The Chair of Peter

[Paul E. Michael]

Infallibility does not in any way imply control, impeccability, inspiration, or revelation.

So, then, your pope's act of speaking "infallibly" can be an act of lying? I mean, lying is sinning, is it not? And being peccable is, among other things, being able to lie, right?

(You're preaching to the Protestant choir, though, in your admission that your pope's extra-Biblical, "infallible" utterances are not revelation.)

 

[Walpole]

So, then, your pope's act of speaking "infallibly" can be an act of lying? I mean, lying is sinning, is it not? And being peccable is, among other things, being able to lie, right?

The pope is as peccable as you and I. As such, he is capable of being able to lie, just as you and I. The charism of infallibility is not a question of personal holiness.

Once again, infallibility involves the pope exercising his role and authority as supreme head of the Church in questions of faith or morals, and with the intention of binding all the faithful. It is primarily to answer a theological question, to clarify a particular doctrine, or to settle a dispute. It is a definitive answer as to what is or is not the faith of the Church. Similarly, this charism is shared with the bishops in communion with him and exercised at Councils. For example, when the bishops of the Church gathered to declare and define the dogma of the Trinity in 325 A.D., or the hypostatic union of Christ at Chalcedon in 451 A.D.

Without such a charism, the Church cannot rightly be called the pillar and foundation of the truth and Christianity would therefore be nothing more than an entirely subjective religion.

(You're preaching to the Protestant choir, though, in your admission that your pope's extra-Biblical, "infallible" utterances are not revelation.)

I presumed so, but just wanted to make it clear so as to dispel any additional straw men put forth.

 

[GodsGrace]

VS​

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"?



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?

No further comment.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The pope is as peccable as you and I. As such, he is capable of being able to lie, just as you and I. The charism of infallibility is not a question of personal holiness.

Once again, infallibility involves the pope exercising his role and authority as supreme head of the Church in questions of faith or morals, and with the intention of binding all the faithful. It is primarily to answer a theological question, to clarify a particular doctrine, or to settle a dispute. It is a definitive answer as to what is or is not the faith of the Church. Similarly, this charism is shared with the bishops in communion with him and exercised at Councils. For example, when the bishops of the Church gathered to declare and define the dogma of the Trinity in 325 A.D., or the hypostatic union of Christ at Chalcedon in 451 A.D.

Without such a charism, the Church cannot rightly be called the pillar and foundation of the truth and Christianity would therefore be nothing more than an entirely subjective religion.


I presumed so, but just wanted to make it clear so as to dispel any additional straw men put forth.

IOW, you refuse to answer the simple Yes/No question I asked you:

So, then, your pope's act of speaking "infallibly" can be an act of lying?

Since you assert that "infallibility does not in any way imply...impeccability," I am asking you:

Can your pope's act of speaking "infallibly" be an act of lying? Yes or No?

Here are your only, two possible answers to this binary-choice question:

• Affirmative: "Yes, the pope's act of speaking infallibly can be an act of lying."
• Negative: "No, the pope's act of speaking infallibly cannot be an act of lying."

So far, you've not answered this question in the affirmative, and you've not answered it in the negative, so you have not answered this question at all.

 

[GodsGrace]

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.



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.

Guess you missed my posts to you giving you post numbers.

No further comment.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's obviously false.

Here, in your first sentence—



—you contradict what you affirm in your second sentence:



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.

Paul
It's not my responsibility to force you to understand the infallibility of the Pope.
If you don't care to understand it, it's fine.

Just don't criticize something you refuse to understand.

I see Walpole is trying again.
I believe it will be futile.

 

[Walpole]

IOW, you refuse to answer the simple Yes/No question I asked you:

It looks like your modus operandi is to accuse someone of not answering a yes / no when you don't get the answer you want.

I'll take note going forward.

Since you assert that "infallibility does not in any way imply...impeccability," I am asking you:

Can your pope's act of speaking "infallibly" be an act of lying? Yes or No?

No. By definition, when exercising his office and speaking infallibly, he is free from error and clarifying what is the true teaching and faith of the Church.

Lying, by definition, is telling falsehood; untruthfulness.

