The Issue Of Infallibility

[mortify]

If you believe the Bible is inspired by God and protected infallibly, you must accept that the Church that defined what books make up the Bible and transmitted it to our own time must also be inspired and protected from error.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288040905' post='2182485']
I'm happy to supply the following, but like I told you before.....you obviously have no desire to do any research for yourself, but prefer to let others do it for you. The following link could have popped up on your screen in 5 seconds flat after putting the words I provided in Google. But I'm glad to do it so as to remind you that on Judgment Day, we will each be judged individually, and I get the strong impression you think that you'll be judged merely by having subsumed your beliefs under the Roman hierarchy, content not to check anything out, and then convincing yourself that all will be well.

Anyway, scroll to chapter 3....(18b).



[color="#2A2A2A"][font="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html"]http://www.vatican.v...gentium_en.html[/url][/size][/font][/color]
[font="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif"][size="3"][color="#2A2A2A"] [/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]
Why should SHE have to look it up when you're the one using it to make your point? She shouldn't have to do YOUR research for you!


[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288042840' post='2182497']
You said in a previous post that I seemed to think every Catholic just believes what they do because one person told them something and that was that. Then you wondered why this was so. I already answered that question in detail, which shows you have ears, but don't hear. You had asked

[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"]"PS~ It would be awesome if you could give a good answer... I had wondered this since I noticed it when I was about 10... "[/size][/font][/color]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"]
I gave you a completely sane and rational answer, but instead of sticking with the sane explanation, you prefer to wear a straight-jacket and revert to the only other explanation I can think of; namely, that the Bible contains a contradictory account of Judas' death and the Holy Spirit is a complete failure. I'm simply astonished.[/size][/font][/color]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"][color="#595959"] [/color][/size][/font]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"]You don't understand however, different ways of saying things and stressing certain aspects of a story, does [i]not [/i]mean that an account is contradictory, as any witness to a car wreck will perhaps phrase and emphasize one aspect of the incident, while another will articulate it in another fashion. Face it....you wouldn't even believe the 4 gospels if you saw that they were [i]exactly the same in every detail, yet claimed to be written by [u]different[/u] people. [/i]That being so, the fact that you still find fault, even when the accounts are in perfect symmetry based on the common sense reason I furnished, is quite insane. And being a "literalist" has nothing to do with the straight-foward accounts as they are written and are easily harmonized, as the Holy Spirit who inspired them would agree. More, since there never has been an infallible person who walked this earth, save One, commentaries are under no compulsion to be infallible, nor do they need to be.....to be correct.


[/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]
But then how do we know Bible commentaries are correct? Why should we listen to one over another? There are many commentaries and they don't all match, so which ones are correct? So, if a Pope were to write the commentaries in the Bible, would we be allowed to listen to those, and just not any other words from the Pope?

Edited October 26, 2010 by MissScripture

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1288044525' post='2182503']
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"][i]Kindly tell us how many times the Magisterium pope has spoken infallibly Ex Cathedra.[/i][/size][/font][/color]



[/quote]


I'm simply amazed at the gross ignorance of Catholic doctrine even on a Catholic web board. Winchester quotes me above and crosses out the word "magisterium" (in the original which did not duplicate here) implicating me with error, in that I should have used the word "Pope" instead. The catechism says, on the other hand, that, "[i]The task of interpreting the word of God authentically has been entrusted soley to the Magisterium of the Church, [b]that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him" [/b](#100).[/i]
[i]
[/i]
It's clear then that this poster cannot be trusted, as it's obvious he's from a secret splinter group that abhors official church teaching.
[i]
[/i]
[i]
[/i]

[kafka]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288061678' post='2182581']
[i]
[/i]
It's clear then that this poster cannot be trusted, as it's obvious he's from a secret splinter group that abhors official church teaching.
[i]
[/i]
[i]
[/i]
[/quote]
Yes! I always knew he was a spy!

