How to Explain Papal Infallibility to an Evangelical

[@lux-veritatis]

This video is GOLD!! Your breakdown here of understanding where Protestants might be coming from was so enlightening too! The explanation you give was clear and simple without going into all of complex theological explanations. I find those usually confuse people more and you get into a war over unimportant details. This is going direct to my saves to share with others - thanks Keith!

[@KeithNester]

Thank you! I really appreciate that

[@thienpool]

See, even this lifelong Catholic is confused about what Papal Infallibility actually is, even my teachers didn't explain it clearly. But your simple explanation makes it clear! Thank you !

[@RumorHazi]

No doubt you did the right thing Keith. Find them where they are and meet them with COMMON ground. Love your channel. I appreciate your sincerity and kindness.

[@KeithNester]

Thank you so much!

[@GrandmaLynn]

I appreciate your answer to this person. You began with basics concepts. You explained papal infallibility in a way that anyone could understand, even some Catholics, in sure!! Thanks, Keith!

[@rondouglas4296]

That was actually a great explanation. One I never heard before. I like how you are able to taylor your response to the individual you are talking to.

[@KeithNester]

Thank you so much. I'm glad you think so.

[@danielterranova6320]

Extremely Helpful Thanks Keith Love Everything you do From a Fellow Christian Convert Lutheran to the One And Only True Church ⛪️⛪️⛪️ The Catholic Church ❤❤❤🙏🙏🙏👍👍👍

[@simonslater9024]

You became Christian once you became Catholic. Before you belonged to the Lutheran CULT

[@its_me-nikki]

THANK YOU!!! I was raised Catholic, but lost my faith over a decade again. I’m fighting hard to regain my faith and papal infallibility was one thing I never understood and has been a current hang up for me. This helps a lot.

[@marissabuyao2092]

Thank God we have you, Keith.

[@tomJ1.1-3]

Excellent explanation and approach. Appreciate your ministry. Thank you for sharing.

[@KeithNester]

Thank you my friend

[@southpawhammer8644]

Incredible!! I'm having the same conversations with my Evangelical friends in the US and Canada.

[@simonslater9024]

Your evangelical friend’s belong to the evangelical CULT

[@KW-mz4pn]

So happy you found the fullness of the faith! Pax Christi!!!! 🙏🏻🔥❤️

[@markkristynichols845]

Also so excited for you and your channel having Exodus 90 as a sponsor!!! WOOT WOOT!!! ❤, Kristy 😃🙏🙏🙏

[@jamesv2471]

You did amazing!!! "We have to scratch where they are itching" I love that statement!

[@KeithNester]

Thanks. It's a very ancient theological term :)

[@rachelpops9239]

​@@KeithNester😂

[@oliveri9407]

Great work Keith

[@sammyalabamy111]

Love my Catholic faith ❤…. and my mother and grandmother / aunt examples of faith as a child and their love for Jesus/Mary +

[@jacquenecranna2197]

This is one of the concepts that I have always tried to understand. As a converted Protestant, many of the things that you have shared, particularly in the series '10 Awesome Things About the Catholic Church' have helped me develop as a Christian. Thank you.

[@simonslater9024]

You became Christian when you became Catholic. Before then you were not a Christian otherwise your saying you were a Christian who became a Christian??

[@JMar-b4d]

Mr. Nester, great job! The Holy Spirit was guiding you in your conversation with this person. God Bless!

[@bwnco]

I still laugh that it took a Protestant converted Catholic to bring me back to my Catholic home exclamation point God bless Keith another good message❤

[@markkristynichols845]

Again, love the new casual, comfortable set Keith! ❤ all y’all, Kristy in Missouri 😃🙏🙏🙏

[@yayakelley7771]

Life long Catholic here. Catholic school and the whole 9 yards. 💯 on the Pope. But what my faith has taught me is to try to strive to live in the loving, forgiving ways of my savior Jesus Christ. ❤️

[@dansovocool4850]

This was more than “merely” a great answer to an important dogmatic issue. (It actually was beyond great in its succinct and cogent structure.) But this response should serve as a model for how many questions can be addressed first by finding the common ground upon which one can work toward a mutually consensus.

[@KeithNester]

Thank you so much.

[@dansovocool4850]

@@KeithNester A devoted fan became an entrenched follower with your video. I’m near Fátima, Portugal. I’d love to buy you a beer - or perhaps some vinho - if you’re ever in town.

[@KeithNester]

@@dansovocool4850 I accept! Thanks bro

[@constancemudenda8219]

Thanks Keith for all your sharings

[@curiouslykristina]

This is great! It’s so important to begin with common ground, meeting the person where they are at. Communication is only effective if it is catered to the audience. This is a big skill we teach in our pro-life training. It’s so cool to see you’re talking about it in an evangelization context.

