Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Interests => Organized Religion and Religious Movements Discussions => Catholic Forum => Topic started by: wincam on Tue Sep 29, 2015 - 13:42:17

Title: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Tue Sep 29, 2015 - 13:42:17
which one of these four do you reckon the Catholic Church really regard as infallible = the Pope - the Magisterium - the Holy Ghost - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Catholica on Tue Sep 29, 2015 - 14:16:31
Why are you asking this question yet again?  Are you ignorant of your Catholic faith?
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Tue Sep 29, 2015 - 16:37:48
Why are you asking this question yet again?  Are you ignorant of your Catholic faith?

could it just be that you are  - bet you can't and daren't answer the question - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Alan on Tue Sep 29, 2015 - 17:54:50
He's trolling Andre, been doing it for weeks.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Wed Sep 30, 2015 - 04:27:54
He's trolling Andre, been doing it for weeks.

of course you mean trawling as a fisher of men and women - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Catholica on Wed Sep 30, 2015 - 06:36:21
Why are you asking this question yet again?  Are you ignorant of your Catholic faith?

could it just be that you are

It could be. So let's go see what the Catechism says.


Quote
HOLY SPIRIT

683 "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit."1 "God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!"'2 This knowledge of faith is possible only in the Holy Spirit: to be in touch with Christ, we must first have been touched by the Holy Spirit. He comes to meet us and kindles faith in us. By virtue of our Baptism, the first sacrament of the faith, the Holy Spirit in the Church communicates to us, intimately and personally, the life that originates in the Father and is offered to us in the Son.

Baptism gives us the grace of new birth in God the Father, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit. For those who bear God's Spirit are led to the Word, that is, to the Son, and the Son presents them to the Father, and the Father confers incorruptibility on them. And it is impossible to see God's Son without the Spirit, and no one can approach the Father without the Son, for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of God's Son is obtained through the Holy Spirit.3
684 Through his grace, the Holy Spirit is the first to awaken faith in us and to communicate to us the new life, which is to "know the Father and the one whom he has sent, Jesus Christ."4 But the Spirit is the last of the persons of the Holy Trinity to be revealed. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, explains this progression in terms of the pedagogy of divine "condescension":

The Old Testament proclaimed the Father clearly, but the Son more obscurely. The New Testament revealed the Son and gave us a glimpse of the divinity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit dwells among us and grants us a clearer vision of himself. It was not prudent, when the divinity of the Father had not yet been confessed, to proclaim the Son openly and, when the divinity of the Son was not yet admitted, to add the Holy Spirit as an extra burden, to speak somewhat daringly. . . . By advancing and progressing "from glory to glory," the light of the Trinity will shine in ever more brilliant rays.5
685 To believe in the Holy Spirit is to profess that the Holy Spirit is one of the persons of the Holy Trinity, consubstantial with the Father and the Son: "with the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified."6 For this reason, the divine mystery of the Holy Spirit was already treated in the context of Trinitarian "theology." Here, however, we have to do with the Holy Spirit only in the divine "economy."

686 The Holy Spirit is at work with the Father and the Son from the beginning to the completion of the plan for our salvation. But in these "end times," ushered in by the Son's redeeming Incarnation, the Spirit is revealed and given, recognized and welcomed as a person. Now can this divine plan, accomplished in Christ, the firstborn and head of the new creation, be embodied in mankind by the outpouring of the Spirit: as the Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

The Holy Spirit, being God, is the communicator of the faith, and as God is the one who enables the faith to live on. Colloquially speaking, He is infallible; technically speaking He is more than that. He also cannot sin and cannot make mistakes: He is God.

The Magisterium and the Pope are also infallible though they are capable of making moral mistakes and are fully human. By virtue of the power of the Holy Spirit  working through them because of the offices they hold that Christ established, under certain circumstances the Holy Spirit protects their pronouncements to ensure that the faith is correctly propagated through time.  We call this charism "infallibility" are so in that way and only that way, the Magisterium and the Pope are also "infallible".

Quote
* The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

There is nothing in the Catechism about the laity, aka "wincam" having this charism. So in two different senses, there are three in your list that can be considered "infallible", not just one.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Wed Sep 30, 2015 - 14:43:57
Only the Father Son and Holy Ghost are infallible. The Magisterium and the pope can error in faith and morals. We are all compelled to examine and be led personally of the Holy Ghost and the word of God. Humanly there will always be corruptions in what is right and wrong
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Wed Sep 30, 2015 - 15:01:22
The teaching of the Catholic church about infallibility as false and misleading. Rather than compelling  the church to be led of the spirit and read the word of God for themselves they are taught that men can be infallible therefore trustworthy in all authority and leadership so that they follow as blind sheep to the slaughter.

Do you not see what the pope has done preaching a double standard between Christ and the world and none are pricked in their spirit that something is not right.  This is not just a fault of the RCC but of Protestants also.  Many of them follow after the what ever is taught   them so lay laid back in Babylon.  I have stated the problem.   
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: LexKnight on Wed Sep 30, 2015 - 15:12:39
The teaching of the Catholic church about infallibility as false and misleading. Rather than compelling  the church to be led of the spirit and read the word of God for themselves they are taught that men can be infallible therefore trustworthy in all authority and leadership so that they follow as blind sheep to the slaughter.

Do you not see what the pope has done preaching a double standard between Christ and the world and none are pricked in their spirit that something is not right.  This is not just a fault of the RCC but of Protestants also.  Many of them follow after the what ever is taught   them so lay laid back in Babylon.  I have stated the problem.

Completely agree. There is a significant danger in following a council or clergy with the mindset they have the word of God. Take note what the Lord states here.

Quote
Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Quote
So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.

Nicolaitan comes from a component of 2 Greek words together meaning "Victory over the Laity," also known as a clergy. It's the same type when you think of hierarchy or even government. The Lord never designed such for His assembly, yet even to this day it's practiced. Look at how God responded when Israel demanded a king, and to be a kingdom.

The moment you give a group of men power to interpret the will of God like so, that is the moment you are asking for significant trouble for yourself. Both the Catholics and the Protestants are guilty of this, it is the underlying error of both.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: AVZ on Wed Sep 30, 2015 - 19:06:56
He's trolling Andre, been doing it for weeks.

of course you mean trawling as a fisher of men and women - wincam

You should consider throwing your net over the other side of the boat.
The method you are using right now is not really working.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Ladonia on Wed Sep 30, 2015 - 21:59:31
Only the Father Son and Holy Ghost are infallible. The Magisterium and the pope can error in faith and morals. We are all compelled to examine and be led personally of the Holy Ghost and the word of God. Humanly there will always be corruptions in what is right and wrong

I see, so  you claim that only you interpreting the Scriptures along with the Holy Ghost can get it right (infallible), but the Pope and the Magisterium who also are guided by the Holy Ghost get things wrong (fallible). Sure.  ::rolling::
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Ladonia on Wed Sep 30, 2015 - 22:01:33
The teaching of the Catholic church about infallibility as false and misleading. Rather than compelling  the church to be led of the spirit and read the word of God for themselves they are taught that men can be infallible therefore trustworthy in all authority and leadership so that they follow as blind sheep to the slaughter.

Do you not see what the pope has done preaching a double standard between Christ and the world and none are pricked in their spirit that something is not right.  This is not just a fault of the RCC but of Protestants also.  Many of them follow after the what ever is taught   them so lay laid back in Babylon.  I have stated the problem.

We only follow the authority that God has placed over us on this earth as regards religious teaching. Had you been alive in Cornith, would you have denied the authority of St. Paul as he taught you what the truth was? Or would you have persisted with your go-it-alone religious learning?
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: LexKnight on Wed Sep 30, 2015 - 22:02:57
Only the Father Son and Holy Ghost are infallible. The Magisterium and the pope can error in faith and morals. We are all compelled to examine and be led personally of the Holy Ghost and the word of God. Humanly there will always be corruptions in what is right and wrong

I see, so  you claim that only you interpreting the Scriptures along with the Holy Ghost can get it right (infallible), but the Pope and the Magisterium who also are guided by the Holy Ghost get things wrong (fallible). Sure.  ::rolling::

Unless they're not.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: MeMyself on Wed Sep 30, 2015 - 22:08:30
Why are you asking this question yet again?  Are you ignorant of your Catholic faith?

could it just be that you are  - bet you can't and daren't answer the question - wincam

 ::doh:: Man...you'll have a  ::smacking:: with anyone won't you?  Even a fellow Catholic.  ::frown::
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: kensington on Wed Sep 30, 2015 - 22:56:22
Father, Son, Holy Spirit = Infallible.  Everyone else ever born = Fallible.

Read the word.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: AVZ on Thu Oct 01, 2015 - 02:39:22
The teaching of the Catholic church about infallibility as false and misleading. Rather than compelling  the church to be led of the spirit and read the word of God for themselves they are taught that men can be infallible therefore trustworthy in all authority and leadership so that they follow as blind sheep to the slaughter.

Do you not see what the pope has done preaching a double standard between Christ and the world and none are pricked in their spirit that something is not right.  This is not just a fault of the RCC but of Protestants also.  Many of them follow after the what ever is taught   them so lay laid back in Babylon.  I have stated the problem.

We only follow the authority that God has placed over us on this earth as regards religious teaching. Had you been alive in Cornith, would you have denied the authority of St. Paul as he taught you what the truth was? Or would you have persisted with your go-it-alone religious learning?

Well, most of the people in Corinth did not believe what Paul said. This just shows how fallible people are.

The same thing goes for Catholics. It doesn't matter whether the Pope claims he is fallible or not...what matters is that Catholics are so fallible that they believe him.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Thu Oct 01, 2015 - 03:00:48
The teaching of the Catholic church about infallibility as false and misleading. Rather than compelling  the church to be led of the spirit and read the word of God for themselves they are taught that men can be infallible therefore trustworthy in all authority and leadership so that they follow as blind sheep to the slaughter.

Do you not see what the pope has done preaching a double standard between Christ and the world and none are pricked in their spirit that something is not right.  This is not just a fault of the RCC but of Protestants also.  Many of them follow after the what ever is taught   them so lay laid back in Babylon.  I have stated the problem.

We only follow the authority that God has placed over us on this earth as regards religious teaching. Had you been alive in Cornith, would you have denied the authority of St. Paul as he taught you what the truth was? Or would you have persisted with your go-it-alone religious learning?

Well, most of the people in Corinth did not believe what Paul said. This just shows how fallible people are.

The same thing goes for Catholics. It doesn't matter whether the Pope claims he is fallible or not...what matters is that Catholics are so fallible that they believe him.

of course you say this presuming your own infallibility whilst denying it to the Pope who like you is fallible but only 99.9% of his life - wincam 
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: AVZ on Thu Oct 01, 2015 - 05:36:31
The teaching of the Catholic church about infallibility as false and misleading. Rather than compelling  the church to be led of the spirit and read the word of God for themselves they are taught that men can be infallible therefore trustworthy in all authority and leadership so that they follow as blind sheep to the slaughter.

Do you not see what the pope has done preaching a double standard between Christ and the world and none are pricked in their spirit that something is not right.  This is not just a fault of the RCC but of Protestants also.  Many of them follow after the what ever is taught   them so lay laid back in Babylon.  I have stated the problem.

We only follow the authority that God has placed over us on this earth as regards religious teaching. Had you been alive in Cornith, would you have denied the authority of St. Paul as he taught you what the truth was? Or would you have persisted with your go-it-alone religious learning?

Well, most of the people in Corinth did not believe what Paul said. This just shows how fallible people are.

The same thing goes for Catholics. It doesn't matter whether the Pope claims he is fallible or not...what matters is that Catholics are so fallible that they believe him.

of course you say this presuming your own infallibility whilst denying it to the Pope who like you is fallible but only 99.9% of his life - wincam

What I am saying is that the Pope can claim to be infallible, but you are unable to tell if he is speaking the truth because you are fallible.
The only person who can confirm a person to be infallible would be another infallible person.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Thu Oct 01, 2015 - 05:45:06
indeed - like the Holy Spirit via Jesus Christ via the Pope - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: LexKnight on Thu Oct 01, 2015 - 05:58:30
indeed - like the Holy Spirit via Jesus Christ via the Pope - wincam

You have a lot of faith in your pope, don't you? If I were to tell you that the very concept of your pope is based off an erred structure found in a system in opposition against the Lord, you would argue tooth and nail that I'm wrong and in error myself, am I right?
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Thu Oct 01, 2015 - 06:05:33
indeed - like the Holy Spirit via Jesus Christ via the Pope - wincam

You have a lot of faith in your pope, don't you? If I were to tell you that the very concept of your pope is based off an erred structure found in a system in opposition against the Lord, you would argue tooth and nail that I'm wrong and in error myself, am I right?
of course if I was foolish enough to accept that both you and your informant were infallible - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Thu Oct 01, 2015 - 06:08:54
Father, Son, Holy Spirit = Infallible.  Everyone else ever born = Fallible.

Read the word.


we know all that so how about answering the original question - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: LexKnight on Thu Oct 01, 2015 - 06:25:47
indeed - like the Holy Spirit via Jesus Christ via the Pope - wincam

You have a lot of faith in your pope, don't you? If I were to tell you that the very concept of your pope is based off an erred structure found in a system in opposition against the Lord, you would argue tooth and nail that I'm wrong and in error myself, am I right?
of course if I was foolish enough to accept that both you and your informant were infallible - wincam

You don't make sense here, you mean you would argue against me if you were foolish enough to accept I'm infallible? Assuming you meant to word that differently, it's interesting you point it back to me like that.

The concept of a pope is found in a hierarchical system: the head of a clergy which is the head of its "fathers" which is the head of the laity. It was never a concept the Lord had in mind when establishing His Kingdom, He showed great disapproval when Israel demanded a king. That is, essentially, what you lot have done with the pope, and that is the error of the Catholic Church. It is not a system the Lord would bless, nor is it a system the Holy Spirit would possess. Considering certain historical evidence of popes demonstrating violent tendencies towards those who rejected the RCC, I can't but question the very nature of papal infallibility. The faith you demonstrate towards your pope is more akin to a cult, a leadership that has spiritual domination over the laity. If you believe that is what the Lord willed, then you simply don't know Him.

