Christian Forums

Someone stated in another topic that the Pope while infallible is not impeccable.

And yet, the Cathechism states that He is both.  Given the listed offenses or sins that noted Popes have lived in, how can he be claimed as infallible?  For if he is deemed infallible as Christ was infallible... He would be living an impeccable life.

I'm not talking about a normal everyday life... the Pontif should be living an impeccable life. He is not put in the position to sin daily as the average person would be.

This is why I believe that the claim of him being infallible is false...

Only Jesus was or is infallible. Everyone else is man.

"In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is 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."

"The Roman Pontiff... 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... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

No man can be impeccable as is the claim, nor infallible. By the word of God. Only Jesus could be or was.  And nowhere did God say in the word of God that Jesus bestowed that "infallible" nature on us. He gave us grace because we cannot possibly hold that infallible nature that Jesus has, and that the Catholic Church claims that the Pope has by gift. It's just not possible. 

And it goes on to say, "he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals..."  How can this be so, if he is not living impeccably?  I'm speaking to the sins that have been committed such as adultery and murder and all manner of debauchery by seated Popes? He proclaims "morals"?  And he is infallible in such proclaimations?  HOW?  When one is not living it, how does one proclaim it?  By hypocrisy alone. 

To tell someone to stop stealing, because stealing is a sin, while you are a thief in secret... is hypocrisy. That is what Jesus spoke of when he called them this.  They were holding the people up to a standard concerning sin they were violating themselves. Isn't that what a Pope who has a mistress is doing when he speaks to fornication being a sin? 

No man who is not living within the guidelines of his own faith in an impeccable manner can be termed infallible. It's not biblically possible.  There is no man of God who is cheating on his wife and preaching in the pulpit of any church, infallible. It's a lie.

Also... it is stated "This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."   

There is no way a Pope who was living in sin and such things as is listed in the lives of Popes... could experience this. John on the Isle of Patmos may have, but not any of the men who's sins have been made public and termed infallible by the Catholic Church.  There is a reason John received divine revelation. He was NOT living with a mistress. Nor having children out of wedlock.

So, the very fallible argument of infallibility goes on for me...   

Great points, Kensington. I look forward to seeing how this discussion plays out.

It might help if we could get some definitions of what precisely is meant by "infallible" and what is meant by "impeccable" and in what context.  Just doing some googling now... turned up some NewAdvent articles.  I have some more reading to do.  Hopefully, someone can give some accurate working definitions of those words in the mean time.

These are not words I use on a regular basis. 

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 00:59:09
Someone stated in another topic that the Pope while infallible is not impeccable.

And yet, the Cathechism states that He is both.  Given the listed offenses or sins that noted Popes have lived in, how can he be claimed as infallible?  For if he is deemed infallible as Christ was infallible... He would be living an impeccable life.

I'm not talking about a normal everyday life... the Pontif should be living an impeccable life. He is not put in the position to sin daily as the average person would be.

This is why I believe that the claim of him being infallible is false...

Only Jesus was or is infallible. Everyone else is man.

"In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is 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."

"The Roman Pontiff... 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... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

No man can be impeccable as is the claim, nor infallible. By the word of God. Only Jesus could be or was.  And nowhere did God say in the word of God that Jesus bestowed that "infallible" nature on us. He gave us grace because we cannot possibly hold that infallible nature that Jesus has, and that the Catholic Church claims that the Pope has by gift. It's just not possible. 

And it goes on to say, "he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals..."  How can this be so, if he is not living impeccably?  I'm speaking to the sins that have been committed such as adultery and murder and all manner of debauchery by seated Popes? He proclaims "morals"?  And he is infallible in such proclaimations?  HOW?  When one is not living it, how does one proclaim it?  By hypocrisy alone. 

To tell someone to stop stealing, because stealing is a sin, while you are a thief in secret... is hypocrisy. That is what Jesus spoke of when he called them this.  They were holding the people up to a standard concerning sin they were violating themselves. Isn't that what a Pope who has a mistress is doing when he speaks to fornication being a sin? 

No man who is not living within the guidelines of his own faith in an impeccable manner can be termed infallible. It's not biblically possible.  There is no man of God who is cheating on his wife and preaching in the pulpit of any church, infallible. It's a lie.

