Pope Infallible?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Pope Liberius and the Arian Controversy

Pope Vigilius and the Three Chapters Controversy

Pope Honorius and Monothelitism

-- Liberius (Liberius@truth.net), February 21, 2003

Answers

Read.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), February 21, 2003.

I read your link and...from your link.

"Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17-19; John 21:15-17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. "

Why did Honorius NOT take a stand against Monothelitism? If he was supposed to..." who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32)"

-- Liberius (Liberius@truth.net), February 21, 2003.


Honorius did not take a firm stand against Monothelitism because he was a weak man easily swayed by pressures of special interest groups. However, his failure to speak out as strongly as he should have has no bearing whatsoever on the question of infallibility. While he failed to soundly condemn Monothelitism as he should have, failure to speak cannot be interpreted as teaching falsely. You cannot commit heresy by saying nothing, even if your silence allows a prominent heresy to gain momentum. So, Honorius was a wimp, but not a heretic. Infallibility only protects the Church against heresy, not wimpiness.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 21, 2003.

The teachings of Vatican II have been condemned by the Church over and over. Actually, the teaching is equivalent to saying that one religion is just as good as another. That also admits that no religion is perfectly correct. I shall quote the true teachings from the book, "The Sources of Catholic Dogma", Denzinger, B. Herder Book Co., with the Imprimatur of Bishop Patrick A. O'Boyle, April 25, 1955. This book has the words from Pope Pius IX's Encyclical, Quanta Cura, Dec. 8, 1864. We quote from paragraph 1689: "And also, contrary to the teaching of Sacred Scripture, of the Church, of the most holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert "that the best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by government of the duty of restraining, by established penalties, offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands …… And, from this false idea of social organization they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, called, by Our predecessor of recent memory, Gregory XVI, insanity; namely, that "liberty of conscience and of worship is the law in every correctly established society; that the right to all manner of liberty rests in the citizens, not to be restrained by either ecclesiastical or civil authority; and that by this right they can manifest openly and publicly and declare their own concepts, whatever they may be, by voice, by print, or in any other way." While, in truth, they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note they are preaching a "liberty of perdition," and that "if human opinions always have freedom for discussion, there could never be wanting those who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the eloquence of human (al. mundane) wisdom, when faith and Christian wisdom know from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ how much it should avoid such harmful vanity." Thus, Vatican II, was purely and simply, a robber council, and the poison that it has spread, becomes more, and more apparent, as the years pass by.

-- Julie Wilson (Julie@pacbell.com), February 21, 2003.

Jesus said... The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seaty; therefore do whatever they teach you and folow it; but do not as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. Matthew 23:1-3.

If the Pope is a wimp Paul, then he is not infallible. If the people who help him do the homilies or other teachings are wimps, then the doctrine is not infallible.

If the Pope is sound, and so are his helpers who draft the teaching, then the teaching is infallible.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), February 21, 2003.



Dear Elpidio,

Every Pope is infallible by reason of his office. This charism has nothing to do with his personal morality, the strength of his character, his level of intelligence, or any other personal trait. He is infallible in spite of himself, because he is Pope and for no other reason. Not because of his great holiness or spirituality. Not because of his depth of learning. Not because he is an all-around great guy. But only because the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to teach anything false. Period.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 21, 2003.


We hope the Holy Spirit keeps the Church infallible, but don't assume is always so. There was a time there were 2 and 3 Popes betwee 1350 and 1415. %here was already a John XXIII before the one who priseded over Vatican II. Also, see http://www.smcenter.org/prayerhistory.htm , of the prayer To Saint Michael the Archangel by Pope Leo XIII, that the Church could suffer. Pius X around 1907 and later sister Lucia in 1917 at Fatima shows a future state of the Church which requires penance. The Jewish High Priest was rejected twice (Eli's descendants about 1000BC) and AD 70. If God rejected his original chosen people, don't you think he can do the same again if we go to sleep thinking everything is ok?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), February 21, 2003.

My book (NJB) states at Mt 16:19 -- "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"

A: is this where this infallability thesis arises?

B: if so, how?

C: if not, from where does it originate?

D: and why?

-- Derek Duval Jnr (Derek.duval@virgin.net), February 21, 2003.


