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.
“Because most people of any christian stripe do not know this, that’s why.”
I find that hard to believe. I’m sure at my parish that’s actually common knowledge. Also, if anyone studies the Catechism of the Catholic Church there’s no way to avoid seeing the idea if not that specific verse in paragraphs 63, 709, 782, 784, 803, 871, 873, 897, 1119, 1132, 1141, 1174, 1216, 1268, 1291, 1322, 1539, 1546, 1580, 1591, 2233, 2750.
Good on your parish then for revealing scripture.
Like I said, most people, including Catholics I have spoken to, are unaware that God intended for the entire nation of Israel to be a nation of priests.
They were even placed in the promised land, on two major world crossroads of trade, to be an influence on all nations, but recoiled from their task.
“Well infallibility is not something a man can do.”
If you mean papal infallibility, who here is claiming he does? Again, we see that you are apparently unfamiliar with the actual doctrine you are attacking. Papal infallibility has to do with the office, not the man and it isn’t the man who does but God (the Holy Spirit).
“Not even a ‘super bishop,’ unless the Holy Spirit is moving a man.”
No, not moving a man, but (in essence) preventing him from being moved. Again, you apparently have no familiarity with the actual doctrine you are attacking.
“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.”
Yes, but that is not my definition. That is what papal infallibility is or entails.
“contradicts everything scripture reveals about free will and choices.”
No. No free will is prevented in papal infallibility anymore than inspiration prevents men to freely write what they want to write. Luke wanted to get everything he wrote right. He tells us about his preparations (Luke 1:1-4) and perhaps hints at some of his sources (cf. Luke 1:19). The Holy Spirit influenced Luke to write the truth and only the truth but did not overwhelm him or channel through him. The same is true of the Holy Spirit preventing the pope from making an error. The pope already has the intention of doing right. He entrusts himself to God and relies on His grace.
“BZZZZ WRONG!”
No, I’m absolutely right.
“I’ll take scripture for $800 Alex.”
Alex Trebek is Catholic, but he’ll still let you play.
Really? So what you're saying is, it actually IS defined like inspiration, only as a defensive form to prevent error.
“Like I said, most people, including Catholics I have spoken to, are unaware that God intended for the entire nation of Israel to be a nation of priests.”
Any knowledgeable Catholic can tell you that Christ intended His Church to be a priestly people just as YHWH intended Israel to be a priestly nation.
“They were even placed in the promised land, on two major world crossroads of trade, to be an influence on all nations, but recoiled from their task.”
They refused to stick to their end of the covenant. They worshiped false gods (Leviticus 18:21 20:2-5; 1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 23:13; 1 Kings 11: 5 & 11:23; Jeremiah 32:35; Amos 5:25-26; Acts 7:42-43), they intermarried with pagan women (Deut 7:1-4; Ezra 10:2-3; Nehemiah 13:25-27; Malachi 2:11 and numerous others), they refused to rest on the sabbath (which means they didn’t just not rest but also did not properly worship God). God knew this is how it would be. Otherwise there would be no Jeremiah 31:31-34.
“Communing with the dead” is forbidden, because it is an attempt to exercise control over spirits—a prerogative that belongs only to God.”
Got any Bible verses to cite that say that?
“It is also dangerous.”
On that we can agree.
“Asking a deceased person to join us in prayer is not “communing with the dead.””
Citation?
“Catholic theology is crystal clear that only God is to be worshiped, and that “prayer” to angels or saints is not such worship.”
I don’t doubt your theology says this. However, I’m much more concerned about what God has said about the matter. Your theology won’t help me much if it instructs me to ignore God’s commands.
“Really? So what you’re saying is, it actually IS defined like inspiration, only as a defensive form to prevent error.”
No. I am not saying it is defined as is inspiration. I am merely pointing out that free will is not violated in either. I can’t understand why you keep getting EVERYTHING wrong. Do you know anything at all about this topic? Seriously, anything at all?
You're welcome.
Have a nice night Vlad.
“Have a nice night Vlad.”
You too.
Yes, our Father is in heaven. "Pope" DERIVES from that word. That's all.
I didn't say that the pope WAS our Father. It's titular only, as Jesus' Vicar = a representative or deputy here on earth. Nothing more, or less.
Protestants have no leader or any councils. That is possibly why there are 40,000 different Protestant denominations (Google) and ONE Catholic Church.
There's even a denomination named after the excommunicated Catholic priest Father Martin Luther: "Lutherans."
There's nothing wrong with that, but the enormous number of Protestant denominations DOES show HUGE divisions, that is, 40,000 different different interpretations of their Christian faith.
Why do believe the Bible?
“That is possibly why there are 40,000 different Protestant denominations (Google) and ONE Catholic Church.”
I see you make this argument often, as if it is some indictment of Protestants. Yet, Christ called all Christians to unity, he did not spare the Catholics from that command. If there are 40,000 Christian demoninations that your church is not in unity with, then that is as much an indictment of your church as it is any of those denominations.
If you are going to change the subject instead of addressing my points, I won’t continue this discussion any further.
You haven’t cited one word of Scripture that teaches that our friends and relatives become like inert doorstops at death, and neither know nor care about us, and have no desire to petition God to assist us.
WHY is it THAT the Catholic Church's fault?
Is the Catholic Church supposed to change their moral absolutes, as shown below, just so that more people can be unified?
Catholic dogma won't change.
Unmarried priesthood won't change.
The ban on divorce-remarriage won't change.
Reasons for annulment won't change.
One man-one woman marriage won't change.
The ban on artificial birth control won't change.
The ban on abortion won't change.
Moral ABSOLUTES will remain moral ABSOLUTES.
EXAMPLE: Being "in unity" with people who consider abortion acceptable is being in union with Satan.
The Catholic Church can't suddenly declare that marriage-divorce-remarriage-divorce-remarriage is acceptable.
The Catholic Church can't suddenly declare that artificial birth control and abortion are acceptable.
The Catholic Church can't suddenly change moral absolutes.
YOU are the one who read "indictment" in what I wrote. There is none from MY side of the computer.
I don't ever write that Protestants should change. I think they're fine the way they are. They can have ANOTHER 40,000 denominations for all I care and if they want. That isn't my call or my business.
God bless you, Boogieman.
BTW, why THAT call sign? Lol. Just curious. I don't mean to pry.
“WHY is it THAT the Catholic Church’s fault?”
I don’t think any Christian church is going to be “given a pass” by Christ simply by say “it’s not our fault!” Certainly, from reading the letters to the churches in Revelation, it doesn’t seem that he cares much for that type of thinking.
If Christians aren’t in unity, the issue is how to bring them back into unity, not how we can play the blame game and point fingers at some other churches as the source of the problem. At least, that’s my opinion.
“BTW, why THAT call sign? Lol. Just curious. I don’t mean to pry.”
I like to play boogie woogie piano, cuz I’m weird like that.
“You haven’t cited one word of Scripture that teaches that our friends and relatives become like inert doorstops at death, and neither know nor care about us, and have no desire to petition God to assist us.”
I never made that assertion. YOU falsely tried to ascribed that as a consequence of my argument, and I pointed out that your assertion was a non sequiter. One doesn’t need to cite Scripture to point out a fallacious argument.
Thank you for recognizing my humility, I will pray for you to come to realize the truth of the Catholic Church and enter into full communion with Jesus through her.
Since you are determined, though, to twist my statement into something that is more acceptable to you, who do you "talk" to more often--Mary or our Saviour, the Lord of the Universe with Whom we are co-heirs to the mighty kingdom?
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.