Hold it! Not so fast!

Read down to verse 40 of same chapter and hear what he said, so that you dont input your motive.

Syncan:

Yes.
1Cor 7:12 starts with this "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:" The words in bold sends you a message immediately. It puts the next set of instructions not in the same category with the earlier ones

see:

"But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God." (1 Corinthians 7:40).

He had the ^ Holy spirit he said, what was recorded was still the same even if he said so.

So, what he said: "But to the rest speak I", is still the same. No ?

He was not going up and down like your popes.

Peace.

Syncan:

O wise and understanding one hear this:

"At that time Jesus answered and said:I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children" Matt 11: 25.

No wonder it was hidden from you!

It may actually be you. No ?

The apostles never claimed what you are claiming and failing up and down, but God used them, humble men they were.

The scriptures are God's gift to man, hence has nothing to do with human infallibility.

Solomon was certainly not infallible.

Just swallow the truth, your pope is just what he is > 'a fallible imperfect human', though he lied that he is infallible.

truthislight: Hold it! Not so fast!

Read down to verse 40 of same chapter and hear what he said, so that you dont input your motive.

see:

"But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God." (1 Corinthians 7:40).

He had the ^ Holy spirit he said, what was recorded was still the same even if he said so.

So, what he said: "But to the rest speak I", is still the same. No ?

He was not going up and down.

Peace.

To this i will respond graciously, since you did not ask in your usual mood.

Please look carefully at this.

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord": and then the one you brought to the fore

"But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God".

Did you notice a difference made by those words?

Firstly, he tells you that he is the one speaking and that he has no Divine instruction - Please accept what he said, it is not the lord but him.

Secondly, just like you pointed out, he said he "thinks", He has made what he considered a sound teaching with the best of intentions, yet if someone challenges him on this at the time, he will not proclaim anathema. If he thinks, he is not certain.

truthislight:

It may actually be you. No ?

The apostles never claimed what you are claiming and failing up and down, but God used them, humble men they were.

The scriptures are God's gift to man, hence has nothing to do with human infallibility.

Solomon was certainly not infallible.

Just swallow the truth, your pope is just what he is > 'a fallible imperfect human', though he lied that he is infallible.

Once again you have gone back to your former unfortunate condition. Only LK 23: 9 is my response again.

Not any thing about "my usual manner", but rather, you are replying because your motive is being refuted.

Syncan:

To this i will respond graciously, since you did not ask in your usual mood.

Please look carefully at this.

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord": and then the one you brought to the fore

"But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God".

Did you notice a difference made by those words?

Firstly, he tells you that he is the one speaking and that he has no Divine instruction - Please accept what he said, it is not the lord but him.

Secondly, just like you pointed out, he said he "thinks", He has made what he considered a sound teaching with the best of intentions, yet if someone challenges him on this at the time, he will not proclaim anathema. If he thinks, he is not certain.

I dont know what you are dividing there ^.

Apostle paul said in verse 12, "but i", and continued talking till the end of the chapter and he ended it by saying "he has the holy spirit also".

When the bible was written, there was no verses, as such, what you are insinuating is a falacy.

Did you forget what he said in verse 25 ?:

"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful." (1 Corinthians 7:25).
.......................

Will that ^ be true ?

Because he had the holy spirit and hence, all he said was from God, just as he said he has the holy spirit.

He says there "as one who has obtained marcy".

Though he is human and makes mistake, he did not claimed infallibility and did not teach error and his life style was examplary.

Even those whose life style was bad was also recorded in the bible for us to learn from their error and has nothing to do with "infallibilty".

see:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20).

" For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21).
................................

How then can apostle paul speak of 'his own will' in verse 12 of chapter 7 of 1cor. ?

Peter says:

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,

which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16).
...................

On the last ^, take note. Twisting to "ones own destruction".

Stop twisting it.

Peter said on "all" of apostle paul writings.

*Oh, i forgot, RCC says the scriptures that should not be tempared with is only the book of Revelation*. Smh.

^^ On top of that, the "pope" is actually quite fallible even on matters of faith aka "the deposit of faith" --- according to Roman Catholic doctrine when studied carefully.

That is why they are able to wriggle when a "pope" is caught in heresy --- they say oh but even though he committed heresy on a matter of faith, he was not then exercising "infallibility". This is exactly the case with the "pope" Honorius who was formally declared to be a heretic by a Council and other "popes".

