The Issue Of Infallibility

[sixpence]

[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.
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"]
I gave you a completely sane and rational answer[/size][/font][/color][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"] [/font][/color]
[/quote]

1. I have some ears... I think... ..well maybe this smiley is a bad example...

2. Bahaha..yes a "rational" answer...
I have no problems accepting the Truth of the Gospels.... and I can do it without contriving stories about Judas' failed suicide attempt...

If you are going to just make up stuff that fits.... might as well go with what has been passed down in the oral tradition right? At least that has a better chance of being true... oh wait.. you don't have a Tradition to turn to... guess your stuck with these commentaries...

[sixpence]

Shady,
I get the impression that you are concerned that Catholics and going to go to be questioned on Judgement Day and not be able to answer for all the terrible, horrible things that they have done because the Pope said so... and I correct?

What are these horrible things? Charity? Kindness? Love? The Church has never requested anything immoral of me, so what is there to answer for?
For not putting complete faith in the Lord alone? We do.

Here is where you are confused: you assume because we trust the Pope to lead us, we do not have complete faith in God alone... This is utterly untrue...
Just like you trust whoever taught you Christianity and whoever printed you Bible, but you still put all your faith in God

PS~Sorry for my constant semi-off-topic posting...

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='mommas_boy' timestamp='1288069438' post='2182619']
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.
[/quote]



[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"]The alleged need for human infallibility is most certainly not needed nor required. God has given us his [i]infallible word[/i], and gives us no indication that there would be an infallible [i]church! [/i]You say it only stands to reason He would have erected an office to watch over the church? I say it only stands to reason that if a papal office was what He had in mind, all logic demands that He would have included it in the list of the offices of the church in 1 Cor 12:28. But He did not. Vatican 1 said in "The Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff", no less than two times that the papacy was given to "govern" the universal church. But in 1 Cor 12:28, we read about the office of "governments"---at the tail end of the list of offfices, but no mention of a papal chair. Hence, the logic of God's word in avoiding the issue must stand supreme and Catholic claims rejected as nothing more than traditions run-a-muck. [/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font="Times New Roman"][size="4"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"] [font="Times New Roman"][size="3"]Everyone agrees that parents have genuine spiritual authority and can go about their business just fine without being infallible. Therefore, it is a non-sequitor for Rome to insist that the Catholic Church must be infallible to be authoritative. Moreover, the notion runs contrary to Scriptural descriptions of the church which, in abnormal times, [/size][i][size="3"][b]may [/b][/size][/i][size="3"] teach falsehood (Jer 6:13, 14:14, Isa 29:10, Ez 22:25-26, 2 Pet 2:2, Acts 20:29). There was no infallible Jewish magisterium in the O.T., and neither does there have to be in the New! And in the book of Revelation, when Christ was standing among the seven churches, there was still no promise of infallibility given while He listed all their shortcomings, warning against false doctrine, it is obvious they were all subject to error. [/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font="Times New Roman"][size="3"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"] [font="Times New Roman"][size="4"][size="2"]Not being able to count the number of microbes on your finger is no comparison to the comparatively few times the Magisterium [b]has [/b]spoken, which you say is two, but which others would disagree, thus creating the "fractions" you think don't exist even among Catholics. That means everyone has their own idea what is infallible and what isn't, and if the hierarchy can't tell you exactly how many times they have used this gift, then it is no gift at all and cuts to the core of the supposed fact of the "unity" of the Catholic Church--- everyone believing something different. The two times you're probably referring to have to do with the Marian doctrines, but what is even more absurd is to think