Contemporary Evidence For Papal Infallibility

[PaulAckermann]

On a particular moral issue, the pope has proven to be right and all the other denominations have been wrong. For all these years, we Catholics have been mocked and criticized for the harsh stand the Catholic Church has been on birth control. We, now the evidence is in!

See http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

Because of the Catholic Church’s strong view against birth control, it has always warned its flock not to take the pill, as well as other birth control devices. Although there are many denomination that are pro-life, I do not know any Protestant that is against birth control.

So that means that there are thousands of Protestant pro-life wives, who rightly oppose RU-486 (the morning-after pill), and yet may have inadvertently had caused an abortion themselves because they took the birth control, with the approval of their ministers .

If my wife and I had been Protestant, and my wife was taking the pill, without my minister warning me that I could be killing an unborn child, I would be total scandalized.

I hear often “What makes you think your church is the only true church?” or “What makes you think that only the pope is right and no other denomination has it right”.

Well, here you have proof!

If the tables were turned, if the pope had approved the use of birth control, and when it came out that all this time the pill caused abortions, we Catholics would never hear the end of it! “How can the pope be infallible and allow his flock to practice something that kills unborn children?”

But that is not what happened. The popes have always warned the flock not to take the pill, even before it was not know that the pill could cause abortions. The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

On this moral this moral issue, the pope has proven to be right, and all the other churches are wrong. The odds for one person to get it right and everyone getting it is wrong is highly unlikely. But that is exactly what happened.

Of course, if you are not pro-life, this is not impressive. But if you are pro-life, how can this be explained except it be by the hand of God?

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Paul

The argugment is not very coherant IMHO...

As far as the comparision between "the Pill" and the "morning after pill" there is none, there are many medical professionals on this forum to correct your incorrect assement.


As I am not one of those nor do I play one on T.V. I will not attempt to cover such fallacy.

As to the "one True church" when did they pass medical school? Unless they play one one TV then..... I assume you get the point.

In Him,

Bill

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[IamAdopted]

LOL I am sorry but the Pope infallable..

 

[Macrina]

I do not know any Protestant that is against birth control.

I could introduce you to several.


Once again, Paul, you are extrapolating from your experience to generalize for all protestants. Please don't do that.


And the argument that since the Pope was right on this then he's infallible? I'm afraid that wouldn't hold up in court.

An example:
For years, PETA told me not to eat cheese; it was wrong.
I recently learned that I have a medical condition worsened by cheese consumption.
Therefore, PETA was right.
Therefore, PETA is infallible.

 

[leothelioness]

Sorry, but birth control pills do not abort unborn children. They keep the egg from being fertilised in the first place.

Besides, the MA pill is not a birth control pill. It is an abortion pill and I am against it's use.

There is a big difference between these two pills and their functions.

 

[Macrina]

Sorry, but birth control pills do not abort unborn children. They keep the egg from being fertilised in the first place.

Besides, the MA pill is not a birth control pill. It is an abortion pill and I am against it's use.

There is a big difference between these two pills and their functions.

Actually, if one believes that life begins when the egg is fertilized, then one should be concerned about the ordinary birth-control pill, which can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterine lining. That is why some people (including a number of my married protestant friends) choose not to use hormonal birth control; should an egg become fertilized, they do not want to do anything to harm it.

Still, though, it's not evidence for papal infallibility.

 

[PaulAckermann]

I could introduce you to several.

You say that you know of several denominations that are against birth control. But then you did not even give one example.

And the argument that since the Pope was right on this then he's infallible? I'm afraid that wouldn't hold up in court.

It is not just that he was right. He was the ONLY one who was right. With all the Protestant denomination out there, what are the odd that the pope would be right and all the other denominations are wrong.

An example:
For years, PETA told me not to eat cheese; it was wrong.
I recently learned that I have a medical condition worsened by cheese consumption.
Therefore, PETA was right.
Therefore, PETA is infallible.