Paul,

Honorius was not a heretic?

Thats odd because the Third Council of Constantinople said this...

In the thirteenth session (28 March, 681) after anathematizing the chief Monothelitic heretics mentioned in the aforesaid letter of Pope Agatho, i.e. Sergius of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and Theodore of Pharan, the council added: "And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of Elder Rome, be with them cast out of the Holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things and confirmed his wicked dogmas."

The main point was "be cast with them out of the Holy Church of God" That was referring to Honorius. Sure sounds like a heretic to me.

-- Liberius (Liberius@truth.net), February 21, 2003.


Nope, sorry. That's the Chick Publications version. Here's what actually happened: It is true that the Council of Constantinople drew up the text you quoted from; and that's where people with an anti- Catholic axe to grind generally stop. But that's just the beginning of the story. First of all, the decree of the Council was never confirmed by the Pope, and therefore never went into effect in its original form, since no decree of a Council is effective until confirmed by the reigning Pope, and then only in the form that he confirms. Pope Agatho, who was in office during the Council, died before the decree could reach him. His successor, Pope Leo II, received the decree, and realizing that it was excessively harsh, reworded it before confirming it, making it clear that Honorius had not endorsed Monothelitism, but had failed in his duty to openly condemn it. Therefore, the decree brought against Honorius, when finally confirmed and effective, was for negligence only, not for heresy. The reasons Leo took this action were very clear. First, as indicated in the quote you provided, the statement Honorius had made which could be taken as approving of the heresy was contained in a personal letter. A personal letter from the Pope to another person is not infallible, and nothing so such private statement can qualify as heresy. Heresy is defined as official public promulgation of a belief contrary to the deposit of faith. Honorius's letter to Sergius didn't even come close to that definition. Secondly, the wording of his letter was ambiguous, and could be easily interpreted in either an orthodox or a heterodox way. Therefore Leo recognized that there were absolutely no grounds for heresy, and deleted that charge from the decree.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 21, 2003.


A negligent Pope. Aint that just grand!

-- Liberius (Liberius@truth.net), February 21, 2003.

"Liberius",

You're attacking a doctrine you don't understand using examples in history that you do not understand. If you are interested in more than "sound bite" history, here's some homework for you:

Pope Liberius

Arianism

Pope Vigilius

Three Chapters

Pope Honorius I

The Monothelites

Attacking the Papal Infallibility with these examples is no different than attacking the New Testament writings of St. Peter because St. Peter denied Our Lord three times.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 22, 2003.


THANKS for the homework Mateo.

In my homework it said the following.

"And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas".

Thats great Honorius was ANATHEMATIZED and was to be CAST OUT OF THE holy Church of God, and he was a pope of elder Rome. I appreciate the help! You cleared that right up for me. He was a pope, he was cast out of the holy Church of God and anathemathized. That was all in the link that you sent. Thanks again! Good job Mateo!

-- Liberius (Liberius@truth.net), February 22, 2003.


Paul, if that Pope was cast out and cursed because of a private letter, then obviously those who cast him out thought of him as a heretic. Wimps aren't cursed, heretics are. Let's stop side-stepping issues here.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 23, 2003.

Liberius writes:

"That was all in the link that you sent. Thanks again! Good job Mateo!"

Liberius, I just had the "Pope Honorius" discussion a month ago. If you read the full article (and some of the links), you can better understand this pope.

Speaking in general, all popes are personally fallible: they all sin.

Pope John Paul II goes to confession each week. He sins, just like everyone else.

St. Peter denied Our Lord three times. Our Lord even called St. Peter Satan. He sinned, just like everyone else.

Even so, we don't believe that these popes (John Paul II and St. Peter) taught errantly in faith and morals. Infallibility is all about fidelity to the authentic teachings (faith and morals) of the Church that Jesus Christ founded.

Further, the same arguments you use to attack the Church can be used to attack the New Testament writings of St. Peter. How could a man whom Jesus called Satan be inspired by the Holy Spirit to write with divine inspiration inerrantly?

As I wrote above, you are arguing against a doctrine you don't understand using examples you don't understand. Keep reading your homework. I've already read the Honorius/Monothelite stuff. You're not going to surprise me. Your questions are best answered by reading these articles. I also recommend that you read "Pope Fiction" by Patrick Madrid.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 23, 2003.



