The infallable pope

[PerryJ]

===============================================

"Few will admit to the sins of the ones that started their own religion"

I am a Catholic! Made so by baptism as I was taught and by being baptised I became a Member of Christ and a Child of God.
I suppose it is my luck that your personal verification was not and is not yet, needed.I pray that this state of affairs will continue!
Christ is the Head of my Church and I am a member of the Body of Christ.
It is a canard, that Henry the 8th, is the founder of the Church in
England and in my life time no proof has yet been tendered to prove this rubbish. It is little more than wishful thinking on your part!

For your information, I have never thought that Henry was anything other than a cruel boor and thief. But, I have a publication here , a collection of lives of the Popes, normally I do not use it in discussions, but if I were you, I wouldn’t press this point too far! Or indeed the cruelties of our Christian ancestors except to say that it was ,on the whole indefensible.

I have never any objections to discussing my Church or Faith as long as the people involved behave reasonably and know something of the questions involved, you friend remind me of the quotation from Luke “Enthusiasm over reaching knowledge.” Not exact I know, but I’m sure you get the point!
Non Juror!

Curious response. I was attempting to agree with most of your thought?

The point of my post is that papal infaliblity is true and that I do not believe in the reformers as they did not act in humble submission to Christ.

As far as the statement that “enthusiasm over reaching knowledge” is interesting. I did not know the Bible was to be used as a weapon.

In the future I perhaps should not try and agree with your thoughts!

 

[Peter_J]

Who is to say what really did happen, or maybe sometimes the way things turned out wasnt what you had it mind, see what I mean.

I agree. Just like I would never say that “Henry VIII, Luther or Calvin … are murderers plain and simple”. (EWTN should come up with a new show called “Catholic bloggers say the darnedest things” – but that’s a topic for another thread.)

 

[nonjuror]

From Nonjuror to Peter J.

Thank you for your last post to myself.

If, I have in anyway misunderstood your post and responded in an unwholesome way, I apologise most sincerely. I should know not to respond in an unseemly manner to fellow Christians or indeed anyone else.

Yours in Christ.

 

[PerryJ]

I agree. Just like I would never say that “Henry VIII, Luther or Calvin … are murderers plain and simple”. (EWTN should come up with a new show called “Catholic bloggers say the darnedest things” – but that’s a topic for another thread.)

Peter J,

Why do you post this statement?

Nothing I have stated is not historical or conjecture on my part. Secular historians show that each of three actively participated in the murder of people. Luther via approval. The other two participated in murders. Calvin actually tied a Bible to a heretic’s chest so that he could watch the person die with the flames of the Bible hitting his face. He watched as the person was slowly tortured to death via flames. Calvin ordered the murders of many and this is historical fact and is not speculation.

I do admit Pope’s have made great transgression; however, I do not believe they changed the theology of the Church. This is the crucial difference. John the Baptist was a Saint that changed the Church. He was matryed and followed his beliefs. Luther and Calvin changed the theology of the Church; but, became increasingly corrupt. If they were God’s messenger to reform the Church why did they become more corrupt over time. If they had the faith of John the Baptist why did they hide?

I am curious why you believe any of these three are not murderers?

 

[PerryJ]

From Nonjuror to Peter J.

Thank you for your last post to myself.

If, I have in anyway misunderstood your post and responded in an unwholesome way, I apologise most sincerely. I should know not to respond in an unseemly manner to fellow Christians or indeed anyone else.

Yours in Christ.

No apology needed. We all get fired up for Christ.

 

[Peter_J]

PerryJ,

I’m not about to engage in a conversation with someone who says that Martin Luther was a murderer plain and simple. (Not today, anyhow; maybe another day.)

 

[Peter_J]

Nonjuror,

I don’t recall what I said, but I’m glad you liked it.

 

[PerryJ]

PerryJ,

I’m not about to engage in a conversation with someone who says that Martin Luther was a murderer plain and simple. (Not today, anyhow; maybe another day.)

If you are to refute my post I thought it was only fitting that you would explain yourself. As stated my sources are from secular resources and not Catholic. I have read many books about all three of the above people. The books are not biased by Catholic interpretation.

I can understand you not wanting to engage in this conversation. I would appreciate if you are to refute my posts that you would then engage them with your concerns. Or if you find my posts wrong post something that refutes them from a source and not personal beliefs.

If you ever wish to discuss this I can post books with authors and page numbers from secular writers.

For the others I believe it is very important for one to know who they follow. The life that people lead is very important and that is the point of my post. A separation between thought and action is not common when one looks over a person’s lifetime. Indeed the failure of men is the reason we need the infallibility of the Pope.

Peace be with you!

 

[elts1956]

Is your pope today anything at all like St. Peter was?? Puulease!

You are assuming he isn’t. How can you tell? You are alive almost 2000 years after St. Peter. Such arrogance.

