The Problem of Hell

[Seeker2010]

Just one question this time (one I’ve already asked): are you familiar with the common logical fallacies (and, obviously, why using a fallacious argument is not a good idea if you’re interested in getting at the truth)?

You continue to dodge my question, so let me attempt to make it a little simpler.

I’m not here to discuss logical fallacies, and if you believe I am making a logical fallacy, please point it out rather than continue to ask me if I understand logical fallacies. Rest assured that I do.

Assumption: God is authorized to declare what is sinful, and what is not.
Assumption: Man is NOT authorized to declare acts sinful that God has not so declared, nor to declare acts not sinful likewise.
Assumption: The bible, and only the bible, is the ‘word of God’.

Fact: The catholic church declares that using birth control is a mortal sin.
Fact: Birth control is not mentioned in the bible as being a sin. In fact, I don’t believe it’s mentioned at all.

Question: Upon what divine statement is the church basing their declaration that birth control is sinful? From where does the church get the authority to declare it a sin when God himself has remained mute on the subject?

Comment: I don’t care to debate birth control, as previously mentioned I merely put it up as an example. I am just trying to understand from where the church is getting their information that God thinks birth control is a sin when it’s not mentioned in the document we are told is his word. It’s a fairly simple question, and yes I have asked more or less the same thing several times, because neither you nor anyone else has made even an attempt to answer it.

If you feel that the act of asking this question amounts to an attack on your faith, then your faith is weaker then you give it credit for. As I have previously opined, a faith that cannot stand up to scrutiny has no credibility to begin with. If it is not true, blind obedience will not change that, and if it is, questions will not harm it.

 

[Cristiano]

You continue to dodge my question, so let me attempt to make it a little simpler.

I’m not here to discuss logical fallacies, and if you believe I am making a logical fallacy, please point it out rather than continue to ask me if I understand logical fallacies. Rest assured that I do.

Assumption: God is authorized to declare what is sinful, and what is not.
Assumption: Man is NOT authorized to declare acts sinful that God has not so declared, nor to declare acts not sinful likewise.
Assumption: The bible, and only the bible, is the ‘word of God’.

Fact: The catholic church declares that using birth control is a mortal sin.
Fact: Birth control is not mentioned in the bible as being a sin. In fact, I don’t believe it’s mentioned at all.

Question: Upon what divine statement is the church basing their declaration that birth control is sinful? From where does the church get the authority to declare it a sin when God himself has remained mute on the subject?

Comment: I don’t care to debate birth control, as previously mentioned I merely put it up as an example. I am just trying to understand from where the church is getting their information that God thinks birth control is a sin when it’s not mentioned in the document we are told is his word. It’s a fairly simple question, and yes I have asked more or less the same thing several times, because neither you nor anyone else has made even an attempt to answer it.

If you feel that the act of asking this question amounts to an attack on your faith, then your faith is weaker then you give it credit for. As I have previously opined, a faith that cannot stand up to scrutiny has no credibility to begin with. If it is not true, blind obedience will not change that, and if it is, questions will not harm it.

Your first assumption is true!
Your second assumption is false!
Your third assumption is false!

In the case of your second assumption a man (the Pope) or a group of men (the Magisterium) or the whole community of faithful (Sensus Fidelium) can be infallible because driven by the Holy Spirit.

In the case of your third assumption it is false because it makes two statement and one is not true. You must note that only the Logos is the word of God. Jesus is the Logos incarnated. The Bible is divinely inspired and so that it is why we call it the word of GOD, but it is not the only divine inspiration driving human kind.

 

[Cristiano]

You continue to dodge my question, so let me attempt to make it a little simpler.

I’m not here to discuss logical fallacies, and if you believe I am making a logical fallacy, please point it out rather than continue to ask me if I understand logical fallacies. Rest assured that I do.

Assumption: God is authorized to declare what is sinful, and what is not.
Assumption: Man is NOT authorized to declare acts sinful that God has not so declared, nor to declare acts not sinful likewise.
Assumption: The bible, and only the bible, is the ‘word of God’.

Fact: The catholic church declares that using birth control is a mortal sin.
Fact: Birth control is not mentioned in the bible as being a sin. In fact, I don’t believe it’s mentioned at all.

Question: Upon what divine statement is the church basing their declaration that birth control is sinful? From where does the church get the authority to declare it a sin when God himself has remained mute on the subject?