According to my (fallible  ) understanding, from what mllevalour & others have said, the Pope is not thought to be impeccable, which is living without sin, but is infallible with regard to doctrine.  In other words, the Holy Spirit will protect the church by preventing the Pope (a sinner as we all are) from teaching error.

You may not agree that the Holy Spirit works like that ( I don't), but IF He did, then how would that be any different from the Protestant situation?  Every single preacher who stood up and preached the scriptures last Sunday morning did so as a sinner.  Did that change the truth of those scriptures?


In fact, isn't this whole notion of infallability (as I understand it, which could be wrong) parallel to the way we understand the scriptures to be written?  The Holy Spirit, acting through sinful men, 'created' the teachings that God wished us to have.

Paul owns up to being the 'chief of sinners', yet don't we believe that the Holy Spirit kept him from teaching error in Paul's epistles?

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:45:18

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 00:59:09
Someone stated in another topic that the Pope while infallible is not impeccable.

And yet, the Cathechism states that He is both.  Given the listed offenses or sins that noted Popes have lived in, how can he be claimed as infallible?  For if he is deemed infallible as Christ was infallible... He would be living an impeccable life.

I'm not talking about a normal everyday life... the Pontif should be living an impeccable life. He is not put in the position to sin daily as the average person would be.

This is why I believe that the claim of him being infallible is false...

Only Jesus was or is infallible. Everyone else is man.

"In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is 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."

"The Roman Pontiff... 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... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

No man can be impeccable as is the claim, nor infallible. By the word of God. Only Jesus could be or was.  And nowhere did God say in the word of God that Jesus bestowed that "infallible" nature on us. He gave us grace because we cannot possibly hold that infallible nature that Jesus has, and that the Catholic Church claims that the Pope has by gift. It's just not possible. 

And it goes on to say, "he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals..."  How can this be so, if he is not living impeccably?  I'm speaking to the sins that have been committed such as adultery and murder and all manner of debauchery by seated Popes? He proclaims "morals"?  And he is infallible in such proclaimations?  HOW?  When one is not living it, how does one proclaim it?  By hypocrisy alone. 

To tell someone to stop stealing, because stealing is a sin, while you are a thief in secret... is hypocrisy. That is what Jesus spoke of when he called them this.  They were holding the people up to a standard concerning sin they were violating themselves. Isn't that what a Pope who has a mistress is doing when he speaks to fornication being a sin? 

No man who is not living within the guidelines of his own faith in an impeccable manner can be termed infallible. It's not biblically possible.  There is no man of God who is cheating on his wife and preaching in the pulpit of any church, infallible. It's a lie.

According to my (fallible  ) understanding, from what mllevalour & others have said, the Pope is not thought to be impeccable, which is living without sin, but is infallible with regard to doctrine.  In other words, the Holy Spirit will protect the church by preventing the Pope (a sinner as we all are) from teaching error.

You may not agree that the Holy Spirit works like that ( I don't), but IF He did, then how would that be any different from the Protestant situation?  Every single preacher who stood up and preached the scriptures last Sunday morning did so as a sinner.  Did that change the truth of those scriptures?


In fact, isn't this whole notion of infallability (as I understand it, which could be wrong) parallel to the way we understand the scriptures to be written?  The Holy Spirit, acting through sinful men, 'created' the teachings that God wished us to have.

Paul owns up to being the 'chief of sinners', yet don't we believe that the Holy Spirit kept him from teaching error in Paul's epistles?

You are saying that Paul was the chief among sinners when God had him write the holy scriptures?   

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:45:18

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 00:59:09
Someone stated in another topic that the Pope while infallible is not impeccable.

And yet, the Cathechism states that He is both.  Given the listed offenses or sins that noted Popes have lived in, how can he be claimed as infallible?  For if he is deemed infallible as Christ was infallible... He would be living an impeccable life.

I'm not talking about a normal everyday life... the Pontif should be living an impeccable life. He is not put in the position to sin daily as the average person would be.

This is why I believe that the claim of him being infallible is false...

Only Jesus was or is infallible. Everyone else is man.

"In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is 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."

