Contemporary Evidence For Papal Infallibility

[prophecy4]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]It is called the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. In brief, it teaches that when the Pope, speaking in his official capacity as the successor to St. Peter (ex cathedra, or from his throne), he cannot be in error; his pronouncements on matters of doctrine and morals are infallible and are binding upon all Roman Catholics, and they are commanded to accept the decrees of the Pope without questioning.
The Pope, it is taught by this doctrine, is as much infallibly inspired in his teaching as the writers of the Scriptures. Previous to the adoption of the doctrine of Infallibility, the church councils added all the innumerable traditions to the Bible, but since the Pope was declared to be the infallible interpreter of the Scriptures and the final authority on doctrine and morals, the Church must now accept whatever new doctrine or "revelation" the Pope as head of the church imposes upon them.
The strange thing about this Papal infallibility is the fact that it was not accepted until in the latter half of the l9th century. During the reign of Pope Pius IX, a Vatican council convened to discuss the subject of Papal infallibility, which had been brewing for some time. In 1869, less than 100 years ago (and 1800 years after God closed the canon of Scripture - Revelation 22:18), Pope Pius IX called this Council in which the issue was to be debated. Strong opposition was raised by certain prominent bishops, who pointed out the history of errors by past popes.
[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]...the dark and sordid history of murder, incest, adultery and avarice associated with past popes. [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Among those most strongly opposed to this new dogma was Bishop Stossmayer, who traced the history of past Popes, and pointed out how the decrees of past infallible (!) Popes had been rescinded, reversed or set aside by other Popes. The Bishop pointed out the dark and sordid history of murder, incest, adultery and avarice associated with past popes.
In spite of the violent protests of a segment of the council, however, the Vatican Council enacted into dogma the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in July, 1870. Of course, this action raises a lot of questions. How is it that this doctrine was not revealed or adopted till 1800 years after Peter, their so-called first Pope, admitted that he could not even understand some things in the Scriptures written by Paul (II Peter 3:16)? Was Pope Pius IX the first Pope who was infallible? Were the Popes before him also infallible? How then could they disagree, and one Pope set aside what another Pope had declared as an infallible revelation? How is it that the Assumption of Mary was never revealed until the 20th century? - but then, no one is supposed to ask such questions about an "infallible" Pope. The faithful Roman Catholic is not to ask questions at all: he is obliged to accept what his Church teaches.
[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Romanism is a usurpation of deity. [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Romanism is a usurpation of deity. The Roman system, while it professes faith in a Trinity, really denies the Godhead by assuming all the honours and powers belonging to God. The Fatherhood of God is an almost unknown subject in Romanism. Where do you ever meet with worship directed to God the Father in Romanism? God's place as an object of worship has been taken over by Mary. The Pope has usurped the place of Christ by making himself the head of the Church, and the work of the Holy Spirit has been assumed by a man who claims to be the infallible teacher. Thus Romanism has virtually denied the work of a Triune God by taking over the offices of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Peter, described by Rome as "the first Pope" and whose successors all the Popes claim to be, must therefore have been 'infallible', but the Bible says: "When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal. 2:11)
[/FONT]

Amen. You hit is directly on the head.

 

[IamAdopted]

Amen. You hit is directly on the head.

Amen

 

[PaulAckermann]