Dear Oliver,

Frankly, the reason Honorius's contemporaries tried to lump him in with the heretics was sheer frustration and anger over his failure to provide needed leadership at a crucial time. Pope Leo II took a less emotional, more rational approach, and acted in accord with justice and truth. In any case, none of this really has anything to do with infallibility, since Honorius was never officially charged with heresy. That was your only point in bringing up this tired old story, and now you know the truth.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 23, 2003.


Paul,

I do know the truth. Much like the Catholics in the past you too are trying to cover up what happened. Obviously someone felt that Honorius should be removed from the "church of God". How damning would it be for a Pope to be called a Heretic...very. You know it, I know it, and those with our eyes open can see through this religious system.

-- Liberius (Liberius@truth.net), February 23, 2003.


Liberius writes:

"How damning would it be for a Pope to be called a Heretic."

I'm going to have to answer that it was much more damning (using your term) for Our Lord to call St. Peter Satan. Are you ready to remove St. Peter's letters from the New Testament?

Liberius, you're all excited over things you don't know anything about. Calm your emotions.

Also, I find it ironic that you have no alternative to offer. If the Catholic Church isn't the Church founded by Jesus, would you mind telling me which one is?

There is no alternative, so I expect you'll remain silent. Though, if your pride gets the better of you, you might try and invent some revisionist history of an underground church forgotten by history. Or, maybe you'll proclaim that the church is "invisible," as if Jesus came to establish an unseen church where individual believers all hold contradictory beliefs.

Christ established a real, visible Church. That Church is the Catholic Church. May He always watch over it and guide it.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 23, 2003.


Dear Liberius,

I am trying to cover up what happened? How? By taking the time to explain to you in detail the historical facts about what actually did happen? Yes, obviously "someone did feel that Honorius should be removed from the Church". And that was enough for you. It served your purpose. Sorry to cloud your assumptions by providing the full truth. Interesting though that you see introducing facts as covering up the facts. There comes a time when refusal to see the truth just becomes a matter of personal pride and basic dishonesty. Jesus wants more than that from His people, and more than that for His people.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 24, 2003.


"There comes a time when refusal to see the truth just becomes a matter of personal pride and basic dishonesty. Jesus wants more than that from His people, and more than that for His people."

Perhaps you should open your own eyes Paul. Maybe someday you will see. I had family members in the Catholic church. None of them were ever taught that Jesus Christ had to be your PERSONAL saviour in order for you to get to heaven. All of them would have been going to hell if they stayed in the Catholic church. I thank God that they received Christ into their hearts. They were NEVER presented that in the Catholic church. The church which they attend now presents the plan of salvation in EVERY service. Why? Because they do not want anyone to leave without knowing Christ. That is what God truly wants. He sent his son to die for us. He wants us all to accept his son as our saviour and serve him. My family members knew all the prayers, rituals, etc from the Catholic church but not one knew Christ...sad.

-- official (official@official.com), February 24, 2003.


That definitely is sad that they didn't know Christ! I am catholic and I know Jesus, I am in Love with Him, and I accept Him as my personal saviour. Perhaps your relatives didn't get that for some reason.

We as catholics believe that Faith and good works are necessary to get to heaven, do you have any questions?

Joe

-- Joseph Carl Biltz (jcbiltz@canoemail.com), February 24, 2003.


"We as catholics believe that Faith and good works are necessary to get to heaven, do you have any questions? "

I don't have any question other then this. Does the Catholic church present the plan of salvation at every service? If not why not. People can walk in and out of the doors and never know how to get to heaven. In the church I go to this plan of salvation is presented at EVERY service, this is so people will not walk out not knowing how to get to heaven. I feel this is EXTREMELY important, why would any church not make that part of every service? Some people may go to church 1 time in there life, in my church all it may take is them going once and hearing the plan of salvation to know how to get to Heaven. If the Catholic church does not teach the plan of salvation at every service if that same person that goes to church once in their lives will go in lost, and come out lost and never know how to get to heaven. I'm sorry but I feel that is wrong. Tomorrow is promised to no one that is why my church preaches the plan of salvation at EVERY service.