"The Roman Pontiff... 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... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

No man can be impeccable as is the claim, nor infallible. By the word of God. Only Jesus could be or was.  And nowhere did God say in the word of God that Jesus bestowed that "infallible" nature on us. He gave us grace because we cannot possibly hold that infallible nature that Jesus has, and that the Catholic Church claims that the Pope has by gift. It's just not possible. 

And it goes on to say, "he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals..."  How can this be so, if he is not living impeccably?  I'm speaking to the sins that have been committed such as adultery and murder and all manner of debauchery by seated Popes? He proclaims "morals"?  And he is infallible in such proclaimations?  HOW?  When one is not living it, how does one proclaim it?  By hypocrisy alone. 

To tell someone to stop stealing, because stealing is a sin, while you are a thief in secret... is hypocrisy. That is what Jesus spoke of when he called them this.  They were holding the people up to a standard concerning sin they were violating themselves. Isn't that what a Pope who has a mistress is doing when he speaks to fornication being a sin? 

No man who is not living within the guidelines of his own faith in an impeccable manner can be termed infallible. It's not biblically possible.  There is no man of God who is cheating on his wife and preaching in the pulpit of any church, infallible. It's a lie.

According to my (fallible  ) understanding, from what mllevalour & others have said, the Pope is not thought to be impeccable, which is living without sin, but is infallible with regard to doctrine.  In other words, the Holy Spirit will protect the church by preventing the Pope (a sinner as we all are) from teaching error.

You may not agree that the Holy Spirit works like that ( I don't), but IF He did, then how would that be any different from the Protestant situation?  Every single preacher who stood up and preached the scriptures last Sunday morning did so as a sinner.  Did that change the truth of those scriptures?


In fact, isn't this whole notion of infallability (as I understand it, which could be wrong) parallel to the way we understand the scriptures to be written?  The Holy Spirit, acting through sinful men, 'created' the teachings that God wished us to have.

Paul owns up to being the 'chief of sinners', yet don't we believe that the Holy Spirit kept him from teaching error in Paul's epistles?

Good points.   
Thanks for the explanation.
That doesn't mean I agree that the pope is infallible. 
He obviously is not impeccable.

I thought the Pope was only infallible when he spoke from his special chair.

I gotta get me one o' those...

The Ex Ca-seat-ra

Quote from: Bonnie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:57:40

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:45:18

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 00:59:09
Someone stated in another topic that the Pope while infallible is not impeccable.

And yet, the Cathechism states that He is both.  Given the listed offenses or sins that noted Popes have lived in, how can he be claimed as infallible?  For if he is deemed infallible as Christ was infallible... He would be living an impeccable life.

I'm not talking about a normal everyday life... the Pontif should be living an impeccable life. He is not put in the position to sin daily as the average person would be.

This is why I believe that the claim of him being infallible is false...

Only Jesus was or is infallible. Everyone else is man.

"In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is 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."

"The Roman Pontiff... 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... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

No man can be impeccable as is the claim, nor infallible. By the word of God. Only Jesus could be or was.  And nowhere did God say in the word of God that Jesus bestowed that "infallible" nature on us. He gave us grace because we cannot possibly hold that infallible nature that Jesus has, and that the Catholic Church claims that the Pope has by gift. It's just not possible. 

And it goes on to say, "he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals..."  How can this be so, if he is not living impeccably?  I'm speaking to the sins that have been committed such as adultery and murder and all manner of debauchery by seated Popes? He proclaims "morals"?  And he is infallible in such proclaimations?  HOW?  When one is not living it, how does one proclaim it?  By hypocrisy alone. 

To tell someone to stop stealing, because stealing is a sin, while you are a thief in secret... is hypocrisy. That is what Jesus spoke of when he called them this.  They were holding the people up to a standard concerning sin they were violating themselves. Isn't that what a Pope who has a mistress is doing when he speaks to fornication being a sin? 

No man who is not living within the guidelines of his own faith in an impeccable manner can be termed infallible. It's not biblically possible.  There is no man of God who is cheating on his wife and preaching in the pulpit of any church, infallible. It's a lie.

According to my (fallible  ) understanding, from what mllevalour & others have said, the Pope is not thought to be impeccable, which is living without sin, but is infallible with regard to doctrine.  In other words, the Holy Spirit will protect the church by preventing the Pope (a sinner as we all are) from teaching error.