[@DainBramaged00]

This is great, Keith. As was your response to the Strickland situation. And I think the two are related! There are so many popular Catholic youtubers with their hair on fire every time Pope Francis says something they interpret, in the most suspicious way possible, to be heretical. If they really had faith in (and understanding of) the doctrines of the Catholic church, their dismay would be tempered by the fact that God is guiding our church!

[@manny75586]

I think that was a fantastic way to present it. If I added anything to that explanation I'd only add that the assertion of Papal Infallibility has not happened very often at all in the nearly 2000 years of the Church. So it's pretty extraordinary when it is asserted.

[@mariadanielle1346]

Thank you for the video Keith!! Very informative!!

[@KeithNester]

Thank you Maria

[@JMJ-Jim]

I appreciate you sharing your understanding and strategy. Especially the example of the Biblical authors' infallibility.

[@thegoatofyoutube1787]

This is great, Keith. It can even go a step further with those folks by telling them that we believe the scriptures are the inspired perfect word of God and infallibility is simply protection from error (not a guarantee that solemn teachings will always be timed perfectly or as eloquent as they could be).

[@stefaniabradford9945]

Thank you for this

[@PapalNinja]

Amen, Brother! Great articulation, and even more so in the context of your interlocutor.

[@ybrueckner5589]

Great to see the new hearts on fire. Appreciate this approach. Going to us it myself

[@peterpatterson3435]

Great explanation About about Church Teachings, great Work Keith you Nailed it. 👍

[@cantrait7311]

Good response Keith

[@Joseph-p4o1k]

I’m exhausted just listening to this. I guess the reason why is because it seems to always turn into a heated argument. And I’m tired of fighting !! I’m 63 years old and I’ve lost count over the years of stating the facts that Catholicism is the real church. I’m glad this guy you were talking to Keith actually listened for a short while. Maybe that’s all we need for the Holy Spirit to do the rest. Sometimes, though I feel, we must do what Jesus says, if nobody listens, wipe the dust off your feet as a testimony, and move onto the next chapter which Christ has laid out for you.

[@jackieo8693]

Great share!

[@KeithNester]

Thank you!

[@LeslieHayman11]

I love it! We have to scratch where they are itching and that is so true. I have learned through a lot of trial and error that I need to be asking more questions than I am giving answers to be effective!!!

[@francinetria6520]

This was awesome and clear. Thanks Keith

[@annakimborahpa]

Excellent presentation. How I best appreciate understanding papal infallibility is that it is one of three components of Jesus Christ's gift of infallibility to His entire Church based upon the following points. 1. Papal infallibility was defined at the First Vatican Council in Pastor Aeternus (The First Dogmatic Constitution On The Church of Christ) solemnly promulgated by Pope Pius IX on July 18, 1870. 2. However, the First Vatican Council was cut short later that year due to the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war and the surrounding of the Vatican by troops of the newly formed Kingdom of Italy, thereby making Pope Pius IX a prisoner. 3. This sudden adjournment prevented the council bishops from completing a second dogmatic constitution on the church they were working on, thus leaving the Church's teaching on infallibility incomplete. 4. Almost one hundred years later at the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church was finally able to complete its teaching on infallibility in Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution On The Church, solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI on Nov. 21, 1964. 5. Lumen Gentium No. 25 teaches that infallibility also resides (A) actively in the bishops who are union with the Pope and (B) passively in the entire Church that is protected by the Holy Spirit in accepting the teachings that the Pope and bishops present for belief: LG 25, Paragraph 2: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(1 Pt. 2:5) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(Rev. 21:16)" LG 25, Paragraph 3: "And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(Gal. 4:26; cf. Rev. 12:17) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(Rev. 19:7; 21:2 and 9; 22:17) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(Eph. 5:26)" [Vatican webpage /archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html] 6. The infallibility of the Catholic Church can then be seen as an image or reflection of the Holy Trinity: A. As The Father is the source of all divinity for the other Two Persons in the One God, so does the Pope as successor to St. Peter possess a plenary infallibility over the entire Church, rooted in (1) Simon's name change by Jesus in John 1:42, (2) Jesus' bestowal of the keys of the kingdom of heaven upon Peter as the rock upon which He will build His Church, combined with His conferring the powers of binding and loosing in Matthew 16:18-19, (3) Jesus' prayer that Peter will confirm his brethren after recovering from his betrayal of Jesus in Luke 22:32, and (4) Jesus's command to Peter after the resurrection to feed and watch over His sheep in John 21:15-17. B. As The Son receives all things from The Father except the power of generating The Son, so do the bishops as successors to the apostles receive the gift of infallibility, insofar as they are united with the Pope as successor to St. Peter. As well, they receive the power of binding and loosing in Matthew 18:18, but not the keys that Christ reserved for Peter. C. As The Holy Spirit is the communion of life and love between The Father and The Son, but whose origin is in The Father, so do the faithful of the entire Church passively participate in the Pope's and the bishops' infallibility when they accept what is proposed for belief by them, in the same manner that the crowd of three thousand, on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:37-38, positively responded to the preaching of Peter and willingly obeyed his order to repent and be baptized.

