Infallibility?

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
Supposedly all appointments are passed down from the pope who allegedly gets his direction straight from God. So if the pope, who is appointed from God, appoints others, who appoints others. Is it is not said that these persons are all appointed by God? At what point did God pick the wrong guy? Is God now merely only infallible in doctrine?

Your supposition is completely wrong.

I suggest that you first attempt to discover what the Catholic Church means when using the word infallible.

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
I suggest that you first attempt to discover what the Catholic Church means when using the word infallible.

We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching

We know what YOU mean when you say it, but WE realize it is absurd to believe it based solely upon their teaching that it is true. If a man can NOT prove infalliblity in one area of life, there is no reason whatsoever to believe he is infallible in another. The Bible doesn't teach this, your church, the one claiming infallibility does. There is no other proof then "they said so." To anyone who does not believe them, merely because they said so, you have no other proof to offer them. You can't prove it by the actions of the men who proclaim it because many of them were vile and evil men, and you certainly can't prove it by the actions of men who do not profess infallibility. That is our point.

Thanks and good day.

~Lorelei

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
The Bible doesn't teach this, your church, the one claiming infallibility does. There is no other proof then "they said so."

Except perhaps that pesty business in the Bible about binding and loosing on Earth and in Heaven.

 

[Ps104_33]

Except perhaps that pesty business in the Bible about binding and loosing on Earth and in Heaven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know that that is Scripture?

 

[thessalonian]

"If a man can NOT prove infalliblity in one area of life, there is no reason whatsoever to believe he is infallible in another. "

Sorry, have to speak.

Once again, Paul says he does the evil that he would not do, while avoiding the good that he would not. We will both agree that his words in scripture are inerrant. He was infallible in writing them. Sure God confirms his words are infallible (as if you have our understanding of scripture he does the same for us) but it is clear that you statement is not true. In fact every writter of every scripture passage and every speaker who spoke infallible words was not infallible in every facet of their life. Thus you are simply wrong.

I have a point about John the Apostle but it goes better with the other "the cardinal said" thread so you can go over there and try to refute it.

Blessings

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
Once again, Paul says he does the evil that he would not do, while avoiding the good that he would not. We will both agree that his words in scripture are inerrant. He was infallible in writing them. Sure God confirms his words are infallible (as if you have our understanding of scripture he does the same for us) but it is clear that you statement is not true. In fact every writter of every scripture passage and every speaker who spoke infallible words was not infallible in every facet of their life. Thus you are simply wrong.

Very good point.

Nicely said.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Let's suppose wearing red pants is a sin.....

And let's also suppose that Baptists do their best to never wear red pants.

And let's pretend that the RCC claims that the Holy Spirit keeps them from even owning red pants.

And we see two fellows, one Catholic, the other Baptist, both wearing those abominable red trousers.

The Baptist would say..."gee, yeah. I'm wearing red pants, and I feel awful."

The Catholic would claim, "no, I'm prevented by the Holy Spirit from even the possibility of wearing red pants. The problem is your misinterpretation of what red is".

Will their ever be one Catholic who admits that their may be a small problem in the church ?

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Let's suppose wearing red pants is a sin.....

And let's also suppose that Baptists do their best to never wear red pants.

And let's pretend that the RCC claims that the Holy Spirit keeps them from even owning red pants.

And we see two fellows, one Catholic, the other Baptist, both wearing those abominable red trousers.

The Baptist would say..."gee, yeah. I'm wearing red pants, and I feel awful."

The Catholic would claim, "no, I'm prevented by the Holy Spirit from even the possibility of wearing red pants. The problem is your misinterpretation of what red is".

Will their ever be one Catholic who admits that their may be a small problem in the church ?

Curtis, I know that I have said this to you before...

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I'm saying yer church is a mess.

 

[JFS]

Posted by Bro.Curtis:
I'm saying yer church is a mess.

You are absolutely right. The Catholic church is a mess. It’s full of sinners. Actually it is full of the worst kind of sinners. It’s probably full of people that need Christ in the worst way. Imagine that, a church for sinners. What was Jesus thinking?

God Bless

John Secker

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Yup. A church should be full of Christians. People who allready know Jesus.

Would you agree ?

Nice try on changing the subject.

Would you say the Church has problems inb it's mission ? Would you admit that maybe one or two priests shouldn't have ever been given the office ?

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Yup. A church should be full of Christians. People who allready know Jesus.

Would you agree ?

Nice try on changing the subject.

Would you say the Church has problems inb it's mission ? Would you admit that maybe one or two priests shouldn't have ever been given the office ?

