You can have a family and fully benefit the church and it’s people. My pastor, for example, does such. You need time management skills. Not everyone can do it, that’s why not everyone is a pastor/priest or even the pope.

How are you supposed to vote for something if you don’t have a personal opinion? For example, voting for a Prime Minister means YOU think he is the best person to run the country, and YOU like him best. It’s YOU who likes him. And it’s YOU who votes for the PM. Same with voting for the Pope. It’s their own personal opinions. That’s a bias.

Gary,
Where in the Bible does it say the pope is infallible?

I have to disagree with you. Papal infallibility is much more than a theory, it is a promise of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If we can’t believe His promises, who can you believe? It is also one of the de fide (mandatory) doctrines of the Catholic Church. To reject it is to reject Catholicism.

Some of the statements you made make me think that you have some misunderstandings of what papal infallibility means. It does not mean that everything the pope says or does is correct. For example, I disagree with the late Pope John Paul II about the war in Iraq but this was his political opinion and those are not considered to be infallible.

In order for a statement to be considered infallible, three conditions must be met:

1) The statement must be regarding doctrines or moral issues. If he makes a political statement, he can make an error.

2) The statement must be intended for the entire Catholic Church, not just a portion of it.

3) The pope must declare that it is his intention that the statement is to be considered infallible. The pope is free to express an opinion, even on matters of doctrine or morals, that is not to be taken as infallible.

Can you give an example of what you were referring to when you said, “There have been times in the past when the pope has made a false statement that has affected the church….”

I think that is a cowardly point to say that people listened to Hitler. The Pope is far different from Hitler. And even to say that is usually because you have nothing else to say but you stil want a reaction. What do you honestly expect me to say to that?

No you do not need to spend all your time with God to be close to him…..that is not what I said. But if you do, than you will be EVEN closer to him. If you have a family than ofcourse God wants you to take care of them and that is one of his works.
But to fully benefit the church and its people, no family provides more time.

Ummm…you asked what voting isn’t brutal and aggressive. Well I think the answer to that would be things like voting for the pope. After all we are talking about cardinals here.

And as for personal bias. That is not the case when you are given the responsibility of representing the opinion of the entire church. You learn to set that aside.

Alot of people listened to and loved Hitler…

I don’t think you need to spend ALL your time with God to be really close to him. All your time should be devoted to God (ex. doing things you know he would approve of, evangelizing, being with your family). And of course God wouldn’t want you to neglect your family. But being close to God doesn’t mean neglecting stuff like that. It means putting him first.

Fist of all, ALL voting is based on your OWN PERSONAL bias. You can’t deny that. And second of all, what human voting process isn’t brutal and agressive?

And bassically ALL I’ve been trying to say about papal infallibility is that it isn’t 100% truth 100% of the time. Which you just admitted. So…why are you arguing with me?

I did find it funny that you said. “if the pope was free from error wouldn’t people listen to him?” Are you kidding me? All catholics listen to the pope, and that alone is alot of people. Infact, there are more catholics than there are all the protestants put together. On top of that, many protestants listen to him with a great amount of respect and also non-believers. All these put together makes a lot of people who listen to the pope. So I just thought that was a funny statement.

You said that you have to be with someone 24/7 to know how close they are to God. Well i know that if he spends his time 24/7 just with God, than he isn’t being fair to his family. And God wouldn’t want that either. The pope has no family or wife or other job or anything. He spends his whole life 24/7 just with God.

The pope is the church member who takes care of the churches political issues. The cardinals(thats what they are called) vote on the cardinal who will suit the job best, not who they like best. Now I want to know where you got the idea that the voting process between cardinals is agressive and brutal. Somehow I think you made that up.

The church is not perfect and so popes in the past have been fallible but like I said it is more of a theory than a 100% truth.

And how can you know that the Pope is closer to God than my pastor. Even I don’t know that. You have to be with someone 24/7 to know how close they are to God.

And just because the Pope has to go through a huge long process to get where he is doesn’t mean he’s closer to God. And it doesn’t mean he is protected from error. And it doesn’t mean he is holy or better than my pastor or anyone else.