the Lord would [i]require [/i]that we believe these doctrines about Mary for [i]salvation (as your church teaches!) [/i]and that is madness to the max. I previously pointed out that being in subjection to the pope "for salvation" is unbiblical because salvation is in Christ alone. But now, the list of the requirements for salvation is extended (to the never-ending list of requirements!) and one must believe Mary was immaculately conceived and bodily assumed or it's curtains for me. This is point blank, [i]anti-christian, [/i]for the Bible says we are "not to think about men above that which is [i]written" [/i](1 Cor 4:6). You have concluded things about Peter and Mary "above that which is written", and thus Catholicism cannot be true. Not to mention the canonizing of "saints" to a higher status, when in fact all christians are called saints in the N.T. That is going beyond, [i]what is written.[/i][/size][/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][font="Times New Roman"] [/font][font="Times New Roman"][size="4"][size="2"][i]
[/i][/size][/size][/font][font="Times New Roman"][size="4"][size="2"]You say you can simply count the infallible ecumenical councils? Would that include the Council of Constance? They were the ones who put Jan Hus to death (a man who had taught the Bible to [i]children!). [/i]Hundreds of years later, we read[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font="Times New Roman"][size="4"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][font="Times New Roman"] [/font][font="Times New Roman"][font="arial, sans-serif"][size="3"] "The Vatican[/size][size="3"] Information Service (VIS) reported that on Dec 17th, 1999, [/size][size="3"]Pope John Paul II[/size][size="3"] made the following apology regarding the [/size][size="3"]burning at the stake[/size][size="3"] of Hus, while speaking before an international symposium on [/size][size="3"]Jan Hus[/size][size="3"] held at the Vatican[/size][indent][size="3"]"Today, on the eve of the [/size][size="3"]Great Jubilee[/size][size="3"], I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on Jan Hus and for the consequent wound of conflict and division which was thus imposed on the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people."[/size][/indent][/font][/font][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"]
Looks like Constance wasn't infallible after all. And by the way, by what set of standards or criteria are we to accept the apology of the Pope as being any more relevant than the actions of Constance? Obviously, if we were to bring the murderers back from the dead, they would all continue to insist that Hus must die. Again, by what standard may one judge Constance was WRONG in [/size][u][size="3"]committing[/size][/u][size="3"] the murder, and the Pope was RIGHT for [/size][u][size="3"]condemning[/size][/u][size="3"] it hundreds of years later? Why may it not be that the Council was RIGHT in committing the murder and the Pope was WRONG in condemming it? [/size][/font][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"]You are left with an unresolved and impossible dilemma which proves your infallibility[/size][size="3"] doctrine is for the birds. This was the same dilemma I posed in proving the Catholicism of antiquity flatly condemns non-catholics to hell if they are not in subjection to the pope and the church. But in modern times, they have had a face lift, to the point that even [i]Muslims of all people[/i] are to be "foremost" (to use Vatican 2's word) included in the plan of salvation.[/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font="Times New Roman"][size="4"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"] [font="Times New Roman"][size="4"][size="2"]And what [b]about[/b] ecumenical council Vatican 2? You are [i]dead wrong[/i] in thinking they get the infallible crown, since the Pope who was there, denied it.[/size][/size][/font][font="Times New Roman"] [/font][font="Times New Roman"] [/font][font="Times New Roman"][font="arial, sans-serif"][size="3"] Paul VI...At his general audience, Jan 12, 1966:[/size][/font][/font][/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][font="Times New Roman"][font="arial, sans-serif"][size="3"]"There are those who ask what authority; what theological qualification the Council intended to give its teachings, knowing that it [i]avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions[/i] engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar[/size][size="3"] declaration...given the Council's pastoral character, it [i]avoided pronouncing[/i], in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." [/size][/font][/font] [/size][/font]