With the fact that Honorius' case catches them out, Roman Catholics were initially lying that Honorius was not declared a heretic ---- until official documents surfaced including the profession of faith by which, for decades/centuries", "popes" intending to take office had to decare that Honorius was a heretic.

Then Roman Catholics changed tactics: some try to say well, the Council made a mistake and that Honorius was not in fact guiilty of heresy. Again the documents easily refute them.

Then, they turn to their last refuge: they say even if Honorius was indeed guilty of heresy he was not speaking "infallibly".

You see? How oily? Teflon "infallibility"!

The whole "papal infallibility" thing is a ruse by which one "pope" in particular and some others wanted to vent their megalomania. It has nothing to do with Christianity.

Hence they defined "papal infallibility" quite vaguely such that, as I said before, even Roman Catholics cannot give an accurate, agreed or even consistent catalogue of when their "popes" have spoken "infallibly".

Enigma: ^^ On top of that, the "pope" is actually quite fallible even on matters of faith aka "the deposit of faith" --- according to Roman Catholic doctrine when studied carefully.

That is why they are able to wriggle when a "pope" is caught in heresy --- they say oh but even though he committed heresy on a matter of faith, he was not then exercising "infallibility". This is exactly the case with the "pope" Honorius who was formally declared to be a heretic by a Council and other "popes".

With the fact that Honorius' case catches them out, Roman Catholics were initially lying that Honorius was not declared a heretic ---- until official documents surfaced including the profession of faith by which, for decades/centuries", "popes" intending to take office had to decare that Honorius was a heretic.

Then Roman Catholics changed tactics: some try to say well, the Council made a mistake and that Honorius was not in fact guiilty of heresy. Again the documents easily refute them.

Then, they turn to their last refuge: they say even if Honorius was indeed guilty of heresy he was not speaking "infallibly".

You see? How oily? Teflon "infallibility"!

The whole "papal infallibility" thing is a ruse by which one "pope" in particular and spome others wanted to vent their megalomania. It has nothing to do with Christianity.

Hence they defined "papal infallibility" quite vaguelyt such that, as I said before, even Roman Catholics cannot give an accurate, agreed or even consistent catalogue of when their "popes" spoke "infallibly".

^^
Very very 'oily' i tell ya.

By the way, to get some low down on how the vote on "papal infallibility" was secured at Vatican I (with the machinations of "pope" Pius IX), it is interesting to read from the Roman Catholics who could not stomach it. And we are talking about Roman Catholic bishops, theologians and university professors.

To start with, google these two names: (1) Strossmayer, and (2) Ignatius Ignaz von Dollinger.

Your eyes will open.

You will even read that Roman Catholic Catechisms in some places like Ireland --- were saying that it was "Protestants" who were lying that Roman Catholics believed in "papal infallibility". In other words, they were saying they did not believe in it and that "Protestants" were lying against them. When the vote was passed at Vatican I, they then had to modify that line in their Catechism!

Ridiculous!

to Can Catholics respond this. Where there any time pope Honorius was declared a heretic? If so, there is no need for further argument. and please enigma can you post a document showing he was actually declared a heretic?

Enigma: ^^ On top of that, the "pope" is actually quite fallible even on matters of faith aka "the deposit of faith" --- according to Roman Catholic doctrine when studied carefully.

That is why they are able to wriggle when a "pope" is caught in heresy --- they say oh but even though he committed heresy on a matter of faith, he was not then exercising "infallibility". This is exactly the case with the "pope" Honorius who was formally declared to be a heretic by a Council and other "popes".

With the fact that Honorius' case catches them out, Roman Catholics were initially lying that Honorius was not declared a heretic ---- until official documents surfaced including the profession of faith by which, for decades/centuries", "popes" intending to take office had to decare that Honorius was a heretic.

Then Roman Catholics changed tactics: some try to say well, the Council made a mistake and that Honorius was not in fact guiilty of heresy. Again the documents easily refute them.

Then, they turn to their last refuge: they say even if Honorius was indeed guilty of heresy he was not speaking "infallibly".

You see? How oily? Teflon "infallibility"!

The whole "papal infallibility" thing is a ruse by which one "pope" in particular and some others wanted to vent their megalomania. It has nothing to do with Christianity.

Hence they defined "papal infallibility" quite vaguely such that, as I said before, even Roman Catholics cannot give an accurate, agreed or even consistent catalogue of when their "popes" have spoken "infallibly".

