned this kind of thing before a bit on this forum; but have usually been met with that (internet) “cold-fish handshake” whenever I brought up such a subject. I was told that I “don’t understand” that I am “misquoting;” and the like.

From what I can understand of the Catholic explanations of past crimes like this of past Popes; it was never “official excathedra doctrine” that allowed the Catholic Church to collaborate with political parties in the matters of their Church interests, and of using “force” (sometimes deadly) to combat opponents of their faith through secular governments.

Yes, of course; it is understood by Protestants that there was killing on both sides of the fence; yet that is not the point. We are talking about a Church that professes an “infallibly speaking leader” and that has the “real truth” and is the “true” Church.

John 13:34. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

This is one of those scriptures that is self explanatory.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

A man had two sons.

The man fell ill with diverticulitis. The surgeons were called and said that the only chance for him was to have a bowel resection.

The first son was appalled at the idea that his father would have to be ‘cut open’, would have a temporary colostomy, would be hospitalized for some period, and might have complications from surgery that could even include death. He loved his father too much, he said, to have him risk these things.

The second son likewise felt terrible sorrow that his father was facing this choice and pain. The second son though felt that even though there was risk, it was acceptable. There was a 95% chance that, 1 year later, the father would have a ‘normal’ life, the colostomy would be reversed. He would have a scar, he would have to modify his diet somewhat and have regular doctor visits, but otherwise, he would be as he was before the illness. The second son loved his father too much, he said, not to have him take the chance to be healed even if there was some temporary pain along the way.

Which son loved his father more? Which son loved more wisely?

 

[elts1956]

From what I’ve read about it and I can’t say that it is all true because I wasn’t alive then, Luther wanted to open up dialog with the Church to reform it but was constantly ignored.

I think you need to read about Luther’s life and his beliefs. The Church of his time was responsible for committing many errors, but not in dogma and doctrine. You need to read/reread the 95 theses Luther nailed to the door of Wittenburg Cathedral and compare them to the teachings of the Church. That should take about ten years of Sundays, but I am sure it will all be there in black and white.

 

[elts1956]

From what I’ve read about it and I can’t say that it is all true because I wasn’t alive then, Luther wanted to open up dialog with the Church to reform it but was constantly ignored.

Peter, is what you are saying that the Pope doesn’t teach infallibly on faith and morals unless he makes an ‘ex cathedra statement’ or otherwise some kind of 'doctrinal act?

But. . .and this is where I think people get confused. . .if the Pope is speaking about infallible teachings (like say Pope John Paul 2 speaking about women not being able to be ordained as priests), even if he is not making an ‘infallible declaration’. . .if he is speaking and reiterating already determined ‘infallible teachings’, aren’t the TEACHINGS themselves ‘still’ infallible?

I mean, just because “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” was not promulgated as an ex cathedra statement, it is still an infallible teaching, isn’t it, and the pope did speak on an infallible subject, didn’t he?

The more I think, the more confused I get. Apparently, according to some explainers, there have been only two infallible dogmas proclaimed since??? but in steps the rule, “No women priests”. Now I am thinking that is an infallbile teaching, BUT not a dogma BUT Tradition. I would sure like to see where each of the Teachings of the Church fall, Dogma or Sacred Tradition, or even tradition. Sooooooo confusing.

 

[Cinette]

After all these posts I still dont see any proof.

***There is overwhelming evidence in Scripture that Peter was chosen as leader of the infant Church Lk 22:31-32, Jn21:15-19, Mt 16:18-19 and its parallels in Isaiah 22:15-25 regarding Eliakim and his sucessors and references to the “key”.

Note the “keys” in Mt 16:19 – keys were the hallmark of authority. Also Jesus addressing Peter as “Blessed are you…” Mt 16:17 gives the passage the aura of the most important statement he would make to Peter. Note too how in Is22:22 Is places “the key of the house of David on the shoulder of Eliakim.

The doctrine of Papal infallibility has nothing to do with the pope’s personal holiness as indeed Peter was far from perfect. The doctrine refers to the definition of the Catholic official belief, held from the beginning, rooted in the Word of God, usually made if it needs to be clarified (as the Assumption of Mary in 1950) or when it is under attack. Infallibility is a charism of truth held by the whole Church with the Pope as spokesman. It pre-serves Church teaching from error as promised by Christ (Mt16:18).

Jesus promised that the H Spirit would guide his Church. Do you think that the HS would guide the Church into heresy? Consider the, at most, six “bad” popes out of a total of 264, which is not as big a proportion (1 in 44) when compared to the one bad apostle (Judas) from among the twelve men chosen by Jesus. Acknowledging that some popes were bona fide scoundrels, no pope in all of history ever taught heresy***.:yup:

As Tantum Ergo (Post #364) said you will find all the proof you need in the Catechism. Read with your eyes wide open.

Is this good enough for you or do you want more proof?

 

[elts1956]

That doesn’t sound right to me. But I’m not completely sure either – perhaps he was an Arian for a while, but later repented?

He wasn’t baptized until he was on his death bed. As I understood it, he knew as a govenor of many provinces and people, he would have to make decisions contrary to what the Catholic Church taught. So rather than make wrong confessions, he hedged his bets and was converted right before he died.

