Yes, in the last 100 years Papal Infallibility has only been invoked once, in 1950, when Pope Pius XII proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption.  The Pope is not seen as infallible on a personal level only when he is speaking "Ex Cathedra." 

 

Peace - Mareczku 

Discerner4Him said:

"I care because the Pope is to be treated and regarded AS GOD in the Catholic religion.  This is simply NOT TRUE.

Pope means father; he is even called by the divine title "Holy Father" - but the disciples of Jesus Christ know only one Father, God. "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9). Nor do we call anyone by the title "holy" except our God, for the Scriptures say: "Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy" (Revelations 15:4).

The Pope is also known as Supreme Pontiff, a title inherited from the old Roman pagan mystery religion. Pontiff (Latin pontifex) means a bridge; but for us Christians we have only one bridge to heaven -- one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5).

The Pope claims to be the vicar of Christ, and has worked all his life to bring peace on earth. But the One he claims to represent had another purpose. Jesus said: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). Jesus preached one God, one way of salvation - the Pope gives false hopes to those who worship other gods and seek salvation apart from Jesus Christ, to Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists. Thus he is loved by all, but Christ was hated by all, and crucified!

He claims to be the successor of St Peter, but unlike Peter, Pope John Paul II taught others to trust in Mary and to surrender the hour of death wholly to her care. The apostle Peter taught people to call on the only name given by God for our salvation, the blessed name of Jesus the Messiah. "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

The Pope claims to be the infallible teacher of all Christians, but he distorts the clear meaning of Scripture to uphold traditional Catholic dogma. For example to defend the Mass (which is said to be a re-enactment and a carrying on of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross), Pope John Paul wrote: "Through the shedding of His own blood, Jesus Christ constantly 'ENTERS into God's sanctuary thus obtaining eternal redemption' (cf. Heb 9:12)" (Crossing the Threshold of Hope).

Compare the Pope's words with what the Bible actually says: "Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He ENTERED the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).

Notice how the word 'entered' is changed to 'enters' - giving the impression that this action is continuous rather than a simple action completed in the past. Moreover, the word 'once' is omitted, and the quotation is preceded by the word 'constantly.' Also, instead of 'having obtained' he writes 'obtaining', as if redemption is in the process of being accomplished! The meaning of this scripture is reversed! If Jesus 'constantly enters' the holy place, Christ is no better than the Levitical priests and if He has not obtained redemption, his blood is as powerless as that of goats and calves. But thanks be to God, His Word teaches the very opposite: "By his own blood he entered in once (not constantly enters) into the holy place, having obtained (not obtaining) eternal redemption for us."

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

I have been attending a Protestant high school and was challenged about my faith many times but my friends respect that I believe what I believe in. I like to call myself a cafertia Catholic, I just pick and choose what I want to believe in. I believe in Jesus Christ and that the pope and every single christian minster whether Catholic or Protestant are to be Christlike AND be a role model to others bringing outsiders to God THROUGH Jesus Christ.

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

Diserner said:

"Pope John Paul wrote: "Through the shedding of His own blood, Jesus Christ constantly 'ENTERS into God's sanctuary thus obtaining eternal redemption' (cf. Heb 9:12)" (Crossing the Threshold of Hope). Compare the Pope's words with what the Bible actually says: "Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He ENTERED the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12). Notice how the word 'entered' is changed to 'enters' - giving the impression that this action is continuous rather than a simple action completed in the past."

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

Why do you care if he changed the wording from "entered" to "enters"? Its the same general meaning. FYI this is a Catholic board and we won't allow any anti-Catholic stuff and Catholic bashing here. Since you go by the Bible and I do as well since I was taught by the Protestants on how to use it, I want your to open your Bible to my favorite verse: Matthew 7:1-2 and ponder what does this mean? and why I am doing it to people who worship God differently than you do?

Egad, alot of Protestants really cringe at Fundamentalism!  Please don't think the average fundamentalist is representative of most Protestants.

As for one side trying to evangelize another, I've no problem with any good-hearted attempt in either direction.  But it has to be done in an attitude of Christian charity and by trying to understand, if not necessarily agree with, another person's point of view.  Remember, we are Christians first, before our church affiliation.  I would say that it's much worse to have a fundamentalist write Catholics off as damned to hell, or vice versa, than to have one sincerely try to help with what they see as another person's error.  Surely, this has to be what Christ would have wanted?  Even if a person is one-sided in their attempt to convert someone to the other's side, doesn't that give someone the opportunity to explain "here's what we really believe" and "this is WHY I don't agree with you".  If we go into every discussion thinking that the other side must be avoided and doesn't have anything ever that worthwhile to share, how does that help? Sometimes I think it is the us vs them attitude on both sides that is more of a laugh to Satan than any of our theological differences.

Hey.......recently I joined a supposedly ecumenical Christian discussion forum. It was dominated by hard-core fundies who expressed an intense hatred of Catholicism, especially the Pope. Scary. I left in short order. Fundies and Catholics will never see eye-to-eye. I can't buy into ecumenism. In Christiain circles, Catholics will always find themselves under Fundamentalist attack, winessed by uncaring, non-Fundamentalist by-standers. No thanks. We have to keep to our own kind.

I don't think that Catholics practice adoration of Mary.  We consider it veneration.  Calling it adoration is a very loose definition of the word.  Such as: My sister's boyfriend really adores her.  I don't think Church documents refer to adoration of Mary.

Peace - Mareczku