It is called the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. In brief, it teaches that when the Pope, speaking in his official capacity as the successor to St. Peter (ex cathedra, or from his throne), he cannot be in error; his pronouncements on matters of doctrine and morals are infallible and are binding upon all Roman Catholics, and they are commanded to accept the decrees of the Pope without questioning.
The Pope, it is taught by this doctrine, is as much infallibly inspired in his teaching as the writers of the Scriptures. Previous to the adoption of the doctrine of Infallibility, the church councils added all the innumerable traditions to the Bible, but since the Pope was declared to be the infallible interpreter of the Scriptures and the final authority on doctrine and morals, the Church must now accept whatever new doctrine or "revelation" the Pope as head of the church imposes upon them.
The strange thing about this Papal infallibility is the fact that it was not accepted until in the latter half of the l9th century. During the reign of Pope Pius IX, a Vatican council convened to discuss the subject of Papal infallibility, which had been brewing for some time. In 1869, less than 100 years ago (and 1800 years after God closed the canon of Scripture - Revelation 22:18), Pope Pius IX called this Council in which the issue was to be debated. Strong opposition was raised by certain prominent bishops, who pointed out the history of errors by past popes.
...the dark and sordid history of murder, incest, adultery and avarice associated with past popes. Among those most strongly opposed to this new dogma was Bishop Stossmayer, who traced the history of past Popes, and pointed out how the decrees of past infallible (!) Popes had been rescinded, reversed or set aside by other Popes. The Bishop pointed out the dark and sordid history of murder, incest, adultery and avarice associated with past popes.
In spite of the violent protests of a segment of the council, however, the Vatican Council enacted into dogma the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in July, 1870. Of course, this action raises a lot of questions. How is it that this doctrine was not revealed or adopted till 1800 years after Peter, their so-called first Pope, admitted that he could not even understand some things in the Scriptures written by Paul (II Peter 3:16)? Was Pope Pius IX the first Pope who was infallible? Were the Popes before him also infallible? How then could they disagree, and one Pope set aside what another Pope had declared as an infallible revelation? How is it that the Assumption of Mary was never revealed until the 20th century? - but then, no one is supposed to ask such questions about an "infallible" Pope. The faithful Roman Catholic is not to ask questions at all: he is obliged to accept what his Church teaches.
Romanism is a usurpation of deity. Romanism is a usurpation of deity. The Roman system, while it professes faith in a Trinity, really denies the Godhead by assuming all the honours and powers belonging to God. The Fatherhood of God is an almost unknown subject in Romanism. Where do you ever meet with worship directed to God the Father in Romanism? God's place as an object of worship has been taken over by Mary. The Pope has usurped the place of Christ by making himself the head of the Church, and the work of the Holy Spirit has been assumed by a man who claims to be the infallible teacher. Thus Romanism has virtually denied the work of a Triune God by taking over the offices of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Peter, described by Rome as "the first Pope" and whose successors all the Popes claim to be, must therefore have been 'infallible', but the Bible says: "When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal. 2:11)

This is a faulty argument, that since papal infallibility was not officially defined before the 19th century, that this means that Catholics did not believe it before the 19th century.

To show how faulty this line of argument is, take the Council of Nicea in the fourth century. This Council officially defined the Trinity, that God being One has three persons - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Using this line of argument, this would mean that Christians did not believe in the Trinity before the Council. This Council also defined Jesus as being fully God and fully Man. Using this line of argument, Christians did not believe in the deity of Christ before the fourth century, since it was in the fourth century that it was officially defined by the Church in a Council.

The Church only convenes a Council when there is a controversy. The reason the Church did not officially defined the deity of Christ until the fourth century is because it was only in the fourth century that the belief in the deity of Christ came under attack by the Arians. Even at the Council there were some Arian bishops who tried to pursuade the other bishops to deny the deity of Christ. It is not uncommon that these Councils have people arguing from both sides, even on the deity of Christ. But ultimately the Holy Spirit ensured that the truth came forward.

So it is very common that a Council officially defines a doctrine that is already believed by the faithful. The Church finds no reason to official define a doctrine believe by the faithful until that doctrine is under attack. And it is common to find people at the Council who dissent against the ruling of that Council. There were dissenters at the Council of Nicea who disagreed with the ruling about the deity of Christ. In fact, you really cannot find a Council where there weren’t any dissenters.

So it is to be expected that there will be a few who would dissent from Vatican I. If there were no dissenters, then that mean that there was no controversy. If there was no controversy, there was no point in having a Council to begin with.

 

[PaulAckermann]

[/color]

Just because Peters name is rock, doesn't mean Jesus was talking about him.

His name was not Rock until Jesus changed his name from Simon to Rock. Why else would Jesus change his name to Rock if He did not mean that Simon was the Rock up which Jesus would build His church?

This is why no Protestant scholar in the 20th century disputes that fact that Jesus meant Simon was the Rock.

