BAKERSTREET POSTS:
But doctrinally and morally the people who are in charge of the church have not been infallible.

Papal infallibility does not mean the the Pope cannot make a mistake or commit a sin, or that he can teach without error on any subject or that he is inspired by God.

It means that under certain conditions, very specific conditions the Pope when speaking officially, is preserved from error, namely:
When he speaks, ex cathedra, as shepherd and teacher of all Christians and as the successor of St. Peter.
When he defines a doctrine, , i.e. he makes it clear that the doctrine must be believed with a firm, interior assent of faith.
When the doctrine defined concerns faith and morals, when it belongs to the doctrinal teachings or the moral principles of the Catholic religion as found in Scripture and Tradition.
When he speaks to the whole Church intending to bind all its members throughout the world.

Unless all those conditions are met, the Pope is not speaking under the charism of infallibility.

To my knowledge, the last time that an infallible pronouncement was made was when Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, pronounced that the CC would not have any women priests.

Bakerstreet your statement is based on a common misunderstanding that infallibility (the inability to formally or officially teach error) equals impeccability (the inability to commit sin).

The Catholic doctrine of infallibility has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pope's state of sinfulness or sanctity. Papal infallibility is grounded on the principle of Christ being true to His promise to guide and protect the Church, in particularly through the ministry of St.Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome. St.Matt.16: 18-19; St. Luke 10:16. The sins any Pope commits do not negate the power of God's grace, through the Holy Spirit, to protect him from teaching error.

Every one desires certitude in regard to the important fundamentals to which only religion can supply the answers. In the CC, alone, will we find certitude in matters of faith and morals. Where there is certitude, there is unity in truth; unity in faith. That is one of the signs of the CC, one faith, one doctrine, one shepherd, one flock. The CC is a remarkable gift from God.

No, again, infallibility means:

1 : incapable of error : UNERRING
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

Your definition is just meant to leave a loophole so that when mistakes are made you can preserve the stigma of infallibility.

Again, may I say....there is no, not one, person that is infallible walking around on two legs. NO, NOT ONE!!

In all of history there was only one infallible man that walked this earth and he ended up on the cross. Other than that, you're wasting your time looking. It ain't gonna happen again.

Baker, your definition fits perfectly the only man that can claim infallibility.

KFC POSTS:
on that rock i shall build my church" line as referring to building it on the individual rather than the structure and organized hierarchal church that he tore down and stood against.

exactly....hey we agree on sumptin. I'd go one step further tho and say the church was built on HIM. He is the rock. Upon this rock.....himself. If you just take a concordance and look up rock you'd see especially in the Psalms God is always the rock. It's not Peter. It's not an institution. It's Christ. The church would be built based on the cofession of Peter. "You are the Christ, the son of the Living God." basically saying...."you are the rock."
--------------------------------------------------------

You are referring to St.Matt. 16:18-19 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kindgom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Many Protestants believe the 2 "rocks" in the Greek text have different meanings. "thou art Petros, and on this petra I will build my Church."
They believe Petros, the first "rock" refers to a small rock (Peter) and petra, the second "rock" means a massive boulder---either Jesus or Peter's confession of faith. This is what KFC has just laid out as an interpretation of this verse. Thus the argument concludes that Jesus did not build His Church upon Peter but upon Himself or Peter's Faith.

This is not how Catholics interpret this passage. Tim Staples from This Rock Magazine outlines 10 reasons why we believe that Peter is undeniably the rock of the Church.
I'll give only 2 for starters.

There is good evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. More importantly, and more certainly, Jesus would have spoken His discourse of Matthew 16 in Aramaic, not Greek. Although Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, most of the Jewish people Jesus spoke to were not fluent in it. They spoke Aramaic.

There is also Biblical evidence in St. John 1:42, that Jesus used Aramaic in the naming of Peter. [Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said,"So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic name Kepha, which simply means "rock". There was no small rock to be found in Jesus' original statement to Peter. Christ said, ""Thou art "Kepha", and upon this "Kepha", I will build My Church." The word was exactly the same of each occasion. And it was becasue Christ used the word "Kepha" that we sometimes find Peter called, "Cephas", a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic wrod itself. No argument from the forms employed in the Latin or Greek translations can avail. All reputable scholars today, both Catholic and Protestant agree on this point. Baptist scholar D.A. Carson writes: The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable' at most probably kepha was used in both clauses (you are "kepha", and "on this kepha") since the word was used both for the name and for a "rock".


And then we can look at masculine and feminine forms of the word. In Koine Greek (the dialect used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are the masculine and feminine form of a word with the same root and the same definition---"rock". Therefore, there is no "small rock" in the Greek text either. So why did Matthew use 2 different words for "rock" in the same verse?

Petra was a common word for "rock" in Greek. It is used 15 times to mean "rock", "rocks", or "rocky" in the NT. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never otherwise used in the NT except when Jesus changed Peter's name from Simon to Peter. It follows that when the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, petra would have been used for 'rock', but 'petra' is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter "petra" and so "petros", the masculine form was used for his name.

