An Unintentional Debate
Someone asked an honest question in regard to Siscoe and Salza’s book True or False Pope. I ended up verifying their position on a matter, and have published a new page in regard to this. The questions continued to come in from this person, and I realized that I was being drug into a debate with Siscoe and Salza, which I believe to be a waste of time. They are set on their position and are ignoring the plain meaning of words in Ecclesiastical Law. I cut off the debate last night, and would like to quote two things from our last two emails:
I wrote: “I wish people would get this infallibility idea out of their head. To become a heretic, you do not have to attempt to declare your false doctrine in an infallible manner. If you did, then only the Pope or someone claiming to be Pope could become a heretic.”
This person answered: “Please present an infallible law stating that a pope is infallible in every command. I only know that there is an infallible law stating that we must not believe a pope is infallible in everything, and that it is heretical to believe he is. (That does not mean one is a heretic who believes such.)”
Apparently the recognize and resist crowd believe that to become a heretic a Pope must attempt to infallibly define heresy as doctrine, which we know is impossible.
Read MoreNew Book
Brother Lawrence
Recent Comments