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.
You’re already in a hole, you might want to stop digging.
I never knew there was a Pope Fabian. I guess I’ve never looked up all of their names. Thanks.
Well, you're getting warmer.
Prior to 'Romanizing' the existing church into a giant hierarchy, there were local elders/bishops/presbyters who shepherded the local church, and deacons who served the local flock. That is why Paul would meet with each city eldership, not some phoney 'top dog' who ran the church like a business.
“So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed” (Acts 14:23).
“If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work” (I Timothy 3:1). “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you” (Titus 1:5).
“From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. ... Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:17, 28).
The concept of 'priest' becomes murky, however.
Scripture declares WE are a royal priesthood, not some separate division of designated people. (1 Peter 2:5-9)
This is the essence of the 'good news' aka gospel, that we are no longer separated from God, but can approach His throne boldly through the High Priest Jesus Christ. (Hebrew 4:14-16) I don't need an intermediary (priest) I AM a priest according to God's Word.
Anyway back to your history.
The local control devolved for the next 2 centuries and slowly local elders (bishops/shepherds/presbyters) became 'bishops' over more than one congregation. Finally one bishop ruled them all.
Was this God's plan?
Absolutely not.
So THEN Constantine rolled in and met a bogus official who was said to speak for all of christendom.
So yes, sorry for leaving out the critical first 2-300 year period where the christian church started to veer away from scriptural teaching, giving rise to a supreme leader aka 'pope.'
So, you seem to be denying that Constantine radically altered the church to make it align with a government type power structure, and therefore easier to control.
Is that correct?
Because the quoted references refer to EVERY city having leadership, not ONE CITY.
How is a 'pope' in line with the Bible then? Or do you persist in saying the traditions of men are equal to God's Word?
Jesus had a problem with that stance BTW:
Mark 7:5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” 6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.' 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
Jesus, (you know, our master) says that setting aside commands in favor of traditions (man made not delivered by God) is why people are identified as hypocrites when they want to seem holy.
You keep calling me a 'Protestant' evidently because anyone not in the giant corporation called Catholicism is one, in your world.
No, I am simply a 'christian' following Jesus in a local congregation with local leadership following what we find in God's revealed word only.
Your 'church' killed people like me that predate you, anyone who would not bow the knee to your man made office of 'pope.'
They hunted us down and wiped out nearly all the independent christians who had the temerity to follow the original church pattern.
The 'Protest-ants' came along much later as a response to the rottenness they saw such as selling indulgences and the like.
So no, I'm not a protestant, I don't want to 'reform' the catholic church. I want catholics to COME HOME as we so often hear these days. COME HOME to Jesus only and His revealed Word.
In fact He is the WORD made flesh according John chapter 1.
That's enough for this post.
Now that I'm home from work I will dig into my Bible and address some of your other...thoughts.
My point is that the word “praying” is an analogical term.
When you pick up the phone and ask your mother to pray for you, you ARE praying to her.
You never read a legal brief in a lawsuit? At the end, it says “prayer for relief.” It is not addressed to
God; it is addressed to the judge.
We are forbidden by the First Commandment to offer adoration to anyone or anything but God. We are not forbidden to ask other people to pray for us.
How is it reasonable to believe that your mother currently loves you, prays for you, and is eager to help you in any way she can—but the moment she dies she becomes as inert as a doorstop—no longer eager or able to help you, no longer aware of your needs, no longer praying for you?
“Prior to ‘Romanizing’ the existing church into a giant hierarchy, there were local elders/bishops/presbyters who shepherded the local church, and deacons who served the local flock. That is why Paul would meet with each city eldership, not some phoney ‘top dog’ who ran the church like a business.”
Clearly you have never read the letter of Clement of Rome to Corinth. That already destroys your claim.
“The concept of ‘priest’ becomes murky, however. Scripture declares WE are a royal priesthood, not some separate division of designated people. (1 Peter 2:5-9)”
Your misunderstanding of scripture is expected. The OT makes clear that Israel was a priestly nation (Ex. 19:6) but still had a select priesthood to lead worship and perform the sacrifices. We have that now, only now it is through the High Priest Christ.
Most of the rest of your post is simply restating your errors or posting of non-evidence for your errors.
“You keep calling me a ‘Protestant’ evidently because anyone not in the giant corporation called Catholicism is one, in your world.”
No. I call you a Protestant because you are one. I don’t call the Eastern Orthodox Protestants. I call Protestants Protestants for that’s what they are.