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1288104051' post='2182670']
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.
[/quote]


You misread me! I didn't mean that what the biblical writers wrote was not infallible, but was referring to the [b]men [/b]whom you say, "compiled" it into the package we have today.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288110535' post='2182683']
You misread me! I didn't mean that what the biblical writers wrote was not infallible, but was referring to the [b]men [/b]whom you say, "compiled" it into the package we have today.
[/quote]
OK, so the Scripture writers were infallible when they wrote? If that's the case, then is it so hard to believe God would also give the Pope the gift of infallibility when teaching on faith & morals?

And if the men who compiled the canon were not acting infallibly, how can we be sure that the books we use are the correct ones?

Forgive me if I'm misreading you.

God bless

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1288115467' post='2182701']
OK, so the Scripture writers were infallible when they wrote? If that's the case, then is it so hard to believe God would also give the Pope the gift of infallibility when teaching on faith & morals?


[/quote]



[font="Comic Sans MS"][font="Bookman Old Style"][size="4"]Yes it is indeed so very hard to believe that there is such a thing as the gift of infallibility for many reasons, not the least of which is that the Pope has used it on so few occasions, as to render it, for all practical purposes, useless. Even when the Magisterium does speak, [b]we still need an interpreter to interpret the infallible interpreter![/b][/size][/font][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][font="Bookman Old Style"][size="4"]For example, at V-2, there were over [u]2000[/u] bishops assembled, and one of the things we read in[/size][/font][/font]



[font="Comic Sans MS"][font="Bookman Old Style"][size="4"][color="#0000bf"][size="3"][color="#000000"][i]Dei Verbum [/i]
[/color][/size][/color][/size][/font][/font]

[indent]is that, "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."[/indent]
The problem is that this "apostolic teaching authority" has given us something that is prone to multiple interpretations within the Roman community! Conservative Roman Catholic apologists see this as a clear statement that the entirety of Scripture is without error. Some Roman Catholic scholars though, see the phrase "for the sake of our salvation", as limiting inerrancy to [u]only[/u] those sections of Scripture that teach about salvation.
[i] Since no one can tell us what the 'official' Roman Catholic teaching is on this matter, then their apostolic teaching authority is of absolutely no advantage to the laity, for they have remained silent on the issue. [/i]Having then established the actual teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are prone to interpretation, the RC layman must use his own [u]private[/u] interpretation to determine what the [u]meaning[/u] of Roman Catholic teaching [u]is[/u]. The conservative and liberal RC can read the same document and come to two differing opinions, [i]the very thing Catholics typically berate Protestants for! [/i] And this is a fundamental issue...and only one example! Catholics are not unified, nor can they be certain, what God would have them know through their apostolic magisterium mouthpiece when it comes to this magisterial mandate. The Catholic Church says Protestant communities are defective because they lack an [i]authoritative interpretation and a guide: the Church, tradition, councils, popes, and apostolic succession[/i]. The question is...what for?! If the RC Church, tradition, councils, popes, and apostolic succession cannot tell me what are, or are not, the very thoughts of God, of what value is the claim to possess an apostolic teaching authority?! One surely can [u]assert[/u] it, but if in practice on a crucial issue like the authority of Scripture, those apostolic bishops don't deliver the goods, or habitually put forth statements prone to interpretation of a wide range, then only one conclusion can follow: the repeated claims made to possessing a "unity" based on doctrinal "agreement" through "apostolic succession"- -- is an empty claim indeed.

[KnightofChrist]

Shady I believe I asked you are rather simple question. One that I would like an answer too.
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"] [/font][/size][/font][/color]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="3"][size="3"]Do [/size][/size][size="2"]you deny that the Bible is the infallible written word of God?[/size][/font] [/size][/font]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"] [/font][/color]

Edited October 26, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Mr.Cat]

Will the real Slim Shady please stand up?

Too soon?

Edited October 26, 2010 by Mr Cat

[MithLuin]

Death by hanging can be caused by two methods. One (the preferred case) snaps the neck, causing a very quick death. As such, it is the preferred method of hangmen - much neater. To pull this off, there must be a bit of a drop, so that the entire weight of the body can be brought to bear quickly. It therefore requires a stout rope that will not break under the strain.

But death can [i]also[/i] be caused by a noose cutting off the windpipe. No drop is required, simply the full weight of the body pulling the rope tight so that the victim cannot breathe. In this case, it is required that the feet be raised off the ground, but that is all. The victim will thrash and flail around for quite some time until the oxygen supply in the lungs is exhausted, but death is a very likely outcome.

For those who are morbidly curious about the details of death by hanging or strangulation, more information is available. While it is certainly possible that Judas' successful suicide attempt included both hanging and pitching headlong down a cliff so that his guts spilled out, it is also possible that we are hearing two different versions of the story.



The Church has always taught 'No Salvation Outside the Church.'

Prior to the Schism with the East, anyone who claimed to be a Christian (but was outside the Church) was, of course, a heretic. Saying that a heretic would not receive salvation made perfect sense. They were goats, not sheep.

After the East-West Schism and the Protestant Reformation, it became clear that sincere Christians (through no fault of their own) would be found outside the Church (at least, to all appearances). Rather than suggest that they are damned, the Catholic Church suggests that Jesus incorporates such people into the one true church in some way. They are sheep, though not of this fold (cf John 10:16).

[i]*dusts off hands*[/i]

Problem solved!

While we cannot bring back 'dignitaries' from the past, we can certainly say that the saints in heaven are still very much alive. If you want to know their thoughts on something...simply ask them. They may or may not answer, but to presume that they would condemn modern Catholics is also not correct. This isn't just a Vatican II thing, either:

[quote]We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

[i]Pope Pius XI, 1854[/i][/quote]

[LivingStone]

I want to see a 1-on-1 duel between Shadyrest and Winchester on a very trivial topic.

