The infallable pope

[rinnie]

Actually, I think it is clear that that isn’t a case of Moses making an infallible statement.

I would compare it, rather, to when the Church made the rule that bishops were to be celibate, or later when the Latin Church decided that Latin priests were to be celibate as well. In other words, a prudential judgment.

As you put it "Jesus said that it wasn’t always like that from the beginning but Moses allowed it because … ", thus indicating that Moses wasn’t making an ex cathedra statement.

I agree with this, and also Jesus was questioned about this again in the NT and in my words Jesus more or less says Moses was pushed into it. But he goes back to say its still not option.

 

[SIA]

mercygate;4137101:

Papal Infallibility is a refinement of the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church, held by all Christians of all Apostolic Churches.

**Papal Infallibility? Is not a Catholic doctrine having no mention in scripture or tradition. The only thing within the Church that can claim Infallibility is an Ecumenical Council that has received full acceptance from the Catholics of all Apostolic Churches.

Again , please understand that your claims regarding the Papal Infallibility are groundless unless you can substantiate them from Scripture or Tradition. It is this that gives the Church here on earth its magisterium.**

That’s absolutely correct becasue if the magisterium of the church actually had the same authority in Christianity as Scripture and tradition then they could actually alter truths.

 

[mercygate]

nonjuror;4137263:

That’s absolutely correct becasue if the magisterium of the church actually had the same authority in Christianity as Scripture and tradition then they could actually alter truths.

What? You are suggesting that Scripture and Tradition have the authority to “alter truths?” I know you don’t believe that.

Scripture and Tradition – under which the Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church falls – do not “alter” “truths.” The development of doctrine is not an alteration it is an unfolding of human understanding in apprehension of the Truth. .

 

[SIA]

SIA;4137389:

What? You are suggesting that Scripture and Tradition have the authority to “alter truths?” I know you don’t believe that.

Scripture and Tradition – under which the Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church falls – do not “alter” “truths.” The development of doctrine is not an alteration it is an unfolding of human understanding in apprehension of the Truth. .

I didn’t say that. Scripture and Tradition are proven truth through the generations. What can the magisterium do but proclaim the truths already known?

 

[mercygate]

mercygate;4137433:

I didn’t say that. Scripture and Tradition are proven truth through the generations. What can the magisterium do but proclaim the truths already known?

The Magisterium can do nothing whatsoever beyond proclaiming “truths already known”; however, under the guidance of the Paraclete Our Lord promised to send to “guide you into all the truth,” the Magisterium CAN amplify and clarify “truths already known” – as it did in delineating the Chalcedonian definition.

 

[SIA]

SIA;4137474:

The Magisterium can do nothing whatsoever beyond proclaiming “truths already known”; however, under the guidance of the Paraclete Our Lord promised to send to "guide you into all

the truth," the Magisterium CAN amplify and clarify “truths already known” – as it did in delineating the Chalcedonian definition.

Ah! And therein lies our difference and disagreement!

 

[mercygate]

mercygate;4137501:

Ah! And therein lies our difference and disagreement!

Check your quote feature. This post looks like I have said what you said.

Actually we don’t agree on this point. You said, and I agreed, that the Magisterium cannot alter or invent truth; all it can do is explicate the truth already present in the Faith.

 

[SIA]

SIA;4137527:

Check your quote feature. This post looks like I

have said what you said.

Actually we don’t agree on this point. You said, and I agreed, that the Magisterium cannot alter or invent truth; all it can do is explicate the truth already present in the Faith.

right. And what I am saying is that I don’t believe that the magisterium of the RCC soley does that. The doctrine of the RCC states that they can only exemplify the truths already known but I believe that they go beyond.

 

[nonjuror]

SIA;4137527:

Check your quote feature. This post looks like I

have said what you said.

Actually we don’t agree on this point. You said, and I agreed, that the Magisterium cannot alter or invent truth; all it can do is explicate the truth already present in the Faith.​

Mercygate!

The magisterium of the Catholic Church is the Holy Ghost working through Scripture and the Councils. There are Seven Ecumenical Councils and Vatican 1, is no more than a Latin General Council, as is Vatican 2. Rome is a Catholic Sect and its Councils are no more than shams!

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
Where in the bible does it mention the “election” of a pope and his “infalablity”? (not great spelling but you know what I mean)**

**Where in the Bible does it mention the Bible?

Where does the Bible set itself up as the sole rule of faith?

Answer these questions, then yours will be answered.

BTW–do you know the conditions under which papal infallibility applies?

Do you know how many times it’s been invoked?**

 

[mercygate]

mercygate;4137536:

right. And what I am saying is that I don’t believe that the magisterium of the RCC soley does that. The doctrine of the RCC states that they can only exemplify the truths already known but I believe that they go beyond.

Please figure out how to quote.

 

[mercygate]

mercygate;4137536:

================================================
Mercygate!

The magisterium of the Catholic Church is the Holy Ghost working through Scripture and the Councils. There are Seven Ecumenical Councils and Vatican 1, is no more than a Latin General Council, as is Vatican 2. Rome is a Catholic Sect and its Councils are no more than shams!

Uh-huh. Enjoy yourself.

 

[Peter_J]

BTW–do you know the conditions under which papal infallibility applies?

Do you know how many times it’s been invoked?

If you’re asking how many ex cathedra statements there have been, I don’t think anybody knows that.

 

[Peter_J]

Does Scripture not mean anything at all to you? The popes of today are lavished in wealth, Peter was a poor fisherman. Popes who speak in ex-cathedra are infallible. Peter wasn’t even all that smart and many times wrong when speaking.

