"Because in the 400s the Catholic Church was not led by the bishop of Rome"

+++

I'm not so sure that is correct. Will dig in a bit. RCC has repeated the unbroken line of Apostolic See going back to St. Peter. Something isn't right.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Well we have a group that thinks they are eating the actual flesh and blood and another that believes that is heretical. And vice versa. How do you get unity if you don't even agree with the basics?

Groups of believers that think baptism is essential for salvation and others that believe it is elective.

---

This is exactly why the Protestant reformation was so damaging. Had Luther been committed to changing the church for the better, it would have been the Catholic reformation.

---

The way I understand it, this basically was his intent.

---

Maybe it was. I don't know the man. The church only responded against less than half of his thesis, so it wasn't like he was crazy off base.

But I use the word "committed" because he was offered chances to recant or get back in line with church teaching. He chose his own path. These excerpts on the diet of worms show what I mean:

Luther then concluded, saying:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.[4]

According to Luther, Eck informed Luther that he was acting like a heretic:

"Martin," said he, "there is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church, which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of the Scripture. The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each innovator has drawn his deceptive arguments. It was with biblical texts that Pelagius and Arius maintained their doctrines. Arius, for instance, found the negation of the eternity of the Wordan eternity which you admit, in this verse of the New TestamentJoseph knew not his wife till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he said, in the same way that you say, that this passage enchained him. When the fathers of the council of Constance condemned this proposition of John HussThe church of Jesus Christ is only the community of the elect, they condemned an error; for the church, like a good mother, embraces within her arms all who bear the name of Christian, all who are called to enjoy the celestial beatitude."[6]

I think Eck was correct. "Sola scriptura" has created more division in the Church than I think anyone back then could have imagined and, as you have pointed out, made reconciliation near impossible. With God all things are possible. I guess we'll see what happens

---

Ok...Lets start at the beginning.

First: The 95 Theses for all their bluster, were a Roman Catholic document. Luther wrote that in 1517. He wasn't excommunicated until 1521.

Second: To your Luther quote. Are you saying he's wrong? Have Popes contradict each other? Yes. Have Councils contradicted themselves? Yes.

Third: What Luther was told by the church and authorities is that he had to revoke everything he'd ever written. Why? Not because it was in error, but because Rome said he had to as punishment.

Fourth, Eck's comments are straw mans. Pelagius, Arius, others weren't right or wrong simply because the appealed to Scripture and in most cases, they weren't really appealing to Scripture at all. Augustine goes to lengths to show that Scripture contradicts the arguments of Pelagius (Augustine - On Nature and Grace which you can read on CCEL.org or buy it cheaply: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1631740180?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details).

It's actually when people go outside of Scripture that they tend to err.

Fifth: Speaking of John Huss. Rome didn't simply condemn him. They burned him at the stake and when Luther pointed out that was wrong, Rome said (and I quote):

"Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:...

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."

So Rome actually argued it was not against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics.

Considering your side has called me a heretic, I guess I should be concerned....

Of course, the modern Popes have completely contradicted this, so I can sleep better at night.

So yeah, Sola Scriptura has very little to do with the issues.

I didn't say that the Apostolic See was broken. I said it wasn't the singular leader of the Catholic Church. Rome says it was. The rest of the church did not agree.

Is canon 28 your sole source for your understanding? Just trying to see it the way you are seeing it.

No… it's a pretty big topic. You know that the East has never accepted papal primacy, right?

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Well we have a group that thinks they are eating the actual flesh and blood and another that believes that is heretical. And vice versa. How do you get unity if you don't even agree with the basics?

Groups of believers that think baptism is essential for salvation and others that believe it is elective.

---

This is exactly why the Protestant reformation was so damaging. Had Luther been committed to changing the church for the better, it would have been the Catholic reformation.

---

The way I understand it, this basically was his intent.

---

Maybe it was. I don't know the man. The church only responded against less than half of his thesis, so it wasn't like he was crazy off base.

