Construction of Image of the Beast in Australia

[Dawn]

The Roman Catholic Church refuses to admit any culpability for the Inquisitions -

Untrue:

Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.”  (John Paul II)

On the contrary, the RCC is investigating what the truth of the situation really is (or rather was) before confessing something it didn't do:

The question, which involves the cultural context and political ideas of the time, is precisely theological in origin and presupposes an outlook of faith regarding the essence of the Church 'and the Gospel requirements that govern her life. The Church's Magisterium certainly cannot perform an ethical act, such as asking for forgiveness, without first being accurately informed about the situation at the time. Nor can it be based on the images of the past spread by public opinion, since they are often charged with an intense emotionalism that prevents calm, objective analysis. If the Magisterium does not bear this in mind, it would fail in its fundamental duty of respecting the truth. That is why the first step is to question historians, who are not asked to make an ethical judgement, which would exceed their sphere of competence, but to help in the most precise reconstruction possible of the events, customs and mentality of the time, in the light of the era's historical context. (Pope John Paul II, 2000)

The way the RCC works may seem slow, getting it right is more important than acting quickly.

Thanks Ebia for posting this - here we have the Roman Catholic Church still refusing to admit culpability until an 'investigation' is conducted - with a passing remark from Pope John Paul II that already lays the blame onto Catholic individuals - rather than accepting responsibility for official Church edicts - Rome has 'profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face'. Does that include the Popes? Because if it does then the entire Church has been built upon the lie of Papal infallibility.

The Roman Catholic Church is investigating - does it seem to act slow? - indeed its only taken a couple of hundred years to conduct an 'investigation' and ask for forgiveness.  

'Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein...' Proverbs 26:27. And Rome just keeps on digging - with farce after farce!. In defense of Church dogma, Pope Urban VIII (1623-44) threatened an elderly Galileo with torture and death if he would not renounce his claim that the earth revolved around the sun. Declaring that this belief was contrary to Scripture, the Pope had Galileo in fear of his life and recanting of this 'heresy' before the Holy Office of the Inquisition. This view of the world remained official Catholic dogma for centuries, with infallible pope after infallible pope affirming it - the earth was at the centre of the universe and the sun revolved around it.

The Roman Catholic Church - the world's largest Flat Earth Society!!

It was not until 1992 that the Vatican, after a 14 month 'investigation', finally admitted that Galileo had indeed been right! That admission was an acknowledgment that the many popes were indeed fallible being capable of making false interpretations of Scripture.

No wonder Vatican II limits its endorsement of biblical inerrancy to matters of faith and morals. The magisterium and Pope, who claim to be infallible and the only authentic interpretator of Scripture - is obviously far from infallible.

Now here we go again! - the Vatican is finally conducting another 'investigation' hundreds of years after the fact - to 'discover' something that the rest of the world and academia have known for hundreds of years - the Inquisitions and the slaughter of saints sanctioned by the Roman Church.

But 'The Church's Magisterium certainly cannot perform an ethical act, such as asking for forgiveness, without first being accurately informed about the situation at the time'

The wolf is conducting an investigation into why the flock has been butchered!!! Honestly you have to be either completely gullible or confused to keep believing Rome.

Indeed the Roman Catholic Church should know all about the situation.

[Dawn]

Dawn,

You asked me a question which I answered, albeit it's one we will simply have to disagree upon. I still however would like to hear you answer my question from an earlier post...

Who and/or what then actually decided which scriptures were in fact 'pure' enough in properly relaying God's Word? And since nothing less than the fate of our very souls hangs in the singular act of properly interpreting it, how do you know you are in fact doing this? Doctrine, interpretation, belief, lifestyle and ultimately salvation itself are wrapped up in understanding it correctly. How do you know you are right, and they are wrong?  
 

Corpus - I think there may be many points that we may have to just disagree on!

If you are genuinely interested in my perspective then I would be happy to converse on the issue and the above question - but I am getting tired of the fruitless point scoring that has been going on.

Perhaps the question of interpretation and canoicity should be started as a new thread under another category - instead of End Time/prophecy?

Do you want the short answer? Essentially your question is how these books came to be collected and how they came to be regarded as 'pure' and of equal authority with the OT.

