Infallibility of the Pope?

[Jude3b]

Does anyone understand how fallible men can elect a fallible man to be an infallible Pope? Put another way, how can sinful man elect a sinful man to be an infallible Pope?

[Jude3b]

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" (Romans 3:10). Jesus is the only infallible person who ever lived!

[Jude3b]

Nobody in Scripture, except Jesus, was infallible.

[Jude3b]

Does anyone understand how fallible men can elect a fallible man to be an infallible Pope? Put another way, how can sinful man elect a sinful man to be an infallible Pope?

When the pope who claims to be infallible, disagrees with God's Word, then God must be wrong. Are you Roman Catholics willing to accept that?

[Amazing Rando]

When the pope who claims to be infallible, disagrees with God's Word, then God must be wrong. Are you Roman Catholics willing to accept that?

There's a reason nobody's responding to some of these threads, Jude.

[Jude3b]

When the pope who claims to be infallible, disagrees with God's Word, then God must be wrong. Are you Roman Catholics willing to accept that?

Infallibility of the Pope is not taught in the Bible.

[mandolin]

i do not believe in the infallibility of the pope. This is because I'm not roman catholic.
However, for the sake of fun, I think I might just have to "disagree" with you here.

You put a lot of emphasis on the bible. Is the bible flawless...it being "the word of god"? If this is so, how could tainted men like Paul and peter, be trusted to give you infallible theology?

Could god use a tainted man to give infallible words from the chair of the pope like he used tainted men to give the "infallible" words inside your bible? :huh:

Keep in mind, the doctrine of infallability does not say that the pope is infallable, it claims that the pope is infallable "when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

Because christ supposedly built his church on the rock of Peter, and the papacy supposedly has a traced lineage to St. Peter, the pope has a pretty decent claim to power here.

Think about it, why would God place a faulty leader as the head over his true church?
So in light of this, papal infallability isn't such a bad idea. Since the pope hardly ever makes any drastic claims from his chair in the first place. If he does, it's most likely because of some huge fiasco that is splitting apart the church. Someone's gotta be trusted to bring sanity.

Why trust the bible writers and not the pope? Aren't they all flawed and tainted humans? :noid:

But no worries...I think it's bogus too. :teeth:

[Jude3b]

Jesus taught: "The scriptures cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Those who claim it is not true are calling God a liar! Dangerous thing to do.

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Is 8:20). People who will not adhere, believe and obey the Word of God are lost in their darkness!

[Gsusplaysguitar]

dang, I haven't been on here in a while.
Isaiah 8:20 is in regards to going to mediums over seeking the Lord God.--The "word" is the prophet saying- don't go to mediums and such...
John 10:35 is Jesus talking about psalms 82:6- so then what we can infer is jesus saying that Psalm is scripture that cannot be broken-remember jesus did not use the Bible such that we do. and mandolin, props, great post, love the devil's advocate aproach.

[mandolin]

Jesus taught: "The scriptures cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Those who claim it is not true are calling God a liar! Dangerous thing to do.

So you are saying that jesus held a book that quoted him saying those words when he said those words?
wait...I'm lost...
what was jesus referring to when he said "scripture"?
The New Testament?
Did he refer to Romans 3:10...Before it was written? :huh:

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Is 8:20). People who will not adhere, believe and obey the Word of God are lost in their darkness!

Yup...Amen.

Who's to say that the word of God can't come from the "rock of the church"? :poke:
(Matthew 16:18)

Your view of this "God-written" bible is an unfair and unrealistic one. The bible is but a corrolation of the words of men and god written down by the hands of men.

If you claim the bible is infallible...even though it was written by men...why can't the papal decrees be infallible? :huh:

Now, I know that you are thinking, "but jesus said that the scriptures cannot be broken....and Jesus never said that about the pope!"
But why would Jesus refer to the pope? There was no pope then. :doh:
Then again...he does refer to Peter ("the first pope") with pretty high esteem.

Again I ask you, why trust the bible writers and not the pope?

[Jude3b]

Rome maintains that alongside the written Word there is also an unwritten Word, an oral tradition. Rome states that the pope, as God's head representative on the earth, can legislate for things additional to the Bible.