[@just_norma7]

Best explanation ever!! Well done Keith! 👏🏻😊

[@KeithNester]

Thank you so much!

[@colettemccleave4532]

This is excellent, thank you.

[@KeithNester]

Thanks Colette!

[@hglundahl]

6:39 To distinguish canonical dogma from generally accepted doctrine. See link in follow up comment.

[@TheodoreMark-tf5uv]

God bless you bro!..

[@henrylimnyuy3195]

wow I have been a catholic all my life and this hits different

[@el-sig2249]

Excellent apologetic approach 👏🏾

[@JamesClark-le7hu]

May I ask you, was there an infallible Jewish structure behind the giving of the Old Testament Scriptures? You seem to suggest that some form of ongoing ecclesiastical infallibility is necessary for the production of infallible texts. I think that’s a faulty premise. The same Jewish religious structure that was ordained of God and God used to give the world the Word of God was clearly way out of line and of course by the time Jesus came on the scene. They were not only off personally, but corporately as in institution as well. The Protestant rejection of papal infallibility is not a matter of whether or not God CAN preserve the pope and his church from every erroring in an official magisterial manner, but whether or not God DID promise to do that. While we do not find a promise of ecclesiastical infallibility, we do find a promise of scriptural infallibility in 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21. These texts tell us that whatever is considered scripture is ontologically unique. It is more than just the writings of apostles with the church’s authority behind it. It is God’s speech in written form. The scriptures derive their authority from the person of God, not the church. We are not rejecting the fact that the church does have authority. Yes, the church recognized the canon. But the church need not be infallible to recognize that which is infallible.

[@julieelizabeth4856]

Even the Jews didn't have a closed canon until about 100 years after Christ's death. Different sects accepted different sets of books. The Pharisees won out by default because the other groups were dispersed and died off.

[@maryp5127]

Thank you for this Keith, love the heated part is sooo me .but I do think & hope in those heated conversations something will open there heart to the truth. Also enjoyed the addition of the crucifix

[@alexsalvador3614]

Pope talking to young boy A little while ago my father passed away. He was a nonbeliever, but he had all four of his children baptized. He was a good man. Is dad in heaven?'” “How beautiful to hear a son say of his father, ‘He was good,'”. And what a beautiful witness of a son who inherited the strength of his father, who had the courage to cry in front of all of us. If that man was able to make his children like that, then it’s true, he was a good man. He was a good man. “That man did not have the gift of faith, he wasn’t a believer, but he had his children baptized. He had a good heart,” Pope Francis said. God is the one who says who goes to heaven,” the pope explained. what kind of heart God has. “What do you think? A father’s heart. God has a dad’s heart. And with a dad who was not a believer, but who baptized his children and gave them that bravura, do you think God would be able to leave him far from himself?” Does God abandon his children?” the pope asked. “Does God abandon his children when they are good?” The children shouted, “No.” “There, Emanuele, that is the answer,” the pope told the boy. “God surely was proud of your father, because it is easier as a believer to baptize your children than to baptize them when you are not a believer. Surely this pleased God very much.” Pope Francis encouraged Emanuele to “talk to your dad; pray to your dad.” Do you think the pope is telling the truth about what God said in the Bible? John 14:6 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. In the specific sense of being a child of God through faith and relationship with Him, the Bible teaches that this is reserved for those who believe in Jesus Christ. In John 1:12, it says, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." While God loves all people and desires for everyone to come to Him, it is through faith in Jesus that we become His children and experience the fullness of His love, grace, and salvation. I don’t understand why the pope is saying contrary to what God/Jesus said. He is misleading unbelievers that they can go to the kingdom of God just by being a good man and not by believing in Jesus.

[@sarahgough938]

On this rock I will build my church and the powers of hell shall not prevail ❤

[@dann285]

Amen, "“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." the rock. " Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord" " For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." " Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

[@adammatemba1207]

Indeed, Jesus Christ is the rock, the Chief Cornerstone

[@CarlosLopez-nl1rp]

Asking questions is always a great tool to figure out where someone is coming from. What does this mean to you? How do you define...? I love the Keanu Reeves look Keith!

[@drkarenhanson]

What a perfect (dare I say infallible?) analogy. Thanks much!!

[@V14-x6n]

Excellent analogy to the authors of the Scriptures. I like to think of papal infallibility not as a positive “empowerment” of some kind but as a negative protection, i.e. preventing the Pope to proclaim a new dogma that has not been passed down from the apostles. In other words, the poor chap has a lot less freedom than any other catholic, he is so limited in what he can proclaim to being a guardian of the ancient faith that one of his titles “servant of the servants of God” sheds an interesting light on the meaning of title and how incredibly humble and restricted the office of papacy is. And of course, there is infallibility of ecumenical councils. When the orthodox schismatics put forward the same accusation as protestants denying papal infallibility I like to ask them: what is more incredible for God to do from our human perspective: protect hundreds or even thousands of bishops at an e ecumenical from error, or just one man?