Both Roman and Protestant creeds have God for the author of the OT and NT. The Roman Church holds apparently that church decision or pronouncement is the criterion of inspiration and canonicity.

From the Zondervan Encyclopedia, Zondervan Publishing House Grand Rapids Michigan 1976 Vol. 1 pp. 556-562 '...the apostolic epistles would be publicly read to provide an answer to the many problems which would constantly arise. This importance attached to apostolic witnesses is significant in the whole history of NT canonicity and maybe regarded as its real key. The basis for the NT canon was the testimony of the gospels and of the apostles. These were the authorities for the teaching of Christ and His immediate authorized representatives. The definitions of the qualifications required of a claimant for apostolic office (Acts 1:21-22) is of great importance in studying the history of the NT canon...the apostles had to be in a position to authenticate the tradition of the words and deeds of Jesus. This explains why so much emphasis was placed, not only in the earliest period but also later, on the apostolic origin of the various books'

'By the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian, the Christian churches generally were not only staunchly maintaining the OT as Scripture, but were also placing most of the NT books on an equal footing with it...The second important feature of this period is the lack of any official pronouncement on the part of the orthodox churches regarding the NT canon, in spite of Marcion's list (the heretical Marcion). This is sufficient to show that the contents of the NT were the result, not of ecclesiastical selection, but of established usuage. The churches needed no official exhortation to regard these NT books on par with the OT. They did so instinctively as part of their understanding of the continuity of Christianity with the OT predictions'.

'Not until the middle of the 4th century was it considered necessary for any general pronouncements on the subject of the canon to be made at church councils. It did not happen, in fact, until nearly three centuries of church usuage had virtually fixed the canon. In spite of the variety of churches, subjected as they were to different influences and each exercising independent judgment...the area of common agreement was remarkable' p.740.

Later the matter of the inclusion of the minor Catholic epistles and the Apocalypse was settled - by the time of the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363) and Carthage (A.D. 397).

The canon of Scripture is witnessed by the testimony of the Spirit, apostolic authorship and usuage by the early Christians and churches. Specific evidence for the NT canon includes patristic allusions and citations from NT books and comments. Interestingly the OT canon is verified by quotes in the NT from the Apostles and Jesus Christ.  

Interpretation issue - Spirit-filled Christians are able to interpret the Word of God because the Scriptures have been inspired by the same Spirit. The Holy Spirit acts as the interpreter of God's Word - the supreme and infallible authority for the Christian.

Why so many interpretations/doctrines you may ask? There are a number of reasons - including Christians walking carnally (I Corinthians 3:1-3 and Galatians 5:14-20 'Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh...Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these...heresies') and deceivers in the Church ('That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive' Ephesians 4:14).  

[ebia]

Thanks Ebia for posting this - here we have the Roman Catholic Church still refusing to admit culpability until an 'investigation' is conducted - with a passing remark from Pope John Paul II that already lays the blame onto Catholic individuals - rather than accepting responsibility for official Church edicts - Rome has 'profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face'. Does that include the Popes?

It might well do.

Because if it does then the entire Church has been built upon the lie of Papal infallibility.

Papal infallibility does not imply that everything the pope does is infalliable. This has been pointed out repeatedly.  Only statements made ex-cathedra are infallible, and they are extraordinarly few and far between (and pretty much impossible to identify without an indepth knowledge of the workings of the higher eschelons of the RCC).   So, unless one of the Popes made an ex-cathedra statement saying "Go out and murder those heretic scum", or words to that effect, it's not an issue.

The Roman Catholic Church is investigating - does it seem to act slow? - indeed its only taken a couple of hundred years to conduct an 'investigation' and ask for forgiveness.  

There's no time limit on forgiveness.  They have asked forgiveness for what they can be certain was done wrong, and are investigating to find out the rest.  Seems a pretty sound way to proceed to me from a church that believes in confessing specific sins not just making a general, bland, confession and walking away.

'Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein...' Proverbs 26:27. And Rome just keeps on digging - with farce after farce!. In defense of Church dogma, Pope Urban VIII (1623-44) threatened an elderly Galileo with torture and death if he would not renounce his claim that the earth revolved around the sun. Declaring that this belief was contrary to Scripture, the Pope had Galileo in fear of his life and recanting of this 'heresy' before the Holy Office of the Inquisition.

