Posted on 04/16/2015 8:47:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Cristiandad (2005), ¿Puede el Papa Caer en Error o Herejía? [On-line], URL: http://es.catholic.net/conocetufe/358/1780/articulo.php?id=3324.
Keating, Kart (no date), La Infalibilidad Papal [On-line], URL: http://apologetica.org/infalibilidad-keating.htm.
Lacueva, Francisco (1984), Nuevo Testamento Interlineal Griego-Español (CLIE, Villadecavalls, Barcelona, España).
Logos (1996), Llamado de Atención Sobre la Infalibilidad [On-line], URL: http://www.sjsocial.org/logos/logos6.htm.
Lumen Gentium (1964), Dogmatic Constitution of the Church [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/ vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.
Nostra Aetate (1965), Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/ vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html.
Pinedo, Moisés (2005), The Pope, the Papacy, and the Bible [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2724.
Pivarunas, Mark A. (1996),La Infalibilidad de la Iglesia Católica [On-line], URL: http://www.cmri.org/font-96prog5.html.
SCTJM (1999a), Ex Cathedra, Tres Condiciones Deben Reunirse Para que una Definición Pontificia Sea Ex Cathedra [On-line], URL: http://www.corazones.org/diccionario/excathedra.htm.
SCTJM (1999b), Infalibilidad [On-line], URL: http://www.corazones.org/diccionario/infalibilidad.htm#Infalibilidad%20Episcopa.
Vatican I (1869a), Canon On Revelation [On-line], URL: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#5.
Vatican I (1869b), First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ [On-line], URL: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6.
Vine, W.E. (1999), Diccionario Expositivo de Palabras del Antiguo y Nuevo Testamento Exhaustivo, (Colombia, Editorial Caribe, Inc.).
ping
I am a Catholic and I think the idea of papal infallibility is complete crock of crap. And so do many other Catholics for that matter. Not all of us are mindless automatons marching mindlessly in lockstep with every whim that comes out of the Vatican these days. And some of us do actually read the Bible and view that as our primary source as the Word of God. Popes are human beings and are therefore subject to sin an error just like the rest of us mere mortals.
“by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed”
Peter was a prime example of fallibility.
Christ’s sacrifice was needed precisely because _all_ men are fallible. Strange that _one_ denomination, on its own say-so, carves out infallibility for its own purposes.
Seems teachings on humility should be considered.
The author clearly did not bother to look at the Greek, which clearly distinguishes between "you (plural)," for whom Satan has asked "to sift like wheat," and "you (singular)" for whom "I have prayed ... that you should strengthen your brethren". The passage is clearly assigning a task and a prerogative to Peter. It's what the Greek says.
A few paragraphs later, his argument amounts to complaining that the Church doesn't claim for the Pope the same unrestricted infallibility that Jesus had, so it can't claim any infallibility at all. Logical? Not.
The human authors of Scripture were absolutely infallible in writing the words of Holy Writ.
To give the proper background on this; the Pope has spoken Ex Cathedra only twice in the past 200+ years. The last time was in 1950 regarding the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Catholicism reads like a cult. The more I learn of it the more I am convinced it is nothing more than a cult no different than Mormonism or Muslim.
And that is totally against what scripture teaches.
Whatever.
I'm not discussing that now.
My point is to give some context to this discussion. The right of Papal infallibility has only been used twice in the past 200 plus years.
The concept of much ado about nothing is apt.
The author deceitfully implies that the three conditions of papal infallibility were only added after the Catholic church was sent reeling backwards from people pointing out papal error. That’s nonsense. Why cite a 1999 work, when it merely restates what was declared in Vatican I?
Specifically, regarding the failures of Peter: Jesus tells Peter that he WILL receive authority, not that he HAS. That authority was given to him when he reconciled with Jesus after the Resurrection. Jesus tells Peter, “Shepherd my sheep.”
Further errors are abundant: “Heresy” means that someone within the faith deviates from it. Those outside the Catholic Church are not called “heretics,” by the Church but “schismatics,” (if they still belong to an apostolic church), “apostates,” (if they have abandoned the faith), or simply the unconverted. So the criticism of Vatican II’s teaching on other religions is absurd: the punishment for heresy cited in Vatican 1 is “anathema.” That is, they are excluded from the Catholic Church. The passage from Vatican II relates to people who are already outside the Catholic Church in the first place!
Couldn’t someone still interpret that passage from Vatican II as at least being the heresy of indifferentism? (That is, the heresy of believing that it doesn’t matter what religion someone is.) It’s funny RnMomof7’s source doesn’t mention this passage:
“Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, [this Council] teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”
So, what we learn from Vatican II is that the Catholic Church respects that these religions may offer a “reflection” of certain elements of the Church’s truth, but that such a reflection of the truth is inadequate for salvation.
Ah yes, the cult that teaches the concept of free will. Mind blowing.
And I pointed out that even those self proclaimed "infallible" statements are against scripture so in no way can be infallible.
And Mary.
Don’t disagree.
Who are you kidding? The Catholic Church claims that it's followers must submit their will and intellect to them and what they say.
Canon 752: “While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”
Canon 753: “While not infallible in their teaching, [Catholic bishops] are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ's faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.”
Free will indeed.
Fortunately these days I think most Catholics have about as much fear of the Magisterium as Kris Kringle had of the Burghermeister Meisterburgher.
I think in many cases you are right. And I think as the pope leads the Catholic Church closer to the one world religion many will revolt and see it for what it really is.
I believe the Mormons have the same belief.
Furthermore, no Catholic believes that papal infallibility is a crock. By definition, anyone who willfully and knowingly refuses assent to an article of Doctrine is anathema.
Whatever you are, you ain't Catholic except in your own mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.