Here are your only, two possible answers to this binary-choice question:

• Affirmative: "Yes, the pope's act of speaking infallibly can be an act of lying."
• Negative: "No, the pope's act of speaking infallibly cannot be an act of lying."

So far, you've not answered this question in the affirmative, and you've not answered it in the negative, so you have not answered this question at all.

This may help you with your struggle ---> Definition of infallible

Just so I am clear, the charism of infallibility = When the pope exercising his role and authority as supreme head of the Church in questions of faith or morals, and with the intention of binding all the faithful.

The pope's act of speaking infallibly cannot be an act of lying, by definition. (The principal of non-contradiction states a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time.)

 

[Walpole]

Paul
It's not my responsibility to force you to understand the infallibility of the Pope.
If you don't care to understand it, it's fine.

Just don't criticize something you refuse to understand.

I see Walpole is trying again.
I believe it will be futile.

This, "You won't answer questions!" is getting a little tiring. But, I guess the good Lord thinks I need to work on the virtue of patience!

God bless.

Oremus pro invicem.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Guess you missed my posts to you giving you post numbers.

Guess you missed my two, very specific requests to you:

Quote yourself answering it, and give a link to the post* in which, according to you, you answered it.

*Note "post" (singular), not "posts" (plural).

Your refusal to quote/link to yourself answering the question you claim you answered is a loud and clear advertisement that you did not answer it.

No further comment.

You already said that in your previous post (#104). How many more times do you intend to say "No further comment"?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

It looks like your modus operandi is to accuse someone of not answering a yes / no when you don't get the answer you want.

Looks like your modus operandi is to claim that you had answered a Yes/No question that you had not answered, and then to use the common shtick of saying things like "You just did not get the answer you wanted."

But, what answer are you claiming I "want"? I'm always perfectly happy with never being given any answer, by my debate opponents, to the simple, Yes/No questions I ask them: that's them stuck on the horns of their dilemma.

Here, again, is the question I had asked you:

So, then, your pope's act of speaking "infallibly" can be an act of lying?

Not until your post #108 had you answered the question I asked you, and here is your answer:

No.

Thanks for answering it. You answered it in the negative. By so answering, you are contradicting your previous claim, that "infallibility does not in any way imply...impeccability". If your pope's speaking "infallibly" cannot be an act of lying, then, for your pope to speak infallibly would, indeed, imply that your pope would be impeccable in speaking infallibly.

Lying, by definition, is telling falsehood; untruthfulness.

That's false.

To lie is to endeavor to get someone to believe a proposition believed to be false by the liar.

This may help you with your struggle ---> Definition of infallible

My "struggle"?? Here, you are leveling a derogatory personal attack against me. Would you consider it respectful toward you, were I to say, to you, "This may help you with your struggle..."?

The pope's act of speaking infallibly cannot be an act of lying, by definition.

Here, you are once again contradicting your earlier claim that "infallibility does not in any way imply...impeccability".

(The principal [sic] of non-contradiction states a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time.)

No principle states anything. Principles do not state things. Rather, persons state things, whereas principles are things that are stated (by persons).

Here's the law of non-contradiction: No truth is contradictory to truth, and no falsehood is contradictory to falsehood.

"a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time"

A thing cannot both be WHAT and not be WHAT at the same time? Obviously a thing can both be a German shepherd and not be a house pet at the same time, and a thing can both be a stadium in which the Lakers are playing and not be a stadium in which the Celtics are playing at the same time.

 

[Mungo]

Paul E. Michael
You have ignored my post #88.
Have you no reply?

 

[Walpole]

Looks like your modus operandi is to claim that you had answered a Yes/No question that you had not answered, and then to use the common shtick of saying things like "You just did not get the answer you wanted."

But, what answer are you claiming I "want"? I'm always perfectly happy with never being given any answer, by my debate opponents, to the simple, Yes/No questions I ask them: that's them stuck on the horns of their dilemma.

Here, again, is the question I had asked you:


Not until your post #108 had you answered the question I asked you, and here is your answer:

Your game is here for all to see. You have been answered every time you asked a question.

