"There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." Romans 3:10-12 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23 Is the Pope not included in these passages? Just a protestant here, wondering what the Catholic opinion is, and hoping to spark some conversation!

-- Joel (BlueshoundGE@yahoo.com), January 14, 2002

Answers

No, the Pope is not sinless.

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 14, 2002.

I don't think it is conversation that you wish to spark, Joel. Your previous posts are a testament to the contrary.

-- Melissa (holy_rhodes@earthlink.net), January 14, 2002.

We all know the proper answer Joel, to your question. It's a clear and easy one: None of our business. Let God be the one Judge; of the Pope's sins and yours too. Would you have it any other way?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 14, 2002.

Joel,

Catholics don't even claim that the Pope is sinless. I realize that there is a Protestant misconception along those lines, but it's not true. Note that I am not Catholic, but attend an Assemblies of God church.

There is a Catholic doctrine (?) of infallibility which you may be referring to. But that only applies to specific circumstances. Here's a link which explains it precisely so that you can understand better. You may still disagree with it, but at least you'll understand what you're disagreeing about.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), January 14, 2002.

Hey great answers everyone! Only Melissa, I don't understand what you mean by "testamony to the contrary." Thanks!

-- Joel (BlueshoundETC@yahoo.com), January 14, 2002.

Joel, I think you know precisely what I mean. You introduced yourself to this forum with a combative and accusatory tone, rather than the question-and-answer approach that would have given you a more friendly welcome. You have accused those of the Catholic faith of practices that are just not true, and fiercely at that. So, I believe your intent is not intelligent dialogue, but to incite and cause trouble. Disagree? GO back and check out your posts regarding the Hail Mary prayer. If that tone you chose is what you consider benign, then I shudder to imagine your malignant tone.

-- Melissa (holy_rhodes@earthlink.net), January 14, 2002.

My answer to the pope being sinless is an easy one. After reading Fow's Book of Martyr's, I am am left with no dobt whatsoever. francois

-- francois de villiers (francois.de.villiers@ziton.spx.com), April 10, 2003.

Although Fox's Book of Martyrs is a classic work of anti-Catholic bigotry, and contains little reliable historical fact, it is nevertheless true that a few Popes did live lives morally unbefitting their high calling in God's Church. Popes are men. Men are sinners. No-one claims otherwise. Thank God for the hundreds of good and holy men who have cooperated with God's grace, and guided the Church along the path set forth by it's founder, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But even the holiest of Popes were sinners, as we all are.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 10, 2003.

ALL WERE SINNERS???? SORRY I THOUGHT THAT CATHOLIC DOCTRINE STATES THAT MARY WAS NOT A SINNER, BUT THIS IS ENTIRELY CONTRARY TO BIBLICAL TRUTH

-- PT (PT@AOL.COM), July 20, 2003.

You're correct. The mother of Our Saviour is sinless. Mary was conceived Immaculate; without stain of any sin. She is the Mother of God; and so no trace of sin was allowed to touch her soul. This was an action of the Holy Spirit, in anticipation of her glorious motherhood. It is definite and established, as well as proven from the holy Scripture. Only heretics and unbelievers doubt Mary's sinlessness, her soul without fault in God's sight.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 20, 2003.

Biblical truth states that whatsoever the Catholic Church declares as binding on earth is bound in heaven. Live with it.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 20, 2003.

I'm afraid Paul is right, PT, you see "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth," NOT scripture as you apparently believe. What a paradox: You believe the Bible is the only source of truth, yet the Bible ITSELF points to the Church as being the foundation of truth! So, you really do not believe the Bible either!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 20, 2003.

Hang on a second, WHERE does the Bible state that whatsoever the "Catholic Church" declares as binding on earth is bound in heaven? Perhaps the Lord told this to His Apostles or chosen leaders at the time, for instance Peter, because He had given Peter and the apostles that authority, but what does that have to do with the Catholic Church? There are many churches that claim Peter as one of their former leaders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

-- Bob Jenkins (jenkins_412@hotmail.com), December 27, 2003.