 

[abucs]

I don’t understand how that last paragraph relates to Papal Infallibility, but I like the way you bring “those on the Throne of Moses” into the discussion. I think if more Catholic used that comparison it might help us to get away from some of the, shall we say, overly enthusiastic views of Papal Infallibility that are so prevalent. (Many Catholics speak of Papal Infallibility in such a “magic bullet” fashion that one is left wondering why the early Church bothered holding ecumenical councils, instead of just asking the Pope for the answer!) The “Throne of Moses” comparison seems to lend itself to a more measured and cautious view of Papal Infallibility – a view emphasizing that, when not making an ex cathedra statement (which is most of the time, presumably) the Pope might be corrupt in his policies, mistaken in his beliefs, even leading others into error (like the Pharisees). (I won’t even go into the whole “despicable in there personal lives” thing.)

I agree with much of what you are getting at Peter.
I would just try to clarify the last paragraph you questioned about. I could be wrong (happens often) but i would read that Moses instigated divorce, or how and why you could divorce. This seems to me to be an example of moral infallibility.
“you can divorce under these circumstances …”
I assume there was no council of Jews, or divine revelation from God mentioned anywhere but Moses unilaterally deciding that some action was morally acceptable to the church (Jewish people).

Hope i haven’t put my foot in my mouth as i haven’t had time to cross check my thoughts.

 

[Peter_J]

I agree with much of what you are getting at Peter.
I would just try to clarify the last paragraph you questioned about. I could be wrong (happens often) but i would read that Moses instigated divorce, or how and why you could divorce. This seems to me to be an example of moral infallibility.
“you can divorce under these circumstances …”
I assume there was no council of Jews, or divine revelation from God mentioned anywhere but Moses unilaterally deciding that some action was morally acceptable to the church (Jewish people).

Hope i haven’t put my foot in my mouth as i haven’t had time to cross check my thoughts.

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.

 

[SIA]

You are assuming he isn’t. How can you tell? You are alive almost 2000 years after St. Peter. Such arrogance.

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.

 

[Good_Fella]

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.

The first infallible papal declaration was made by St. Peter:

He said to them, " But who do you say that I am ?" Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, " Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Matthew 16, 15-19

The words of Jesus Christ and your view of St.Peter “seem to be two different views on authority.” It would appear you criticize all our popes in your “disillusionment”.

Don’t confuse infallibilty with impeccabilty. :nope:

 

[SIA]

The first infallible papal declaration was made by St. Peter:

He said to them, " But who do you say that I am ?" Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, " Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Matthew 16, 15-19

The words of Jesus Christ and your view of St.Peter “seem to be two different views on authority.” It would appear you criticize all our popes in your “disillusionment”.

Don’t confuse infallibilty with impeccabilty. :nope:

Certainly wouldn’t do that. Infallibility wasn’t declared until the 1800’s. Impeccability is Christ’s alone.

 

[Good_Fella]

Certainly wouldn’t do that. Infallibility wasn’t declared until the 1800’s. Impeccability is Christ’s alone.

Go back and read your post. You certainly did.

The dogma of the Holy Trinity wasn’t declared until the fourth century. I guess you don’t believe in the Holy Trinity either, notwithstanding St. Peter’s declaration of faith.

 

[mercygate]

I admit that, on the surface, it is pretty far-fetched to think that people believe that “the Pope is infallible whenever he teaches anything about faith and morals”; and yet, time and time again, I have heard or read people (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) claim that that is what the Catholic Church teaches. (Then of course they often follow it with a little commentary about how the Pope could make a mistake if he’s talking about something apart from faith and morals, like the weather.)

One problem that arises when we limit “infallibility” to *Papal *infallibility in our discussions is that people think that ONLY Papal statements uttered under the rubric: THIS IS AN INFALLIBLE STATEMENT qualify as infallible. But the whole substance of the faith comes under the promise of indefectibility as given to Peter under the protection of “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail” promise. Doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation and such are “infallible” – whether or not they have ever been dogmatically proclaimed.

 

[SIA]

Go back and read your post. You certainly did.

The dogma of the Holy Trinity wasn’t declared until the fourth century. I guess you don’t believe in the Holy Trinity either, notwithstanding St. Peter’s declaration of faith.

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.

 

[mercygate]

From being the Pope.

There is no “conference” of infallibility.

It always existed as an attribute of the Pope, since Peter, but was only recognized explicitly as an attribute when it was.

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

The visible point of indefectibility lies in the one upon whom Jesus promised to build HIS Church. The Pope MAY speak authoritatively and infallibly in his own voice on a matter of faith and morals, isolated from the rest of the Church, but he has never done so.

People cite Humanae vitae as a point at which the Pope spoke on his own counsel and rejected the counsel of legitimate advisors, but all Paul VI did in that document was reiterate the consistent and unchanging teaching of the Church from the beginning.

 

[nonjuror]

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.**

 

[mercygate]

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.**The First Vatican Council is “Tradition.”