Pope Pius XII forced Papal faithful to believe in his own infallibility

The Roman Catholic is told that the Holy Spirit preserve the Popes from making mistake in questions of Faith and moral.

Pope Pius XII did not enter the Vatican on a donkey, but was carried around like a pagan King.

Pope Pius XII forced a doctrine on the Vatican Church in 1950 called the «Papal infallibility». It is a dogma that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates teaching on faith or morals.

Since the Popes claim they are successor to the Apostle Peter, Pius XII made them some kind of super-humans even compared to Peter. Because the Jewish fisherman after had receieved the Power of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, committed serious errors, and was rebuked by Paul. This is explained to us in Gal 2:11.

Since the Bible say that the Holy Spirit is equally available to all believers, we can only be sure of one thing: Any man, Pope, Priest or Pastor, who claim superiority over other believers, may they be laymen or ordained, is ruled by the spirit of anti-Christ.

7 thoughts on “Pope Pius XII forced Papal faithful to believe in his own infallibility

  1. I believe you have some facts wrong here. Pope Pius XII did not force the dogma of papal infallibility on the Catholic faithful in 1950. The dogma of papal infallibility was defined by the First Vatican Council of 1869-1870, but this teaching authority was exercised by the Pope even before the First Vatican Council. Bear in mind also that this is only a teaching authority, which does not make the Pope “super-human”. It only says that the Pope doesn’t make an official error concerning matters of faith and morals because the Holy Spirit guides him. If this were a pretension, then it is by far the humblest pretension ever, for it shows the Pope on his knees in the dust, confessing his ignorance in the face of the omniscience of God, and imploring Him to help him guide the faithful.

    The Bible verse which you mentioned, Galatians 2:11, is interesting. It says, “But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” You mention that St. Paul rebuked St. Peter because of “serious errors.” It seems to me that you’ve taken the verse in question out of context, and imposed your own meaning on it. For the letter continues, “For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles sinners.” (Galatians 2:12-15). The “error” in question was that St. Peter withdrew himself from the table of the Gentiles for fear of offending the Jewish converts to Christianity. But this might have been of ill-consequence to the Gentile converts, who might have thought that they should conform in every way to the Jewish lifestyle, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. But St. Paul here is not reprehending him in any argument on his supremacy, because in such cases, an inferior may, and ought to, admonish his superior, respectfully of course.

    Thank you very much.

    1. Dear Bishop Myriel.

      Shalom, and welcome to this site.

      I do not know what Bible version you are using, but let me quot from the Amplified Bible:

      Gal 2:11: But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I protested and opposed him to his face [concerning his conduct there], for he was blameable and stood condemned.

      I used «serious error». I feel you shoot in the wrong direction trying to make a case out of my comment, in regards to how serious Peter`s actions was. He was wrong, He was blameable and stood condemned.

      The Darby Bible version explains to us:

      11But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to [the] face, because he was to be condemned:

      Back in Jerusalem, Peter had to repent. You do not need to repent if your action is a fruit of the Holy Spirit.

  2. There is something else missed here. When Peter made his mistake he was not teaching the whole church. Infallibilbity does not mean a pope doesn’t make mistakes – if you don’t know they do go to confession. All it means is that God will stop them from teaching doctrine to the whole world (this is done in a particular way so you know that it is a teaching for the universal church) which is incorrect. It does not mean that the pope will not say something incorrectly, or do something incorrectly.

    1. Dear RHMom.

      Shalom, and welcome to this site.

      I guess it is worse to make a mistake when you are teaching the whole Church, than when you are eating with Gentiles?

      Please do not use Human arguments. They are nothing but foolishness.

  3. dear ivar, i presume you have read “The Two Babylons” by alexander hislop in which he explains the connection between the religion of the chaldees and roman catholicism. in the book reverend hislop points out thr doubtfulness that peter the apostle ever stepped foot in rome, much less was the first pope. peace.

    1. Dear john daugherty

      Shalom, and love i Jesus.

      Yesterday, I spoke to a man born into Roman Catholicism. His exodus from Rome started when questioning central RCC dogmas. One question he asked was: “How can the apostle Peter be the first Pope, when there was no pope before 300 A.D?

      Obviously, a man will find the truth if he seeks for the truth. Just like Jesus the Messiah has promised. The lies about the Papacy are lies, even if the RCC present them to us a million times. The man born into Roman Catholicism found and embranced the truth. Now he is an Evangelical Christian, who obey the truth.

Leave a Reply to ivarfjeld Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s