Well Bob,

That's easy to claim, but a lot more difficult to back up with solid evidence. History clearly demonstrates that the Church Jesus Christ founded for all men started calling itself the Holy Catholic Church before the end of the first century; and that there was no Christian church on this planet but the Holy Catholic Church for 1,000 years after Christ and the Apostles walked the earth. Therefore any "claims" of apostolic origins by any unauthorized manmade churches are, de facto, so much smoke. The succession of position and authority from Peter to John Paul II is extremely well documented historically. Jesus didn't bestow any special authority on Peter simply as an individual Christian. He bestowed authority upon Peter in order that he might be able to function in the specific and unique capacity to which Jesus had appointed him - chief shepherd of His people. This appointment was not for Peter's personal benefit, but for the benefit of His entire Church. If such authority were merely a personal gift to Peter, then it might well have passed away when Peter passed away; but what would be the point of that? Did the Church's needs become less once the Apostles passed away? Christ's authority, entrusted to the man who held a specific position over God's Church, was and is a gift to His entire Church in all times and places, and as such endures according to His own words until the end of time.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 28, 2003.

Just a Catholic here, wondering if the Protestant interpretation of Romans 3:23 includes Jesus and Mary in the understanding of the word "all"? If not, then that "all" is NOT universal is it?

If so, then wouldn't that line contradict other passages stating in no uncertain terms that the Messiah is sinless and yet truly a man?

Obviously, someone (or lots of someones) haven't done their homework. It's a typical Protestant problem: having no millennial tradition and organic corpus of theological insights to fall back on, you must re- invent the wheel of theology every generation and thus miss out on a lot of scriptural insights Catholic saints and preachers have been amassing since 40 AD.

Thomas Aquinas for example spent most of his time preaching on the gospels! His commentaries (word by word) are still masterpieces. Yet how many Protestants even knew this much less read them?

Why do Protestants usually fail to make distinctions between completely different words? Just because two terms end in "-ability" doesn't mean they're the same concept!

"Impeccability" (the special grace to not sin) is NOT the same thing as "Infallibility" (the special grace to not teach error in matters of faith or morals).

Jesus and Mary were sinless: impeccable.

Peter and all his successors were given the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide and strengthen the brethren. The keys (binding and loosening) and commands (make disciples of all nations for all time) were gifts for the office - they don't in and of themselves preserve the man from sin or mistakes.

And Infallibility doesn't provide the Pope with positive knowledge (i.e. info the rest of us aren't privy to). It's a negative gift insofar as it only keeps him from teaching error...it doesn't guarantee that every word and every thing a Pope utters or does will be perfect.

And while Christian (and Jewish) theology demands that Jesus Christ be considered impeccable (sinless), neither teaches that moral authority (such as parental authority) is null and void because of personal sin. You still have to honor your father and mother even though, like you, they're sinners and imperfect. Obviously you don't have to obey a sinful command...but if your Dad suffers the vice of laziness that doesn't automatically strip him of moral authority to command that you do your homework, help your mother, and respect your siblings!

Christian theology also demands that someone have the final say in matters of faith and morals - and it nowhere suggests that this someone is each individual believer. Read the whole Gospel of Matthew and no where will you see the doctrine that every individual Christian is his own pope.

Yet Protestants believe in INFALLIBILITY for each individual Christian - in their completely man-made, 15th century invention of private interpretation of scripture (*sola scritura) that has resulted in thousands of different Protestant churches and beliefs at odds with each other...and yet so the idea goes, each of these individuals are equally inspired by the same Holy Spirit!

How is this possible? How could you possibly believe this is the "Gospel" when the actual Gospels and Acts and Revelation and all the epistles point constantly to APOSTLES giving instructions to PRESBYTERS (Titus, Timothy, etc.) within a clearly hierarchical and organically united SINGLE, WORLD-WIDE CHURCH?

Everyone is infallible EXCEPT the Pope? Everyone is sinful - but that doesn't matter, except for the Pope? It's hard to be consistent and protestant at the same time, apparently.

For example: in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul rebuked Peter's personal behavior, not his teaching. For fear of offending the Jewish Christians, Peter stopped eating with Greek Christians... it was his action that needed a reprimand. In Paul's view, Peter was giving bad example. But neither the Acts account nor Paul's letter suggests that Peter was TEACHING that his action was normative.

But didn't Paul teach us to not eat meat if eating meat (completely legitimate) led a weaker brother to sin against his conscience? Yes. But wouldn't an out-side observer (like, say, Peter) have grounds to suggest that the weaker brother - such as the Jewish Christians - ought not be catered to but rather instructed as to the waywardness of their subjective opinion on dietary law?

In either case (Peter's personal action and Paul's hypothetical case, you have two factions: one is in the right, the other is wrong, and an apostle must grapple with the "pastoral approach" needed to gently lead the weaker side over to the stronger.

