PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

[Daniel Marsh]

I was training to be a Rabbi. 

[JimmyB]

I don't know how or why the discussion has strayed so far from the OP: Papal infallibility.  Personally I have no further interest in whether a Jew is ostracized by her/his congregation.  S/he is not truly dead, even if s/he is regarded as such.  And as the parable clearly shows, the son being dead is not to be taken literally.

I'm done discussing this side discussion.

[Daniel Marsh]

On 9/9/2023 at 10:01 AM, JimmyB said:

I don't know how or why the discussion has strayed so far from the OP: Papal infallibility.  Personally I have no further interest in whether a Jew is ostracized by her/his congregation.  S/he is not truly dead, even if s/he is regarded as such.  And as the parable clearly shows, the son being dead is not to be taken literally.

I'm done discussing this side discussion.

I never said the son being dead is   to be taken literally.  James 2:26 defines death as seperation. 

[Daniel Marsh]

Back to front page topic.

When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called "infallible" and the teaching which he articulates is termed "irreformable".

Papal Infallibility | EWTN

 

Infallibility is not something belonging to the pope alone, but a charism of the entire church.

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2022/09/26/explainer-rausch-infallibility-history-243818

 

ME: Rather than building snowpeople and strawmen, we need to properly understand what our Catholic Brothern understand it to be.

 Papal infallibility does not operate in a vacuum but is connected with wider issues of religious epistemology. While most believers, one assumes, entertain doubts from time to time about their faith ( fides qua), what they have faith in must be perduringly true ( fides in). https://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/08/shades-of-infallibility

Googled  Papal Infallibility not in a vaculum

 

 

 

 

[Big Boy Stan Murf]

No matter how we slice it... one cannot get to Heaven thru the catholic church since they don't teach the Doctrine of Christ.

2 John 1:9-11
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.



 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Stan Murff

[Daniel Marsh]

rth

[Never Alone]

Growing up as a young man I had Roman Catholic friends, together we worked at jobs, some friends would go to the gym with me,  go running, exercising, hiking or exploring and we had many talks and discussions about many things.

I found sweeping amazement in how a few of my Catholic acquaintances were openly overwhelmed with inquisitive curiosity, questioning and seeking answers from me about my own faith when they perceived that I seemed to have morals in my life in how I did not fornicate, my language, my honesty and moral outlook   -   just basic overall conduct in the way I lived my life and church attendance.

I was not in any way a perfect Christian, I did have faults, I made mistakes but in my life and behavior there was something that my Catholic friends noticed and identified my behavior to the fact that I would often be seen busy and occupied reading and studying the scriptures and making notes.

The time I spent reading the Bible was always to my Catholic friends openly discussed with me honestly admitting that my trust, conviction dependence and confidence in the scriptures was something that needed questioned as curiously odd or as a questionable strangeness, unnatural, new and unexplored   -     {   as if this was uncharted, unfamiliar territory    }   -  that they wanted to know and understand and fully grasp / comprehend   -   from my perspective.

My Catholic friends deeply longed with desire in their spirit to test, examine and experiment with the way I explained and clarified and described my faith.

I noticed over time that there was one thing that all of my Catholic friends would always repeatedly revert back to with each discussion and that one thing was the question as to  how  I  perceived  the  scripture  and  applied  it  to  my  understanding transferred as identification within myself as  “    individuality   “  and my own character and faith within the literal pages of scripture.

My very trust, conviction dependence and confidence that was perceive for my striving to understand and apply the things within the scriptures was the one thing that always seemed to Catholics as something that was missing,  incomplete,  irrelevant unsuitability and emptiness at each step of the way,  that was being translated and understood to my Catholic friends,   for them  -    as humorous amusement,  humorous shuck,  

 

The Catholic always defaulted to a mode or internal default setting that  was expressed as ingrained default expressed as a modified form of stunted laughter     {   comical  conclusion  for  the  soul  }      

this  was  expressed  and  perceived  for  them  as  a  form  of   modified  quiet  laughter   {  respectful   }   but  yet  inwardly  they  felt a  need  to  see  this  as  a  friendly  clown  or  entertainer  reading  a  book  that  they   had  begun  asking  about, seriously  questioning,  wanting  to  know  the  scripture   -    seeking  to  understand  and  comprehend  as  if   they  did  not  know  what  was  contained  in   scripture  for  the  faith  I  held.

