Posted on 11/11/2014 11:35:48 AM PST by NYer
You are wrong.
vergas new phrase is “You are wrong”. Although the word “pope” is not in my Bible as well. So, technically, you are correct. Catholicism has developed a highly complex explanation system for their myriad of rules and definitions that can change BUT they will deny anything has changed but only made more concise. If it sounds confusing, it’s because it is. Much more than anything preached or practiced in the Bible. Follow Christs example and you’ll be okay.
Infallible:
Dependable
Unfailing
Foolproof
Watertight
Reliable
Sound
Failsafe
So, is he or is he not? We all know he is not sinless.
“Would have to search for the history, but weren’t there rival Popes that declared each other heretics?”
No. There were rival men claiming to be pope. There’s a difference.
A quick analysis of a forced rationalization of the unbiblical principle of infallibility. Here are some quick facts about the papacy:
1) All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, full stop.
2) Rationalization via red herring is disingenuous. That someone did something good does not rectify his evil actions & words.
3) Further rationalization via more red herrings is still disingenuous. That some people were gratuitously evil doesn’t have anything to do with the discussion. BTW, it is entirely true that every pope, along with every human who ever lived (yes, her too) would be in hell if not for the _grace_ of God thru Christ.
4) The notion that no pope has ever taught heresy (i.e., no pope has ever taught error as Truth) is absurd as there are plenty of teachings which were pronounced as correct then reversed later. See the “95 Theses” for numerous substantive examples (we’re still waiting for a rebuttal).
5) If you wonder how someone tasked with inerrancy can speak fallacy, think of a math professor teaching his students utterly incorrect formulas and concepts while declaring them correct, while later he or his successors deny any notion that prior and current pronouncements contradict despite their plain contradiction. Or think of someone chaste who preaches that adultery is correct (say, pointing at the famous misprint “Thou shalt commit adultery”); his words are evil, but what he does is perfectly true.
There you have it. Words are actions and subject to fallibility. Just because God protected sinful men from teaching doctrinal error when writing the Bible, He never indicated He would protect sinful Peter and his sinful successors from teaching doctrinal error while leading His Church.
Welcome to cognitive dissonance in action.
“yup. Rome and the Holy Roman Empire period.”
No. There were never rival popes. There were merely rival men claiming to be pope. There’s a difference. There are at least ten men claiming to be pope NOW.
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bawden
“So, is he or is he not?”
Yes, but only when he invokes infallibility.
Like any serious conspiracy theory, all holes in the theory are denied via mental gymnastics “proving” there is no hole. The result is a bizarrely complex theory which is nigh unto impossible to disprove purely on the grounds of the sheer volume of details which must be individually disproved coupled with the rapidity of reworking them as each one is removed.
“You are wrong.”
My, what unassailable logic.
“Papal ‘infallibility’ is a relatively new concept.”
Actually it has been discussed often for the last 700 years. In other words, as a full fledged concept it is 200 years older than Protestantism.
“It was only defined in 1870.”
Officially. The oldest definition I read dates back to about 1335.
“By the way, I can’t seem to find the word ‘Pope’ in my Bible at all.”
You don’t have the word “father” in your Bible? What a strange Bible you have. Now see if you have the word “Bible” or “Trinity” in your Bible. You won’t find them but every orthodox Christian in the world uses those words.
“It’s almost like it was invented after the Bible was written.”
Again, it means “father” so it existed long before the Bible.
Yes, but only when he invokes infallibility.
He's like Tony Stark. He has to put on the suit.
Matthew 23:8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
Jesus explicitly states we are not to exalt men, only God.
Your list has serious defects in logic:
“1) All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, full stop.”
Impeccability is about no sin. It has nothing to do with infallibility.
“2) Rationalization via red herring is disingenuous. That someone did something good does not rectify his evil actions & words.”
None of that has anything to do with infallibility.
“3) ...BTW, it is entirely true that every pope, along with every human who ever lived (yes, her too) would be in hell if not for the _grace_ of God thru Christ.”
Who is denying that? No one.
“4) The notion that no pope has ever taught heresy (i.e., no pope has ever taught error as Truth) is absurd as there are plenty of teachings which were pronounced as correct then reversed later.”
Actually none.
“See the “95 Theses” for numerous substantive examples (we’re still waiting for a rebuttal).”
That’s completely false. The Ninety-Five Theses include no such list. If you actually read the Theses, you would know it focuses on indulgences and not on papally defined doctrines - the only thing that would matter in the issue of infallibility.
“5) If you wonder how someone tasked with inerrancy can speak fallacy,”
Your example makes no sense in regard to infallibility because even a math teacher is not “tasked with inerrancy”. We want him to teach the truth, but the Holy Spirit isn’t keeping him from error.
“Welcome to cognitive dissonance in action.”
That’s what your post is.
Regarding the words 'Bible' and 'Trinity' those are descriptors of clearly defined concepts found in scripture.
The 'Pope' or 'Father' if you will, are discouraged by Jesus himself.
Does tradition trump Jesus?
“See post 56 regarding ‘father’”
I did. First, it changes nothing because it is not a prohibition as Protestants now take it (generally, they’ve only claimed it as such in the last two or so centuries). Secondly, it is still in scripture, thus proving anyone who thinks ‘father’ (pope) is not in the Bible is in fact wrong.
“Regarding the words ‘Bible’ and ‘Trinity’ those are descriptors of clearly defined concepts found in scripture.”
Really? Show me the canon as listed in scripture. Does Matthew belong in the Bible? Where in scripture are we told it does? Explain to me what the Holy Spirit is in relation to the Father and Son using scripture alone.
“The ‘Pope’ or ‘Father’ if you will, are discouraged by Jesus himself.”
Actually, no. If that were the case, the two things would be true: 1) there would be ancient prohibitions among the orthodox about it, and universally among Protestants of the 16th and 17th century. Those don’t exist. 2) No Christian - or at least no Protestant Christian - would refer to their male parent as ‘father’, ‘Dad’, ‘Daddy’, or ‘pop’ - since they are all variations of “father’.
“Does tradition trump Jesus?”
Nope. And stupidity and ignorance do not trump truth - so I reject the falsehoods you’re pushing.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father
“This is getting way too serious in a hurry. We all know no man is infallible.”
Really? Always, everywhere and in every situation? Is today Tuesday or Sunday? If you say, “Tuesday” isn’t that an infallibly true statement?
“If you don’t believe that go ask you mother in law.”
No, I’m asking you: Is it Tuesday or Sunday?
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.