Posted on 11/11/2014 11:35:48 AM PST by NYer
A quick reminder that infallible does not mean sinless. Here are some quick facts about the papacy:
1) All of the 266 popes have sinned, including the first pope, St. Peter, who committed among the worst of sins: He denied Our Lord three times during the Passion.
2) While all of the popes have been sinners, it’s also true that many of the popes have practiced heroic virtue, rising to the heights of great sanctity. The first popes (and several subsequent popes) died as martyrs for the faith, and many popes have been canonized or beatified. Saintly popes are common.
3) Though most popes were good and holy men, there were a handful of popes who were bad, wicked and/or corrupt. A recounting of their personal sin would make your hair curl! It is entirely possible that there are popes in hell.
4) Whether saintly or evil, no pope has ever taught heresy (i.e., no pope has ever taught error as Truth). The Holy Spirit guides the Church and protects her so that the faithful will never be led into doctrinal error — no matter who sits in the Chair of Peter.
5) If you wonder how someone can speak truth while not living it, think of a math professor teaching his students perfectly correct formulas and concepts, while he himself cheats on his taxes and cannot seem to keep a balanced checkbook. Or think of a chronic adulterer who preaches that adultery is wrong. His actions are evil, but what he says is perfectly true.
There you have it. Infallibility does not mean impeccability. Just as God protected sinful men from teaching doctrinal error when writing the Bible, He also protected sinful Peter and his sinful successors from teaching doctrinal error while leading His Church.
Thanks be to God.
“Claiming infallibility IS a sin: pride.”
Only if someone were claiming it in all things. The Giants won the World Series. That is an infallibly true statement. No pride was involved in that statement. It’s still infallibly true. Papal infallibility is different, but the idea that claiming infallibility on all things at all times is sinful is illogical.
“Is the Pope a prophet?”
Infallibility has nothing in itself to do with prophecy so your question is irrelevant.
“Other than a brief comment about making a single correct & important statement - and making a pun in the process - there is _nothing_ in scripture establishing a Papal order, much less an infallible one.”
Not all truths are in scripture. Where is the inspired table of contents?
“Peter sure didn’t consider his statements on any topic “infallible”.”
I think you’re wrong there. Are you saying that Peter did not believe his teaching that Christ was raised from the dead was infallibly true? Seriously, either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. Either Peter was saying something infallibly true or he wasn’t. Which is it?
“Handled, of course, by retroactively declaring such errors not matters of doctrine, and thereby not violations of the infallibility principle.”
No.
“Indulgences, for instance, were Pope-approved theology and thus infallible (hey, it’s someone’s soul on the line there, better be right else it’s evil) - until they weren’t (oh, nope, obviously evil therefore the Pope couldn’t have approved it so he didn’t).”
The problem is that your example doesn’t work. Read the Ninety-Five Theses. They are LUTHER’S views. For what you just said to be true, the following would have to be true:
1) The pope’s defined for the whole Church and held binding on the faithful particular doctrines about indulgences. (That’s a problem, because if you read the Theses Luther actually eschews that idea).
2) Later popes then contradicted those earlier popes in their own definitions of doctrines about indulgences which were also held as binding on the faithful. (There are no such later definitions which contradict earlier ones).
Luther didn’t even approach the Ninety-Five Theses in that way and there’s a reason why - it would not have even come close to working because he would have had nothing to say.
“The 95 Theses was exactly such a list.”
No. Read it again. Repeatedly Luther discusses what he believes “the pope” has done. Which pope? When? Where? How? Notice that Luther never once mentions the words “teaching” or “dogma” even once and only once uses the word “doctrine” - and not in relation to the pope! You apparently don’t know the contents of the Ninety-Five Theses very well.
“Of course, being a matter of pointing at fallacies, the points are then excluded from the infallible, maintaining the premise of infallibility.”
