R
rinnie
Guest
Who ever said that the Pope instituted infallability in another Pope. It was Jesus Christ who instituted Infallibility in the Church which is taught by the Pope and Bishops. Again read acts its in there.
- Status
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Rinnie,
Well said!
God bless
Well said!
God bless
Simple because in Matt 18:18 Jesus gives the Apostles the power to legislate. If this was not needed why did he do it?
Matt 18:17 Jesus gives the APOSTLES the power to discipline. (where did Jesus give this power to you?)
1 Cor 11:24 Jesus five the APOSTLES the power to offer sacrifice? Where is your power to offer sacrifice.
John 20:23 Jesus gives the APOSTLES the power to forgive sin, Can you forgive my sin and offer me absolution for my sin. Can you bind on earth what is bound in heaven?
Now you show me. Oh and remember SCRIPTURE PLEASE
D
dyluck
Guest
Thanks tqualey! I truly respect your responces. I may not come across as I intend; however, you are coming across soft.
I do have a problem, however, with the statement above. Catholics believe implicitly that Peter (who wasn’t infallable) headed the church. I know there is probably 50 million topics on this subject but wanted to throw in my 2 cents.
Cent #1. Peter (name meaning little rock) wasn’t a cornerstone or leader of the church. Christ is mentioned many times as taking that position. I believe that “you are peter, and on this rock i will build my church.” Is not taken by catholics in the right context if you compare it to everywhere else in scripture about the foundation rock of Christ. Lets also observe his name. Jesus renames his deciples. Simon is now addressed as Peter. The previous verse indicates his name change; hence the “you are peter” the proclimation of Peter. “The on this rock I will build my church” I believe is in reference the key context in the two previous versus that Christ is the Son of God and that it was a revalation of the Father (election) to reveal himself to whom he pleases. Verse 20 indicates that Jesus wasn’t addressing just Peter at verse 19 but addressing his diciples altogether.
Cent #2. Peter’s ministry, indicated by his writings in the bible and affirmed by Paul, was clearly for and directed to the Jews and not the Gentiles. If you were to place anyone in a papal spot, Rome being the main church, Paul is far more closer to the church builder / head of the growth of churches across the Greek/Roman/Asian empire then Peter was. This in itself discounts Peter being the first head of the church.
Ok, first Peter leading those who want to follow Christ away from him. One must understand what the verse above it says. If God chooses to reveal himself, Peter is therefore made new in God and the promise is “he who started a good work in you will finish it”. This doesn’t mean that Peter is perfect and Peter did sin, make mistakes and even denied his Savior 3 times. Now the thing is, I have no ability to declair Peter saved. The only person or the only one with the authority to Judge is God. So, you weren’t there with Peter, how do you know ? How do you know your Pope is saved? You don’t know, only God is the judge of that. If he is saved, does then the pope not still carry a body of flesh in which sin wages war ?
Part of some of this statment was addressed in the last statment. Let me ask you something, by what ability or authority do you have to enter heaven and by what ability do you have to commune with God? If you answer through the Pope, or Peter perhaps, then you are missing the big picture that Christ’s death and resurection was to re-establish communion with God and for the first time in human history Jesus (as the 100% man part) stood at the gates of heaven and the ancient doors were opened to men. The Keys, by the authority in Christ and by the merit of his perfect life made us righeous and justified before a holy God; hence that power and dominion of heaven and the promises we can now share in and have power in.
Thank you for making me read chapters! this really indicates that you want to see the big picture in context. Not finding many of those these days
Narrowing down on circumcision, Peter never made a decision. The apostles (along with Peter) discussed the question. Peter is confirming and enforcing the teachings of Christ. Circumcision falls into the Jewish law “custom taught by Moses” of the old laws. The baptism of the holy spirit is the new circumcision. This is only given to us by God for God. Peter was making a point that the Jews, stuck in their old ways really had a hard time coming to terms with the freedom of the new covenant. There was no need for old practices of merit but the resurrection of the dead (baptism of the holy spirit/regeneration) and the Christ’s propitiation. The final sacrifice. This topic could have very well been about sacrificing lambs. There was certanly a trust issue breaking free from the old to the new here.
God Bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Dyluck,
It is considered appropriate to supply reference sources for the statements you are attributing to Catholic teaching. Let’s make a list so as to keep everything straight.
