Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KiwiChristian

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

Recommended Posts

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY (declared in 1870 AD).

Definition: When a pope is speaking in his official position on any issue of faith or morals, he is speaking infallibly, meaning without error.

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

If Peter was pope, which the Bible says he was not, then he made mistakes as in Galatians 2:11-14 when he was deceived by Judaizers. "But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

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

1. Pope John XII, in the "Liber Pontificalis," the Catholic publication discussing the lives of the popes, states that "He spent his entire life in adultery."

2. Popes Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with papal infallibility.

3. Pope Stephen VI (896) had the dead pope Formosus (891-6) tried, questioned, fingers hacked off, dragged through Rome and thrown into the Tiber river.

4. Pope Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage to be valid, but Pope Pius VII (1800-23) declared it to be invalid.

5. Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict IV in 1919 declared her to be a saint.

6. Pope Pius XI in 1929 endorsed Fascism and called Mussolini "a man sent by God." However, before World War II, he warned people against Mussolini.

7. The Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a concordat, where the Catholic church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later on Pope Pius XI condemned Hitler.


How can a supposedly infallible man make so many errors of judgment, and even contradict other so-called infallible popes? 

Surely this disproves papal infallibility to any honest, open minded
person.

Edited by KiwiChristian
  • Thumbs Up 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,' above all in an Ecumenical Council.[LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3074.] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine 'for belief as being divinely revealed,'[DV 10 # 2.] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions 'must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.'[LG 25 # 2.] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.[Cf. LG 25.]" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 568)

It appears to be yet another case of Roman Catholic infallible doctrine conflicting with Roman Catholic infallible doctrine. What I read prompted the question: When infallible doctrines are in opposition, was either one infallible?

First some background:

The Catholic dictionary defines infallibility as:

The inability to err in teaching the truth. In theology, it refers to: 1) the Church, in that she preserves and teaches the deposit of truth as revealed by Christ; 2) the Roman Pontiff, when he teaches 'ex cathedra' in matters of faith or morals, and indicates that the doctrine is to be believed by all the faithfull; and 3) the college of bishops, when speaking in unnion with the Pope in matters of faith and morals, agreeing that a doctrine must be held by the universal Church, and the doctrine is promulgated by the Pontiff.--Peter M.J.Stravinskay, Ed., Catholic Dictionary, (c) 1997 Our Sunday Visitor, Inc.

In 1546, the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent established an "infallible" rule to be applied when interpreting Scriptures in matters of faith and morals.

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, OR EVEN CONTRARY TO THE UNANIMOUS TEACHING OF THE FATHERS, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published. Those who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law. 

This rule has not been rescinded – nor is it likely ever to be rescinded, for doing so would suggest that the Extraordinary Magisterium had made an error. In fact, it was re-iterated in the "Profession of Faith" and in the "Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith, infallible documents produced by the infallible First Vatican Council:

1. I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman church uses, namely…

2. Apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same church I most firmly accept and embrace.

3. Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.--First Vatican Council, 2nd Session, Profession of Faith, 6 January 1870 - [My emphasis)

8. Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.--First Vatican Council, 3rd Session, Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith, 24 April 1870 )

9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE FATHERS--Ibid.

So, here we have an infallible doctrine, infallibly defined by two infallible church councils (Trent and Vatican I), and infallibly promulgated by infallible popes as matters of faith or morals to be believed by all the RCC. The doctrine: no one, not even the Roman Catholic church itself, is to hold an interpretation of Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

With all these infallible declarations, one wonders that the Roman Catholic church, which preserves and teaches the "deposit of faith as revealed by Christ," should violate one of the rules she infallibly established to determine infallibility.

You see, it is a fact that the church fathers did not unanimously consent to the doctrine of infallibility as currently held and taught by the Roman church:

God alone swears securely, because HE ALONE IS INFALLIBLE.--Augustine of Hippo, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm LXXXIX, Sec. 4

Therefore, one must wonder whether the doctrine of infallibility, which does not meet it's own test of authenticity, is infallibly taught.

