The Pope Is Not Infallible Because He Has Not Decreed On Genesis

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='01 November 2009 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1257091563' post='1994803']
I would think that any time the Spirit inspires, that's divine inspiration, unless it's an evil spirit…

I'm not sure how else you'd define it? The Pope just made a really good guess and God decided to give it to him? If you're going to insist that the truth is the truth and that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he's speaking the absolute truth, either God inspired him or the Pope is God.
[/quote]

The Gospel of St. John is the word of God. [i]Pastor Aeternus[/i] (the Vatican I document that defined papal infallibility as a dogma), while infallible, is not the word of God.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='01 November 2009 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1257096542' post='1994823']
The Gospel of St. John is the word of God. [i]Pastor Aeternus[/i] (the Vatican I document that defined papal infallibility as a dogma), while infallible, is not the word of God.
[/quote]
God's inspiration doesn't have to only be his word. I didn't say the Pope was his mouthpiece, but you'd think with something as important as eternal truth, God would want some say in the wording.

[Winchester]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='31 October 2009 - 07:11 PM' timestamp='1257034310' post='1994621']
Theoretically, he should be able to define something like this infallibly. There has to be one true way man came to be, right? If the Holy Spirit so chose, couldn't he inspire the Pope to let us know what the truth is?
[/quote]
Infallibility isn't revelatory, it's merely a preventative thing. If the pope never said anything, it wouldn't disprove infallibility.

[Vincent Vega]

I missed the meeting where we decided evolution was a matter pertaining to Faith.

[Winchester]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='01 November 2009 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1257130221' post='1995038']
I missed the meeting where we decided evolution was a matter pertaining to Faith.
[/quote]
It's because you weren't invited. I spoke up for you, but the vote was clearly against.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='mortify' date='01 November 2009 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1257092393' post='1994807']
It's really for the same reason the Supreme Court doesn't try all cases. Not all theological disputes need to judged by the highest authority, not all theological disputes affect our eternal salvation and so a diversity of opinion is tolerable, and some are over mysteries that can't be defined further. Whether Adam was immediately created from the slime of the earth, or there were millions of evolving intermediaries, doesn't affect our salvation so long as we acknowledge God is our Creator, and that He created the souls of the first man and woman ex nihilo.
[/quote]

fair enough. i would agree evolution isn't a big deal. but there's other issues i was getting distracted on. he definitel doesnt define enough. even the supreme court takes many cases a year. the pope might address new issues, and if he does, he hardly ever does infallibly. (without getting into the 'ex cathedra' v. 'ordinary magisterium' extraordinary etc distinctions (and what i call the 'bunny from the hat' decrees))

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='02 November 2009 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1257199470' post='1995408']
fair enough. i would agree evolution isn't a big deal. but there's other issues i was getting distracted on. he definitel doesnt define enough. even the supreme court takes many cases a year. the pope might address new issues, and if he does, he hardly ever does infallibly. (without getting into the 'ex cathedra' v. 'ordinary magisterium' extraordinary etc distinctions (and what i call the 'bunny from the hat' decrees))
[/quote]
That is what I call "typical ignorance of theology and history" decrees.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Winchester

[Guest Tony Atonement]

Furthermore, the issue of evolution is very minor compared to the substantial divisive topics of salvation, authority, Revelation, etc.
[/quote]


I would say the issue of evolution, which is nothing more than a fairy tale for adults and "science falsely so-called" per 1 Tim 6:20, is an extremely important enemy that needs to be dealt with, if for no other reason that the very first sentence in the Bible demands it. Suffice it to say that God is not going to unlock the secrets of His creative prowess to athiest Charles Darwin, so Christians can then follow him like the pied piper. Even a superficial reading of the account in Genesis 1 & 2 impresses the reader with the idea of "suddenness". God simply called the universe into existence from nothing, all "by the breath of His mouth" (Ps 33:6), "so that the things that are seen, were NOT made of things which do appear" (Heb11:3). All theories of evolution, whatever form they take, posit some sort of glob in space that one day exploded to created everything we see today. But the book of Hebrews will not permit it.

[Nihil Obstat]

Evolution ≠ Big Bang Theory, aka The Horrendous Space Kablooie

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='Winchester' date='01 November 2009 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1257125093' post='1994980']
Infallibility isn't revelatory, it's merely a preventative thing. If the pope never said anything, it wouldn't disprove infallibility.
[/quote]


No where in the official definition of infallibility at V-1 do we read that it is merely a "preventative". You are creating concepts of your own and pulling them like a rabbit out of a hat. It most definitely is something that is considered revelatory. Second, if he never once spoke "infallibly" after it was officially defined, I venture to say no one would believe it--or else, why should it even exist and why did the God of Catholicism waste His time putting it on your plate for consumption? To refute me, you'd have to submit a doctrine of your church that has been defined and has never been used once. I say you can't do it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Tony Atonement' date='24 November 2009 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1259095635' post='2008652']
Furthermore, the issue of evolution is very minor compared to the substantial divisive topics of salvation, authority, Revelation, etc.
[/quote]


