Papal Infallibility: There is NO sign of it in the Bible is there? Jesus also never suggested it? So, ask yourself how did it come about? I personally feel that it came about as a means of gaining control over the uneducated and world leaders alike. It is a power play at best...wrong for certain. Not a gift from God or the Holy Spirit.

Man made title/privilege to secure a position.

Whose the antichrist now?

Posting demon pics of Benedict XVI accomplishes nothing at all, other than fostering hatred.

Challenging papal infallibility does nothing more than destroys the Church.

However, he is doing it openly instead of implicitly, so at least his enmity with Jesus Christ is manifest.

Papal Infallibility. ... It is a power play at best...wrong for certain...

There is one thing that IS "wrong for certain" in your posts on this topic (and several others) - you.

No, I will not bother to post this or that link/article in order to refute the nonsense you are offering, as you have already shown, in this thread and others, that you cannot/will not hear the truth.  Cheers

Go ahead Uriel, think yourself all the way to hell (actually, convert from your folly and be saved, please) if that's what you want.  I will meditate on the law of the Lord, who established His Church upon Blessed Peter, and who will not allow Her to err in teaching His Faith.

No, I will not bother to post this or that link/article in order to refute the nonsense you are offering

I will.

...prove my last post as being wrong...

I will.


Uriel, you are faced with the age old problem of "How is the Bible infallible if the pope wasn't?"

How do you know what you are reading to be inspired Scripture?

How do you know who the true Church is and who is a false 'church'?  You have to rely entirely on men, and pick and choose between fallible men's doctrines, as though God did not promise to guide His Church until His return in the flesh.

I admit that I am surprised more people aren't jumping on your bandwagon, since infallibility poses a huge problem for so many of their heresies.

Nevertheless, popes way back even believed in infallibility, even if they were not entirely clear on the full scope and definition of it.

Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit... If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger...

Clearly Pope Clement believed in infallibility.

As for Pope John XXII, whom you accuse of denying the doctrine of papal infallibility did not such thing.

He was asserting the fact that a binding decision in matters of DISCIPLINE by the Pontiff may nevertheless be overturned by his successor, which is what the Friars Minor were disputing.

If therefore after an interdict of a general council it was lawful for the supreme Pontiffs to confirm orders [that] had not been confirmed, and for their successors to dissolve completely [those which] had been so confirmed, is it not wonderful, if, what only the supreme Pontiff may declare or ordain concerning the rules of [religious] orders, it is lawful for his successors to declare or to change to other things.

The Friars Minor created a distinction between the key of knowledge, by which, they say matters of faith and morals are defined, and the key of power, by which they say matters of discipline are ordained.  This distinction is what Pope John XII censured as false.

Wherefore it remains, that to establish anything conveniently, or to define it, each of the keys, namely, of examining and defining, is required as necessary; or that to only the key of power does it belong to establish [anything], and even to define [it];

He certainly did not censure the notion that it is unlawful to go against a previous pope's definition of faith and morals, and in fact he even defends himself against the assertion that he was contradicting such a previous definition.

Besides they tell us, where they read assertions of this kind, that it pertains to faith and morals, that Christ and the Apostles did not have as regards these things, which they did have, [anything] but the simplex  usus facti? Indeed this does not pertain directly to faith...

Quoting Hans Küng, by the way, is baaaaad taste, and is worse than quoting Martin Luther, or (if possible) satan himself.  In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if he is satan, or is at least possessed by him.

Quote from: Caraffa

Fruits of Sedevacantism.

As a very similar position has been taken since at least the 1500s, notably in the 1870s by Dollinger and company, such a comment is not much of an "insight" and is not really useful in this discussion.  However, if having made it has made you feel good, you are free to go with it.

No it doesn't make me feel good. I consider Sedes to be part of the Trad movement and certain members on this forum such as yourself, sedetrad, raoul76, SJB, etc, all seem fairly reasonable to me even though I disagree and sometime harshly with you fellows on certain things.

Sed Contra, you have Sedes like Uriel who seems to be a Protestant, if not a Modernist, Classicom, who refers to the Magisterium as "Club Infallible," Catholic Martyr who believes there has been no Pope since 1914, holds strange views, and nearly took Vladimir with him. There are also other like this "Pope Augustine" character. It doesn't help your cause.  

Don't forget Lover_of_Truth, Caraffa.

This is the sedevacantist nucleus here on CathInfo.  And yes, we are reasonable.  We are just Catholics.

I predict you will one day be one of us.  You have the "stuff" but I'm guessing you are somewhat young.  It often takes some life experience and knowledge of evil to be a sedevacantist.  

You probably see us as idealistic; and I see you the same way. You are idealizing a Church that is no longer the Church, but is only a hollowed-out shell presided over by madmen. Yet in your eyes it is still the Church and you must obey it, just as I too must obey the true Church, which presently has no head.  Otherwise the Holy Ghost has failed to protect the papacy from teaching error, and I believe the Holy Ghost incapable of failure on that scale.  

In fact as a Catholic I MUST believe the Holy Ghost is incapable of a failure on that scale, because of the dogma of papal infallibility which explicitly tells us that no true Pope can do what these men are doing.  This is why you will see each of our two camps quoting "The gates of hell will not prevail against it," but from two different perspectives.  You see the Church as being where the buildings and man pretending to be Pope are; I see it as being where the dogmas are held intact.

Uriel, you don't even believe in heresy, because you don't believe in infallibility.  If there is no infallibility, how can anything be heresy or even be shown to be heresy?

Wake up.