Comment: I don’t care to debate birth control, as previously mentioned I merely put it up as an example. I am just trying to understand from where the church is getting their information that God thinks birth control is a sin when it’s not mentioned in the document we are told is his word. It’s a fairly simple question, and yes I have asked more or less the same thing several times, because neither you nor anyone else has made even an attempt to answer it.

If you feel that the act of asking this question amounts to an attack on your faith, then your faith is weaker then you give it credit for. As I have previously opined, a faith that cannot stand up to scrutiny has no credibility to begin with. If it is not true, blind obedience will not change that, and if it is, questions will not harm it.

Your first fact could be false depending on the definition of birth control. However, if you read Humanae Vitae you could have a better understanding of what is truly sinful and why.

Your second fact could be false too. There are forms of birth control that are the murder of innocents and the Bible clearly states that you are not to murder innocents.

 

[Seeker2010]

Your first assumption is true!
Your second assumption is false!
Your third assumption is false!

Finally, an attempt to actually answer my question. Thank you.

In the case of your second assumption a man (the Pope) or a group of men (the Magisterium) or the whole community of faithful (Sensus Fidelium) can be infallible because driven by the Holy Spirit.

OK, so the leaders of the church ARE actively in two way communication with God, so when the Pope says condoms are a no-no, he is merely the messenger, do I understand you correctly?

How do these communications happen? When? Can we see them in action?

Since God apparently possesses both the ability and intent to communicate with mankind, why does he not communicate with each of us directly, instead of going through a middle man?

 

[Cristiano]

Finally, an attempt to actually answer my question. Thank you…

You are welcome. I recently read that the best way to deal with fallacies is not to bug the source of the fallacies by pointing them out, but to simply address them in an honest manner. I think that it is quite annoying by being lectured on using fallacies without being offered any other useful offer to continue the discussion.

…OK, so the leaders of the church ARE actively in two way communication with God, so when the Pope says condoms are a no-no, he is merely the messenger, do I understand you correctly?..

Yes you understand correctly, this is what we call being guided by the Holy Spirit and that is what the Church has been doing since Pentecost.

…How do these communications happen? When? Can we see them in action?..

The Church recognizes only some statements as infallibly driven by the Holy Spirit. There are very specific “rules” that apply in order to be recognized as infallible statements. I am not sure what you mean “to see them in action”. The real action comes during prayer; however the statement has to be made public following specific rules.

…Since God apparently possesses both the ability and intent to communicate with mankind, why does he not communicate with each of us directly, instead of going through a middle man?

God does communicate with each and everyone of us. However, we are marred by the original sin and concupiscence. Because of that we might refuse to listen to what God truly says and we might choose to hear what we would like to hear. This is usually the problem with us men, we like to practice selective hearing. God knows us better than we know ourselves and that it is why he is protecting us with the presence of the Church. The visible presence of the Church is a permanent second chance for all of us to change our mind and align our free will with God’s will.

 

[GentleKnight60]

Philosophically and logically speaking it is not necessary that God create immortal souls for humans.(see conditional immortality). It is possible that God could annihilate the souls of the damned after they have suffered a set temporal amount of punishment. Let me attempt to put the argument in a more formal manner:

1. For a punishment to be considered just it must be proportionate to the sin committed.
2. Eternal punishment for temporal sin is disproportionate.
3. Therefore Eternal punishment for temporal sin is Unjust.
4. So if eternal punishment exists, then an all Just God does not exist.

1. God does not punish us in proportion to our sins. Remember the thief and murderer who died on the cross with Jesus. He accepted Christ and was saved (“today you will be with me in paradise”). How can mercy and forgiveness be justified if one is a sinner? If His love is not proportionate to our sins then how can punishment be in proportion to be justified by you?
   2). Eternal punishment is for those who deny the existent of God. Those who deny the salvation of God. Those who deny Christ in their lives. Do you know what “evil” is? Have you ever met a person without a conscience, without compassion, without God…pray that you don’t especially if they have control over you in some way? Doesn’t Hitler and Stalin and all sorts of heinous criminals deserve eternal punishment? If not, then what does?
   3). Remember the Catholic church teaches us about purgatory. The fires of hell without eternal damnation. It’s a place where one is purified before being allowed into Heaven. Again, one can have grievous sin, be purified in purgatory for some time and eventually be allowed to join God in Heaven. Is that unjust?
   4). Think your comprehension on the subject is hindered by one word “just” and the meaning of “eternal punishment does not fit the crime”. Believe me, there are many crimes and acts that truly deserve eternal punishment. God is a God of love and compassion even for sinners. Even a murderer can be saved. All one has to do is to confess their sins preferable before a priest. Does mercy and salvation for our sins come from an unjust God?