 
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Ladonia on Thu Oct 01, 2015 - 07:54:30
indeed - like the Holy Spirit via Jesus Christ via the Pope - wincam

You have a lot of faith in your pope, don't you? If I were to tell you that the very concept of your pope is based off an erred structure found in a system in opposition against the Lord, you would argue tooth and nail that I'm wrong and in error myself, am I right?
of course if I was foolish enough to accept that both you and your informant were infallible - wincam

You don't make sense here, you mean you would argue against me if you were foolish enough to accept I'm infallible? Assuming you meant to word that differently, it's interesting you point it back to me like that.

The concept of a pope is found in a hierarchical system: the head of a clergy which is the head of its "fathers" which is the head of the laity. It was never a concept the Lord had in mind when establishing His Kingdom, He showed great disapproval when Israel demanded a king. That is, essentially, what you lot have done with the pope, and that is the error of the Catholic Church. It is not a system the Lord would bless, nor is it a system the Holy Spirit would possess. Considering certain historical evidence of popes demonstrating violent tendencies towards those who rejected the RCC, I can't but question the very nature of papal infallibility. The faith you demonstrate towards your pope is more akin to a cult, a leadership that has spiritual domination over the laity. If you believe that is what the Lord willed, then you simply don't know Him.

Well surely the Lord never had the idea of a go-it-alone belief system either. He would simply have dispensed with having the apostles, there would have been no "sending out of anyone" or "laying on of hands" - He would have just written a book and told everyone to go at it themselves.

Of course Jesus had the hierarchical system in mind because that is what naturally developed after he set the whole thing in motion - that is the historical fact. The whole reality of God is hierarchical right down from Him through the OT to the NT. St. Peter himself was singled out so many times in the Scriptures and St. Paul took control of the evangelization process by likewise becoming a leader in the new Christian Church. It makes no sense that God would want to change a system that has proven itself from the beginning.  ::doh::



Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: LexKnight on Thu Oct 01, 2015 - 08:09:28
indeed - like the Holy Spirit via Jesus Christ via the Pope - wincam

You have a lot of faith in your pope, don't you? If I were to tell you that the very concept of your pope is based off an erred structure found in a system in opposition against the Lord, you would argue tooth and nail that I'm wrong and in error myself, am I right?
of course if I was foolish enough to accept that both you and your informant were infallible - wincam

You don't make sense here, you mean you would argue against me if you were foolish enough to accept I'm infallible? Assuming you meant to word that differently, it's interesting you point it back to me like that.

The concept of a pope is found in a hierarchical system: the head of a clergy which is the head of its "fathers" which is the head of the laity. It was never a concept the Lord had in mind when establishing His Kingdom, He showed great disapproval when Israel demanded a king. That is, essentially, what you lot have done with the pope, and that is the error of the Catholic Church. It is not a system the Lord would bless, nor is it a system the Holy Spirit would possess. Considering certain historical evidence of popes demonstrating violent tendencies towards those who rejected the RCC, I can't but question the very nature of papal infallibility. The faith you demonstrate towards your pope is more akin to a cult, a leadership that has spiritual domination over the laity. If you believe that is what the Lord willed, then you simply don't know Him.

Well surely the Lord never had the idea of a go-it-alone belief system either. He would simply have dispensed with having the apostles, there would have been no "sending out of anyone" or "laying on of hands" - He would have just written a book and told everyone to go at it themselves.

Of course Jesus had the hierarchical system in mind because that is what naturally developed after he set the whole thing in motion - that is the historical fact. The whole reality of God is hierarchical right down from Him through the OT to the NT. St. Peter himself was singled out so many times in the Scriptures and St. Paul took control of the evangelization process by likewise becoming a leader in the new Christian Church. It makes no sense that God would want to change a system that has proven itself from the beginning. Duh!

It is a historical fact that for a majority of the last 2000 years the Church has been in a hierarchical system, but it is contrary to what the Lord intended. Apostles, prophets, teachers etc were functions, callings that typically had specific gifts with them, for the purpose of using those gifts to build the brothers up. Bishops and elders were the same thing, mature men of God who could discern what is of God and what is not, knew the Lord well, and was able to counsel and lead the assemblies to remain on The way. They weren't offices, they weren't positions, and they certainly wasn't titles (or Job would be in error). The Lord didn't come to establish a system of control Ladonia, He came to gather for Himself a family, brothers and sisters under one God. He Himself revealed in Revelation his feelings towards the same type of system the RCC is currently a part of.

A wise man will understand the lesson of Israel demanding a king with the great disapproval of God. The only thing your church has proven among its lengthy history is control does not work. It stifles the power of the Holy Spirit, prevents true spiritual growth among the disciples, and leads to great bloodshed and persecution (and it is an indisputable fact that the Roman Church has much blood on her hands). Case in point, your church is one of the last churches to be speaking about infallibility.

And before you guys mention this: I am not an advocate of the Protestant churches either, they are guilty of the very same sin. I think I've made myself clear on that with the responses I've left on this forum.


Edit: For the record, neither am I an advocate of what you call the go-it-alone method. The Lord did establish a Church for a reason, it's just not your church.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: AVZ on Thu Oct 01, 2015 - 09:41:37
indeed - like the Holy Spirit via Jesus Christ via the Pope - wincam

But Catholics too say they have the Holy Spirit, so what differs your Holy Spirit from the Pope's Holy Spirit?
If it is the same Holy Spirit, then you and I too in matters of faith and morals are infallible.
It's the same Holy Spirit talking.

Yet you declare yourself fallible when it comes to faith and morals.
Then equally the Pope too must be fallible, unless you and the Pope are speaking with different Holy Spirits.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Thu Oct 01, 2015 - 11:27:23
The teaching of the Catholic church about infallibility as false and misleading. Rather than compelling  the church to be led of the spirit and read the word of God for themselves they are taught that men can be infallible therefore trustworthy in all authority and leadership so that they follow as blind sheep to the slaughter.

Do you not see what the pope has done preaching a double standard between Christ and the world and none are pricked in their spirit that something is not right.  This is not just a fault of the RCC but of Protestants also.  Many of them follow after the what ever is taught   them so lay laid back in Babylon.  I have stated the problem.

We only follow the authority that God has placed over us on this earth as regards religious teaching. Had you been alive in Cornith, would you have denied the authority of St. Paul as he taught you what the truth was? Or would you have persisted with your go-it-alone religious learning?

I agree we need teachers to teach. I have sat in many schools of ministry. I have also learned from the school of hard nocks.  There was one promise that I made and kept, and that was I was going to find Gods purpose for me veven if it took the rest of my life.  I did not know that scripture at the time but I lived up to it that if any man come after God he must believe that God is and is rewarder of those who will diligently seek Him. Go it alone never. Jesus said he would always be with me. He talks to me in ways that bogles my mind. He comeforts me when I feel alone and weary. He stands me up when I fall. He loves me when all have forsaken me.  No Ladonia I don't go it alone
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Thu Oct 01, 2015 - 11:58:41
The teaching of the Catholic church about infallibility as false and misleading. Rather than compelling  the church to be led of the spirit and read the word of God for themselves they are taught that men can be infallible therefore trustworthy in all authority and leadership so that they follow as blind sheep to the slaughter.

Do you not see what the pope has done preaching a double standard between Christ and the world and none are pricked in their spirit that something is not right.  This is not just a fault of the RCC but of Protestants also.  Many of them follow after the what ever is taught   them so lay laid back in Babylon.  I have stated the problem.

We only follow the authority that God has placed over us on this earth as regards religious teaching. Had you been alive in Cornith, would you have denied the authority of St. Paul as he taught you what the truth was? Or would you have persisted with your go-it-alone religious learning?

I agree we need teachers to teach. I have sat in many schools of ministry. I have also learned from the school of hard nocks.  There was one promise that I made and kept, and that was I was going to find Gods purpose for me veven if it took the rest of my life.  I did not know that scripture at the time but I lived up to it that if any man come after God he must believe that God is and is rewarder of those who will diligently seek Him. Go it alone never. Jesus said he would always be with me. He talks to me in ways that bogles my mind. He comeforts me when I feel alone and weary. He stands me up when I fall. He loves me when all have forsaken me.  No Ladonia I don't go it alone

but of course you do and it seems someone that others also claim they go along with - but of course no one will claim they go along with human demons and non human devils - strange is it not, accusing Christ of causing confusion and lies - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Thu Oct 01, 2015 - 22:32:05
The teaching of the Catholic church about infallibility as false and misleading. Rather than compelling  the church to be led of the spirit and read the word of God for themselves they are taught that men can be infallible therefore trustworthy in all authority and leadership so that they follow as blind sheep to the slaughter.

Do you not see what the pope has done preaching a double standard between Christ and the world and none are pricked in their spirit that something is not right.  This is not just a fault of the RCC but of Protestants also.  Many of them follow after the what ever is taught   them so lay laid back in Babylon.  I have stated the problem.

We only follow the authority that God has placed over us on this earth as regards religious teaching. Had you been alive in Cornith, would you have denied the authority of St. Paul as he taught you what the truth was? Or would you have persisted with your go-it-alone religious learning?

I agree we need teachers to teach. I have sat in many schools of ministry. I have also learned from the school of hard nocks.  There was one promise that I made and kept, and that was I was going to find Gods purpose for me veven if it took the rest of my life.  I did not know that scripture at the time but I lived up to it that if any man come after God he must believe that God is and is rewarder of those who will diligently seek Him. Go it alone never. Jesus said he would always be with me. He talks to me in ways that bogles my mind. He comeforts me when I feel alone and weary. He stands me up when I fall. He loves me when all have forsaken me.  No Ladonia I don't go it alone

but of course you do and it seems someone that others also claim they go along with - but of course no one will claim they go along with human demons and non human devils - strange is it not, accusing Christ of causing confusion and lies - wincam

Im sorry wincam but you speak of causing confusion. What do you call this answer to what I said.  You really need to see that it is you that causes confusion.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: skeeter on Fri Oct 02, 2015 - 00:16:46
The teaching of the Catholic church about infallibility as false and misleading. Rather than compelling  the church to be led of the spirit and read the word of God for themselves they are taught that men can be infallible therefore trustworthy in all authority and leadership so that they follow as blind sheep to the slaughter.

Do you not see what the pope has done preaching a double standard between Christ and the world and none are pricked in their spirit that something is not right.  This is not just a fault of the RCC but of Protestants also.  Many of them follow after the what ever is taught   them so lay laid back in Babylon.  I have stated the problem.
We only follow the authority that God has placed over us on this earth as regards religious teaching. Had you been alive in Cornith, would you have denied the authority of St. Paul as he taught you what the truth was? Or would you have persisted with your go-it-alone religious learning?
I agree we need teachers to teach. I have sat in many schools of ministry. I have also learned from the school of hard nocks.  There was one promise that I made and kept, and that was I was going to find Gods purpose for me veven if it took the rest of my life.  I did not know that scripture at the time but I lived up to it that if any man come after God he must believe that God is and is rewarder of those who will diligently seek Him. Go it alone never. Jesus said he would always be with me. He talks to me in ways that bogles my mind. He comeforts me when I feel alone and weary. He stands me up when I fall. He loves me when all have forsaken me.  No Ladonia I don't go it alone

beautifully put mclee!
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Fri Oct 02, 2015 - 04:26:41
like many another when I was young I did frequent doctor and sage and seer and heard great argument about this and that and evermore but came out by the same door wherein I went - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Catholica on Fri Oct 02, 2015 - 08:05:32
Father, Son, Holy Spirit = Infallible.  Everyone else ever born = Fallible.

Read the word.


we know all that so how about answering the original question - wincam

The original question has already been answered.  Aren't you satisfied with the Catholic answer?  Do you have any questions?
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Alan on Fri Oct 02, 2015 - 08:31:16
Father, Son, Holy Spirit = Infallible.  Everyone else ever born = Fallible.

Read the word.


we know all that so how about answering the original question - wincam

The original question has already been answered.  Aren't you satisfied with the Catholic answer?  Do you have any questions?


I've yet to see wincam agree with anyone on this site, talk about personal interpretation!  ::frustrated:: [size=78%] [/size]
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Fri Oct 02, 2015 - 12:51:13
Father, Son, Holy Spirit = Infallible.  Everyone else ever born = Fallible.

Read the word.


we know all that so how about answering the original question - wincam

The original question has already been answered.  Aren't you satisfied with the Catholic answer?  Do you have any questions?


I've yet to see wincam agree with anyone on this site, talk about personal interpretation!  ::frustrated:: [size=78%] [/size]

so that could indeed be a compliment and not vice versa - so who or what is really the problem - as I sadly recall other well known individuals known to one and all suffered the same sort of problems - try again - but meanwhile try to simply simply simply believe which I have it on good advice could be very difficult if not impossible - so don' blame me - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Catholica on Fri Oct 02, 2015 - 12:56:36
Father, Son, Holy Spirit = Infallible.  Everyone else ever born = Fallible.

Read the word.


we know all that so how about answering the original question - wincam

The original question has already been answered.  Aren't you satisfied with the Catholic answer?  Do you have any questions?


I've yet to see wincam agree with anyone on this site, talk about personal interpretation!  ::frustrated:: [size=78%] [/size]

so that could indeed be a compliment and not vice versa - so who or what is really the problem - as I sadly recall other well known individuals known to one and all suffered the same sort of problems - try again - but meanwhile try to simply simply simply believe which I have it on good advice could be very difficult if not impossible - so don' blame me - wincam

Jesus Christ didn't start arguments for the purpose of arguing.  And he didn't ask questions using false premises either.  You are no Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Fri Oct 02, 2015 - 17:16:51
Father, Son, Holy Spirit = Infallible.  Everyone else ever born = Fallible.

Read the word.