There is no doubt that Roman apologists will have ready defenses to explain this apparent conflict. However, the clear wording of the Councils leaves no room for equivocation: The dogma of Mary's assumption fails Rome's own test of the unanimous consent of the fathers.

When these present their charges and unsupported opinions, bear in mind the words of another church father much beloved of Rome:

Concerning the Hearers: that those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them; and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be strictly avoided.--Basil of Caesarea, Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, Ascetical Works, The Morals, Rule 72, p. 185-186.

Or, as the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.--Colossians 2:8

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pope Francis admits he made 'grave errors' in judgment in Chile's sex abuse scandal and invites the abuse victims he discredited to Rome to beg their forgiveness

  • Pope Francis wrote extraordinary letter to Chilean bishops admitting failings
  • The pontiff refused to believe a bishop he appointed covered up child sex abuse
  • Bishop Juan Barros was the protege of paedophile priest Fernando Karadima
  • The Pope maintained Barros was innocent but sent a top investigator to Chile
  • After reading the 2,300-page report he changed his position and apologised
  • He summoned all Chilean bishops to Rome for a crisis meeting to deal with it.

Full report here;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5604981/Pope-acknowledges-mistakes-Chile-sexual-abuse-crisis.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2018 at 9:55 PM, KiwiChristian said:

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY (declared in 1870 AD).

Definition: When a pope is speaking in his official position on any issue of faith or morals, he is speaking infallibly, meaning without error.

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

If Peter was pope, which the Bible says he was not, then he made mistakes as in Galatians 2:11-14 when he was deceived by Judaizers. "But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

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

1. Pope John XII, in the "Liber Pontificalis," the Catholic publication discussing the lives of the popes, states that "He spent his entire life in adultery."

2. Popes Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with papal infallibility.

3. Pope Stephen VI (896) had the dead pope Formosus (891-6) tried, questioned, fingers hacked off, dragged through Rome and thrown into the Tiber river.

4. Pope Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage to be valid, but Pope Pius VII (1800-23) declared it to be invalid.

5. Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict IV in 1919 declared her to be a saint.

6. Pope Pius XI in 1929 endorsed Fascism and called Mussolini "a man sent by God." However, before World War II, he warned people against Mussolini.

7. The Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a concordat, where the Catholic church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later on Pope Pius XI condemned Hitler.


How can a supposedly infallible man make so many errors of judgment, and even contradict other so-called infallible popes? 

Surely this disproves papal infallibility to any honest, open minded
person.

Once again I will number your points and hopefully, respond with evidence of each. BUT first I will attempt to answer the final question, born of ignorance and extreme- prejudice.

CODE OF CANON LAW {1983} BOOK III.

THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER IIIDE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI

Can. 747 §1. The Church, to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the deposit of faith so that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit it might protect the revealed truth reverentlyexamine it more closely, and proclaim and expound it faithfully, has the duty and innate rightindependent of any human power whatsoever, to preach the gospel to all peoples, also using the means of social communication proper to it.

§2. It belongs to the Church always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and To render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it.

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of Godwritten or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faithapostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faithschism is the refusal ofsubmission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinionsparticularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

Can. 755 §1. It is above all for the entire college of bishops and the Apostolic See to foster and direct among Catholics the ecumenical movement whose purpose is the restoration among all Christians of the unity which the Church is bound to promote by the will of Christ.

§2. It is likewise for the bishops and, according to the norm of law, the conferences of bishops to promote this same unity and to impart practical norms according to the various needs and opportunities of the circumstances; they are to be attentive to the prescripts issued by the supreme authority of the Church. END QUOTES

SUMMARY OF ABOVE:

Canon #749

Infallible pronouncements MUST:

1 Be on Faith and or Morals ONLY

2 Be declared to be an Infallible Pronouncement

3. Has to be done and identified from the “Chair of Peter”

4 Is Proclaimed to be “a definitive pronouncement” on this PRECISE issue of Faith or Morals. END

Hence numbers, 1a, definition is incorrect & 1b,3,4,6,&7 simply DO NOT qualify by definition as a “Infallible Pronouncement”

 

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

Ahhhh, not exactly true:

1 Like the words bible and purgatory are not found in the Bible; Infallibility was a recognized thing; just not articulated in this precise manner.
 