But I use the word "committed" because he was offered chances to recant or get back in line with church teaching. He chose his own path. These excerpts on the diet of worms show what I mean:

Luther then concluded, saying:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.[4]

According to Luther, Eck informed Luther that he was acting like a heretic:

"Martin," said he, "there is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church, which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of the Scripture. The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each innovator has drawn his deceptive arguments. It was with biblical texts that Pelagius and Arius maintained their doctrines. Arius, for instance, found the negation of the eternity of the Wordan eternity which you admit, in this verse of the New TestamentJoseph knew not his wife till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he said, in the same way that you say, that this passage enchained him. When the fathers of the council of Constance condemned this proposition of John HussThe church of Jesus Christ is only the community of the elect, they condemned an error; for the church, like a good mother, embraces within her arms all who bear the name of Christian, all who are called to enjoy the celestial beatitude."[6]

I think Eck was correct. "Sola scriptura" has created more division in the Church than I think anyone back then could have imagined and, as you have pointed out, made reconciliation near impossible. With God all things are possible. I guess we'll see what happens

---

Ok...Lets start at the beginning.

First: The 95 Theses for all their bluster, were a Roman Catholic document. Luther wrote that in 1517. He wasn't excommunicated until 1521.

Second: To your Luther quote. Are you saying he's wrong? Have Popes contradict each other? Yes. Have Councils contradicted themselves? Yes.

Third: What Luther was told by the church and authorities is that he had to revoke everything he'd ever written. Why? Not because it was in error, but because Rome said he had to as punishment.

Fourth, Eck's comments are straw mans. Pelagius, Arius, others weren't right or wrong simply because the appealed to Scripture and in most cases, they weren't really appealing to Scripture at all. Augustine goes to lengths to show that Scripture contradicts the arguments of Pelagius (Augustine - On Nature and Grace which you can read on CCEL.org or buy it cheaply: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1631740180?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details).

It's actually when people go outside of Scripture that they tend to err.

Fifth: Speaking of John Huss. Rome didn't simply condemn him. They burned him at the stake and when Luther pointed out that was wrong, Rome said (and I quote):

"Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:...

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."

So Rome actually argued it was not against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics.

Considering your side has called me a heretic, I guess I should be concerned....

Of course, the modern Popes have completely contradicted this, so I can sleep better at night.

So yeah, Sola Scriptura has very little to do with the issues.

---

I agree with everything you're saying, but it's probably pointless to argue this point. If Catholics today follow the pope's authority today after prior popes ordered heretics to burned at the stake, then their following a fallen human….

It's always been strange to me and always will be, but don't expect them to change their beliefs.

AgPrognosticator said:

---

I agree with everything you're saying, but it's probably pointless to argue this point. If Catholics today follow the pope's authority today after prior popes ordered heretics to burned at the stake, then their following a fallen human….

It's always been strange to me and always will be, but don't expect them to change their beliefs.

---

We are not following the Pope. All Popes are fallible, sinful men capable of doing wicked things and some Popes might even be burning in hell for all we know. That's not the point. We are trusting in the promise Christ made to his Apostles, and was recorded in Scripture, that the Holy Spirit would guide his Church into all truth and protect his church until the end of the age. Jesus gave this a church his authority to teach the faith and to bind and loose with the backing of heaven.

There is nothing that the church has ever taught dogmatically that has been in error. Nothing. And nothing that has ever been taught as dogma has been reversed. Disciplines are not Dogma, and the Pope is only infallible when defining dogma excathedra. In everything else the Pope does he is not infallible. We are trusting in and following Christ and his promise.

In general, Protestants seem focused or hung up on the same things because they have been deprived of Apostolic Tradition. When it comes to Mary they refuse to grant that being Theotokos makes her the one exception, because she was set apart to contain and deliver Christ into this world. Instead of focusing on Jesus, and the fact that he would be literally dwelling inside of his mother, you focus on Mary and she becomes a stumbling block. Here you focus on the man who serves as the Pope instead of on the promise Christ gave to his Church. Then Protestants must water down what the meaning of Christ's church is to mean anyone who at least believes in the Trinity, cross and resurrection - but everything else like the Eucharist and Baptism are secondary issues.

The primary issue Catholics and Orthodox have separating us is the Pope's role in the church, but the beliefs held by both Churches are of the same foundation and common framework. Modern day Protestantism looks nothing like Apostolic Christianity, and much of what was believed and delivered by the Apostles and the Church from the earliest days is rejected by evangelicals today. This is not meant to offend, but is just stating the facts. If you don't like Rome because of the Pope I would encourage you to check out the Orthodox faith.

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

I agree with everything you're saying, but it's probably pointless to argue this point. If Catholics today follow the pope's authority today after prior popes ordered heretics to burned at the stake, then their following a fallen human….

It's always been strange to me and always will be, but don't expect them to change their beliefs.

