Infallibility?

Well I suppose you can read anything you want in to any article and mindlessly regurgitate the author of the articles opinion if you like. The Church does not have jails to throw them in so I guess you see it as they are not disciplined but your very article states:

"The Church also admitted that some 200 priests had been investigated for sexual misconduct over the past 20 years. Some of them were dismissed, while most resigned voluntarily."

Note that they were removed while being investigated. The article accuses the vatican of cover of for not disclosing the discipline. The guy was stripped of his preiestly duties.

"Yalung, after being stripped of priestly duties, "

You may not know it but that is about as tough as it gets for a Catholic priest. It's like a lawyer been disbarred or worse.
It is up to the governement in the Phillipines to prosecute him for the harrassement.

See what you want to see FC.

As for Protestant coverup of sexual harrassement, I suppose I could post the article that cites 70 Insurance claims PER WEEK for sexual harrassment in the Protestant Churches. I certainly don't see 70 news stories for these accusations. There are plenty more articles on Protestant pastors cheating on their wives also (6-13%). One article also said that 70% of Protestant pastors knew of another pastor who cheated on his wife. It doesn't make the 6 o'clock news but it's going on.

 

When a protestant pastor is caught he is made to step down and find other employment. It is not covered up, swept under the rug and sugar-coated by over-zealous Catholics like you. </font>[/QUOTE]Nice theory. Too bad, historically it has not always worked out that way. And no, I did not accuse you of being a member of the KKK. How do you know what I have sugar coted and what I haven't. In the immortal words of Ronald Regan "Now there you go again" with ad hominum attack.

 

I get so tired of the the two wrongs make a right argument. Not one Protestant claimed infallibility, nor would the majority of Baptists align themselves with the KKK. Unlike the average Roman Catholic, we admit the KKK is a vile sect of wrongdoers who should be punished for the crimes they commit. We want no part of them or their false doctrine.

No matter what non-catholics have done that does not support the church leaders right to be just like everyone else and still claim infallibility. It merely proves they are "just like everyone else" and therefore NOT infallibile. Otherwise, you are taking the words of a fallible murderer, or rapist or child molester (or ones who cover up such crimes for the "unity of the church") that they are infallible in spite of "what they do". It makes no logical sense and has no scriptural basis, especially in light of Matthew 28 when Jesus criticized the Pharisees for teaching "Do as I say, and not as I do."

Catholicism, however, continues to claim infallibility in spite of breaking the requirements laid out in the scriptures of how a leader in the church should conduct themself. No, they were never expected to be perfect, but they were expected not to be violent and to practice self control. Never did the Bible tell us that they were infallibile in doctrine no matter how vile their crimes.

As for the verse about casting the first stone, let us remember this was used against church leaders who wanted to stone a harlot when they themselves were adulterers at heart. Church leaders, unlike laymen, are to be "blameless." That excuse does not work with those who claim infallibility, even though Pope Sixtus III thought it was good one to use when he was put on trial for seducing a nun.

~Lorelei

 

"It merely proves they are "just like everyone else" and therefore NOT infallibile. "

NEWS FLASH. The Bible was just thrown out by the Protestand Churches of America because the Apostle Paul was not infallible and so could not possibly have written his letters. 200 million Bibles have brought waste disposal companies to their knees and are causing overflowing garbage dumps because it just dawned on Protestants that the Apostle Paul was a sinner and could not have written infallible words.

Romans 7:19
For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.

 

Thessalonian,

You can deny that this did not happen in the Catholic church.

But i know personally, of a catholic priest who fathered three children in our hometown but re-assigned to other parish continuing his priestly duties until his death.

Unfortunately, his woman was my own teacher in High School and one of his daughter was my former classmate.

 

"I get so tired of the the two wrongs make a right argument."

I get so tire of people accusing me of making that arguement.

 

It may well be true, though I certainly won't convict anyone on your say so. I know of a Baptist pastor who had sex with three teenage girls. He's still a pastor to my knowledge. Jim Bakker is back preaching again I see, as is Swagart.

 

NEWS FLASH: That does not prove the pope is infallible. NOTHING that any other church does proves the pope is infallible.