  The  actual  conclusion  after  literally  reading  scripture  was  perceived  as application  for  what  they  valued,  prized,  honored,  venerated  and  accepted   -        as  chain  of  command  for  them  in  moral  code,  salvation  and  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  the  Anointing.

but  there  was the incomplete scripture command      -  and  -     on the other side       -    Pope, Priests, Confession and Catholic tradition command.

 

I  am  explaining  all  of  this  because  the  information  contained  in  the  scriptures  for  the  Roman  Catholic  Faith  is  defined,   known  and  understood  to  the  Catholic  as   “  Tradition  “   passed  down  from  the  viewpoint  and   application  of   tradition,  TRENDS,  folklore,  development  of  practices,  routines  of  habit  and  not  something  that  is  complete and  explained  and  fulfilled  within  the  satisfaction  of  scriptures.

 There  is  a  need  to   express  and  justify   and  rationalize   why   the   Scripture  is  not  presented  as  satisfaction  for  vindicating  Roman  Catholicism   

This goes to the very heart of the  Roman  Catholic  faith

 CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ~ SECOND EDITION  

  # 78 -  teaches that   -   The living transmission, of the message of God accomplished by the Holy Spirit,   -     is  called  Tradition.

 and # 95 -  It  is  clear ......   Sacred  Scripture and  the  Magisterium  of  the  Church   are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the other.

if      "  Magisterium  of  the  Church   "   and  its   "   Catholic.   Tradition  "    are  fully accomplishing and completing the living transmission, of the message of God accomplished by the Holy Spirit, -     within  the  Tradition

why would anyone even need to even possess or ever read a bible  ?

 the  message  of  God  accomplished  by  the  Holy  Spirit,   -      is  called   Tradition   -       -    Tradition  has  accomplished  and  completed  everything  that  God  intends  to  message  for  all  mankind

Rome  has  never  openly consistently  encouraged  nor  overly   taught  that  anyone  should  read  the  bible  to  know  and  understand  the  message of God,  but  it  teaches that  reading  the  bible  is  the  same  as   Tradition  and  Magisterium  of  the  Roman  Church.    -   

   tradition  is  taught  as  the  fulfilment   and   accomplished  completion  of  everything  that  God  intends  to  message  for  all  mankind  and   that  the  Church  cannot  stand  without  the  bible

very   confusing,  in  light  of  the  fact  that  the  bible  is  not  a  book  about  traditions,   in  fact  the  bible  is  a  book  that  opposes  and  condemns  traditions,  commanding  abstaining  and  avoiding  and  rejecting  traditions  and  being  separated  and  detached   from  traditions.

If the  Magisterium  of  the  Church  cannot  stand  without  the  bible

  can  the  Bible  be  understood   without  the  Church  traditions    -   ?

Edited September 30, 2023 by Never Alone

[IgnatioDeLoyola]

On 4/10/2018 at 2:55 AM, KiwiChristian said:

Answer: The apostles never regarded any man to be infallible. Only the Word of God is regarded as without error.

Dear Kiwi Christian,

Thanks for posting about this. However, you do seem to be slightly confused doctrinally. 

You are right that no man could possibly be infallible save our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Knowing that Peter was a sinner (and had very recently proved it!), and that every man is a sinner, Jesus was aware that His Church, and its temporal leader on earth (Peter and his successors) would make mistakes.