---

There is nothing that the church has ever taught dogmatically that has been in error. Nothing. And nothing that has ever been taught as dogma has been reversed. Disciplines are not Dogma, and the Pope is only infallible when defining dogma excathedra. In everything else the Pope does he is not infallible. We are trusting in and following Christ and his promise.

---

Can you explain this a little more to my slow, protestant brain?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

I agree with everything you're saying, but it's probably pointless to argue this point. If Catholics today follow the pope's authority today after prior popes ordered heretics to burned at the stake, then their following a fallen human….

It's always been strange to me and always will be, but don't expect them to change their beliefs.

---

There is nothing that the church has ever taught dogmatically that has been in error. Nothing. And nothing that has ever been taught as dogma has been reversed. Disciplines are not Dogma, and the Pope is only infallible when defining dogma excathedra. In everything else the Pope does he is not infallible. We are trusting in and following Christ and his promise.

---

Can you explain this a little more to my slow, protestant brain?

---

Papal infallibility is an action, not a state of being. So when the pope is "infallible" it is when he expressly states "this is the teaching of the Catholic Church and cannot be viewed differently" sort of language. He can then walk right out the door and pay for a hooker. HE is not infallible. His teaching office is, and only when he expressly states it. Not airplane interviews, for example.

One of the reasons I don't think this should be as scary as some make it out to be is that, at least this far, we don't have any popes shooting out dogmatic teachings from the hip. It has always been done in conjunction with the the bishops and other advisors praying for him, counseling him and seeking the Holy Spirit to help the Church avoid error.

The death penalty change is a good example. Maybe it's my bias against the current pope, but I have a strong feeling he would love to denounce the death penalty as evil. Many Christians do nowadays. But that would run contrary to church teachings. He is bound by what has come before him, so the best he can do is change a disciplinary teaching saying "we don't need this any more. There are better ways to handle capital crimes". He predicates this on earthly arguments that modern prisons are secure enough to not need executions. If that were to ever change (think EMP that destroys all modern technology) the death penalty can be back on the table without it ever going from moral to immoral back to moral again. It would go from prudent to imprudent back to prudent.

This makes it sound like the pope is Clark Kent by day and when he needs to address church matters he dawns his superman costume. I just don't understand the dichotomy with a fallible man ruling infallibly on matters of the church. Because people are praying for him?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This makes it sound like the pope is Clark Kent by day and when he needs to address church matters he dawns his superman costume. I just don't understand the dichotomy with a fallible man ruling infallibly on matters of the church. Because people are praying for him?

---

The legal term is plausible deniability.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This makes it sound like the pope is Clark Kent by day and when he needs to address church matters he dawns his superman costume. I just don't understand the dichotomy with a fallible man ruling infallibly on matters of the church. Because people are praying for him?

---

I got a good laugh out of that analogy. It's actually not half bad. The difference is Clark Kent actually possesses the super powers. The pope does not "have" infallibility. As head of the church, we believe he does not err in these specific matters because he is protected by the Holy Spirt. What does that look like?

Well, how did the authors of the NT write inerrant words on paper? I know very few Christians who hold to a view that they were essentially possessed by the Holy Spirit and had their hands moved across the paper by Him. We recognize that they were protected in their writings from error.

This does not mean the apostles didn't err. We see in scripture that Peter was not treating gentiles correctly, despite his own teaching to the contrary. At the same time, Peter wrote letters in the Bible we now call infallible.

Nothing has changed. The pope is still a sinner and will make mistakes. But in those moments that he steps in the authoritatively teach, the Holy Spirit guides and protects him, most times through wise council and prayer.

AgPrognosticator said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Well we have a group that thinks they are eating the actual flesh and blood and another that believes that is heretical. And vice versa. How do you get unity if you don't even agree with the basics?

Groups of believers that think baptism is essential for salvation and others that believe it is elective.

---

This is exactly why the Protestant reformation was so damaging. Had Luther been committed to changing the church for the better, it would have been the Catholic reformation.

---

The way I understand it, this basically was his intent.

---

Maybe it was. I don't know the man. The church only responded against less than half of his thesis, so it wasn't like he was crazy off base.

