Replies

“Dear friend, to which religious denomination do you belong…”

Inconsequential. Try and focus on my words instead of flailing about for a religious doctrine to try and oppose.

“Because the Old and New Testament Scriptures are the divinely-revealed, written Word of God, Catholics venerate the Scriptures as they venerate the Lord's body.”

Forgive me but is the word venerate anywhere in the Bible? Does it say that the apostles venerated Jesus’ words? Does it explain that the early church [as laid out by Paul] “venerated” anything?

Try and lose the cheesy jargon and you might start to get on the right track.

The very title of pope [from Latin: papa, father; from Greek papas, father] itself is a direct affront to the Bible. The Word says clearly in Matthew…And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

If going by the rules of logic & debate, I should stop here because you are already in error.

Regardless, for the sake of some unsuspecting FReeper who may be led astray by your foolishness, I shall continue.

The fact of the matter is that so called papal infallibility is but another construct of prideful, religious [see without relationship] men. There is no proof whatsoever that papal infallibility was part of catholic doctrine even before the 13th century...this nonsense was invented by rebellious franciscans because it suited their aims to do so...it was only after serious disagreement and reluctance, that it was accepted by the catholic hierarchy...and that only because it was convenient.

So so-called papal infallibility did not even originate with a pope from the top down but instead originated from insubordinate franciscians from the bottom up.

Again, using the rules of logic & debate I could stop there with you dead in the water.

If as you would state, the pope is infallible in his ministry then how do you account for Pope Innocent X, Alexander VII claiming “in the chair” that the reality of human beings being born in the original sin of Adam [supported by the Bible*], and that without God’s own intervention a human being could never become righteous or the notion that prayer and confession are commonsense steps [supported by the Bible***] to go through before taking communion are all heretical?

*Born in the original sin of Adam

Genesis: the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.
Genesis: To Adam God said, "Because you…ate from the tree…which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it…you will eat your food until you return to the ground since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return...
Romans: Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression...
1 Corinthians: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive...
Romans: Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemnation...

**Without God’s own intervention a human being could never become righteous.

1 Corinthians:...in Christ shall all be made alive...
Romans: As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one...
Romans: To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus...
Romans: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God...
Romans:...so by the obedience of one [Jesus] shall many be made righteous.

***Prayer and confession are commonsense steps to go through before taking communion.

1 Corinthians: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Please I make it quite plain that so-called papal infallibility is a joke.

If this were not enough, the vatican has never provided anyone with a complete list of papal statements that are considered infallible. Therefore, how is one to know? Nothing God does is hidden under a basket. The Bible says to let your light shine so that all men will be drawn to it. Surely an act of infallibility is considered divine and therefore not to be kept in secret.

???

Anyway...

Now, if the papal decree concerning any of these specific things that I have cited is unsupported by scripture, then by default...there is no papal infallibility and your position is toast.

You sufficiently address these clear flaws in catholic doctrine and I will continue to defeat your statements, otherwise I will consider you ill equipped to defend your own twisted dogma and get back to serious posters.

The Word says clearly in Matthew…And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

There are 1,511 references to father, fathers. etc. in the King James version of Sacred Scripture. Most of these do not refer to God the Father. There is no admonition by Jesus or anyone else that these usages were wrong. When Jesus used the reference 'your father' it would have had little meaning if the basic concept of father was not clearly understood by being in common usage.

In Matt. 3:9; Luke 3:8 - Jesus refers to Abraham as our "father." And in John 7:22 - Jesus refers to the "fathers" who gave the Jews the practice of circumcision.

The use of the word "father," in regards to priests, only means that a priest acts as a spiritual guide under the authority of God the Father. No one in their right mind thinks that each priest is God the Father or that any human being is their creator. Jesus made this statement to help us focus on our true origins and upon that which has lasting value. This type of message is called a metaphor. It is figurative language used as a method of teaching and not meant to be taken literally. It is a way of getting across a message.

There is no proof whatsoever that papal infallibility was part of catholic doctrine even before the 13th century.

I would beg to differ with you. First of all, what is your understanding of papal infallibility?

If as you would state, the pope is infallible in his ministry then how do you account for Pope Innocent X, Alexander VII claiming “in the chair” that the reality of human beings being born in the original sin of Adam [supported by the Bible*] ..

If this is your understanding of papal infallibility, then you have been wrongfully mislead. Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

In the course of its 2000 year history, there have been good popes and bad but not one has ever erred in doctrine!

Again, using the rules of logic & debate I could stop there with you dead in the water.

I'm still swimming.

Good luck :-) You are well versed in what you have been taught in your Fundamentalist Church and a staunch believer in the Bible, right?

The Bible is indeed the Word of God, but you only know that because the Catholic Church told you so. How do you know what books should be in the Bible when the Bible doesn't tell you? You only know it because the Catholic Church definitively declared the Bible canon at the end of the fourth century.

If the Bible canon is necessary for our salvation, but Christ did not reveal it to His apostles, then Christ must have established an authority that would guarantee the early Christians' determination of the Bible canon after He ascended into heaven. This authority is the Holy Catholic Church.

There was no Bible as you know it for 400 years after Christ's death, and it wasn't even distributed for 1500 years after His death. If the Bible is the only way to get us to heaven, then what happened to those millions of poor souls who never had a Bible during the 1500 year period?

Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.