Thanks for answering it. You answered it in the negative. By so answering, you are contradicting your previous claim, that "infallibility does not in any way imply...impeccability". If your pope's speaking "infallibly" cannot be an act of lying, then, for your pope to speak infallibly would, indeed, imply that your pope would be impeccable in speaking infallibly.

Again, when speaking infallibility, the pope is stating as final arbiter what is or is not the faith of the Church.

That's false.

To lie is to endeavor to get someone to believe a proposition believed to be false by the liar.

In your definition, the intention is to deceive. When a pope or council is speaking infallibility, the intention is to clarify, define and defend what is the faith of the Church.

Again, if you cannot know with certainty what is or is the Christian faith, then it renders it entirely subjective.

My "struggle"?? Here, you are leveling a derogatory personal attack against me. Would you consider it respectful toward you, were I to say, to you, "This may help you with your struggle..."?



Here, you are once again contradicting your earlier claim that "infallibility does not in any way imply...impeccability".



No principle states anything. Principles do not state things. Rather, persons state things, whereas principles are things that are stated (by persons).

Here's the law of non-contradiction: No truth is contradictory to truth, and no falsehood is contradictory to falsehood.

"a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time"

A thing cannot both be WHAT and not be WHAT at the same time? Obviously a thing can both be a German shepherd and not be a house pet at the same time, and a thing can both be a stadium in which the Lakers are playing and not be a stadium in which the Celtics are playing at the same time.

Stating you are struggling with answers is no more a personal attack than you accusing others of not answering your questions.

Priniciples are basic rules that explain acts, conduct and truths. Again, the principle of noncontradiction states a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time (Summa Theologica 1.25.3), that is, if something is true, then the opposite is not true. (Think about a round square or as you point out, a dog is not a house.)

 

[Walpole]

Paul E. Michael
You have ignored my post #88.
Have you no reply?

When you are trying to erect a straw man and conflate impeccability with infallibility, posts like yours must be ignored.

 

[Mungo]

When you are trying to erect a straw man and conflate impeccability with infallibility, posts like yours must be ignored.

I don't understand your comment here Walpole.

 

[Walpole]

I don't understand your comment here Walpole.

The poster is deliberately conflating impeccability (of personal holiness / moral agency) with infallibility (of adjudication).

In order to continue with the straw man of deliberately conflating these in order to try and demonstrate infallibility must include a moral act of the will / agency (e.g. lying), the poster must ignore your clear and articulate explanation as to what is meant by the Catholic understanding of infallibility.

When the Catholic understanding of infallibility is explained, the straw man collapses. Hence the Catholic understanding of infallibility must be ignored.

 

[Mungo]

The poster is deliberately conflating impeccability (of personal holiness / moral agency) with infallibility (of adjudication).

In order to continue with the straw man of deliberately conflating these in order to try and demonstrate infallibility must include a moral act of the will / agency (e.g. lying), the poster must ignore your clear and articulate explanation as to what is meant by the Catholic understanding of infallibility.

When the Catholic understanding of infallibility is explained, the straw man collapses. Hence the Catholic understanding of infallibility must be ignored.

Ah yes, spot on.

 

[jaybo]

The Pope is nothing but a man in a costume acting as the leader of a denomination. Of course he is not infallible.

BTW, the office of "Pope" isn't found in the Bible. It's a made-up term for the leader of a single Christian sect.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Pope is nothing but a man in a costume acting as the leader of a denomination. Of course he is not infallible.

BTW, the office of "Pope" isn't found in the Bible. It's a made-up term for the leader of a single Christian sect.

 

[Mungo]

The Pope is nothing but a man in a costume acting as the leader of a denomination. Of course he is not infallible.

BTW, the office of "Pope" isn't found in the Bible. It's a made-up term for the leader of a single Christian sect.

A reminder of the TOS on this site:
1.4: Do not misquote or misrepresent another member. Do not state a negative opinion about a member's denomination, leaders, founders, or the veracity of a member's faith. (Exodus 20:16).

You won't get another warning.

If you want discuss then do not do it in a derogatory way.

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

Basically what you're saying is that men do not form the church, but the church forms men.