God says, "don't add to the Word or take away from it."

Romanism adds to the Word of God. Why should we not trust Romanism and the popes? The most prominent doctrines and practices of the Roman Church, such as purgatory, the priesthood, the mass, transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, indulgences, penance, worship of the Virgin Mary, the use of images in worship, holy water, rosary beads, celibacy of priests and nuns, the papacy itself, and numerous other false doctrines, are founded soley on tradition and are not in the Word of God.

Rome teaches a false gospel and has another Christ - compared to that taught in the Word of God/.

[mandolin]

I still think you have a flase preception about what the bible actually is...and what "don't add to the Word or take away from it" applies to. Was this quote referring to the entire bible...hundreds of years before it took on a final form? Various early churches had different bible books than your bible. Somce did not include various books, while others had more. Sherperd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon, etc.

Also, why don't you try casting stones at Luther and his reform as well...after all, he was pretty hell-bent on yanking the epistle of James out of the bible.
If you use your poor hermeneutics to condemn catholics, why not condemn protestants?

Have you ever studied the history of "the bible"? You do realize that the bible is 66 seperate books, right? You realize it was not actually penned by God's literal hand? You realize that the books (NT) came together in the form we know of now after hundreds of years. That throughout the chunk of christian history, the bible was not finalized the way we know of it?



The bible is a collection of the words of men and God written by the hands of men to attempt an explanation of men, god, and the relationship therein.

[Jude3b]

Nobody is infallible, except Jesus.

God declares in the Bible that His written Word always has been, and always will be - perfect: "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119: 160).

Roman Catholics and others who like to cast dobts on the Word of God and its meanings - will surely answer to God about that!

[mandolin]

God declares in the Bible that His written Word always has been, and always will be - perfect: "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119: 160).

Ok, I'm thinking I'll say this one more time..then I might just give up...this is absurd.

Look at Psalm 119:160 which you have quoted. You say "god declares...."

Ok, if GOD is saying these words, then whose word is he refferring to?
Oh yeah, that's right, these are NOT the words of God. They are words of A MAN to God. "God's words are true from the beginning...says A MAN"

So when you say,
Nobody is infallible, except Jesus.
why do you assume that this writer of this psalm is infallible? :huh:

The bible writers were men too. Is this so difficult to grasp?
So, we're gonna try this again...please just try reading the bold words at least one time. Thanks.

If you claim the bible is infallible...even though it was written by men...why can't the papal decrees be infallible?

[Jude3b]

Ok, I'm thinking I'll say this one more time..then I might just give up...this is absurd.

Look at Psalm 119:160 which you have quoted. You say "god declares...."

Ok, if GOD is saying these words, then whose word is he refferring to?
Oh yeah, that's right, these are NOT the words of God. They are words of A MAN to God. "God's words are true from the beginning...says A MAN"

So when you say,

why do you assume that this writer of this psalm is infallible? :huh:

The bible writers were men too. Is this so difficult to grasp?
So, we're gonna try this again...please just try reading the bold words at least one time. Thanks.

If you claim the bible is infallible...even though it was written by men...why can't the papal decrees be infallible?

Fallible men are not infallible, never have been. Your popes are sinners, not infallible.

[rocketman]

And God the Holy Spirit guides the Pope in his decisions. We never said the popes were impeccable...simply that he would not teach us false doctrines. The Holy Spirit would protect him, just asthe Holy Spirit protected Scripture from being written down wrongly.

[Jude3b]

The popes of history have taught numerous false doctrines:

a really big one is claiming final authority. God and His word is final authority. No fallible, singful pope has any right to take the authority that only God can have.

Of course the multitude of false doctrines claimed and endorsed by a long list of fallible, sinful popes clearly shows that they are not infallible:
1- Salvation through the Roman Catholic church.
2- Salvation through religious works.
3- claiming Roman Catholicism is the one true church.
4- claiming that water baptism saves
5- claiming that the pope is the Vicar of Christ.
6- Claiming they are infallible
7- claiming that the sacraments save or add to someones salvation
8- infant baptism
9- transubstantiation
10- Mary saves doctrine
11- Mary saved from Birth doctrine
12- Mary Perpetual Virgin doctrine
13- Mary the Intercessor doctrine
14- The Mass
15- Purgatory
16- Praying to saints
17- Praying for the dead
18- statues
19- Penance
20- Confessing sins to a priest.