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1288048347' post='2182512']
If you believe the Bible is inspired by God and protected infallibly, you must accept that the Church that defined what books make up the Bible and transmitted it to our own time must also be inspired and protected from error.
[/quote]

No I do not have to believe that those who compiled the Bible were infallible. That's completely nonsensical and unbiblical. "To the Jews were committed the very "oracles of God" (Roms 3:2). But [i]were they infallible? [/i]Not in the least.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288062000' post='2182583']
No I do not have to believe that those who compiled the Bible were infallible. That's completely nonsensical and unbiblical. "To the Jews were committed the very "oracles of God" (Roms 3:2). But [i]were they infallible? [/i]Not in the least.
[/quote]
So, then you're saying they coud have made mistakes?

[Jaime]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288061678' post='2182581']
I'm simply amazed at the gross ignorance of Catholic doctrine even on a Catholic web board. Winchester quotes me above and crosses out the word "magisterium" (in the original which did not duplicate here) implicating me with error, in that I should have used the word "Pope" instead. The catechism says, on the other hand, that, "[i]The task of interpreting the word of God authentically has been entrusted soley to the Magisterium of the Church, [b]that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him" [/b](#100).[/i]
[i]
[/i]
It's clear then that this poster cannot be trusted, as it's obvious he's from a secret splinter group that abhors official church teaching.
[i]
[/i]
[i]
[/i]
[/quote]

I'm simply amazed at the irony of that statement. The pope is the only one who can speak Ex Cathedra. Don't believe me? look up the latin translation

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288026721' post='2182359']
For what reason do you consider the thoughts and writings of Paul and the evangelists (imperfect human beings, guided by the Holy Spirit), so different from the thoughts and writings of today's Church leaders (imperfect human beings, guided by the Holy Spirit)?

Answer: The gospel writers were infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, and Roman Catholic Church leaders are [i]not, that's why. [/i][/quote]

Just to throw a little clarification in this, the Holy Spirit's protection of infallibility is limited to the bounds of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. In other words, Pope Benedict XVI is less a sinner (and no more infallible) than St. Paul or St. Peter... only in the relatively rare instances (even for St. Paul) that any of these men might make a statement that the Holy Spirit protected from error, that protection extends only to the Word and not to the man.

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288026721' post='2182359']
So to answer your question, all non-Catholics utterly and emphatically deny that such statements came from the mind of God, which in essence says that all Christians who love Christ, but who are not in subjection to the Roman Pontiff, are headed for hell.[/quote]

On non-Catholic Christian communities...
CCC 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

I had a tough time with understanding how the Catholic Church could say all people must be subject to the Pope for their salvation. The concept is completely foreign to an Evangelical's worldview. The key is that in order for the Catholic Church to believe that there is any possibility of salvation for Protestants and other believers in God, we must first believe that all salvation comes from Christ through His Bride, the Church. See, the marriage of Christ and Church is a literal reality. He literally gives His Body to the Church in Holy Communion: this is a true Marriage. Thus, those who consciously submit to the earthly head of Christ's Church receive much grace, but this extends to even to those who consciously reject the Pope's authority while accepting some Truths which the Pope is charged with guarding and teaching. This isn't to say that every Christian or every sincere seeker of Truth is going to Heaven, but the Catholic Church's mission in the world is to pray and sacrifice for the salvation of those who are against us. To say that one's salvation depends upon their submission to the Pope is to say that salvation depends upon their submission to God and Truth, and God's grace can work that in ways none of us knows.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288062000' post='2182583']
No I do not have to believe that those who compiled the Bible were infallible. That's completely nonsensical and unbiblical. "To the Jews were committed the very "oracles of God" (Roms 3:2). But [i]were they infallible? [/i]Not in the least.
[/quote]

Then you deny that the Bible is the infallible written word of God?

[sixpence]

this is a fun thread :dance:goodnight all

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288044139' post='2182501']
I'll answer your question in detail as time permits. But since you think that the gift of infallibility was given to the Roman hierarchy, detractors such as myself have a very simple question:

[i]Kindly tell us how many times the Magisterium has spoken infallibly.[/i]
[i]
[/i]
[/quote]

Forgive me, but who cares? The need is there, is it not?