Catholica - great damage has been done in the past and even now by some Catholics accepting and expecting Protestants and others to accept that Catholics accept the Pope to be infallible of himself and everywhere and every when - but of course this is just not so - this is the correct Catholic answer - wincam


we know all that so how about answering the original question - wincam

The original question has already been answered.  Aren't you satisfied with the Catholic answer?  Do you have any questions?
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: AVZ on Sat Oct 03, 2015 - 00:10:55
Father, Son, Holy Spirit = Infallible.  Everyone else ever born = Fallible.

Read the word.

Catholica - great damage has been done in the past and even now by some Catholics accepting and expecting Protestants and others to accept that Catholics accept the Pope to be infallible of himself and everywhere and every when - but of course this is just not so - this is the correct Catholic answer - wincam


we know all that so how about answering the original question - wincam

The original question has already been answered.  Aren't you satisfied with the Catholic answer?  Do you have any questions?

Wincam,

Besides the fact that you posted your response in the middle of an earlier posted message, I wish to congratulate you on your first reasonably intelligible structured sentence.
What bemuses me, and what also tells me you are a true Catholic, is the fact that the comprehensiveness of your posts and the comprehensiveness of general Catholic dogmas & doctrines have the following in common: after you are done reading, you still have no clue what it is about. 
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Sat Oct 03, 2015 - 02:19:04
Father, Son, Holy Spirit = Infallible.  Everyone else ever born = Fallible.

Read the word.

Catholica - great damage has been done in the past and even now by some Catholics accepting and expecting Protestants and others to accept that Catholics accept the Pope to be infallible of himself and everywhere and every when - but of course this is just not so - this is the correct Catholic answer - wincam


we know all that so how about answering the original question - wincam

The original question has already been answered.  Aren't you satisfied with the Catholic answer?  Do you have any questions?

Wincam,

Besides the fact that you posted your response in the middle of an earlier posted message, I wish to congratulate you on your first reasonably intelligible structured sentence.
What bemuses me, and what also tells me you are a true Catholic, is the fact that the comprehensiveness of your posts and the comprehensiveness of general Catholic dogmas & doctrines have the following in common: after you are done reading, you still have no clue what it is about.


Thank you very much - so I still wait enlightenment by you and others - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Sat Oct 03, 2015 - 02:53:22
indeed - like the Holy Spirit via Jesus Christ via the Pope - wincam


 have a lot of faith in your pope, don't you? If I were to tell you that the very concept of your pope is based off an erred structure found in a system in opposition against the Lord, you would argue tooth and nail that I'm wrong and in error myself, am I right?

 of course if I was foolish enough to accept that both you and your informant were infallible - wincam


You don't make sense here, you mean you would argue against me if you were foolish enough to accept I'm infallible? Assuming you meant to word that differently, it's interesting you point it back to me like that.

The concept of a pope is found in a hierarchical system: the head of a clergy which is the head of its "fathers" which is the head of the laity. It was never a concept the Lord had in mind when establishing His Kingdom, He showed great disapproval when Israel demanded a king. That is, essentially, what you lot have done with the pope, and that is the error of the Catholic Church. It is not a system the Lord would bless, nor is it a system the Holy Spirit would possess. Considering certain historical evidence of popes demonstrating violent tendencies towards those who rejected the RCC, I can't but question the very nature of papal infallibility. The faith you demonstrate towards your pope is more akin to a cult, a leadership that has spiritual domination over the laity. If you believe that is what the Lord willed, then you simply don't know Him.


of course you have no true idea about Catholicism and its in built safe guards and guardians of the faith to even correct Popes who are not mostly infallible and have been known to say many foolish things - for just one such safe guard see www.proecclesia.com (http://www.proecclesia.com) - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: AVZ on Sat Oct 03, 2015 - 03:46:26
indeed - like the Holy Spirit via Jesus Christ via the Pope - wincam


 have a lot of faith in your pope, don't you? If I were to tell you that the very concept of your pope is based off an erred structure found in a system in opposition against the Lord, you would argue tooth and nail that I'm wrong and in error myself, am I right?

 of course if I was foolish enough to accept that both you and your informant were infallible - wincam


You don't make sense here, you mean you would argue against me if you were foolish enough to accept I'm infallible? Assuming you meant to word that differently, it's interesting you point it back to me like that.

The concept of a pope is found in a hierarchical system: the head of a clergy which is the head of its "fathers" which is the head of the laity. It was never a concept the Lord had in mind when establishing His Kingdom, He showed great disapproval when Israel demanded a king. That is, essentially, what you lot have done with the pope, and that is the error of the Catholic Church. It is not a system the Lord would bless, nor is it a system the Holy Spirit would possess. Considering certain historical evidence of popes demonstrating violent tendencies towards those who rejected the RCC, I can't but question the very nature of papal infallibility. The faith you demonstrate towards your pope is more akin to a cult, a leadership that has spiritual domination over the laity. If you believe that is what the Lord willed, then you simply don't know Him.


of course you have no true idea about Catholicism and its in built safe guards and guardians of the faith to even correct Popes who are not mostly infallible and have been known to say many foolish things - for just one such safe guard see [url=http://www.proecclesia.com]www.proecclesia.com[/url] ([url]http://www.proecclesia.com[/url]) - wincam


How do you know when a Pope is fallible or infallible?
For all you know lots of foolish things have been said under the declaration of infallibility. How to tell if you are not infallible yourself and if you are not allowed to have a personal interpretation?
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Sat Oct 03, 2015 - 08:52:27
the Pope is really only really infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: LexKnight on Fri Oct 02, 2015 - 01:15:21
the Pope is really only really infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra - wincam

So he's infallible when he says he's infallible? How do you know he's infallible even when he says it?
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: AVZ on Fri Oct 02, 2015 - 01:16:49
the Pope is really only really infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra - wincam

Question remains. How would you know the Pope speaks or spoke ex cathedra other than the fact he claimed he did.
And again the only way to confirm someone is infallible is by another infallible person.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Sun Oct 04, 2015 - 13:23:19
the Pope is really only really infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra - wincam

Question remains. How would you know the Pope speaks or spoke ex cathedra other than the fact he claimed he did.
And again the only way to confirm someone is infallible is by another infallible person.

what we do know for sure is when he does not speak ex cathedra which is mostly - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Mon Oct 05, 2015 - 09:19:42
the Pope is really only really infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra - wincam

Question remains. How would you know the Pope speaks or spoke ex cathedra other than the fact he claimed he did.
And again the only way to confirm someone is infallible is by another infallible person.

what we do know for sure is when he does not speak ex cathedra which is mostly - wincam

The pope is a pide piper
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Mon Oct 05, 2015 - 09:35:23
the Pope is really only really infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra - wincam

Question remains. How would you know the Pope speaks or spoke ex cathedra other than the fact he claimed he did.
And again the only way to confirm someone is infallible is by another infallible person.

what we do know for sure is when he does not speak ex cathedra which is mostly - wincam

The pope is a pide piper


the first Pope = simple Simon spied and followed a God like pie man piper who promised to make him a fisher of men - wincam   
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Mon Oct 05, 2015 - 10:30:43
the Pope is really only really infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra - wincam

Question remains. How would you know the Pope speaks or spoke ex cathedra other than the fact he claimed he did.
And again the only way to confirm someone is infallible is by another infallible person.

what we do know for sure is when he does not speak ex cathedra which is mostly - wincam

The pope is a pide piper

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSHSYU89ov7vX61kivZCJXADXBDXqYJF-jYOXQi1TCUhvTF345rVg
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Mon Oct 05, 2015 - 12:49:00
the Pope is really only really infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra - wincam

Question remains. How would you know the Pope speaks or spoke ex cathedra other than the fact he claimed he did.
And again the only way to confirm someone is infallible is by another infallible person.

what we do know for sure is when he does not speak ex cathedra which is mostly - wincam

The pope is a pide piper


doesn't look a bit like the Pope - more like Martin Luther or Henry VIII - wincam
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSHSYU89ov7vX61kivZCJXADXBDXqYJF-jYOXQi1TCUhvTF345rVg
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Mon Oct 05, 2015 - 16:11:48
the Pope is really only really infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra - wincam

Question remains. How would you know the Pope speaks or spoke ex cathedra other than the fact he claimed he did.
And again the only way to confirm someone is infallible is by another infallible person.

what we do know for sure is when he does not speak ex cathedra which is mostly - wincam

The pope is a pide piper


doesn't look a bit like the Pope - more like Martin Luther or Henry VIII - wincam
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSHSYU89ov7vX61kivZCJXADXBDXqYJF-jYOXQi1TCUhvTF345rVg

I said he was a pied piper. Just different clothes
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Catholica on Mon Oct 05, 2015 - 16:13:47
Mike how old are you?  Do you consider yourself a mature Christian?
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Mon Oct 05, 2015 - 16:18:53
Mike how old are you?  Do you consider yourself a mature Christian?

Trying to demean me with insults  Mighty Catholic of you.  Im only showing you the truth and you know it?
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Catholica on Mon Oct 05, 2015 - 16:31:48
Mike how old are you?  Do you consider yourself a mature Christian?

Trying to demean me with insults  Mighty Catholic of you.  Im only showing you the truth and you know it?

Your pride prevents you from seeing how immature you are acting.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: kensington on Mon Oct 05, 2015 - 16:44:11
Judge not.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Mon Oct 05, 2015 - 16:55:07
Mike how old are you?  Do you consider yourself a mature Christian?

Trying to demean me with insults  Mighty Catholic of you.  Im only showing you the truth and you know it?

Your pride prevents you from seeing how immature you are acting.

OK Cath
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: AVZ on Mon Oct 05, 2015 - 18:53:03
the Pope is really only really infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra - wincam

Question remains. How would you know the Pope speaks or spoke ex cathedra other than the fact he claimed he did.
And again the only way to confirm someone is infallible is by another infallible person.

what we do know for sure is when he does not speak ex cathedra which is mostly - wincam

How would you know for sure? You are fallible.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Ladonia on Mon Oct 05, 2015 - 20:53:19
the Pope is really only really infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra - wincam

Question remains. How would you know the Pope speaks or spoke ex cathedra other than the fact he claimed he did.
And again the only way to confirm someone is infallible is by another infallible person.

what we do know for sure is when he does not speak ex cathedra which is mostly - wincam

The pope is a pide piper

He is our lead Bishop, the man whom God has placed in authority over us and when he speaks in the matters of faith and morals we are bound to believe him as we are told to in the Scriptures. He is no pied piper, but one who tells the truth as revealed to him by the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: AVZ on Mon Oct 05, 2015 - 22:43:20
when he speaks in the matters of faith and morals we are bound to believe him as we are told to in the Scriptures.

Actually the Bible does not say you have to believe your pastor or bishop. The Bible says you have to TEST and PROOF his words and CHECK if it aligns with scripture.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: LexKnight on Mon Oct 05, 2015 - 22:58:49
Here is a little tip: It is a foolish man who believes he cannot be deceived, and it is the wise man who is opened to the possibility that he very well could be and is very possible for him to be. Likewise, a wise man would also realize, even if Paul were to stand before him, that it is possible even for Paul to be deceived and teach from that deception. The Pope is likewise, only a fool would take to their words without testing it in light of the nature of God, and only a fool would hold to a belief that a Pope is, in some way, infallible. It sounds harsh, but it is the type of person the proverbs describes a fool as.

If a man is not willing to be opened to the possibility that he can be deceived, then he is indeed a fool. If you are not willing to be opened to the possibility that your leader or overseer can be deceived and could very well be currently, then you are in a cult and not in an establishment of God. The Pope is elevated far beyond what any man should ever be elevated as, for even the angels are purposed to serve the Saints, how much more those greater in the Body be as lowly servants for the sake of the Saints?
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Tue Oct 06, 2015 - 03:54:39
yes yes but the greatest fools are those who think and seem to accept that even Jesus Christ , as God, could be wrong - He really knowing human nature as it is foresaw all this bickering over the issue of infallibility of the Pope even after being inspired by the Holy Ghost and provided an insurance against it namely the Magisterium to confirm or deny all or any utterances by the Pope - the Magisterium consists of "successors of the Apostles" as at Jn.14:26 - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Tue Oct 06, 2015 - 04:08:06
the Pope is really only really infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra - wincam

Question remains. How would you know the Pope speaks or spoke ex cathedra other than the fact he claimed he did.
And again the only way to confirm someone is infallible is by another infallible person.

what we do know for sure is when he does not speak ex cathedra which is mostly - wincam

The pope is a pide piper


doesn't look a bit like the Pope - more like Martin Luther or Henry VIII - wincam
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSHSYU89ov7vX61kivZCJXADXBDXqYJF-jYOXQi1TCUhvTF345rVg

I said he was a pied piper. Just different clothes

I said he was Luther or Henry VIII - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Tue Oct 06, 2015 - 05:10:46
the Pope is really only really infallible when he pronounces ex cathedra - wincam

Question remains. How would you know the Pope speaks or spoke ex cathedra other than the fact he claimed he did.
And again the only way to confirm someone is infallible is by another infallible person.

what we do know for sure is when he does not speak ex cathedra which is mostly - wincam

The pope is a pide piper

He is our lead Bishop, the man whom God has placed in authority over us and when he speaks in the matters of faith and morals we are bound to believe him as we are told to in the Scriptures. He is no pied piper, but one who tells the truth as revealed to him by the Holy Spirit.

When did the Holy Spirit speak to him last. Last week when he went on a political parade.

That does not sound like what the scripture tells me listen to. Got any kids Ladonia
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: AVZ on Tue Oct 06, 2015 - 05:42:06
yes yes but the greatest fools are those who think and seem to accept that even Jesus Christ , as God, could be wrong - He really knowing human nature as it is foresaw all this bickering over the issue of infallibility of the Pope even after being inspired by the Holy Ghost and provided an insurance against it namely the Magisterium to confirm or deny all or any utterances by the Pope - the Magisterium consists of "successors of the Apostles" as at Jn.14:26 - wincam

Huh? Where did you read that Jesus established a Magisterium?
And who declares the Magisterium to be infallible? The Pope?