The Bible also says that Jesus has brothers and sisters, but the Catholic church ASSUMES she remained a virgin even though it's not in scripture.

Where does it say in scripture that everything we believe must be in scripture?
That is just an assumption on your part. And since it is just an assumption, this belief, according to your argument, is not valid. If you are right, your are wrong.

If that's the case, where in the Bible does it tell the church to pray to Mary or any other saint? Where does it say the pope is infallable? Where does it say to build statues to Mary? Where does it say to ask "dead" people to pray for you? Where does it say the eucharist is really His blood and body and not just a representation? By the way, Jesus also called us sheep, how come we don't walk around bleeting?
Where does it say to baptize babies? How come it wasn't practice by John or Jesus?

Where does it say in scripture that everything we believe must be in scripture?
That is just an assumption on your part. And since it is just an assumption, this belief, according to your argument, is not valid. If you are right, your are wrong.

How come Peter NEVER says he's infallable?

So are your saying that Peter is not infallible? So then since Peter was fallible, then what he wrote was fallible. That means that his letters in the Bible are fallible. That means the Bible is not infallible. Do you really want to go there?

There are tons of parts in the New Testament that are not explained by the author.

Sure, as long as there is no risk that reasonable people would not misunderstand. If Matthew saw Jesus pointing to Himself and did not even mention it, he would have been a poor communicator. That one act by Jesus would have completely changed the meaning of that passage. For Matthew to leave that out would show him to be a poor communicator, if not a deliberate deceiver.

That's like saying, since the Holy Spirit led John in writing Revelation, how come He didn't lead John to provide the interpretation?

As a Catholic, I believe that God did provide the interpretation to us, in the Catholic Church.

That is a Catholic belief. Not most of Christiandome, if you can even call Catholics Christian.

May the Lord bless you.

Again, you are assuming Jesus did not point to Himself or use voice inflection to show that he was talking about himself. The fact is we don't know.

The Bible commands us to stay away from idle speculations. Since we do not know, it is mere speculation for you to assert that it happened. You are using weird logic here. You are arguing that something happened based on the fact that we do not know. There are million things that we do not know. We do not know if unicorns exists somewhere in this universe. But it would be foolish to believe in unicorn simply because we do not know.

What we do know is that Peter DID NOT build the church by himself. What we do know is that Peter taught what Christ taught and not once did it even closely resemble what the Catholic church teaches. Bowing to the Pope? Drinking blood? Which, by the way is forbidden by scripture. Mary was a perpetual virgin? None of it is in scripture or written by Peter.

You really like the shotgun approach. Let’s stick to one topic at a time.

Considering that after Jesus death, Peter became like a rock and even died for his faith, that could be the reason for the change. Before Jesus died, peter talked a good game, but didn't stand up.

This is the problem with Protestantism, everything is “could be”. This cvould be the interpretation of this verse, or that verse. This “could be” wrong. This “could be” right. Protestantism is satisfied with a bunch of could be’s. It has opened the doors to relativism. Truth becomes relative. In a Protestant Bible Study, everyone sits in a circle, and the moderator goes around the room and asks “So what did you get out of verse 11?” Everybody reads his own ideas into the Bible, and whatever those ideas are, they “could be” true.

I am sorry, but I don’t believe in something that merely “could be” true. The Bible tells us to avoid idle speculations and endless genealogies, which is what Protestants are left to resort to since they have rejected the chair of Peter. The Bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Truth is not about a bunch of could be’s. Truth is about “this is the way it is”. No compromise. No speculations.

If the pope is infallable, how come they stayed silent when the Jews were being massacred?

Read The Myth of Hitler’s Pope by Rabbi Dahlin. Abert Einstein credit Pope Pius with saving 800,000 Jews during the Holocaust.

Also, the myth concerning the pope’s silence during the Holocaust was spread by the Soviet Union.

Read http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTUzYmJhMGQ5Y2UxOWUzNDUyNWUwODJiOTEzYjY4NzI=

You have been duped by Communist propaganda.

How come they build statues to mary, which is a blatent violation of 1 and 2 commandments?