Paul thought Peter's "pastoral example" wasn't right. But Peter didn't teach his approach as normative for the Church. He may have been in error, but he didn't teach error. He may have sinned but he didn't teach sin.

But Peter didn't cease to have moral authority any more than Paul ceased to have moral authority when he made HIS mistakes.

Jesus never made the moral authority he gave his apostles contingent on their personal moral perfection. If you think so, let's see the scriptural passage that proves it. We are to seek holiness and perfection...but also continually seek forgiveness and conversion.

The Bible repeatedly (Old and New) stresses that our salvation demands both faith and works - every single time Our Lord spoke of the judgement he included works as THE proof of holiness and not mere "one-time declarations of faith".

Every single gospel and Acts, and the epistles all point to a hierarchy with teaching authority - not sola-scritura and individual, infallible interpretation.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 29, 2003.

John,

The Bible doesn't 'say' anything. It is a book that holds some of the teachings of God, Jesus, the Prophets and the Apostles. It was written long after the events in it took place. Don't worship the book, you run into a grave herasy if you do. Worship God and Jesus. And Jesus didn't tell the believers that what they bind on earth is bound in heaven (you don't see anything like that in His talks with the multitudes of believers). No, He told his Apostles that and only His Apostles. You might want to ask yourself why. And with His Apostles He created a Church and put Peter in charge of it. Again, you might wish to ask yourself why. That Church was the Catholic Church (that is historical fact) and Peter was the first Pope (that is also historical fact). Read the New Testament again, it is all in there...even talking about the early Church.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 29, 2003.

Well we all must be reading a diffrent Bible. No where in my Bible does it state that I should pray to Mary that I can get in some little box open a window confess my sins to a mere man and be forgiven by that man. I don't even see the word CATHOLIC in my Bible. I am a Baptist and I know that there will be Catholics in Heaven and Baptist in Hell and vice versa but I just can't get past a few things first off this Mary thing. I would never say anything bad about the mother of the LORD JESUS she had to be a wonderful woman for GOD to choose her like he did but at the same time I would never worship Mary in any way shape or form because my friends that is IDOLATRY pure and simple. Prove to me that the Bible says to worship Mary you can't because there is no way for you to do so, go ahead prove it to me. Only the Lord Jesus can save you from your sins why do I say this? Because my Bible says it just like that. Show a passage in the Bible where it says for all have sinned and fell short of the glory of GOD except Mary. You can't because the bible does not say that it says "ALL" no exceptions. Lets say for the point of conversation that God meant for the CATHOLIC CHURCH to be the only church you people have done a real shabby job of preaching the LORD JESUS and for that my friends someone will pay. I find it hard to beleive that so many of you get on these threads and really expect anyone to beleive what you say when you either don't read your Bibles or only pick parts of the Bible to beleive and some of the things that Catholics do and beleive cannot be factually backed up at all. Unless Catholics have a Bible that no one else has that was wrote especially for Catholics and no one else then there is not a chance that I could ever and I mean EVER beleive in the same way that any of you do. Jesus not MARY not PETER not John the Baptist no one else can get us where we long to be but the ONE and Only SON OF GOD JESUS CHRIST. He is the only one you should WORSHIP and ask for forgiveness. To GOD BE THE GLORY!!!!!!

-- John Page (johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), December 30, 2003.

Bill ,I do not worship the Bible!!! or Mary!!! and the Bible says alot of things and I know it was written after JESUS by men through GOD. I worship GOD and use his holy manuel as a guide through life.

-- John Page (johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), December 30, 2003.

"No where in my Bible does it state that I should pray to Mary"

A: Actually your Bible makes it quite clear that every Christian should ask other Christians for intercessory prayer. Mary and the other saints are Christians, and even though they are no longer in need of prayer, they are still quite capable of praying and we should ask them to pray for us, just as we ask our families and friends on earth to pray for us.

"that I can get in some little box open a window confess my sins to a mere man and be forgiven by that man."

A: You don't seem to know your Bible very well. It clearly records the occasion on which Jesus gave mere men - selected mere men - that very power. See John 20:22-23.

"I don't even see the word CATHOLIC in my Bible."

A: Look harder. Your Bible clearly says that there is to be ONE Church which is to make disciples of ALL peoples. One universal Church. That would make the existence of Baptist churches or any other churches a direct violation of God's stated will and purpose. "Catholic" means "universal". That's why the Church founded by Jesus Christ for all men adopted the name "Catholic" before the end of the first century.