From your own Catholic resources:

1. The Magisterium is incapable of fully understanding every truth found in the Deposit of Faith, for the Faith contains mysteries beyond complete human comprehension. Therefore, the teachings of the Magisterium are always necessarily significantly limited in their understanding of the teachings of the Deposit of Faith.

2. The Magisterium is incapable of fully expressing every truth found in the Deposit of Faith, for the Faith contains truths beyond the ability of mere human language to fully express. Therefore, the teachings of the Magisterium are always necessarily a limited expression of the ineffable truths found in the Deposit of Faith.

3. The Magisterium is incapable of teaching every truth, each one of which, individually, it is capable of teaching. For the Deposit of Faith contains so many truths that, “if each one was written, the world itself, I suppose, would be unable to hold the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).

Therefore, the sum total of all the teachings of the Magisterium, in understanding, expression, and number, is necessarily always significantly less than the sum total of all the teachings of the Deposit of Faith. And further development in the understanding, expression, and number of truths taught is always possible. For God is infinite Truth.


4. The Magisterium can only be exercised by the Bishops and the Pope. Individual Bishops, other than the Pope, can only exercise the Magisterium non-infallibly.

5. The Magisterium teaches infallibly only under certain conditions; whenever those conditions are lacking, the teaching is non-infallible. All non-infallible teachings allow for the limited possibility of error, but never to such an extent as to lead the faithful away from salvation.

6. The Magisterium is limited to teaching the truths found, explicitly or implicitly, in the Deposit of Faith (Tradition and Scripture). Nothing outside of the Deposit of Faith can be taught by the Magisterium, even under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium. All things to the contrary not withstanding.


7. The faithful are only required to believe with theological faith, that is, with the full assent of faith properly due to the teachings of Christ, the infallible teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium. Any requirement to adhere to the non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium must always necessarily have significant limitations in the type and degree of assent, and must always necessarily permit the possibility of limited faithful dissent. For the non-infallible teachings admit a limited possibility of error, but belief in error is never required by Christ.

8. It is not always clear which teachings are infallible and which are non-infallible. It is not always clear whether an idea is a teaching of the Magisterium at all. Nor will it ever be completely clear, prior to the Return of Jesus Christ.

9. The temporal decisions of the Pope and the Bishops are not teachings, but judgments of the prudential order. Any exercise of the temporal authority of the Church is fallible.


10. The Pope and the Bishops, in whom the ability and authority of the Magisterium solely resides, are imperfect and are sinners. As a result, they teach less clearly and less fully than they otherwise could teach, and their ordinary non-infallible teaching contain more errors and more imperfections than it otherwise would contain.

11. The Magisterium often teaches later, rather than sooner. As time passes, the truths of the Faith become clearer to the Church on earth, and this understanding eventually, and usually very slowly, makes its way into the teachings of the Magisterium.

12. The Magisterium is unresponsive to the immediate needs of the faithful for guidance on particular questions of faith and morals. The Magisterium does not respond, in a timely manner, to each and every error of faith or morals that develops in the world, or among the faithful, or even among the Bishops. Thus, the faithful are often left, for a considerable period of time, without the guidance of the Magisterium on a particular question of importance to their salvation.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: AVZ on Tue Oct 06, 2015 - 05:51:17
yes yes but the greatest fools are those who think and seem to accept that even Jesus Christ , as God, could be wrong - He really knowing human nature as it is foresaw all this bickering over the issue of infallibility of the Pope even after being inspired by the Holy Ghost and provided an insurance against it namely the Magisterium to confirm or deny all or any utterances by the Pope - the Magisterium consists of "successors of the Apostles" as at Jn.14:26 - wincam

Huh? Where did you read that Jesus established a Magisterium?
And who declares the Magisterium to be infallible? The Pope?

From your own Catholic resources:

1. The Magisterium is incapable of fully understanding every truth found in the Deposit of Faith, for the Faith contains mysteries beyond complete human comprehension. Therefore, the teachings of the Magisterium are always necessarily significantly limited in their understanding of the teachings of the Deposit of Faith.

2. The Magisterium is incapable of fully expressing every truth found in the Deposit of Faith, for the Faith contains truths beyond the ability of mere human language to fully express. Therefore, the teachings of the Magisterium are always necessarily a limited expression of the ineffable truths found in the Deposit of Faith.

3. The Magisterium is incapable of teaching every truth, each one of which, individually, it is capable of teaching. For the Deposit of Faith contains so many truths that, “if each one was written, the world itself, I suppose, would be unable to hold the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).

Therefore, the sum total of all the teachings of the Magisterium, in understanding, expression, and number, is necessarily always significantly less than the sum total of all the teachings of the Deposit of Faith. And further development in the understanding, expression, and number of truths taught is always possible. For God is infinite Truth.


4. The Magisterium can only be exercised by the Bishops and the Pope. Individual Bishops, other than the Pope, can only exercise the Magisterium non-infallibly.

5. The Magisterium teaches infallibly only under certain conditions; whenever those conditions are lacking, the teaching is non-infallible. All non-infallible teachings allow for the limited possibility of error, but never to such an extent as to lead the faithful away from salvation.

6. The Magisterium is limited to teaching the truths found, explicitly or implicitly, in the Deposit of Faith (Tradition and Scripture). Nothing outside of the Deposit of Faith can be taught by the Magisterium, even under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium. All things to the contrary not withstanding.


7. The faithful are only required to believe with theological faith, that is, with the full assent of faith properly due to the teachings of Christ, the infallible teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium. Any requirement to adhere to the non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium must always necessarily have significant limitations in the type and degree of assent, and must always necessarily permit the possibility of limited faithful dissent. For the non-infallible teachings admit a limited possibility of error, but belief in error is never required by Christ.

8. It is not always clear which teachings are infallible and which are non-infallible. It is not always clear whether an idea is a teaching of the Magisterium at all. Nor will it ever be completely clear, prior to the Return of Jesus Christ.

9. The temporal decisions of the Pope and the Bishops are not teachings, but judgments of the prudential order. Any exercise of the temporal authority of the Church is fallible.


10. The Pope and the Bishops, in whom the ability and authority of the Magisterium solely resides, are imperfect and are sinners. As a result, they teach less clearly and less fully than they otherwise could teach, and their ordinary non-infallible teaching contain more errors and more imperfections than it otherwise would contain.

11. The Magisterium often teaches later, rather than sooner. As time passes, the truths of the Faith become clearer to the Church on earth, and this understanding eventually, and usually very slowly, makes its way into the teachings of the Magisterium.

12. The Magisterium is unresponsive to the immediate needs of the faithful for guidance on particular questions of faith and morals. The Magisterium does not respond, in a timely manner, to each and every error of faith or morals that develops in the world, or among the faithful, or even among the Bishops. Thus, the faithful are often left, for a considerable period of time, without the guidance of the Magisterium on a particular question of importance to their salvation.

Just to recap everything.
You have a potential fallible Magisterium who must decide if a Pope is fallible or not.
Then you have a whole list of clauses and points that describe the non-infallibily and infallibility of the Magisterium.

And right in the middle, clause 8, it says: It is not always clear which teachings are infallible and which are non-infallible.

In other words, you just tried to make a point that the RCC is infallible, but we don't really know for sure.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Tue Oct 06, 2015 - 06:30:20
yes yes but the greatest fools are those who think and seem to accept that even Jesus Christ , as God, could be wrong - He really knowing human nature as it is foresaw all this bickering over the issue of infallibility of the Pope even after being inspired by the Holy Ghost and provided an insurance against it namely the Magisterium to confirm or deny all or any utterances by the Pope - the Magisterium consists of "successors of the Apostles" as at Jn.14:26 - wincam

Huh? Where did you read that Jesus established a Magisterium?
And who declares the Magisterium to be infallible? The Pope?

From your own Catholic resources:

1. The Magisterium is incapable of fully understanding every truth found in the Deposit of Faith, for the Faith contains mysteries beyond complete human comprehension. Therefore, the teachings of the Magisterium are always necessarily significantly limited in their understanding of the teachings of the Deposit of Faith.

2. The Magisterium is incapable of fully expressing every truth found in the Deposit of Faith, for the Faith contains truths beyond the ability of mere human language to fully express. Therefore, the teachings of the Magisterium are always necessarily a limited expression of the ineffable truths found in the Deposit of Faith.

3. The Magisterium is incapable of teaching every truth, each one of which, individually, it is capable of teaching. For the Deposit of Faith contains so many truths that, “if each one was written, the world itself, I suppose, would be unable to hold the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).

Therefore, the sum total of all the teachings of the Magisterium, in understanding, expression, and number, is necessarily always significantly less than the sum total of all the teachings of the Deposit of Faith. And further development in the understanding, expression, and number of truths taught is always possible. For God is infinite Truth.


4. The Magisterium can only be exercised by the Bishops and the Pope. Individual Bishops, other than the Pope, can only exercise the Magisterium non-infallibly.

5. The Magisterium teaches infallibly only under certain conditions; whenever those conditions are lacking, the teaching is non-infallible. All non-infallible teachings allow for the limited possibility of error, but never to such an extent as to lead the faithful away from salvation.

6. The Magisterium is limited to teaching the truths found, explicitly or implicitly, in the Deposit of Faith (Tradition and Scripture). Nothing outside of the Deposit of Faith can be taught by the Magisterium, even under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium. All things to the contrary not withstanding.


7. The faithful are only required to believe with theological faith, that is, with the full assent of faith properly due to the teachings of Christ, the infallible teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium. Any requirement to adhere to the non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium must always necessarily have significant limitations in the type and degree of assent, and must always necessarily permit the possibility of limited faithful dissent. For the non-infallible teachings admit a limited possibility of error, but belief in error is never required by Christ.

8. It is not always clear which teachings are infallible and which are non-infallible. It is not always clear whether an idea is a teaching of the Magisterium at all. Nor will it ever be completely clear, prior to the Return of Jesus Christ.

9. The temporal decisions of the Pope and the Bishops are not teachings, but judgments of the prudential order. Any exercise of the temporal authority of the Church is fallible.


10. The Pope and the Bishops, in whom the ability and authority of the Magisterium solely resides, are imperfect and are sinners. As a result, they teach less clearly and less fully than they otherwise could teach, and their ordinary non-infallible teaching contain more errors and more imperfections than it otherwise would contain.

11. The Magisterium often teaches later, rather than sooner. As time passes, the truths of the Faith become clearer to the Church on earth, and this understanding eventually, and usually very slowly, makes its way into the teachings of the Magisterium.

12. The Magisterium is unresponsive to the immediate needs of the faithful for guidance on particular questions of faith and morals. The Magisterium does not respond, in a timely manner, to each and every error of faith or morals that develops in the world, or among the faithful, or even among the Bishops. Thus, the faithful are often left, for a considerable period of time, without the guidance of the Magisterium on a particular question of importance to their salvation.

Just to recap everything.
You have a potential fallible Magisterium who must decide if a Pope is fallible or not.
Then you have a whole list of clauses and points that describe the non-infallibily and infallibility of the Magisterium.

And right in the middle, clause 8, it says: It is not always clear which teachings are infallible and which are non-infallible.

In other words, you just tried to make a point that the RCC is infallible, but we don't really know for sure.

Its teaching about what is fallible or infallible are teaching unto itself   Since all that is self is incapable of infallibility then   ::pondering:: this does not compute
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: skeeter on Tue Oct 06, 2015 - 11:12:35
yes yes but the greatest fools are those who think and seem to accept that even Jesus Christ , as God, could be wrong - He really knowing human nature as it is foresaw all this bickering over the issue of infallibility of the Pope even after being inspired by the Holy Ghost and provided an insurance against it namely the Magisterium to confirm or deny all or any utterances by the Pope - the Magisterium consists of "successors of the Apostles" as at Jn.14:26 - wincam

Huh? Where did you read that Jesus established a Magisterium?
And who declares the Magisterium to be infallible? The Pope?

From your own Catholic resources:

1. The Magisterium is incapable of fully understanding every truth found in the Deposit of Faith, for the Faith contains mysteries beyond complete human comprehension. Therefore, the teachings of the Magisterium are always necessarily significantly limited in their understanding of the teachings of the Deposit of Faith.

2. The Magisterium is incapable of fully expressing every truth found in the Deposit of Faith, for the Faith contains truths beyond the ability of mere human language to fully express. Therefore, the teachings of the Magisterium are always necessarily a limited expression of the ineffable truths found in the Deposit of Faith.

3. The Magisterium is incapable of teaching every truth, each one of which, individually, it is capable of teaching. For the Deposit of Faith contains so many truths that, “if each one was written, the world itself, I suppose, would be unable to hold the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).

Therefore, the sum total of all the teachings of the Magisterium, in understanding, expression, and number, is necessarily always significantly less than the sum total of all the teachings of the Deposit of Faith. And further development in the understanding, expression, and number of truths taught is always possible. For God is infinite Truth.


4. The Magisterium can only be exercised by the Bishops and the Pope. Individual Bishops, other than the Pope, can only exercise the Magisterium non-infallibly.

5. The Magisterium teaches infallibly only under certain conditions; whenever those conditions are lacking, the teaching is non-infallible. All non-infallible teachings allow for the limited possibility of error, but never to such an extent as to lead the faithful away from salvation.

6. The Magisterium is limited to teaching the truths found, explicitly or implicitly, in the Deposit of Faith (Tradition and Scripture). Nothing outside of the Deposit of Faith can be taught by the Magisterium, even under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium. All things to the contrary not withstanding.


7. The faithful are only required to believe with theological faith, that is, with the full assent of faith properly due to the teachings of Christ, the infallible teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium. Any requirement to adhere to the non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium must always necessarily have significant limitations in the type and degree of assent, and must always necessarily permit the possibility of limited faithful dissent. For the non-infallible teachings admit a limited possibility of error, but belief in error is never required by Christ.