You may not agree that the Holy Spirit works like that ( I don't), but IF He did, then how would that be any different from the Protestant situation?  Every single preacher who stood up and preached the scriptures last Sunday morning did so as a sinner.  Did that change the truth of those scriptures?


In fact, isn't this whole notion of infallability (as I understand it, which could be wrong) parallel to the way we understand the scriptures to be written?  The Holy Spirit, acting through sinful men, 'created' the teachings that God wished us to have.

Paul owns up to being the 'chief of sinners', yet don't we believe that the Holy Spirit kept him from teaching error in Paul's epistles?

You are saying that Paul was the chief among sinners when God had him write the holy scriptures?  

Well, Paul says "I am the worst (of sinners)" at the very time he is writing the holy scriptures.  I don't know how else we are to take it.

Do you believe Paul was mistaken when he wrote those words?

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:45:18
According to my (fallible  ) understanding, from what mllevalour & others have said, the Pope is not thought to be impeccable, which is living without sin, but is infallible with regard to doctrine.  In other words, the Holy Spirit will protect the church by preventing the Pope (a sinner as we all are) from teaching error.

You may not agree that the Holy Spirit works like that ( I don't), but IF He did, then how would that be any different from the Protestant situation?  Every single preacher who stood up and preached the scriptures last Sunday morning did so as a sinner.  Did that change the truth of those scriptures?

There is a difference between commenting from and on the Scriptures, and speaking what is equivalent to Scripture.

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:45:18
In fact, isn't this whole notion of infallability (as I understand it, which could be wrong) parallel to the way we understand the scriptures to be written?  The Holy Spirit, acting through sinful men, 'created' the teachings that God wished us to have.

Paul owns up to being the 'chief of sinners', yet don't we believe that the Holy Spirit kept him from teaching error in Paul's epistles?

Paul said that he was the chief of sinners whom Christ came to save. Even so, he also wrote against the notion of continuing in sin, which I believe was the point in the OP.

QuoteWell, Paul says "I am the worst (of sinners)" at the very time he is writing the holy scriptures.  I don't know how else we are to take it.

Do you believe Paul was mistaken when he wrote those words?

Read the "whole Word" before making assumptions I guess. This is Paul speaking. You can look it up.

Eph 3:
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 11:28:32
The Ex Ca-seat-ra

I wonder if the apostles were constrained in like manner?

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:17:08

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:45:18
According to my (fallible  ) understanding, from what mllevalour & others have said, the Pope is not thought to be impeccable, which is living without sin, but is infallible with regard to doctrine.  In other words, the Holy Spirit will protect the church by preventing the Pope (a sinner as we all are) from teaching error.

You may not agree that the Holy Spirit works like that ( I don't), but IF He did, then how would that be any different from the Protestant situation?  Every single preacher who stood up and preached the scriptures last Sunday morning did so as a sinner.  Did that change the truth of those scriptures?

There is a difference between commenting from and on the Scriptures, and speaking what is equivalent to Scripture.

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:45:18
In fact, isn't this whole notion of infallability (as I understand it, which could be wrong) parallel to the way we understand the scriptures to be written?  The Holy Spirit, acting through sinful men, 'created' the teachings that God wished us to have.

Paul owns up to being the 'chief of sinners', yet don't we believe that the Holy Spirit kept him from teaching error in Paul's epistles?

Paul said that he was the chief of sinners whom Christ came to save. Even so, he also wrote against the notion of continuing in sin, which I believe was the point in the OP.

He used to be the chief of sinners - used to be.  Read my post above.

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:17:08

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:45:18
According to my (fallible  ) understanding, from what mllevalour & others have said, the Pope is not thought to be impeccable, which is living without sin, but is infallible with regard to doctrine.  In other words, the Holy Spirit will protect the church by preventing the Pope (a sinner as we all are) from teaching error.

You may not agree that the Holy Spirit works like that ( I don't), but IF He did, then how would that be any different from the Protestant situation?  Every single preacher who stood up and preached the scriptures last Sunday morning did so as a sinner.  Did that change the truth of those scriptures?

There is a difference between commenting from and on the Scriptures, and speaking what is equivalent to Scripture.

