The anti-Christ

[Heidi]

Anyone who believes a fallible human being over the bible is indeed susceptible to being deceived by the anti-Christ. That's why Jesus said we have one teacher and that is the Christ. So Jesus is where we look for the words of eternal life. And if people don't understand his words, ask God to give you that understanding because only He has the complete truth. It's that simple.

But unfortunately, so far, I haven't heard one catholic who thinks what the pope says is fallible. They will go to great lengths to make up their own scripture to justify what the pope says. But they will never change the pope's doctrine regardless of what scripture says about it. That is worshiping the pope as God. I'm afraid that the catholics will then be one of the first to be deceived by anyone who calls himself "Our Holy Father."

 

[thessalonian]

Anyone who believes a fallible human being over the bible is indeed susceptible to being deceived by the anti-Christ. That's why Jesus said we have one teacher and that is the Christ. So Jesus is where we look for the words of eternal life. And if people don't understand his words, ask God to give you that understanding because only He has the complete truth. It's that simple.

But unfortunately, so far, I haven't heard one catholic who thinks what the pope says is fallible. They will go to great lengths to make up their own scripture to justify what the pope says. But they will never change the pope's doctrine regardless of what scripture says about it. That is worshiping the pope as God. I'm afraid that the catholics will then be one of the first to be deceived by anyone who calls himself "Our Holy Father."

Heidi,

I love your posts when you post out of ignorance. It is not true that we do not think that everything the Popes say is infallible. Yes, popes are fallible and I am not the only one that thinks that. Rarely do they speak in a manner that we would say is infallible. Perhaps 20 times over 2000 years. Now that does not mean the rest of what they say is errant but it is not under the doctrine of infallibility that we hold. We make up our own scripture? Show us where we do not quote what is in your Bible as well as ours. We merely put our understandings to the passages as you do. Are you infallible Heidi, such that everything you believe is true. Tell me, did the Jews follow Moses and hold what he said to be true. Were they worshipping him when they saw his words as infallible BEFORE THEY WERE WRITTEN DOWN? You are incapable of answering any question on an intellectually honest level but I will ask them anyway as they expose your foolishness.

I am sure your response will be like the one in which I said you distorted the catholic practice of putting ashes on the forehead at the beginning of lent. You will paint me out as a liar or one who is trying to decive people about what the Church teaches or that I don't know what the Catholic Church teaches (implying that you know better than I). Of course you msut because you cannot address the teachings and practices of Catholicism on a straight up honest basis. A distorted one is all that will suit your purposes.

 

[ttg]

Another anti-Catholic thread? Still slinging that bible around trying to knock some sense into us Catholics?

Papal infallibility is not a personality trait. Do you think we believe the pope cannot sin?

So what is infallibility? 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. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

(http://www.catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp)

 

[DivineNames]

This seems to be a doctrine that could be put to the test. What if the Pope, in his capacity as "infallible", when he comes out with doctrine, what if he tries to come out with the doctrine that he isn't actually infallible? If he can successfully make the pronouncement then it must be correct. (For it to be wrong would involve a contradiction.)

 

[thessalonian]

This seems to be a doctrine that could be put to the test. What if the Pope, in his capacity as "infallible", when he comes out with doctrine, what if he tries to come out with the doctrine that he isn't actually infallible? If he can successfully make the pronouncement then it must be correct. (For it to be wrong would involve a contradiction.)

By all means test it. But first a little understanding would help. We don't claim the Pope is always infallible. The conditions when he is are when he speaks with the authority of his office, speaking on faith and morals (not the stock market, or what the whether will be tommorrow), when he is intending to bind the whole Church by the doctrine. Something cannot be true for part of the Church and not true for another. He may state an opinion to some bishop but it if he does not intended to bind the whole Church then it is not an infallible statement. Doesn't mean it is errant. Now armed with that information, one of the great writers of Catholic Dogma has put together all the statements by Popes and Councils (of which there have been 20 and their pronouncements on faith and morals for the whole Church, intended to be binding) are infallible as well. None of these statements in 2000 years contradicts another. Further no pope has contradicted something that has been declared dogma. EVER. And yes it can all be reconciled with scripture for those who have ears to hear. Over 400 infallible declarations by Popes and Councils. Read the book. Fundamentals of Catholc Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott. Man by his power alone could not pull this off. Just look at this board. :-? (chaos : ) Nor can the devil bring such unity among men. It's not the anti-christ.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

I see no reason to believe that Antichrist is an endtime figure as said by many, many theologians. The word Antichrist means "Instead-Anointed."

1 John 2:18 (King James Version) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1 John 2:22 (King James Version) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 (King James Version) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 (King James Version) For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[gingercat]

Thank you gendou,

You made it very simple to understand. :angel:

 

[Heidi]

Anyone who believes a fallible human being over the bible is indeed susceptible to being deceived by the anti-Christ. That's why Jesus said we have one teacher and that is the Christ. So Jesus is where we look for the words of eternal life. And if people don't understand his words, ask God to give you that understanding because only He has the complete truth. It's that simple.

But unfortunately, so far, I haven't heard one catholic who thinks what the pope says is fallible. They will go to great lengths to make up their own scripture to justify what the pope says. But they will never change the pope's doctrine regardless of what scripture says about it. That is worshiping the pope as God. I'm afraid that the catholics will then be one of the first to be deceived by anyone who calls himself "Our Holy Father."