It is considered appropriate to supply reference sources for the statements you are attributing to Catholic teaching. Let’s make a list so as to keep everything straight.
1.) Catholics say that their church is infalable
2.) …that their teachers are infallible like the pope.
3.)… In terms of the bride of Christ, the redeemed are concidered infallable or righteous;
4.) … however, the men who make up the church still housed in a body of sin.
The bride is infallable in God’s eyes but the man is still subject to sin and decipt. Thats why the bible says “test the spirit” and that people “flock to teachers who tickle their ears” Curious if these teachers are infallable too…
, Now, this is where things get a bit confused in the presentation you have made. All of the people on earth are totally involved in human nature. This means that each and every one is quite fallable, prone to sin and deceit. Yep - all the effects of Original Sin. Hopefully, this clears the air!
The distinction you failed to make is that Holy Spirit is guiding the Catholic Church so that the Gates of Hell do not prevail against it (teaching error would be a pretty good indication that Hell has prevailed!) Check out Matt 16 for the scriptural basis.
They had the laying on of hands. That, of course, means nothing as we read in Hebrews 6 and 10. Because someone laid hands on you or prayed for you doens’t mean you are now infallable. Litterally if you think something is coming from the holy spirit you better make sure what you are being taught is 100% biblical. I believe you are right about this…!
The holy spirit will not introduce new thigs not founded or supported in the teaching of Christ and the bible guaranteed.
Really? Then what do you think Christ meant when in John 16:12-14
**12 "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. 14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. **
Note: the Spirit will guide the Church to all truth - is was not promised to be presented as a completed package wrapped neatly with a bow. It is a gradual process - with God providing the Truth as He Wills to release it to us. Since Christ promised Peter that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against The Chruch of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church) then those instruments established by the Catholic Church - its teaching authority, the Magisterium, could not teach error.
5.) So, that said, the “cannon” that has been continiously changed and added to.
I read about many practices and doctrine you do not find in the bible.
Did you also read in Matt 16 what Peter bound or unbound on earth was bound or unbound in heaven?
The only thing infallably writ is the Word of God itself.
Actually, you have created quite a problem for youself. You see, the Bible (well, the abridged form of the Bible you are holding) Comes directly from the Catholic Church about 400AD. Not from Luther in the 16th Century.
So this is why you don’t blindly follow a religion and priests but test it against scripture.
And, that would be the Scripture brought to you courtesy of the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church.
It seems nowadays so many people are testing scripture against ritual and man made rules. Unfortunatly so many people Catholics and protestants allike are throwing out truth for lies because the God of the Bible is a fiend of Self (which includes works that one can boast about).
And who is it that is determining this ‘truth’ that is being thrown out? You claim the Bible is the sole authority - but, look at its origin and note the primary role of the Catholic Church. You really can’t discredit the Church that gave you the Bible without discrediting the Bible it gave you - even in its abridged form!
God bless
D
dyluck
Guest
Never said the man doing the writing was infallable obviously. The pope is a man and the pope sins. There is no one on the face of this earth that does not sin. The pope may or may not sin less then others but he is not free from sin until he is gone.
The bible was written infallable and inspired by God. If the word of God is fallable even a smigg, then this whole argument is bunk because God is a liar and not infinitely holy.
The Word, also being Jesus, is infallable. The only infallable person to have ever walked this earth was Jesus Christ. So the text you read in the bible is infallable not the people who wrote it. Also, he who reads the bible is fallable and therefore the bible can and is interperted wrong many times. Hence discussions like this.
Now here is your argument right? Well then, if the bible itself is inspired and written by man as infallable, then the Pope can create cannon and it is therefore declaired infallable and directly from God.
My question is, who then questions the pope? Is his teaching not questioned and grinded against the holy bible?
Here are instances of ex cathedra in action: (found on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility)
“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical; <— Too Close to Reformed Theology?.. The protestants at least had a court in which there was large group of people who battled the dogmas of the 5 points of Arminianism. There was never a single person who pulled rank and declaired these critial doctrines to be followed or not followed.