I am thoroughly amused, but I wish Shady would respond more to Winchester's logical argumentative dismissals of these copy-paste Proddy arguments off of some website.

Does Shady remind anyone who was kicked off of this phorum a couple of months ago? Just saying....

Edited October 26, 2010 by LivingStone

[dairygirl4u2c]

this debate is more sad than entertaining. all the back and forth going and not getting to the points.

a pope is said to speak infallibly when they intend, to communicate, a doctrine, to the church, on faith and morals. these are all requirements for it to be infallible. ex cathedra statements are where the pope goes out of his way to say 'this is infallible'. that's more clear, when they speak in this way. that's why some say two, and others say 'effectively more'. eg, when they say 'let him be anathema' some might say that's an ex cathedra statement, etc. that they can't decide how many doesn't detract from the infallibiliy. it's just being realistic, assuming infallibility could be true. reality dictates, that interpretations will abound in how to apply these rules for infallibility and ex cathedra statements, even if infallibility is true.
that's how some could say the bible is full of things that might 'appear' to be contradictory, but are not. im sure even the fundamentalist in this forum would jump to argue those points. funny how they are so stringent with everything else, except the bible. i'm not even saying the bible is not infallibile, just saying keep your standards the same. eg, to use the point they did, 'judas died by hanging' 'he didn't', appear to be contradictory but are not.
for more examples of purported contradictions go to.... www.evilbible.com and www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
that doesn't mean the examples are contradictory, just that you have to be realistic in what's being said.

you could arguably apply even this to the 'no salvation outside the catholic church'. im the first to say they contradicted themself, but im also willing to say 'plausibly not'. did the popes intend to teach in a strict manner, no salvation outside? if not, they may have been speaking imprescisely, but plausibly enough to say that some may not be technically within the physical CC but a member nonetheless. (i could go on and on for why i dont believe this, but i still would say it's plausible)
and then you have a burden to go find other contradictions, and i have to admit it's hard to do. you'd think if the catholic church was false, after all this time, you could, definitively. that's the challenege that always sticks in my mind as decent, the 'definitely' part, no question, from the catholic church.
just find some statements that are 'infallible' accordig to the statements, and then find another that contradicts it. it's harder than it sounds.

all the 'that's rough' feelings from noncatholics, could be applied to the reasoning of most fundamentalists. eg, 'nonchristians cannot be saved' 'even if they purpose to be christian, if they dont meet my definition, they are not saved' eg, "if they teach another gospel, let them be anathema" says paul in the bible. it's easy for everyone to throw around 'false gosple' to everyone else. (but the gem is in saying why false gospel) the catholic could argue they are merely teaching hte actual gospel, and all the other teachings are false. exactly the same as the funamentalist in this forum.

Edited October 26, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288109777' post='2182681']
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"]The alleged need for human infallibility is most certainly not needed nor required.
[/quote]

Precisely how is there no need for human infallibility? We currently are graced with one Bible, but apparently many interpretations of it. Arius, using the same bible, claimed that Jesus was God, but not man. Manichaeists believed that material things were evil. Docetists believed that Christ's body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion. These are just a few of the disagreements that cropped up in the early church from the same scriptures. And you claim that we do not need a common authority for right interpretation?

[quote]
God has given us his [i]infallible word[/i], and gives us no indication that there would be an infallible [i]church! [/i]
[/quote]

Precisely how do you know that the Scriptures are infallible? What stamp or seal of infallibility do you have to prove this? Where is this stamp/seal from, that is, on what authority do you accept the validity of this seal? I do not, myself, dismiss the supremacy of Sacred Scripture, nor do I dismiss their correctness. I'm just wondering if you've thought this one through. I know that KnightOfChrist has been begging you for an answer to this question for some time, also. How do you know that the Scriptures are infallible?

[quote]
You say it only stands to reason He would have erected an office to watch over the church? I say it only stands to reason that if a papal office was what He had in mind, all logic demands that He would have included it in the list of the offices of the church in 1 Cor 12:28. But He did not. Vatican 1 said in "The Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff", no less than two times that the papacy was given to "govern" the universal church. But in 1 Cor 12:28, we read about the office of "governments"---at the tail end of the list of offfices, but no mention of a papal chair. Hence, the logic of God's word in avoiding the issue must stand supreme and Catholic claims rejected as nothing more than traditions run-a-muck. [/size][/font][/size][/font]
[/quote]

One must read the entirety of Scripture to ascertain its truth:

[indent]
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).
[/indent]

[indent]
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
[/indent]

[quote]
[font="Times New Roman"][size="4"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"] [font="Times New Roman"][size="3"]Everyone agrees that parents have genuine spiritual authority and can go about their business just fine without being infallible. Therefore, it is a non-sequitor for Rome to insist that the Catholic Church must be infallible to be authoritative. Moreover, the notion runs contrary to Scriptural descriptions of the church which, in abnormal times, [/size][i][size="3"][b]may [/b][/size][/i][size="3"] teach falsehood (Jer 6:13, 14:14, Isa 29:10, Ez 22:25-26, 2 Pet 2:2, Acts 20:29). There was no infallible Jewish magisterium in the O.T., and neither does there have to be in the New! And in the book of Revelation, when Christ was standing among the seven churches, there was still no promise of infallibility given while He listed all their shortcomings, warning against false doctrine, it is obvious they were all subject to error. [/size][/font][/size][/font]
[/quote]

Jer 6:13 -- This verse does not have to do with teaching, but with practices. These are not protected by the grace of infallibility.
Jer 14:14 -- This verse is in regards to prophets who were not sent by God. I argue that the offices of Pope and Bishops was established by Christ.
Is 29:10 -- Do you mind clarifying please what you mean?
Ez 22:25-26 -- This verse also seems to do with actions, not teachings. What it does mention of teaching is, "they do not ... teach the difference between the unclean and the clean". This seems to be negligence, not false teaching.
2 Pet 2:2 -- Precisely who are these false prophets? Perhaps you do not see the dilemma: I could just as easily state that the preachers of your Tradition are false prophets as you could say that mine are. I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Acts 20:29 -- Same as the above.

In regards to 2 Pet 2:2 and Acts 20:29, wouldn't these present even MORE reason for an authority that the flock can trust in? Isn't it the shepherd's job to protect the flock from these proverbial "wolves"? Wouldn't it make sense for Christ to appoint such a shepherd? You seem to be so caught up in shotgunning scripture at me that you're not looking at the PRACTICAL implications of running an organization, let alone a religion with a couple of billion adherents.
[quote]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][font="Times New Roman"] [/font][font="Times New Roman"][size="4"][size="2"][i]
[/i][/size][/size][/font][font="Times New Roman"][size="4"][size="2"]You say you can simply count the infallible ecumenical councils? Would that include the Council of Constance? They were the ones who put Jan Hus to death (a man who had taught the Bible to [i]children!). [/i]Hundreds of years later, we read[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font="Times New Roman"][size="4"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][font="Times New Roman"] [/font][font="Times New Roman"][font="arial, sans-serif"][size="3"] "The Vatican[/size][size="3"] Information Service (VIS) reported that on Dec 17th, 1999, [/size][size="3"]Pope John Paul II[/size][size="3"] made the following apology regarding the [/size][size="3"]burning at the stake[/size][size="3"] of Hus, while speaking before an international symposium on [/size][size="3"]Jan Hus[/size][size="3"] held at the Vatican[/size][indent][size="3"]"Today, on the eve of the [/size][size="3"]Great Jubilee[/size][size="3"], I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on Jan Hus and for the consequent wound of conflict and division which was thus imposed on the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people."[/size][/indent][/font][/font][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"]
[/quote]

Infallibility does not cover actions, as another poster pointed out already in this thread. The grace of infallibility is granted only to teachings on faith and morals. To be exempt from wrong action is not "infallibility", but rather "impeccability" -- without sin. Thus, I claim that the Council of Constance, while not impeccable, was still infallible.

[quote]
[font="Times New Roman"][size="4"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"] [font="Times New Roman"][size="4"][size="2"]And what [b]about[/b] ecumenical council Vatican 2? You are [i]dead wrong[/i] in thinking they get the infallible crown, since the Pope who was there, denied it.[/size][/size][/font][font="Times New Roman"] [/font][font="Times New Roman"] [/font][font="Times New Roman"][font="arial, sans-serif"][size="3"] Paul VI...At his general audience, Jan 12, 1966:[/size][/font][/font][/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][font="Times New Roman"][font="arial, sans-serif"][size="3"]"There are those who ask what authority; what theological qualification the Council intended to give its teachings, knowing that it [i]avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions[/i] engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar[/size][size="3"] declaration...given the Council's pastoral character, it [i]avoided pronouncing[/i], in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." [/size][/font][/font] [/size][/font]
[/quote]