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:45:18
In fact, isn't this whole notion of infallability (as I understand it, which could be wrong) parallel to the way we understand the scriptures to be written?  The Holy Spirit, acting through sinful men, 'created' the teachings that God wished us to have.

Paul owns up to being the 'chief of sinners', yet don't we believe that the Holy Spirit kept him from teaching error in Paul's epistles?

Paul said that he was the chief of sinners whom Christ came to save. Even so, he also wrote against the notion of continuing in sin, which I believe was the point in the OP.

In 1 Timoth 1, Paul says this:

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.   Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.

What's interesting to me is that, after all the things he was before meeting Christ, Paul goes on to use the present tense (I AM the worst) to describe himself as a sinner.

How do you read this use of the present tense to mean 'used to be'?


note - the above was actually directed at Bonnie's post: He used to be the chief of sinners - used to be.  Read my post above.

Quote from: Bonnie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:21:25

QuoteWell, Paul says "I am the worst (of sinners)" at the very time he is writing the holy scriptures.  I don't know how else we are to take it.

Do you believe Paul was mistaken when he wrote those words?

Read the "whole Word" before making assumptions I guess. This is Paul speaking. You can look it up.

Eph 3:
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

I'm not sure what you're saying here.  Are you saying that Paul did not consider himself worst of sinners?

It can be easy to misunderstand the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

Many people (noncatholics & a few catholics) believe the dogma is saying that the pope is incapable of sining and every word he says is true and straight from God.

This is not true.

Infallibility means that statements from the pope are free from error when he is speaking about established teachings related to faith and morals.

This dogma says nothing about the popes personal sin.  This teaching does not justify statements from the pope that don't have to do with faith and morals.  It also doesn't justify new ideas about faith and morals.  So if the pope is talking about established teachings found in the Tradition of the RCC or the Bible, it is considered infallible.

When you actually think about it, Protestants also believe their ministers are infallible when they are reading pure scripture.

Oops, one more thing:

James, you said -

QuoteEven so, he also wrote against the notion of continuing in sin, which I believe was the point in the OP.

The point of the OP was that the Pope can't be infallible in teaching doctrine because he is not sinless.

Kensington was pretty clear about that.

Quote from: constantine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:39:48
When you actually think about it, Protestants also believe their ministers are infallible when they are reading pure scripture.

Yeah, because no pastor ever misused the Scriptures.

Seriously though, I don't think a single Protestant would agree with that.

Quote from: constantine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:39:48Infallibility means that statements from the pope are free from error when he is speaking about established teachings related to faith and morals.

Such as the pronouncements of anathema by the Council of Trent.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:45:33

Quote from: constantine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:39:48
When you actually think about it, Protestants also believe their ministers are infallible when they are reading pure scripture.

Yeah, because no pastor ever misused the Scriptures.

Seriously though, I don't think a single Protestant would agree with that.

Really?

I am not talking about commentary or application - I am just talking about reading the scriptures alone

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:35:44

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:17:08

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:45:18
According to my (fallible  ) understanding, from what mllevalour & others have said, the Pope is not thought to be impeccable, which is living without sin, but is infallible with regard to doctrine.  In other words, the Holy Spirit will protect the church by preventing the Pope (a sinner as we all are) from teaching error.

You may not agree that the Holy Spirit works like that ( I don't), but IF He did, then how would that be any different from the Protestant situation?  Every single preacher who stood up and preached the scriptures last Sunday morning did so as a sinner.  Did that change the truth of those scriptures?

There is a difference between commenting from and on the Scriptures, and speaking what is equivalent to Scripture.

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:45:18
In fact, isn't this whole notion of infallability (as I understand it, which could be wrong) parallel to the way we understand the scriptures to be written?  The Holy Spirit, acting through sinful men, 'created' the teachings that God wished us to have.

Paul owns up to being the 'chief of sinners', yet don't we believe that the Holy Spirit kept him from teaching error in Paul's epistles?

Paul said that he was the chief of sinners whom Christ came to save. Even so, he also wrote against the notion of continuing in sin, which I believe was the point in the OP.

In 1 Timoth 1, Paul says this:

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.   Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.

What's interesting to me is that, after all the things he was before meeting Christ, Paul goes on to use the present tense (I AM the worst) to describe himself as a sinner.

How do you read this use of the present tense to mean 'used to be'?

