Papel infallibilitygreenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
On Pope infallibility;"Ok, I don't care what you really believe in, but I'm going to tell you what you believe in. This doctrine means the pope is sinless, so I challenge you to prove he is sinless."
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 20, 2004
The pope is not sinless, the church never taught this and never will. Like Bishop Sheen used to say, most people don't hate the Catholic Church, they hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.Papal infallibility has nothing to do with a pope's sinfulness.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), - -, 200X.
I'm trying to make an example of how Catholics misrepresent Sola Scriptura, but the other way around.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com ), - -, 200X.
The issue with "Sola Scriptura" is the word "Sola". "Sola" shuts the door on other aspects of the Gospels--Traditions. Those Traditions are equal to Scriptures and must not be ignored, even if one is not a Catholic.
...........................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com)
No rod, prove the pope is sinless! the bible says "all have sinned and fallen short"
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com ), - -, 200X.
You can't do it, show me ONE VERSE that says the pope is sinless.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com ), - -, 200X.
rod,
it is interesting that you still have not provided me with a list of "oral traditions" yet. And you still have not provided me with scripture that says the pope is sinless. Since you cannot, that means the doctrine of papel infallibility is FALSE
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com ), - -, 200X.
I didn't know that my words had any weight in the balances of truth. And, I didn't know that I had to prove anything about the Pope. One may choose to follow or not follow the Pope. Whether the Pope is infallible or not is a moot issue if one has obedience to his teachings. Do you find it necessary to prove your pastor's preachings? After all, Biblical teachings are Biblical teachings, some more traditional than others, some infantly more modern than others.
............................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), - -, 200X.
My belief is that only Jesus was the one and only being without sin. Mary was "full of Grace", which to me means the probability of having her sins washed away. Perhaps she was without sin in a cyclical way. I have a difficult time measuring my teachings with the Scriptures. This doesn't mean that I am correct in my thinking, though. The Pope is sinful as are all holy men.
...............................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), - -, 200X.
fixed..
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 20, 2004.
David,Maybe I'm missing the point, maybe something in another thread, or something I misread here? But why do you think the Church teaches that the Pope is sinless? It doesn't. Infallibility is not dependant on sinlessnes. Why is sinlessness an issue? Again, sorry if I've missed a subtlety somewhere.
-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), April 20, 2004.
Sorry Jim,With some threads deleted it's hard to imagine why I posted this. I posted this because of Catholic misrepresentations of "Protestant" beliefs. So I turned it around on them, asking them to prove something they didn't believe in.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), April 20, 2004.
I see.
-- JimFurst (furst@flasfh.net), April 20, 2004.
I would advise non-Catholics who want to know what the Church preaches to go and see "The Passion of the Christ"
-- Ken Pearson (maputo95@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.
I saw it., I didn't like it.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 16, 2004.
Peter tells us that Christ is the foundation of the church:"As you come to him, the living stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him--you also like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame. Now to you who *believe*, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, 'the stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.' and...'A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.'"
Who does Peter say is the rock?
The church is an organism--a living thing with vital signs of life. The church is not merely an organization or institution. The "organized church" has reference to structure and administration of a local church.
But Christ's church is made up of people who have been born anew by accepting Christ as personal Savior. We become part of the body of Christ which is alive. For the first three hundred years after Christ, what he created was called the "ecclesia."
Then when Constatine converted to Christianity and he built those gorgious temples, the ecclesia was changed to "kuriakos" meaning "lordly house"
In the Bible the word is ecclesia. The word church is a rendition, not a translation. "Ecclesia" means "a called out" assembly. There may be many local churches in the world--including the Catholic church, but there is only One True Church. It is called many things in the Bible. We read that the ecclesia is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, God's Temple, a peculiar people, a chosen nation, a royal priesthood, a purchased possesion, the light of the world, etc...
There is one body of Christ and it is made-up of true believers regardless of church names or affiliations...
The Papal Throne is not revealed in the Scriptures.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 16, 2004.
Faith,You said a lot of things here that a lot of faithful Catholics would agree with you on.
Christ is the foundation of the church:
The church is not merely an organization or institution.
Christ's church is made up of people who have been born anew
We become part of the body of Christ which is alive
the ecclesia is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, God's Temple, a peculiar people, a chosen nation, a royal priesthood, a purchased possesion, the light of the world, etc...
There is one body of Christ and it is made-up of true believers
Here I think your history may be a bit off.
Constatine converted to Christianity
I'm not sure Constantine ever converted, except maybe in his deathbed. He guaranteed religious freedom for Christians. I did a Google search on him and got this from a history web site.
By 313 AD, Constantine and his co-emperor Licinius issued the Edict of Milan, which specifically guaranteed religious freedom to Christians throughout the Roman Empire. The Edict of Milan states that:
"we should let both the Christians and all others follow whatever religion they wanted to, so that whatever God there is in heaven may be happy and pleased with us and with all our subjects."
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 17, 2004.
Andy.,I think Constatine changed the face of Christianity--
Here is my point--consider the pagan flavor of Catholicism and ask yourself how did it become part of Christian worship?
Babel introduced the first organized, idolatrous religious system in the history of the world. That is why John called Babylon "the mother of harlots" (Rev. 17:5). Since Babylon was the birthplace of spiritual adultery, the apostasy of the end times is called by the name Babylon, the mother of harlots.
What was Babylon's idolatrous system? Among other aspects of astrology and idol worship, Babylon (the former city of Babel) included a cult that followed Semiramis, wife of Marduk, whom most scholars identify with Nimrod. We know that Semiramis and Marduk/Nimrod were the ancient god and goddess of Babylon. Their son (whom Semiramis claimed was virgin born) was known to the Babylonians as Dammuzi, to the Hebrews as Tammuz, and to the Greeks as Adonis. The cult spread throughout the ancient world like a grass fire.
The divine mother and child appeared in Egypt as Isis and Horus, and in Greece as Venus and Adonis. According to Hislop's "The two Babylons," the ancient cult Nimrod and Semiramis started spreading among all nations when the people of Babel scattered throughout the world.
When God called Abraham out of Ur, He called him from a region devoted to the worship of false gods, including the "queen of heaven," the mother figure of the mother/ child cult. Joshua 24:2 tells us:
"Thus says the Lord of Israel: 'your fathers, including Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other side of the river in old times; and they served other gods.' "
The cult continued to spread unabated through the years. Generations after Babel, the rebellious people of Israel told God why they prefered to make offerings and sacrifices to the "queen of heaven" instead of to him:
"But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food., we were well off, and saw no trouble" (Jer. 44:17).
In the eigth chapter of Ezekiel, God told the prophet to do a little checking. Ezekiel was to go to the temple set apart for the worship of Jehovah God and observe:
"So he brought me to the door of the court; and when I looked, there was a hole in the wall. Then He said to me, 'Son of man, dig into the wall'; and when I dug into the wall, there was a door. And He said to me, 'Go in and see the wicked abominations, which they are doing there.' So I went in and saw, and there-- every sort of creeping thing, abominable beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel, portrayed all around on the walls." (Ezekiel 8:7-10).
What did Ezekiel see? Idols to the queen of heaven! The mother-child cult had taken over the sanctuary of Jehovah God in Jerusalem. The picture, however, grew worse. As Ezekiel continued to look around the city, the spirit of God took him "to the door of the north gate of the Lord's house; and to my dismay, women were sitting there weeping for Tammuz" (Ezekiel 8:14).
These were the Temple virgins, weeping for Tammuz, Semiramis's son who had been slain by a wild boar.
Fast-foward to a few years before Christ's birth. In 63 B.C. Julius Caesar was named Pontifex Maximus, or head of the state religion, which was the heathen mother-child cult. By 12 B.C., when Augustus received the title, the role of Roman high priest was automatically conferred upon the emporers of Rome. In A.D. 306, the emporer Constantine became a Christian and declared that Christianity was the religion of the Roman Empire. But what kind of Christianity was it?
The people went to the same temple, worshiped the same trinity of mother-child-God, and followed the same rituals. But now their rituals and religion were called "Christian."
Not until A.D. 376 did an emporer realize that the Roman church was not truely Christian. The emporer Gratian refused the title of Pontifex Maximus because he recognized that Babylonianism was idolatrous. As a result, two years later, bishop of the Christian church at Rome, was elected to the position and from that time Babylonianism and organized Christianity merged. The rites of Babylon- -complete with the veneration of images and relics, penances, pilgrimages, and other pagan rites and festivals--became part of Christian worship.
Thousands of people followed, trusting the rituals, the worship, and the acts of self-denial to save them from hell. The introduction of Babylonianism, an ancient and false mother-child cult, into the church of Jesus Christ was a satanic stroke of genius. Satan knew God's *prophesied* plan for his own destuction, and in this cult, we can see the devil's clever attempt to falsly forshadow the authentic virgin birth of Jesus Christ. (Satan knows Scripture better than we do!)
Satan is an imitator, and he loves to imitate Christ! Jesus said, "I am the light of the world" (John 9:5). Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). He spreads a false illumination upon the Word of God, resulting in false doctrine that leads people astray.
God sent a Messiah, Jesus Christ. Satan will send a messiah too--the Antichrist.
God will send His son to earth on a white horse (Rev. 19:11). Satan will send his son, the son of perdition, on a white horse (Rev. 6:2). The devil is a master of deception!
-- ("faith01@myway.com), August 17, 2004.
Faith,Here is my point--consider the pagan flavor of Catholicism and ask yourself how did it become part of Christian worship?
Did you get this whole Bablonian mystery religion stuff from?
If I apply the same reasoning to Christianity in general that you do to Catholicism I would conclude that Christianity is just another pagan religion. Enemies of Christianity use the following to support their claim. Look at the similarities between the "legends" of Christianity and other pagan religions...
Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.
The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings.
In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.
A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.
In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death.
The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus."
In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. An alternate myth is that he emerged from a rock. Also in Persia, Zoroaster was also born of a virgin.
In India, there are two main stories of the birth of Krishna, one of the incarnations of Vishnu, and the second person within the Hindu Trinity. In one story, Krishna was said to have been born to his mother Devaki while she was still a virgin. In the other, he had a normal conception and birth.
Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece.
One source is quoted as saying that there were many mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who share a number of factors. All were believed to have:
been male.
lived in pre-Christian times.
had a god for a father.
human virgin for a mother.
had their birth announced by a heavenly display.
had their birth announced by celestial music.
been born about DEC-25.
had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant
met with a violent death.
rose again from the dead.
Almost all were believed to have:
been visited by "wise men" during infancy.
fasted for 40 days as an adult.
I got these from http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm
My point is not that I believe any of this dribble. My point is that you shouldn't believe everything you see trying to prove that Catholicism is just another pagan religion.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 17, 2004.
Andy..,The whole point is that Christ's true church cannot be the Catholic religion--or any religion for that matter.
His church is a body of believers. We are universal--which is what catholic always meant before the Roman Church added it to the name of their religion.
Christ's church--ecclesia--is spiritual for now--and growing in number--with new born-again believers being added daily.
When the number of Gentiles has come in--Christ will end this age and He will set up His Kingdom in the physical.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 17, 2004.
Hi Faith,The whole point is that Christ's true church cannot be the Catholic religion--or any religion for that matter.
Why not? Isn't a religion just a body of believers who believe the same thing?
His church is a body of believers.
I agree, but what says there shouldn't be any form of organization to the body of believers?
I don't see the major argument being whether the church is the body of believers or not. The argument is over what beliefs that body professes and which essential beliefs constitute membership in that body.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 17, 2004.
Let me correct/clarify one thing. As Christians I know we are not just a "body of believers that believe the same thing", but are truly and mystically incorporated into the Body of Christ. Still, I don't see what's wrong with calling that Body and the set of beliefs that goes along with it a religion with some visible organization. Are we to purposely avoid any organization of the Body of Believers for some reason? That's my question.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 17, 2004.
Not at all Andy.Obviously Jesus wanted us to come together in His name. The apostles showed us how to do this. We see the example churches in the New Testament. But notice that each church is it's own governing body. Rome is not their head. Some of these groups met in homes--and they studied the Word of God together. Peter was married...I see no evidence of a Mass..etc.
God wants us to come together in worship and to be there for each other. I love my church because it looks a lot like the church I see in the Scriptures.
But *esslesia* is not a physical building or an earthly kingdom. I also do not say that this spiritual Body of Christ is *invisible.* I think we are quite visible actually. We feed the hungry., we clothe the poor.., and we love our fellow man. Before Christ--this world was a cruel place to live. But as the gospel of Christ penetrates this world--we can see the effects for sure. Where the gospel has penetrated the deepest--we see a better society--a free society emerge..
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 17, 2004.
Faith says:"Peter was married"
What's your point? We even had other popes who were married. We even have married priests, although usually priests of the latin rite are celibate. After all, Paul did say that if we are to serve God it is preferable to be celibate, because then we can be concerned about the things of God, rather than to be concerned first about our families. Doesn't strike you as a bit odd, given Paul's statement that Protestant pastors are almost universally married? I guess protestants don't want to take the narrow path.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), August 18, 2004.
The great apostle Paul was celibate and recommended that life to others who wanted to devote themselves fully to serving Christ. He did not, however, make that a condition for church leadership as the Catholic Church has done., thereby imposing an undue burden upon all clergy that very few could bear.On the contrary, Paul wrote that a bishop should be "the husband of one wife" as seen in 1 Timothy: chapter 3 verse 2. This is why I pointed out that Peter, whom the Catholics erroneously claim was the first pope, was married.
The Roman Catholic Church has insisted upon celibacy even though many popes, along with many cardinals and bishops and archbishops, monks and priests have repeatedly violated such vows. Not only has celibacy made sinners out of the clergy who engage in such fornication, but it makes harlots out of those whom they secretly cohabit with!
In Titus 1:5,6 Paul says, "The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint Elders in every town, as I directed you. An Elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and diobedient."
This sounds exactly like what my church does indeed look like : )
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 18, 2004.
Faith says:"The Roman Catholic Church has insisted upon celibacy even though many popes, along with many cardinals and bishops and archbishops, monks and priests have repeatedly violated such vows."
Along with a lot of Protestant pastors who have violated their marriage vows. Does being married cause one to sin? Do Catholic pastors break their vows of celibacy more often than Protestant pastors break their marriage vows? That is what you imply, what is your evidence.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), August 18, 2004.
James.,Stay focused.
The topic isn't whether or not Protestant pastors remain faithful to their wives.
The topic isn't even really about whether popes or priests remain faithful to their vows of celebacy to God.
The point is that Paul never intended for the clergy to make that sort of vow in the first place., as you erroneously claim he did.
I showed you in Paul's own words that he expected the Elders to have one wife and well managed, believing children..
I think that that puts a big question mark on Rome's doctrine of mandatory Celebacy.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 18, 2004.
James wrote, "After all, Paul did say that if we are to serve God it is preferable to be celibate, because then we can be concerned about the things of God, rather than to be concerned first about our families."Paul was not talking about the elders in the church when he made that statement. Elders "must" be married for this is a commandment from God.
The pope cannot be a bishop in the church for he is not married.
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 18, 2004.