 

[elts1956]

That doesn’t sound right to me. But I’m not completely sure either – perhaps he was an Arian for a while, but later repented?

**I had heard someone say that Constantine was Arian. However, after your response I checked. Apparently he had a vision of the cross in Rome which he used on his soldiers shields - he was the son of St Helena. He built the most beautiful basilicas in Rome (over the tombs of Peter and Paul) amd Jerusalem. He seems to have been originally a pagan worshipping the sun god and was gradually converted to Catholicism and was baptised on his death bed. He was the first emperor to stop persecutions of Christians and made Sunday a holiday. He summoned the Council of Nicaea in 325 to settle the Arian dispute. **

And to consolidate his empire. His intentions weren’t all altruistic.

 

[Cinette]

He wasn’t baptized until he was on his death bed. As I understood it, he knew as a govenor of many provinces and people, he would have to make decisions contrary to what the Catholic Church taught. So rather than make wrong confessions, he hedged his bets and was converted right before he died.

Yes, that is true - he was taking a chance! But then, since Baptism wipes you clean of all sin, he went straight to heaven! No stop on the way!

 

[elts1956]

Yes, that is true - he was taking a chance! But then, since Baptism wipes you clean of all sin, he went straight to heaven! No stop on the way!

Ohhhhhhhh, not so fast. Bet he made a few stops in the circles of Purgatory. No I haven’t heard of those either. I just made them up. No one said I couldn’t.

 

[ron77nyc]

I think you need to read about Luther’s life and his beliefs. The Church of his time was responsible for committing many errors, but not in dogma and doctrine. You need to read/reread the 95 theses Luther nailed to the door of Wittenburg Cathedral and compare them to the teachings of the Church. That should take about ten years of Sundays, but I am sure it will all be there in black and white.

The issues are still the same today. Mainly they were about confessing to a priest and allowing people to buy souls out of purgatory.

The more I read the more I question. I was reading about Pope Bonaface. Here is what he said:
Papal Bull of His Holiness Pope Boniface VIII, promulgated November 18, 1302
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Does this seem right? This was his final sentence in a Papal Bull. Are those infallable statements? If it is, he is contradicting Jesus who says “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."
It’s like the Pope Bonaface is saying, “If you want God you have to go through me.” Very arrogant. Whatever happened to “I must decrease and He must increase?”

 

[Protestant101]

The issues are still the same today. Mainly they were about confessing to a priest and allowing people to buy souls out of purgatory.

The more I read the more I question. I was reading about Pope Bonaface. Here is what he said:
Papal Bull of His Holiness Pope Boniface VIII, promulgated November 18, 1302
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Does this seem right? This was his final sentence in a Papal Bull. Are those infallable statements? If it is, he is contradicting Jesus who says “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."
It’s like the Pope Bonaface is saying, “If you want God you have to go through me.” Very arrogant. Whatever happened to “I must decrease and He must increase?”

Well said; the clear aim of “ecumenism” Catholic style, is not “common ground” unless that ground involves submission the the Pope. People who say that Protestants and Catholics are changing and coming closer to agreement are wrong. The Catholic Church has not changed one iota to accomodate any agreement in this area. The change has been by [some] Protestants. Any change has been in one direction only.

PS And I might add that to call Boniface or any other man “his holiness” is wrong. Where is that in the Bible?

 

[Cinette]

Well said; the clear aim of “ecumenism” Catholic style, is not “common ground” unless that ground involves submission the the Pope. People who say that Protestants and Catholics are changing and coming closer to agreement are wrong. The Catholic Church has not changed one iota to accomodate any agreement in this area. The change has been by [some] Protestants. Any change has been in one direction only.

PS And I might add that to call Boniface or any other man “his holiness” is wrong. Where is that in the Bible?

You are not on this thread to contribute to debate and discussion - you are here to make snide remarks and to play Devil’s Advocate!

I think you think you are amusing. Good luck.

 

[Cinette]

Ohhhhhhhh, not so fast. Bet he made a few stops in the circles of Purgatory. No I haven’t heard of those either. I just made them up. No one said I couldn’t.

 

[mercygate]

Ohhhhhhhh, not so fast. Bet he made a few stops in the circles of Purgatory. No I haven’t heard of those either. I just made them up. No one said I couldn’t.

Circles of Purgatory? Dante beat you by about 700 years. But if Constantine was baptized on his death bed, ALL sin and penalty for sin was removed totally. Straight through ticket up.

 

[elts1956]

Circles of Purgatory? Dante beat you by about 700 years. But if Constantine was baptized on his death bed, ALL sin and penalty for sin was removed totally. Straight through ticket up.

Said I made those circles up. This past Sunday we heard about the laborers hired to work in the field. All got the same pay no matter when they started their labor. I DON’T THINK IT’S FAIR, but Constantine must have been one of the laborers.

 

[ron77nyc]

Said I made those circles up. This past Sunday we heard about the laborers hired to work in the field. All got the same pay no matter when they started their labor. I DON’T THINK IT’S FAIR, but Constantine must have been one of the laborers.

The bottom line is we are all saved by God’s grace and not anything we have done. It’s fair because God who knows everything will make the final decision about who lives in His kingdom.