~Lorelei

 

thessalonian,

If i belong to that Baptist church, I would certainly file a motion to kick him out. He was not worthy to be a pastor. If the church don't want to act as a whole. I would find another local Baptist church which practice discipline according to the Bible. Do you catholics practice this?

 

Did I say it proved anything about infallibility. It only shows how dumb this thread is. According to your logic , it proves Paul was not (and peter for that matter).

 

"I would certainly file a motion to kick him out. "

I like how you flow from one issue to another without conceding. Par for the course.

Perhaps you have biblical precedence for this motion you might file someday. Why did the corinthians care when Paul wrote them in 1 Cor 5. It was a local matter right? Same with Acts 15. Why did people from a bunch of different local churches come together to settle the issue of circumcision if there is no tie between Churches?

By the way, if I ever have proof my pastor is involved in something illegal or immoral I will certainly be working toward having him ousted. However many times there are accusations that are unproven. Should Cardinal Bernadine have been ousted as a child molester immediately for an accusation. Turns out the guy recanted that accused him and admitted that a lawyer who had an axe to grind with the Church put him up to it. Accusations aren't always fact and innocent until proven guilty still has some force in this country.

 

There is certainly ties between true local baptist churches but i doubt if that baptist church with that pastor you knew, belong to our fellowship of baptist churches.

 

Thank-you, Thess. I could have done that, but you were the one who put the information in your post without giving a reference. I was just asking because I was truly interested. Don't get mad at me, I am not attacking you.

Neal

 

Thank-you, Thess. I could have done that, but you were the one who put the information in your post without giving a reference. I was just asking because I was truly interested. Don't get mad at me, I am not attacking you.

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]


God bless NeAl. I am not nearly as mad as I sound. But some of these issues have to be dealt head on and so I come accross that way.

 

"There is certainly ties between true local baptist churches but i doubt if that baptist church with that pastor you knew, belong to our fellowship of baptist churches"

The point is moot. I am not trying to prove that 2 wrongs make a right as I have been accused on this thread. It has nothing to do with the truth or error of our respective doctrines that a man sins. It does however scandalize Christ's Church and cause the weak to fall away.

1 Corinthians 8:9
But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.

1 Corinthians 8:10
For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?
For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.

Blessings

 

That is why God confirmed the apostles message using signs and wonders. He did not merely expect us to just believe because they said so. Their testimony was proved in the scriptures and was confirmed with signs and wonders.

See, this is how we knew they were speaking from God, because God told us they would do these things and they did.

See, Catholics have his misconception that we take the NT as scripture because THEY said it was at some council meeting. That is not the case. God Himself confirmed that these were his words.

Get the picture?

So, again, your arguments trying to "discredit" other faiths does not support your doctrine of papal infallibility. Of course, scripture doesn't either so you have no other course of action but to try to twist the conversation and get us off topic.

~Lorelei

 

"So, again, your arguments trying to "discredit" other faiths does not support your doctrine of papal infallibility. Of course, scripture doesn't either so you have no other course of action but to try to twist the conversation and get us off topic."


As a matter of fact if you read my post above to faithcontender, once again you are misrepresenting my purpose (discrediting other faiths) in my line of arguementation. I said quite clearly and have said it multiple times before SCANDAL DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT TRUTH OR ERROR OF A DENOMINATION. (unless of course a church officially approves the behavoir explicitly). Neither am I as you accused arguing that two wrongs make a right. So who is twisting is my question.

You are incapable of rational conversation. You are blinded by your hatred of my faith.
I'll not respond to you again on this matter as you have ears but do not hear except what you want to hear and see what you want to see. If it is about a Pope you don't care who wrote it (Hitler's Pope) on another thread. It's true.

I do wish you all his choicest blessings even though I oppose you on just about everything you right. God bless you. You are in my prayers.

 

Why are just these particular writings of the Apsotles Scripture?

Why not other writings of the Apostles too?

Did God confirm that the Gospel of Luke is Scripture while the Gospel of Thomas is not?

You probably have seen the other threads in which Putnam lposted a list of many other writings of the Apostles which are not included in the Bible.

If you do not accept the current Books of the Bible, and no others, as Scripture, based on the Councils of the Church, then on what basis did you decide what writings are/are not Scripture?

Ron