And the RCC has coughed up to that one.
Never the less, parallels between that and how modern, fundamentalist evangelicals treat the proponents of evolution and other sciences do spring to mind.

This view of the world remained official Catholic dogma for centuries, with infallible pope after infallible pope affirming it - the earth was at the centre of the universe and the sun revolved around it.

Maybe you could provide references for post-Gallileo statements, so we can see just how long the RCC did officially cling to the pre-Copernican view of the solar system.

It was not until 1992 that the Vatican, after a 14 month 'investigation', finally admitted that Galileo had indeed been right!

That's when they admitted that Galileo was right and they were wrong - ie they had been wrong to treat him the way they did.  The church had come around to Copernican view of the solar system long before.

That admission was an acknowledgment that the many popes were indeed fallible being capable of making false interpretations of Scripture.

You're attacking a straw man again.  Not everything the Pope says is infallible, and the church has never said that it is.

But 'The Church's Magisterium certainly cannot perform an ethical act, such as asking for forgiveness, without first being accurately informed about the situation at the time'

Hang on, it's not about ethics - this isn't about apologising to anyone or making reparations - they are all long since dead.  It's about asking forgiveness from God, and there's no time limit on that.  God's timescale isn't yours.

[Dawn]

In defense of Church dogma, Pope Urban VIII (1623-44) threatened an elderly Galileo with torture and death if he would not renounce his claim that the earth revolved around the sun. Declaring that this belief was contrary to Scripture, the Pope had Galileo in fear of his life and recanting of this 'heresy' before the Holy Office of the Inquisition.

And the RCC has coughed up to that one.

Hang on, it's not about ethics - this isn't about apologising to anyone or making reparations - they are all long since dead.  It's about asking forgiveness from God, and there's no time limit on that.  God's timescale isn't yours.

'And the RCC has coughed up to that one' - that Galileo was indeed right - the world is round after all!!!. Oh - sorry they realized the world was in fact round earlier than 1992 - but it only took a few hundred years until 'they admitted that Galileo was right and they were wrong - ie they had been wrong to treat him the way they did'.

Papal and Church infallibility - yes there's not much left of it, its a dinosaur. The Church has tied itself into so many knots over infallibility that any Catholic must have 'an indepth knowledge of the workings of the higher eschelons of the RCC' - merely to identify it!.  

And there is a time limit on forgiveness - or haven't you heard of the Second Coming and Judgment Day. Maybe you should read the Scriptures instead of reading statements from the False Prophet - the Pope.

'Maybe you could provide references for post-Gallileo statements' You really want me to?

I can appreciate that you are doing your best to defend the indefensible but your comments are making even me cringe.

'They are all long since dead' - No kidding - slaughtered by Rome that has only now begun an investigation into her own butchery!. Too late for past Popes and the inquisitors - they are awaiting Judgment and eternal damnation for the death of God's saints.

[Dawn]

I had said in an earlier post that that would be my last response on the topic of the Inquisitions as I have had enough of God's saints being disparaged by Catholic revisionist history. Invariably the discussion has continued somewhat and descended into point scoring. I have posted copious sources for those who want to look further into these important matters and that should suffice. I am available for contact via my email - or just go to www.martyrsofrevelation.com and click on 'Contact us'.

Roman Catholics need to return to the simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ (II Corinithians 11:1-4, 12-15) and the authority and truth of His Word, carefully examining Church doctrine and tradition against it.

I have used sharpness for edification and reproof and not for the destruction of any fellow brethren. We are in the end times and I again warn Christians of the impending Mark (Rev. 13:16-17) and the consequences of receiving it (Rev. 14:9-12).

God bless.

[ebia]

'And the RCC has coughed up to that one' - that Galileo was indeed right - the world is round after all!!!. Oh - sorry they realized the world was in fact round earlier than 1992 - but it only took a few hundred years until 'they admitted that Galileo was right and they were wrong - ie they had been wrong to treat him the way they did'.

Did you have a point here?  If you did' it's got lost in your editing.

Papal and Church infallibility - yes there's not much left of it, its a dinosaur.

The church never said that everything the Pope did was infallible.