If that is a blatant violation, then how come God instructed Moses to build two statues of angels over the Ark of the Covenant?

How come they pray to mary even though it's not scriptural?

We ask Mary to pray for us. Asking someone else to pray for you is very scriptural.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

His name was not Rock until Jesus changed his name from Simon to Rock. Why else would Jesus change his name to Rock if He did not mean that Simon was the Rock up which Jesus would build His church?

Nice question.
Why do you know that you have the answer to it?
Why are you so certain as to make dogma out of it?

This is why no Protestant scholar in the 20th century disputes that fact that Jesus meant Simon was the Rock.

Really?

You are aware of every Protestant scholar in the 20th Century? You know that not one of them disputes your theory about that? How so?



Just wondering...


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[PaulAckermann]

[/COLOR]


Nice question.
Why do you know that you have the answer to it?
Why are you so certain as to make dogma out of it?

The same reason that you can say to the JW and the Unitarian that scripture teaches the deity of Christ.

The same reason that you would be dogmatic on the deity of Christ.

Really?
You are aware of every Protestant scholar in the 20th Century? You know that not one of them disputes your theory about that? How so?



Just wondering...

I thought we dealt with this already. I responded that even you admitted that you know of three Protestant scholars that concede that Peter is the Rock. I also responded to give me just one Protestant scholar in the 20th century that did not see Peter as the Rock. If you can do that then I will admit I was wrong. I do not recall you ever responding back to me.

 

[Tyndale]

This is a faulty argument, that since papal infallibility was not officially defined before the 19th century, that this means that Catholics did not believe it before the 19th century.

Catholics can believe it if they want, I was pointing out that it was invented and not in the bible. Where in the bible does it say the Roman/Papal throne and the man who sits on it can declare infallibility?

To show how faulty this line of argument is, take the Council of Nicea in the fourth century. This Council officially defined the Trinity, that God being One has three persons - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Using this line of argument, this would mean that Christians did not believe in the Trinity before the Council. This Council also defined Jesus as being fully God and fully Man.

You make the mistake of thinking modern Rome and 4th century Rome are one in the same. Even during Luke's time their were two different branches of Christianity. In Acts 8v 9-24, he identifies a Samaritan/babylonian style Christianity competing with the Apostiles true message. The battle between pure and hoax Christianity in Rome would continue into the 4th Century.

 

[Tyndale]

give me just one Protestant scholar in the 20th century that did not see Peter as the Rock. If you can do that then I will admit I was wrong.

Here's one. Ernest L. Martin

He was quite clear that Simon Magus founded what we now know as the roman Catholic church.

 

[prophecy4]

His name was not Rock until Jesus changed his name from Simon to Rock. Why else would Jesus change his name to Rock if He did not mean that Simon was the Rock up which Jesus would build His church?

Because he didn't waiver from his faith after Jesus died

This is why no Protestant scholar in the 20th century disputes that fact that Jesus meant Simon was the Rock.

so now you're God and know what every scholar believes?

Where does it say in scripture that everything we believe must be in scripture?
That is just an assumption on your part. And since it is just an assumption, this belief, according to your argument, is not valid. If you are right, your are wrong.

lol... just wait until i get down a few more responses, this is coming back up

So are your saying that Peter is not infallible? So then since Peter was fallible, then what he wrote was fallible. That means that his letters in the Bible are fallible. That means the Bible is not infallible. Do you really want to go there?

man is fallable... the Spirit is not... and Peter wrote when he was in the spirit... if he wasn't fallble, how come he was "withstood to his face" when he was in the wrong?

Sure, as long as there is no risk that reasonable people would not misunderstand. If Matthew saw Jesus pointing to Himself and did not even mention it, he would have been a poor communicator. That one act by Jesus would have completely changed the meaning of that passage. For Matthew to leave that out would show him to be a poor communicator, if not a deliberate deceiver.

You're assuming because we have two different people in the Passage that goes by the Rock... so to say it was Peter is indeed an assumption

As a Catholic, I believe that God did provide the interpretation to us, in the Catholic Church.

Yeah, she's the woman on the beast with 7 heads.