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical; ← Same as above
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
Munificentissimus Deus, <— I honestly didn’t realize that the few times that the Pope engaged his right of infallibility on Mary’s “immaculate conception”. Meaning, like Christ, she was born without sin… a catholic dogma that is challenged like crazy by protestants, a doctrine that has 0 biblical evidence and infacts blasphemes the holiness and perfections of Jesus, our lord and savior, the only one without sin. Even Mary herself declairs him her savior. And no, Jesus didn’t save her from sinning as, like you and me, she also sinned because we all have sinned and all fall short of the Glory of God.
Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary. <— an not even a shred of biblical evidence to support that either.
R
rinnie
Guest
dyluck. Let me try this again. Jesus said in the bible when the Pope and Bishops speak it is in Christ’s own voice.
Luke 10:16 Now do you see why Catholic’s do not question the Pope or the bishops?
Why do Catholic’s believe this? Simple because Jesus said so.
At Pentecost the Apostles were there and Jesus breathed on them and said Receive the Holy Spirit.
This is what Jesus said to his APOSTLES 10:21 At that very moment he rejoiced in the HOLY SPIRIT and said I give you praise Father Lord of heaven and earth for although you have HIDDEN these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike. Yes Father such has been your gracious will. All things have been Handed to me BY MY FATHER. No one knows who the SON is except the FATHER and wh othe FATHER is except the Son and ANYONE to whom the sons WISHES to REVEAL him.
TURNING to the DISCIPLES. THE DISCIPLES DYLUCK. he said in PRIVITE BlESSED ARE THE EYES THAT SEE WHAT YOU SEE, For I say many prophets and Kings desired to see WHAT YOU SEE but DID NOT SEE IT, and to HEAR what YOU HEAR but did not HEAR IT. ( see it now)
Now do you believe that Jesus had the Power to hand down what God gave him from his Father, if you do then you cannot reject his words and his teachings to the Apostles. He PROMSED them that they would HEAR, they would SEE. They were and are the chosen by God to lead the Church and always WILL BE!
Maybe you can question the Pope, and the Bishops on what GOD shows them but I never can. The Pope and the Bishops are still the God given Apostles. They have succession from the time of Peter and will until the world ends just like Jesus said!!!
Luke 10:16 Now do you see why Catholic’s do not question the Pope or the bishops?
Why do Catholic’s believe this? Simple because Jesus said so.
At Pentecost the Apostles were there and Jesus breathed on them and said Receive the Holy Spirit.
This is what Jesus said to his APOSTLES 10:21 At that very moment he rejoiced in the HOLY SPIRIT and said I give you praise Father Lord of heaven and earth for although you have HIDDEN these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike. Yes Father such has been your gracious will. All things have been Handed to me BY MY FATHER. No one knows who the SON is except the FATHER and wh othe FATHER is except the Son and ANYONE to whom the sons WISHES to REVEAL him.
TURNING to the DISCIPLES. THE DISCIPLES DYLUCK. he said in PRIVITE BlESSED ARE THE EYES THAT SEE WHAT YOU SEE, For I say many prophets and Kings desired to see WHAT YOU SEE but DID NOT SEE IT, and to HEAR what YOU HEAR but did not HEAR IT. ( see it now
)Now do you believe that Jesus had the Power to hand down what God gave him from his Father, if you do then you cannot reject his words and his teachings to the Apostles. He PROMSED them that they would HEAR, they would SEE. They were and are the chosen by God to lead the Church and always WILL BE!
Maybe you can question the Pope, and the Bishops on what GOD shows them but I never can. The Pope and the Bishops are still the God given Apostles. They have succession from the time of Peter and will until the world ends just like Jesus said!!!
R
rinnie
Guest
Now lets talk about the Blessed Mother and make it short and sweet.
The Blessed Mother was saved by GOd at the moment of her conception. Maybe you cannot accept that God saved her from sin at the moment of her conception, but we can. Maybe you cannot accept what the scripture states that Mary is FULL OF GRACE. do you know that to be FULL of God’s grace you cannot have sin. How is that possible.
The Blessed Mother was saved by GOd at the moment of her conception. Maybe you cannot accept that God saved her from sin at the moment of her conception, but we can. Maybe you cannot accept what the scripture states that Mary is FULL OF GRACE. do you know that to be FULL of God’s grace you cannot have sin. How is that possible.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Is it possible you misunderstanding of at least some of the 40,000 denomination is one of orthopraxy vs orthodoxy.