But I use the word "committed" because he was offered chances to recant or get back in line with church teaching. He chose his own path. These excerpts on the diet of worms show what I mean:

Luther then concluded, saying:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.[4]

According to Luther, Eck informed Luther that he was acting like a heretic:

"Martin," said he, "there is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church, which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of the Scripture. The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each innovator has drawn his deceptive arguments. It was with biblical texts that Pelagius and Arius maintained their doctrines. Arius, for instance, found the negation of the eternity of the Wordan eternity which you admit, in this verse of the New TestamentJoseph knew not his wife till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he said, in the same way that you say, that this passage enchained him. When the fathers of the council of Constance condemned this proposition of John HussThe church of Jesus Christ is only the community of the elect, they condemned an error; for the church, like a good mother, embraces within her arms all who bear the name of Christian, all who are called to enjoy the celestial beatitude."[6]

I think Eck was correct. "Sola scriptura" has created more division in the Church than I think anyone back then could have imagined and, as you have pointed out, made reconciliation near impossible. With God all things are possible. I guess we'll see what happens

---

Ok...Lets start at the beginning.

First: The 95 Theses for all their bluster, were a Roman Catholic document. Luther wrote that in 1517. He wasn't excommunicated until 1521.

Second: To your Luther quote. Are you saying he's wrong? Have Popes contradict each other? Yes. Have Councils contradicted themselves? Yes.

Third: What Luther was told by the church and authorities is that he had to revoke everything he'd ever written. Why? Not because it was in error, but because Rome said he had to as punishment.

Fourth, Eck's comments are straw mans. Pelagius, Arius, others weren't right or wrong simply because the appealed to Scripture and in most cases, they weren't really appealing to Scripture at all. Augustine goes to lengths to show that Scripture contradicts the arguments of Pelagius (Augustine - On Nature and Grace which you can read on CCEL.org or buy it cheaply: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1631740180?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details).

It's actually when people go outside of Scripture that they tend to err.

Fifth: Speaking of John Huss. Rome didn't simply condemn him. They burned him at the stake and when Luther pointed out that was wrong, Rome said (and I quote):

"Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:...

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."

So Rome actually argued it was not against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics.

Considering your side has called me a heretic, I guess I should be concerned....

Of course, the modern Popes have completely contradicted this, so I can sleep better at night.

So yeah, Sola Scriptura has very little to do with the issues.

---

I agree with everything you're saying, but it's probably pointless to argue this point. If Catholics today follow the pope's authority today after prior popes ordered heretics to burned at the stake, then their following a fallen human….

It's always been strange to me and always will be, but don't expect them to change their beliefs.

---

I know. For many for many within Rome they probably wouldn't believe it anyways.

But I continue to make these points for 2 primary reasons:

1. If anybody has doubts or concerns about Protestantism and is considering Rome, they need to see Rome with all its warts, not just the "city on a hill" apologists try to show.

2. I do think there are some Roman Catholics, who probably have never heard about things like this, and maybe, just maybe, it will impact them positively in some way.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

I agree with everything you're saying, but it's probably pointless to argue this point. If Catholics today follow the pope's authority today after prior popes ordered heretics to burned at the stake, then their following a fallen human….

It's always been strange to me and always will be, but don't expect them to change their beliefs.

---

There is nothing that the church has ever taught dogmatically that has been in error. Nothing. And nothing that has ever been taught as dogma has been reversed. Disciplines are not Dogma, and the Pope is only infallible when defining dogma excathedra. In everything else the Pope does he is not infallible. We are trusting in and following Christ and his promise.

---

Can you explain this a little more to my slow, protestant brain?

---

I can summarize it for you...

The Church Rome has taught a lot of things wrong...but through revisionist history, they've determined that none of those were infallible statements and so even though they were absolutely in error, they weren't "infallible" statements.

Granted, there's no infallible document listing infallible statements by the Pope (Rome disagrees on the number of statements), so even that is subject to change.

However, the modern take is there's only been 2 "infallible" proclamations, both of which are outside of Scripture, and so they can kind of believe whatever they want.

So the reality is, Rome has been wrong a lot. but they created categories for themselves so they can be wrong, but still be right. It's a fun game.

AggieRain said:

---

That is a terrible summary and serves more to display why you are continually incorrect on matters of Catholic doctrine and require a perpetual army of strawmen to even remain in the conversation...

---

Everything stands up to scrutiny though.

Edit...you are right though. I did need to correct one thing.

AgLiving06 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

I agree with everything you're saying, but it's probably pointless to argue this point. If Catholics today follow the pope's authority today after prior popes ordered heretics to burned at the stake, then their following a fallen human….