JMAN05: to Can Catholics respond this. Where there any time pope Honorius was declared a heretic? If so, there is no need for further argument. and please enigma can you post a document showing he was actually declared a heretic?

Yeah, thats ^ true.

If a pope was decleared heretic, of what use is the argument then ?

Actually there is an example from earlier on this very thread where I pointed out that even the Roman Catholic denomination people's own very encyclopaedia could not deny it and says: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned."

So yeah let Roman Catholics continue to sing: Let him be anathema!


----

Addendum: in fact let me add jara from our friend dem own encyclopaedia:

"Pope Honorius I

Pope (625-12 October, 638), a , consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680)."

Syncan:

Once again you have gone back to your former unfortunate condition. Only LK 23: 9 is my response again.

My friend stop hiding in silence.

Come and proved that some of what paul taught was not of God, meanwhile he had the holyspirit.

That ^ is what your evidence is as to why your infallible popes blunder here and there though they claimed infallibility.

Come and show us why someone that is infallible can teach errors and wants us to accept it to be 'truth' because he is infallible.

Come and show us why he can not change the errors he has taught befor and people must accept it because he is infallible.

Come and clear all those ^.

It is even very simple sef, just say they are fallible and end this chapter.

The bible writers never claims infallibility afteral.

Better still, show us evidence that your pope is infallible and the list of infallible doctrines of your rcc and dont just claimed it with your mouth and nothing to show for it.

Come out bros.

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" (1 Peter 3:15).

Enigma: Actually there is an example from earlier on this very thread where I pointed out that even the Roman Catholic denomination people's own very encyclopaedia could not deny it and says: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned."

So yeah let Roman Catholics continue to sing: Let him be anathema!


----

Addendum: in fact let me add jara from our friend dem own encyclopaedia:

"Pope Honorius I

Pope (625-12 October, 638), a , consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680)."

What exactly did they teach ?

Lets see if it was the teaching that caused the problem or it was because they went against their most chrish propagandas.

Something called "monothelism". You will have to read up on it. Somehow, I have a feeling that you might actually agree with Honorius on the matter!

Anyway, whatever he taught is not even key here: what is key is that he was condemned by his fellow Roman Catholics (as well as the real "Catholics", i.e. the Eastern people) ---- on a matter pertaining to faith!

truthislight: Not any thing about "my usual manner", but rather, you are replying because your motive is being refuted.



I dont know what you are dividing there ^.

Apostle paul said in verse 12, "but i", and continued talking till the end of the chapter and he ended it by saying "he has the holy spirit also".

When the bible was written, there was no verses, as such, what you are insinuating is a falacy.

Did you forget what he said in verse 25 ?:

"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful." (1 Corinthians 7:25).
.......................

Will that ^ be true ?

Because he had the holy spirit and hence, all he said was from God, just as he said he has the holy spirit.

He says there "as one who has obtained marcy".

Though he is human and makes mistake, he did not claimed infallibility and did not teach error and his life style was examplary.

Even those whose life style was bad was also recorded in the bible for us to learn from their error and has nothing to do with "infallibilty".

see:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20).

" For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21).
................................

How then can apostle paul speak of 'his own will' in verse 12 of chapter 7 of 1cor. ?

Peter says:

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,

which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16).
...................

On the last ^, take note. Twisting to "ones own destruction".

Stop twisting it.

Peter said on "all" of apostle paul writings.

*Oh, i forgot, RCC says the scriptures that should not be tempared with is only the book of Revelation*. Smh.

It is you who quoted this "But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I [b]think [/b]also that I have the Spirit of God".

and it is you who is making this statement "Apostle paul said in verse 12, "but i", and continued talking till the end of the chapter and he ended it by saying "he has the holy spirit also".

You speak so much, making little sense. An apostle in the middle of an instruction tells you that the following instruction is coming from him and not the lord. He goes ahead to make the instructions, he reassures the people that this is from his judgement, but that he believes he is backed by the spirit of God. Now why did he in the middle of the speech, feel obligated to inform his hearers that the next set of instruction is not the lord's but his?

Why are you quarreling with what St. Paul said?

Your ignorance of the meaning of the word Infallibility is so thick and your refusal to read and learn is not helping you at all.

truthislight:

What exactly did they teach ?

Lets see if it was the teaching that caused the problem or it was because they went against their most chrish propagandas.

Funny, I once showed how it was the Roman Catholics who defined Nepotism!