 

[Betterave]

You are welcome. I recently read that the best way to deal with fallacies is not to bug the source of the fallacies by pointing them out, but to simply address them in an honest manner. I think that it is quite annoying by being lectured on using fallacies without being offered any other useful offer to continue the discussion.

Easy way to stop getting bugged about fallacies: stop using them!

To clarify: I asked if Seeker was familiar with fallacies. If he is, that facilitates communication because I can just point out which fallacies his arguments are committing. It is easier to point out a fallacy with a simple “you’re begging the question,” for example, than to explain in detail what is wrong with a particular instance of begging the question.

In addition, when someone’s global approach to an issue is characterized by complete insouciance to the fact that he is repeatedly begging questions, this is a major drag on the effectiveness of dialogue, which it is obviously better to remedy if possible.

p.s.: I find it annoying to be lectured on pointing out fallacies, especially by people who don’t care to honestly answer questions which have been raised in response to statements they have made. But hey, that’s just me!

 

[Betterave]

If you feel that the act of asking this question amounts to an attack on your faith, then your faith is weaker then you give it credit for. As I have previously opined, a faith that cannot stand up to scrutiny has no credibility to begin with. If it is not true, blind obedience will not change that, and if it is, questions will not harm it.

Glad to see you’re making out better with Cristiano. This statement seems disingenuous to me. Do you really deny you’re attacking my faith? In any case, it does not follow (non sequitur) that my faith is weak, just because I recognize that you are attacking it, so your claim here seems just a little strange, especially coming from someone who refuses to answer a single question about the apparent incoherence of his own claims.

p.s., if you really want me to believe that you understand logical fallacies, please stop committing them.

 

[Betterave]

OK, so the leaders of the church ARE actively in two way communication with God, so when the Pope says condoms are a no-no, he is merely the messenger, do I understand you correctly?

Apparently yes, you understand C correctly, but his understanding is not quite correct. The Pope is not merely the messenger - that’s what Mohammed is supposed to have been, as I’ve already pointed out, but that is not how the Church views the Pope.

How do these communications happen? When? Can we see them in action?

These communications happen by virtue of the due diligence of the Pope in investigating such matters using the natural light of his reason, informed by the faith handed down from the apostles, as well as relying, of course, on the promptings of the Holy Spirit (but that’s something anyone can do). The charism of infallibility merely ensures that in very particular circumstances the Pope will not teach error. It does not imply that the Pope can sit around waiting for God to drop him a line: “yo B, teach this.”

Since God apparently possesses both the ability and intent to communicate with mankind, why does he not communicate with each of us directly, instead of going through a middle man?

He often prefers not to.

 

[Seeker2010]

Glad to see you’re making out better with Cristiano. This statement seems disingenuous to me. Do you really deny you’re attacking my faith?

If I had a desire to attack your faith, there would be little room for doubt that I were doing so. Rather, I desire to understand it, and through that, perhaps come to understand myself a bit more. Why is it that I believe what I do, when you (and others) have looked at similar data (I won’t say the same as it’s unlikely that we have studied the exact same things) and come to a very different conclusion than have I.

To claim to speak for God is extraordinary, and to me anyway, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I was trying to ascertain what, if any, evidence exists to verify that the words credited to God. It seems at the end of the day that very little really does.

I will give you another question I have. I have no idea if this is true or not, perhaps you do. However, if it is true that would tend to cast doubt on the underlying foundation of Christianity, and if pointing out something that contra-indicates Christianity as truth is considered an attack, so be it, but in this case I truly am but a messenger.

It is said that the first five books of the bible were written by Moses, the man who lead the Israelites out of Egypt. It is also said that they were originally written in Hebrew. Are both of those statements accurate as you understand things to be?

If so, please explain how, as Moses did not speak Hebrew. He was Egyptian.

Apparently yes, you understand C correctly, but his understanding is not quite correct.