It's always been strange to me and always will be, but don't expect them to change their beliefs.

---

There is nothing that the church has ever taught dogmatically that has been in error. Nothing. And nothing that has ever been taught as dogma has been reversed. Disciplines are not Dogma, and the Pope is only infallible when defining dogma excathedra. In everything else the Pope does he is not infallible. We are trusting in and following Christ and his promise.

---

Can you explain this a little more to my slow, protestant brain?

---

I can summarize it for you...

The Church Rome has taught a lot of things wrong...but through revisionist history, they've determined that none of those were infallible statements and so even though they were absolutely in error, they weren't "infallible" statements.

Granted, there's no infallible document listing infallible statements by the Pope (Rome disagrees on the number of statements), so even that is subject to change.

However, the modern take is there's only been 2 "infallible" proclamations, both of which are outside of Scripture, and so they can kind of believe whatever they want.

So the reality is, Rome has been wrong a lot. but they created categories for themselves so they can be wrong, but still be right. It's a fun game.

---

In addition to being radically uncharitable, you continue to use vague references. "The councils contradict themselves". "Popes have changed teachings". Start citing examples

I've only been shown one debate on this topic and the only examples that were given of "changing the teaching" were incredibly weak. It was stuff like how purgatory works, which was never solidly defined and developed over time. Despite never actually changing or reversing a teaching, somehow this was supposed to count as proof.

Maybe you have some great examples I've never been shown.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This makes it sound like the pope is Clark Kent by day and when he needs to address church matters he dawns his superman costume. I just don't understand the dichotomy with a fallible man ruling infallibly on matters of the church. Because people are praying for him?

---

I got a good laugh out of that analogy. It's actually not half bad. The difference is Clark Kent actually possesses the super powers. The pope does not "have" infallibility. As head of the church, we believe he does not err in these specific matters because he is protected by the Holy Spirt. What does that look like?

Well, how did the authors of the NT write inerrant words on paper? I know very few Christians who hold to a view that they were essentially possessed by the Holy Spirit and had their hands moved across the paper by Him. We recognize that they were protected in their writings from error.

This does not mean the apostles didn't err. We see in scripture that Peter was not treating gentiles correctly, despite his own teaching to the contrary. At the same time, Peter wrote letters in the Bible we now call infallible.

Nothing has changed. The pope is still a sinner and will make mistakes. But in those moments that he steps in the authoritatively teach, the Holy Spirit guides and protects him, most times through wise council and prayer.

---

Thanks, I am following now I think. I don't agree with it, since I would chalk that up under the umbrella of Cessationalism, which I follow.

What is your primary reason for believing cessationalism?

A few more examples of this would be contraception, same-sex marriage, and women priests. It is not possible for the Church to accept any of these and teach that these are acceptable. If Pope Francis had acquiesced to the attempts of the German Bishops to reverse Catholic teaching on any one of these matters the Catholic Church would be in error and thus false. However, the Holy Spirit did not allow Pope Francis to make this mistake even though it might have been his desire on all 3 fronts. In fact the Pope came as absolutely as close to the line as possible but he could not and did not cross that line.

The Holy Spirit is protecting the Church even still today and will continue until the end of the age.

ETA: ask yourself the question " what does my church teach about these 3 issues?"

Is there a repository that lists the historical papal decisions that were deemed infallible?

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

I agree with everything you're saying, but it's probably pointless to argue this point. If Catholics today follow the pope's authority today after prior popes ordered heretics to burned at the stake, then their following a fallen human….

It's always been strange to me and always will be, but don't expect them to change their beliefs.

---

There is nothing that the church has ever taught dogmatically that has been in error. Nothing. And nothing that has ever been taught as dogma has been reversed. Disciplines are not Dogma, and the Pope is only infallible when defining dogma excathedra. In everything else the Pope does he is not infallible. We are trusting in and following Christ and his promise.

---

Can you explain this a little more to my slow, protestant brain?

---

Papal infallibility is an action, not a state of being. So when the pope is "infallible" it is when he expressly states "this is the teaching of the Catholic Church and cannot be viewed differently" sort of language. He can then walk right out the door and pay for a hooker. HE is not infallible. His teaching office is, and only when he expressly states it. Not airplane interviews, for example.