However, he nevertheless wished the Church to be both united (be one, holy, and universal church), and for the Church to have authority in teaching about faith, scripture, etc. This is why he made Peter the temporal leader of the Church (even though Jesus himself is the spiritual and eternal head).

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:18-19

In the first part of this statement, Jesus gives Peter authority over the church. But in the second part, he also makes a unique promise - that whatever Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Then in Acts 1:20-26 Peter establishes apostolic succession - which is the first time he "uses" this power given him by Jesus - to bind something on earth (the succession of the disciple's apostolates) so that it is bound in heaven. This is how we have had an unbroken succession of Peters, from Simon to Francis.

The question then becomes: what is Peter gets something wrong? We know the original Peter did (Paul had to correct him with regards to circumcision for example). God may guide Peter (and He does) - but at one point or other, Peter will nevertheless err as a sinful human being.

The answer, for me, is simple: that God will make it right in heaven, even if it is wrong. If people follow the teachings of Peter faithfully, even if they are not quite right, God will credit them with righteousness through their faith, as he did Abraham.

That is, it is MORE important to God that there is a central authority that everyone can agree on and look to, than that this central authority is always right. God hates the Church splitting apart into many pieces, which is why he established one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church through Peter, to save us from heresy and infighting. So, he puts Peter in charge, helps him with the holy spirit, and where he errs he makes it right in heaven. 

This is also why, btw, we have one bible (because the Pope convened bishops around the world to decide what should go into the bible and what books should not) - one creed (because the Pope called the Council of Nicaea to decide upon a universal statement of faith and combat gnostic heresies) - one set of sacraments reserved for particular circumstances, etc.

On 4/10/2018 at 2:55 AM, KiwiChristian said:

The following events from history show the error of papal infallibility.

None of these examples speak to Papal Infallibility, which only relates to ex-cathedra statements, to the whole church, on matters of faith and belief. These are understandably rare.

Hope this helps brother,

N

[Never Alone]

 

to  . 

to  friend     -    IgnatioDeLoyola

 

If Jesus would had used sign language or even a picture diagram to express to Peter his message  -  the Greek manuscripts transmit this message to the reader that Peter was described as a  small  stone to  build  upon the revelation Peter received and this revelation  is  the  ROCK  upon  which---      The  Assembly  Of   God  Is  Built  Upon .

 

Peter perfectly understood the message of Jesus to write in Greek   -  1Pe 1:1

 

   :1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

:5 You  also,    AS    LIVING    STONES,    -   YOU  ALSO    -   are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood

 

                       There is  NOT  a  single shred  of  any  evidence  that  the  Roman  Catholic  can  provide  to   ALSO   show  that  Jesus or his followers spoke  Aramaic

IN  FACT  when  Rome crucified Jesus,   Pontius Pilate  had  a  literal sign made  and  the  sign  he wrote  the  words

"  JESUS  OF  NAZARETH  THE  KING  OF  THE  JEWS  "    

  

Pilot  wanted  every  single  last  Jew,  Greek  and  Italian  to  read,  know  and  understand  that  he  had  sentenced  to  death 
THE  KING  OF  THE  JEWS 

 

Pilot did not write this message in   ARAMAIC,  it  would  have  been  meaningless  and  a  waste  of  time,                   Aramaic  was not a common language among any significant number of people near Jesus  - 

Hebrew was the language they all understood

 

Joh 19:20  This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in HEBREW,   AND   GREEK,   AND   LATIN. 

 

All of the evidence demonstrates that Jesus and his followers  spoke  HEBREW  and  that  GREEK  was  a  language  of  the  educated Jews,

When Paul addressed the crowd of  HEBREW  people mixed among foreigners  who  were  Greeks  and  Romans   he spoke directly to address the  Hebrews  in  the  mixed crowd -      "  IN   THE   HEBREW  TONGUE   "      (Acts 21:40)

 

 :40      And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence,   HE  SPAKE  UNTO  THEM  IN  THE  HEBREW  TONGUE

 

..  in    the book of   Act 26:14  we hear   JESUS    speaking to PAUL  out of  the heavens.