Should Jesus have not chosen Judas to be on of the twelve? Did Jesus have problems with his mission? Or did he understand that humans, by nature, are sinful creatures in need of a Savior, and even use our worst deeds to His glory?

From my point of view, God uses evil and turns it into something good. Just like the 9/11 events, which were truly horrific, has brought about good changes, so will the "mess" of the Catholic Church (if nothing else, to serve as a wakeup call that we are all responsible to the Lord).

God bless our One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church!

Grant

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Nice try on changing the subject.

Would you say the Church has problems inb it's mission ? Would you admit that maybe one or two priests shouldn't have ever been given the office ?

Oh, I would agree completely that there have been and are priests and bishops who should not have been given office.

What does that have to do with the topic of infallibility?

You should know that infallibility refers to doctrine, not ordination of individuals. Right?

 

[GraceSaves]

I concur with Neal. The "Whose More Sinful" game should stop. Catholics sin. Baptists sin. According to the Holiness Church of Georgia, both groups are going to hell, because we are not sinless!

The One True Church will always be made up of sinners in need of a Savior. For if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Infallibility has nothing to do with sin, and the fact that this thread has gone so long based on the sins of Catholics, even its highest leaders, doesn't have anything to do with infallibility.

The Gospel is to find Christ in one another, not point out our sins.

May the PEACE of Christ be with everyone,

Grant

 

[Bro. Curtis]

To me, saying you are without error is asking for it. Error is error, from the doctrine youy teach, right down to the way the names are spelled on the marquis. The RCC says it is without error. It doesn't say, "free from doctrinal error, but some administrative error may show up." It claims to be free from even the possibility of error.

Ron, two thumbs up.

If you would admit to the problems your church is going thru, we would all respect you a little more. Don't hide behind your forefathers. Even Bill O'Reilly admits the church is in trouble.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Let's suppose wearing red pants is a sin.....

And let's also suppose that Baptists do their best to never wear red pants.

And let's pretend that the RCC claims that the Holy Spirit keeps them from even owning red pants.

And we see two fellows, one Catholic, the other Baptist, both wearing those abominable red trousers.

The Baptist would say..."gee, yeah. I'm wearing red pants, and I feel awful."

The Catholic would claim, "no, I'm prevented by the Holy Spirit from even the possibility of wearing red pants. The problem is your misinterpretation of what red is".

Will their ever be one Catholic who admits that their may be a small problem in the church ?

Your hypothetical situation is loaded because to answer it the way that you have set it up, I have to agree with you that your premise of what scripture says is true. Yet you will agree that there are no infallible interpruters of scripture out there, that every individual does have error in the thinking about what scripture says, and therefore your interpruation that the bible says "wearing red pants is a sin" is questionable.

Further, the Bible says thou shalt not kill. So are there times when it is okay to kill. If someone is about to do harm to my wife and kids I know what I would do. The handmaid that protected Moses lied (bore false witness, it's a commandment last I checked). Was that okay or should she have lied so that Moses was killed?

Thanks for the challenge.

Blessings

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
A church should be full of Christians.

If we forbad folks from entering churches until they were Christians, our churches would be only half full.

Better for the unsaved to come into a church, be saved, and leave, rather than be unsaved, and remain unsaved because no church would welcome him.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
I concur with Neal. The "Whose More Sinful" game should stop. Catholics sin. Baptists sin. According to the Holiness Church of Georgia, both groups are going to hell, because we are not sinless!

The One True Church will always be made up of sinners in need of a Savior. For if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Infallibility has nothing to do with sin, and the fact that this thread has gone so long based on the sins of Catholics, even its highest leaders, doesn't have anything to do with infallibility.

The Gospel is to find Christ in one another, not point out our sins.

May the PEACE of Christ be with everyone,

Grant

Amen Grant. That's been my point all along!

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
To me, saying you are without error is asking for it. Error is error, from the doctrine youy teach, right down to the way the names are spelled on the marquis. The RCC says it is without error. It doesn't say, "free from doctrinal error, but some administrative error may show up." It claims to be free from even the possibility of error.

Ron, two thumbs up.

If you would admit to the problems your church is going thru, we would all respect you a little more. Don't hide behind your forefathers. Even Bill O'Reilly admits the church is in trouble.

Brother Curtis,

Could you please show me where it says that the Catholic Church has never made errors, even in name spelling? And considering infallibility is limited to matters of "faith and morals" that pertain only to the "universal church" (ie, not just one particular area or people), I'd say that how a name is spelled falls outside of that category pretty fast.

God bless,

Grant

 

[neal4christ]

God uses evil and turns it into something good.

Ahh...a greater good theodicy.

Bless You,
Neal