This is a bad example. PETA is not the only ones who would say not to eat cheese. My own doctor would say I should not eat cheese – too much fat.

But in this case, the pope was right and all the other churches were wrong. Huge difference.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Sorry, but birth control pills do not abort unborn children. They keep the egg from being fertilised in the first place.

Besides, the MA pill is not a birth control pill. It is an abortion pill and I am against it's use.

There is a big difference between these two pills and their functions.

Read the bottle of the birth control pill, one way it prevents birth is by being an abortificient.


The morning-after pill dislodges the fertilized egg from the uterine and comes out when the woman urinates. The birth control pill, if conception has already occurred, prevents the fertilized egg from ever attaching itself to the uterine wal and comes out when the woman urinates.

In both cases, conception has started, and so life has begun. In both cases, it is an abortion.

 

[Macrina]

You say that you know of several denominations that are against birth control. But then you did not even give one example.

Don't put words in my mouth. You said: "I don't know any Protestant that is against birth control." I said I could introduce you to several [protestants] who are against birth control. Don't twist my words just so you can belittle my statement.

It is not just that he was right. He was the ONLY one who was right. With all the Protestant denomination out there, what are the odd that the pope would be right and all the other denominations are wrong.

This is a bad example. PETA is not the only ones who would say not to eat cheese. My own doctor would say I should not eat cheese – too much fat.

But in this case, the pope was right and all the other churches were wrong. Huge difference.

I'm afraid your logic still doesn't hold up. My deliberately silly PETA example was meant to illustrate that just because someone's position is proven true does not mean that he or she is infallible. What if PETA had been the only ones to say "don't eat cheese?" Would they then be infallible? What if other denominations also said "don't use birth control?" Would that render the Pope fallible? It's not some tally-it-up contest to see who wins the most "we were right" points, although that's what this thread seems to imply. That would be a very petty approach to theology.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Good Day, Paul

The argugment is not very coherant IMHO...

As far as the comparision between "the Pill" and the "morning after pill" there is none, there are many medical professionals on this forum to correct your incorrect assement.

The are many medical professionals who also say that a a fetus is not a human being.

As I mentioned above, the birth control pill, if conception has already occurred, prevent the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine wal, and so comes out when the woman urinates. Since the egg is already fertiilized, that mean life has begun, and so this would be an abortion.

As to the "one True church" when did they pass medical school? Unless they play one one TV then..... I assume you get the point.

I think you are missing my point.

The Catholic Church teaches that the pope is infallible in matters of teaching in faith and morals. Since the birth control pill can lead to abortion, the birth control pill is morally evil. If the pope had said the birth control pill was OK, which is way all Protestant leaders say, he was have been a false prophet. But that is not what happened. The pope, and the pope alone, has stood against the pill. And he jas been vindicated. This is exactly what we expect from a true prophet.

 

[Macrina]

The are many medical professionals who also say that a a fetus is not a human being.

As I mentioned above, the birth control pill, if conception has already occurred, prevent the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine wal, and so comes out when the woman urinates. Since the egg is already fertiilized, that mean life has begun, and so this would be an abortion.




I think you are missing my point.

The Catholic Church teaches that the pope is infallible in matters of teaching in faith and morals. Since the birth control pill can lead to abortion, the birth control pill is morally evil. If the pope had said the birth control pill was OK, which is way all Protestant leaders say, he was have been a false prophet. But that is not what happened. The pope, and the pope alone, has stood against the pill. And he jas been vindicated. This is exactly what we expect from a true prophet.

Not true. Many others have stood against the pill; are they also true prophets? If not, why not? If so, why the special status for the Pope?


I don't know how you intended this thread to come across, but the way it seems is that you just want to thumb your nose at those outside your tradition. I know that you blame the protestant tradition for your heartbreak, but that is no reason to go on a vendetta against protestants.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Don't put words in my mouth. You said: "I don't know any Protestant that is against birth control." I said I could introduce you to several [protestants] who are against birth control. Don't twist my words just so you can belittle my statement.