8. It is not always clear which teachings are infallible and which are non-infallible. It is not always clear whether an idea is a teaching of the Magisterium at all. Nor will it ever be completely clear, prior to the Return of Jesus Christ.

9. The temporal decisions of the Pope and the Bishops are not teachings, but judgments of the prudential order. Any exercise of the temporal authority of the Church is fallible.


10. The Pope and the Bishops, in whom the ability and authority of the Magisterium solely resides, are imperfect and are sinners. As a result, they teach less clearly and less fully than they otherwise could teach, and their ordinary non-infallible teaching contain more errors and more imperfections than it otherwise would contain.

11. The Magisterium often teaches later, rather than sooner. As time passes, the truths of the Faith become clearer to the Church on earth, and this understanding eventually, and usually very slowly, makes its way into the teachings of the Magisterium.

12. The Magisterium is unresponsive to the immediate needs of the faithful for guidance on particular questions of faith and morals. The Magisterium does not respond, in a timely manner, to each and every error of faith or morals that develops in the world, or among the faithful, or even among the Bishops. Thus, the faithful are often left, for a considerable period of time, without the guidance of the Magisterium on a particular question of importance to their salvation.

Just to recap everything.
You have a potential fallible Magisterium who must decide if a Pope is fallible or not.
Then you have a whole list of clauses and points that describe the non-infallibily and infallibility of the Magisterium.

And right in the middle, clause 8, it says: It is not always clear which teachings are infallible and which are non-infallible.

In other words, you just tried to make a point that the RCC is infallible, but we don't really know for sure.

Its teaching about what is fallible or infallible are teaching unto itself   Since all that is self is incapable of infallibility then   ::pondering:: this does not compute
sounds to me like whatever they say could be right, but not necessarily so.

nothing new in that.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Catholica on Tue Oct 06, 2015 - 12:53:50
yes yes but the greatest fools are those who think and seem to accept that even Jesus Christ , as God, could be wrong - He really knowing human nature as it is foresaw all this bickering over the issue of infallibility of the Pope even after being inspired by the Holy Ghost and provided an insurance against it namely the Magisterium to confirm or deny all or any utterances by the Pope - the Magisterium consists of "successors of the Apostles" as at Jn.14:26 - wincam

Huh? Where did you read that Jesus established a Magisterium?
And who declares the Magisterium to be infallible? The Pope?

From your own Catholic resources:

1. The Magisterium is incapable of fully understanding every truth found in the Deposit of Faith, for the Faith contains mysteries beyond complete human comprehension. Therefore, the teachings of the Magisterium are always necessarily significantly limited in their understanding of the teachings of the Deposit of Faith.

2. The Magisterium is incapable of fully expressing every truth found in the Deposit of Faith, for the Faith contains truths beyond the ability of mere human language to fully express. Therefore, the teachings of the Magisterium are always necessarily a limited expression of the ineffable truths found in the Deposit of Faith.

3. The Magisterium is incapable of teaching every truth, each one of which, individually, it is capable of teaching. For the Deposit of Faith contains so many truths that, “if each one was written, the world itself, I suppose, would be unable to hold the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).

Therefore, the sum total of all the teachings of the Magisterium, in understanding, expression, and number, is necessarily always significantly less than the sum total of all the teachings of the Deposit of Faith. And further development in the understanding, expression, and number of truths taught is always possible. For God is infinite Truth.


4. The Magisterium can only be exercised by the Bishops and the Pope. Individual Bishops, other than the Pope, can only exercise the Magisterium non-infallibly.

5. The Magisterium teaches infallibly only under certain conditions; whenever those conditions are lacking, the teaching is non-infallible. All non-infallible teachings allow for the limited possibility of error, but never to such an extent as to lead the faithful away from salvation.

6. The Magisterium is limited to teaching the truths found, explicitly or implicitly, in the Deposit of Faith (Tradition and Scripture). Nothing outside of the Deposit of Faith can be taught by the Magisterium, even under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium. All things to the contrary not withstanding.


7. The faithful are only required to believe with theological faith, that is, with the full assent of faith properly due to the teachings of Christ, the infallible teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium. Any requirement to adhere to the non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium must always necessarily have significant limitations in the type and degree of assent, and must always necessarily permit the possibility of limited faithful dissent. For the non-infallible teachings admit a limited possibility of error, but belief in error is never required by Christ.

8. It is not always clear which teachings are infallible and which are non-infallible. It is not always clear whether an idea is a teaching of the Magisterium at all. Nor will it ever be completely clear, prior to the Return of Jesus Christ.

9. The temporal decisions of the Pope and the Bishops are not teachings, but judgments of the prudential order. Any exercise of the temporal authority of the Church is fallible.


10. The Pope and the Bishops, in whom the ability and authority of the Magisterium solely resides, are imperfect and are sinners. As a result, they teach less clearly and less fully than they otherwise could teach, and their ordinary non-infallible teaching contain more errors and more imperfections than it otherwise would contain.

11. The Magisterium often teaches later, rather than sooner. As time passes, the truths of the Faith become clearer to the Church on earth, and this understanding eventually, and usually very slowly, makes its way into the teachings of the Magisterium.

12. The Magisterium is unresponsive to the immediate needs of the faithful for guidance on particular questions of faith and morals. The Magisterium does not respond, in a timely manner, to each and every error of faith or morals that develops in the world, or among the faithful, or even among the Bishops. Thus, the faithful are often left, for a considerable period of time, without the guidance of the Magisterium on a particular question of importance to their salvation.

Written by some guy on some website somewhere.

Not exactly an official resource by any stretch of the imagination.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 05:54:44
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  www.proecclesia.com (http://www.proecclesia.com) - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Alan on Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 06:44:12
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  [url=http://www.proecclesia.com]www.proecclesia.com[/url] ([url]http://www.proecclesia.com[/url]) - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 10:13:13
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  [url=http://www.proecclesia.com]www.proecclesia.com[/url] ([url]http://www.proecclesia.com[/url]) - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.



no doubt we have the word of God  - its what has been and is being done to it by fallible men that disturbs me - look around and see for yourself - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Alan on Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 10:43:31
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  [url=http://www.proecclesia.com]www.proecclesia.com[/url] ([url]http://www.proecclesia.com[/url]) - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.



no doubt we have the word of God  - its what has been and is being done to it by fallible men that disturbs me - look around and see for yourself - wincam



Which brings us full circle to the beginning of this (and many others) discussion.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Catholica on Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 10:43:45
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  [url=http://www.proecclesia.com]www.proecclesia.com[/url] ([url]http://www.proecclesia.com[/url]) - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: AVZ on Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 11:09:16
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  [url=http://www.proecclesia.com]www.proecclesia.com[/url] ([url]http://www.proecclesia.com[/url]) - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Catholica on Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 11:11:26
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  [url=http://www.proecclesia.com]www.proecclesia.com[/url] ([url]http://www.proecclesia.com[/url]) - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: AVZ on Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 11:18:15
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  [url=http://www.proecclesia.com]www.proecclesia.com[/url] ([url]http://www.proecclesia.com[/url]) - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Catholica on Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 11:31:58
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  [url=http://www.proecclesia.com]www.proecclesia.com[/url] ([url]http://www.proecclesia.com[/url]) - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.


You are not understanding what I am saying.

The fact that the Bible Canon is infallibly closed and set is not a problem for me because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, who set the Canon.

If someone (you, it seems) rejects the infallibility of the Catholic Church, then they must have some other infallible authority in order for them to know that the Bible is the word of God, that the books there in are inspired, and that only those books are inspired.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: AVZ on Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 11:49:28
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  [url=http://www.proecclesia.com]www.proecclesia.com[/url] ([url]http://www.proecclesia.com[/url]) - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.


You are not understanding what I am saying.

The fact that the Bible Canon is infallibly closed and set is not a problem for me because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, who set the Canon.

If someone (you, it seems) rejects the infallibility of the Catholic Church, then you must have some other infallible authority in order for you to know that the Bible is the word of God, that the books there in are inspired, and that only those books are inspired.


Surely I reject the infallibility claim made by the RCC, and in fact I am not alone in that matter.
Scripture does not mention it, none of the early church fathers ever mentioned it, church history never mentioned it...only until 1870 when the RCC found it necessary to officially declare it.

So out of the last 2000 years, 1800 years people have done without infallibility. That includes even the RCC herself.
Perhaps you should look back and wonder how 1800 years of church history without access to Papal infallibility could possibly have resulted in saved souls.

Apparently it worked for them, and it also works for me.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Catholica on Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 12:56:11
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  [url=http://www.proecclesia.com]www.proecclesia.com[/url] ([url]http://www.proecclesia.com[/url]) - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.


You are not understanding what I am saying.

The fact that the Bible Canon is infallibly closed and set is not a problem for me because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, who set the Canon.

If someone (you, it seems) rejects the infallibility of the Catholic Church, then you must have some other infallible authority in order for you to know that the Bible is the word of God, that the books there in are inspired, and that only those books are inspired.


Surely I reject the infallibility claim made by the RCC, and in fact I am not alone in that matter.
Scripture does not mention it, none of the early church fathers ever mentioned it, church history never mentioned it...only until 1870 when the RCC found it necessary to officially declare it.

So out of the last 2000 years, 1800 years people have done without infallibility. That includes even the RCC herself.
Perhaps you should look back and wonder how 1800 years of church history without access to Papal infallibility could possibly have resulted in saved souls.

Apparently it worked for them, and it also works for me.


It's not surprising to me that you don't want to talk about the problems with your own belief system.

If there is no infallible authority, then we don't know whether the Bible is trustworthy at all, we don't know whether the Gospel promises have been distorted, and we don't even know whether there is salvation in the name of Jesus.

If there is no infallible authority, therefore, then truth is effectively lost, and if truth is lost, then we have no idea if Jesus Christ is God nor whether anyone is saved at all.

So attacking the Catholic Church's belief in infallibility is completely hypocritical.  Catholics at least have a system which actually allows for the possibility that truth is not lost, unlike the system of "Bible only".
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 15:56:46
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  [url=http://www.proecclesia.com]www.proecclesia.com[/url] ([url]http://www.proecclesia.com[/url]) - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.


You are not understanding what I am saying.

The fact that the Bible Canon is infallibly closed and set is not a problem for me because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, who set the Canon.

If someone (you, it seems) rejects the infallibility of the Catholic Church, then you must have some other infallible authority in order for you to know that the Bible is the word of God, that the books there in are inspired, and that only those books are inspired.


Surely I reject the infallibility claim made by the RCC, and in fact I am not alone in that matter.
Scripture does not mention it, none of the early church fathers ever mentioned it, church history never mentioned it...only until 1870 when the RCC found it necessary to officially declare it.

So out of the last 2000 years, 1800 years people have done without infallibility. That includes even the RCC herself.
Perhaps you should look back and wonder how 1800 years of church history without access to Papal infallibility could possibly have resulted in saved souls.

Apparently it worked for them, and it also works for me.


It's not surprising to me that you don't want to talk about the problems with your own belief system.

If there is no infallible authority, then we don't know whether the Bible is trustworthy at all, we don't know whether the Gospel promises have been distorted, and we don't even know whether there is salvation in the name of Jesus.

If there is no infallible authority, therefore, then truth is effectively lost, and if truth is lost, then we have no idea if Jesus Christ is God nor whether anyone is saved at all.

So attacking the Catholic Church's belief in infallibility is completely hypocritical.  Catholics at least have a system which actually allows for the possibility that truth is not lost, unlike the system of "Bible only".


That's no so.  I have never found yet anything untrustworthy in scripture. I did not need the pope to tell me that. How ever we only have to look at history of your church to see untrustworthyness
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Ladonia on Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 16:28:12
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  [url=http://www.proecclesia.com]www.proecclesia.com[/url] ([url]http://www.proecclesia.com[/url]) - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.


You are not understanding what I am saying.

The fact that the Bible Canon is infallibly closed and set is not a problem for me because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, who set the Canon.

If someone (you, it seems) rejects the infallibility of the Catholic Church, then you must have some other infallible authority in order for you to know that the Bible is the word of God, that the books there in are inspired, and that only those books are inspired.


Surely I reject the infallibility claim made by the RCC, and in fact I am not alone in that matter.
Scripture does not mention it, none of the early church fathers ever mentioned it, church history never mentioned it...only until 1870 when the RCC found it necessary to officially declare it.

So out of the last 2000 years, 1800 years people have done without infallibility. That includes even the RCC herself.
Perhaps you should look back and wonder how 1800 years of church history without access to Papal infallibility could possibly have resulted in saved souls.

Apparently it worked for them, and it also works for me.


It's not surprising to me that you don't want to talk about the problems with your own belief system.

If there is no infallible authority, then we don't know whether the Bible is trustworthy at all, we don't know whether the Gospel promises have been distorted, and we don't even know whether there is salvation in the name of Jesus.

If there is no infallible authority, therefore, then truth is effectively lost, and if truth is lost, then we have no idea if Jesus Christ is God nor whether anyone is saved at all.

So attacking the Catholic Church's belief in infallibility is completely hypocritical.  Catholics at least have a system which actually allows for the possibility that truth is not lost, unlike the system of "Bible only".


