Papal Infallibility (Pope Innerancy). Can the Pope ever be in the wrong?

Oscarr said:

Heresies and false doctrines were rife in the early church and John wrote his gospel and letters to refute some of them.

Click to expand...

Maybe I am reading into your intent in posting this; but it sounds like you are using early heresies to promote an attitude that current heresies are OK. Or do you, like me, see a united Christianity being the goal that God has set for us?

tz620q said:

Maybe I am reading into your intent in posting this; but it sounds like you are using early heresies to promote an attitude that current heresies are OK. Or do you, like me, see a united Christianity being the goal that God has set for us?

Click to expand...

John wrote his gospel and his first Epistle to counter the Gnostic heresy that was invading the church at the time.

Concerning the concept of a united church: In the 1970s I was a part of a large Charismatic church in a provincial city. It believed it was the "local body of Christ" and its mission was to get all the other Pentecostal and Charismatic churches to combine with it so that the city would have one unified "local church" like the New Testament church. But, the main intention of the "senior elder" of the large church (it was run by a board of elders rather than a pastor or minister) was to build a religious empire with him in control. In other words, things concerning doctrine and practice, the other churches would have to take orders from him. Members of those churches that resisted his control would be "excommunicated" and "lose the blessing of being part of the cutting edge of what God was doing" in that city.

Of course it didn't happen, and quite rightly so.

If we had general church unity, it would be the most powerful and wealthy church organisation that would have the overall control, and everyone else would have to fall into line. Just imaging the most powerful church in a unified group of churches being the Mormon church and everyone had to accept the Book of Mormon or else? Would the objective be achieved on that basis? (One of the objectives of that church is world domination). I don't think so.

Frankly, I think the deep divisions of theology, doctrine, and practice of churches today would prevent a true unity and cause more problems than solutions.

TuxAme said:

Matthew 16:18 (not that the OP accurately describes papal infallibility in the first place).

Click to expand...

Did Peter ever claim that he was the rock that Jesus spoke of in Matt 16:18? If Peter and the other apostles understood that Jesus said was going to build His church on the foundation of Peter because Peter was "the rock" lets see where we can prove this from the scriptures? When did Peter have his best chance to proclaim that he was the rock, the very rock that the foundation of the church was to be built on? Why in the two books he wrote, First and Second Peter, of course! All we have to do now is quote from these two books what (or who) the rock and or the stone of the church actually is and that will clear up any confusion. Peter is the one who should be able to clear this up especially if he is "the rock" that Jesus spoke of. 1 Peter chapter one verse one Peter simply states that he is "an apostle of Jesus Christ." He didn't say "I am the foremost apostle" or the "leader" he says he is just "an" apostle. Chapter 2 verse 4 identifies who is "the living cornerstone of God's temple" and it isn't Peter, it is Christ. Then in verses 6, 7 and 8 Peter has a wonderful opportunity to declare to the world exactly Who is the cornerstone, the stone and the rock is, but again Peter tells us that it is Jesus Christ and not himself. Why not? Because Christ didn't build His church on peter, He built His church on Himself who is "The Messiah, the Son of the Living God."

In 2 Peter, Peter again identifies himself as "a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ." Not the most excellent apostle, not the chief apostle, not the stone that the builders rejected, just Peter.

So maybe the OT can clear this up. Who was "The Rock" in the OT? Was it to be a follower of the long awaited Messiah? No, it is the same One who is the "Rock" in the NT, GOD! God is called the Rock or Stone over 42 times in the OT. Peter was called a rock or stone one time in Matthew 16:18, then five verses later (verse 23) Jesus calls Peter "Satan" and says he is a dangerous trap. So the same apostle who Christ is going to build His church on was called Satan by God the Son Himself? Sure was, OR the rock that Christ built His church on was what Peter said in Matt 16:16 "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." That statement is the rock that Christ built His church on, NOT on Peter.

PaulCyp1 said:

Infallibility has nothing whatsoever to do with sin. All human beings sin, and the Pope is a human being. A few popes over the ages have led pretty immoral personal lives. Papal infallibility is the result of the promises Jesus Christ made to the first Pope - "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "He who hears you hears Me". These promises guarantee that The Pope cannot be wrong when officially stating a matter of doctrine or morality. It is this divine guarantee that assures that members of the Church Jesus Christ founded will always have access to full and complete truth. Which is why it remains one in belief, one in teaching, one in worship, one in biblical understanding after 2,000 years. The Pope can make errors on financial matters, what team will win the World Series, the weather, and any number of other subjects, just like the rest of us. The doctrinal chaos of Protestantism demonstrates what happens when people abandon Jesus Christ's Church, which He said was to remain one, and its divine promises, and attempt to find truth any other way. Thousands of conflicting manmade denominations, each claiming to be taking truth from "the Bible alone", yet the teaching of each denomination contradicting the teaching of the others, all within a few hundred years.

Click to expand...

So there are "thousands of conflicting man made denominations"? I meet every Saturday morning with a group of born again Christians from about 15 different Protestant denominations for breakfast, bible reading, fellowship and prayer. I have been a member for about 15 years. One thing I find amazing is that EVERY one of us believe in the exact same basic tenets of the Christian faith. We differ about .05% in periphiral things that are of no account, like use of the KJV or the NIV. Should we mow the grass on Sunday or saturday?

I was raised a Presbyterian, then as an adult I moved to a different state and began attending a Church of Christ. After awhile I moved north this time and began attending a Baptist Church, then I got married to a Methodist so I began attending a Methodist Church. Now I attend a Missionary Church. I discovered an astounding array of "conflicting" beliefs in these churches, things like some churches light candles on the altar, while others don't use candles. Some have a cross on the pulpit while others have one on the wall behind the pulpit. Some have a baptistry in the church building, others use a lake or river for baptism. Some have organs and pianos to sing by, others use guitars and violins. Some offer coffee, others don't. Some have green carpet while others have red (or none!), but they all agree on these: Salvation by grace, Jesus is the Son of God, the Holy Trinity, Salvation through Jesus Christ alone, The resurrection of Christ, the gospel, the bible is God's word and faith.