The Church has tied itself into so many knots over infallibility that any Catholic must have 'an indepth knowledge of the workings of the higher eschelons of the RCC' - merely to identify it!.  

And?  I know you would like the concept to be simple, so you can attack it more readily, but it isn't and never has been.

And there is a time limit on forgiveness - or haven't you heard of the Second Coming and Judgment Day.

Point taken, but it doesn't matter whether repentance is tomorrow or one second before Judgement, the effect is the same.
 

'Maybe you could provide references for post-Gallileo statements' You really want me to?

Yes - significantly after, say from about 1700.

I can appreciate that you are doing your best to defend the indefensible but your comments are making even me cringe.

Awww.  

'They are all long since dead' - No kidding - slaughtered by Rome that has only now begun an investigation into her own butchery!. Too late for past Popes and the inquisitors - they are awaiting Judgment and eternal damnation for the death of God's saints.

And.  Those individuals responsible for outrages will be judged by someone who know exactly who did what, and who repents what.  If you think that Pope John Paul I, say, will be held responsible by God for what his predecessors did or didn't do, then you have a very narrow view of the love of God.

I had said in an earlier post that that would be my last response on the topic of the Inquisitions as I have had enough of God's saints being disparaged by Catholic revisionist history. Invariably the discussion has continued somewhat and descended into point scoring. I have posted copious sources for those who want to look further into these important matters and that should suffice. I am available for contact via my email - or just go to www.martyrsofrevelation.com and click on 'Contact us'.

If you want to defend your misinformation here, that's your choice.  If you want to run away when challenged, that's your choice too.  You certainly haven't posted sources for everything you've been asked for.

[Dawn]

Regarding Galileo’s case and how successive Popes were (and still are) bound to assert that the sun and stars actually revolve around the earth i.e. the geocentric view that remained ‘official’ Catholic dogma for centuries.

From THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH (1888 edition), LECTURES DELIVERED IN THE DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN BY GEORGE SALMON, D.D. SOMETIME PROVOST OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN AND REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.

Quote ‘…Sixtus V. appointed fifteen Congregations of Cardinals, assigning to each its proper function, but with the limitation 'that they refer to us all the more important and difficult matters under consideration.' It is now customary that the secretary of the Congregation should certify when a matter has been thus referred to the Pope; but clearly the only important question is whether the matter has been thus referred, and not whether the secretary has certified it. Such a certificate was certainly not necessary in the case of the Holy Office, the highest of all the Congregations, having jurisdiction over every member of the Church of whatever rank. On account of its supreme importance, the Pope was wont to be its president, and the votes to be taken in his presence; so that no important decree could go forth without having been first submitted to the Pope. The Pope indisputably did thus take part in the decision in Galileo's case.

  Assuredly Galileo and the Copernicans of his day were not allowed to suppose that to persist in their heresy would be to resist anything short of infallible wisdom. They were pressed with the words of the Bull of Sixtus V., by which the Congregation of the Index was remodelled: 'They are to examine and expose the books which are repugnant to the Catholic doctrines and Christian discipline, and after reporting them to us, they are to condemn them by our authority.' What was done by the Inquisition in Galileo's case was not a mere verdict on a matter of fact on which the judges might pardonably go wrong, but it was the decision by the Pope's authority on a question of doctrine. Pope Urban made that decision his own by directing (in 1633) that in order that these things might be known to all, copies of the sentence on Galileo were to be transmitted to all Apostolic Nuncios, and all Inquisitors of heretical pravity, especially the Florentine Inquisitors. These were to summon the professors of mathematics and to read the sentence for their instruction.  This sentence refers to the interference of the Congregation of the Index as made 'to the end that so pernicious a doctrine' as the Copernican 'might be altogether taken away and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth.'  It states that the Congregation was held in the Pope's presence in which Galileo was ordered to give up this false opinion. It relates that Galileo had been formally made acquainted with 'the declaration made by our Lord the Pope, and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index,' the tenor whereof is that the doctrine of the motion of the earth and the fixity of the sun is contrary to the sacred Scriptures, and therefore can neither be defended or held.  It may be added that the desired Papal confirmation in express terms was given by a later Pope, Alexander VII., in 1664, who republished and confirmed the previous decrees with the words, 'Cum omnibus et singulis in eo contentis, auctoritate Apostolica  tenore  presentium  confirmamus et  approbamus.'  I really recommend, therefore, Roman apologists to consider again whether it may not be possible to maintain that the sun actually does go round the earth, this being in my judgment quite as hopeful a line of defence as to deny that successive Popes officially asserted that it does.

