Originally posted by Rajk999Of what? That there was a Jesus? That what is written in the Gospels are his words? That He was the Son of God?
They say that, but is there some proof ?
ALL Christians believe those. I don't know as much about the line of succession immediately after Peter, but I'm pretty sure the line of Popes can be historically traced to 150 AD at least.
If you're a Christian, I don't see how the idea of Papal Infallibility can be absurd. One might think it wrong, but as I said, the idea of the Holy Spirit protecting some from error is ingrained in Christian thought from the early Christian era.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou know exactly what proof I am looking for and yet you are pretending not to know. Its proof that PETER WAS THE FIRST HEAD OF THE ROC!
Of what? That there was a Jesus? That what is written in the Gospels are his words? That He was the Son of God?
ALL Christians believe those. I don't know as much about the line of succession immediately after Peter, but I'm pretty sure the line of Popes can be historically traced to 150 AD at least.
If you're a Christian, I don't see ...[text shortened]... t protecting some from error is ingrained in Christian thought from the early Christian era.
Papal infallibility is a belief held ONLY by Catholics.
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999The Bible says that in Acts, I believe.
You know exactly what proof I am looking for and yet you are pretending not to know. Its proof that PETER WAS THE FIRST HEAD OF THE ROC!
Papal infallibility is a belief held ONLY by Catholics.
Unsuprisingly only the RCC believes that the head of the RCC is infallible on doctrinal matters. Point? A majority of Christians on planet Earth belong to the RCC.
Originally posted by no1marauderReally?
The Bible says that in Acts, I believe.
Unsuprisingly only the RCC believes that the head of the RCC is infallible on doctrinal matters. Point? A majority of Christians on planet Earth belong to the RCC.
I'm not questioning you, I've just never thought about the stats before. I always imagined there was enough Orthodox and Protestant Christians to make up a hefty percentage.
Know anywhere where I can find some stats?
4 edits
Originally posted by orfeohttp://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm
Really?
I'm not questioning you, I've just never thought about the stats before. I always imagined there was enough Orthodox and Protestant Christians to make up a hefty percentage.
Know anywhere where I can find some stats?
Barnet's World Christian Encyclopedia is widely considered the best source for these types of numbers; here he gives a figure of about 1.9 billion Christians with about 1.05 billion (or 55% belong to the RCC in 2000. The CIA World factbook gives similar numbers, stating that Christians make up close to 33% of the World's population and Catholics are 17% (or slightly over 50% of Christians).
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThat sure is a lot of misguided people. I mean, think about it...Over a billion people think that there is a man who, by virtue of being elected by a vote, speaks infallibly on the subject of God.
http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm
Barnet's World Christian Encyclopedia is widely considered the best source for these types of numbers; here he gives a figure of about 1.9 billion Christians with about 1.05 billion (or 55% belong to the RCC in 2000. The CIA World factbook gives similar numbers, stat ...[text shortened]... e to 33% of the World's population and Catholics are 17% (or slightly over 50% of Christians).
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesA) Would it make any difference if he was elected by lot? Those who believe that he is infallible on pronouncing Church dogma believe it because of his position as Head of the Church; he could be picked by winning the World Series of Poker and it wouldn't make any difference.
That sure is a lot of misguided people. I mean, think about it...Over a billion people think that there is a man who, by virtue of being elected by a vote, speaks infallibly on the subject of God.
B) What makes you think that all members of the RCC believe in Papal Infallibility?
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's what makes it so absurd. Objectively, he's just some guy. Those who attribute infallibility to him do so purely on speculation that he is the rightful successor to Peter. There is no evidence to indicate that he is a continuation of the rock that Jesus spoke of.
A) Would it make any difference if he was elected by lot? Those who believe that he is infallible on pronouncing Church dogma believe it because of his position as Head of the Church; he could be picked by winning the World Series of Poker and it wouldn't make any difference.
And the whole chain is nonsense anyway, since the NT was written by and for Catholics. They made up the rules; they didn't observe them. Jesus probably never actually spoke of any rock, and he almost certainly didn't envision one being propogated throughout the ages by vote.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt's not like getting a drivers license; you don't have to pass a written test. I was raised in the RCC and went to Catholic schools; I never met a Catholic who actually believed in Papal Infallibility. I'm not sure if they ever took a worldwide poll, but I have my doubts whether most Catholics do.
Isn't it a part of the required, non-negotiable dogma?
Originally posted by no1marauderThen in my book, they're not really Catholics. They just call themselves by that name. It's all more Simon Says. "We are Catholics, but we don't really believe in Catholic doctrine."
It's not like getting a drivers license; you don't have to pass a written test. I was raised in the RCC and went to Catholic schools; I never met a Catholic who actually believed in Papal Infallibility. I'm not sure if they ever took a worldwide poll, but I have my doubts whether most Catholics do.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThere's a certain amount of written historial evidence that Peter was head of the Church of Rome. There's certain historical written evidence on who his successors were. There's not much doubt about the names after say 150 AD at the latest. So I think your statement is incorrect.
That's what makes it so absurd. Objectively, he's just some guy. Those who attribute infallibility to him do so purely on speculation that he is the rightful successor to Peter. There is no evidence to indicate that he is a continuation of the rock that Jesus spoke of.
And the whole chain is nonsense anyway, since the NT was written by and for Catholics. They made up the rules; they didn't observe them.
Yes, the NT was written by Christians; who would you have expected to write it? More importantly, Christians believe that the decision on what writings went in the NT (there were hundreds of early Christian writings) was made by a Council under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit. IF the Holy Spirit can guide a group of men in deciding what becomes infallible and inerrant Scripture, why can't the Holy Spirit guide a man who is the head of God's Church to make infallible doctrine?
You have to think "inside the [Christian] box" for it to make sense. But once you accept the basic premises. it's somewhat logical. Of course, you can (and should) disagree with the basic premises, but other Christians don't but want to mock the very idea of Papal Infallibility while insisting on Biblical Inerrancy, for example. But they are both ideas that come from the same premise.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles(Shrug) You sound like RBHILL. I don't think it's a requirement to accept or perform the sacraments or take part in a Catholic Mass that you believe in Papal Infallibility. Nobody ever asked me at the door or while they were handing out the wafers at Communion.
Then in my book, they're not really Catholics. They just call themselves by that name. It's all more Simon Says. "We are Catholics, but we don't really believe in Catholic doctrine."