May the Lord bless you.

you too.

The Bible commands us to stay away from idle speculations. Since we do not know, it is mere speculation for you to assert that it happened. You are using weird logic here. You are arguing that something happened based on the fact that we do not know. There are million things that we do not know. We do not know if unicorns exists somewhere in this universe. But it would be foolish to believe in unicorn simply because we do not know.

"
Where does it say in scripture that everything we believe must be in scripture?
That is just an assumption on your part. And since it is just an assumption, this belief, according to your argument, is not valid. If you are right, your are wrong."

There you go, you contridict yourself. You said the bible didn't say we only have to believe scripture, then you say it says not to speculate... 99% of catholic rituals are speculation and not biblical...

This is the problem with Protestantism, everything is “could be”. This cvould be the interpretation of this verse, or that verse. This “could be” wrong. This “could be” right. Protestantism is satisfied with a bunch of could be’s. It has opened the doors to relativism. Truth becomes relative. In a Protestant Bible Study, everyone sits in a circle, and the moderator goes around the room and asks “So what did you get out of verse 11?” Everybody reads his own ideas into the Bible, and whatever those ideas are, they “could be” true.

the same with catholocism... oh wait, you guys worship the pope like he is God...

I am sorry, but I don’t believe in something that merely “could be” true. The Bible tells us to avoid idle speculations and endless genealogies, which is what Protestants are left to resort to since they have rejected the chair of Peter. The Bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Truth is not about a bunch of could be’s. Truth is about “this is the way it is”. No compromise. No speculations.

in case you didn't know, the Church is the body of believers as a whole... not certain denominations...

Read The Myth of Hitler’s Pope by Rabbi Dahlin. Abert Einstein credit Pope Pius with saving 800,000 Jews during the Holocaust.

Catholic propaganda, not historical fact.

Also, the myth concerning the pope’s silence during the Holocaust was spread by the Soviet Union.

if that's true, how come the Catholic church doesn't deny it?

If that is a blatant violation, then how come God instructed Moses to build two statues of angels over the Ark of the Covenant?

the ark was a representation of the throne of God... surrounded by cherubs as in Revelation... now Mary on the other hand, God did not instruct anyone to build that statue...

We ask Mary to pray for us. Asking someone else to pray for you is very scriptural.

please show me one example in the bible of people asking DEAD people to pray for them? show me where it makes one reference to anyone interceeding on our behalf other than Jesus? talking to the dead is very much against scripture. just read Deut. Further more... you said "protestants speculate" isn't that what you're are doing when you chant you're hail Mary... bow to her statue... God never told you to kneel before a statue... He didn't tell Moses to kneel before the ark...

in fact, He strictly forbids bowing down in front of a statue... that's why he was so mad when Baal was being worshiped... anytime you bow to something, chant, and pray... it's worship...

Calling Mary the mother of heaven... started with pegan beliefs and they just substituted Mary in... Catholocism is merely the world's largest cult of Mary worshipers... from what i can see, Mary is more important to the catholic church than Jesus is.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Here's one. Ernest L. Martin
He was quite clear that Simon Magus founded what we now know as the roman Catholic church.

I wrote about Protestant scholars, not fundementalist Bible teachers. A scholar is someone who is like FF Bruce. A scholar is someone with masters and doctorates from reputable schools. A scholar would teach at a seminary or an acredited university. A scholar would have written scholarly books.

I took a look at Martin's website. I could not find any degrees that he had. And I could find what schools he graduated from. He definitely is not one who others would consider a scholar.

Here is his web site:

http://www.cornerstone-unlimited.com/ernest_l_martin.htm

This is a list of his "scholarly" work:

101 Bible Secrets

The Secrets of Golgatha

The Star That Shocked the World - 9/11 Importance, you won't believe it.

These headings are something you would find on the front page of the National Inquirer, not in a seminary library.

If you want to follow the teachings of someone like him, go ahead. But he is not a scholar.

No serious Protestant scholar would say that Simon Magus started the Catholic Church.