  To conclude, then, the history of Galileo makes short work of the question:  Is it possible for the Church of Rome to err in her interpretation of Scripture, or to mistake in what she teaches to be an essential part of the Christian faith?  She can err, for she has erred.  She has made many errors more dangerous to the souls of men, but never committed any blunder more calculated to throw contempt on her pretensions in the minds of all thinking men, than when she persisted for about two hundred years in teaching that it was the doctrine of the Bible, and therefore an essential part of the Catholic faith, that the earth stands still, and that the sun and planets revolve daily around it'. Unquote

For an article on infallibility http://www.equip.org/free/DC170-4.htm

[ebia]

Very nice, but it doesn't support the claim that I was asking you to support, which is that the RCC maintained a non-Copernican view for centuries after Galileo :

This view of the world remained official Catholic dogma for centuries, with infallible pope after infallible pope affirming it - the earth was at the centre of the universe and the sun revolved around it

.

To conclude, then, the history of Galileo makes short work of the question:  Is it possible for the Church of Rome to err in her interpretation of Scripture, or to mistake in what she teaches to be an essential part of the Christian faith?  She can err, for she has erred.  She has made many errors more dangerous to the souls of men, but never committed any blunder more calculated to throw contempt on her pretensions in the minds of all thinking men, than when she persisted for about two hundred years in teaching that it was the doctrine of the Bible, and therefore an essential part of the Catholic faith, that the earth stands still, and that the sun and planets revolve daily around it. [/b]

So now we've moved on to attacking church infallibility instead of Papal infalibility?  Employing the same tactic of simplifying the concept first and attacking the simplified form, of course.

[Dawn]

Very nice, but it doesn't support the claim that I was asking you to support, which is that the RCC maintained a non-Copernican view for centuries after Galileo :

This view of the world remained official Catholic dogma for centuries, with infallible pope after infallible pope affirming it - the earth was at the centre of the universe and the sun revolved around it

What I had said - was that successive 'infallible' popes affirmed it and that the Church held it to be dogma - for over 2 centuries. The issue was not how long after Galileo the RCC officially maintained that the earth was flat. You merely jumped to that - realizing your untenable position of defending successive Popes who had affirmed it.  

[Dawn]

To conclude, then, the history of Galileo makes short work of the question:  Is it possible for the Church of Rome to err in her interpretation of Scripture, or to mistake in what she teaches to be an essential part of the Christian faith?  She can err, for she has erred.  She has made many errors more dangerous to the souls of men, but never committed any blunder more calculated to throw contempt on her pretensions in the minds of all thinking men, than when she persisted for about two hundred years in teaching that it was the doctrine of the Bible, and therefore an essential part of the Catholic faith, that the earth stands still, and that the sun and planets revolve daily around it. [/b]

So now we've moved on to attacking church infallibility instead of Papal infalibility?  Employing the same tactic of simplifying the concept first and attacking the simplified form, of course.

Firstly the above is a part of the quote from Professor George Salmon. The end quotation mark was missed during copying and pasting - I will correct that.

Underlying Church infallibility is Papal primacy and infallibility based upon the tradition of Apostolic succession.

[ebia]

Code:

Underlying Church infallibility is Papal primacy and infallibility... 

No it's not.  The concept of Church infallibility is centuries older than the concept of papal infallibility, and is still held to in the Orthodox chuches (which have never accepted papal infallibility).

If anything papal infallibility rests on church infallibilty, not the other way around.

[ebia]

What I had said - was that successive 'infallible' popes affirmed it and that the Church held it to be dogma - for over 2 centuries.

Are you deliberately keeping your statements ambiguous so you can imply one thing, but deny that's what you meant if challenged to back it up?

The issue was not how long after Galileo the RCC officially maintained that the earth was flat.

LOL.  We're not talking about a flat earth, but what revolves around what.