[@steveempire4625]

If the pope, of his own free will, decides to formally preach heresy in any capacity whether it be off the cuff or ex-cathedra, what would stop him? Would a bolt of lightning strike him down? Would he be unable to speak or write like Liar Liar? How do you reconcile free will with the pope's inability to teach formal heresy? And if the pope can preach formal heresy of his own free will, how can we have confidence in papal infallibility?

[@dhaslam003]

Helpful. Thank you

[@weresheep9045]

Points taken from the video: 1. Papal infallibility doesn't mean the Pope is perfect, never sin, has perfect personal beliefs, and always correct 2. The Holy Spirit protected the Bible writers from errors and that protection remained on the Pope Conclusion: The Holy Spirit protects the Pope from errors yet he can still do errors

[@patreisinger142]

Thank you!

[@joejackson6205]

That was an impressive unpacking. Dont degrade yourself. I would have just gone to the limits on infallibility. Your starting with what the other already believed was purely a Holy Spirit move. Cudos.

[@eddysneyers4993]

Question The background music can you tell from who it is please Thank you.

[@kiotee_nouw]

The question I would have asked is, "Do you know the bible you read and use came from and through the Catholic Church"? Even though your religion picks and chooses which books they desire in their bible (66 books instead of 73).

[@glennherron9499]

Your argument is weak!

[@dann285]

@@glennherron9499 Very

[@kiotee_nouw]

@@glennherron9499 You IQ is weak, so we are even being as you don't comprehend well.

[@kiotee_nouw]

@@dann285 Very what? Everything I commented on is Christ Truth. Go on, tell Jesus Christ I'm wrong, because you are to slow minded to go research FACTUAL HISTORY!

[@dann285]

@@kiotee_nouw You did not make any comment about christ, you made comment about the cannon. And your statement is confused.

[@lukebrown5395]

If the gates of Hell can’t prevail against the church then the Holy Spirit will guide St Peters successors.

[@hyeminkwun9523]

Yes, that's true.

[@glennherron9499]

Do you find it interesting that the catholic church claims Peter was Pope from 31AD until his death around 68AD even though Peter never once mentioned the Catholic Church, that he was a Pope and no longer an Apostle? That he never once mentioned Mary's name, completely ignored her existence in his writings? That if he were Pope how could Paul in 47AD write Galatians and tell the world that Peter was one of the Apostles to the Jewish People and he, Paul was the apostle to the world? How could Paul tell the world that Peter was a hypocrite and stood condemned before him? How could Paul make Peter submit to him? Why did Paul write almost half of the New Testament and Peter two small books? Why did Paul see a need and write Romans around 57AD and in it completely ignore Pope Peter and why would there be a need that Paul had to face if Peter was Pope there? I have no doubt that Peter was influential in creating many churches. Even after Paul called him a hypocrite he listed him with others as being pillars but did not place Peter in a special category. Peter never claimed to be the rock but called Jesus the Rock, never taught any of the current day Catholic traditions. Scripture is clear, Peter was an apostle to the Jewish People, and a pillar along with a few others.

[@hyeminkwun9523]

@@glennherron9499 To whom Our Lord gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven? Only Peter (Matt 16:19). The one who holds that key is the Pope. Who spoke on the day of Pentecost, the first day the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church began its work of salvation? St. Peter, the first Pope (Acts 2:14-36), Why St. Paul corrected his errors? Yes, when a Pope makes mistakes, cardinals and bishops can point out the mistakes, out of love, to correct errors. Do you think a pope is perfect? No man is perfect and only God is perfect. Why some things are not written? The 4 Gospels and the letters included in the New Testaments were written to teach the believers. They were not written to record every details as St. John pointed out in John 20:30-31. The other details you are curious about are in the oral traditions in the Church, that Tradition St. Paul mentioned in 2 Thes 2:15.

[@glennherron9499]

@@hyeminkwun9523 He gave the keys to the kingdom to all of the Apostles, once Paul came along Peter all but disappeared from scripture. As Paul said Peter was only one of the Apostles to the Jewish People, Paul is the Apostle to the world.

[@dann285]

@@glennherron9499 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;" Must be Francis????

