If the pope changed his mind...

[stray bullet]

I would like to offer this: has Catholic doctrine EVER changed or been altered since it's inception? And, if the answer is YES, then Who was the creator of these changes or alterations? Are NOT the Catholics 'bound' to ACCEPT ANYTHING that the Pope states? Is he is or is he ain't Christ's representative here on earth capable of EVEN offering the sacrament AS IF HE WERE CHRIST HIMSELF?

Come on guys. Why would ANYONE teach that men need 'another' imperfect man to be their intermediary? (This ones easy to answer). There is but ONE intercessor and He IS NOT an imperfect man, or sinner.

Now why would ANYONE 'choose' to believe that ANYONE less perfect than Christ is capable of offering ANYTHING other than 'false hope'? (This one's a bit tougher).

Ah, I guess I rest my case, for now.

Catholic doctrine has never changed and will never change. The Pope is not an intercessor, the Pope is an apostle.

These hatefilled ramblings against the Pope are no more and no less applicable to any apostle. An apostle is not an 'intercessor', he is a bridge of clarity between God and man. Just as Paul, Peter and the other apostles instructed Churches through their infallible instruction, we now call the epistles of the bible. In the same way, so does the Pope, the successor of Peter, have the ability to do this as well.

You read a bible written by fallible men and treat their instruction as infallible, which it is. Then you turn around and rant against Catholics for doing the same thing with the instruction of an apostle. That's massive hypocrisy.

 

[Imagican]

It's very clear here that the bibles says that Jesus was the firstborn of God.

So where are God's other biological children? Are there more members of the Holy Trinity that God has yet to reveal to us?

NO.

Jesus is the ONLY Son of God.





"Firstborn", then, does not always necessarily imply that there are other children.

Firstborn of 'every creature', NOT just man. BUT, we are also told that EACH of us has the ability to be 'a' son of God also. I don't know where you gain your knowledge from but somebody's been teachin' you some 'strange' stuff. While we too can partake in sonship, that by NO way implies that there will EVER be an 'equal' to Christ.

 

[CatholicXian]

It's very clear here that the bibles says that Jesus was the firstborn of God.

So where are God's other biological children? Are there more members of the Holy Trinity that God has yet to reveal to us?

NO.

Jesus is the ONLY Son of God.





"Firstborn", then, does not always necessarily imply that there are other children.

Firstborn of 'every creature', NOT just man. BUT, we are also told that EACH of us has the ability to be 'a' son of God also. I don't know where you gain your knowledge from but somebody's been teachin' you some 'strange' stuff. While we too can partake in sonship, that by NO way implies that there will EVER be an 'equal' to Christ.

..we participate in the sonship of Christ, but we are not "biological" sons and daughters of God in the sense that Jesus is. It was an example to demonstrate to Heidi that "firstborn" does not imply that there are others. We don't read of any more virgin births from the power of the Holy Spirit....

 

[Heidi]

It's very clear here that the bibles says that Jesus was the firstborn of God.

So where are God's other biological children? Are there more members of the Holy Trinity that God has yet to reveal to us?

NO.

Jesus is the ONLY Son of God.





"Firstborn", then, does not always necessarily imply that there are other children.

Firstborn of 'every creature', NOT just man. BUT, we are also told that EACH of us has the ability to be 'a' son of God also. I don't know where you gain your knowledge from but somebody's been teachin' you some 'strange' stuff. While we too can partake in sonship, that by NO way implies that there will EVER be an 'equal' to Christ.

..we participate in the sonship of Christ, but we are not "biological" sons and daughters of God in the sense that Jesus is. It was an example to demonstrate to Heidi that "firstborn" does not imply that there are others. We don't read of any more virgin births from the power of the Holy Spirit....

We are spiritual sons and daughters because we have been born again of the Holy Spirit, Catholicxian. And that's precisely why Jesus tells us that we have replaced our earthly fathers with God because we have been born anew from the Spirit of God. Our biological fathers were of the flesh, which is temporary, not of the spirit. If you had been born again of the Holy Spirit, you would know exactly what that means, catholicxian. Only Jesus was conceived in the womb of the Hokly Spirit, not Mary. And that is precisely why Jesus is the firstborn Son of God, not Mary.

 

[CatholicXian]

Only Jesus was conceived in the womb of the Hokly Spirit, not Mary.

Show me this in Scripture.

The Holy Spirit doesn't have a womb. Jesus was conceived BY THE HOLY SPIRIT in the womb of Mary.

 

[Heidi]

Only Jesus was conceived in the womb of the Hokly Spirit, not Mary.

Show me this in Scripture.

The Holy Spirit doesn't have a womb. Jesus was conceived BY THE HOLY SPIRIT in the womb of Mary.

Are you asking me to show you if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit? Or are you making fun of my typo's?

 

[CatholicXian]

Only Jesus was conceived in the womb of the Hokly Spirit, not Mary.

Show me this in Scripture.

The Holy Spirit doesn't have a womb. Jesus was conceived BY THE HOLY SPIRIT in the womb of Mary.

Are you asking me to show you if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit? Or are you making fun of my typo's?

Nah, not making fun of typos.. I do it all the time (I'm very thankful for the edit button sometimes...).

You said Jesus was "conceived in the womb of the Holy Spirit". The Holy Spirit does not have a womb. Jesus was in the womb of Mary (by the power of the Holy Spirit).

 

[thessalonian]

Your probably right. I got my information from the Catholic Encyclopedia page.

• 
  The Roman Catholic dogma is that the Pope is taking Jesus' place until Jesus returns.
  A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.
  
  In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. "Inter corporalia", 2, "De trans. ep."). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. "Quanto", 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman Pontiff who is "the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ" (cap. "Licet", 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. "Fundamenta ejus", 17, "De elect.", in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ. From the Catholic Encyclopedia at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

Really? All that you posted in the large print is from that article at NewAdvent.org? "The Roman Catholic dogma is that the Pope is taking Jesus' place until Jesus returns.". This is at newadvent.org? No, I think you got that except from another website which added that text to the newadvent.org text or you did it yourself. It is yours or someone elses twist on Catholic understanding. Anyone can go to the website you linked and you will be exposed of your tomfoolery.

Now let me ask this. If you, Mr. Solo bring someone to Christ or speak some Christian truth are you replacing Christ or is Christ speaking through you? We do not believe that the Pope replaces Christ any more than you think you do. God works through his servants. Now we can discuss whether the Pope is Christ's servant or not but to distort the teaching as you have is just plain a lie. That is not what the Catholic Church teaches. But of course to twist things in such a manner improves your position you think and so you continue to do it every time you post things about Catholicism. Let's just distort it a bit so it sounds satanic.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

Mr. Solo, I am curious. 1) Was your addition to the words of CE an honest mistake? 2) You actually got the quote from CE from another source and not CE (i.e. as a moderator you violated the board rules about posting actual sources of informatoin) so you thought the first sentence was from CE, or you were 3) intentionally distorting and decieving regarding Catholicism to gain a better advantage, because stating things the way they are just doesn't have enough sex appeal?

Just curious. I tend toward thinking it was 2.