You merely jumped to that - realizing your untenable position of defending successive Popes who had affirmed it.  

How many Popes did or didn't affirm it before Copernicus is irrelevent - it was the general world view.  As long as none of them did so ex-cathedra, it presents no problem to the concept of papal infalibility.  Neither do one's after, but clearly the church would look pretty silly if it were still claiming the non-Copernican view in 1960 (say).

You can find as many instances as you like of popes saying something wrong, it won't disprove the concept of papal infallibility unless you can find one that is ex-cathedra.

[Dawn]

I suggest you read the link I provided http://www.equip.org/free/DC170-4.htm regarding biblical, historical and theological problems with infallibility. Regarding Galileo and ex-cathedra it says:

'Galileo and his opponents would be nonplussed to discover that the serious charges leveled against him were not "ex cathedra" in force. And in view of the strong nature of both the condemnation and the punishment, he would certainly be surprised to hear Catholic apologists claim that he was not really being condemned for false teaching but only that "his 'proof' did not impress even astronomers of that day — nor would they impress astronomers today'!

At any rate, the pope's condemnation of Galileo only leads to undermine the alleged infallibility of the Catholic church. Of course, Catholic apologists can always resort to their apologetic warehouse — the claim that the pope was not really speaking infallibly on that occasion. As we have already observed, however, constant appeal to this nonverifiable distinction only tends to undermine the very infallibility it purports to defend.'

[ebia]

'Galileo and his opponents would be nonplussed to discover that the serious charges leveled against him were not "ex cathedra" in force.

So what?  Whether or not he or his opponents thought the statements were ex-cathedra doesn't demonstrate that they were.

And in view of the strong nature of both the condemnation and the punishment, he would certainly be surprised to hear Catholic apologists claim that he was not really being condemned for false teaching but only that "his 'proof' did not impress even astronomers of that day — nor would they impress astronomers today'!

Again, irrelevant.  You've got to prove that the statements fulfilled the requirements of papal infalibilty to make a case against it based on Galileo, and neither you nor the website you link to does that.

At any rate, the pope's condemnation of Galileo only leads to undermine the alleged infallibility of the Catholic church. Of course, Catholic apologists can always resort to their apologetic warehouse — the claim that the pope was not really speaking infallibly on that occasion. As we have already observed, however, constant appeal to this nonverifiable distinction only tends to undermine the very infallibility it purports to defend.'

The difficulty of determining what is and isn't infallible may limit the usefulness of the concept, but it doesn't disprove it.

I don't actually buy the RCC's understanding of papal and church infallibility - if I did I would clearly have to join the RCC - but your claimed proofs that it is rubbish simply don't stack up because they are based on repeatedly attacking a simplified understanding of the concepts that does not accurately reflect RCC teaching.

(The Orthodox understanding of church infallibility, as in so many other areas, is considerably more subtle and to my mind believable.)

[Dawn]

The difficulty of determining what is and isn't infallible may limit the usefulness of the concept, but it doesn't disprove it.

I don't actually buy the RCC's understanding of papal and church infallibility - if I did I would clearly have to join the RCC - but your claimed proofs that it is rubbish simply don't stack up because they are based on repeatedly attacking a simplified understanding of the concepts that does not accurately reflect RCC teaching.

The reason the concept has become so convoluted and vague is because the Roman Catholic Church has repeatedly been forced to come up with creative solutions and after-the-fact modifying. Rome has no credibility on the issue and the doctrine is untenable. Obviously you are unable to grasp how the doctrine is flawed - biblically, theologically and historically.

Astonishingly, you do not actually buy the RCC's understanding of papal and church infallibility nor are you a Roman Catholic. Yet you have expended all this effort in defending it - a false doctrine - and potentially misleading others. Let that be accounted to you.

You need to humbly submit yourself to God as the Spirit of truth does not rest with you - lacking spiritual discernment and understanding. Such has been spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah:

'And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed...' Mt. 13:14-15.

You have argued for the sake of arguing and to undermine and have wasted my time. Not only wasted my time but potentially misled people with foolishness - acting as the devil's mouthpiece. You will not get one more response from me.

'For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers' Titus 1:10 and by striving against the truth and God's Word you have forsaken the right way and gone astray.