With all due respect, you are the one who has twisted my words.

I never wrote that there are no Protestants against birth control, I wrote that there are no Protestant denominations that are against birth control.

I'm afraid your logic still doesn't hold up. My deliberately silly PETA example was meant to illustrate that just because someone's position is proven true does not mean that he or she is infallible. What if PETA had been the only ones to say "don't eat cheese?" Would they then be infallible? What if other denominations also said "don't use birth control?" Would that render the Pope fallible? It's not some tally-it-up contest to see who wins the most "we were right" points, although that's what this thread seems to imply. That would be a very petty approach to theology.

Oh I am not saying that this is the ONLY reason why the Pope is infallible. I just said that this is contempary evidence that he is.

The main reason why we Catholics believe that the pope is infallible, is because Jesus Christ said this in so many words (see Matthew 16).

As far as I could remember, PETA has never claimed for itself papal infallibility and tried to in any way claim that Christ bestowed infallibilty on PETA.

Let's put it this way. In itself, I agree that in itself, this would not prove the pope to be infallible. But it does prove that anyone who taught that the pill was OK was a false teacher. This is not just a little sin. This is abortion! This is murder! Anyone who advocates murder who be a false prophet. And any church that adovates murder cannot be the church founded by Christ.

So let's see who that would disqualify. Well, it would disqualify the Lutheran Church. It would disqualify the Persbyterian Church. It would disqualify the Baptist Church. In fact, it would disqualify all Protestant churches. I do believe that this would also disqualitfy the Orthodox Church. So who is left?

The Catholic Church! The Catholic Church wins by default. All other churches are disqualified because they have advocated murder.

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit will guide the church into all truth. Evidently, the Holy Spirit did not guide the Anglican church, or the Lutheran church, or the Baptist church. The Holy Spirit only guide the Catholic Church into this truth about birth control.

 

[Macrina]

I do not know any Protestant that is against birth control.

With all due respect, you are the one who has twisted my words.

I never wrote that there are no Protestants against birth control, I wrote that there are no Protestant denominations that are against birth control.

If you phrased it wrong, I will accept that. But I was not twisting your words.

 

[Macrina]

The Catholic Church! The Catholic Church wins by default.

Congratulations. What's your prize? The right to come online and act superior to other Christians?




Seriously, Paul -- what do you hope to gain from this thread? To convert protestants to your church? To make us feel bad or angry? To give voice to some inner venom? What?

 

[leothelioness]

Read the bottle of the birth control pill, one way it prevents birth is by being an abortificient.


The morning-after pill dislodges the fertilized egg from the uterine and comes out when the woman urinates. The birth control pill, if conception has already occurred, prevents the fertilized egg from ever attaching itself to the uterine wal and comes out when the woman urinates.

In both cases, conception has started, and so life has begun. In both cases, it is an abortion.

I though birth control pills kept the egg from being released in the first place.

At any rate, it doesn't matter if I'm for or against it because I won't be able to take it anyway as I have a history of breast cancer in my family.

So that's one less Protestant to demonise.

 

[Oblio]

The Orthodox Church does not permit BC that is an abortifacient either primarily OR as a side effect.

 

[Macrina]

I though birth control pills kept the egg from being released in the first place.

Although that is the purpose of the pill, there is a slight chance that it will not be effective in preventing ovulation (no birth control, save abstinence, is 100% effective, after all). In the event that an egg is released, and subsequently fertilized, the hormones in the pill may prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. It is a slight chance, but one that many women are not willing to take.

So that's one less Protestant to demonise.

 

[BBAS 64]

The are many medical professionals who also say that a a fetus is not a human being.

As I mentioned above, the birth control pill, if conception has already occurred, prevent the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine wal, and so comes out when the woman urinates. Since the egg is already fertiilized, that mean life has begun, and so this would be an abortion.