That's no so.  I have never found yet anything untrustworthy in scripture. I did not need the pope to tell me that. How ever we only have to look at history of your church to see untrustworthyness


Of course you have never found anything untrustworthy in the Scriptures, the ones you do have were compiled by the institution that has authority here on earth - the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. Now if you only had the books that were taken out by men and a proper interpretation you would, as they say, be cooking with gas.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: LexKnight on Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 18:41:17
We know the books in the Scriptures are Valid and Inerrant, they were written by men who had a pure understanding of the Lord. On that basis alone the Scriptures does possess an authority in Truth. So with that said, if someone did come with a doctrine that contradicts what's already written, it would be shown to be in error, claims of infallibility or no (and yes I'm including all sects of Christianity with this, not just the RCC).
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 04:05:27
We know the books in the Scriptures are Valid and Inerrant, they were written by men who had a pure understanding of the Lord. On that basis alone the Scriptures does possess an authority in Truth. So with that said, if someone did come with a doctrine that contradicts what's already written, it would be shown to be in error, claims of infallibility or no (and yes I'm including all sects of Christianity with this, not just the RCC).


what is accepted and not in doubt is the inerrancy of scriptures - what is in doubt is the many different and even opposite fallible interpretations by Tom,Dick and Harry - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: AVZ on Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 04:10:41
We know the books in the Scriptures are Valid and Inerrant, they were written by men who had a pure understanding of the Lord. On that basis alone the Scriptures does possess an authority in Truth. So with that said, if someone did come with a doctrine that contradicts what's already written, it would be shown to be in error, claims of infallibility or no (and yes I'm including all sects of Christianity with this, not just the RCC).


what is accepted and not in doubt is the inerrancy of scriptures - what is in doubt is the many different and even opposite fallible interpretations by Tom,Dick and Harry - wincam

Exactly. So we have Tom, Dick, Harry and RCC.
Similar to the RCC, Tom, Dick and Harry can also claim they are infallible based on nothing more but their own desire to be right.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 04:34:36
We know the books in the Scriptures are Valid and Inerrant, they were written by men who had a pure understanding of the Lord. On that basis alone the Scriptures does possess an authority in Truth. So with that said, if someone did come with a doctrine that contradicts what's already written, it would be shown to be in error, claims of infallibility or no (and yes I'm including all sects of Christianity with this, not just the RCC).


what is accepted and not in doubt is the inerrancy of scriptures - what is in doubt is the many different and even opposite fallible interpretations by Tom,Dick and Harry - wincam

Exactly. So we have Tom, Dick, Harry and RCC.
Similar to the RCC, Tom, Dick and Harry can also claim they are infallible based on nothing more but their own desire to be right.

not just can but have done and continue to do so as more fallible than the Pope as t his and others posts even here suggest - wincam



































Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: skeeter on Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 05:18:37
We know the books in the Scriptures are Valid and Inerrant, they were written by men who had a pure understanding of the Lord. On that basis alone the Scriptures does possess an authority in Truth. So with that said, if someone did come with a doctrine that contradicts what's already written, it would be shown to be in error, claims of infallibility or no (and yes I'm including all sects of Christianity with this, not just the RCC).
what is accepted and not in doubt is the inerrancy of scriptures - what is in doubt is the many different and even opposite fallible interpretations by Tom,Dick and Harry - wincam

given by the RCC.  verses Catholics give (including in the CC) never support what they are listed to support.  I always look them up.  Most don't even have anything to do with the actual verses listed.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 08:44:46
We know the books in the Scriptures are Valid and Inerrant, they were written by men who had a pure understanding of the Lord. On that basis alone the Scriptures does possess an authority in Truth. So with that said, if someone did come with a doctrine that contradicts what's already written, it would be shown to be in error, claims of infallibility or no (and yes I'm including all sects of Christianity with this, not just the RCC).
what is accepted and not in doubt is the inerrancy of scriptures - what is in doubt is the many different and even opposite fallible interpretations by Tom,Dick and Harry - wincam

given by the RCC.  verses Catholics give (including in the CC) never support what they are listed to support.  I always look them up.  Most don't even have anything to do with the actual verses listed.



ofr course, naturally, according to you but not according to Catholics - so could it just be that fallible you are wrong or is that not possible - wincam 
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 09:54:28
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  [url=http://www.proecclesia.com]www.proecclesia.com[/url] ([url]http://www.proecclesia.com[/url]) - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.


You are not understanding what I am saying.

The fact that the Bible Canon is infallibly closed and set is not a problem for me because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, who set the Canon.

If someone (you, it seems) rejects the infallibility of the Catholic Church, then you must have some other infallible authority in order for you to know that the Bible is the word of God, that the books there in are inspired, and that only those books are inspired.


Surely I reject the infallibility claim made by the RCC, and in fact I am not alone in that matter.
Scripture does not mention it, none of the early church fathers ever mentioned it, church history never mentioned it...only until 1870 when the RCC found it necessary to officially declare it.

So out of the last 2000 years, 1800 years people have done without infallibility. That includes even the RCC herself.
Perhaps you should look back and wonder how 1800 years of church history without access to Papal infallibility could possibly have resulted in saved souls.

Apparently it worked for them, and it also works for me.


It's not surprising to me that you don't want to talk about the problems with your own belief system.

If there is no infallible authority, then we don't know whether the Bible is trustworthy at all, we don't know whether the Gospel promises have been distorted, and we don't even know whether there is salvation in the name of Jesus.

If there is no infallible authority, therefore, then truth is effectively lost, and if truth is lost, then we have no idea if Jesus Christ is God nor whether anyone is saved at all.

So attacking the Catholic Church's belief in infallibility is completely hypocritical.  Catholics at least have a system which actually allows for the possibility that truth is not lost, unlike the system of "Bible only".


That's no so.  I have never found yet anything untrustworthy in scripture. I did not need the pope to tell me that. How ever we only have to look at history of your church to see untrustworthyness


Of course you have never found anything untrustworthy in the Scriptures, the ones you do have were compiled by the institution that has authority here on earth - the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. Now if you only had the books that were taken out by men and a proper interpretation you would, as they say, be cooking with gas.


They compiled them, they did not write them. The apostle were spirit led.  Your same old argument obout universal Catholic church has been seen through long ago. I have looked at those books.  Tell me which modern version do most Catholics read today. How much are those taken out books  used for faith and salvation today by Catholics overall?
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 13:41:30
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  [url=http://www.proecclesia.com]www.proecclesia.com[/url] ([url]http://www.proecclesia.com[/url]) - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.


You are not understanding what I am saying.

The fact that the Bible Canon is infallibly closed and set is not a problem for me because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, who set the Canon.

If someone (you, it seems) rejects the infallibility of the Catholic Church, then you must have some other infallible authority in order for you to know that the Bible is the word of God, that the books there in are inspired, and that only those books are inspired.


Surely I reject the infallibility claim made by the RCC, and in fact I am not alone in that matter.
Scripture does not mention it, none of the early church fathers ever mentioned it, church history never mentioned it...only until 1870 when the RCC found it necessary to officially declare it.

So out of the last 2000 years, 1800 years people have done without infallibility. That includes even the RCC herself.
Perhaps you should look back and wonder how 1800 years of church history without access to Papal infallibility could possibly have resulted in saved souls.

Apparently it worked for them, and it also works for me.


It's not surprising to me that you don't want to talk about the problems with your own belief system.

If there is no infallible authority, then we don't know whether the Bible is trustworthy at all, we don't know whether the Gospel promises have been distorted, and we don't even know whether there is salvation in the name of Jesus.

If there is no infallible authority, therefore, then truth is effectively lost, and if truth is lost, then we have no idea if Jesus Christ is God nor whether anyone is saved at all.

So attacking the Catholic Church's belief in infallibility is completely hypocritical.  Catholics at least have a system which actually allows for the possibility that truth is not lost, unlike the system of "Bible only".



Actually infallibility allows for the exact opposite to happen
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: skeeter on Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 21:45:26
It's not surprising to me that you don't want to talk about the problems with your own belief system.

If there is no infallible authority, then we don't know whether the Bible is trustworthy at all, we don't know whether the Gospel promises have been distorted, and we don't even know whether there is salvation in the name of Jesus.
as long as Catholics lump all Christians in as 'Protestants', they are sunk.  There are many, many protestants who aren't even Christian.  And many Christians who aren't protestants.  Catholics like the 'it's us against all of you' position they put themselves in.

There IS an infallible authority.  He is called God.  And yes, IF we know God (thru Christ) we do know the Bible (His word)is trustworthy. And we do know that the Gospel has not been distorted.  If we believe God's word (the Bible) and God thru Christ, then we do know  salvation is thru Christ. If you don't have salvation thru Christ, then yes, you will be all mixed up and not know what is truth and what isn't.  You will trust in those false teachers.

If there is no infallible authority, therefore, then truth is effectively lost,

and if truth is lost, then we have no idea if Jesus Christ is God nor whether anyone is saved at all.

So attacking the Catholic Church's belief in infallibility is completely hypocritical. Catholics at least have a system which actually allows for the possibility that truth is not lost, unlike the system of "Bible only".
There IS an infallible authority.  It's God, thru the Holy Spirit and His word - the Bible.  Not the RCC who wants to be infallible, in place of God.

The RCC is not God and therefore, is not infallible.  Only God is infallible.  The only truth is from God, we find it in His word (not the CC or from the ecfs).
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: kensington on Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 22:25:21
I agree, God is infallible and His word is true.  He stands by His word given to us by the Holy Spirit.  "He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood and His name is called, "The Word of God".  Revelation 19:13.

The Catholics take credit for giving us the Word of God... But that is not true.  God gave us the Word of God by His Spirit and He used fallible men to bring it about. God did this, not man. 

God spoke the word, God inspired the word, God told man to write it down, to go into all the world and share it, God alone made sure that we have a Bible today. 
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: LexKnight on Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 22:39:14
I agree, God is infallible and His word is true.  He stands by His word given to us by the Holy Spirit.  "He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood and His name is called, "The Word of God".  Revelation 19:13.

The Catholics take credit for giving us the Word of God... But that is not true.  God gave us the Word of God by His Spirit and He used fallible men to bring it about. God did this, not man. 

God spoke the word, God inspired the word, God told man to write it down, to go into all the world and share it, God alone made sure that we have a Bible today.

And even then, the apostles, prophets, and wise men who penned the Scriptures weren't Roman Catholics themselves.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: kensington on Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 02:52:10
I agree, they weren't.  When you think about it...  The Apostle's were Blood bought, Born Again, Spirit Filled, tongue talking Pentecostal Charismatic Christians. 

A far cry from what Catholics claim to be.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 06:30:16
I agree, they weren't.  When you think about it...  The Apostle's were Blood bought, Born Again, Spirit Filled, tongue talking Pentecostal Charismatic Christians. 

A far cry from what Catholics claim to be.


yes - they were born again as Christians for the least Christian is greater than any non Christian and even the least Christian does not need to be born again as a Christian - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: skeeter on Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 07:41:46
I agree, they weren't.  When you think about it...  The Apostle's were Blood bought, Born Again, Spirit Filled, tongue talking Pentecostal Charismatic Christians. 

A far cry from what Catholics claim to be.
yes - they were born again as Christians for the least Christian is greater than any non Christian and even the least Christian does not need to be born again as a Christian - wincam
one is not a Christian unless they are born again.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 08:10:30
I agree, they weren't.  When you think about it...  The Apostle's were Blood bought, Born Again, Spirit Filled, tongue talking Pentecostal Charismatic Christians. 

A far cry from what Catholics claim to be.


yes - they were born again as Christians for the least Christian is greater than any non Christian and even the least Christian does not need to be born again as a Christian - wincam


No a Christian does not need to a born again as a Christian. The admonition is you must be born again of the spirit.  That the hang up for many.  The carnally minded have a real hard time with it.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 11:45:07
I agree, they weren't.  When you think about it...  The Apostle's were Blood bought, Born Again, Spirit Filled, tongue talking Pentecostal Charismatic Christians. 

A far cry from what Catholics claim to be.


yes - they were born again as Christians for the least Christian is greater than any non Christian and even the least Christian does not need to be born again as a Christian - wincam


No a Christian does not need to a born again as a Christian. The admonition is you must be born again of the spirit.  That the hang up for many.  The carnally minded have a real hard time with it.

imho it seems to me that to be a Christian one must be born of water and the spirit - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: kensington on Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 18:01:46
Being born again of the Spirit of Christ = Born again Christian.  Nothing carnal about it. 

The Spirit we are born into is the Spirit of Christ Jesus.  And that is what makes us Born again Christians. 

If you are not born again into the Spirit of Jesus Christ, you are not born again, you are not the church, you are not a Christian and you are not saved. Read the word. 


We are born of water when we are born through our mother's womb..
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 19:43:03
I agree, they weren't.  When you think about it...  The Apostle's were Blood bought, Born Again, Spirit Filled, tongue talking Pentecostal Charismatic Christians. 

A far cry from what Catholics claim to be.


yes - they were born again as Christians for the least Christian is greater than any non Christian and even the least Christian does not need to be born again as a Christian - wincam


No a Christian does not need to a born again as a Christian. The admonition is you must be born again of the spirit.  That the hang up for many.  The carnally minded have a real hard time with it.

imho it seems to me that to be a Christian one must be born of water and the spirit - wincam

† There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born againa, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water -  and of -  the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7

 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born againb. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9

 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?


 The born of water is metioned only once and states  -and of-   water signifying two different things. It is clear that being born of water does not signify one is born of the spirit as one event took place for both. Jesus went on to say that being Born of the spirit is to join into the unseen kingdom of God.  That which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit. All that is carnal fleshly is enmity  against God.

A spiritual relationship is not an option hence one must be born again. Water baptism which is separate is  signifying being cleansed of our sin and states a new confession of faith.


Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: kensington on Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 22:07:32
Actually, we are not born in Baptism, but we are buried with Christ and raised again.

Colossians 2:12. having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: skeeter on Mon Oct 12, 2015 - 00:39:31
Being born again of the Spirit of Christ = Born again Christian.  Nothing carnal about it. 

The Spirit we are born into is the Spirit of Christ Jesus.  And that is what makes us Born again Christians. 

If you are not born again into the Spirit of Jesus Christ, you are not born again, you are not the church, you are not a Christian and you are not saved. Read the word. 


We are born of water when we are born through our mother's womb..

 ::thumbsup::
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Mon Oct 12, 2015 - 04:45:22
Being born again of the Spirit of Christ = Born again Christian.  Nothing carnal about it. 

The Spirit we are born into is the Spirit of Christ Jesus.  And that is what makes us Born again Christians. 

If you are not born again into the Spirit of Jesus Christ, you are not born again, you are not the church, you are not a Christian and you are not saved. Read the word. 


We are born of water when we are born through our mother's womb..


no doubt but we are born as Christians when we are baptized "go,therefore, baptizing them in the name of the Father,Son and Holy Ghost[Matt.28:19] - also consider Christian confirmation - wincam

 ::thumbsup::
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Mon Oct 12, 2015 - 11:05:45
Being born again of the Spirit of Christ = Born again Christian.  Nothing carnal about it. 