[@triciaworld]

Great explanation 👍🏾

[@genuineapbt6690]

Right at 4:15 is where the heresy and deception of Satan is found. So sad that the evangelical Christian did not know this. God did not inspire anyone. His word is inspired. The term inspired means breathed out. Even this man who claims to know things doesn’t know that otherwise he would understand that nobody is breathed out of the mouth of God, except the word. The men that were used by God to write his breathe out word were moved and carried along by the Holy Spirit and every single part of what they wrote was super intended by God. Not supervised or managed by God, as if the human authors thought of these things on their own, and it originated with them, then God simply looked it over afterwards like a manager or a teacher. No, this is the very word of God 100 % from God, supernaturally flowing through these men and the spirit of the living God writing his absolutely perfect revelation through the instrumentality of man. None of it originated with man. Of course, it included their personalities and their cultures and their experiences but this was the initial intention of God in the nature of his word even before the creation of the world. Do not be fooled by the satanic cult of Catholicism. This cults inception was during the time of Constantine 300 years after Christ. It is the union of politics and spirituality that birth this cult. It’s got nothing to do with God, although it dresses itself with holy hardware just like its father the devil. Turn and run from it.

[@dumbox1899]

Excellent explanation

[@gregnorthway3814]

Good talk. Small tip....moving your hands so much becomes distracting. Either raise camera angle or keep them still more often. Will make you easier to listen to.

[@KeithNester]

I’m Italian. It’s in my genes.

[@ninjason57]

If the Pope's have been given the authority to speak infallibly then why are their infallible sayings not being continuously added to the canon of scripture?

[@julieelizabeth4856]

Things don't have to be written down in Scripture in order for them to be true. We didn't even have a closed canon of Scripture until the 4th century A.D., and the Church survived without it, though what was known about it was taught. Some books were taken out of consideration for the canon because they were determined (by the councils of the Catholic Church, and Protestants rely on their decisions) to not be Scripture. Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium is the three-legged stool the Church has always stood on. Scripture ended with the death of the last apostle. But Jesus left us with a Church to guide us through the ages. He never said anything about being "book only."

[@R.C.425]

Thank you

[@AMDG_JMJ]

Very good.

[@dodavega]

Papal infallibility….does that include the two Medicis that became popes. (The latter is quoted to say, “we have been given the papacy. Let us enjoy it.” )Or the times when there were 2 and even 3 popes each anathematizing the other. Which one was infallible? Which one was anathematized in the eyes of God?

[@davido3026]

The dodo bird is extinct!!!

[@daniellespencer6093]

Wow....brilliant!

[@hglundahl]

May I give a suggestion? 1) Next time, insist that Catholics agree that the Hagiographers were inspired and protected from error; 2) Also insist, the Hagiographers, while protected from error in the pursuits, were also having the pursuits initiated by God. No part of the Bible is superfluous.

[@jotink1]

As a Protestant the principle of Apostolic infallibility in giving us the scriptures is one thing but to stretch that over to a single person and a magisterium is a stretch. It is a stretch when you look at history of said Pope and magisterium. It is also a stretch to just assume because it was done once by God it continues. It is also a stretch that some person and group continue to speak for God when God has already spoken especially given that the purpose is to infallibley interpret scripture as if God requires that. It puts great power in people's hands over centuries and takes great faith given history that it has, continued without error given splits and the Protestant concern that the infallible Words of God and the Infallible Magisterium contradict each other.

[@trudyfriedrich7416]

The infallible word of God needs an infallible interpreter. Protestantism has shown this necessity. So many denominations each interpreting differently. Did God desire this confusion ?

[@jotink1]

@@trudyfriedrich7416 If Protestantism is proof of fallibility please show how Catholicism is proof of infallibility outside of just claiming it for a group of men and saying look we have a consensus of interpretation. Please show how infallibility can be falsified so not to be circular. People have had different interpretations on everything since the dawn of time and is a tested means of distinguishing truth and error and gaining knowledge. Tell me how infallibility is a tested means to know truth.

[@trudyfriedrich7416]

@@jotink1 In your response you asked three questions. I will address one at a time. Just a group of men coming to a consensus.........the early church had to define Christianity in detail (we take that for granted) and recognize heresies, debate and declare truth. Name one error that an early church council made...ie...something declared in a council that you as a Christian do not believe. Remember.....infallibility is defined as never teaching error, in matters of faith and morals.

[@jotink1]

@@trudyfriedrich7416 I agree the early Church had to define doctrine but the doctrine must have scriptural warrant. It is not infallibility that is required for people to accept a councils decision it is a willingness of people to accept it as being true and Apostolic. Nicea 2 definitely not an infallible declaration because of what followed it and even today the East and West have differences on images and statues, vs icons. I can't kiss, an icon or venerate an image of Mary it would be a violation to me. I can honour saints and Mary which for me would be giving remembrance in some way and celebrate them in some way without any unduly adoration that goes beyond one created being to another. The problem for Protestants is this has been done in the wrong way for us, and so it us now difficult to do it in a right way I believe Anglican and others try to do it without the entrapments that Rome and the East fall into.