I'll stop there, call it the
Twent thesis.

[mandolin]

Fallible men are not infallible, never have been. Your popes are sinners, not infallible.
two things...

One...my popes? I'm not even catholic.

secondly...fallible men can not be infallible??
What about your bible writers? :huh:

[Jude3b]

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (John 8:47)

This means if we are born of God we'll not oppose His words but rather love them and strive to obey them.

[BHuston]

Keep in mind, the doctrine of infallability does not say that the pope is infallable, it claims that the pope is infallable "when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."Well, this used to be true.....

Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.

--Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964

[BHuston]

And God the Holy Spirit guides the Pope in his decisions. We never said the popes were impeccable...simply that he would not teach us false doctrines. The Holy Spirit would protect him, just asthe Holy Spirit protected Scripture from being written down wrongly.

Well, this is part of the whole issue here. The problem is that the current pope (and his predecssors) does in fact teach false doctrines that are not biblical and/or apostolic in nature...i.e. Marian doctrines, Immaculate Conception of Mary, Papal Infallibility, etc.

BTW, ever read of Honorius? Unam Sanctum by Boniface VII?

BH

[Tickle Me Goody]

Infallibility of the Pope is not taught in the Bible.
Neither is infallibility of the Bible taught in the Bible.

but the Bible does say:

Matthew 16

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+16:17-19&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_146641711_1)] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+16:17-19&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_146641711_2)] will not overcome it.[3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+16:17-19&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_146641711_3)] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+16:17-19&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_146641711_4)] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+16:17-19&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_146641711_5)] loosed in heaven."

I believe that the RC builds the case on that. It is Biblical. Would not all else damnable heresy?

GG

[BHuston]

Neither is infallibility of the Bible taught in the Bible.Somewhat agree here. Although, when Paul writes of Scripture being "God breathed" in 2 Tim. 3:16 there isn't much arguing about this point between Protestants, RCC and dare I say JW's and Mormons --at least that which is recognized as Scripture given your respected camp. Protestants contend that that which is Scripture is self-authenticating and the RCC contends that tradition and the Church interprets and authenticates here.

I believe that the RC builds the case on that. It is Biblical. Would not all else damnable heresy?What you cite is true, the RCC does indeed cite Matthew 16:19 as a "proof text" for the primacy of Peter, the problem is that they do not recognize Matthew 18:18 in the same arena when Christ addresses all 12 apostles with:

18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Now notice that Christ then goes on to affirm:

19 Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.

If Peter has primacy why then doesn't Chirst affirm him here. Peter even labels himself as merely an elder in his first epistle and cites Christ (not him sharing or in place on earth) as the Chief Shepherd. Why does Paul not cite Peter among the 12 or so people he salutes in his letter to the Romans? Why does Paul confront and correct Peter (supposedly infallible ex-cathedra) on a theological issue? Why does Paul's and John's writings dominate the New Testament? Why do most RCC apologists and historians admit that the papacy was developed doctrine not originally taught and/or viewed by the apostles and earliest church fathers?

BH

[Tickle Me Goody]

Somewhat agree here. Although, when Paul writes of Scripture being "God breathed" in 2 Tim. 3:16 there isn't much arguing about this point between Protestants, RCC and dare I say JW's and Mormons --at least that which is recognized as Scripture given your respected camp. Protestants contend that that which is Scripture is self-authenticating and the RCC contends that tradition and the Church interprets and authenticates here.

What you cite is true, the RCC does indeed cite Matthew 16:19 as a "proof text" for the primacy of Peter, the problem is that they do not recognize Matthew 18:18 in the same arena when Christ addresses all 12 apostles with:

18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Now notice that Christ then goes on to affirm:

19 Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.

