Where does the Bible say...

[Brakelite]

And you seem to like try to demean people. When you do that does it make you feel superior???

If I wanted to demean you I could do a lot worse that offer a reflection of the smilie you inserted in your own post. This one...

 

[Brakelite]

His being a valid pope and successor of Peter is very much in question same with all the last 6,

And the ones throughout the ages who were whoremongers, murderers, charlatans, persecutors, haters, proud, warmongers, sadists, despots.... So much for succession.

 

[theefaith]

And the ones throughout the ages who were whoremongers, murderers, charlatans, persecutors, haters, proud, warmongers, sadists, despots.... So much for succession.

succession does not include the fact they are impeccable, all in authority are still men and sinners

 

[theefaith]

Of course you overlook the numbers of them that are canonized saints!

 

[Brakelite]

succession does not include the fact they are impeccable, all in authority are still men and sinners

And those very same sinners led councils to decree canons and laws that deprived Christians of their homes, their farms, their livelihoods, their families and their lives, all in the name of "authority'.

 

[Brakelite]

Of course you overlook the numbers of them that are canonized saints!

Didn't you say the last 6 Popes were questionable yet one is a saint? BTW, scripture declares all are saints. All believers are made holy by the blood of the Lamb.
Some "saints' I would suggest are highly questionable.

 

[atpollard]

before He did He founded His church, on Peter, and the apostles, and their successors!
Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Acts 1:17 acts 2:42 acts 8:31 & 35 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 16:13
Jn 20:21-22 eph 2:20

• [Mat 16:8 NKJV] 8 But Jesus, being aware of [it], said to them, "O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread?
• [Mat 28:19 NKJV] 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
• [Act 1:17 NKJV] 17 "for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry."
  
• [Act 2:42 NKJV] 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
  
• [Act 8:31 NKJV] 31 And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him.
  
• [Act 8:35 NKJV] 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.
  
• [Luk 10:16 NKJV] 16 "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me."
  
• [Jhn 8:32 NKJV] 32 "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
• [Jhn 13:20 NKJV] 20 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me."
  
• [Jhn 16:13 NKJV] 13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own [authority], but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
• [Jhn 20:21-22 NKJV] 21 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on [them], and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
• [Eph 2:20 NKJV] 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner[stone],

It is important to note that not one of the verses that you listed mentions “and their successors!”
That would, therefore, fall under the false teaching of man added to the words of Jesus and the Apostles and Prophets that scripture warns the Body of Christ not to listen to or it will lead us astray.

That is why Scripture is the Authority and men like the Bishop of Rome are not. Scripture contains the words of the Apostles and Prophets that Jesus trusted with His message. “And their successors” is not taught by God.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Straw man--I never suggested that the entire church is heretical. Be sensible.
The Catholic clergy says it cannot err. I assume that means at all.
And yet it has admitted to error. That's confusion--Babylon; Tower of Babel.

Then, YOU would assume incorretly.

The Clergy isn't infallible - NOR is it infallible on "everything".
I've met priests who are dead wrong about certain doctrines.

The Pope's charism of infallibility only pertains to the Magesterium. In other words, what the Church officially teaches - NOT his opinions.
If that wre true - then I would consult the Pope before betting on the Superbowl each year . . .

Spinning papal double-talk for 17 years, right? Fine job.
There is a difference between anti-catholic bigots and true Protestants, you know. Protest means "in favor of testing." What's wrong with that?
Jesuits, on the other hand...

How is that "double-talk"?
Please explain.

As for what anti-Catholic bigots are - I'll go even further than that. An anti-Catholic is NOT a person who simply "disagrees" with the Catholic Church. It is a person who must resort to LYING and bigotry to make his grievances against the Church. Your last statement in RED fits that criteria . . .

 

[BarneyFife]

The Pope's charism of infallibility only pertains to the Magesterium. In other words, what the Church officially teaches - NOT his opinions.

The term infallibility was rarely mentioned in the early and medieval church. Critics of the doctrine have pointed to various occasions in the history of the church when popes are said to have taught heretical doctrines, the most notable case being that of Honorius I (625–638), who was condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681; the sixth ecumenical council).

The definition of the First Vatican Council (1869–70), established amid considerable controversy, states the conditions under which a pope may be said to have spoken infallibly, or ex cathedra (“from his chair” as supreme teacher). It is prerequisite that the pope intend to demand irrevocable assent from the entire church in some aspect of faith or morals. Despite the rarity of recourse to this claim, and despite the emphasis given to the authority of the bishops in the Second Vatican Council (1962–65), the doctrine remained a major obstacle to ecumenical endeavours in the early 21st century and was the subject of controversial discussion even among Roman Catholic theologians. -- Encyclopedia Brittanica

How is that "double-talk"?
Please explain.

official teachings; personal opinion -- baloney

As for what anti-Catholic bigots are - I'll go even further than that. An anti-Catholic is NOT a person who simply "disagrees" with the Catholic Church. It is a person who must resort to LYING and bigotry to make his grievances against the Church. Your last statement in RED fits that criteria . . .