You've disregarded my point, and voiced your response in a "smoke-and-mirrors" manner by stating that since we supposedly cannot count the number of times that the Pope has spoken infallibly ex cathedra (this is patently incorrect; the number is two), or the number of times that the Bishops of the Church, in exercising their union with the Roman Pontiff have spoken infallibly (this is also false; one can easily count the number of ecumenical councils) -- that then, therefore there must be no such thing as infallibility. Even if I were to surrender your point that one cannot count such instances (which I argue one can), this does not mean that such instances have not occurred. Such an argument is illogical. I cannot count the number of microbes on my fingernail, the number of hairs on my head, the number of stars in the sky -- but this does not mean that these things do not exist. That argument is, simply put, absurd.

If Christ is a merciful God, then He would have erected an office to stand watch over His Church. Let me put it to you another way: if I were to start up a company, but not name a CEO, wouldn't that be poor management? Or a country, without a head of state? I note that this argument is not about papal supremacy (whether there is one leader for the Church), but rather about papal infallibility. But, it stands to reason that Christ would have erected that same office with the authority to settle disagreements on matters of faith and morals. To do otherwise would be imprudent, managerially. Otherwise, we would have fractions in the Church.

Oh wait. We do. And those fractions, as a rule, don't accept the authority of the Church and her leaders.

Edited October 26, 2010 by mommas_boy

[KnightofChrist]

[font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2][quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288062000' post='2182583']
No I do not have to believe that those who compiled the Bible were infallible. That's completely nonsensical and unbiblical. "To the Jews were committed the very "oracles of God" (Roms 3:2). But [i]were they infallible? [/i]Not in the least.
[/quote]

Then you deny that the Bible is the infallible written word of God?[/size][/font]

[Winchester]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288061678' post='2182581']
I'm simply amazed at the gross ignorance of Catholic doctrine even on a Catholic web board. Winchester quotes me above and crosses out the word "magisterium" (in the original which did not duplicate here) implicating me with error, in that I should have used the word "Pope" instead. The catechism says, on the other hand, that, "[i]The task of interpreting the word of God authentically has been entrusted soley to the Magisterium of the Church, [b]that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him" [/b](#100).[/i]
[i]
[/i]
It's clear then that this poster cannot be trusted, as it's obvious he's from a [color="#FF0000"][font="Arial Black"]MESSAGE REDACTED[/font][/color] that abhors official church teaching.
[i]
[/i]
[i]
[/i]
[/quote]
You really don't know what you're attacking?

In the above, you were using the chestnut about us not knowing which times the Pope has spoken ex cathedra, which is a charism peculiar to the pope. The whole "roma locuta est." I guess you went out on a limb and didn't check one of the blogs or webster or white or whatever and in your haste discussed the whole of the magistereum instead of attacking (as is proper in this trope) only ex cathedra statements.

I've been helping the croutons out of you and instead of accepting it, you're still running with your gaffe.

I am hurt that you do not trust me.

Secret groups? No such thing.


Also, I accept your unconditional surrender regarding the hanging debate. At this time, you must cease any and all production of military grade weapons, although you may allow private companies to produce small arms as are suitable to personal self defense. Also, every second Wednesday will be a holiday. Dedicated to me, Winchester. Public celebrations shall involve, at minimum, a parade and fireworks. One street in every major metropolitan city must be named after Kilgore Trout.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Winchester

[LouisvilleFan]

Looks like another Fight of the Egos to me.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288062000' post='2182583']
No I do not have to believe that those who compiled the Bible were infallible. That's completely nonsensical and unbiblical. "To the Jews were committed the very "oracles of God" (Roms 3:2). But [i]were they infallible? [/i]Not in the least.
[/quote]


so the bible is not the infalliable word of God? So I guess now your allowed to cherry pick things you agree with or not. So obviously in your mind God is not all powerful since he can't even make his written word infalliable. Come join us when you realize God is all powerful and anything is possible with him and the bible is his infalliable word and nothing in it is wrong.