The Chair of Peter

[GodsGrace]

So the Pope is not infallible?



So the Pope is infallible?



So, in the past 100 years, or more, no more than two Popes have been infallible?

Paul,
Please stop, put on your reading glasses and return for a serious discussion.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm sorry, but you did not answer WIP's question:



He did NOT ask you "Is the current Pope controlled by God Himself and therefore he is infallible?" You have not answered the question WIP asked you.

I answered it.
Do you not believe me?
Read posters answers instead of criticizing them.

Reread my reply to you.
WIP 's answer is there.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I merely pointed out your self-contradiction, and, instead of trying to account for it, you reacted to my pointing it out by saying to me:

Paul,
Please stop, put on your reading glasses and return for a serious discussion.

What you wrote, there, sounds like derogatory personal attack against me. How would you like it if I told you to "put on your reading glasses and return for a serious discussion"?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I answered it.

I don't know about that, but even if it's true that you did, how is your telling me you answered it relevant to anything that I've written in this thread? The fact remains that Walpole has not answered it.

Do you not believe me?

No. Not yet. Quote yourself answering it, and give a link to the post in which, according to you, you answered it. I'm not saying you've not answered it. I'm simply saying I have not seen you answering it in any of your posts. So, in case you really did answer it, and I just missed where you did so, feel free to reply to this post of mine with a link to the post in which, according to you, you answered the question WIP had asked Walpole. Thanks.

Read posters answers instead of criticizing them.

When posters do not give answers, what answers are there to be read? If you would read my posts, you'd understand that my criticism was of Walpole's failure to provide an answer to the question WIP had asked him.

Reread my reply to you.
WIP 's answer is there.

Give me a link to whichever post you are referring to as "my reply to you".

 

[Walpole]

I'm sorry, but you did not answer WIP's question:



He did NOT ask you "Is the current Pope controlled by God Himself and therefore he is infallible?" You have not answered the question WIP asked you.

I am not sure how much clearer I can get. I have answered it now multiple times...

"Your question is based on a false premise. The pope is NOT controlled by anyone no more than you are controlled by anyone."

Again, I thought the word "NOT" in my answer to WIP's question made it perfectly clear the answer is negative. If you do not understand "not", I thought "NO" would be even more direct, but apparently it's just not the answer you want.

To save you the trouble of having to scroll back and read through the thread where I answered WIP, as well as explained the Catholic teaching on what infallibility is, as well as what it is not, regarding the office of the bishop of Rome. Here you go...

Your question is based on a false premise. The pope is not controlled by anyone no more than you are controlled by anyone.

Your question also demonstrates a false understanding of what is meant by infallibility. For your question likens infallibility to a faucet, whereby God turns it on and through the pope truth starts pouring out. That is NOT what Catholics believe.

The reality is that infallibility is a negative gift, not a positive one. (That's a philosophical distinction.) The word itself comes from two Latin words meaning "not to be mistaken." It is thus not a faucet, but rather more like a levy. It prevents the river of truth from overflowing and turning into a swamp. This difference between a river and a swamp is a swamp has no banks. When the Church declares something infallibly, she is stating with certainty what is or is not the faith of the Church.

For if there is no organ, body or mechanism who can define and declare what is or is not the Christian faith, then Christianity becomes an entirely subjective religion. Each individual would therefore become his own determiner (and actual creator) of truth. He would thus decides what is or is not the Christian faith for himself. This, of course, is contrary to the religion of the Logos, which is a religion of revelation; whereby man discovers truth and conforms his will to it.

Yes, as explained in my previous post. Infallibility is not to be confused and conflated with inspiration.


It depends. The Pope's word is not infallible whenever he speaks, such as voicing his opinion.

However, by virtue of the authority of his office as successor to Peter, when he speaks as supreme head of the Church in questions of faith or morals, and with the intention of binding all the faithful, then yes. He is not a king, but in the Church, he is the final court of appeal so to speak.

Your question is based on a false premise that Scripture is the sole rule of faith. Catholics do not believe that. Revelation is not confined to the sacred Scriptures alone, but is also found in the Church's sacred tradition. (cf. 2 Thes 2:15)

When the pope is clarifying, defining or defending an issue of faith or morals, and is doing so in his role as supreme head of the Church, and binding the faithful to his decision, he is declaring with certainly what is or is not the faith of the Church.

As a courtesy, please read through the thread before accusing me of not answering a question. Had you done so, you would've seen that I did answer his question. It can be found ---> Here

"Your question is based on a false premise. The pope is not controlled by anyone no more than you are controlled by anyone."

I then followed this answer by explaining what infallibility is.

"Your question is based on a false premise. The pope is NOT controlled by anyone no more than you are controlled by anyone."

I'm sorry, but I thought the word "NOT" in my answer to WIP's question made it perfectly clear the answer is negative; that is, no.

Infallibility does not in any way imply control, impeccability, inspiration, or revelation. Again, it is a definitive answer as to what is or is not the faith of the Church.

 

[Walpole]

I answered it.
Do you not believe me?
Read posters answers instead of criticizing them.

Reread my reply to you.
WIP 's answer is there.

You can lead a horse to water...

 

[Niblo]

You are correct that Protestant denominations are way too many and I full heartedly agree. But, is it any better to blindly follow a church in error? Just because the Catholic church generally follows the one man, the Pope, doesn't necessarily mean it is any more correct or righteous. Are we not to exercise discernment? I'm not making accusations but simply asking the questions.

Hi.

Mungo has answered your post, and I've nothing to add.

Peace.

 

[Mungo]

Paul E. Michael
Let me approach this issue of the Pope being infallible in a slightly different way.