I would say the issue of evolution, which is nothing more than a fairy tale for adults and "science falsely so-called" per 1 Tim 6:20, is an extremely important enemy that needs to be dealt with, if for no other reason that the very first sentence in the Bible demands it. Suffice it to say that God is not going to unlock the secrets of His creative prowess to athiest Charles Darwin, so Christians can then follow him like the pied piper. Even a superficial reading of the account in Genesis 1 & 2 impresses the reader with the idea of "suddenness". God simply called the universe into existence from nothing, all "by the breath of His mouth" (Ps 33:6), "so that the things that are seen, were NOT made of things which do appear" (Heb11:3). All theories of evolution, whatever form they take, posit some sort of glob in space that one day exploded to created everything we see today. But the book of Hebrews will not permit it.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]
THe Big Bang theory is Catholic: and God said Let there be Light...[/color]

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='24 November 2009 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1259120219' post='2008994']
I would say the issue of evolution, which is nothing more than a fairy tale for adults and "science falsely so-called" per 1 Tim 6:20, is an extremely important enemy that needs to be dealt with, if for no other reason that the very first sentence in the Bible demands it. Suffice it to say that God is not going to unlock the secrets of His creative prowess to athiest Charles Darwin, so Christians can then follow him like the pied piper. Even a superficial reading of the account in Genesis 1 & 2 impresses the reader with the idea of "suddenness". God simply called the universe into existence from nothing, all "by the breath of His mouth" (Ps 33:6), "so that the things that are seen, were NOT made of things which do appear" (Heb11:3). All theories of evolution, whatever form they take, posit some sort of glob in space that one day exploded to created everything we see today. But the book of Hebrews will not permit it.
[/quote]
[color="#0000ff"]
THe Big Bang theory is Catholic: and God said Let there be Light...[/color]
[/quote]


On the contrary, the Big Bang is athiestic in nature and origin, made popular by the Christ-hating Mr. Darwin.

If on the other hand, you are being facetious by saying, "God created, and BANG! it was done", then you would be correct according to Ps 33:6 & 9.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Tony Atonement' date='25 November 2009 - 07:34 AM' timestamp='1259152497' post='2009167']

On the contrary, the Big Bang is athiestic in nature and origin, made popular by the Christ-hating Mr. Darwin.

If on the other hand, you are being facetious by saying, "God created, and BANG! it was done", then you would be correct according to Ps 33:6 & 9.
[/quote]
Who first proposed the big bang?

Edited November 25, 2009 by Winchester

[Nihil Obstat]

Ooh ooh, I know this one!

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='Winchester' date='25 November 2009 - 09:42 AM' timestamp='1259160171' post='2009186']
Who first proposed the big bang?
[/quote]


On second thought, I was referring to Darwin being the athiest in regard to promoting evolution, not the Big B. As far as I know, one of the first to promote BB was the man with the telescope name: Hubble, and a Catholic priest, George something. In any case, both concepts are unbiblical.

[Nihil Obstat]

I assume that you're geocentrist too, right? By your apparent definitions, heliocentrism is unbiblical too.

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 November 2009 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1259167371' post='2009245']
I assume that you're geocentrist too, right? By your apparent definitions, heliocentrism is unbiblical too.
[/quote]

Whether one is Geo or Helio does not have anything to do with the fact that God [i]created[/i], out of nothing, all that we see, and did not use the mythological process of evolution TO create. Why you asked the question I have no idea since it doesn't relate to the immediate subject. But since you brought it up, I noticed you conveniently forgot to mention that the Roman Catholic Church condemned Galileo for holding to the mobility of the earth and the helio view. Cardinal Bellarmine, whom RC's consider a saint, brought the aged Galileo before "the catholic court" and demanded he, in the name of the Pope and under pain of imprisonment, to renounce this belief. Needless to say, the church of Gali's time were wrong in their opinions on astronomy which they imagined they had derived from the Bible, just as they are today by their giving lip service to evolution. The big-wigs of Gali's day (the Cardinals appointed by the Pope) blasted the mobility of the earth as being "against Scripture".
The most recent article I happened to see the other day are those at the Pontifical Acadamy of Science and their relentless search for aliens and their desire to convert them to Catholicism. God has dulled the minds of these men for sure as their "search and convert" manifesto is a waste of time. It was also inexcuseable for them when they categorically refused to invite even ONE Creation scientist to sit in on their last little get-together, so strong is their adherance to evolution.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Tony Atonement' date='25 November 2009 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1259180503' post='2009366']
Whether one is Geo or Helio does not have anything to do with the fact that God [i]created[/i], out of nothing, all that we see, and did not use the mythological process of evolution TO create. Why you asked the question I have no idea since it doesn't relate to the immediate subject. But since you brought it up, I noticed you conveniently forgot to mention that the Roman Catholic Church condemned Galileo for holding to the mobility of the earth and the helio view. Cardinal Bellarmine, whom RC's consider a saint, brought the aged Galileo before "the catholic court" and demanded he, in the name of the Pope and under pain of imprisonment, to renounce this belief. Needless to say, the church of Gali's time were wrong in their opinions on astronomy which they imagined they had derived from the Bible, just as they are today by their giving lip service to evolution. The big-wigs of Gali's day (the Cardinals appointed by the Pope) blasted the mobility of the earth as being "against Scripture".
The most recent article I happened to see the other day are those at the Pontifical Acadamy of Science and their relentless search for aliens and their desire to convert them to Catholicism. God has dulled the minds of these men for sure as their "search and convert" manifesto is a waste of time. It was also inexcuseable for them when they categorically refused to invite even ONE Creation scientist to sit in on their last little get-together, so strong is their adherance to evolution.
[/quote]
The Galileo question has been done to death. If you're an intellectual as you present yourself to be, you shouldn't even bring up such an irrelevant subject.

