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.
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.
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.
Bro, that was lame.
I asked you specific question...you provided generalizations as rebuttals, not answers.
You're getting off on the wrong foot. ~grin~
One of two things...you are either incapable of grasping fundamental [see grade school] English or you are being intellectually dishonest.
I know precisely what so-called papal infallibility is supposed to be. At no point did I or anyone else inquire as to what you thought the meaning is. Nobody on this thread has needed it clarified. You threw that in as a vain attempt at filibuster, nothing more.
I said that there is no proof whatsoever that so-called papal infallibility was part of catholic doctrine even before the 13th century. You responded with a vain "I would beg to differ with you." and proceeded to provide absolutely no proof to the contrary.
Save your begging for someone willing to give you a hand out. If you would like to provide a single example of so-called papal infallibility being part of established catholic doctrine pre-13th century [when catholic doctrine was well on it's way], by all means....feel free.
As it is, you cannot. Because there was|is none. As I said, it is a purely human doctrine laid down as a result of both compromise and convenience.
Anyone trying to imply that this is how God resolves issues or faith, is a person who simply does not know His ways. Basics.
Now, I gave a specific example of how a pope in ex cathedra attempted to condemn three fundamental [see basic] lessons of the Bible.
I will do it again, that there be no misunderstanding.
In 1653, Pope Innocent X condemned five propositions as heretical. For the sake of my argument I only address three that I can absolutely support with scripture.
1. Born in the original sin of Adam.
2. Without God’s own intervention a human being could never become righteous.
3. Prayer and confession are commonsense steps to go through before taking communion.
I provided the scriptures to back them up already and will not do so again.
Please do not attempt to fall back to the cerebrally shallow argument about solo-scriptura because solo-scriptura is precisely what Jesus himself practiced on multiple occasions. Peter did so as well [Acts 1:20]. If Jesus and Peter can do it, so can I.
You cannot find a single scripture that clearly explains that Adam's sin affected him and only him.
You cannot find a single scripture that clearly explains how humankind can become righteous without the intervention of God himself.
You cannot find a single scripture that clearly explains why prayer and confession are not necessary steps to take prior to receiving communion.
Therefore Pope Innocent X while attempting to condemn these three positions [ex cathedra] as heretical [a belief that rejects the orthodox tenets of a faith] was in fact incorrect and as a result, clearly fallible.
Papal-infallibility shattered right there and unable to be resurrected as a legitimate Christian Doctrine.
Seriously, I can do this all day.