Replies

~Chuckle~

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.