Speaking of names--------

A simpler line of reasoning is found in the context of the passage. Our Lord says to Peter, "Blessed are you....and I say to you, you are Peter....I will give you the keys to the kingdom......Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven." Jesus uses the word "you" 7 times in just 3 verses. It doesn't follow that Jesus would address so much of this passage to Peter, and then say, "But I will build my Church upon me." The context is clearly one in which Jesus is communicating a unique authority to Peter.

In addition, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, "I will build my Church." Jesus is "the wise man who built his house upon this rock." St. Matt. 7:24.

BAKERSTREET POSTS:
No, again, infallibility means:

1 : incapable of error : UNERRING
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

It looks to me as though your definintion #3 is the way I described the certain conditions for papal infallibility. Except I don't quite get the "touching" part of definition #3! Perhaps, you can clarify that?

Greek, petra would have been used for 'rock', but 'petra' is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter "petra" and so "petros", the masculine form was used for his name.

exactly. The feminine was used because the church is always used in the feminine form. The bride of Christ is feminine. The bride of Christ is the church. Petra is right.

Is that also why the feminine is also used for the "Whore of Babylon", KFC?

Is that also why the feminine is also used for the "Whore of Babylon", KFC?

and what's that supposed to mean? Are you getting cranky?

No, I just wondered if we are all talking about the same rock here, or at least which house is built on it...

oh, I thought you were getting cranky....since it's the time of the owls right now.

Lula and I disagree. She, of course, believes the confession of Peter in Matt 16 delegates Peter as the rock the church of Christ is built upon. This is the basis for the Catholic Church being the true church. I say no. The rock is Christ. The church is built upon the rock of Christ and the gates of Hell will not prevail. The only diff is I don't believe it's any man-made religion. The church is built up on the confession of Peter. Any that stand by Peter's confession belong to the church of God.

Lula, you should study or read two letters Paul wrote. One is Colossians which deals with the head of Christ. It's only 4 chapters. The other is Ephesians which deals with the body of Christ, which is the church. WE, the church, are his body. It's not a building. It's not a Pope. It's not a creed. It's his people. We are his body. We are the church.

As far as the whore of Babylon? Yes, she is depicted as a woman as well. She, in contrast to the true bride of Christ is found to be the adultress or the whore trying to take the bride away from her bridegroom. She is the mother of harlots. I take that to mean she gives birth to many that bear her likeness.

Who do you thing the Whore of Babylon is Baker?

I don't think there is such a thing. I know that I have heard it stated over and over, though, that it is the Catholic Church.

I'm hesitant to get into a discussion with you concerning "Indulgences" because you don't understand infallibility.....yet.

he understands it just fine...it is the CC that has tried to spin and twist the definition for it's own purposes. and your "superiority" pattern is consistant and very unchristian lula. quoting catholic spokespeople like tim staples hardly gives you a "higher understanding" of anything. i've read his stuff and many other writers who defend catholicism. need i remind you that i was raised catholic, did catholic school both in grammar school and a catholic university. your points are not new. his points are not new. they are merely parroted and rephrased preachings. i didn't buy em then, and i don't buy em now.

your definition of infallability is much like the rest of the CC's arguments. it's like trying to glue together a broken vase where all of the pieces don't quite fit right again and every once in awhile, in an attempt to force it back to a whole, it all comes crashing down again. the bible and the catholic church are both not of God. they are both man made things that man tries to represent as God. they have both been corrupted and in my view (which is all that counts as far as God and me are concerned) have little to do with God most of the time. there is only one place that you can find God, and it is within yourself. not in a book, not in a church, not from another man. to find God, one must have a personal relationship with him, not one proxied thru a priest. as far as God is concerned, a church or a priest is not only unnecessary, but a barrier when it comes to any sacrement or expression of love and devotion for God.

the fact is that Christ spent his life showing man just how corrupt and fallible any church of man is, and he tore it down. and i don't believe that he did it to start up his own corrupt corporation in his name. Christ represents the individual who believes in him. churches represent earthy powers of which God is dissinterested. the CC merely replaced the jewish temple that Christ tore down as earth's biggest misreprentation of God.

WE, the church, are his body. It's not a building. It's not a Pope. It's not a creed. It's his people. We are his body. We are the church.

yes, we do agree on something KFC,,,always good to find common ground:)

There is good evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic.

and there is good evidence it wasn't.

from wikepedia,,,

There are numerous testimonies, starting from Papias and Irenaeus, that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew letters, which is thought to refer to Aramaic. The 16th-century Erasmus was the first to express doubts on the subject of an original Aramaic or Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." Here Erasmus distinguishes between a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew letters and the partly lost Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, from which patristic writers do quote, and which appear to have some relationship to Matthew, but are not identical to it. The Gospel of the Ebionites also has a close relationship to the Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, and hence some connection to Matthew. The similarly named Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew has almost nothing to do with Matthew, however, and instead is a combination of two earlier infancy Gospels.