If Peter has primacy why then doesn't Chirst affirm him here. Peter even labels himself as merely an elder in his first epistle and cites Christ (not him sharing or in place on earth) as the Chief Shepherd. Why does Paul not cite Peter among the 12 or so people he salutes in his letter to the Romans? Why does Paul confront and correct Peter (supposedly infallible ex-cathedra) on a theological issue? Why does Paul's and John's writings dominate the New Testament? Why do most RCC apologists and historians admit that the papacy was developed doctrine not originally taught and/or viewed by the apostles and earliest church fathers?

BH
All that you say is valid. However, the church existed first and NT scripture was second. I believe that it is the RC contenton that the Church authored the Bible, not the other way around. Moreover, that the Roman Catholic Church is the interpretor of the Bible and that tradition is also a factor in Christian beliefs.

Protestanism, after all, did not exist for some 1500 years after Christ. The notion of "self-iterpreting scripture" is relatively new.

An interesting site about the popes may be found at:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

and its links.

GG

[Findo]

Just a quick thought....

... doesn't the authority of the pope rely on Apostolic Succession?

Is Apostolic Succession biblical?

[Tickle Me Goody]

Just a quick thought....

... doesn't the authority of the pope rely on Apostolic Succession?

Is Apostolic Succession biblical?
The Bible does speak of some aspects of the early church organization. An argument for apostolic succession may be found at:

http://holyorthodoxy.tripod.com/apostolicsuccession.html


(for what it is worth)


GG

[Findo]

That shows how all orthodox 'presbyters' can trace their heratige back to the apostles, it doesn't mean they have the same authority as the 12 apostles.
I think bible gives clear guidelines as to the requirements to be eligable for the office of apostle. 1 being, they were with Jesus during His ministry.... mmm..

[Tickle Me Goody]

That shows how all orthodox 'presbyters' can trace their heratige back to the apostles, it doesn't mean they have the same authority as the 12 apostles.
I think bible gives clear guidelines as to the requirements to be eligable for the office of apostle. 1 being, they were with Jesus during His ministry.... mmm..
But, once again, the early church came before the NT bible. The early church defined what the NT scriptures were -- not the other way around. It is a typical Protestent notion that the scrptures came first and they define what then the church would be. That simply is not accurate history.

The Council of Trent held forth the RC view:

"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold"


GG

[Ric]

Does anyone understand how fallible men can elect a fallible man to be an infallible Pope? Put another way, how can sinful man elect a sinful man to be an infallible Pope?

They can't! :rcc:

[Jezz]

I think bible gives clear guidelines as to the requirements to be eligable for the office of apostle. 1 being, they were with Jesus during His ministry.... mmm..
A couple of questions that might make you want to rethink this...

1. Was Paul an apostle?
2. Was Paul with Jesus during His ministry?

[Tickle Me Goody]

They can't! :rcc:
I have to agree.


Though I have put forth the RC claims (which I learned in high school), I personally do not agree with them.

(Got neg repped for posting them. That would teach me if I ever cared)

goody

[Ric]

I have to agree.


Though I have put forth the RC claims (which I learned in high school), I personally do not agree with them.

(Got neg repped for posting them. That would teach me if I ever cared)

goody
neg repped ??? :???:

[Findo]

Act 1:20 "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, "'May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it'; and "'Let another take his office.'
Act 1:21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."
Act 1:23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24 And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
Act 1:25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."
Act 1:26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

I believe this shows the criteria for an apostle.

A couple of questions that might make you want to rethink this...

1. Was Paul an apostle?
2. Was Paul with Jesus during His ministry?

1. Yes.
2. No.. well perhaps, as saul.. we don't know.

However...

1Co 15:8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Paul claims to be an apostle.. he claims to be one untimely born.

Act 9:15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. I think we can agree that paul is an exceptional and unique case where Christ Himself appointed paul.

But, once again, the early church came before the NT bible. The early church defined what the NT scriptures were -- not the other way around.
Yes, the early church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit defined what the NT consisted of.. but the stuff that the NT consisted of existed before the pepole who canonised it.. Just because it wasn't canonised until later doesn't make what it says not applicable. If the apostles considered being with Jesus during His ministry to be a criteria for an apostle, then what does the later canonisatoin of the NT have to do with it? It still means what it says..

