When did the pope get voted on as being infallible? Jesus made no mention of it.

The Pope has only been infallible since 1870 (First Vatican Council). Papal Infallacy has only been exerted once in the past 137 years. It doesn't mean that the Pope is always right. There are very strict restrictions on its use. Maybe rockmom would like to explain Papal Infallacy to us.

Well, I'll just have to agree to disagree with you on the traditions of our Faith. We don't worship him. I don't know how much clearer I could make this. There are traditions dating back centuries that we still uphold, but we do NOT worship him in any way shape or form. As to attributing powers to him thathe doesn't have, again, we'll agree to disagree, because I believe, as my Faith teaches me, that the Pope alone is infallible.

 

As to forgiveness of sins, (neither) the Pope, nor the Priest forgives the sins. God forgives the sins.

Actions speak different than what you say here. When they kiss his ring, kneel at his feet, travel thousands of miles to sit in a huge crowd, that is worshipping on some level.

 

And a huge disagreement point is that the Pope is infallible. Did not the Catholic Church apologize for their actions during WWII? Did not they admit they were wrong in their dealings of Hitler at that time?

 

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

 

I was a catholic for 22 years and I have heard about the catechism but have never officially seen or been defined what one is, can you tell me what it is?

Actions speak different than what you say here. When they kiss his ring, kneel at his feet, travel thousands of miles to sit in a huge crowd, that is worshipping on some level.

 

And a huge disagreement point is that the Pope is infallible. Did not the Catholic Church apologize for their actions during WWII? Did not they admit they were wrong in their dealings of Hitler at that time?

 

I don't know what else to say. You guys ask questions, I explain. Then, you proceed to tell me I'm wrong. So, if an attack on my faith is what you want, then I'm out. If a discussion is what you want, then I'll be happy to oblige.

 

Read my post above about infallibility. It has nothing to do with our actions during WWII. I believe that would fall under the last paragraph of that explanation.

I was a catholic for 22 years and I have heard about the catechism but have never officially seen or been defined what one is, can you tell me what it is?

 

Here's a link.

Here's a link.

 

Yeah, ok, its what I thought it was, a summarization of the beliefs and faith of the catholic church. I guess the thing I struggle with on the catechism is why would catholics feel the need to create some more rules and define all these things that the bible has already laid out? The bible does say in revelations that you should not add to or take away from this book.

The Pope has only been infallible since 1870 (First Vatican Council). Papal Infallacy has only been exerted once in the past 137 years. It doesn't mean that the Pope is always right. There are very strict restrictions on its use. Maybe rockmom would like to explain Papal Infallacy to us.

 

Thank you, that's what I was going for.

????

An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

 

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

 

It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.

 

Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.

 

Isn't that exactly what infallible means??? That the Pope will not make the wrong decision due to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit??? Seems to me through the passings of time, up to and including WWII, some Popes have decided not to listen to the Holy Spirit. So where does that leave us? Hoping that we have a Pope that has the best interests at heart, but never knowing for sure b/c we can not doubt his decisions? Once again, the church needs a central figurehead. It needs organization, it however can not go without a checks and balances system. I understand that that is very radical.

I've given this some thought since you posted and here's what I see in the Bible. It was intended that the church would be made up of small local groups of believers. These small local churches would have mentors (Paul, Barnabas, etc.) These mentors would not lead the local church, but move from town to town, checking up on their churches to see if all was well. I don't think Christianity was ever meant to be a large organized religion. I think it was designed for small intimate groups to learn and worship, to aid each other and outsiders, and to send its members out to start new churches.