“Your ‘church’ killed people like me that predate you, anyone who would not bow the knee to your man made office of ‘pope.’”
1) No one like you predates the Catholic Church because we were established by Christ. People like you came along after 1500.
2) My Church didn’t kill anyone. Heretics were at times executed, by the civil authorities. The Church killed none of them.
“So no, I’m not a protestant, I don’t want to ‘reform’ the catholic church.”
I don’t care what you want to reform or not reform you’re still a Protestant. Protestants are people who believe in Protestant doctrines. If you renounce sola scriptura, sola fide, then we can talk about you not being a Protestant. Until then you are firmly in the Protestant camp whether you like the term or not.
“I want catholics to COME HOME as we so often hear these days. COME HOME to Jesus only and His revealed Word.”
I’m already there. I wish you would come to know Christ and His Church, but since you’re a Protestant who has embraced heresy and Protestant fantasies about history you probably never will.
You are wrong.
Clement is known for his epistle to the church in Corinth (c. 96), in which he asserts the apostolic authority of the bishops/presbyters as rulers of the church.[1] The epistle mentions episkopoi (overseers, bishops) or presbyteroi (elders, presbyters) as the upper class of minister, served by the deacons, but, since it does not mention himself, it gives no indication of the title or titles used for Clement in Rome. It has been cited as the first work to establish Roman primacy, but most scholars see the epistle as more fraternal than authoritative,[13] and Orthodox scholar John Meyendorff sees it as connected with the Roman church's awareness of its "priority" (rather than "primacy") among local churches.[14]
Nothing there contradicts what I quoted.
Next
“Nothing there contradicts what I quoted.”
It sure doesn’t - because you’re relying on a wikipedia synopsis and not actually reading the document and figuring out what it means.
“Next”
Nope. Looks like you’re still stuck on Clement because you’ve never read him. When you do, get back to me.
I am genuinely impressed you quoted the Exodus reference to the nation of Israel.
Yes, the intention of God was to create a nation of priests (Israel) however the people rejected God's will. The Aaronic priesthood was the order of men God selected to perform intercession for the people from then on.
Hebrews 8 discusses Jesus as the High Priest, and I already referenced Hebrews 4 where we can enter boldly, or with confidence into the throne room of God.
A priest had duties to perform acts of worship for the people, they could not do it directly. This has been abolished with the old covenant.
"Most of the rest of your post is simply restating your errors or posting of non-evidence for your errors."
Well, you can lead a horse to water.
Well, since you seem to treasure this non-scriptural writing and have evidently read it, perhaps you can enlighten me about what the admittedly fluff source Wiki says is wrong?
“I am genuinely impressed you quoted the Exodus reference to the nation of Israel.”
Why?
“Yes, the intention of God was to create a nation of priests (Israel) however the people rejected God’s will. The Aaronic priesthood was the order of men God selected to perform intercession for the people from then on.”
God, in the Old Testament, also told the people of Israel they would suffer if they had an earthly king (especially if they did not fulfill Deut. 17:14-20). Yet He gave them the king they wanted. And Jesus fulfilled that type as a perfect king. Jesus also became the perfect priest. His other priests serve through Him. The type in the OT - the sacrificial priesthood - was fulfilled in the New by Christ and the priests he chose who were not bound by tribal affiliation.
“Hebrews 8 discusses Jesus as the High Priest, and I already referenced Hebrews 4 where we can enter boldly, or with confidence into the throne room of God.”
Yes, and we do - as a priestly people...and as a people with a select priesthood serving through Christ.
“A priest had duties to perform acts of worship for the people, they could not do it directly.”
And that continues in some ways. Priests do what we lay people cannot do.
“This has been abolished with the old covenant.”
No, this has been fulfilled and glorified in the New Covenant. Now the priesthood is a priesthood of all believers - all can offer sacrifice but it is united with Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and through the priests’ re-presentation of that sacrifice at the altar which in itself is only possible through Christ Himself.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.htm
“Well, you can lead a horse to water.”
But after you cook him you’ll still see the marks from where the jockey hit it.
Every person on earth is wrong, one way or another. At least we are not all arrogant bigots.
“Well, since you seem to treasure this non-scriptural writing and have evidently read it, perhaps you can enlighten me about what the admittedly fluff source Wiki says is wrong?”
I can, but I won’t. I think it is disgusting that so many Protestants here attack things which they actually are ignorant about. They don’t know the doctrines. They don’t know the sources. And yet they attack them anyway.
Why yes I do, as the truth is proclaimed in scripture. The baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:13-17) clearly shows all three persons of the one God together and asserting themselves.