I understand this passage to be dealing more with the reason for Christ's coming, than being a definitive statement on Paul's current mindset about his own current sinfulness. Paul deals more with the aforementioned latter aspect in Romans chapter 7. Even so, while Paul sees his sinfulness, he also sees a difference between being a sinner, and continuing in sin (cf. Romans 6:1).

Quote from: constantine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:48:01

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:45:33

Quote from: constantine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:39:48
When you actually think about it, Protestants also believe their ministers are infallible when they are reading pure scripture.

Yeah, because no pastor ever misused the Scriptures.

Seriously though, I don't think a single Protestant would agree with that.

Really?

I am not talking about commentary or application - I am just talking about reading the scriptures alone

I can't speak for every Protestant, nor for every non-Roman Catholic, but the position that is usually taken is that the Scriptures themselves are infallible, and not the actual minister.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:46:30

Quote from: constantine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:39:48Infallibility means that statements from the pope are free from error when he is speaking about established teachings related to faith and morals.

Such as the pronouncements of anathema by the Council of Trent.

Such as or the likes of, yes.

Quote from: constantine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:48:01

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:45:33

Quote from: constantine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:39:48
When you actually think about it, Protestants also believe their ministers are infallible when they are reading pure scripture.

Yeah, because no pastor ever misused the Scriptures.

Seriously though, I don't think a single Protestant would agree with that.

Really?

I am not talking about commentary or application - I am just talking about reading the scriptures alone

I can read nothing but the Scriptures alone and still make a misleading point.  Haven't you ever heard the old joke about the man who opened his Bible to random places in order to find the will of God?

The first time he got this verse:  "Then Judas went out and hanged himself."
And the second time:  "Go and do likewise."

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:57:32

Quote from: constantine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:48:01

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:45:33

Quote from: constantine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:39:48
When you actually think about it, Protestants also believe their ministers are infallible when they are reading pure scripture.

Yeah, because no pastor ever misused the Scriptures.

Seriously though, I don't think a single Protestant would agree with that.

Really?

I am not talking about commentary or application - I am just talking about reading the scriptures alone

I can't speak for every Protestant, nor for every non-Roman Catholic, but the position that is usually taken is that the Scriptures themselves are infallible, and not the actual minister.

Ok.

Catholics extend the infallibility to Tradition and the office of the pope.

QuoteI understand this passage to be dealing more with the reason for Christ's coming, than being a definitive statement on Paul's current mindset about his own current sinfulness. Paul deals more with the aforementioned latter aspect in Romans chapter 7. Even so, while Paul sees his sinfulness, he also sees a difference between being a sinner, and continuing in sin (cf. Romans 6:1).

Whether the passage is intended to deal with the reason for Christ's coming, it is still a definitive statement on Paul's belief that he is still 'worst of sinners'.

None of us would deny that we are not to continue in sin.

Nevertheless, Kensington's initial point was that because the Pope is a sinner (as are we all) it is impossible that he could speak infallibly on doctrine.  My point is that Paul spoke 'infallibly' on doctrine, while he was a sinner.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:59:57

Quote from: constantine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:48:01

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:45:33

Quote from: constantine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:39:48
When you actually think about it, Protestants also believe their ministers are infallible when they are reading pure scripture.

Yeah, because no pastor ever misused the Scriptures.

Seriously though, I don't think a single Protestant would agree with that.

Really?

I am not talking about commentary or application - I am just talking about reading the scriptures alone

I can read nothing but the Scriptures alone and still make a misleading point.  Haven't you ever heard the old joke about the man who opened his Bible to random places in order to find the will of God?

The first time he got this verse:  "Then Judas went out and hanged himself."
And the second time:  "Go and do likewise."

I understand what you are saying, but I think you might be adding interpretation of scripture to my example.  It doesn't really matter - my example might not be very good.

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 13:04:05

QuoteI understand this passage to be dealing more with the reason for Christ's coming, than being a definitive statement on Paul's current mindset about his own current sinfulness. Paul deals more with the aforementioned latter aspect in Romans chapter 7. Even so, while Paul sees his sinfulness, he also sees a difference between being a sinner, and continuing in sin (cf. Romans 6:1).