One of the reasons I don't think this should be as scary as some make it out to be is that, at least this far, we don't have any popes shooting out dogmatic teachings from the hip. It has always been done in conjunction with the the bishops and other advisors praying for him, counseling him and seeking the Holy Spirit to help the Church avoid error.

The death penalty change is a good example. Maybe it's my bias against the current pope, but I have a strong feeling he would love to denounce the death penalty as evil. Many Christians do nowadays. But that would run contrary to church teachings. He is bound by what has come before him, so the best he can do is change a disciplinary teaching saying "we don't need this any more. There are better ways to handle capital crimes". He predicates this on earthly arguments that modern prisons are secure enough to not need executions. If that were to ever change (think EMP that destroys all modern technology) the death penalty can be back on the table without it ever going from moral to immoral back to moral again. It would go from prudent to imprudent back to prudent.

---

I think the distinction to be made is infallibility versus impeccability. Popes have the charism of infallibility when they act in a certain capacity to address an issue of faith and morals. Popes might be normal dudeds, saintly or they might be scumbags. We have had a lot of each. Being the occupant of a "chair" or office that is protected by the Holy Spirit with infallibility in specific circumstances has nothing to do with being impeccable.

We do not really have a canon list of infallible teachings so, to AgLiving's point, there could be some ambiguity with what is infallible vs. what is not. However, if a Pope were to come out to declare a teaching that falls within that "realm of ambiguity" they would be making a very clear and definitive teaching on that subject and what is being articulated would be further explaining and making the ambiguous clear.

This is why I know the Catholic Church could never teach that contraception or gay marriage are acceptable. Same for IVF. I don't know if there has ever actually been an infallible statement to that effect, but I know all of them contradict what the church has always taught.

The dogmas on Mary would be an example where the Pope formally declared the church's beliefs about Mary using the charism of infallibility. To deny Mary was the Mother of God for example would be to deny the Catholic faith because Jesus is God.

We have Dogmas that can never change and must be accepted (like the Trinity).

Then we have Doctrines that are the teachings of the church and held to be true. Unlike Dogmas, Doctrines can be further clarified and refined to address issues the church may be facing today that were not imaginable in the times of the Apostles (like IVF).

And then we have Disciplines which would be the standard practice of the church, which are subject to be changed. A church discipline would be like a priest being married or not. In the Latin Church most priests are not to be married whereas an Eastern Catholic priest it is perfectly normal for the priest to be married. One day the church could allow all priests to be married if it so chooses. It's just a discipline or practice of the church.

As Catholics we have no issue discerning or understanding the differences and how they relate to our beliefs. To non-Catholics I can understand why there is some confusion and misunderstandings. Dogmas are binding. Doctrines are the true teachings and beliefs on a slightly lesser level. Disciplines are just the daily practices. Please do not take this as an infallible explanation, but hopefully helps shed some light on the subject.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

I agree with everything you're saying, but it's probably pointless to argue this point. If Catholics today follow the pope's authority today after prior popes ordered heretics to burned at the stake, then their following a fallen human….

It's always been strange to me and always will be, but don't expect them to change their beliefs.

---

There is nothing that the church has ever taught dogmatically that has been in error. Nothing. And nothing that has ever been taught as dogma has been reversed. Disciplines are not Dogma, and the Pope is only infallible when defining dogma excathedra. In everything else the Pope does he is not infallible. We are trusting in and following Christ and his promise.

---

Can you explain this a little more to my slow, protestant brain?

---

I can summarize it for you...

The Church Rome has taught a lot of things wrong...but through revisionist history, they've determined that none of those were infallible statements and so even though they were absolutely in error, they weren't "infallible" statements.

Granted, there's no infallible document listing infallible statements by the Pope (Rome disagrees on the number of statements), so even that is subject to change.

However, the modern take is there's only been 2 "infallible" proclamations, both of which are outside of Scripture, and so they can kind of believe whatever they want.

So the reality is, Rome has been wrong a lot. but they created categories for themselves so they can be wrong, but still be right. It's a fun game.

---

In addition to being radically uncharitable, you continue to use vague references. "The councils contradict themselves". "Popes have changed teachings". Start citing examples

I've only been shown one debate on this topic and the only examples that were given of "changing the teaching" were incredibly weak. It was stuff like how purgatory works, which was never solidly defined and developed over time. Despite never actually changing or reversing a teaching, somehow this was supposed to count as proof.

Maybe you have some great examples I've never been shown.