The rub is with the 'office' of Holy Father. There is nothing like that described in the Bible.
Of course, Vlad has pointed out the word 'Bible' is not in scripture either.
Of course it is not, It is a later culture and language that coined the word 'bible,' why would it be there?
In fairness to what this article is trying to say, perhaps 'infallibility' should be rendered 'inspired' instead.
The apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write scripture.
From what the Catholic faithful assert, they seem to believe the current and past leadership acts on inspiration much like the apostles did.
I don't agree, but that is what I gather.
Is that a fair assessment of 'infallibility?'
Because most people of any christian stripe do not know this, that's why.
“My point is that the word “praying” is an analogical term.
When you pick up the phone and ask your mother to pray for you, you ARE praying to her.
You never read a legal brief in a lawsuit? At the end, it says “prayer for relief.” It is not addressed to
God; it is addressed to the judge.”
This entire argument is based on a conflation of the English language with the language of Scripture. In English, “pray” has multiple meanings, including the one you are referencing here. However, in Greek and Hebrew, those multiple meanings are represented by distinctly different words. So, while you might fool some English speakers with this argument, you wouldn’t even be able to make this argument to a NT era Christian or an OT era Jew.
“We are forbidden by the First Commandment to offer adoration to anyone or anything but God. We are not forbidden to ask other people to pray for us.”
True, but we are forbidden to commune with the dead. Yes, I am aware that the standard Catholic response is that they don’t believe those in heaven are dead. However, we are not God. We do not know who is in heaven, so such an argument is toothless. To encourage people to communicate with those who have died, when you have no certainty that they actually are spiritually living, is guaranteed to encourage some to sin, and encouraging others to sin is a grave sin in and of itself. Just like lies, sins multiply themselves.
“How is it reasonable to believe that your mother currently loves you, prays for you, and is eager to help you in any way she can—but the moment she dies she becomes as inert as a doorstop—no longer eager or able to help you, no longer aware of your needs, no longer praying for you?”
First, you have constructed a false choice based on a non sequiter. It does not follow that, simply because we are forbidden from communicating with the dead, those who have passed on are unable to try to help us. They may well be able to do so, but we are still forbidden from appealing to them directly to request such help.
Second, as I said above, we don’t know who is in heaven or not, so even if we weren’t forbidden, such prayers would naturally be less effective than simply praying to Christ, or the Father, who we know with certainty are in heaven.
Third, to assume that those in heaven can hear prayers, from people all over the world, at all times, ascribes powers to them that we have no evidence they possess. It assumes they are omniscient or omnipresent, as well as telepathic, in order to hear prayers that are not spoken aloud. Since we have no reason to believe those assumptions are true, it is obviously more effective to pray directly to Christ or God, since we know with certainty that they possess the ability to hear our prayers.
“Of course it is not, It is a later culture and language that coined the word ‘bible,’ why would it be there?”
The same thing for “pope”.
“In fairness to what this article is trying to say, perhaps ‘infallibility’ should be rendered ‘inspired’ instead.”
No. That is the opposite of what actually happens. Inspiration is about being told what to say. Infallibility is about being prevent from making a mistake. It is a negative protection of the Holy Spirit rather than a positive giving of something.
“From what the Catholic faithful assert, they seem to believe the current and past leadership acts on inspiration much like the apostles did.”
Completely false. Again, we see you are attacking something that you are not even correctly describing. Shouldn’t that fact give you pause?
“I don’t agree, but that is what I gather.”
You gather incorrectly. Seriously, you can’t even get the basic facts right.
“Is that a fair assessment of ‘infallibility?’”
Nope. Not even close. I bet the fact that you can’t get the most basic facts about it right won’t stop you from attacking it, however. What does that tell us?
So your definition: Infallibility is about being prevent(ed) from making a mistake. It is a negative protection of the Holy Spirit rather than a positive giving of something.
contradicts everything scripture reveals about free will and choices.
BZZZZ WRONG!
I'll take scripture for $800 Alex.
“...commune with the dead...”
“Communing with the dead” is forbidden, because it is an attempt to exercise control over spirits—a prerogative that belongs only to God. It is also dangerous.
Asking a deceased person to join us in prayer is not “communing with the dead.” There is no attempt to control, to command, or to receive communications.
Catholic theology is crystal clear that only God is to be worshiped, and that “prayer” to angels or saints is not such worship.
Unless the person exercises their volition and steps out of fellowship with God. At that point, there is no guaranty of infallibility.
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.