Catholic defenders can't distinguish between anti-catholic bigots and true protestants (it's understandable). For instance, I believe that most Christians who will have been redeemed will have died as Catholics. I doubt that means anything to you. I just want it on the record that I exclaim that some of the finest Christian people in the world are Catholics. But Catholic doctrine, especially when it comes to Soteriology and treatment of "heretics" is off the beam.

 

[theefaith]

And those very same sinners led councils to decree canons and laws that deprived Christians of their homes, their farms, their livelihoods, their families and their lives, all in the name of "authority'.

no evidence for that?

 

[theefaith]

And those very same sinners led councils to decree canons and laws that deprived Christians of their homes, their farms, their livelihoods, their families and their lives, all in the name of "authority'.

heretics can never be considered Christian in the 1st place

all Jews, heretics, schismatics, and apostates are outside the church, seperated from salvation

 

[theefaith]

Didn't you say the last 6 Popes were questionable yet one is a saint? BTW, scripture declares all are saints. All believers are made holy by the blood of the Lamb.
Some "saints' I would suggest are highly questionable.

no not a saint because the Pope who cannonized is in question

there’s more than one kind of saint, all true Christians are called to be saints

Rom 1:7

but not all are cannonized saints

 

[ReChoired]

John XXII wrote a paper on this subject PRIOR to becoming the Pope. Although he DID believe ib this fallacy - he didn't officially teach or proliferate this teaching within the Church. ...

You are in error:

"... In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. ..." - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope John XXII​

The "sermons" (plural) are given "within" the Church. It even convinced a "General of the Minorites", and "a Dominican" to try and disseminate the "dogmatic" controversial material in the University of Paris.

 

[ReChoired]

heretics can never be considered Christian in the 1st place

John XXII's "dogmatic controversy" had many, "... calling his view heretical ..." So John XXII wasn't a Christian? Ok. Have to take your word for it.

 

[ReChoired]

Spinning papal double-talk for 17 years, right? Fine job.
There is a difference between anti-catholic bigots and true Protestants, you know. Protest means "in favor of testing." What's wrong with that?
Jesuits, on the other hand...

I thought that this was hilarious:

"... Canon Brain Teaser

We've all heard the claim that canon of sacred scripture was proclaimed by the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and reaffirmed by Trent. The truth of the matter is that for a Roman Catholic, the Canon wasn't infallibly decided until Trent during the 16th Century. Thus for 1600 years, no one really knew with certainty what God had actually said, if one actually believes the paradigm that a council speaks with infallibility. The New Catholic Encyclopedia has honestly pointed out,

“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.”

Ok, now go get a cup of ... (or two). Did you know that the councils of Hippo and Carthage actually "canonized" a different book then the Council of Trent? Try to work through the following slowly. I admit, it get's a little tricky.

1. The councils of Hippo & Carthage held the books 1 & 2 Esdras are canonical (based on the Septuagint Version, as translated in their Latin Bible).

2. 1 Esdras is a book that contains spurious apocryphal material.

3. In the Septuagint 2 Esdras is what we know as Ezra and Nehemiah

4. Jerome, in the Latin Vulgate Separated 2 Esdras into Ezra and Nehemiah, calling them 1 & 2 Esdras.

5. The Council of Trent: declared the Septuagint book of 1 Esdras non-canonical, because it contained spurious apocryphal material.

6. The Council of Trent began calling the Septuagint book of 1 Esdras “3 Esdras,” even though there was already a different spurious apocryphal book of 3 Esdras. Trent renamed that book “4 Esdras”

7. The council of Trent deems 1 Esdras canonical (because it is now Ezra)

8. Hippo & Carthage though earlier claimed their version of 1 Esdras (Septuagint version that contained spurious apocryphal material) canonical.

9. Hippo & Carthage canonized a different 1 Esdras than the council of Trent.

Do councils contradict each other? It appears so. ..." - Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Canon Brain Teaser​

See if they 'spin' that.