Paul  said     I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying "  IN   THE   HEBREW  TONGUE E    ",   ---  

 

  JESUS  FROM   HEAVEN  SPOKE  IN  HEBREW    

In fact Aramaic was not the spoken language of the day.

From the ancient world we have  over  215  different  variety  of  thousands  of  coins  from  the  first century  period, during the time of Yahashua, of all of these thousands of coins   {  OVER    215  different varieties of coins  "  "  {   thousands of coins  }  " "  we know that only  a  single  1   of those coins is inscribed with  ARAMAIC   -  And only one side of this single coin that was found  -   is in Aramaic

As if this one single coin inscribed in  ARAMAIC  was  introduce  as  practical  joke  because the Jews did not commonly speak  ARAMAIC  nor  did they commonly use  ARAMAIC  in  their  writings  nor upon  anything  that held any significance for public consumption  - there are thousands of coins inscribed with    ARAMAIC    from the region of Arabia, it is most likely that of  the    215   variety  of  thousands  of  coins  inscribed with  Hebrew    -  this   single  1  coin  in  ARAMAIC  was  brought  into  Israel  from  the  region  of  Arabian.

 

Jews would have no reason to make coins inscribed with    ARAMAIC   -   they spoke Hebrew

Every  single time throughout History when the Jews are forced to convert their coinage and money system over to who has conquered and defeated them they always find that Hebrew was the only language inscribed on their coins.

 

Just look at the website.   http://www.josephus.org/coins.htm

Aramaic was never dominantly spoken as a language in Israel and Aramaic has  NEVER  ADVANCED  INTO  MODERN  WORLD  because it never was a part of the modern world at any time through history .    Aramaic can be used  as nothing more but as  a bridge language to aid in different middle eastern dialects to understand one another  -  nothing more.    

We have the huge amount of dead sea scrolls    40,000  scrolls and fragments in the dead sea scrolls from the first century period.

Of the  40,000 scrolls and fragments in the dead sea scrolls -  HOW  MANY  DO  YOU  THINK  WERE  IN  THE  ARAMAIC.  

  ONE   SINGLE   SOLITARY   SCROLL   AND   JUST   A   FEW   SMALL  TINY  FRAGMENTS   -  the other    39,999     dead sea scrolls   are  in  Hebrew

THE  ARAMIAC  HOAX  -   has been  the  PAGAN   CATHOLIC  /  ISLAMIC   attempt by Muslims,  Catholics and  even   uneducated   Trinitarians and the  surrounding  pagan  nations  of Israel trying to  hijack  and  pervert the  Hebrew  language..

 

instead   of   trusting  in  God  who  wrote  the  scriptures  in   Hebrew,,,  they   pretend that a slang  mockery called Aramaic for  Jews is how that the Manuscripts are to be   RE  -  interpreted  and  interpolated.....   No one  speaks  Aramaic today  and expects  to  communicate  with  anyone  but  a  clown  act on  Lysergic Acid Diethylamide or someone trying to imitate someone who has a speech impediment.

 

A  Catholic  or a Muslim or a  uninformed  innocent  blessed   Trinitarian will forever try to  prop  up a   pitch  and  chuck  out  language  with a  pitch  and  chuck  out  religious  theology  with  pitch  and  chuck  translations.   In fact any  Jew  speaking to  one  another  in  the  heart  of  Israel  in Aramaic  as  a  daily  language would have been the unfortunate product of a very poor education.

 

 

[Never Alone]

. 

my  Catholic  and  Islamic  friendly  distant  servants   of  Allah  -  children  also  -    of   Spiritual   Father    Mohammud's   prophecy,  revelation  and  spiritual  claims.....

 

my  precocious  innocent  Trinitarian   friends   - 

please  join   me  in  transmitting  the  facts

Edited October 7, 2023 by Never Alone