"I would never worship Mary in any way shape or form because my friends that is IDOLATRY pure and simple."

A: You are absolutely right! And Catholics would never worship Mary in any way, shape or form either, for exactly the same reason! It sounds like you have been reading some pretty outrageous anti-Catholic propaganda. Chick Publications maybe? Catholics worship our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, His Father in Heaven, and the Holy Spirit. NO-ONE else. We do of course honor Mary and other humans who played major roles in God's plan of salvation. But never worship.

"Only the Lord Jesus can save you from your sins why do I say this? Because my Bible says it just like that."

A: Yes, your Bible, which was compiled by the Catholic Church, says just that. This should tell you that the Catholic Church must teach just that, for the Church, in compiling the Bible at the end of the 4th century, would certainly have not allowed into its book any writings which contradicted its own teaching. But you probably don't know much about where the Bible came from. Most Protestants don't.

"Lets say for the point of conversation that God meant for the CATHOLIC CHURCH to be the only church you people have done a real shabby job of preaching the LORD JESUS and for that my friends someone will pay."

A: Yeah, a real shabby job. Over a billion people currently alive know the Lord Jesus through the teaching of the Catholic Church. The messsage of Jesus Christ was brought from the first century to the present day through the teaching and preaching of the Catholic Church. Every nation on earth which is currently Christian was initially evangelized by missionaries of the Catholic Church. The message of Jesus Christ preached by the Catholic Church is still pure, complete, and undivided after 2,000 years. If Protestants are doing such a great job of preaching the Lord Jesus, why do your Baptist beliefs contradict Methodist beliefs? And why do Methodist beliefs contradict Lutheran beliefs? And why do Lutheran beliefs contradict Pentecostal beliefs? Jesus said the TRUTH would set men free. Can truth contradict truth? Can such doctrinal chaos be the will of God or the work of the Holy Spirit? The Catholic Church preaches our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as He intended to be preached - in UNITY and in truth.

"I find it hard to beleive that so many of you get on these threads and really expect anyone to beleive what you say when you either don't read your Bibles or only pick parts of the Bible to beleive"

A: Oh puleeeeeze! The Catholic Church is the ONLY church which accepts, loves, and embraces EVERY passage of scripture. And why wouldn't we? The Catholic Church put those passages into the Bible. They represent Catholic teaching. To be Protestant, one has to pick one's way carefully through the Bible, searching for passages which might be interpreted to support new doctrines the Apostles never heard of, while avoiding those passages which plainly contradict Protestant tradition - like John 20:22-23 above. And once they separate God's Word into acceptable and avoidable passages, they can't even agree on how to interpret the acceptable ones!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 30, 2003.

Well, well to hear you talk I am assuming that because I am not Catholic I am on my way to hell that my beleifs are not correct and that if I don't agree with you 100% I and all others like me are in trouble. I said that I am baptist and I have stated many times that I don't have a problem with anyone because they are Catholic. Sir I understand my interpretation of the Bible just fine I however do not understand yours. I don't have any problems with Methodist the only diffrence between the two is they sprinkle and we soak you to the bone in baptism. I also stated that there would be Catholics in Heaven and Baptists in Hell and vice versa. You dont have to rant and rave @me because I am not going to beleive anything other than what I beleive right now. I have not read any propaganda about the Catholic church I have read about the catholic church and seen some things on T.V. but other than that I have made my on assumptions and right or wrong they are mine. Catholics did not write the BIBLE sir God used men to write his bible and they were HEBREW or JEWISH which ever you prefer so if you want to make such ludicrous statements tell them to someone else. I say you interpret the Bible wrong you say we do but in the end it will not matter because those of us who really trust and beleive in the Lord JESUS whether we are Catholics, Baptist Methodist,Lutheran or what ever the case may be will be just fine in the end. I am sorry if I offended you that was not my reason for coming here I was and still am trying to enlighten my self and understand a little better than I do. It's true I do not beleive as you do and the same goes for you but we can have civil discourse and may be understand each other a little better. I really don't understand how you think that we Baptist pick through the Bible and take what we want from it. You obviously have never been to a Baptist Church therefore you really should not make those Statements. If you have been to one you went to the wrong one because that is not how it is done @ my church. Well Like I said sorry if I struck a nerve and i'm sorry if I seem like I am bashing any of youthats not what I meant to do. God be wit you!!!!! John

-- John Page (johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), December 30, 2003.