 

I agrre that the Bible defines the church. However, I don't think there are churches. We have many religions in this world and religions are man made. The church was created by God and there is only one church. If you are save by the blood of Jesus Christ (which the Bible says is the only way to be saved, read GoBigRed's post at 2:46 today) then you belong to the only church there is no matter what your religion is. The building we all go to on Sun. and Wed. are just buildings where members of the church meet to worship God's word. I believe in the book of James it tells us not to judge and that there is only one judge and that is God. I try never to judge another persons beliefs I only share mine when asked. There are more Babtists religions in KY than I can count and that is because PEOPLE could not agree on one thing or another so they splt and start a new one. This is why religion doesn't come from God. I believe that the Bible tells us that there was only one man that walked on the face of the Earth that was infallible and that was Jesus Christ, but that is what I believe the Bible teaches. If you have faith in God and try to follow his word to the best of your ability and you have been saved through the blood of Jesus Christ then I say you are my brother or sister and I love you!

????

 

Voted on????

 

:confused: :confused: :confused:

 

"He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16),

and

"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18)

 

 

An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

 

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

 

It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.

 

Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.

 

I have to admit that I am a little bit confused. You have said many times that the pope is infallible. However, in your last paragraph you said that being infallible doesn't guarantee that the pope wouldn't "neglect" or be "sinless" but by definition to be infallible means: not capable of making a mistake; not capable of failing; never wrong. If he were truly infallible, then by definition, he would never neglect the truth or be sinfull. Please understand I am not trying to critisize or prove you are wrong or anything like that. I am only trying to understand what you are saying so that I can better understand the Catholic religion (we all learn through understanding).

Now I have a few things to interject about quoted scripture. It has been my experience that people (and religions) have a tendency to quote a scripture in order to support their beliefs or life style. Many time those scriptures are taken out of context because the scriptures before and after the one being used is never brought into light where people can see the whole picture of the scriptures. In Luke 10 Jesus is sending desciples(I believe 70 of them) out into each cities to spread the word of God. Verse 16 when Jesus says "He that heareth you heareth me" is merely stating that they will be speaking what he has told them to speak and no where in this chapter does it make reference to any one person, position or title of a person being infallible. This verse is merely instuckting Gods disciples to preach his word to everyone they can. Mathew 18 is speaking of the actions of christians. It tells us not to be offensive to others in Gods name. Verse 18 is part of a group of verses starting with verse 15 that explains how a christian person should deal with a brother that has treaspassed against him. Verse 18 itself "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Jesus is just telling Peter and other desciples that if christians and the church follow Gods word on such things then God in heaven will be pleased with the decisions the christians and the church make on earth. Again no reference to one person, position or title of a position being refereced to being infallible. I just want to say that I believe in God almighty and I believe he sent his only begotten son to shed his blood and die on the cross of calvary for the remmission of every persons sins and through him and the blood he shed I have been saved from my sins and because of this he has promised me everlasting life in the kindom of heavin. I grew up attending church of christ sevices but now I mostly attend babtist churche services (because there are so many) but I attend only those churches sevices that teach Gods word from the King James version of the Bible because I believe it was the first translation and God had his hand in its translation. IMHO the new versions have been translated by man and they have lost Gods true meaning in the translation and this will will and has caused confusion among people. Someone said earlier that it says in Revelations not to add-to or take-away from his word and I believe that these new versions do just that. It was my truest desire to give my opinion without being judgemental or offensive and to inquire for the purpose of gaining knowledge, I truely hope that I accomplished my intensions. God Bless!

I know this will disappoint you all, but what you've posted in response to my questions only strengthens my belief in the role of the Pontiff.

Yes your holiness I have always thought if you believe in God and live by his name yours is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Yes your holiness I have always thought if you believe in God and live by his name yours is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Yeah and that came from Catholic Doctrine 1200 years + ago. We Catholics are Christians. We spread the word of God and the bible throught the Ancient Roman Empire, Feudal Europe and around the globe, a group as large as the Catholic church with as long a history does not exist on Earth. You can't have that many human beings involved in a group so power for so long without bad things happening and bad decisions made. But in it's heart and soul the Catholic church believes itself to be the Church Jesus told Peter to build, Peter became the "rock" upon which the church is built and made the world safe for christian thought, and worship.