I think you are missing my point.

The Catholic Church teaches that the pope is infallible in matters of teaching in faith and morals. Since the birth control pill can lead to abortion, the birth control pill is morally evil. If the pope had said the birth control pill was OK, which is way all Protestant leaders say, he was have been a false prophet. But that is not what happened. The pope, and the pope alone, has stood against the pill. And he jas been vindicated. This is exactly what we expect from a true prophet.

Good Day, PaulA

I get the point the RCC teaches that it's pope is infallible.

Such logic is a big circle... Name it claim it reasoning is not very usefull IMHO. YHO is in fact differnet then mine, your assumption of that teaching to be true skews the agument as it begs the question for it's basis in fact...

I know it is true for you because the church says so from you point of view. It is a subjective assumption that you have accepted, you could be wrong.

I on the other hand have not.

It is clearly a medical issue, the Pill in and of it's self in morally neutral, it is a chemical compound.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[PaulAckermann]

Good Day, PaulA

I know it is true for you because the church says so from you point of view.

No. I believe in papal infallibility because Christ said it, not just the CC. Since it originates with Christ, it is not circular.

It is a subjective assumption that you have accepted, you could be wrong.

That is the Protestantism, it has watered down "Thus saith the Lord" to its just your subjective assumption, you could be wrong.

This can be said about anything believed in Protestantism, even the doctrine of salvation. Even the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy! You can reduce everything to subjective doubt, which is why Protestantism has opened the doors to liberalism.

I on the other hand have not.

So you then say that Christ may not have been God? That maybe you are wrong in believing that there is even a God? That you may not be saved? That maybe the Bible is not the Word of God? That maybe the Koran is the Word of God?

Somehow, I doubt you are as open to the possibility of being wrong as you say. Or maybe you are. Are you an agnostic?

You are you using the typical argument that a pro-abortion rights person would use. When in doubt, it’s OK to kill it. “You have your have your experts and I have mine”. One set of experts say that the fetus is a human being. Another set says its not. The pro-abort person takes comfort in the ambiguity of the experts and goes ahead and say it is OK to abort. And he accuses us pro-life people of not accepting the possibility that we pro-life people are wrong – that maybe the fetus is not a human being after all.

But this is like shooting a gun in a rustling bush without caring what is behind the bush – a rabbit or a child. Since we are not sure, we should err of the side that there just may be a child behind that bush. But the pro-abort is saying it is OK to shoot at the bush because a child may not be there. But what if there is a child behind the bush? It is reckless to shoot at a bush without knowing for sure that there is no one behind the bush.
In the same way, your position is totally reckless. You are saying that I have my experts and you have yours. You argue that I should admit the possibility that I could be wrong, and assert that you admit that you could be wrong. But then you do the reckless thing of assuming that it is OK to continue to take the pill, even though you admit that it is possible that this could be killing a human life! This is totally reckless! Once you admit that this could be killing a human life, you are being totally reckless and irresponsible to continue with it. It is like shooting at a bush after admitting that there may be a child in that bush.

It is clearly a medical issue, the Pill in and of it's self in morally neutral, it is a chemical compound.

Peace to u,

Bill

The same can be said for RU-486. It is just a chemical compound.


And others would argue that abortion is just a medical procedure.

 

[PaulAckermann]

If you phrased it wrong, I will accept that. But I was not twisting your words.

In my opening of this thread, this is what I wrote:

On a particular moral issue, the pope has proven to be right and all the other denominations have been wrong.

On this moral this moral issue, the pope has proven to be right, and all the other churches are wrong.


In writing this, I tried to very careful to compare the pope to other denominations and churches, not to individuals.

You twisted it to have me generalizing all Protestant individuals, which I never wrote at all. Now you blame me for not being clear enough! Which part of the word denominations or churches do you not understand?