The Church is led by men not by God. If the Church was led by God it would be perfect but it’s not. In the same way, the Pope is elected by men not by God. People who are the top dogs of the Catholic church (I don’t know what they are called) vote on who they like better and sometimes it’s rather agressive. I don’t think elections are from God to be honest. Even in the Church it can get rather brutal. The Pope is elected by who those people like best, not always who God likes best.

If the Pope was protected from error the Catholic church would be perfect. It’s not. I’m not here to point out all the flaws (Protestant churches have flaws) but don’t you think if he was protected from all error involving faith and what not, wouldn’t the Catholic church be perfect?

In this case I wouldn’t expect you to beleive in papal infallibility.

Why is birth control a sin?

I’ve never really like Tony Campolo. Alot of the things he has to say are pretty sketchy; like you can’t be a Christian if you are rich.

Define Evangelicalism please.

Nobody is protected from error. Not me, not you and not the Pope. Not even the Apostles were completely protected from error.

I don’t believe in papal infallibility.

You happen to insult me too, by the way. And I don’t want you to pray for me.

I already said that the Bible says not to murder but, while I agree with you that a fetus is a human being, the Bible does not say that it is so. And, sadly, many Christians don’t believe that abortion is wrong. I knew this girl who was an Evangelical and protested at abortion clinics on Saturdays. When she became pregnant she asked me if I thought it would be OK if she had the baby aborted. She thought it would be OK because a pregnancy would ruin her figure.

Prior to 1930, every single Christian church taught that artificial birth control was a sin. In 1930 the Anglicans decided that it was permissible in some circumstances such as for the health of the mother. Now the Catholic Church is the only church that still holds up the truth on this issue.

When I was an Evangelical Tony Campolo was a rising star. Everyone was reading his books and, for the most part, they were pretty good. Shortly after I returned to Catholicism Campolo announced that he now believed that the Bible taught that the homosexual lifestyle was just as valid as the heterosexual lifestyle. In other words, there was nothing wrong with gay sex.

Thee are just a couple of examples of how Evangelicalism has either completely gone down the wrong path or is on its way.

If you do not believe that anyone has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit that they would be protected from error, then your argument is with Jesus and the Bible, not me. I’m not the one that came up with the idea. I’ve showed you where Scripture teaches it, I can’t force you to believe what the Bible says.

Although I didn’t go into detail the last time I wrote you, I did mention that papal infallibility depended on certain conditions being met. I gave the conditions when I wrote to Tasha so I won’t repeat them here. No one claims that the Pope is always right. In fact the First Vatican Council in 1871 was held, in part, because a group called the Ultramontanes had formed and taught that everything the pope said was infallible. The Council was held to refute that error.

I don’t agree with everything the pope says. Pope John Paul II said that he did not believe that the war in Iraq met the standards to be considered a just war. I believe that it does meet those standards. The matter is a political issue, not a matter of faith or morals, so I am free to disagree with the pope.

I never said that I believed the bishops were God. Heck, there are a few that I don’t even consider to be godly. I also don’t believe what I have stated because of what they told me; I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church because they are consistent with what the Bible says. When I returned to the Catholic Church I didn’t talk to a single bishop or even a priest. I did do quite a lot of reading on why the Catholic Church taught what it taught and discovered, much to my surprise since I wasn’t expecting this to be the case, that the teachings of the Catholic Church were completely consistent with Scripture. Although Evangelicalism is largely consistent with the Bible, there are some problems.

It is my usual practice to start responding as I read a post just because it helps me keep my thoughts clear. I must say that I was shocked by the judgmental attitude you displayed in your final paragraph. You have completely misjudged me. I certainly have not spent all this time responding to you to prove I am right. I have much better things to do than that. I spent all this time because I believed you to be an honest seeker of the truth. I claim no credit for the truths which I have spoken about here. They are the truths which the Catholic Church has taught since the day of Pentecost. If you are going to respond with insults, I see no point in continuing this discussion. I will continue to pray for you especially that He will be able to show you the truth.