---

It's not uncharitable to point out when a statement is incorrect. You and others love to claim everything you dislike is uncharitable, simply because it disagrees with you.

I'll again point out, based off of Exsurge Domine, that Rome called for the burning of heretics.

And your side has called me a heretic. I didn't see you rushing to say that was uncharitable. In fact, going back and checking, 5 people starred that post. Should I take that as at least 5 Roman Catholics believe I should be burned alive? That seems uncharitable.
--------------------
First, lets tackle the Popes. It's the easiest. And to be clear, I said "Rome has taught a lot of wrong things." You don't get to change my words.

First, as pointed out...Exsurge Domine suggests burning heretics is not against the Spirit. We know that's false and not taught today, especially by Francis.

Ed Feser is a pretty reliable Catholic right? He did a great job of compiling the list:

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html

Some highlights

Quote:

---

Pope Liberius (352-366): With the Arian heresy having been endorsed by many bishops, and under pressure from the emperor, Pope Liberius acquiesced in the excommunication of the staunchly orthodox St. Athanasius and agreed to an ambiguous theological formula. He later repented of his weakness, but he would be the first pope not to be venerated as a saint.

---

So much for Eck and Rome standing up to Arius.

Quote:

---

Pope Honorius I (625-638): Pope Honorius at least implicitly accepted the Monothelite heresy, was condemned for this by his successor Pope St. Agatho, and criticized by Pope St. Leo for being at least negligent. Though his actions are in no way incompatible with papal infallibility -- Honorius was not putting forward a would-be ex cathedra definition -- they caused grave damage by providing fodder for critics of the papacy. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says: "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact…"

---

Quote:

---

Pope Stephen VI (896-897): In the notorious "cadaver synod" -- an event which some historians consider the low point of the papacy -- Pope Stephen exhumed the corpse of his predecessor Pope Formosus, dressed it in papal vestments and placed it on a throne, put it on trial for alleged violations of church law (see the illustration above), found it guilty and declared all of Formosus's acts while pope null and void, then had the corpse flung into the Tiber. Formosus's supporters later deposed Stephen and put him in jail, where he was strangled.

---

This is always a fun one. One Pope exhumes another Pope and outright declares all the previous Pope's actions null and void.

So on and so forth.

I won't mention the Popes that were married and/or had children.
-------------------

Now your response will be "those were infallible statements," but that is shifting the goalpost. These are examples of the Pope, as the claimed head of the church, teaching errors and being documented by Roman Catholics themselves.

What comfort do you offer to those who actually followed the popes words and burned heretics? Do we just say "oops sorry?" What about the heretics who were burned? The Pope as the head of the Church taught error. That is unavoidable. Whether you deem it to not be infallible, the proclaimed source of truth was wrong and has had to be corrected over and over.

It's not uncharitable to point these out either.
--------------------

This post is getting long enough, so I'll make a couple brief points on councils.

First, we have a whole subset of councils called "Robber Councils" for a reason. Sure the claim will be that those were all in error and that's why they were deemed what they are, but that's a lot like saying "The winners tell the history."

Second, the most obvious council that faces disagreement is Nicaea 2.

First, it's in opposition to the Council of Elvira (~305 AD).
Canon 36 say: "It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped not be painted on the walls."

Second, Nicaea 2 was actually a Council called in response to another council..The Council of Hieria. It's deemd uncanonical, though interestingly 338 Bishops attended. This wasn't some small council.

Third, The Council of Frankfurt repudiated Nicaea 2
(canons aren't online as far as I can find, but New Advent (which is as pro-Rome as possible) says the following):

Link: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06236a.htm

"In the first of its fifty-six canons the council condemned Adoptionism, and in the second repudiated the Second Council of Nicaea (787), which, according to the faulty Latin translation of its Acts (see CAROLINE BOOKS), seemed to decree that the same kind of worship should be paid to images as to the Blessed Trinity, though the Greek text clearly distinguishes between latreia and proskynesis. The remaining fifty-four canons dealt with metropolitan jurisdiction, monastic discipline, superstition, etc."

Again, not going to be the only one showing his work, but these are clear examples that both the Popes taught errors and Councils contradict each other.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This makes it sound like the pope is Clark Kent by day and when he needs to address church matters he dawns his superman costume. I just don't understand the dichotomy with a fallible man ruling infallibly on matters of the church. Because people are praying for him?