The example of Paul correcting Peter is correct; BUT not relevant to this issue; this was a Church Practice NOT a Dogmatic Issue. Practices ARE changeable; Dogmas are not in their core teachings.

As to the recognized PRIMACY of Peter 7 ROME:

The Early Church Fathers on
The Primacy of Peter/Rome

The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

 

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

 

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

 “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190

 

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

 

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

 

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose

and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

 

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

 

Cyprian

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. [A.D. 251]). END QUOTES

 

[1a] If Peter was pope, which the Bible says he was not, then he made mistakes as in Galatians 2:11-14 when he was deceived by Judaizers. "But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

WHERE IN THE BIBLE IS IT EXPRESSED THAT PETER WAS “NOT”

I can provide a list of 50 Peter Bible FIRST if you’d care to see it? This example deals with a Church PRACTICE, NOT a matter of faith or Morals DOCTRINE.

 

Popes Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with papal infallibility.

Paul IV {1555-1559} was the last Pope mentioned; these disputes were what brought to “a head” the need for the Church to declare for the first time a Dogmatic Proclamation to end confusion; NOT  existent in the EARLY church; but became a political issue as the Church grew. So Vatican One made it an Infallible Dogma of the RCC for the 1st time. PRIOR to this, it was various Popes just sharing their PERSONAL OPINIONS; not speaking Infallibily.

“In addition a large number of subjects for discussion had been sent by the bishops of various countries. Thus, for instance, the bishops of the church provinces of Quebec and Halifax demanded the lessening of the impediments to marriage, revision of the Breviary, and, above all, the reform and codification of the entire canon law. The petition of Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore treated, among other things, the relations between Church and State religious indifferencesecret societies, and the infallibility of the pope. The definition of this last was demanded by various bishops. Others desired a revision of the index of forbidden books. No less than nine petitions bearing nearly two hundred signatures demanded the definition of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. Over three hundred fathers of the council requested the elevation of St. Joseph as patron saint of the Universal Church.” ……

……  On account of the violent disputes which had been carried on everywhere for the past year over the question of papal infallibility the overwhelming majority considered the conciliar discussion and decision of the question to be imperatively necessary. On the other hand the minority, comprising about one-fifth of the total number, feared the worst from the definition, the apostasy of many wavering Catholics, an increased estrangement of those separated from the Church, and interference with the affairs of the Church by the Governments of the different countries. The minority, therefore, allowed itself to be guided by opportunist considerations. Only a few bishops appear to have had doubts as to the dogma itself. END QUOTED …..

….. “On account of the war which threatened to break out between Germany and France, a number of fathers of both opinions had returned home. Shortly before the fourth public session a large number of the bishops of the minority left Rome with the permission of the directing officers of the council. They did not oppose the dogma of papal infallibility itself, but were against its definition as inopportune. On Monday, 18 July, 1870, one day before the outbreak of the Franco-German War, 435 fathers of the council assembled at St. Peter's under the presidency of Pope Pius IX. The last vote was now taken; 433 fathers voted placet, and only two, Bishop Aloisio Riccio of Cajazzo, Italy, and Bishop Edward Fitzgerald of Little RockArkansas, voted non placet. During the proceedings a thunderstorm broke over the Vatican, and amid thunder and lightning the pope promulgated the new dogma, like a Moses promulgating the law on Mount Sinai.  … END QUOTED

IT WAS NOT A DFINED DOGMA UNTIL VATICAN 1; July 18, 1870

5. Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict IV in 1919 declared her to be a saint.

This was NOT ever a dogmatic issue; It was a localized Moral issue at that time and place. …. The latter pronouncement, some 500 years later was a more informed; more humanizing

From the Catholic encyclopedia: THIS WAS FGAR MORE A POLITICAL ISSUE AT THAT TIME AND PLACE THAN A RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION; HENCE A FAR LATER {500 YEARS LATER} A MORE OBJECTION CONCLUSION WAS REACHED.