Whether the passage is intended to deal with the reason for Christ's coming, it is still a definitive statement on Paul's belief that he is still 'worst of sinners'.

None of us would deny that we are not to continue in sin.

Nevertheless, Kensington's initial point was that because the Pope is a sinner (as are we all) it is impossible that he could speak infallibly on doctrine.  My point is that Paul spoke 'infallibly' on doctrine, while he was a sinner.

Good point.  God uses sinners for His glory.

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:35:44

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:17:08

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:45:18
According to my (fallible  ) understanding, from what mllevalour & others have said, the Pope is not thought to be impeccable, which is living without sin, but is infallible with regard to doctrine.  In other words, the Holy Spirit will protect the church by preventing the Pope (a sinner as we all are) from teaching error.

You may not agree that the Holy Spirit works like that ( I don't), but IF He did, then how would that be any different from the Protestant situation?  Every single preacher who stood up and preached the scriptures last Sunday morning did so as a sinner.  Did that change the truth of those scriptures?

There is a difference between commenting from and on the Scriptures, and speaking what is equivalent to Scripture.

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:45:18
In fact, isn't this whole notion of infallability (as I understand it, which could be wrong) parallel to the way we understand the scriptures to be written?  The Holy Spirit, acting through sinful men, 'created' the teachings that God wished us to have.

Paul owns up to being the 'chief of sinners', yet don't we believe that the Holy Spirit kept him from teaching error in Paul's epistles?

Paul said that he was the chief of sinners whom Christ came to save. Even so, he also wrote against the notion of continuing in sin, which I believe was the point in the OP.

In 1 Timoth 1, Paul says this:

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.   Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.

What's interesting to me is that, after all the things he was before meeting Christ, Paul goes on to use the present tense (I AM the worst) to describe himself as a sinner.

How do you read this use of the present tense to mean 'used to be'?


note - the above was actually directed at Bonnie's post: He used to be the chief of sinners - used to be.  Read my post above.

If you want to go further you should start a thread. Although I don't know of much more there is except Paul was a sinner and then he got saved.

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 13:04:05

QuoteI understand this passage to be dealing more with the reason for Christ's coming, than being a definitive statement on Paul's current mindset about his own current sinfulness. Paul deals more with the aforementioned latter aspect in Romans chapter 7. Even so, while Paul sees his sinfulness, he also sees a difference between being a sinner, and continuing in sin (cf. Romans 6:1).

Whether the passage is intended to deal with the reason for Christ's coming, it is still a definitive statement on Paul's belief that he is still 'worst of sinners'.

The worst of sinners whom Christ came into the world to save. Such a reading, which is proper, does not make the statement definitive.

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 13:04:05
None of us would deny that we are not to continue in sin.

I'm not saying that you would, but I can't say the same for others on this forum.

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 13:04:05
Nevertheless, Kensington's initial point was that because the Pope is a sinner (as are we all) it is impossible that he could speak infallibly on doctrine.  My point is that Paul spoke 'infallibly' on doctrine, while he was a sinner.

I understood her point a little differently. Perhaps she can elaborate, and clear the matter up herself?

Quote from: constantine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 13:01:44

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:57:32

Quote from: constantine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:48:01

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:45:33

Quote from: constantine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:39:48
When you actually think about it, Protestants also believe their ministers are infallible when they are reading pure scripture.

Yeah, because no pastor ever misused the Scriptures.

Seriously though, I don't think a single Protestant would agree with that.

Really?

I am not talking about commentary or application - I am just talking about reading the scriptures alone

I can't speak for every Protestant, nor for every non-Roman Catholic, but the position that is usually taken is that the Scriptures themselves are infallible, and not the actual minister.

Ok.

Catholics extend the infallibility to Tradition and the office of the pope.

Thus, the existence of this thread.

QuoteQuote from: kmv on Today at 01:04:05 PM
None of us would deny that we are not to continue in sin.

I'm not saying that you would, but I can't say the same for others on this forum.

Could you reference such a post?  I can't say that I recall seeing any such opinion.

Quote from: Bonnie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 14:04:10

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:35:44

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:17:08

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:45:18
According to my (fallible  ) understanding, from what mllevalour & others have said, the Pope is not thought to be impeccable, which is living without sin, but is infallible with regard to doctrine.  In other words, the Holy Spirit will protect the church by preventing the Pope (a sinner as we all are) from teaching error.