I bring up geo/heliocentrism because of these verses:
(I think these are KJV quotations, which I don't like, but I'll use them anyway right now because I don't have time to find them all elsewhere.)

[quote]ECCLESIASTES 1:4-7
4 One generation passeth away...cometh, but the earth abideth for ever.
5 The sun also ariseth...goeth down
6 The wind goeth...returneth
7 All the rivers run...return again.[/quote]
[quote] Genesis 15:12,17 says, “And when the sun was going down” and “when the sun went down.” Psalms 104:19 says, “the sun knoweth his going down.”[/quote]
[quote]Malachi 4:2 says, "But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings. "If the Sun doesn't really move (rise), then the Son hasn't risen. Judges 9:33 says, "...as soon as the sun is up, thou shalt rise early, and set upon the city..."[/quote]

So why is this relevant, you asked? Well your view of the Horrendous Space Kablooie being unbiblical is founded upon a single verse. If you take that single verse purely at its face value, as you have done, then for the sake of consistency, you're also forced into geocentrism. Using the Bible in this way makes geocentrism even more sure than the lack of a Horrendous Space Kablooie.

For the record, I am not geocentrist. I took these Bible verses from a site that is.

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 November 2009 - 03:29 PM' timestamp='1259180988' post='2009372']
The Galileo question has been done to death. If you're an intellectual as you present yourself to be, you shouldn't even bring up such an irrelevant subject.

I bring up geo/heliocentrism because of these verses:
(I think these are KJV quotations, which I don't like, but I'll use them anyway right now because I don't have time to find them all elsewhere.)
[/quote]


I may be a dumb bunny, but I still fail to see what a geo/helio view has to do with the topic of this thread and don't understand how a Geo view is either for or against the book of Hebrews. The topic was somebody suggesting the pope was not infallible because he's remained silent on Genesis. While I didn't comment initially on the issue of infallibility, I [i]did[/i] mention Hebrews 11:3 which a layman can read without the assistance of the pope and conclude that what we see all around us was not made by things which do "appear"---eliminating once and for all the alleged big "Kablookie" that all Big Bangers say [i]had[/i] to exist somewhere up there for it to suddenly "explode" and make what we see today. I wonder why the simplicity of the verse does not attract you? I wonder what does God have to say to convince you of anything? You want people to understand YOU when you speak. Why will you not let Him who made you have the same liberty? When He says something once, you doubt it. When He says something numerous times--- like "all have sinned", you make Mary an exception to this and conclude He didn't mean what He said the first time. There's [i]always[/i] a caveat in Catholic theology, which is what makes Catholicism so frustrating. Whatever happened to the "simplicity that is in Christ"? (2 Cor 11:3).

Anyway, I entirely disagree with you that the Galileo episode is irrelevant. Mr. G believed the Scriptures, and what it is that I think you don't want to face is that a mere "Bible believer" could have been right, over and above all the hot air being blown out of the hierarchy. Hot air being defined as the Bull of Sixtus V who told his cardinals

"to examine and expose the books which are repugnant to the Catholic [u]doctrines[/u] and Christian discipline, and after reporting them to us, they are to condemn them by our authority" (i.e., making it clear that they thought the motion of the earth and the fixity of the sun was a [i]doctrine[/i] contrary to Holy Writ). They were wrong! Later, Pope Urban ordered the sentence of Galileo be distributed to all "apostolic nuncios" and "Florentine Inquisitors of heretical pravity" ---to the end that, "so pernicious a [u]doctrine[/u] as that [of Copernicas & Galileo] might be altogether taken away and spread no further to the heavy detriment of the Catholic faith." Again, they were wrong. And still later, Pope Alexander VII republished the previous decrees against the "doctrine" of the mobility of the earth, and lo and behold, he was wrong too. Protestants thank God for this episode in history because it shows that for all the yada-yada about "Holy Mother Church being able to judge the true sense of Scripture"---here we see it was a LAYMEN who triumphed over the hierarchy, and we too will not be intimidated by them either.


Apparently JP II would not agree with your opinion that the Galilean episode was irrelevant---as he went out of his way to issue a world-wide apology about 10 years ago.

[Nihil Obstat]

Swing and a miss. You bypassed my point entirely.


This happens to me a lot lately.