No-one in their natural state can be infallible. We are not omniscient. But God can gift us infallibility on occasions for his own purposes. We believe that the authors of scripture wrote infallibly. When Peter stated to Jesus: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mt 16:16) that was a profound and infallible statement.

In a similar way, no-one in their natural state can raise someone from the dead. But God can gift someone the power to raise someone from the dead, as Peter did to Tabitha in Acts 9:40 and Paul did to Eutychus in Acts 20:10.

We believe that Christ gifted the (Catholic) Church the gift of infallibility when it solemnly defines doctrines concerning faith and morals.

Concerning the Pope, the Church teaches that "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals." (CCC 891).

 

[Mungo]

The Church that Paul was speaking of in 1 Timothy was not necessarily the Catholic church of today. He was speaking of the Church of Christ and I do not believe they are necessarily the same thing. Having an unbroken succession of apostles does not necessarily preclude an unblemished succession. I do not believe The Church is "found in the fullness of truth in the Catholic church." That is not to say that any one Protestant church holds the banner of truth either. As I've already indicated, I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle and I pray that one day the Holy Spirit will lead me to the Truth and that I will recognize it when He does.

That would make a good discussion point - but in another thread.

 

[GodsGrace]

You can lead a horse to water...

All the signs...

 

[jaybo]

We don't blindly follow a church in error. We follow the Church that Jesus Christ promised to lead into all truth (Jn 13:16); the Church that was entrusted with the "good treasure", the sound teaching of Christ to others to guard and pass on in their turn. (2 Tim 1:13-14).

And we don't "generally follow one man". The vast majority of doctrinal decisions are made by general councils, just as the decision about circumcision was made by a council of leaders in Acts 15.

Scripture declares the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)

It is the Church that Jesus gave as the final arbiter in disputes (Mt 18:17). He did not say consult the scriptures but the Church.

I believe this Church is found in the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church which has unbroken succession from the apostles under the leadership of Peter and his successors.

We are warned in scripture against the dangers of private interpretation of scripture (2 Pet 1:20 & 2Pet 3:16)

"The church" and "the Catholic denomination" are not synonymous. The church is the body of Christ. "Catholic" is not found in the Bible.

1 Corinthians 12:12, "For just as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body—though many—are one body, so too is Christ."

1 Corinthians 12:27, "Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you is a member of it."

 

[Walpole]

"The church" and "the Catholic denomination" are not synonymous. The church is the body of Christ. "Catholic" is not found in the Bible...

Did you forget about our previous discussion where I demonstrated this is fallacious?

Thankfully our posts are saved and it can be found ----> Here

 

[GodsGrace]

I merely pointed out your self-contradiction, and, instead of trying to account for it, you reacted to my pointing it out by saying to me:



What you wrote, there, sounds like derogatory personal attack against me. How would you like it if I told you to "put on your reading glasses and return for a serious discussion"?

I'd reread my post to you.
I do not contradict myself.
My explanation was correct, perhaps you didn't understand it?
I'm not here to have sarcastic conversations but to attempt to have meaningful discussion.
I hope you're here for the same reason.
We do not have to agree to be pleasant to each other.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't know about that, but even if it's true that you did, how is your telling me you answered it relevant to anything that I've written in this thread? The fact remains that Walpole has not answered it.

Walpole Has answered the same question several times, as have I.

This is an open forum and anyone can reply to a member's question. Only Private Messaging is personal.

No. Not yet. Quote yourself answering it, and give a link to the post in which, according to you, you answered it. I'm not saying you've not answered it. I'm simply saying I have not seen you answering it in any of your posts. So, in case you really did answer it, and I just missed where you did so, feel free to reply to this post of mine with a link to the post in which, according to you, you answered the question WIP had asked Walpole. Thanks.

I'm on a phone, so I'm not sure I could post a link, bit I will give you a post number, just in case you missed it.

When posters do not give answers, what answers are there to be read? If you would read my posts, you'd understand that my criticism was of Walpole's failure to provide an answer to the question WIP had asked him.

Give me a link to whichever post you are referring to as "my reply to you".

Will do.

 

[GodsGrace]

Paul E. Michael

See posts 73 and 74.

 

[GodsGrace]

Paul E. Michael

See post number 3.

 

[GodsGrace]

Paul E. Michael

See post 70 and 77.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I'm not here to have sarcastic conversations

VS​

Paul,
Please stop, put on your reading glasses and return for a serious discussion.

If you are not here to be sarcastic, then why are you speaking sarcastically to me/about me here?

Telling me to "Please stop, put on your reading glasses and return for a serious discussion" is you being sarcastic. Like I said, how would you like it were I to tell you to "Please stop, put on your reading glasses and return for a serious discussion"?

We do not have to agree to be pleasant to each other.

On the contrary, as you show by your sarcastic remark to/about me, obviously I would have to agree with you in order for you to be pleasant to me. Were I to tell you to "Please stop, put on your reading glasses and return for a serious discussion," would you, in all honesty, be able to characterize that as me being pleasant to you?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I answered it.
Do you not believe me?

No. Not yet. Quote yourself answering it, and give a link to the post in which, according to you, you answered it.

I still don't believe you, as you've still not quoted yourself answering it, and you've still not given a link to the post in which, according to you, you answered it.

Will do.

OK, but talk is cheap. Go ahead, whenever you're ready to do so. So far you have not done so. Forgive me if I do not hold my breath in expectation that you actually will.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I do not contradict myself.

That's obviously false.

Here, in your first sentence—

The Pope is not infallible.

—you contradict what you affirm in your second sentence:

He is so only in matters of faith or morals.

You are glaringly contradicting your "is not" by affirming your "is so"; you are glaringly contradicting your "is so" by affirming your "is not". You're not going to be able to whitewash this self-contradiction of yours.