You may not agree that the Holy Spirit works like that ( I don't), but IF He did, then how would that be any different from the Protestant situation?  Every single preacher who stood up and preached the scriptures last Sunday morning did so as a sinner.  Did that change the truth of those scriptures?

There is a difference between commenting from and on the Scriptures, and speaking what is equivalent to Scripture.

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:45:18
In fact, isn't this whole notion of infallability (as I understand it, which could be wrong) parallel to the way we understand the scriptures to be written?  The Holy Spirit, acting through sinful men, 'created' the teachings that God wished us to have.

Paul owns up to being the 'chief of sinners', yet don't we believe that the Holy Spirit kept him from teaching error in Paul's epistles?

Paul said that he was the chief of sinners whom Christ came to save. Even so, he also wrote against the notion of continuing in sin, which I believe was the point in the OP.

In 1 Timoth 1, Paul says this:

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.   Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.

What's interesting to me is that, after all the things he was before meeting Christ, Paul goes on to use the present tense (I AM the worst) to describe himself as a sinner.

How do you read this use of the present tense to mean 'used to be'?


note - the above was actually directed at Bonnie's post: He used to be the chief of sinners - used to be.  Read my post above.

If you want to go further you should start a thread. Although I don't know of much more there is except Paul was a sinner and then he got saved.

Oh, I was just responding to you - the 'used to be' a sinner thing.

If you don't mind me asking (to clear things up), do you agree that Paul was a sinner at the time he wrote his epistles?

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:41:24
Oops, one more thing:

James, you said -

QuoteEven so, he also wrote against the notion of continuing in sin, which I believe was the point in the OP.

The point of the OP was that the Pope can't be infallible in teaching doctrine because he is not sinless.

Kensington was pretty clear about that.

No, what I said was he could not be possibly be infallible when speaking to matters of "SIN" when he himself is involved in sin, which brings up the point you made about Paul, Paul was a great sinner... His sins were great, and many. Thus making him as big a sinner as there was one, but that was before he was saved. Afterward, He was not openly walking in those same sins or more sins of immorality (such as Popes have) while teaching doctrine. God did not go to all the trouble to blind him and set him up as the foremost authority on bibilical teaching of the day so that he would have had mistress's or participated in plots to murder anyone.

That was my point. None of the Apostle's that JESUS appointed went about participating in open rebellion of sin and hypocrisy and teaching the word and "doctrine on morals" to the church.

Paul called himself "chief among sinners" who were saved by grace. He was speaking to his sins being worse and now he is saved. He was not saying, he was still participating in the sins that got him that "chief" sinner title. There is a difference.  You would have to believe that Paul continued to hunt and kill Christians or had sexual sins to believe he remained the same sinner that he was before, after he was saved. He did not, he walked in grace. And said so... He spoke to the unmarried, that they should if they could remain as he... but if they could not ( and Popes evidently can't) then rather than burn, they should marry. 

And I said and maintain that the claim that Jesus passed His infallibility to the Pope cannot be possible for Christ infallibilty comes with impeccability as He was sinless in all matters, and if God was passing that on, the pope would have it. 

My point to is that if you read the word of God, you will find that no man, not even Paul or Peter or John, claimed for themselves to be infallible. They claimed to be relying on God alone.  But, when receiving and giving divine revelation as it says the Pope does, I believe God would call them to live impeccable amoung men as even John did on the isle of Patmos.

Saying that "ALL SIN" is not justified in this case. For we know that there are those who can and do walk more honorably than others.  Able did it. Abraham did, Jabez was more honorable than his brothers. John, James, Paul, Timothy... none were caught in scandals of immorality while teaching the inspired word of God concerning morals.

And as I said... that is the VERY deffinition of Hypocrite.  To tell someone else, it is a sin, to stop it, while participating in the same sin. Thus, any Pope who EVER had sexual sins, and sins of murder, or theft, and debauchery while giving doctrine on morals was NOT infallible. Nor could they have been.

Yes, God can keep the people from being deceived when hypocrisy is taught, but that is not the Pope or the teacher being infallible, that is GOD being infallible. And we know that He is also impeccable in His life.