 

[PaulAckermann]

[/color]
Because he didn't waiver from his faith after Jesus died
[/color]

You need to read the passage in its context. After the Rock verse, Jesus said the following to Peter:

1. "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven"

2. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.
Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"

Jesus named Simon as Rock, which is tied in with Simon's relationship to the church, not just Simon's personal faith. It is tied in with having the keys to the kingdom, and able to bind and loose. Peter being the Rock has to do with the authority that Jesus delegated to him over His church.

man is fallable... the Spirit is not... and Peter wrote when he was in the spirit... if he wasn't fallble, how come he was "withstood to his face" when he was in the wrong?

Peter is both fallible and infallible. He has wrong in Galations 2. He was infallble when he wrote 1Peter and 2Peter.

In the same way popes throughout history have made mistakes. But they are infallible when they teach on matters of faith and doctrine, just as Peter was infallible when he taught on matters of faith and doctrine in his letters.

You're assuming because we have two different people in the Passage that goes by the Rock... so to say it was Peter is indeed an assumption

No, we have only person in that Passage that goes by Rock, Peter. You assume that there are two.

please show me one example in the bible of people asking DEAD people to pray for them?

Well, I can show you a verse in the Bible that tells us that we have a relationship with saints who are in heaven. Is that close enough?

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.
Hebrews 12:22 - 24

First of all, I want you to look at the tense of the verse "have come". This is present perfect. This is something we can experience in the here and now. It is not a future experience that we can experience only in the future. Because of the precious blood of Jesus Christ, we can now experience the following:

1. We are citizens of heaven - "we have come .. to Mount Zion ... the city of the living God"

2. We have a a relationship with God - "we have come .. to God"

3. We have a relationship with Jesus - "we have come ... to Jesus"

4. We have a relationship with angels - "we have come .. to myriads of angels"

5. We have a relationship with saints in heaven - "we have come ... to the spirits of the righteous made perfect"

We are not made perfect until we get to heaven. And in heaven we do not have our bodies, until we get our glorified bodies at the return of Christ. So in heaven the saints who are made perfect only have their spirits. That is why this verse says that have come to the spirits of the righteous made perfect.

So this verse is saying that just as we can come to God, just as we can come to Jesus, so, too, we can come to the angels, and we can come to the saints in heaven

show me where it makes one reference to anyone interceeding on our behalf other than Jesus?

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone,
1 Timothy 2:1

We are called to intercede for each other. And since I have shown previously that we can have a relationship with the saints in heaven, it makes sense that they would intercede for us as well.

in fact, He strictly forbids bowing down in front of a statue... that's why he was so mad when Baal was being worshiped... anytime you bow to something, chant, and pray... it's worship...

The Bible forbids the worship of statues. When we Catholics bow down before a statue, we are not worshipping the statue. We are worshipping God. Just as when Christians kneel before an open Bible to pray. Just because they are bowing down before an open Bible, that does not mean that they are worshipping the Bible.

Calling Mary the mother of heaven... started with pegan beliefs and they just substituted Mary in... Catholocism is merely the world's largest cult of Mary worshipers... from what i can see, Mary is more important to the catholic church than Jesus is.

Not sure the Catholic Church ever called her the "mother of heaven". "Mother of God", "Queen of heaven", yes. "Mother of heaven", I don't think so.

If you mean "Mother of God", this is only logical. Jesus is fully God. The Bible teaches that all the fullness of deity dwelt in Him. So if Jesus is fully God, and Mary was His mother, then Mary was the mother of God. By this, we Catholics are not saying that Mary was the mother of the whole Trinity. Of course not! But it is wrong to think that the Father is only 1/3 God, Jesus is 1/3 God, and the Holy Spirit is 1/3 God. The Trinity is not a pie cut in 3 slices. Instead, the right view of the Trinity is each person is fully God. The Father is fully God. The Son is fully God. The Holy Spirit is fully God. It is a mystery. So since Jesus is fully God, and Mary was His mother, then Mary is the mother of God. To deny this to Mary is to deny the fullness of deity to Jesus Christ.