Perhaps ya’ll should get your story straight internally before declaring to the rest of us that your truth is true, your church is infallible, and any other interpretation is by definition false. It would seem truth isn’t quite so inherently obvious after all. Yes, that’s a bit snippy, I’ll acknowledge that, but one thing that annoys me when it comes to exploring items of a religious nature is asking a question and getting different answers from people who are supposedly ‘in the know’.

 

[Betterave]

If I had a desire to attack your faith, there would be little room for doubt that I were doing so. Rather, I desire to understand it, and through that, perhaps come to understand myself a bit more. Why is it that I believe what I do, when you (and others) have looked at similar data (I won’t say the same as it’s unlikely that we have studied the exact same things) and come to a very different conclusion than have I.

What do you mean by ‘attack’? When you attempt to make arguments (albeit fallacious and ill-informed ones) undermining my faith, I call that attacking my faith. It seems blindingly obvious and there is no room for doubt as far as I’m concerned. Are you using the term in some special sense I’m not familiar with?

Go ahead and attack, that’s not a bad thing - but please try to realize that you need to be prepared to undergo a cross-examination. That means you need to answer questions too.

To claim to speak for God is extraordinary, and to me anyway, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I was trying to ascertain what, if any, evidence exists to verify that the words credited to God. It seems at the end of the day that very little really does.

Why does it seem that way? Based on what? Talk about jumping to conclusions!

I will give you another question I have. I have no idea if this is true or not, perhaps you do. However, if it is true that would tend to cast doubt on the underlying foundation of Christianity, and if pointing out something that contra-indicates Christianity as truth is considered an attack, so be it, but in this case I truly am but a messenger.

It is said that the first five books of the bible were written by Moses, the man who lead the Israelites out of Egypt. It is also said that they were originally written in Hebrew. Are both of those statements accurate as you understand things to be?

If so, please explain how, as Moses did not speak Hebrew. He was Egyptian.

I don’t know what you think you’re a messenger of… It’s fine to share the idiosyncratic misconceptions you’ve picked up from goodness knows where and have them corrected, but that doesn’t make you a messenger.

To your two statements, no, they are not accurate.

Perhaps ya’ll should get your story straight internally before declaring to the rest of us that your truth is true, your church is infallible, and any other interpretation is by definition false. It would seem truth isn’t quite so inherently obvious after all. Yes, that’s a bit snippy, I’ll acknowledge that, but one thing that annoys me when it comes to exploring items of a religious nature is asking a question and getting different answers from people who are supposedly ‘in the know’.

This is really ridiculous. Maybe you should get your external story straight before making silly straw man arguments!? We’re all on the journey, bro, none of us has perfect knowledge, we just do our best to correct each other when we can and to help each other to grow. Did you really expect to find that every Catholic should understand their faith perfectly? Sorry, that’s not the case - but why on earth would you have expected it to be?

 

[Cristiano]

Apparently yes, you understand C correctly, but his understanding is not quite correct. The Pope is not merely the messenger - that’s what Mohammed is supposed to have been, as I’ve already pointed out, but that is not how the Church views the Pope.

These communications happen by virtue of the due diligence of the Pope in investigating such matters using the natural light of his reason, informed by the faith handed down from the apostles, as well as relying, of course, on the promptings of the Holy Spirit (but that’s something anyone can do). The charism of infallibility merely ensures that in very particular circumstances the Pope will not teach error. It does not imply that the Pope can sit around waiting for God to drop him a line: “yo B, teach this.”

He often prefers not to.

Can you please explain what I do not understand!
Are you saying that the Pope is not driven by the Holy Spirit when he makes infallible statements?
Are you saying that those statement just come out of his own works?
Are you saying that reason is sufficient without special graces of the Holy Spirit in order to make infallible statements?
How does the charisma of infallibility operates to “merely” ensure that the Pope will not teach error?
Is the movement of the Spirit controlled by the Pope’s wants?
Do we have infallible statements from every Pope, if not then why?
Do you have an issue with the term messenger? To evangelize is to be a messenger for the good news and it can come in different forms. I completely agree with you that the way the Pope is a messenger for God it is quite different from the way Mohamed is viewed in Islam.

 

[Cristiano]

…Perhaps ya’ll should get your story straight internally before declaring to the rest of us that your truth is true, your church is infallible, and any other interpretation is by definition false. It would seem truth isn’t quite so inherently obvious after all. Yes, that’s a bit snippy, I’ll acknowledge that, but one thing that annoys me when it comes to exploring items of a religious nature is asking a question and getting different answers from people who are supposedly ‘in the know’.