No. Again, the Ninety-Five Theses don’t even concern themselves with newly defined statements from popes that supposedly contradict other older defined statements from popes. Thus, infallibility cannot come into play for it is not invoked, reviewed or even challenged.
“Who said the Holy Spirit keeps the Pope from error?”
That’s the whole point of the doctrine of infallibility. It’s in paragraph 6 of the definition of it. You didn’t know that? Are you seriously telling me that you are attacking a doctrine that you didn’t even know the most basic point about it?
“the Pope? Sure wasn’t scripture.”
Not all true things are detailed in scripture. They can’t be. Protestants believe in sola scriptura. It isn’t in scripture, anywhere, ever. Yet they hold it as true. They’re wrong, but the principle is the same.
You have no grasp of scripture. When Jesus quotes the Old Testament He is vouching for it's authenticity. (Questioning Jesus are we?)
When your man Peter, (allegedly the first 'pope') quoted O.T. was he wrong? Was he speaking 'ex cathedra?' And while we're on the topic of the great apostle Peter, let's look at the passage the Catholic church uses to justify the humble fisherman as 'pope':
Matthew 16
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 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. 19 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.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
Sounds pretty good there. Was Peter infallible?
Let's drop down just a few verses as Jesus interacts with Peter
verses 21 and following:
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
Huh. Seems a bit fallible, being called 'Satan' and all.
Don't get me wrong, Peter is one of my heroes, but he would be the first to deny infallibility as a church leader.
In fact Peter is confronted to his face by Paul when he erred regarding circumcision.
Galatians 2:11-21:
11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? 15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. 17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker. 19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
Here Peter is by your church's proclamation 'Pope' and is getting called out for teaching ERROR.
By the way he repents, so everything's good, but the fact remains he was NOT infallible while in the role of 'pope'
Protestantism - your belief even if you say otherwise - dates only from 1500 after the Catholic Church was founded. Are you sure you want to go down that route?
Actually I believe based on the source document (the Bible) whereas you cling to the teachings/traditions of men, that are vastly different than what the Word of God reveals. My source (bible) is far older than your fabrication.
Are you sure you want to claim men over the scripture?
Your church came into existence in it's form after the Emperor Constantine molded it to look like his government, replete with offices like pope, cardinal et al.
The original church found in scripture looked nothing like this.
Read Titus and Timothy if you want to find out how God structured His church.
Having a stupid, anti-Catholic Pope is having some good effects. People are boning up on authentic Catholic theology.
Where does Jesus tell us not to pray for each other?
“You ARE familiar with the word “papa” and it is in Scripture.
Jesus called His Father in heaven “ABBA,” which is the form of “Daddy” (NOT “Father”) in Aramaic.”
Yes, surely the Bible mentions the Father, but the Bible tells us our Father is in Heaven, not in Rome.
“4) The notion that no pope has ever taught heresy (i.e., no pope has ever taught error as Truth) is absurd as there are plenty of teachings which were pronounced as correct then reversed later. See the “95 Theses” for numerous substantive examples (we’re still waiting for a rebuttal).”
Good luck with this argument, as Catholics have immunized themselves against it with circular reasoning. See, heresy is what the Catholic church defines as heresy, and of course they never define their own teachings as heresy, therefore they can make the claim with a straight face.
Yes, as the bible clearly states.
I meant I’m going to ask her if she had to memorize the names too. :)
“Is today Tuesday or Sunday? If you say, “Tuesday” isn’t that an infallibly true statement?”
Statements can’t be infallible, they can only be true of false. The term infallible means incapable of failure, which means you can’t be “infallible sometimes”, or you are not infallible at all.
The only exception is when the Catholics use the term, as they seemed to have created their own definition to fit this concept of “papal infallibility”.
What always amazes me about Protestants when they attack Catholic doctrines is how typical it is that they don’t even understand what it is they are attacking.
You wrote:
“Here Peter is by your church’s proclamation ‘Pope’ and is getting called out for teaching ERROR.”