Most contemporary scholars, based on analysis of the Greek in the Gospel of Matthew and use of sources such as the Greek Gospel of Mark, conclude that the New Testament Book of Matthew was written originally in Greek and is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic.[2] If they are correct, then the Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome possibly referred to a document or documents distinct from the present Gospel of Matthew. A smaller number of scholars believe the ancient writings that Matthew was originally in Aramaic, arguing for Aramaic primacy. These scholars normally consider the Peshitta and Old Syriac versions of the New Testament closest to the original autographs.

Biblical scholar Stephen L. Harris of the Jesus Seminar mentions that the claims of Matthew Levi being the author could actually be references to "an early Christian, perhaps named Matthew, who assembled a list of messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible, a collection that the creator of our present gospel may have used."[9] The Jesus narrative would then have been assembled around these Tanakh (Old Testament) verses.

KFC Posted: Wednesday, January 31, 2007
The church would be built based on the cofession of Peter. "You are the Christ, the son of the Living God." basically saying...."you are the rock."
KFC Posted: Thursday, February 01, 2007
Lula and I disagree. She, of course, believes the confession of Peter in Matt 16 delegates Peter as the rock the church of Christ is built upon. This is the basis for the Catholic Church being the true church. I say no. The rock is Christ. The church is built upon the rock of Christ and the gates of Hell will not prevail. The only diff is I don't believe it's any man-made religion. The church is built up on the confession of Peter. Any that stand by Peter's confession belong to the church of God.

Yes, KFC, I say the primacy of St. Peter as the head , the "rock", of the early Church and which would later be called Catholic, was declared by Christ, in St. John 1:42, after Peter made his confession of faith. Jesus used Aramaic in the naming of Peter. Jesus looked at him and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter from the word for rock in Aramaic and Greek respectively).

"Cephas" is the Greek transcription of the Aramaic word meaning rock. St. John, writing in Greek, has to explain the meaning of the word Jesus used. Cephas was not a proper name, but Our Lord put it on Peter to indicate his new role as His vicar, which He will later on reveal St.Matt. 16: 16-18. And although he didn't know it at the time, Simon was destined from that moment to be the rock of the Church.....and indeed, he was.

The solemn Magisterium of the Church, in the FIrst Vatican Council, solemnly defined the doctrine of the primacy of Peter and his successors in these terms:

"We teach and declare, therefore, according to the testimony of the Gospel that the primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church was immediately and directly promised to and conferred upon the Blessed Apostle Peter by Christ the Lord. For to Simon, Christ had said, "You shall be called Cephas. Then after Simon had acknowledged Christ with the confession, You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God, St.Matt.16:16, it was to Simon alone that the solemn words were spoken by the Lord: "Blessed are you Simon Bar Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church and the powers of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. St.Matt. 16:17-19.
After His Resurrection, Jesus conferred upon Simon Peter alone the jurisdiction of shepherd and ruler over His whole fold with the words, "Feed my lambs.....feed my sheep." St.John 21:15-17.
"(Canon) Therfore, if anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ the Lord as the prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church Militant, or that he received immediately and directly from Jesus Christ Our Lord only a primacy of honour and not a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction: let him be condemned."



"Now, what Christ the Lord, Supreme Shepherd, and watchful guardian of the flock, established in the person of the Blessed Apostle Peter for the perpetual safety and everlasting good of the Church must, by the will of the same, endure without interruption in the Church which was founded on the rock and which will remain firm until the end of the world. Indeed, no one doubts, in fact it is obvious to all ages, that the holy and most Blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, the pillar of faith, and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour, and Redeemer of the human race; and even to this time and forever he lives and governs, and exercises judgment in his successors (Council of Ephesus), the bishops of the holy Roman See, which he established and consecrated with his blood. Therefore, whoever succeeds Peter in this Chair hold's Peter's primacy over the whole Church according to the plan of Christ Himself. For this reason, "because of its greater sovereignty', it was always necessary for every church, that is the faithful who are everywhere, to be in agreement with the same Roman Church......
"(Canon) Therfore, if anyone says that it is not according to the institution of Christ our Lord, Himself, that is, by divine law, that St.Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy of the whole Church; or if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of St. Peter in the same primacy: let him be condemned.


We think it extremely necessary to assert solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God deigned to join to the highest pastoral office. "And so, faithfully keeping to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian Faith, for the glory of God the Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of Christian peoples, We, with the approval of the sacred council, teach and define, that it is a divinely revealed dogma; that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, in infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His CHurch to be endowed in defining doctrine concering faith and morals; and that such definitions of the Rman Pontiff are therefore irreformable becasue of their nature, but not becasue of the agreement of the Church.
"(Canon) But if anyone presumes to contradict this our definition (God forbid that he do so): let him be condemned" Vat. I, Pastor aeternus, chaps. 1,2 and 4.

The solemn Magisterium of the Church, in the FIrst Vatican Council, solemnly defined the doctrine of the primacy of Peter and his successors in these terms:

just men claiming to speak for God. and how convenient that they "divinely" decided that they themselves should have all the power, lmao!