The Spirit we are born into is the Spirit of Christ Jesus.  And that is what makes us Born again Christians. 

If you are not born again into the Spirit of Jesus Christ, you are not born again, you are not the church, you are not a Christian and you are not saved. Read the word. 


We are born of water when we are born through our mother's womb..

None the less I have said it correctly.

Born of water from the womb is a carnal concept
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Tue Oct 13, 2015 - 08:23:06
Nicodemus was not a Christian who hads to be born again - so what Jesus was really saying that if one is not a Christian one must be born again as a Christian by water and spirit - we have been specially chosen to be Christians and fulfill this essential requirement imho -  wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 - 19:14:53
Nicodemus was not a Christian who hads to be born again - so what Jesus was really saying that if one is not a Christian one must be born again as a Christian by water and spirit - we have been specially chosen to be Christians and fulfill this essential requirement imho -  wincam

Nicodemus did not have to be Christian.  remember Jesus said to him after, Are you not aleader of Israel and you know not these things. Did not the prophets know the things of the spirit. To be born from above means to understand the heavenly nature of God.  It is only by the Holy Spirit in us that we can truly understand The kingdom. The kingdom is not made with hands. It is not a place you can travel to physically or touch its walls. This is why Jesus said the spirit is like wind. You feel it but you don not know from where it comes .  I told you the carnal things of his world cannot please God. No religious ritual stained glass window and pointed pinnacles , religious robes. The Temple of God is built in the heart an relates with God in unseen places.  You must be born again not of earthly things but heavenly.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Thu Oct 15, 2015 - 03:26:30
not at all - you have made this up to suit your own imaginations - Nicodemus as a leader of Israel was a bit like you and other supposed religious leaders too heavenly minded but no earthly use and that is why he had to be born again as a Christian for the least Christian is greater than he or even John the Baptist - stop adding and subtracting and just simply simply believe[Jn.20:31] - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Thu Oct 15, 2015 - 09:12:31
not at all - you have made this up to suit your own imaginations - Nicodemus as a leader of Israel was a bit like you and other supposed religious leaders too heavenly minded but no earthly use and that is why he had to be born again as a Christian for the least Christian is greater than he or even John the Baptist - stop adding and subtracting and just simply simply believe[Jn.20:31] - wincam

Why would you so resist the truth. I made nothing up because Jesus is the one who taught this not I. It is more that you are more earthy minded to know God in the spirit

Look at John 4: When Jesus met the women at he well. She said I perceive you are a prophet: my Fathers worship on this mountain , but the Jews say Jerusalem is the only place to worship God.  Jesus said then to her women the time has come when on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will the true worshipers, worship the Father,  God is Spirit and those who truly worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
 The Lord called us to be spiritually minded not earthly minded.  To love God in the spirit from the temple of the heart will be manifest in the  life we live and love our neighbor.

I do not know how to make it any plainer to you.  The  carnally minded cannot please God. If God is spirit how can we then please or have relationship with carnal material things.

You wonder at the Vatican how great and beautiful it is, surly God is here.  The disciples thought that also when they said to Jesus see how beautiful the Jerusalem Temple is. Jesus said to them that not one stone will be left on this place. I tell you that in the same way the Vatican will be a ruins.

If then the church that Jesus established was not about  grand religious places where is our worship then to be established.  Paul said know ye not ye are the Temple and the spirit of God is in you.   
If I am taking all this from Scripture then How can you say I make these things up. 
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Thu Oct 15, 2015 - 11:46:12
not at all - you have made this up to suit your own imaginations - Nicodemus as a leader of Israel was a bit like you and other supposed religious leaders too heavenly minded but no earthly use and that is why he had to be born again as a Christian for the least Christian is greater than he or even John the Baptist - stop adding and subtracting and just simply simply believe[Jn.20:31] - wincam

Why would you so resist the truth. I made nothing up because Jesus is the one who taught this not I. It is more that you are more earthy minded to know God in the spirit

Look at John 4: When Jesus met the women at he well. She said I perceive you are a prophet: my Fathers worship on this mountain , but the Jews say Jerusalem is the only place to worship God.  Jesus said then to her women the time has come when on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will the true worshipers, worship the Father,  God is Spirit and those who truly worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
 The Lord called us to be spiritually minded not earthly minded.  To love God in the spirit from the temple of the heart will be manifest in the  life we live and love our neighbor.

I do not know how to make it any plainer to you.  The  carnally minded cannot please God. If God is spirit how can we then please or have relationship with carnal material things.

You wonder at the Vatican how great and beautiful it is, surly God is here.  The disciples thought that also when they said to Jesus see how beautiful the Jerusalem Temple is. Jesus said to them that not one stone will be left on this place. I tell you that in the same way the Vatican will be a ruins.

If then the church that Jesus established was not about  grand religious places where is our worship then to be established.  Paul said know ye not ye are the Temple and the spirit of God is in you.   
If I am taking all this from Scripture then How can you say I make these things up.


I see that you dare to presume that you have grasped what Jesus said was very difficult if not well nigh impossible for adults to grasp viz to simply simply believe and we are reminded at Jn.20:31 that all that is written is written to remind us to simply simply believe - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Thu Oct 15, 2015 - 12:23:10
not at all - you have made this up to suit your own imaginations - Nicodemus as a leader of Israel was a bit like you and other supposed religious leaders too heavenly minded but no earthly use and that is why he had to be born again as a Christian for the least Christian is greater than he or even John the Baptist - stop adding and subtracting and just simply simply believe[Jn.20:31] - wincam

Why would you so resist the truth. I made nothing up because Jesus is the one who taught this not I. It is more that you are more earthy minded to know God in the spirit

Look at John 4: When Jesus met the women at he well. She said I perceive you are a prophet: my Fathers worship on this mountain , but the Jews say Jerusalem is the only place to worship God.  Jesus said then to her women the time has come when on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will the true worshipers, worship the Father,  God is Spirit and those who truly worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
 The Lord called us to be spiritually minded not earthly minded.  To love God in the spirit from the temple of the heart will be manifest in the  life we live and love our neighbor.

I do not know how to make it any plainer to you.  The  carnally minded cannot please God. If God is spirit how can we then please or have relationship with carnal material things.

You wonder at the Vatican how great and beautiful it is, surly God is here.  The disciples thought that also when they said to Jesus see how beautiful the Jerusalem Temple is. Jesus said to them that not one stone will be left on this place. I tell you that in the same way the Vatican will be a ruins.

If then the church that Jesus established was not about  grand religious places where is our worship then to be established.  Paul said know ye not ye are the Temple and the spirit of God is in you.   
If I am taking all this from Scripture then How can you say I make these things up.


I see that you dare to presume that you have grasped what Jesus said was very difficult if not well nigh impossible for adults to grasp viz to simply simply believe and we are reminded at Jn.20:31 that all that is written is written to remind us to simply simply believe - wincam

I presume nothing.  I dare say that any on this board that are truly born again of the spirit understand  what I have just said. Once more Jesus stated " you must be born again of the Spirit or you cannot see the kingdom of God. The word see says two things here. first the kingdom cannot be seen by the natural eyes because you need spiritual understanding. The Carnal mind cannot persiieve the things of the spirit. 

Jesus said to the disciples John 14: 17
6 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I pray wincam that he Lord will give you His spirit that you see these things I have said. I have lied to you not.
 

Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Fri Oct 16, 2015 - 03:40:32
not at all - you have made this up to suit your own imaginations - Nicodemus as a leader of Israel was a bit like you and other supposed religious leaders too heavenly minded but no earthly use and that is why he had to be born again as a Christian for the least Christian is greater than he or even John the Baptist - stop adding and subtracting and just simply simply believe[Jn.20:31] - wincam

Why would you so resist the truth. I made nothing up because Jesus is the one who taught this not I. It is more that you are more earthy minded to know God in the spirit

Look at John 4: When Jesus met the women at he well. She said I perceive you are a prophet: my Fathers worship on this mountain , but the Jews say Jerusalem is the only place to worship God.  Jesus said then to her women the time has come when on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will the true worshipers, worship the Father,  God is Spirit and those who truly worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
 The Lord called us to be spiritually minded not earthly minded.  To love God in the spirit from the temple of the heart will be manifest in the  life we live and love our neighbor.

I do not know how to make it any plainer to you.  The  carnally minded cannot please God. If God is spirit how can we then please or have relationship with carnal material things.

You wonder at the Vatican how great and beautiful it is, surly God is here.  The disciples thought that also when they said to Jesus see how beautiful the Jerusalem Temple is. Jesus said to them that not one stone will be left on this place. I tell you that in the same way the Vatican will be a ruins.

If then the church that Jesus established was not about  grand religious places where is our worship then to be established.  Paul said know ye not ye are the Temple and the spirit of God is in you.   
If I am taking all this from Scripture then How can you say I make these things up.


I see that you dare to presume that you have grasped what Jesus said was very difficult if not well nigh impossible for adults to grasp viz to simply simply believe and we are reminded at Jn.20:31 that all that is written is written to remind us to simply simply believe - wincam

I presume nothing.  I dare say that any on this board that are truly born again of the spirit understand  what I have just said. Once more Jesus stated " you must be born again of the Spirit or you cannot see the kingdom of God. The word see says two things here. first the kingdom cannot be seen by the natural eyes because you need spiritual understanding. The Carnal mind cannot persiieve the things of the spirit. 

Jesus said to the disciples John 14: 17
6 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I pray wincam that he Lord will give you His spirit that you see these things I have said. I have lied to you not.


imho you have it all mixed up and messed up and you are asking me to accept this mixed up, messed up, confusion - just as a simple proof you have stated above about the spirit of truth dwelling for ever when born again claimants back slide again and again and in vast numbers - this is blasphemy imho against the Holy SPIRIT and the best thing to do with this is to keep it to oneself and not spread it around as it seems to be very infectious and deadly - btw it seems you have not noticed you have just gone from Nicodemus to the woman at the well who also was not a Christian - btw a Christian is already and truly a temple of the Holy Spirit which it seems you do not seem to know or accept - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Fri Oct 16, 2015 - 04:43:57
not at all - you have made this up to suit your own imaginations - Nicodemus as a leader of Israel was a bit like you and other supposed religious leaders too heavenly minded but no earthly use and that is why he had to be born again as a Christian for the least Christian is greater than he or even John the Baptist - stop adding and subtracting and just simply simply believe[Jn.20:31] - wincam

Why would you so resist the truth. I made nothing up because Jesus is the one who taught this not I. It is more that you are more earthy minded to know God in the spirit

Look at John 4: When Jesus met the women at he well. She said I perceive you are a prophet: my Fathers worship on this mountain , but the Jews say Jerusalem is the only place to worship God.  Jesus said then to her women the time has come when on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will the true worshipers, worship the Father,  God is Spirit and those who truly worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
 The Lord called us to be spiritually minded not earthly minded.  To love God in the spirit from the temple of the heart will be manifest in the  life we live and love our neighbor.

I do not know how to make it any plainer to you.  The  carnally minded cannot please God. If God is spirit how can we then please or have relationship with carnal material things.

You wonder at the Vatican how great and beautiful it is, surly God is here.  The disciples thought that also when they said to Jesus see how beautiful the Jerusalem Temple is. Jesus said to them that not one stone will be left on this place. I tell you that in the same way the Vatican will be a ruins.

If then the church that Jesus established was not about  grand religious places where is our worship then to be established.  Paul said know ye not ye are the Temple and the spirit of God is in you.   
If I am taking all this from Scripture then How can you say I make these things up.


I see that you dare to presume that you have grasped what Jesus said was very difficult if not well nigh impossible for adults to grasp viz to simply simply believe and we are reminded at Jn.20:31 that all that is written is written to remind us to simply simply believe - wincam

I presume nothing.  I dare say that any on this board that are truly born again of the spirit understand  what I have just said. Once more Jesus stated " you must be born again of the Spirit or you cannot see the kingdom of God. The word see says two things here. first the kingdom cannot be seen by the natural eyes because you need spiritual understanding. The Carnal mind cannot persiieve the things of the spirit. 

Jesus said to the disciples John 14: 17
6 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I pray wincam that he Lord will give you His spirit that you see these things I have said. I have lied to you not.


imho you have it all mixed up and messed up and you are asking me to accept this mixed up, messed up, confusion - just as a simple proof you have stated above about the spirit of truth dwelling for ever when born again claimants back slide again and again and in vast numbers - this is blasphemy imho against the Holy SPIRIT and the best thing to do with this is to keep it to oneself and not spread it around as it seems to be very infectious and deadly - btw it seems you have not noticed you have just gone from Nicodemus to the woman at the well who also was not a Christian - btw a Christian is already and truly a temple of the Holy Spirit which it seems you do not seem to know or accept - wincam

Do you know what the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is.  I don't think you do. As for keeping the truth to myself, never! I pray the spirit of truth would be infectious not unto death but unto life everlasting. I prefer believers as apposed to the word Christian. Both Nicodemus and the women at the  well were not spirit filled believers because they had not yet come to true faith in Christ at the point Jesus spoke to them. But most of us would like to believe that they did come of faith after their encounter With Him.  Once  one is regenerated he can receive the Holy Spirit, but I tell you that not all who say Lord Lord are born of the spirit with the indwelling of the spirit.

As for the backsliders. A backslider is one who comes into faith yet once again gets entangled with this world to do things that he did before he came to Christ. I would say its not impossible for one to go back but the Holy Spirit does not give up on such a one.  Their are also those who never were truly regenerated but came to Christ by some mental assent.  Born of the spirit believers for the most part never fall away. The seed is planted in fertile soil but even then he may have weakness which the Lord allows for prides sake. Paul had his thorn. I have a bush out front of my house which is healthy with yellow blooms yet from time to time a small section just dies and the branches become brittle. This is a mystery but does that mean the bush is not healthy over all?  How about you what is your thorn? Would you say Paul was born of the spirit? I tell you the old man  must die daily praying always. It is Paul  that supports much of what I say.   