D
Dokimas
Guest
You’re mixed up. The mere men aren’t infallible. The Holy Spirit is infallible. That’s what inspiration is all about. Let me try again: inspiration is God taking fallible people and using them to bring out infallible. The poeple aren’t infallible; the message from the Holy Spirit is always infallible.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Dyluck,
Looks like you have been doing a lot of searching. Let me see if I can give you some insight into the words you have given us.
Looks like you have been doing a lot of searching. Let me see if I can give you some insight into the words you have given us.
Never said the man doing the writing was infallable obviously. The pope is a man and the pope sins. There is no one on the face of this earth that does not sin. The pope may or may not sin less then others but he is not free from sin until he is gone.
God used each of these sacred writers - with their own talents and insights and personalities to inspire them in such a way that His message got through. God is perfectly happy to work with sinful men - even those who claim to hate Him to get His message through. Goodness - God even works with the Devil. There is nothing God can not work with to get his message through. Having said this, the 4 Gospel Writers were all sinful men. But, God got His message through.
By the same token, every Pope has been a sinful man - and none of them…outdid Peter in sinning by denying Christ, Who was right there in front of him! So, from the very beginning, we have human error in the sense that personal decisions made by each and every Pope is a human decision and not infallable.
What is meant is that when the Pope is speaking from the Chair (of St. Peter) ex cathedra, he is speaking on matter of Faith or Morals - and CANNOT be in error. Why? Because either Christ knew what He was talking about when He told Peter that the Gates of Hell would not prevail - or - He was an incredible fraud. So, if you don’t like Matt 16 which established the right of Peter and by extension his successors to be keeper of the Keys, look how Peter applies it in Acts 15 when he declares that circumcision is no longer requried. Peter - not James - made that call.
Now here is your argument right? Well then, if the bible itself is inspired and written by man as infallable, then the Pope can create cannon and it is therefore declaired infallable and directly from God. My question is, who then questions the pope? Is his teaching not questioned and grinded against the holy bible?
What is critical to any understanding of this matter is a sense of time. The first book of the NT was not written until about 60AD - and the last book was written about 100AD. So, prior to 100AD there was not even a sense of what the NT was going to look like. It would take another 300 years before all the works that were examined were divided into two major categories: inspired and all other. The Pope did not ‘create’ the canon. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the Pope determined which Books were in the OT and the NT. Note, protestants removed 7 books and added none. All of the removed books were from the OT. Catholics and main line protestants have the same NT. So, where do you think the protestants got their books from?
“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon; ;
Do main line protestants believe that Christ was True God and True man? Where do you think this basic foundational item of Christian Faith came from?,
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical; <— Too Close to Reformed Theology?.. The protestants at least had a court in which there was large group of people who battled the dogmas of the 5 points of Arminianism. There was never a single person who pulled rank and declaired these critial doctrines to be followed or not followed.
If you want to know what the Catholic Chruch thinks of Jansenism, then do yourself a favor - don’t be lazy on such an important issue - and go to a Catholic site to see for yourself, instead of being told by Wiki. Here ia link: newadvent.org/cathen/08285a.htm
The rejecting concept of ‘pulling rank’ is truly classic for setting one’s self up for an major error. Ultimately, God so loved the world that He did not send a Committee to save us. Christ did not pick Committeeman, but Apostles - followers of Christ. In Matt 16 we see where Peter thought he could tell Christ what to do - and Christ shut him down and called him a devil that needed to get behind Him! The reason your are extoling the virtue of a committee in addressing the herresy of Arminianism is that is all you have. Christ did not promise the Holy Spirit to those who left His Church. And, really, this is the heart of the matter - either you follow Christ in the manner He prescribed, or you try and do something else.
Christ did not come back in the 16th Century, rip the Keys from Leo X’s hands and set the followers of Christ on an endless trail of dispute, splintering, man-made doctrine and chaos so that today we have 33,000+ splinter groups, sects, assemblies, unions, cults,etc.
Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary. <— an not even a shred of biblical evidence to support that either
You really do have a problem with Matt 16 where Peter and his successors have the power to bind and lose. So, either you take that Scripture and believe it - or you reject that Scripture… but, you do so at your own peril.