I think that here you are going off the tangent based on some internet explanations to make it easier for you to understand about Papal infallibility. We have our story straight internally. However, we are trying to make it simpler in such a way it can be somehow explained to you. If you want the whole information we can just give you link to the Church documents that will give all the details of what we accept. Yes, the Pope can be infallible and any interpretation that contradicts his statements are obviously false. Some Truth are more obvious than others depending on how formed your conscience is, how much you use your reason, and how informed you are. However; none of these conditions make it more or less true. If you want to have answers in a complete form then go to the Vatican website and study the documents. If you are willing to get answers as a starting point to better understand the Church come to CAF. If you are men of reason you can easily understand that different communication styles are used for different audiences. The same person can give a simpler message to children by delivering the basics and leaving out some other fundamental information that would only confuse the listeners. The same person would use all the information when communicating to a more educated audience.

 

[Seeker2010]

When you attempt to make arguments undermining my faith, I call that attacking my faith.

So be it. But if you ignore arguments that are accurate, then your faith is blind. If that is what you desire, it’s your call.

It seems blindingly obvious and there is no room for doubt as far as I’m concerned.

If you have examined doubts and rejected them with well thought out analysis that’s one thing, if you reject them because, well, they just can’t be true, that’s quite another.

That means you need to answer questions too.

More than happy to.

Why does it seem that way? Based on what? Talk about jumping to conclusions!

Based on the fact that you’re telling me that truth is ‘revealed’ through the Holy Spirit, but you are not able to provide evidence to that effect. We must simply take the word of these men who claim to speak for God. No documentation, no chain of evidence. Just “I was inspired by the Holy Spirit, therefore you must do (or not do) X because God has ruled”. I’ve met people who claim to speak for God, most of them live in the subway.

To your two statements, no, they are not accurate.

Then what is?

Did you really expect to find that every Catholic should understand their faith perfectly? Sorry, that’s not the case - but why on earth would you have expected it to be?

Well, because you’ve claimed your faith is infallible, and infallible is infallible.

 

[Seeker2010]

If you want the whole information we can just give you link to the Church documents that will give all the details of what we accept.

Before you do that, you’ll need to convince me as to why said documents are authoritative. Your religion demands many strange things, and claims that it’s because God demands them. If that is a true statement, well, who in their right mind is gonna mess with the almighty. That said, I am more inclined to believe that most, if not all of the demands of your religion have nothing whatsoever to do with God, instead they are rules of men designed to control other men, and I owe no allegiance to men that have not given any cause for such allegiance.

 

[Cristiano]

Before you do that, you’ll need to convince me as to why said documents are authoritative. Your religion demands many strange things, and claims that it’s because God demands them. If that is a true statement, well, who in their right mind is gonna mess with the almighty. That said, I am more inclined to believe that most, if not all of the demands of your religion have nothing whatsoever to do with God, instead they are rules of men designed to control other men, and I owe no allegiance to men that have not given any cause for such allegiance.

I have the impression that you are not acting with intellectual honesty.
1- You want to know what the Church teaches.
2- We give you general answers
3- You do not like them and ask for details
4- We tell you to read the documents of the Church to avoid confusion due to our summaries
5- You say that you do not believe the documents of the Church. That means that you do not believe that what the Church states is also what the Church teaches. This is nothing to do with authority, this is just about documentation of a beliefs.

From you behaviors you show that you already decided that you are not going to even listen to what the Church teaches and that is fine with me. However, do not build a catch 22 to justify your choice. You do not owe me any explanation just do not tell me that you are willing to understand.

 

[Cristiano]

So be it. But if you ignore arguments that are accurate, then your faith is blind…

The arguments that you presented are not accurate. Betterhave addressed them by simply calling them fallacies, you did not like it and now you are doing the same with him. As I mentioned in my previous post that is not a sincere offer to try to move on in a debate.