Well again, it was the Roman Catholics also who defined Propaganda --- although in fairness that one might have been well intended originally.

@ adsonstone, I dont exactly know what you mean by "compromise."

I remember telling you that we must see Scripture through the eyes of Tradition...since, even Scripture was created by Tradition.

There can be no compromise when it comes to doctrine.

In some better moments the Roman Catholic Church denomination indicates a willingness to compromise!

Only that they have far to go!

In one of its more sane though still defective documents -- also from the more sane but still defective Vatican II. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html


"All in the Church must preserve unity in essentials. But let all, according to the gifts they have received enjoy a proper freedom, in their various forms of spiritual life and discipline, in their different liturgical rites, and even in their theological elaborations of revealed truth. In all things let charity prevail. If they are true to this course of action, they will be giving ever better expression to the authentic catholicity and apostolicity of the Church."

Syncan:
You speak so much, making little sense. An apostle in the middle of an instruction tells you that the following instruction is coming from him and not the lord. He goes ahead to make the instructions, he reassures the people that this is from his judgement, but that he believes he is backed by the spirit of God. Now why did he in the middle of the speech, feel obligated to inform his hearers that the next set of instruction is not the lord's but his?

Why are you quarreling with what St. Paul said?

Your ignorance of the meaning of the word Infallibility is so thick and your refusal to read and learn is not helping you at all.

My friend, Apostle paul was a teacher of God's word and he did not say he has holyspirit and teaches lies at the same time.

The problem here is that you claim that your popes are infallible when it comes to doctrines, but the evidence is the opposit.

I dont know what you want 1cor.7:12 to do for you.

Even Oyakhilome gets certain doctrine right(like "marriage is of God" ), but when he claims infallibility on all his teachings when it is obviouse that he is very fallible like your popes, it becomes obviouse that he is deliberately lying and not just error, but an intent to deceive is inherent.

But, apostle paul does not teach errors, hence, he will be rejected by God.

If there are no errors from your infallible popes, we will not be here talking, will we ?

But you are here trying to justify the errors they have taught by saying it is on "special circumstances that they are infallible".

Say they are fallible like other people and we leave this talk.

Peter was fallible, hence apostle paul corrected him, and it did not take anything from him.

But your popes are the causes of all the blunders in christiandom and killings in the name of christ and over 90% of the diversities we have today in christianity started from them, but you still say they are not fallible and we should shallow all he has ever said as the truth.

You come up with cunning to shield them from responsibility, at what time should a christian lie and at what time should he not lie ?

How then will Jesus words come true if it is so ?

" by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20).
....................

When will that ^ appliy to your pope ? Smh.

If we all assign the same criteria you give to your pope to our selves in this forum, we all then will be perfact.

Why then do we comeplain about Oyakhilome talk of "mastubation is not a sin" ?

Was he talking in his capacity as infallible or fallible ? (whatever that means).

Your deceit is in the excess.

^^^

The Prostestant pretends to argue against the Catholic doctrine of "Papal infallibility."

...but actually, what he does is to argue against his own distorted version of "Papal infallibility."

So the Protestant wins the argument, only, he wins against his own concocted doctrine of Papal infallibility.

Enigma: Actually there is an example from earlier on this very thread where I pointed out that even the Roman Catholic denomination people's own very encyclopaedia could not deny it and says: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned."

So yeah let Roman Catholics continue to sing: Let him be anathema!


----

Addendum: in fact let me add jara from our friend dem own encyclopaedia:

"Pope Honorius I

Pope (625-12 October, 638), a , consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680)."

Until Catholics refutes this prove, there is no need discussing the infallibility of the popes again. next subject.

italo: ^^^

The Prostestant pretends to argue against the Catholic doctrine of "Papal infallibility."

...but actually, what he does is to argue against his own distorted version of "Papal infallibility."

So the Protestant wins the argument, only, he wins against his own concocted doctrine of Papal infallibility.

Can you pls respond to Enigma's post?

^^ He "doesn't read my posts"!

since you dont read Enigma's post. I write.

Can you dent what this encyclopaedia says?: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned."

"Pope Honorius I

Pope (625-12 October, 638), a , consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680)."

If you dont respond, I will add it as my further prove against that infallibility lie until proven wrong.

@Enigma Has been asking rcc to pesent doctrines from the popes that he excersises his infallibility or list the infallible teachings here for all to see but not yet.