God bless
R
rinnie
Guest
Which is EXACTLY what we have been trying to tell you. Jesus promised the ADVOCATE the HOLY SPIRIT to lead the CHURCH INTO ALL TRUTH. The CHURCH is the pillar of all Truth.
But this truth can only be one truth and is led by the Apostles as God Promised. As Peter said acts 15:7 My brothers you are well aware that from the early days GOD made his CHOICE among you the THROUGH MY MOUTH THE GENTILES WOULD HEAR THE WORD OF THE GOSPEL AND BELIEVE.
Thats us buddy the gentiles
And the Apostles are infallible when they are speaking FOR GOD by the POWER of the HOLY SPRIIT. I agree it is not by their own power, and yes they can sin. But they cannot lead from the truth when they are teaching the word of God. God promised that when they are teaching in the name of Jesus Christ it will be by the Holy Spirit that they will speak. It is not their words that you hear on their lips they are Gods words, he promised us that. But he had to choose leaders to use so we would know who to obey and listen to.
If we did not need them and the Holy Spirit was to teach each of us he would never have chosen the Apostles. He could have sent the Advocate to each of us, but God did not choose it that way. He choose the Church to teach and through the lips of the Pope and bishops. Which are the Apostles of today.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Rinnie,
God bless
God bless
Which is EXACTLY what we have been trying to tell you. Jesus promised the ADVOCATE the HOLY SPIRIT to lead the CHURCH INTO ALL TRUTH. The CHURCH is the pillar of all Truth.
But this truth can only be one truth and is led by the Apostles as God Promised. As Peter said acts 15:7 My brothers you are well aware that from the early days GOD made his CHOICE among you the THROUGH MY MOUTH THE GENTILES WOULD HEAR THE WORD OF THE GOSPEL AND BELIEVE.
Thats us buddy the gentiles
And the Apostles are infallible when they are speaking FOR GOD by the POWER of the HOLY SPRIIT. I agree it is not by their own power, and yes they can sin. But they cannot lead from the truth when they are teaching the word of God. God promised that when they are teaching in the name of Jesus Christ it will be by the Holy Spirit that they will speak. It is not their words that you hear on their lips they are Gods words, he promised us that. But he had to choose leaders to use so we would know who to obey and listen to.
If we did not need them and the Holy Spirit was to teach each of us he would never have chosen the Apostles. He could have sent the Advocate to each of us, but God did not choose it that way. He choose the Church to teach and through the lips of the Pope and bishops. Which are the Apostles of today.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So what part of the Gospel of Matthew do you think is incorrect?
Yes, and what part of the teaching of infalliblity do you think says that the Pope does NOT sin?
In fact, he receives the Sacrament of Confession regularly. Clearly he’s a sinner and the CC has never said otherwise.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, and that’s very Catholic of you to say that, Dokimas!
It’s not the man, Joseph Ratzinger, who is infallible, but his office as pope. And it’s only the Holy Spirit that’s providing this infalliblity in preventing him from teaching error.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Elijah was “assumed” into heaven, was he not?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Give me an example and we can discuss.
D
dyluck
Guest
tqualey can you please quote in chunks? Its hard to respond because writing within my quote doens’t follow to the reply page. I have to go back and copy and paste everything in the reply window.
Thanks.
Thanks for the response. Im going to keep my resopnse short because I don’t feel you have really read what I wrote about Peter. And clearly the key to this discussion is “Peter” if we can get by this position you place on Peter then perhaps your thought about my view of Matt 16 would be so obscure.
Matt 16 among every other blessing of words that Jesus revealed is amazing. there is nothing I discredit in the passage except for your particular interpertation of the verse in question. Here is a previous quote from a post earlier:
D
Dokimas
Guest
We disagree.Yes, and that’s very Catholic of you to say that, Dokimas!
It’s not the man, Joseph Ratzinger, who is infallible, but his office as pope. And it’s only the Holy Spirit that’s providing this infalliblity in preventing him from teaching error.
D
Dokimas
Guest
You say they are different. Give us a ‘difference’ and we’ll discuss the ‘difference’ to see which category it falls into.
BTW, I’m going to bed. Talk later.
P
PRmerger
Guest
You think the CC says that the MAN is infallible and not the OFFICE?We disagree.
If so, please cite your source!
- Status