And there are two errors there - but they’re both yours:
1) Peter was not defining doctrine for the whole Church nor making it binding on the whole Church. This was in one city and could not have effected more than a relative handful of people.
2) What teaching? It says “[Peter] began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.”
That’s an action, not a teaching. And it says he was afraid. Duress does not allow for much of a free choice.
“When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel....”
Acting, not teaching the whole Church a teaching that is binding on all the faithful.
you wrote:
“By the way he repents, so everything’s good, but the fact remains he was NOT infallible while in the role of ‘pope’”
And no one is claiming he was infallible all of the time as pope. Do you even know what papal infallibility is? You keep attacking things it isn’t.
“Actually I believe based on the source document (the Bible) whereas you cling to the teachings/traditions of men,”
False. If you believed in scripture, you would not believe in sola scriptura because it isn’t in there. The traditions I believe in come from Christ and His Church, not men. Scripture is part of that tradition.
“that are vastly different than what the Word of God reveals.”
Again, false.
“My source (bible) is far older than your fabrication.”
I have no fabrication. The Church wrote the New Testament. My Church is older than your New Testament.
“Are you sure you want to claim men over the scripture?”
Show me where I have. You can’t because I never have. Why are you resorting to bearing false witness? Don’t you know that that violates scripture?
“Your church came into existence in it’s form after the Emperor Constantine molded it to look like his government, replete with offices like pope, cardinal et al.”
False. When Constantine entered Rome he met the pope. The papacy already existed. How can you not know this? He did not “mold” it. He tried and failed after the Council of Nicea. That’s why he and his sons embraced Arianism. Didn’t you know about that?
“The original church found in scripture looked nothing like this.”
Actually it looked similar: Apostles/Bishops, priests (elders), deacons. Those are still the three orders of authority in the Church.
“Read Titus and Timothy if you want to find out how God structured His church.”
Already have, a number of times. That’s one the reasons why I am not making your mistakes.
“and further express anti-Catholic bigotry”
Is that any worse than the anti-Protestant bigotry you include with every one of your posts, in your tagline?
Praying FOR and praying TO are very different concepts.
I made an infallible statement of fact.
“Statements can’t be infallible, they can only be true of false.”
No. Statements can be infallible.
“The term infallible means incapable of failure, which means you can’t be “infallible sometimes”, or you are not infallible at all.”
False. Infallibility only comes into play when it is invoked. If there were an infallible computer (think of something even better than the new clock at N.I.S.T. at Boulder), it would still only be infallible when turned on.
“The only exception is when the Catholics use the term, as they seemed to have created their own definition to fit this concept of “papal infallibility”.”
Incredible. So, Catholics, who believe in papal infallibility, and are the only ones to have the office of pope, have their own definition of their own thing that you don’t believe in? Shocking! Why, how dare they actually define the thing that only they have and that God saw fit to gibe only to them! How dare they! Next you might see Protestants insisting that only they can define sola scriptura. Oh, wait...
Exactly.
If you ask your mother to pray for you, are you praying TO your mother?
verga, I like your tagline. It’s true too.
“[Infallibility is a sin] Only if someone were claiming it in all things.”
Wow. How amazingly arrogant. Discussion over.
“Wow. How amazingly arrogant. “
The Giants won the World Series over the Royals. Is that infallibly true or not? It is infallibly true. It’s just that simple. There’s no arrogance in making that claim. It’s just true that that statement is infallibly true: the Giants won. The Royals did not.
Now, if I claimed to be infallible in EVERYTHING, that would be arrogance. I am not claiming that, nor would I.
“Discussion over.”
Is that your infallible assessment?
No, because my mother is alive and I can pick the telephone and talk to her. However, if my mother was dead and (presumably) in heaven, well, telephone service has not reached that far yet.
Are you claiming that Catholics try to communicate with those in the hereafter through some other method besides praying to them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.