 

I respect others belief and I know where the worry comes from in the language of the new pope. But the interrpretation of much of what he says is misinformed or misevalutated by thoses that don't understand the history and meaning of certain Catholic principles. It would be hard for someone who doesn't believe in transubstansiation to understand our mass, much less the policies and canon developed over 2000 years. Basically Catholic means Universal, and it should come as no big shock that the leader of a church that calls itself and is called by others the Catholic (or Universal church) should claim that his church is the only true church. Heck the vast majority of religous leaders believe that their church is the true church or they would have picked another one.

 

I tend to agree with Getslow,and rockmom and other Catholics on here, surprise surprise, I am catholic. But just because the Church holds these beliefs doesn't mean they they are the driving force behind what the church does. The driving force is the faith in God and Jesus, and that should be the driving force behind any church that calls itself Christian in nature, for it is through Christ we are called and saved. Everything else is just details and matters of the soul for you to find for yourself.

And like Forrest says.. Thats all I have to say about that.

Yes your holiness I have always thought if you believe in God and live by his name yours is the Kingdom of Heaven.

I don't believe that belief is enough. Jesus said that even the demons believed he was the Son of God. If belief was enough, than the demons would be going to heaven.

Yeah and that came from Catholic Doctrine 1200 years + ago. We Catholics are Christians. We spread the word of God and the bible throught the Ancient Roman Empire, Feudal Europe and around the globe, a group as large as the Catholic church with as long a history does not exist on Earth. You can't have that many human beings involved in a group so power for so long without bad things happening and bad decisions made. But in it's heart and soul the Catholic church believes itself to be the Church Jesus told Peter to build, Peter became the "rock" upon which the church is built and made the world safe for christian thought, and worship.

 

I respect others belief and I know where the worry comes from in the language of the new pope. But the interrpretation of much of what he says is misinformed or misevalutated by thoses that don't understand the history and meaning of certain Catholic principles. It would be hard for someone who doesn't believe in transubstansiation to understand our mass, much less the policies and canon developed over 2000 years. Basically Catholic means Universal, and it should come as no big shock that the leader of a church that calls itself and is called by others the Catholic (or Universal church) should claim that his church is the only true church. Heck the vast majority of religous leaders believe that their church is the true church or they would have picked another one.

 

I tend to agree with Getslow,and rockmom and other Catholics on here, surprise surprise, I am catholic. But just because the Church holds these beliefs doesn't mean they they are the driving force behind what the church does. The driving force is the faith in God and Jesus, and that should be the driving force behind any church that calls itself Christian in nature, for it is through Christ we are called and saved. Everything else is just details and matters of the soul for you to find for yourself.

And like Forrest says.. Thats all I have to say about that.

That thought came from Jesus Christ not Catholic doctrine. Unless you are saying that all things that Jesus said and the church of Acts are Catholic doctrine.

I don't know what else to say. You guys ask questions, I explain. Then, you proceed to tell me I'm wrong. So, if an attack on my faith is what you want, then I'm out. If a discussion is what you want, then I'll be happy to oblige.

 

Read my post above about infallibility. It has nothing to do with our actions during WWII. I believe that would fall under the last paragraph of that explanation.

The leader of your faith and a person you have deemed as infallible (which to me means he cannot be wrong) has said that my faith doesn't count. You have to expect that we would take that personal.

 

I love a discussion but sometimes discussions do make a person feel uncomfortable. I debated for awhile on how I was going to join this debate and the tone I would take and I have tried to be as nonconfrontational as possible in an debate that my faith has been declared as wrong.

 

I feel the Pope is wrong on that matter. No denomination has full reign over whom is going to Heaven and who is not. As we have agreed upon before (I think), there will be people in heavens from probably all Christian denominations and people surprised they are not in heaven from all Christian denominations. Your infallible Pope seems to disagree with that statement.

 

I think you would agree that I have lamblasted Falwell, Robertson and the Protestant leaders when they have said something stupid. No difference than saying the Pope is wrong here.