-- official (official@official.com), February 24, 2003.


Have you ever been to a Catholic Mass that is celebrated with due reverence? Every Sunday Mass we ask forgiveness of our sins, we read the word of God from the bible three times, there is a preaching (what we call homily) on those readings. We give a summary of our faith in the Creed. We are nourished by the body and blood of Christ in teh Holy Eucharist. That is a re-enactment of Christ's plan of salvation every Mass, as he intented it when he died on teh cross for us.

God Bless, Joe

-- Joseph Carl Biltz (jcbiltz@canoemail.com), February 24, 2003.


Thanks Joe,

But what does any of that do for an unbeliever? Do they know what all that is? My church explains it as simple as A,B,C.

A. Accept Jesus as your saviour.

B. Believe in your heart that me can and died on the cross to die for those that accept him into their hearts as their saviour.

C. Confess with your mouth that you are a sinner would like to accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal saviour.

Have I been to Catholic Mass...No. My mother did for over 30 years as did many of her family members. Symbolism is fine in some instances and great for believers however those that do not know Christ cannot eat MEAT then need MILK. Yes, that was a Biblical allusion if you missed it. From your description and from what my mother has told me a unbeliever would NOT know how to get to heaven from going to the average Catholic mass. Whereas 1 service in my church is all it takes.

-- official (official@official.com), February 24, 2003.


Have you ever been to a Catholic Mass that is celebrated with due reverence? Every Sunday Mass we ask forgiveness of our sins, we read the word of God from the bible three times, there is a preaching (what we call homily) on those readings. We give a summary of our faith in the Creed. We are nourished by the body and blood of Christ in teh Holy Eucharist. That is a re-enactment of Christ's plan of salvation every Mass, as he intented it when he died on teh cross for us.

First off an unbeliever can have their sins forgiven if the don't first have a saviour. Futhermore they have no faith to give a summarization of if the are NOT believers, and finally how can they re-enact something they have never partaken of. That is NOT the plan of salvation. A re-enactment is just that a re-enactment. Catholics in the Phillippines NAIL THEMSELVES to the Cross when easter comes around. That is a re-enactment however it does nothing for them nor the unbeliever. I know that because I was born in the Phillippines. I saw and witnessed the idolatry that went on in the Catholic Churches of the Phillippines.

-- official (official@official.com), February 24, 2003.


The believers are wittnesses to their Faith at Mass and the faith is presented to. Being nailed to the Cross in teh Phillipenes is a phillipenne practice, not a Catholic (universal) practice.

Joe

-- Joseph Carl Biltz (jcbiltz@canoemail.com), February 24, 2003.


Joe,

Thats great that the believers are witnessed to in Catholic mass. However, in my church both believers and nonbelievers are witnessed to. Regardless, Joe if Christ is your saviour then I consider you my brother in Christ. God bless you.

-- official (official@official.com), February 24, 2003.


"Being nailed to the Cross in teh Phillipenes is a phillipenne practice, not a Catholic (universal) practice." Your are right it is not a universal practice, but they do it because they think that it is a good work and their good works will get them to Heaven. As you prev.posted "We as catholics believe that Faith and good works are necessary to get to heaven, do you have any questions?" Faith and trust are all that are required for salvation. Works are done due to your faith, not to get faith. And to say that you believe in Christ will not do it either. After all the devil believes and so do his demons. I do not think that they will be in Heaven, and if you do see them hope you have water cuz it will be a eternity with summer (HOT ONE). I also have been to Mass and I can say I NEVER EVER heard the plan of salvation taught.Yes there is the reading from the Bible, Prayer, Hyem, and the rest of the service. But nothing was ever said about the plan of salvation. No man is good enough for Heaven, you can not work for it, you can not pay for it. You just have to recieve it. Simple and easy. The way God ment it to be.

-- jon (wardjr@juno.com), February 24, 2003.

Official writes:

"None of them were ever taught that Jesus Christ had to be your PERSONAL saviour in order for you to get to heaven."

Where in the Bible does it say, "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior?" This Protestant mantra is not in the Bible! It's something that Americans made up. It's a slogan. I'm sorry that you think that the absense of this slogan is so terrible. I don't give it a second thought.

BTW, I looked up the term "personal" in a bunch of versions of the Bible (KJV, Darby, RSV-Prot, Douay-Rheims, etc). I couldn't find the term in the whole Bible!

The Catholic Church's primary mission is to bring people to Christ, Our Lord. The Holy Spirit has been guiding Her for the past two thousand years, and will continue to guide Her until Our Lord comes again.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 24, 2003.


Also, by adding the man-made addition of the concept personal, it dilutes certain aspects of the mystical body of Christ. Part of the understanding of what makes up the mystical body is lost due to this isolationist type of relationship with the Savior.

Mateo is absolutely correct... this concept of personal is a completely extra-biblical concept. Interestingly, coming from group of people historically in a rage over man-made traditions and the words of men.

Big hmmmmmmm now. All together now...

Hmmmmmmmmmmm....

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 24, 2003.


"BTW, I looked up the term "personal" in a bunch of versions of the Bible (KJV, Darby, RSV-Prot, Douay-Rheims, etc). I couldn't find the term in the whole Bible! "

How many times is the term Purgatory mentioned in the KJV....NEVER The point you are trying to make is moot.

Romans 3:23:

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

Romans 5:8:

“But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

Romans 6:23:

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Romans 10:9-10:

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”

That sounds PERSONAL to me. "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth...and believe in thine heart" That is PERSONAL its not something an organization does.

Go ahead use the "proof texting" arguement. I've seen this throughout this forum whenever someone quotes a scripture they are "proof texting" HA! The word of God speaks for itself. Accepting Christ is between God and the individual.

-- official (official@official.com), February 24, 2003.


"This Protestant mantra is not in the Bible! "

Why is it that when someone is not Catholic, Catholics assume they are Protestant? Sorry, I am not Protestant.

-- official (official@official.com), February 24, 2003.


"How many times is the term Purgatory mentioned in the KJV....NEVER The point you are trying to make is moot."

Well, that doesn't help your argument much because even if you were right about Purgatory not existing because it isn't in Scripture (but it is), it still doesn't prove that the almighty concoction personal is a truly Scriptural abstraction.

Because it's not really a concept that's in Scripure at all:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

"But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Personal it is clearly not. Looks communal enough to me; sounds like a body and not a personal sovereign domain. It seems to me that we are in this salvific formula together as a human family. Man it hurts to use that term... anyone got anything better? Hey... how about "Church". That seems to work well. And if we are one family, there must be one church...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 24, 2003.


Btw, what is "proof-testing"? I do believe I might enjoy that job.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 24, 2003.

I have no problems with any of your verses.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

"All have sinned" means EVERY MAN. Every man on this Earth has sinned. To imply that "all" in that sentence relates only to Catholics would imply that only Catholics sin.

"But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

God's love is ALL INCLUSIVE for those who accept him. "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Salvation is a gift once you accept it you are in the body of Christ "gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"

Once you accept Christ as your saviour you are part of the body of Christ. Was Abraham a member of the Catholic church? Nope, but he sure went to heaven solely on his faith in the Lord and the blood of the lamb. Also, please show me some verses in the KJV that talk about Purgatory, because its not in my Bible.

-- John (wardjr@juno.com), February 24, 2003.


Romans 10:9-10

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation

A community does not have a heart. That verse clearly shows that it is a man's HEART and MOUTH and faith in Christ that get him to heaven not his "community".

-- official (official@official.com), February 24, 2003.


Emerald,

Are you implying that only members of his Church go to heaven? I can name NUMEROUS men in the old testament that went to heaven BEFORE the Catholic church was established. Hmm...Abraham is one.

-- official (official@official.com), February 24, 2003.


Yeah.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 25, 2003.

Yeah Abraham was not a Catholic and he went to heaven. Or yeah you have to be a Catholic to go to heaven.

-- official (official@official.com), February 25, 2003.

Yeah; that one.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 25, 2003.

Funny. I like how you are avoiding the fact that Abraham was not a Catholic yet went to heaven.

-- official (official@official.com), February 25, 2003.

Alright then... no avoiding. =)

Here's what it is. Abraham believed God, and it was "accounted to him for righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). The promise was regarding his seed; in other words, Christ came, making Abraham's belief in the redeemer implicit.

But the Jews made it clear that there was a place called the "Bosom of Abraham" (Luke 16) to which he (Abraham) was confined until the salvific act of the death of Christ the Savior on the Cross.

This is why we say in our Creed "He decended into Hell, and on the third day rose again from the dead".

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 25, 2003.


"You CANNOT pass!!"

lol. Forgive me; I just had to throw that in there.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 25, 2003.


Abraham, Noah, David do you want me to continue. They all went to heaven none were a member of the Catholic church. You are still not owning up to that. People received salvation before the Catholic church. Bloodshed is the only means of salvation God set it up like that from the beginning when Abraham was going to slay his son God gave a sacrifice. It has been like that from the beginning. God didn't say ok its blood+church membership. He said it was BLOOD and BLOOD ALONE. He did not change this after Peter came along. It has always been the BLOOD.

-- official (official@official.com), February 25, 2003.

Eucharist...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 25, 2003.

"Bloodshed is the only means of salvation God set it up like that from the beginning when Abraham was going to slay his son God gave a sacrifice."

Yes and no. "Bloodshed is the only means of salvation..." Yes, but God made it clear that the sacrifice of the high priest was not salvific, because the high priest, as fallen human, was not sufficient, hence the perfect Son of God, Christ, and His sacrifice on the Cross of Salvation.

"God didn't say ok its blood+church membership."

In a sense, the blood is the Church, and the Catholic Church possesses the Eucharist. This is the key to the entire equation, the entire formula.

"He said it was BLOOD and BLOOD ALONE."

Not just any blood, but Christ's Blood

"He did not change this after Peter came along."

Right. The new and eternal testament.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 25, 2003.


"My family members knew all the prayers, rituals, etc from the Catholic church but not one knew Christ...sad."

Yes, that is sad. But let's not throw the baby Jesus out with the bathwater so to speak.

It does not necessarily follow that if your family members, while in the Catholic Church, did not heed the true understanding of the message of salvation, and did not partake in the mystical body of Christ in practice, and did not live the Faith, that they were in the wrong church. It absolutely does not logically follow that they were in the wrong church.

By analogy, if you have a good invention or product design, but do not manufacture it, do not market it, do not service your customers and subsequently fail in business, do you blame the economy? Do you say that the market for the product does not exist? Do you blame your vendors? Or do you blame yourself?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 25, 2003.


For Liberius and Mr. Official:

You’re overlooking an important point. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Catholic Church, when acting officially, to err.

NonCatholic dimwits like you or I may THINK the Church has erred, from our uninspired examination of history or logic, but we’re forgetting that God would never allow that. If necessary, He can bend or alter the principles of logic, or the laws of physics, or even change the space-time continuum, and thus prevent the impossible from occurring.

If it’s impossible, it will never happen. End of story.

Those irreverent fellows who made that “Dogma” movie should have remembered this and avoided all their trouble.

I think of as the inverse of particle physics applied to religious history; we could call it the “Pauline/Mateoso Certainty Principle”.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 25, 2003.


Official, Do you realize that Abraham is a figure of God the Father in the Old Testament, and Isaac (his son) a prefigure of Christ?

Notice how Abraham so loves God, that he is willing to sacrfice his son. (O.T.) And St. John tells us that God so loved the world that He gave us His Only Son...(N.T.)

Notice that Isaac climbs the hill to the altar, carrying the wood on his back. (O.T.) We read of Jesus' path to Golgatha, carrying his cross made of wood, on His back.

Abraham places Isaac on the altar, to sacrifice him to God, in expiation of sin. God the Father allows Jesus His Son to be nailed to the Cross in atonement for the sins of the world.

Abraham died before the Catholic Church was even founded; but his Faith in God and his trustful surrender to God of everything he had and loved on earth was rewarded, as God made him the Father of the Jewish people.

How do you know for sure that Jonah and David are in heaven?

Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), February 25, 2003.


Official writes:

"Why is it that when someone is not Catholic, Catholics assume they are Protestant? Sorry, I am not Protestant."

The fact that you don't believe you are a Protestant doesn't change the facts: this mantra most certainly is a Protestant mantra.

I also agree with Emerald's point: I don't care so much that the term "personal" isn't in the Bible. More importantly, the underlying philosophy points to a self-centered belief in which Christian community is pushed aside. Not surprisingly, community is a transient concept in many Protestant organizations. Local Baptist churches divide because of this doctrine or that. Bible churches divide because of personality conflicts between pastors. Etc, etc...

At the root of "personal salvation" is an enmity between the "personal" believer and the Christian community. Worse, most who subscribe to this theology fall into the trap of confusing a "personal relatioship savior" with their own inner voice. Self-deification...

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 25, 2003.


Someone other than Official explain these verses.

"That if thou shalt CONFESS with THY MOUTH the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the HEART man believeth unto righteousness; and with the MOUTH confession is made unto SALVATION"

Plain and simple just explain them.

-- Liberius (Liberius@truth.net), February 25, 2003.


"Official, Do you realize that Abraham is a figure of God the Father in the Old Testament, and Isaac (his son) a prefigure of Christ? Notice how Abraham so loves God, that he is willing to sacrfice his son. (O.T.) And St. John tells us that God so loved the world that He gave us His Only Son...(N.T.)

Notice that Isaac climbs the hill to the altar, carrying the wood on his back. (O.T.) We read of Jesus' path to Golgatha, carrying his cross made of wood, on His back.

Abraham places Isaac on the altar, to sacrifice him to God, in expiation of sin. God the Father allows Jesus His Son to be nailed to the Cross in atonement for the sins of the world.

Abraham died before the Catholic Church was even founded; but his Faith in God and his trustful surrender to God of everything he had and loved on earth was rewarded, as God made him the Father of the Jewish people."

Yes I do realize that Abraham was basically a picture of God in the old testament. Abraham was offering Isaac as a sacrifice. God supplied a ram which was caught by its horns in a bush. Did God say "Abraham get that ram, form a church, get some members and then all those that go to that church and believe in that church symbolically get the blood of that you sacrificed as well" NO. He did not say that Abraham sacrifice the ram and it covered the sin. Time and time again the sacrifice of innocent blood covered sin in the old testament. No where in the old testament do you see Church affilation equated to blood and remission of sins.

-- official (official@official.com), February 25, 2003.


"He did not say that. Abraham sacrificed the ram and it covered the sin. "

Missing a period in that sentence.

-- official (official@official.com), February 25, 2003.


and believe in that church symbolically get the blood of that you sacrificed as well

We don't believe one *symbolically* get's Christ's blood either, we LITERALLY do!

Frank

-- someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 26, 2003.


It seems that some here do not understand papal Infalliblity. If a pope is a wimp, he can still be infallible if he does what is required for papal infalliblity.

Mark

-- Mark Trieger (trieger4@earthlink.net), February 27, 2003.


No man is infallible. Period. To label one's self as "infallible" is to set one self up as a god. If that's not a sin, I don't know what is.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 26, 2003.

The Pope did not "label himself" infallible. God Himself revealed the infallibility of the Pope when He told the first Pope "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven".

Fruit of Christianity with an infallible Pope: 2,000 years of unchanging, uncompromised truth.

Fruit of Christianity without an infallible Pope: 450 years of dissent, division, and doctrinal chaos.

God said that TRUTH would set us free. Obviously there can be no guarantee of truth without the gift of infallibility. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to All Truth. Infallibility is an indispensable part of the fulfillment of that promise.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 26, 2003.


Here's a scenario:

I want to control billions of people. To do this I need to get them to think that I am infalible and incapable of making a mistake. Now what would be the easiest way to do that...ah, yes, GOD SAID IT!

Fruit of Chrisianity with an infallible Pope: 2,000 years of lies, scandals, massacres, but they're easy to justify because the Pope is always right.

Fruit of Christianity without an infallible Pope: 450 years of slightly less lies, scandals, massacres, but they're not as easy to justify.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), October 04, 2003.


Lies, scandals and massacres are not the fruit of Christianity. They are the fruit of the rejection of the principles of Christianity in the lives of individual persons. The fruit of Christianity is evident in the lives of the saints. The value of a medicine is judged by its effect on those who take it according to directions, not by its lack of effect on those who pour it down the sink. In any case, the sins you mention above are irrelevant to the fact of infallibility, which pertains only to official doctrinal teaching, not to commission of personal sin.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 04, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