[BHuston]

All that you say is valid. However, the church existed first and NT scripture was second. I believe that it is the RC contenton that the Church authored the Bible, not the other way around. Moreover, that the Roman Catholic Church is the interpretor of the Bible and that tradition is also a factor in Christian beliefs.GG, I understand what the RCC contends, I was just pointing out a few of the problems as to this contention and what many Protestants argue today, simplistically: The RCC today is not the "original chruch" and departed from it a long time ago.

Protestanism, after all, did not exist for some 1500 years after Christ. The notion of "self-iterpreting scripture" is relatively new.Well, I am more inclined to go with "self authenticating" rather than "self interpreting." Given man's infalliblity, authentication becomes evident through attempts at interpreting Scripture and how it holds up to other Scripture, i.e. sort of like the Bereans in Acts 17:11.

[BHuston]

The early church defined what the NT scriptures were -- not the other way around. It is a typical Protestent notion that the scrptures came first and they define what then the church would be. That simply is not accurate history. Actually, that would be foundational for Christ's Church as we understand it today. You cannot make the argument that Christ's teachings were spoken after the church was formed, for the early church was born out of His life and great sacrifice. The fact that they were written after Christ's death and during/after the ministry of the apostles does not make them less definitive for the church.

BH

[Jude3b]

The popes of history have taught numerous false doctrines:

a really big one is claiming final authority. God and His word is final authority. No fallible, singful pope has any right to take the authority that only God can have.

Of course the multitude of false doctrines claimed and endorsed by a long list of fallible, sinful popes clearly shows that they are not infallible:
1- Salvation through the Roman Catholic church.
2- Salvation through religious works.
3- claiming Roman Catholicism is the one true church.
4- claiming that water baptism saves
5- claiming that the pope is the Vicar of Christ.
6- Claiming they are infallible
7- claiming that the sacraments save or add to someones salvation
8- infant baptism
9- transubstantiation
10- Mary saves doctrine
11- Mary saved from Birth doctrine
12- Mary Perpetual Virgin doctrine
13- Mary the Intercessor doctrine
14- The Mass
15- Purgatory
16- Praying to saints
17- Praying for the dead
18- statues
19- Penance
20- Confessing sins to a priest.

I'll stop there, call it the
Twent thesis.

[Jude3b]

The popes of history have taught numerous false doctrines:

a really big one is claiming final authority. God and His word is final authority. No fallible, singful pope has any right to take the authority that only God can have.

Of course the multitude of false doctrines claimed and endorsed by a long list of fallible, sinful popes clearly shows that they are not infallible:
1- Salvation through the Roman Catholic church.
2- Salvation through religious works.
3- claiming Roman Catholicism is the one true church.
4- claiming that water baptism saves
5- claiming that the pope is the Vicar of Christ.
6- Claiming they are infallible
7- claiming that the sacraments save or add to someones salvation
8- infant baptism
9- transubstantiation
10- Mary saves doctrine
11- Mary saved from Birth doctrine
12- Mary Perpetual Virgin doctrine
13- Mary the Intercessor doctrine
14- The Mass
15- Purgatory
16- Praying to saints
17- Praying for the dead
18- statues
19- Penance
20- Confessing sins to a priest.

I'll stop there, call it the
Twent thesis.

Sorry about the typo. I did not mean "singful" pope, but rather "sinful" pope.

[Findo]

Sorry about the typo. I did not mean "singful" pope, but rather "sinful" pope.
'cause then we would have to debate wether the pope was a tenor or baritone.. :lol:

[Jude3b]

'cause then we would have to debate wether the pope was a tenor or baritone.. :lol:

funny!

[Findo]

Sorry about the typo. I did not mean "singful" pope, but rather "sinful" pope... and if he really was appointed by God, he would of course be a baritone! :tongue:

[Jude3b]

.. and if he really was appointed by God, he would of course be a baritone! :tongue:

obviously that is true!

[BibleMan]

Does anyone understand how fallible men can elect a fallible man to be an infallible Pope? Put another way, how can sinful man elect a sinful man to be an infallible Pope?


That's just religion. It is not Biblical.