If you mean "Queen of Heaven",well, this is just Biblical. The Apostle John had a vision of Mary being the queen in heaven

A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pangs, in the agony of giving birth. Then another portent appeared in heaven: a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rulea all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne;and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, so that there she can be nourished for one thousand two hundred sixty days.
Rev 12:1 - 6

John saw a woman in heaven. The moon was under her feet. On her head she wore a crown. Since she wore a crown, she must have been a queen. A queen in heaven! So was John being influenced by paganism?

Who was this woman in heaven with a crown of stars? How do we know this woman was Mary? Well, John gave us a clue. This woman gave birth to a child, a male child. Her son was to rule the nations with a rod of iron. Well, maybe this son is the anti-Christ? Not likely. This child was "snatched away and taken to God and to his throne". The anti-Christ is going to be cast into hell, not in heaven to with God. This can only be Jesus. Only He was snatched away and taken to God the Father, and is to rule the nation with a rod of iron.

So if the woman's son is Jesus, then who can be the woman? The woman cannot be anyone else but Mary, since she is the mother of Jesus.

So Mary being the Queen of Heaven is not based on paganism, but on the Bible.

Do we think more highly of Mary than Jesus. Of course not! Suppose you became a billionaire. You buy a tremendous mansion. And suppose your loving mother is still alive. What would you do with your mother? Would you let her live in poverty while you live in a mansion? I hope not! If you were a good son, you would let your mother live in your mansion with you. OK. She lives with you now. What room would you give her. Would you make her live in the servant's quarters? I hope not! If you are a loving son, you will give her one of best rooms in the mansion, right next to yours. Now if you are married, you would probably not treat her higher than your own wife. But if you not were married, your mother would the woman would probably ne the closest to you, and your mother would be the queen of your mansion.

Remember, Jesus never married. Up until Jesus was thirty years old He was with His mother. Mary was always the woman in His life. He even went to weddings with His mother. Today, people would call Jesus a momma's boy - living with His mother until He was thirty, going to wedding parties with her. But in that Jewish culture, the Jews remembered the commandment "Honor Thy Father and Mother". They treated their mother as queens. In the Old Testament, the Jewish King had several wives, so he did not make any of his wives to be the queen. Instead, the Jewish kings made their mothers to be queens. That was the custom at the time. The mother of the king would be the queen.

Jesus was perfectly sinless. Jesus kept the Ten Commandments perfectly. No one else kept the commandments better than He. So when it says to "Honor Thy mother", He kept this commandment perfectly. No man ever honored His mother greater than He. So when Jesus ascended into glory, and His dear mother dies and goes to heaven, would He treat his own mother with less honor than you or I would treat our mothers. If we inherited a mansion, and would give our own mother the best room in the mansion, how can we expect Jesus to treat His own mother with less honor?

You are really insulting Jesus. You are saying that Jesus treats His mother less than how we would treat our own mother. This is a slap on the face to our Lord. How dare you say that Jesus did not perfectly keep the commandment to honor His mother! That would make him a breaker of one of the commandments, a sinner! May this never be! No man has ever honored His mother in a greater way than Jesus honored his own mother. And since I am called to imitate Jesus, I must strive to honor her as much as Jesus honors her. But I know that, since I am a terrible sinner, that I fall far short in honoring her perfectly, as Jesus honors her perfectly.

And the more I honor her, the more deeply I fall in love with Jesus. This is how I know this is not idolatry. True idolatry leads you away from Christ. But the more I honor Mary, the more I want to serve Christ with every aspect of my being.

 

[prophecy4]

I'll get back to that one in a little bit... i just have to get a few references for you...

 

[A. believer]

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.

Whoever said that a fertilized egg that hasn't attached to the uterine wall comes out with urination, certainly isn't infallible in regard to basic human biology!!! LOL

 

[Tyndale]

Are all the Roman Catholic Canons, creeds and Imprimatures infallible?

 

[a_ntv]

Are all the Roman Catholic Canons, creeds and Imprimatures infallible?

No.

Imprimatures (on books) are not at all infallible

The canons, technically the articles of the Canon (=Ecclesiastic) Law, are not infallible.

The CC have only the Creeds that cames from the I-IV century Church as all other Christians.