Catholics did not write the BIBLE sir God used men to write his bible and they were HEBREW or JEWISH which ever you prefer so if you want to make such ludicrous statements tell them to someone else.

That is true for the Old Testament, but it was those in the early Church (the Catholic Church, if you will) who wrote the New Testament.

Then all the books were compiled by St. Jerome in the 4th century into a Latin translation by request of Pope Damasus. The first person known with certainty to apply the term canon to the Sacred Scriptures was St. Athanasius, about 350A.D. In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.

Bill, Are you telling me that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were Catholic I am not Being sarcastic I would just like to know if that is what you are saying. If so please Explain.

-- John Page (Johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), December 30, 2003.

Yes, John, they were Catholic. They were part of the initial Church Christ created. That Church has an unbroken liniage to the present day Church known as the Catholic Church. We are 2,000 years old. Here is a passage from the old Catholic Encyclopedia that might help explain this:

Since the authority with which the Lord endowed the Apostles was given them for the entire Church, it is natural that this authority should endure after their death, in other words, pass to successors established by the Apostles. In the oldest Christian documents concerning the primitive Churches we find ministers established, some of them, at least, by the usual rite of the imposition of hands. They bear various names: priests (presbyteroi, Acts, xi, 30; xiv, 22; xv, 2, 4, 6, 22, 23; xvi, 4; xx, 17; xxi, 18; I Tim., v, 17, 19; Titus, i, 5); bishops (episkopoi, Acts, xx, 28; Phil., i, 1; I Tim., iii, 2; Titus, i, 7); presidents (proistamenoi, I Thes., v, 12; Rom., xii, etc.); heads (hegoumenoi, Hebrews, xiii, 7, 17, 24, etc.); shepherds (poimenes, Eph., iv, 11); teachers (didaskaloi, Acts, xiii, 1; I Cor., xii, 28 sq. etc.); prophets (prophetai, Acts, xiii, 1; xv, 32; I Cor., xii, 28, 29, etc.), and some others. Besides them, there are Apostolic delegates, such as Timothy and Titus. The most frequent terms are priests and bishops; they were destined to become the technical names for the "authorities" of the Christian community. All other names are less important; the deacons are out of the question, being of an inferior order. It seems clear that amid so great a variety of terms for ecclesiastical authorities in Apostolic times several must have expressed only transitory functions. From the beginning of the second century in Asia Minor, and somewhat later elsewhere, we find only three titles: bishops, priests, and deacons; the last changed with inferior duties. The authority of the bishop is different from the authority of priests, as is evident on every page of the letters of the martyr Ignatius of Antioch. The bishop--and there is but one in each town--governs his church, appoints priests who have a subordinate rank to him, and are, as it were, his counsellors, presides over the Eucharistic assemblies, teaches his people, etc. He has, therefore, a general power of governing and teaching, quite the same as the modern Catholic bishop; this power is substantially identical with the general authority of the Apostles, without, however, the personal prerogatives ascribed to the latter. St. Ignatius of Antioch declares that this ministry holds legitimately its authority from God through Christ (Letter to the Philadelphians, i). Clement of Rome, in his Letter; to the Church of Corinth (about 96), defends with energy the legitimacy of the ministry of bishops and, priests, and proclaims that the Apostles established successors to govern the churches (xlii-xliv). We may conclude with confidence that, about the end of the second century, the ministers of the churches were everywhere regarded as legitimate successors of the Apostles; this common persuasion is of primary importance.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.

Thank's Bill That is very intresting and gives me something to Study on. I really do appreciate it. I have been taught one way all my life and I quite frankly do not understand how you and I are Gentiles but seem to have little diffrences in the way we beleive. I appreciate your understanding in this matter and hope that we can have many more discussions in the future. I really mean no harm and I do not wish to Bash anyone. I am guilty of not fully understanding your faith and how and why Catholics beleive what they beleive. I was raised and continue to belive in one GOD and I love my Church I feel Gods presence every time I am in his house but I also have respect for Your Church and I am having fun dicussing things with you and the rest of the people that come to this board. Take Care and GOD BE WITH YOU ALWAYS.!!!

-- John Page (Johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), December 30, 2003.

Gentiles simply means not Jewish. see: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06422a.htm

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.

I know what it means. I Should have said I wonder when the Gentiles split into more than one church and why? That is a question for another day I guess.

-- John Page (johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), December 30, 2003.

God be with you too, John.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.