I think i have done same, but no respons yet, maybe if another person makes the request, you will oblige the person.

italo: ^^^

The Prostestant pretends to argue against the Catholic doctrine of "Papal infallibility."

...but actually, what he does is to argue against his own distorted version of "Papal infallibility."

So the Protestant wins the argument, only, he wins against his own concocted doctrine of Papal infallibility.

My argument are very simple, maybe not to you(or to rcc members) i suppose.

But fallibility or infallibility for the pope is what we wish to scripturally defined here.

Just help us out.

Or you free this matter and say it is not scriptural and let it rest.
Or, better still, you say that the pope is "fallible" and we take our leave.

But, if you wish to force this none scriptual doctrine down our throat, be my guest.

Enigma: ^^ He "doesn't read my posts"!

Hehehehe.

He does not read your post ? Smh.

And he thinks all other people dont read also ?

italo: ^^^

The Prostestant pretends to argue against the Catholic doctrine of "Papal infallibility."

...but actually, what he does is to argue against his own distorted version of "Papal infallibility."

So the Protestant wins the argument, only, he wins against his own concocted doctrine of Papal infallibility.

My brother! It is tiresome.

truthislight:

My friend, Apostle paul was a teacher of God's word and he did not say he has holyspirit and teaches lies at the same time.

The problem here is that you claim that your popes are infallible when it comes to doctrines, but the evidence is the opposit.

I dont know what you want 1cor.7:12 to do for you.

Even Oyakhilome gets certain doctrine right(like "marriage is of God" ), but when he claims infallibility on all his teachings when it is obviouse that he is very fallible like your popes, it becomes obviouse that he is deliberately lying and not just error, but an intent to deceive is inherent.

But, apostle paul does not teach errors, hence, he will be rejected by God.

If there are no errors from your infallible popes, we will not be here talking, will we ?

But you are here trying to justify the errors they have taught by saying it is on "special circumstances that they are infallible".

Say they are fallible like other people and we leave this talk.

Peter was fallible, hence apostle paul corrected him, and it did not take anything from him.

But your popes are the causes of all the blunders in christiandom and killings in the name of christ and over 90% of the diversities we have today in christianity started from them, but you still say they are not fallible and we should shallow all he has ever said as the truth.

You come up with cunning to shield them from responsibility, at what time should a christian lie and at what time should he not lie ?

How then will Jesus words come true if it is so ?

" by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20).
....................

When will that ^ appliy to your pope ? Smh.

If we all assign the same criteria you give to your pope to our selves in this forum, we all then will be perfact.

Why then do we comeplain about Oyakhilome talk of "mastubation is not a sin" ?

Was he talking in his capacity as infallible or fallible ? (whatever that means).

Your deceit is in the excess.

I said it before "You speak too much, but make little sense". Please one more try at helping you, in your own term, what do you understand infallibility of the pope to be?

truthislight:

Hehehehe.

He does not read your post ? Smh.

And he thinks all other people dont read also ?

He "doesn't read my posts" oooo! He only reports them to the Mods --- or to Police! Though how he knows what to report without reading it is another level even higher than "infallibility"! Anyway, I suggested reporting to GEJ or United Nations! Maybe reporting to one of those will be more effective?

"Are you fallible or infallible" was the question I asked you ages ago.

JMAN05: since you dont read Enigma's post. I write.

Can you dent what this encyclopaedia says?: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned."

"Pope Honorius I

Pope (625-12 October, 638), a , consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680)."

If you dont respond, I will add it as my further prove against that infallibility lie until proven wrong.

Enigma:

He "doesn't read my posts" oooo! He only reports them to the Mods --- or to Police! Though how he knows what to report without reading it is another level even higher than "infallibility"! Anyway, I suggested reporting to GEJ or United Nations! Maybe reporting to one of those will be more effective?

bros, you know say if we follow wear this cloak of conditional infallibity we fit become pope too o.

When we make mistake, we say we did not make use of our infallibility

if them catch us for left we show right hand and when them catch us for right hand we show left hand, by so doing no one can even ever catch us.

Even when the thing dong dey exposed, when we die, them go just call us "heretic", matter closed! Hehehehe.

We go be smothe operators
James Bond ni
007 ko

men! Mankind get sense o!

what do you think bros ?

We can also be infallible men!

Syncan:


I said it before "You speak too much, but make little sense". Please one more try at helping you, in your own term, what do you understand infallibility of the pope to be?

Is that word in the sriptures ? Show me, let me read it up.

Thank you.

Peace.