No words can adequately describe the disgraceful ingratitude and apathy of Charles and his advisers in leaving the Maid to her fate. If military force had not availed, they had prisoners like the Earl of Suffolk in their hands, for whom she could have been exchanged. Joan was sold by John of Luxembourg to the English for a sum which would amount to several hundred thousand dollars in modern money. There can be no doubt that the English, partly because they feared their prisoner with a superstitious terror, partly because they were ashamed of the dread which she inspired, were determined at all costs to take her life. They could not put her to death for having beaten them, but they could get her sentenced as a witchand a heretic.

Moreover, they had a tool ready to their hand in Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, an unscrupulous and ambitious man who was the creature of the Burgundian party. A pretext for invoking his authority was found in the fact that Compiègne, where Joan was captured, lay in the Diocese of Beauvais. Still, as Beauvais was in the hands of the French, the trial took place at Rouen — the latter see being at that time vacant. This raised many points of technical legality which were summarily settled by the parties interested.

The Vicar of the Inquisition at first, upon some scruple of jurisdiction, refused to attend, but this difficulty was overcome before the trial ended. Throughout the trial Cauchon's assessors consisted almost entirely of Frenchmen, for the most part theologians and doctors of the University of Paris. Preliminary meetings of the court took place in January, but it was only on 21 February, 1431, that Joan appeared for the first time before her judges. She was not allowed an advocate, and, though accused in an ecclesiastical court, she was throughout illegally confined in the Castle of Rouen, a secular prison, where she was guarded by dissolute English soldiers. Joan bitterly complained of this. She asked to be in the church prison, where she would have had female attendants. It was undoubtedly for the better protection of her modesty under such conditions that she persisted in retaining her male attire. Before she had been handed over to the English, she had attempted to escape by desperately throwing herself from the window of the tower of Beaurevoir, an act of seeming presumption for which she was much browbeaten by her judges. This also served as a pretext for the harshness shown regarding her confinement at Rouen, where she was at first kept in an iron cage, chained by the neck, hands, and feet. On the other hand she was allowed no spiritual privileges — e.g. attendance at Mass — on account of the charge of heresy and the monstrous dress (difformitate habitus) she was wearing.” END QUOTES

END OF MY COMMENTS

Regards, Patrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do people actually believe infallibility of the papal?  papacy?  whatever its called, i dont get into all the titles.    I cant count the times when i was a little boy i heard my mother and grandmothers and aunts and uncles say... no one is perfect.  I dont even think someone has to have biblical knowledge to know this.   Being a human everyone pretty much knows this.   its apart of the human element. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is dangerous with this infallibility and reverence to the pope, is that the pope can be saying things that are contrary to holy scripture and sound convincing enough to sway people who don't know much about the bible or what Gods plan of Mercy and Grace truly stands for through Gods only begotten Son Christ Jesus.

I just recently head part of an interview with Pope Francis where he is asked about sexual abuse within the church and he answered that those found out should be brought to trial as is one of the worst things and those committing such things should be punished accordingly,  and bought to court of law for their actions. Then the following question to the pope was why are children so abused in this world and the pop answered something to the effect: why did God allow Christ to die on the cross?

Now to answer like that throws off the True reason why God allowed His only begotten Son Christ Jesus to die on the cross and that was to buy us back from the Power of sin and nothing less.

The way the pope seems to phrase his words, it sounded like ; God allowed Christ his own son to suffer. Sending the message that some things in the world make no sense and so the same happens to children... I mean i don't know, maybe i miss understood but the answer he gave did not sound like a man who understood the meaning of Christs sacrifice on the cross. The same as when he said in another speech, that Christ dying on the cross was a failure.

The way the pope phrases his words, leaves people to get the wrong meaning of what Gods plan of Mercy and Grace through Christ Jesus is.

its misleading and unfortunately people who don't know better what is written in the holy bible, only see a man that looks and seems to act kindly and piously.  And that seems to be good enough for them to keep giving him respect and reverence. 