 

[theefaith]

You are in error:

"... In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. ..." - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope John XXII​

The "sermons" (plural) are given "within" the Church. It even convinced a "General of the Minorites", and "a Dominican" to try and disseminate the "dogmatic" controversial material in the University of Paris.

sermons are not dogmatic statements

 

[theefaith]

I thought that this was hilarious:

"... Canon Brain Teaser

We've all heard the claim that canon of sacred scripture was proclaimed by the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and reaffirmed by Trent. The truth of the matter is that for a Roman Catholic, the Canon wasn't infallibly decided until Trent during the 16th Century. Thus for 1600 years, no one really knew with certainty what God had actually said, if one actually believes the paradigm that a council speaks with infallibility. The New Catholic Encyclopedia has honestly pointed out,

“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.”

Ok, now go get a cup of ... (or two). Did you know that the councils of Hippo and Carthage actually "canonized" a different book then the Council of Trent? Try to work through the following slowly. I admit, it get's a little tricky.

1. The councils of Hippo & Carthage held the books 1 & 2 Esdras are canonical (based on the Septuagint Version, as translated in their Latin Bible).

2. 1 Esdras is a book that contains spurious apocryphal material.

3. In the Septuagint 2 Esdras is what we know as Ezra and Nehemiah

4. Jerome, in the Latin Vulgate Separated 2 Esdras into Ezra and Nehemiah, calling them 1 & 2 Esdras.

5. The Council of Trent: declared the Septuagint book of 1 Esdras non-canonical, because it contained spurious apocryphal material.

6. The Council of Trent began calling the Septuagint book of 1 Esdras “3 Esdras,” even though there was already a different spurious apocryphal book of 3 Esdras. Trent renamed that book “4 Esdras”

7. The council of Trent deems 1 Esdras canonical (because it is now Ezra)

8. Hippo & Carthage though earlier claimed their version of 1 Esdras (Septuagint version that contained spurious apocryphal material) canonical.

9. Hippo & Carthage canonized a different 1 Esdras than the council of Trent.

Do councils contradict each other? It appears so. ..." - Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Canon Brain Teaser​

See if they 'spin' that.

these were synods (local) and not councils (universal)

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are in error:

"... In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. ..." - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope John XXII​

The "sermons" (plural) are given "within" the Church. It even convinced a "General of the Minorites", and "a Dominican" to try and disseminate the "dogmatic" controversial material in the University of Paris.

And the fact STILL remains that preaching a personal belief in his sermons is NOT the same as officially declaring something as doctrinal and binding on the laity.

There are some things that Pope Francis has spoken on publicly that I adamantly disagree with - but he has not declared those things as binding on the laity. The only one here that is in "error" is YOU because you don't understand what Papal infallibility is about.

 

[ReChoired]

these were synods (local) and not councils (universal)

I snickered just a little bit.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The term infallibility was rarely mentioned in the early and medieval church. Critics of the doctrine have pointed to various occasions in the history of the church when popes are said to have taught heretical doctrines, the most notable case being that of Honorius I (625–638), who was condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681; the sixth ecumenical council).

The definition of the First Vatican Council (1869–70), established amid considerable controversy, states the conditions under which a pope may be said to have spoken infallibly, or ex cathedra (“from his chair” as supreme teacher). It is prerequisite that the pope intend to demand irrevocable assent from the entire church in some aspect of faith or morals. Despite the rarity of recourse to this claim, and despite the emphasis given to the authority of the bishops in the Second Vatican Council (1962–65), the doctrine remained a major obstacle to ecumenical endeavours in the early 21st century and was the subject of controversial discussion even among Roman Catholic theologians. -- Encyclopedia Brittanica

This is yet another case of a man espousing a heretical view - but NOT holding it to be binding on the laity.
This was similar to the case with John XXII.

official teachings; personal opinion -- baloney

No - just because YOU don't understand the doctrine of infallibility doesn't make it "baloney".

As I stated earlier - Pope Francis holds some opinions that I completely disagree with - but he doesn't teach them as binding on the laity.
YOU seem to think that anything that pops into a Popes head falls under the classification of "infallibility" - ad tht is patently FALSE.

Catholic defenders can't distinguish between anti-catholic bigots and true protestants

(it's understandable). For instance, I believe that most Christians who will have been redeemed will have died as Catholics. I doubt that means anything to you. I just want it on the record that I exclaim that some of the finest Christian people in the world are Catholics. But Catholic doctrine, especially when it comes to Soteriology and treatment of "heretics" is off the beam.

NOT true at all.
9 of my 12 siblings are Protestants - but NOT all of them are anti-Catholics.

As I stated before - anti-Catholics ALWAYS resort to lying or perpetuating lies about the Catholic Church.
Other Protestants simp,y disagree with Catholic teaching -= just like they disagree with each other . . .