[@trudyfriedrich7416]

​@@jotink1 I certainly understand your concern. Maybe I can explain. Consider Numbers 21:8-9 where God requires Moses to make a snake and pole and the people are to look upon it for healing. Consider Exodus 25 where God commands two angels be built and placed on the Tabernacle. God was not forbidding images but rather he was forbidding worshipping them as in the 10 commandments. The people were not worshiping or veneration the images. They were to reflect on what those images represent. Likewise in today's world a few examples of statues or images are the Statue of Liberty on Ellis Island, the monument to Martin Luther in Germany, the photos of our family members on our cell phones or on our bed side tables. These statues and images are not to be worshiped or venerated. Rather, they remind us of who they represent and the positive impact they had in our lives. Likewise the statues and icons in churches are not to be worshiped or venerated. And we don't. That would be idolatry. But we do venerate the people they represent and how those people played a positive role in the life of the church. They are our ancestors. The Council when discussing Iconoclasm determined veneration to who they represent is not wrong. It is not required that we do, but it is acceptable if we do. Worship is reserved to God alone.

[@MMonika3]

💛

[@123JustBecause]

Genuine question: since you are Catholic must you be in agreement with Pope Francis that ‘all religions lead to God’? Since the Pope is ‘infallible’, how will the Catholic church and their members wrestle and deal with this? In some measure, this statement actually seems to diminish the authority of the Catholic faith and apostolic tradition, yes? Would you be willing to make a video addressing this? I did watch one by Dr. Taylor on this conversation although I am curious to your position on this as well. Thank you!

[@MaryBelleDasas-gp9tj]

We are warned in the Gospel about the wolves wearing in sheep's clothing. Our Lady of La Sallete warned us that in the end-times, " Rome will lose the faith, and will become the Seat of the Antichrist. We must see it if the one sitting in the Seat of St. Peter is not a ravenous wolf. If the pope who is sitting in the highest position in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church falsely teaches to the people, and what he teaches are contrary to the true Catholic Doctrines, persecuted the faithful remnants, and restricted the Traditional Latin Holy Mass, he is clearly not a true spiritual representative of Jesus Christ, but an Antichrist. He is making himself above God by his own false teachings, his own new false reforms, and his new false changes of worldliness. A blind and false obedience to the blind guide will both fall into the ditch. A Papal infallibility is only to the Popes who are obedient to the True Teachings of Jesus Christ, and followed the teachings of the Apostles.

[@Mutasis_Mutandis]

Starting RCIA soon. ❤

[@generosabungcag4298]

Amen

[@randycarson9812]

*SUMMARY* What do Catholics actually believe about papal infallibility? It doesn't mean the Pope is perfect, never sins, or never makes mistakes. It doesn't mean he has perfect personal beliefs about every issue or that everything he says is correct. To understand infallibility, consider the following: 1. The Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God. 2. The men who wrote the New Testament were not infallible. 3. However, they wrote the word of God infallibly because they were inspired by God through the power of the Holy Spirit, who protected them from error. 4. This protection from error was limited to when God was using them to communicate the truths of the faith and not to everything they said or did. Similarly, the Catholic Church teaches that papal infallibility operates in the same manner; the Pope is protected from error by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and doctrine, especially when defining doctrine in line with Apostolic tradition. God did not physically take over the bodies of the New Testament authors to move their pens nor did He dictate scripture word for word. He inspired the sacred writers by the power of the Holy Spirit and protected them from error. This does not mean that everything they ever said and did was infallible. God only protected them from error when He was using them to communicate the truths of the faith. That is what Catholicism teaches about papal infallibility. In the same way that the Holy Spirit protected the biblical writers from errors in matters of faith, Catholics believe that protection remains on the Pope, who is the successor to St. Peter, given the keys to the Kingdom by Jesus in Matthew 16."

[@VanCliefMedia]

So, my question is if this papal infalabity exists as you explained it, would calling the pope a heretic for his statements on paths to God recently, be going against this concept, as in lacking faith? More specifically the recent statement from the pope on all scripture from any earthly religion can bring you to the same God. I agree fully with this as I believe when Christ said "he was the only way", he was speaking as the spirit not as the flesh. Christ is found in all religions, and all time, it is the love and the faith in God the Father has for us exemplified this is often what the best parts of any religion show. I have lived in Asia, the Middle east, Europe and served in the U.S. Marine Corps. I find the love and the path in every language and people but the Bible happens to be the path that we can all understand that path the best. Many are obviously very upset by this concept espsially as the pope said it, but I find it completely reasonable as he is explicitly stating there is only one Father In heaven and that the earthly words of our religions are influenced by him and this doesn't contradict the deeper catholic teachings either. Long story short I am curious what your opinions on the popes recent statements and the reactions of other Catholics in being very angry to it.

[@julieelizabeth4856]

Not everything a pope says is a change in teaching. He speaks opinions and "off the cuff" remarks as much as anybody. It only matters when he speaks "ex-cathedra." Also, the fact that most everything that comes out of the pope's mouth being broadcast for the world to hear the next day, is a very new phenomenon, not possible until this century. Catholics sometimes forget this too.