 Still praying for you wincam.
 
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: skeeter on Fri Oct 16, 2015 - 05:36:50
imho you have it all mixed up and messed up and you are asking me to accept this mixed up, messed up, confusion - just as a simple proof you have stated above about the spirit of truth dwelling for ever when born again claimants back slide again and again and in vast numbers - this is blasphemy imho against the Holy SPIRIT and the best thing to do with this is to keep it to oneself and not spread it around as it seems to be very infectious and deadly -
you don't think a Christian can backslide?  So you only know perfect Christians?

How about Peter?  how perfect was he?


Quote
btw it seems you have not noticed you have just gone from Nicodemus to the woman at the well who also was not a Christian - btw a Christian is already and truly a temple of the Holy Spirit which it seems you do not seem to know or accept - wincam
the woman at the well was a Christian before she left that well...
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Fri Oct 16, 2015 - 07:42:14
imho you have it all mixed up and messed up and you are asking me to accept this mixed up, messed up, confusion - just as a simple proof you have stated above about the spirit of truth dwelling for ever when born again claimants back slide again and again and in vast numbers - this is blasphemy imho against the Holy SPIRIT and the best thing to do with this is to keep it to oneself and not spread it around as it seems to be very infectious and deadly -
you don't think a Christian can backslide?  So you only know perfect Christians?

How about Peter?  how perfect was he?


Quote
btw it seems you have not noticed you have just gone from Nicodemus to the woman at the well who also was not a Christian - btw a Christian is already and truly a temple of the Holy Spirit which it seems you do not seem to know or accept - wincam
the woman at the well was a Christian before she left that well...


what sort of nonsense is this - you are getting your believers and Christians mixed up - it is stated that the great Mahatma Gandhi was a believer and many others also including devils likewise some are Christians but not believers hence the need for the Creed - btw I repeat what Christ said that the least Christian is greater than even John the Baptist - so come home now - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Fri Oct 16, 2015 - 08:28:57
not at all - you have made this up to suit your own imaginations - Nicodemus as a leader of Israel was a bit like you and other supposed religious leaders too heavenly minded but no earthly use and that is why he had to be born again as a Christian for the least Christian is greater than he or even John the Baptist - stop adding and subtracting and just simply simply believe[Jn.20:31] - wincam

Why would you so resist the truth. I made nothing up because Jesus is the one who taught this not I. It is more that you are more earthy minded to know God in the spirit

Look at John 4: When Jesus met the women at he well. She said I perceive you are a prophet: my Fathers worship on this mountain , but the Jews say Jerusalem is the only place to worship God.  Jesus said then to her women the time has come when on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will the true worshipers, worship the Father,  God is Spirit and those who truly worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
 The Lord called us to be spiritually minded not earthly minded.  To love God in the spirit from the temple of the heart will be manifest in the  life we live and love our neighbor.

I do not know how to make it any plainer to you.  The  carnally minded cannot please God. If God is spirit how can we then please or have relationship with carnal material things.

You wonder at the Vatican how great and beautiful it is, surly God is here.  The disciples thought that also when they said to Jesus see how beautiful the Jerusalem Temple is. Jesus said to them that not one stone will be left on this place. I tell you that in the same way the Vatican will be a ruins.

If then the church that Jesus established was not about  grand religious places where is our worship then to be established.  Paul said know ye not ye are the Temple and the spirit of God is in you.   
If I am taking all this from Scripture then How can you say I make these things up.


I see that you dare to presume that you have grasped what Jesus said was very difficult if not well nigh impossible for adults to grasp viz to simply simply believe and we are reminded at Jn.20:31 that all that is written is written to remind us to simply simply believe - wincam

I presume nothing.  I dare say that any on this board that are truly born again of the spirit understand  what I have just said. Once more Jesus stated " you must be born again of the Spirit or you cannot see the kingdom of God. The word see says two things here. first the kingdom cannot be seen by the natural eyes because you need spiritual understanding. The Carnal mind cannot persiieve the things of the spirit. 

Jesus said to the disciples John 14: 17
6 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I pray wincam that he Lord will give you His spirit that you see these things I have said. I have lied to you not.


imho you have it all mixed up and messed up and you are asking me to accept this mixed up, messed up, confusion - just as a simple proof you have stated above about the spirit of truth dwelling for ever when born again claimants back slide again and again and in vast numbers - this is blasphemy imho against the Holy SPIRIT and the best thing to do with this is to keep it to oneself and not spread it around as it seems to be very infectious and deadly - btw it seems you have not noticed you have just gone from Nicodemus to the woman at the well who also was not a Christian - btw a Christian is already and truly a temple of the Holy Spirit which it seems you do not seem to know or accept - wincam

Do you know what the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is.  I don't think you do. As for keeping the truth to myself, never! I pray the spirit of truth would be infectious not unto death but unto life everlasting. I prefer believers as apposed to the word Christian. Both Nicodemus and the women at the  well were not spirit filled believers because they had not yet come to true faith in Christ at the point Jesus spoke to them. But most of us would like to believe that they did come of faith after their encounter With Him.  Once  one is regenerated he can receive the Holy Spirit, but I tell you that not all who say Lord Lord are born of the spirit with the indwelling of the spirit.

As for the backsliders. A backslider is one who comes into faith yet once again gets entangled with this world to do things that he did before he came to Christ. I would say its not impossible for one to go back but the Holy Spirit does not give up on such a one.  Their are also those who never were truly regenerated but came to Christ by some mental assent.  Born of the spirit believers for the most part never fall away. The seed is planted in fertile soil but even then he may have weakness which the Lord allows for prides sake. Paul had his thorn. I have a bush out front of my house which is healthy with yellow blooms yet from time to time a small section just dies and the branches become brittle. This is a mystery but does that mean the bush is not healthy over all?  How about you what is your thorn? Would you say Paul was born of the spirit? I tell you the old man  must die daily praying always. It is Paul  that supports much of what I say.   

 Still praying for you wincam.


so to conclude we must not be born again but again and again and again - for like on the highway if one had an encounter with an enormous oil tanker one would be forever changed for all to see - for better or worse - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Fri Oct 16, 2015 - 10:13:42
Wincam
Just so you know from here out backsliding is not the unpardonable sin which Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is. You preach condemnation without understanding.  Certain Jews  accused Jesus of doing miracles by the power of satan. Jesus said many things are forgiven but the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is to Call the Holy Spirit evil will never be forgiven ever.  Would you count any brother In Christ to receive such a charge. You believe you are well versed but in all I have read so far you are not.

Still I pray the Lord to open the eyes of your heart
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: terishere on Fri Oct 16, 2015 - 11:32:12
Wincam, are you serious? Do you really believe others are infallible? What bible are you reading?

God's Word:

Rom 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24  Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:


1Jn 1:7  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8  If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10  If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.


All sin, none are perfect.. difference is that Christians try their best to follow Christ and when they do mess up, they repent..as opposed to those who don't believe in Christ and don't care if they are sinning


Isa 64:6  But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.



Jesus is the ONLY one without sin
Heb 4:15  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Fri Oct 16, 2015 - 13:09:56
Wincam, are you serious? Do you really believe others are infallible? What bible are you reading?

God's Word:

Rom 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24  Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:


1Jn 1:7  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8  If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10  If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.


All sin, none are perfect.. difference is that Christians try their best to follow Christ and when they do mess up, they repent..as opposed to those who don't believe in Christ and don't care if they are sinning


Isa 64:6  But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.



Jesus is the ONLY one without sin
Heb 4:15  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.


again and again - all mixed up .mucked up and messed up since infallibility has nothing to do with sin - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Fri Oct 16, 2015 - 13:43:21
Wincam
Just so you know from here out backsliding is not the unpardonable sin which Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is. You preach condemnation without understanding.  Certain Jews  accused Jesus of doing miracles by the power of satan. Jesus said many things are forgiven but the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is to Call the Holy Spirit evil will never be forgiven ever.  Would you count any brother In Christ to receive such a charge. You believe you are well versed but in all I have read so far you are not.

Still I pray the Lord to open the eyes of your heart

don't just take my word for it but via google see [strange fire conference ] by an illustrious and venerable protestant John MacArthur - just see exactly who has got it base over apex and exactly who are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit and exactly what is really meant and come home now - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: chosenone on Fri Oct 16, 2015 - 14:07:09
Wincam
Just so you know from here out backsliding is not the unpardonable sin which Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is. You preach condemnation without understanding.  Certain Jews  accused Jesus of doing miracles by the power of satan. Jesus said many things are forgiven but the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is to Call the Holy Spirit evil will never be forgiven ever.  Would you count any brother In Christ to receive such a charge. You believe you are well versed but in all I have read so far you are not.

Still I pray the Lord to open the eyes of your heart

don't just take my word for it but via google see [strange fire conference ] by an illustrious and venerable protestant John MacArthur - just see exactly who has got it base over apex and exactly who are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit and exactly what is really meant and come home now - wincam

what does God say about where our home is wincam?
John 14 v 1-4
14 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Fri Oct 16, 2015 - 15:26:48
Wincam
Just so you know from here out backsliding is not the unpardonable sin which Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is. You preach condemnation without understanding.  Certain Jews  accused Jesus of doing miracles by the power of satan. Jesus said many things are forgiven but the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is to Call the Holy Spirit evil will never be forgiven ever.  Would you count any brother In Christ to receive such a charge. You believe you are well versed but in all I have read so far you are not.

Still I pray the Lord to open the eyes of your heart

don't just take my word for it but via google see [strange fire conference ] by an illustrious and venerable protestant John MacArthur - just see exactly who has got it base over apex and exactly who are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit and exactly what is really meant and come home now - wincam

what does God say about where our home is wincam?
John 14 v 1-4
14 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”

again I advise via google see [strange fire conference 2015] by John  MacArthur - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: mclees8 on Fri Oct 16, 2015 - 21:57:15
Wincam
Just so you know from here out backsliding is not the unpardonable sin which Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is. You preach condemnation without understanding.  Certain Jews  accused Jesus of doing miracles by the power of satan. Jesus said many things are forgiven but the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is to Call the Holy Spirit evil will never be forgiven ever.  Would you count any brother In Christ to receive such a charge. You believe you are well versed but in all I have read so far you are not.

Still I pray the Lord to open the eyes of your heart

don't just take my word for it but via google see [strange fire conference ] by an illustrious and venerable protestant John MacArthur - just see exactly who has got it base over apex and exactly who are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit and exactly what is really meant and come home now - wincam

I listened to much of Mr Macarthur's sermon against the Charismatic movement.  What does that  have to with anything I said to you.  My faith and salvation rests solely in Christ not on any movement nor is it by any religious order or denomination. My relationship is personal. Also as He stated the movement does not determine ones sincere need for Christ which is in spirit and truth.  I was in it at one time but as bro Macarthur said much of it is emotionalism along with many who take advantage. I agree most all of what he said.  How ever it is God alone who is our judge and there is much strange fire in Christianity even in your catholic church. How ever I cannot judge all Catholics or protestant for what is strange fire in your mist. None of that will save us. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is just what I said it is. As for the rest God can only judge.

what about you wincam.? What is your salvation centered in. If you think it is your good church standing you may be offering strange fire yourself.

Imagine if you will that you stand in a circle just big enough for you and one other person. If that other person is anyone else but Jesus you are trying to offer strange fire. If you are trying to bring anything else other than Christ alone you are offering strange fire. You might try to carry a back pack full of all good deeds that you did in His name you offer strange fire. To that he will say depart from me you worker of iniquity .  Jesus said my sheep know me and a stranger they will not follow, and he calls his sheep by name.

 Just imagine now on that day he will call for you and if you come to him carrying anything else like your affiliation  to your church standing you are trying to offer strange fire. Our walk with Christ must be personal so Jesus commandments and love for Him is writin on the tables of you heart. You will not half to boast about anything for no proud man will enter the kingdom.

Praying for You    Would you pray me ?
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: wincam on Sat Oct 17, 2015 - 05:47:00
Wincam
Just so you know from here out backsliding is not the unpardonable sin which Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is. You preach condemnation without understanding.  Certain Jews  accused Jesus of doing miracles by the power of satan. Jesus said many things are forgiven but the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is to Call the Holy Spirit evil will never be forgiven ever.  Would you count any brother In Christ to receive such a charge. You believe you are well versed but in all I have read so far you are not.

Still I pray the Lord to open the eyes of your heart

don't just take my word for it but via google see [strange fire conference ] by an illustrious and venerable protestant John MacArthur - just see exactly who has got it base over apex and exactly who are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit and exactly what is really meant and come home now - wincam

I listened to much of Mr Macarthur's sermon against the Charismatic movement.  What does that  have to with anything I said to you.  My faith and salvation rests solely in Christ not on any movement nor is it by any religious order or denomination. My relationship is personal. Also as He stated the movement does not determine ones sincere need for Christ which is in spirit and truth.  I was in it at one time but as bro Macarthur said much of it is emotionalism along with many who take advantage. I agree most all of what he said.  How ever it is God alone who is our judge and there is much strange fire in Christianity even in your catholic church. How ever I cannot judge all Catholics or protestant for what is strange fire in your mist. None of that will save us. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is just what I said it is. As for the rest God can only judge.

what about you wincam.? What is your salvation centered in. If you think it is your good church standing you may be offering strange fire yourself.

if you must know I WAS A RAVING catholic CHARISMATIC but like you even with the much subdued Catholic version was uneasy with it - what you must now do after all  have commented on it see John  MacArthur's reply at the [Strange fire conference/2015] - wincam
Title: Re: Infallibility ?
Post by: Hexalpa on Fri Oct 30, 2015 - 06:42:08
RCC position on the Popes infallibility, this term means incapability of teaching what is false in faith and morals.

It does not mean at all what most people think it means.

I don't have the time to go into it all now.

But what I was taught what it means as a protestant is in fact just a foolish cunning lie and in fact it's nothing to do with such a position at all.