Edited by 1to3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2018 at 11:54 PM, HAZARD said:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.--Colossians 2:8

this is what i see the RCC doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Davida said:

Easy for us to say that Cletus , but what are there?  over 1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide? They believe in the Popes infallibility and divinity.

  We didn't drink the kool aid  but unfortunately a billion people did and they belong to a religious cult that the Pope is the supreme leader of.  It is like all the false religions- they have a human leader a guru or a master that they bow to and follow their instructions - the RC religion is no different accept that it keeps insisting  is not only Christian, but but that IT is representative and the HEAD of it--with  all it's false doctrines and dogma?   It is trying to claim control of Christendom again & reverse the effects of the Reformation. 

my point was we need not even look to God breathed scripture to know beyond a shadow of doubt that a man, any man, every man, is in fact fallible.  If so many people are content to believe such nonsense, let them.  I can only do what I can do.  whats on my path, which from what i have read, is ordered.  if my words of simplicity fail to influence any of those who believe this, even with such a gargantuan amount of info in the news, what then can any of us do that know that Jesus is The Christ, and that there is none other besides Him?  aside from praying, i can think of nothing.  you can take a horse to a water hole, but you cant force his head down to drink.  you will push and pull with all your might, but your feet will come off the ground first. 

When i see what you have said above, which i do agree with how its bad, i use that to encourage me to do whats right in Gods eyes even more.  God rewards our actions.  if we do righteousness we will receive blessing.  if we sow to the wind we reap the whirlwind.  they have their reward.  God showed me awhile back about not fretting because of evil doers. 

I say let them try to gain control of Christendom and reverse reformation all they want.  they are fighting God.  (lol)  Jesus said not even the gates of hell would prevail.  i was just trying to appeal to common sense.  i suppose if there was none available i wasted my time.  at least i tried tho. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting thing is though my friends, even despite the need of bishops and teachers as per scripture, we are to test everything. Like Bereans. And at no time does apostasy ever come from the laity. The rot always grows down from the top. Apostate churches are very much like the New Zealand rata tree. It begins as a small vine, with a flower that closely resembles the flower of the magnificent Pohutukawa tree. The vine begins as a seed caught in the boughs of a host tree. The vine grows downward, roots into the earth, then rises again to entwine the entire tree, the vine growing ticker and thicker until it looks like a tree in its own right, completely engulfing the host. The landscape of some native forests in NZ can be seen with white skeletons standing above the rest of the regenerating forest after logging 120 years ago. The rata was the only trees not logged. Why? Because when you cut into them, they are hollow. The wood is great for firewood, but useless for timber. Such a perfect analogy for Catholicism. The early Christian church was pure. But Catholicism took over and smothered the life out of it. 
Satan would dearly love to destroy Christ Himself, but he has to be satisfied with attacking Christs dearest possession. His beloved bride. But there will be a remnant who will refuse to bow their knee to Baal. There always is.

Edited by brakelite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m going to forward this question to Catholics and hopefully see how exactly they will respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Ryan2203
      Edit:(sorry my question was not clear enough) 
      Should I a Christian attend an Orthodox Church? My roommate is orthodox and I go to church with him almost every Sunday. Should I keep doing this? I don’t really have the ability to go to another church since I don’t have a car and I live in an area with not many Christian churches.
    • By Behold
      Gospel : Paul teaching = "preaching of the Cross". "we preach Christ Crucified"..."Jesus sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel".."faith comes by hearing this".....

      So, all that, if believed by an unbeliever resolves an eternal issue......
      What is the issue?
      What is God's purpose for coming to earth to die as Jesus The Christ on a Cross?
      What is He doing?...What is He alone solving, that all our 10 commandment keeping and holy lifestyle can never solve, which is WHY HE had to solve it? ?
      And right here is what is so often misunderstood, or not taught correctly, and this is why so many people who mean well, and love Jesus, or would like to love him, do not understand <>WHAT IS<> the actual reason that God came here to die.