[@funwatchworld2657]

❤❤❤

[@jakeabbatacola5092]

I am confused how the Pope makes mistakes but is still protected from error.

[@davido3026]

When the pope dictates dogma and morals that bind the universal fold, the entire church that is, he is infallible!!!only then. Other times he can err in whatever he says!!! The doctrine and faith are protected. After 266 popes., no one decreed error or was corrected afterwards!!! The Holy Spirit dwells in the Catholic Church since 33AD

[@randycarson9812]

1. Jesus cannot teach error. (cf. Jn 14:6) 2. Anyone who hears Jesus cannot hear error. 3. Anyone who hears Jesus’ apostles cannot hear error. (cf. Jn 16:13) 4. The Church speaks in the name of Jesus and His apostles. (cf. Mt 16:18-19) 5. Therefore, the authority of the Church which speaks in the name of Jesus cannot err. 6. Therefore, the Church's authority is infallible, equivalent to the authority of Christ himself.

[@IAMNOSLEEP]

God is the head of the Church not the Pope. Pope Francis is a biblical 21st century example of a host for an unclean spirit.

[@glennherron9499]

I just want to know what isn't in scripture that is required for salvation??

[@dann285]

The Church of rome, common man. Ohhh and the declarations of the Magisterium. Penance, Acts of reporation, Umm, the 'treasury of merit" !!!! And the priesthood that no longer exist.

[@glennherron9499]

@@dann285 So, salvation isn't found in grace thru faith in Jesus but in the additional teachings only found in the Catholic Church? Are we saved by faith or are we saved by in how we practice our faith?

[@davido3026]

​@glennherronthere is no salvation away from the church 9499

[@glennherron9499]

@davido3026 Unum Sanctum, no salvation outside the Catholic Church. How do you explain that none in the New Testament practiced catholicism and we are told they were saved? None sought Mary, prayed to Mary, entered into a booth to get forgiveness for their sins, or submitted to a pope. John, caretaker of Mary after the cross never saw anything special about her to write about, he never mentioned her name. The Apostle Paul, wrote almost half of the New Testament, never mentioned her name. The Apostle Peter, the Catholic rock, ignored her existence in his writings. Never said she was the mother of God, the new ark, the queen of heaven, never said a single Hail Mary! So if nobody in the New Testament did what the Catholic Church demands you do to be saved, who is right?

[@WellnessWagon]

What is most concerning, I believe… is that people of “FAITH”, often sin liberally, resting on the laurels of forgiveness. In our striving for PURITY… we could really stand to be more thorough or we will stunt our own Growth, fail to bring aid to others and misrepresent salvation to the masses. (Oh look, a Catholic PUN.). Getting ALIGNED with GOD’s Word means being more disciplined. When we see Clergymen flagrantly violating basic rules of decency, the faith is not only watered down, it can easily be detested and disregarded.

[@TnrtRW]

Believe Christ and Him crucified / read gospels,Paul’s writing, and the New Testament,the further you get away from that, the more twisted and fractured you become as evidenced by many current dogmas on Marianism , infant baptism and the idea of the Popes infallibility. He is just flesh and prone to the same mistakes and failures that you and I have/ it’s a big mistake to venerate or put him on a pedestal. It is called idolatry

[@davido3026]

I answer straight with the bible: 1. Peter dictated how to appoint judas' replacement to take his post!!! The Holy Spirit overpoured over Mathias as well! Thus, God Confirmed Peter's decision (Apostolic succesion as well) 2. To eliminate the need for circumcision, Council of jerusalem. Peter's decision stood and binds the Church to this day, infallibly, 3. Pope Damasus, I in 382AD declared infallibly that the bible is the word of God, believed to this day!! Etc.

[@yonlee6960]

👍🙏

[@Lya3588]

👍

[@MichaelWysocki-ks5xt]

Still sounds to me like you explained how you don’t believe the Pope is ‘ infallible ‘ but rather he is ‘ infallible ‘.

[@mrt3065]

So if the pope make a mistake, does this mean the Holy Spirit is not Guiding the Pope? The Catholic Church teaches that there are three sources of authority: scripture. magisterium. tradition. But its ok. you should have remained Protestant. All religions lead to GOD

[@alexanderh2345]

Jesus gave Peter the keys not anyone following Peter. That ends the discussion right there. You can’t find a basis in Scripture for where the keys are passed down. Once the door to heaven was opened, all were (are) welcomed in - Christ is the only head.

[@mariacisneros6114]

👌🙏

[@dann285]

The men who wrote 'the word of God" were not infallible. All scripture is 'God breathed" and that is why the scripture is inerrant. We know that they were telling the truth because "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." That the case for the Pope? Many many agruments for the teachings of the Church very often come down to , 'well Peter" That being said it is an assumption that 'authority" equals 'infallibility", it does not. Just like an umpire has the authority to call ball and strikes does not men all of his calls are correct. Just as people often do not understand the claims of Papal infallibility they also misunderstand what so called 'sola scriptura means". It means that the Church IS fallible because men are fallible.