I never claimed that Vatican II was infallible. I know and knew at the time of my writing that it was not, but decided not to include an exception in its regard in my post for the sake of clarity. As to the reason why, as you quoted, the Council was endowed with a "pastoral character" with guiding particular practices of the Church, rather than laying down dogma. That is, Vatican II was not concerned with WHAT Catholics believe (faith and morals, the only things that the Church possesses the authority to make infallible proclamations on), but rather how we practice that belief within the Sacraments. These practices have changed in the past, and will continue to change. Thus, no infallible character is required or possible, because no clarification of Catholic belief was issued.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Having then established the actual teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are prone to interpretation, the RC layman must use his own private interpretation to determine what the meaning of Roman Catholic teaching is. The conservative and liberal RC can read the same document and come to two differing opinions, the very thing Catholics typically berate Protestants for! And this is a fundamental issue...and only one example! Catholics are not unified, nor can they be certain, what God would have them know through their apostolic magisterium mouthpiece when it comes to this magisterial mandate. The Catholic Church says Protestant communities are defective because they lack an authoritative interpretation and a guide: the Church, tradition, councils, popes, and apostolic succession. The question is...what for?! If the RC Church, tradition, councils, popes, and apostolic succession cannot tell me what are, or are not, the very thoughts of God, of what value is the claim to possess an apostolic teaching authority?! [/quote]

they could easily argue that their teachings do in fact help limit the debate. that's pretty important. and when the CC comes along to limit it more, hten it's interpreting itself. of coruse, even catholics will agree it's permissible to debate unsettled matters amongst htemselves. it doesn't mean there's just as much divisiveness in the CC.
there's some weight to his argument, but it's pretty weak, especially in proving anything with force or to any significant degree.
strong points are not his strong point.

Edited October 26, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatherineM]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1288128033' post='2182758']
Death by hanging can be caused by two methods. One (the preferred case) snaps the neck, causing a very quick death. As such, it is the preferred method of hangmen - much neater. To pull this off, there must be a bit of a drop, so that the entire weight of the body can be brought to bear quickly. It therefore requires a stout rope that will not break under the strain.

But death can [i]also[/i] be caused by a noose cutting off the windpipe. No drop is required, simply the full weight of the body pulling the rope tight so that the victim cannot breathe. In this case, it is required that the feet be raised off the ground, but that is all. The victim will thrash and flail around for quite some time until the oxygen supply in the lungs is exhausted, but death is a very likely outcome.

For those who are morbidly curious about the details of death by hanging or strangulation, more information is available. While it is certainly possible that Judas' successful suicide attempt included both hanging and pitching headlong down a cliff so that his guts spilled out, it is also possible that we are hearing two different versions of the story.

[/quote]
There's one other way. If you get the hangman's formula wrong, and the drop is too long for the weight, then the whole head just comes off. That could definitely send a body rolling.

[dairygirl4u2c]

two examples..
he says 'mary is sinful cause the bible says all have sinned'. why do we use this reasoning to refute the CC, per 'clearly' showing things, but when it comes to refuting the bible, he bends over backwards to justify it when it seems to contradict. (not that it has, or that i'm saying it has)

'nonchristians cannot be saved, and the CC says they can" or "CC says only catholic can be saved, other christian's can't"
the problem is as i argued before, the same 'anathema' attitude he has per a 'false gosple' as said in the bible, that he uses, the CC could just as easily use. not to mention the plausible idea that some chrsitians are part of the CC even if they don't realize it (and the cc not being false for contradicting itself, as argued in another thread)
the bible only says those who reject what they know to be false will be condemned, per christianity. eg, 'I tell you, unless you believe that I AM, you will surely die in your sins". in John. "go spread the gospel, those who blieve are saved, those who refuse are condemned" at the end of Mark. "the light came into the world. but the people rejected the light cause their nature was dark. this is the condemnation. (most fundamentalists stop after it says "the condemnation is not being believing in Jesus, when when it goes on to define what that condemnation means, ie, rejecting hte light, rejecting Jesus)" around the infamous John 3:16
notice the trend is a "rejection" of what they know.
my guess is the fundamentalist in the room only bases his beliefs per salvation of others, on his preconceived notions of fundamentalism, rather than he bible. there's not many passages that specifcally say how a person is not saved. plenty to say how they are "eg Jesus" but that doesn't negate some other people from being saved too via jesus.

Edited October 26, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c