      So what is that reason?
      The reason, is that keeping the law, the 10 commandments, and doing good works, confessing sin, and living as holy as we can, could not make us acceptable to God..
      And here is the "catch 22".... It also can't AFTER you are saved.
      And right here is where "Legalism vs Grace" becomes the touchstone of constant fighting on forums, and everywhere else that it can show up where believers WILL clash.
      (Apparently this clash became such a long standing fight and fury on this forum that members here are barred from posting- fighting about it.)

      It is a fact and statement of the CROSS that the law and the 10 Commandments can't make you righteous, they can only show you that you are unrighteous., as that is the actual purpose of the Law, as well as outlining what God expects regarding our basic moral conduct & behavior, once we are born again.
      So, how can it be that half the body of Christ is trying to keep all this, all these works, and they believe that this is "keeping them saved".
      Whereas the other half of the body of Christ is trusting in Jesus to keep them saved.
      So, do you see the line in the sand?
      Its this " What is keeping you SAVED"....that is the minefield of theological confusion.
      THATS the fight.
      Legalism vs Grace.
      Its happening on every forum like this one, and its the reason for 5000 denominations that don't agree, and 300 bibles that don't agree.
      This issue started with Paul and his preaching of "justification by Faith" >alone, and he wrote the letter to the Galatians that talks about it, and explains it.
      2000 yrs later, this issue of Legalism vs Grace is still a fist fight between "Christians".
      Here on this forum, apparently they outlawed the battle. 

      Isn't it interesting to realize that if the 10 commandments, or lawkeeping, or living holy, could save you or keep you saved, if that were the truth, then Jesus could have stayed in Heaven and saved Himself some PAIN.....
      But ita not the case.
      Now im not certain what you have been taught, but i teach that you "present your body a living sacrifice" and you to "live holy as God is holy", not to save yourself or keep yourself saved, but because this is what you should do, and what God expects, .. because you ARE saved.
      The Legalist would argue that .."no, you do it to stay saved", and if you don't then you're not.
      I wonder, reader, what you believe.
      However, keep it to yourself, as this is between you and God, tho make sure you get it right, as if you get it wrong and you are teaching it, then Galatians 1:8 has become quite a literal issue for you.

      So, leaving all that now, lets just look at the problem that God had to come here and solve for us, as to look at this, is to understand the reason for Salvation which is to understand Salvation.
      Our problem we had, before we were saved, is only one thing, one issue only. And God Himself had to solve it, because we can't.
      We are born, and we get older, and we don't have any righteousness.
      None.
      And so, God can't accept us, because we are UNRIGHTEOUS. 
      This is "lost", "unsaved"....hellbound = we don't have any RIGHTEOUSNESS< as all of ours, are "filthy rags".
      So, in steps SALVATION... Down from Heaven God as The Christ arrives... The Cross has been raised.... As God bleeding out on the "tree" has come down from Heaven to give us HIS righteousness so that He can accept us, based on THAT.......and for no other reason will He accept you, or me.
      God, literally became a man, and died on a Cross, to GIVE US "the righteousness of Christ". (God's very own righteousness).
      And that is what salvation actually is....Its God coming to earth to give us His righteousness so that HE can accept us, as by giving us His very righteousness, this makes us acceptable to God.
      Welcome to Salvation.
      Salvation is only.... "what makes you acceptable to God"....and that is one thing, its GOD'S Righteousness, becoming ours.
      A born again person, has literally BECOME "the righteousness of Christ", and Christ is GOD.

      To say that God's Grace is amazing, is really the least of what it is...
      How can you describe the wonder of God, dying to give you His righteousness in place of your unrighteousness, as a free Gift?
      Is there a word that can even claim to honor this spiritual transaction enough?
      Just one.
      LOVE.
      Agape` Love.
      God is LOVE.
    • By Behold
      Jesus isn't a Catholic.
      Neither is Paul.

      Also, think of every denomination you can think of, then add in 2500 more you dont know about.

      Jesus and Paul are none of those........also.
      Jesus and Paul do not belong to a man made denomination.
      But you do, or have.