[@salgar1234]

You’re very sneaky. Firstly it sounds like you are talking about people who are potentially false converts. Were you actually truly converted? All those churches you were part of a likely part of the false church. Those who are getting their doctrine from tv evangelists are getting doctrine from wolves. Secondly the argue is coming from a point that is falsely stating a ‘fact’ that God made Peter the first pope and so on, thirdly the people God inspired to write his Word were Apostles. The Pope is not an Apostle.

[@geoffjs]

Peter was the first leader/pope/Prime Minister Isa 22:22 appointed by Jesus delegating the keys of authority to bind & loose. There is an unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter to Francis which you can check on Wikipedia!

[@salgar1234]

@@geoffjs oh, yes. Well trust Wikipedia over God’s Word?

[@geoffjs]

@@salgar1234You asked a question, you cherry pick the Truth of the answer. Choose a different source, but try honesty, a foreign concept! Denying the Truth doesn’t change it,

[@salgar1234]

@@geoffjs your comment is making no sense. The words can be read but the meaning is missing.

[@geoffjs]

@@salgar1234 Are you fearful of His Truth!

[@FormerCultMemberICGJC]

What about the "Saint" Statues??? Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

[@KeithNester]

Keep reading. The next part of the verse gives clarity to why. "You must not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for any other gods." This was the issue, not the images themselves, but idolatry (worshipping them as gods). We know this because God commands images to be made on the ark and in the Temple. Plus he commands Moses to make an image of a serpent. If statues of saints help remind people of those who inspire us in the faith, then that is not the same thing at all.

[@frederickanderson1860]

Infallible authority is the heirophants of the mysteries of God. Gnostics are same they alone have the truth of the mysteries of God.

[@JC_Forum_of_Christ]

The Catholic Church does not believe that it is the infallible word of God. If it did, it would understand that Jesus is the word. And he sent his advocate to testify of him. that advocate is not the fallible incorrect words of the Catholic magisterium

[@deniselong6102]

So why are there no Bibles in the Catholic church?

[@TrickeryMan]

What? That's not true. We probably have like 40 bibles in our _house😂_ No joke. Your comment is a good example of how people misrepresent Catholicism and spread indoctrinated claims, even though it may not be intentional. I'm not implying you're a liar :)

[@davido3026]

We do not read the Bible in the church because the teaching is oral, we listen to the explanation of scripture in its purity and extension. We read it at home!!! " faith comes by listening/ preaching, and listening/preaching the word of God" not by reading

[@geoffjs]

Every Catholic parish has a bible from which the daily readings are proclaimed!

[@deniselong6102]

@@geoffjs do you actually have a relationship with Jesus, where you are actually repenting to Him and praying to him and surrounding to the Holy Spirit constantly for His direction and answers

[@geoffjs]

@@deniselong6102 Yes esp when I receive Him in the Eucharist, we become what we consume! I pray to Him & repent for my sins

[@mrt3065]

Infallible: adjective incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.

[@julieelizabeth4856]

And just like the apostles were only infallible when writing Scripture, the pope is only infallible in matters of faith and morals, when he is speaking ex-cathedra.

[@jettoth3]

You want infallible truths. That's a very good thing! But we have the infallible truths that we need in the Scriptures. Why do you feel that this isn't sufficiient?

[@julieelizabeth4856]

What did people do before the 4th century A.D. when there wasn't even a closed canon of Scripture yet?

[@jettoth3]

@@julieelizabeth4856 The same thing that the Jews did during OT times when the OT canon was still being added to with the writings of some of the later prophets. We can only use what's available, and there weren't any printing presses around, so no one actually owned a collection of the OT books either.

[@julieelizabeth4856]

@@jettoth3 Yes and much of the faith was handed down through Sacred Tradition. Not everything has to be written down in order for it to be true. The "Scripture alone" idea was unheard of before the 1500's. It was a Protestant idea to throw out everything else, under their own authority. The Mass, Mary, the saints, infant baptism, these things and others were tossed aside over time by various groups but were an integral part of the faith from the beginning. The evidence is in the catacombs where Christians had to worship in hiding when persecuted, and in the writings of the early Christians.

[@jettoth3]

@@julieelizabeth4856 I'm an advocate for sola Scriptura, not "solo" Scriptura. So I agree with you that we need to rely on the church for much of what we need to learn. But our ONE final and ultimate authority should be Scripture--that which is God-breathed.

[@julieelizabeth4856]

@@jettoth3 By "the church" do you mean "any church of your choice?" Don't you think that all of the different answers are a problem?

[@JC_Forum_of_Christ]

That’s an awesome new definition of infallible…! 😂 😮 😆