---

I got a good laugh out of that analogy. It's actually not half bad. The difference is Clark Kent actually possesses the super powers. The pope does not "have" infallibility. As head of the church, we believe he does not err in these specific matters because he is protected by the Holy Spirt. What does that look like?

Well, how did the authors of the NT write inerrant words on paper? I know very few Christians who hold to a view that they were essentially possessed by the Holy Spirit and had their hands moved across the paper by Him. We recognize that they were protected in their writings from error.

This does not mean the apostles didn't err. We see in scripture that Peter was not treating gentiles correctly, despite his own teaching to the contrary. At the same time, Peter wrote letters in the Bible we now call infallible.

Nothing has changed. The pope is still a sinner and will make mistakes. But in those moments that he steps in the authoritatively teach, the Holy Spirit guides and protects him, most times through wise council and prayer.

---

Just to add to what you said -

Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times when the chips were down and Peter denied Jesus three times.

Jesus knew how flawed Peter was and still handed HIM the keys to His kingdom and the power to bind and loose.

Peter referred to himself as a sinful man when faced with the mind-blowing holiness and power of Jesus.

Pope's are sinners just like the rest of us. Pope's temselves are not infallible or impeccable, but the office they hold is protected by the charism of infallibility in specific circumstances and when the authority that comes with that office is being exercised in a specific way by a specific Pope, he is infallible in the exercise of that authority.

Zobel said:

---

No… it's a pretty big topic. You know that the East has never accepted papal primacy, right?

---

Point of order, there are 27 churches in the East who do so now

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am not sure I understand what the Holy of Holies has to do with Mary. I may need further clarification.

Only those of the tribe of Levi were even allowed into the H of H. Christ himself was not technically qualified to enter and there is no mention that he ever did. However he is now in the true Holy of Holies, sitting at the right hand of God for all eternity. Christ is our Great High Priest forever.

---

Mary was the ark of the new covenant where the Word of God dwelled.

---

I am not sure what this means. Because she was pregnant with Jesus, the Word was in her, so she was "carrying" the Word similar to the AotC?

---

………….yes……………?

---

While true no one was commanded to pray to or request anything from tbe Aotc. Nor should anyone request anything or pray to Mary.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am not sure I understand what the Holy of Holies has to do with Mary. I may need further clarification.

Only those of the tribe of Levi were even allowed into the H of H. Christ himself was not technically qualified to enter and there is no mention that he ever did. However he is now in the true Holy of Holies, sitting at the right hand of God for all eternity. Christ is our Great High Priest forever.

---

Mary was the ark of the new covenant where the Word of God dwelled.

---

I am not sure what this means. Because she was pregnant with Jesus, the Word was in her, so she was "carrying" the Word similar to the AotC?

---

………….yes……………?

---

While true no one was commanded to pray to or request anything from tbe Aotc. Nor should anyone request anything or pray to Mary.

---

Where is that in the Bible?

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am not sure I understand what the Holy of Holies has to do with Mary. I may need further clarification.

Only those of the tribe of Levi were even allowed into the H of H. Christ himself was not technically qualified to enter and there is no mention that he ever did. However he is now in the true Holy of Holies, sitting at the right hand of God for all eternity. Christ is our Great High Priest forever.

---

Mary was the ark of the new covenant where the Word of God dwelled.

---

I am not sure what this means. Because she was pregnant with Jesus, the Word was in her, so she was "carrying" the Word similar to the AotC?

---

………….yes……………?

---

While true no one was commanded to pray to or request anything from tbe Aotc. Nor should anyone request anything or pray to Mary.

---

Now do the "Queen Mother".

To not pray to the aotc? Or Mary? When the disciples ask Jesus how to pray He addresses the Father. Not the Aotc or Mary or anyone or any symbol. It's directly to father.

I would think to argue you should pray to Aotc oe Mary you'd have to support it scripturally no?

"I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time."
1 Timothy 2:1-6 NIV

This says we have ONE mediator. Jesus.

Forgive my ignorance but I don't understand the desire or need to pray to Mary.

Elaborate. You referring to Solomon's mother?

I am referring to all the mothers of the Davidic Kings because they served as Queen and reigned with their King sons. Crown, throne, intercessory power, and all.

Mary is our Queen Mother.

I see that. I think that's the case too spiritually. But how does that reality transfer into praying or requesting things from her instead of Jesus. I don't understand the benefit when you have direct access to God?

Doing a quick read of Hippolytus. He calls Jesus tbe Aotc.