      Its interesting that we are told to "not forsake the assembling of ourselves together"< but we are not told to join a denomination.
      There is the concept of a Local Church, revealed in the NT, but its never given a BRAND NAME.
      All that came later, as men moved in, took over, and created DENOMINATIONS.
      Also...
      IF you are born again, you've already joined the "one true Church", which is the literal, spiritual, body of Christ........that is not made with hands., but is made with The Blood of God as Jesus dying on a Cross.

      So, is "organized religion", (denominations), the local church, good for you?
      It can be great for you, and your family, but, the sticking point, is, that NT doctrine, as "sound doctrine" is always sound, of itself..... but the way it is taught in "church", is often man made reinvention.
      = Carnal bible twisting mania.

      The only thing the Devil loves more then 5000 denominations that dont agree with each other's theology, (he had a hand in this).....are 380 "New versions" of the BIBLE, that have changed verses, removed "sound" doctrine, and often try to leave God out, whenever possible.
      Satan loves this.
      LOVES it.

      So, how do you know if your church is a mess, and is not walking in the Light, as Jesus is the Light?

      It all comes down to how they teach Salvation.
      It all comes down to each denomination's personal explanation of GRACE.
      Understand Saint, that if they get this wrong, then everything else is wrong, also.
      And if you belong to a church that has substituted works for Grace, then you are wrong also., and they did it to you.

      So, how do you check all this, to find out if you are in a poisonous religious cult, or if you are in a place where God reigns and the Holy Spirit is active? ???

      First, you have to understand that Jesus is Grace. JESUS is Eternal Life. Jesus is Salvation.... Jesus is the author and finishers of YOUR FAITH. Hebrews 12:2. And because Jesus is "Christ in you, the hope of Glory", and you are "IN Christ"", and have become the very "righteousness of Christ", if you are born again.... If you know all this, and believe all this, and TRUST all this and not in yourself to keep yourself saved..
      You will also have to come to the truth of the revelation that God began your salvation and HE will finish it.  
      Philippians 1:6
      = You have to come to a place in your theological mastery where you understand GRACE is a free gift, that Salvation is a free gift, and you no longer worry about losing your salvation, or still believe you have to keep yourself saved. (Legalism) (Galatians 1:8)
      Saint, you have to come to the revelation, that, if i ask you, "what are you trusting in, to get you to heaven""".... your only and final answer, is "JESUS."
      And until you are there, completely certain..... until you have the revelation of "Grace without works"..... Then you will always answer...."well, I trust in Jesus, BUT".........but....but......but.....but".... = Fail.
      So, until you come to understand and truly believe that Jesus and Jesus alone saved you and will get you into heaven, then you are lost in the deceitful maze of "who is right"...>"who is lying"...."how do i know", and worst deceit of all.. "you can lose your salvation".
       


      God help you to believe, His Truth, according to His Grace.....alone.
       
    • By existential mabel
      When Mary became Queen of England, she worked to bring England back to the Roman Catholic Church. One of her first acts was to arrest Bishop Ridley, Bishop Latimer, and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer
      When Ridley was asked if he believed the pope was heir to the authority of Peter as the foundation of the Church, he replied that the church was not built on any man but on the truth Peter confessed -- that Christ was the Son of God. Ridley said he could not honor the pope in Rome since the papacy was seeking its own glory, not the glory of God.
      "Christ made one oblation and sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, and that a perfect sacrifice; neither needeth there to be, nor can there be, any other propitiatory sacrifice." These opinions were deeply offensive to Roman Catholic theologians.
       
      https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1501-1600/bishops-ridley-and-latimer-burned-11629990.html
    • By ForHisGlory37
      Hello Everyone,
      I just wanted some of your opinions and insights in regards to going to worship on Sundays.  I have some friends who refuse to come to church now because they say that the Jesuits and the RCC "made it official that everyone has to worship on SUNdays" and they believe that it was because it is to worship their "Sun god." 
      In my opinion, I just find it very legalistic.  I also believe that I don't think God really cares as long as you reserve and give Him one day out of the week to worship Him and make it your Sabbath.  Also, I believe that the devil is using this as a way to isolate them from fellowship with other believers. 
      What do you all think?  Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...