…Based on the fact that you’re telling me that truth is ‘revealed’ through the Holy Spirit, but you are not able to provide evidence to that effect. We must simply take the word of these men who claim to speak for God. No documentation, no chain of evidence. Just “I was inspired by the Holy Spirit, therefore you must do (or not do) X because God has ruled”. I’ve met people who claim to speak for God, most of them live in the subway…

There is plenty of documentation. You look for chain of evidence as an empiricist and that too is a philosophy based on some fundamental beliefs; however, that philosophy denies the validity of beliefs in its argumentation. You are just saying that you do not take the work of people when talking about the Holy Spirit. You claim to discern and there is nothing wrong with that; however, I can bet that you take the word of so many called scientist because they tell you (without showing it) that they have a chain of evidence.

You have your beliefs and you made your choices. You do not owe us any justification; however, do not use self contradicting statements when debating, because your ideas might be right but your arguments cannot prove it so.

 

[Anti_Religion]

Hey, I am writing a paper on the the problem of hell and wold like to hear your opinions/ answers on this “problem”, (anihilationism): We are finite beings and therefore can only sin a finite amount. So our temporal sins can only warrant a temporal punishment. Therefore, If God is all just, then hell cannot be eternal. This annihilationist view is held by Seventh day Adventists and Jehovah Witnesses. It must be admitted that this is, at least at first glance, a powerful argument. God could damn people for aeons and aeons and then annihilate them instead of damning them for eternity.

• Thanks in advance!

The burden is on them to prove that there is a problem with hell, we are finite, and God is not just because the Bible states the very opposite. We are infinite beings, most people will be in hell and God is just for doing so because He is just in punishing anyone who violates His standards, which is everyone and He determines what is just because He is the Creator of everything.

If you think about what hell is; it is separation from God by choice; so if someone rejects Jesus by choice knowing the two possibilities, which is heaven or hell, then how is He unjust by allowing themselves to be separated - it would be unjust to force them to be with Him when they did not want to be with Him in the first place. In other words they got or get what they asked for.

 

[Betterave]

The arguments that you presented are not accurate. Betterhave addressed them by simply calling them fallacies, you did not like it and now you are doing the same with him. As I mentioned in my previous post that is not a sincere offer to try to move on in a debate.

Sorry for insisting on a trivial point, but I did NOT simply call Seeker’s arguments fallacies. I identified which fallacies particular arguments that he made committed. Big difference!

Then, in his great intellectual honesty, Seeker feels inspired to point out to me:

“But if you ignore arguments that are accurate, then your faith is blind. If that is what you desire, it’s your call.”

Seeker, please man, you’re killing me: a fallacious argument based on false premises IS NOT AN ACCURATE ARGUMENT! Therefore your arguments are not accurate! What is the point of *pretending *to know what logical fallacies are and why you should not commit them? You obviously don’t!

Jesus said to them: “If you were blind, you should not have sin. But now you say: ‘We see,’ your sin remains.” (Jn 9, 41)
(What?! Could that be Jesus, in the Bible, talking about what sounds like the notion of invincible ignorance? YES!)

Here’s one of the not-so-commonly referred to logical fallacies which you’re also certainly committing:

“The Invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive Fallacy of Circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It’s not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue.”

 

[Betterave]

Can you please explain what I do not understand!
Are you saying that the Pope is not driven by the Holy Spirit when he makes infallible statements?
Are you saying that those statement just come out of his own works?
Are you saying that reason is sufficient without special graces of the Holy Spirit in order to make infallible statements?
How does the charisma of infallibility operates to “merely” ensure that the Pope will not teach error?
Is the movement of the Spirit controlled by the Pope’s wants?
Do we have infallible statements from every Pope, if not then why?
Do you have an issue with the term messenger? To evangelize is to be a messenger for the good news and it can come in different forms. I completely agree with you that the way the Pope is a messenger for God it is quite different from the way Mohamed is viewed in Islam.

I understand that you were presenting a simplified answer in the hopes that it would be helpful to Seeker, but I think that strictly speaking you didn’t really answer some of his questions.

On infallibility, my understanding is that the Church clearly teaches what I stated, in particular, that infallibility is a negative charism, in that it *prevents *the pope from teaching error. In order to make positive statements the Pope has to do his homework and consultation just like anyone else, he can’t just pick up the God-phone and ask God directly the answer to some question (at least that’s not essential to the charism). I don’t think that was obvious in your response.

Messenger isn’t necessarily a bad term, but “just a messenger” is misleading, for the reasons cited above. ‘Messenger’ has overly passive connotations, to my mind, and seems likely to encourage some of the gross misconceptions Seeker obviously has.