Smart or not, Peter wrote 2 infallible books. (Of course, Paul and others also wrote some infallible books, which just goes to show that there isn’t a papal monopoly on infallibility, at least in principle.)

The pope hasn’t been rivaled by any church clergy that can be brought to recent memory. Peter was told to his face by Paul that he was wrong in his teachings and practices.

Nothing has changed in principle; it’s just that at the present time, authority in the Church is highly centralized, practically speaking. It won’t necessarily always be that way.

 

[mercygate]

If you’re asking how many ex cathedra statements there have been, I don’t think anybody knows that.

There have been only two proclamations of the Extraordinary Magisterium – the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

However, any statement of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible. As mentioned earlier: the Trinity, contraception.

 

[elts1956]

Does Scripture not mean anything at all to you? The popes of today are lavished in wealth, Peter was a poor fisherman. Popes who speak in ex-cathedra are infallible. Peter wasn’t even all that smart and many times wrong when speaking. The pope hasn’t been rivaled by any church clergy that can be brought to recent memory. Peter was told to his face by Paul that he was wrong in his teachings and practices. The Holy Bible and your perspective here seem to be two very different conclusions on authority.

Yes, Peter was a poor fisherman. I haven’t studied the private lives of any of the Popes since Peter, but I would say there was at least one that I know of that although surrounded by pomp and circumstance was poor in spirit. When Pope John Paul II died, he had nothing material of his own to give away, or bequeath to anyone. He personally “owned” not even the clothes on his back. So although “lavished” in wealth, apparently wealth was not a part of his life.

The human side of even the Pope is fallable, so I suppose many craved the power and glory that is Rome, but no one can say all of them had only this goal in mind.

I agree, no other religion has reached the stature and accepted authority that the Roman Catholic Church has. Although it is our faith, all I can say is there were also some very good politicians in days gone by and into the present. Maybe God protects his politicians?? That and the Grace of God has preseved the Church. .

P.S. I didn’t address the Bible question because I am really Bible ignorant, sad to say. I was raised at a time and in a parish when the Bible was not to be read. Go figure. I hope to make amends on that.

 

[abucs]

Does Scripture not mean anything at all to you? The popes of today are lavished in wealth, Peter was a poor fisherman. Popes who speak in ex-cathedra are infallible. Peter wasn’t even all that smart and many times wrong when speaking. The pope hasn’t been rivaled by any church clergy that can be brought to recent memory. Peter was told to his face by Paul that he was wrong in his teachings and practices. The Holy Bible and your perspective here seem to be two very different conclusions on authority.

Well Jesus told Peter that if he followed Jesus he would become a ‘fisher of men’. I think the Popes can also be seen to play that role.

John Paul II sufferred tremendously in the latter years of his pontificate. Given the choice, a healthy burley fisherman sounds quite appealing. Not sure you can effect much change on a global stage spending yor whole day fishing.
We can see Peter decided to ‘change his career’ after being called by Christ.

As far as occupations go, well, of the last two, John Paul 2 was an Polish actor and benedict was the son of a policeman.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI

You can make any list of similarities and likenesses you like with any two people.

Many of the Popes have had church property seizes by differing states in the last 200 years since the French Revolution - Spain, Portugal, Germany come to mind. Pope Pius XII was bailed up at the Vatican in virtual house arrest by the Nazis.
Paul VI was told to his face his teaching on Humanae Vitae were wrong.

Many Popes are told today by clergy all over the world they are wrong on this, that and everything else.

Perhaps in order to be ‘bonefide’ Christians we should still be running away from the lions ?

 

[Peter_J]

There have been only two proclamations of the Extraordinary Magisterium – the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but I would expect everyone to agree with you.

For example, can you prove that Unam Sanctum wasn’t an ex cathedra statement? I can’t.

However, any statement of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible. As mentioned earlier: the Trinity, contraception.

True.

 

[SIA]

Well Jesus told Peter that if he followed Jesus he would become a ‘fisher of men’. I think the Popes can also be seen to play that role.

John Paul II sufferred tremendously in the latter years of his pontificate. Given the choice, a healthy burley fisherman sounds quite appealing. Not sure you can effect much change on a global stage spending yor whole day fishing.
We can see Peter decided to ‘change his career’ after being called by Christ.

As far as occupations go, well, of the last two, John Paul 2 was an Polish actor and benedict was the son of a policeman.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI

You can make any list of similarities and likenesses you like with any two people.

Many of the Popes have had church property seizes by differing states in the last 200 years since the French Revolution - Spain, Portugal, Germany come to mind. Pope Pius XII was bailed up at the Vatican in virtual house arrest by the Nazis.
Paul VI was told to his face his teaching on Humanae Vitae were wrong.

Many Popes are told today by clergy all over the world they are wrong on this, that and everything else.

Perhaps in order to be ‘bonefide’ Christians we should still be running away from the lions ?

I defend what I said declaring the differences between the Peter of the Bible and the popes of the Catholic church. I believe that it is firmly upon the back of logic that the contrast is huge.

 

[Good_Fella]

That’s not what I was eluding to. I was showing where the popes and Peter do not resemble each other. I think that is a very valid and prudent point.

You claim that Paul also rebuked Peter for his teachings or doctrines, which is was not the case. The issue was one of practice: circumcision. Peter was also criticized for having left a celebration of the Eucharist while it was in progress because of his refusal to worship together with Gentile Christians who refused to adopt Jewish customs and practices.

BTW, you may as well criticize the American presidents for residing in the White House. :yup: