I am starting to REALLY like the Catholics (OC plz read)

[thessalonian]

James,

Granted, I do not intend to broad brush all protestants in to the category I have spoken of. Some are not guilty of pure emotionalism and rhetoric and can actually think for themselves rather than rehashing the same old anti-catholic lies and prejudice. But I think the representative sample on this thread has been the later rather than the former. I apologize for anyone who was offended by my broadbrushing.

Blessings

 

[Vic C.]

Interesting. Seems the evangelization method on this board is to point out historical events of questionable interprutation. I would have thought it would have been to "give reason for the hope that is within" showing Bible verses. So far the bible quoting I have seen on this board has been twisted at best and only used to put down what others believe. Of course this is primarily what I have experienced in my 7 years on the net with Protestants. They will loose at the scripture quoting and so must resort to bashin Catholicism with historical revisionism and red herrings. The basis of Protestantism is anti-Catholicism. If there were no Catholic Church it is clear there would be no protestant church. For they would have nothing to Protest. No real solid doctine on which to base their anti-doctrine. No common hatred to keep them unified in one thing anyway.

What does one's denomination have to do with what I said? I base my beliefs on my End Times study. I'm not about to write an essay on my eschatological beliefs. If you like to start a thread in the End Times Forum refuting the notion that the RCC or Pope have anything to do with the False prophet, whore or Antichrist, you are more than welcome. :D

 

[Gary]

Thanks OC... it seems Rabbi Dalin's book is worth a read.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Interesting. Seems the evangelization method on this board is to point out historical events of questionable interprutation. I would have thought it would have been to "give reason for the hope that is within" showing Bible verses. So far the bible quoting I have seen on this board has been twisted at best and only used to put down what others believe. Of course this is primarily what I have experienced in my 7 years on the net with Protestants. They will loose at the scripture quoting and so must resort to bashin Catholicism with historical revisionism and red herrings. The basis of Protestantism is anti-Catholicism. If there were no Catholic Church it is clear there would be no protestant church. For they would have nothing to Protest. No real solid doctine on which to base their anti-doctrine. No common hatred to keep them unified in one thing anyway.

What does one's denomination have to do with what I said? I base my beliefs on my End Times study. I'm not about to write an essay on my eschatological beliefs. If you like to start a thread in the End Times Forum refuting the notion that the RCC or Pope have anything to do with the False prophet, whore or Antichrist, you are more than welcome. :D

I would be more than happy to debate the use and misuse of John's Apocalypse. I had the opportunity to study it for a year with my spiritual father of blessed memory, who published before his death a full translation of the Apocalypse

To understand how to interpret any scripture, one must first understand what type of literature it is, who the audience is/was, and the historical context in which the literature was written.

I say all of that to preface the following remark: Revelation is horribly twisted, misunderstood, and misused by those who attempt to plumb its rich symbolism for hidden meanings. The book purports to unveil, not to hide.

See you in the End Times threads. Bring your Greek lexicon, a copy of the book of Enoch, and a good web browser to explore patristics.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Thanks OC... it seems Rabbi Dalin's book is worth a read.

No problem, Gary. Let me know what you think.

James

 

[CatholicXian]

Gary,

Perhaps you might find this article from the "Jewish Virtual Library" rather interesting? http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/piusdef2.html
Here is also a review of the book you mentioned previously with a bit of a rebuttal to Cornwell: http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2653

Though a movie, The Scarlet and the Black, does manage to portray some of the difficulties Pius XII would've faced in dealing with the Nazis-- just a little bit of "entertainment" in all this reading and so forth!




Lastly, if you want to debate scandal... we might as well start in the beginning. St. Peter-- one of Jesus' disciples-- remember him? Peter denied Christ THREE times after telling Christ that he would stand firm. Or what about Thomas, another disciple? We read how Thomas refused to believe in the Resurrection of Christ unless he could see and touch the wounds of Christ. Direct offenses against the person of Christ--and from His own disciples! It's a darn good thing that God is faithful even though we often falter and stumble. God is stronger than our biggest failures.

 

[Vic C.]

... See you in the End Times threads. Bring your Greek lexicon, a copy of the book of Enoch, and a good web browser to explore patristics.

Are you and Thessalonian the same person? :


:-D

 

[thessalonian]

Well, I'm Catholic and he's Orthodox so I kinda doudt it. :-?

 

[Gary]

Gary

Perhaps you might find this article from the "Jewish Virtual Library" rather interesting? http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/piusdef2.html

Thanks.... that is a good source. You may want to also see what they say about Islam and the Muslims and the Palestinian issue.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... mftoc.html

Lastly, if you want to debate scandal... we might as well start in the beginning. St. Peter-- one of Jesus' disciples-- remember him? Peter denied Christ THREE times after telling Christ that he would stand firm. Or what about Thomas, another disciple? We read how Thomas refused to believe in the Resurrection of Christ unless he could see and touch the wounds of Christ. Direct offenses against the person of Christ--and from His own disciples! It's a darn good thing that God is faithful even though we often falter and stumble. God is stronger than our biggest failures.

Amazing how the so-called first "pope" was not infallible, even on doctrine.... remember how Paul had to correct him on his doctrinal error of Jewish rituals. Galatians 2:11-21

Paul Opposes Peter

11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

17"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

It gets even worse up the so-called "unbroken line" of "popes"...

.

 

[stray bullet]

Gary, Paul did not disagree with Peter on something said Ex-Cathedra. Peter was a sinner, he denied Christ, he can be wrong as a man. However, Peter wrote part of the bible and therefore spoke the word of God.

In the same way, the Pope can voice his opinion, but also teach without error, as Peter did. The difference is on when and where he speaks it. When Peter wrote the bible, he spoke the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. When Peter first declared, not by what ANY man told him, but ONLY God, that Jesus was the Son of God, he was speaking authoritatively.

 

[stray bullet]

Gary, Paul did not disagree with Peter on something said Ex-Cathedra. Peter was a sinner, he denied Christ, he can be wrong as a man. However, Peter wrote part of the bible and therefore spoke the word of God.

In the same way, the Pope can voice his opinion, but also teach without error, as Peter did. The difference is on when and where he speaks it. When Peter wrote the bible, he spoke the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. When Peter first declared, not by what ANY man told him, but ONLY God, that Jesus was the Son of God, he was speaking authoritatively.

 

[Gary]

Stray, "ex-Cathedra" is another man-made RCC dogma that has no standing with Bible-believing Christians.

Not only Protestants but the rest of Christendom, Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox included, reject the doctrine of papal infallibility.

By Peter’s own admission he was not the pastor of the church but only a “fellow presbyter [elder]†(1 Peter 5:1-2). And while he did claim to be “an apostle†(1 Peter 1:1), he nowhere claimed to be “the apostle†or the chief apostle. He certainly was a leading apostle, but even then he was only one of the “pillars†(plural, Galatians 2:9) of the church along with James and John, not the pillar.

If Peter had infallibility (i.e., the ability to not mislead in faith and practice), then why did he mislead believers and have to be rebuked by the apostle Paul (Galatians 2:11)? The infallible Scriptures, accepted by Roman Catholics, declare that Peter “clearly was wrong†and “stood condemned.†(NAB)

Peter “acted hypocritically . . . with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy,†hypocrisy here being defined as “pretense, play-acting; moral insincerity†(Galatians 2:11-13). It is difficult to exonerate Peter from the charge that he led believers astray something the infallible pastor of the church would never do! The Roman Catholic response that Peter was only infallible in his ex cathedra words and not his actions, rings hollow when we remember that “actions speak louder than words.†Actions are the domain of morals, and the pope is alleged to be infallible in faith and morals. In view of this, even Roman Catholic admission of the despicable behavior of some of its popes is revealing. The fact is that Peter could not be both an infallible guide for faith and morals and at the same time mislead believers on the important matter of faith and morals of which Galatians speaks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pope Honorius I (a.d. 625–638) was condemned by the Sixth General Council for teaching the monothelite heresy (that there was only one will in Christ). Even Roman Catholic expert Ludwig Ott admits that “Pope Leo II (682–683) confirmed his anathematization.†This being the case, we are left with the incredible situation of an infallible pope teaching a fallible, yea, heretical, doctrine.

If the papal teaching office is infallible, that is, if it cannot mislead on doctrine and ethics, then how could a papal teaching be heretical? What is more, this was a serious heresyâ€â€one relating to the nature of Christ. To claim that the pope was not infallible on this occasion is only to further undermine the doctrine of infallibility. How can one know when his doctrinal pronouncements are infallible and when they are not? There is no infallible test. And without such a test, how can the Roman Catholic Church provide infallible guidance on doctrine and morals? If the pope can be fallible on one doctrine, then why not others?

:o :o

Source: Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Page 213). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

 

[stray bullet]

Gary, you wanna construct a post of your own and reply to mine? I at least extended that to you.

Orthodox patriaches did NOT reject Papal infallibility, we find it supported in the ecumenical councils and their own patriarchs. It is only the schimatic Orthodox that reject it, defying Christian Tradition.

 

[stray bullet]

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith ..." - Council of Chalcedon, Session III

"Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the
Apostolic See, said: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop ["Pope" for "bishop" in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions." - Council of Chalcedon, Session I

"We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches" - Council of Chalcedon, Session I

This is from the same Ecumenical Council of the 5th Century that all Orthodox and many Anglicans claim was 'infallible' and 'inspired by the Holy Spirit'.

The same Ecumenical Councils that put the bible together and declared it the word of God. Do you accept some ECs and reject others?

 

[stray bullet]

BTW, Gary, "Papal teaching" means nothing. A Pope can teach that Michael Jackson is the son of God and it means nothing. Unless a teaching is declared "Ex-Cathedra", meaning which is clearly done at the time, it is merely the thoughts of a man.

You want to show me a single fallible teaching that was spoken Ex-Cathedra?
You will not find one, not a single one.

 

[Gary]

Of course you would defend your man-made dogma. Why don't you rather show me, using the Bible, where is dogma comes from.

 

[stray bullet]

Of course you would defend your man-made dogma. Why don't you rather show me, using the Bible, where is dogma comes from.

Why don't you show me, without using the authority of the Church, where the bible comes from- that is, how you which books are true or not?

On what basis do you give the bible, that is, the New Testament, any authority since Jesus wasn't even around when it was being written and thus said nothing on it (excluding Revelation)?

How can you, a fallible man, declare what is inerrant?

Our doctrine isn't man-made. Like scripture, it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It comes from God, just as Peter's knowledge that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, without having been told by ANYONE, only God.

 

[cj]

Well, I'm Catholic and he's Orthodox so I kinda doudt it. :-?

And herein we find the anti-Christ.........

"I..."

Or as Lucifer declared, "I...."

Sounds the same huh?


No Jesus, just man's preference for himself.

And declared with such boldness.

Such shameless divisiveness.


In love,
cj

 

[cj]

Of course you would defend your man-made dogma. Why don't you rather show me, using the Bible, where is dogma comes from.

Why don't you show me, without using the authority of the Church, where the bible comes from- that is, how you which books are true or not?

On what basis do you give the bible, that is, the New Testament, any authority since Jesus wasn't even around when it was being written and thus said nothing on it (excluding Revelation)?

How can you, a fallible man, declare what is inerrant?

Our doctrine isn't man-made. Like scripture, it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It comes from God, just as Peter's knowledge that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, without having been told by ANYONE, only God.

What absolutely pathetic speaking.

Your darken understanding of scripture is exposed in what you said above.

Lets see how scripture rejects your conclusion.....

Romans 1:18-23,

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold down the truth in unrighteousness,..... because that which is known of God is manifest within them, for God manifested it to them............. For the invisible things of Him, both His eternal power and divine characteristics,......... HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SEEN SINCE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD, BEING PERCEIVED BY THE THINGS MADE, SO THAT THEY WOULD BE WITHOUT EXCUSE;"


Your words above are declared to be meaninless vanity by God's speaking.


What then can we know for sure that your worship of an apostate institution has brough men to?

Only deeper darkness.

Not God.


In love,
cj

 

[cj]

The same Ecumenical Councils that put the bible together and declared it the word of God. Do you accept some ECs and reject others?

The donkey that God used to deliver a message to a prophet, remained a donkey.

Thus this animal would certainly have continued in its natural ways, even though God spoke through it at a given time.


Darkness of the full revelation of scripture is a terrible thing.



In love,
cj