Heidi,

I love your posts when you post out of ignorance. It is not true that we do not think that everything the Popes say is infallible. Yes, popes are fallible and I am not the only one that thinks that. Rarely do they speak in a manner that we would say is infallible. Perhaps 20 times over 2000 years. Now that does not mean the rest of what they say is errant but it is not under the doctrine of infallibility that we hold. We make up our own scripture? Show us where we do not quote what is in your Bible as well as ours. We merely put our understandings to the passages as you do. Are you infallible Heidi, such that everything you believe is true. Tell me, did the Jews follow Moses and hold what he said to be true. Were they worshipping him when they saw his words as infallible BEFORE THEY WERE WRITTEN DOWN? You are incapable of answering any question on an intellectually honest level but I will ask them anyway as they expose your foolishness.

I am sure your response will be like the one in which I said you distorted the catholic practice of putting ashes on the forehead at the beginning of lent. You will paint me out as a liar or one who is trying to decive people about what the Church teaches or that I don't know what the Catholic Church teaches (implying that you know better than I). Of course you msut because you cannot address the teachings and practices of Catholicism on a straight up honest basis. A distorted one is all that will suit your purposes.

So what part of the pope's doctrine have you disagreed with? :o

 

[Duder]

.

Anyone who believes a fallible human being over the bible is indeed susceptible to being deceived by the anti-Christ. That's why Jesus said we have one teacher and that is the Christ. So Jesus is where we look for the words of eternal life. And if people don't understand his words, ask God to give you that understanding because only He has the complete truth. It's that simple.

Greetings, Heidi -

I'm afraid the method of discovering the sacred truth that you have described above is really not as simple as you make it sound.

Your advice is to listen only to Jesus, and that is well. But unless He appears to you in person and on a regular basis, I'm guessing that you receive His messages indirectly, through some medium like the written record of his life and sayings.

This seems straighforward enough at first glance. However, there are a couple of things about the written word that complicate things. Firstly, it is an imprecise method of communication. As I write these words to you, I have to go slowly and choose my words carefully, because the words have a good deal of 'slop' in them - their meaning can change depending upon which other words they are combined with, and they can connote different things to different people. The sad truth is, we do not always understand what the Bible or any other written document is trying to say.

Secondly, when you are dealing with a classic document like the Bible, and you are having trouble understanding what it says, you cannot ask it questions. If you ask me, "could you elaborate on that please?", I can reword what I have said. But if you ask the Bible to clarify what it said, it just sits there saying the same thing as it said before. It is a static medium that you cannot converse with as you can with a person.

So what do you do? You pray for help as you use your intuition, your learning and your reason to interpret as best you can what the Bible is trying to say to you. Sometimes you consult a trusted authority, like a Bible commentary, a pastor or a learned friend for help with a difficult passage of scripture.

That is what all faithful followers of Jesus do. But to our frustration, we do not always end up agreeing on what the Bible means, do we? There are so many different points of view about what are the essentials of the faith that non-Catholic Christendom has splintered into a thousand different denominations, each with a different perspective on what Jesus is trying to say through the words written in the Bible.

That is one of the drawbacks to being a protestant. The philosophy of sola scriptura boils down to "just me and my Bible", which results in a kind of theological anarchy. "Just me and my Bible" yields a billion different theologies among a billion Christian believers who all have a billion different life stories and psychological profiles.

The Roman Catholics are not as susceptible to this problem. They give authority to a single person of great learning, wisdom, character and devotion who unifies the faith as the supreme bishop. The Catholic Pope is a "the buck stops here" kind of guy - when confusion creeps into Catholic practise or theology, the Holy Father is called upon settle the matter in consultation with the Holy Spirit so that the church stays true to one vision.

Can the Pope be mistaken? Certainly. But he had better not be! The poor guy has billions of believers under his guidance. He sees it as no light matter when he is forced to speak as the Pontiff, because all Catholics in good standing agree to place his understanding of things above their own - because they see him as having a very intimate relationship with God.

Now, I am not a Catholic. There are things about Catholicism that I just can't get with. But I do envy them their Pope, I understand why they value having one, and I do not count the Papacy per se as being a Catholic error. I think it's a darn good idea.

But unfortunately, so far, I haven't heard one catholic who thinks what the pope says is fallible. They will go to great lengths to make up their own scripture to justify what the pope says. But they will never change the pope's doctrine regardless of what scripture says about it. That is worshiping the pope as God.

Can you give us an example of a Papal pronouncement that is in clear contradiction with the scriptures? It will have to be very clear and obvious - because as I pointed out, we all have a zillion opinions on what the scriptures mean. The Pope is a person who has studied the scriptures for decades, and he would not knowingly contradict them.

I'm afraid that the catholics will then be one of the first to be deceived by anyone who calls himself "Our Holy Father."

I am a Lakota Indian. I call every elder "father". I am certain none of them are the antichrist. Don't be led astray by titles and words of respect.


.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/not-infallible.htm
http://www.sspx-schism.com/Infallible.htm
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?A ... llibility3
http://www.allaboutreligion.org/pope-john-paul-ii.htm
http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Forged.html
http://www.ecetera.org/fish-tales/bogus/trumped-up-lies

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." Pope Pius V

"The appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man." Pope Nicholas I

!!! Oxymoron Alert !!! .... 1 Peter 5:13 ...

"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." George Orwell

"To arrive at the simplest truth requires years of contemplation." Isaac Newton

"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." H. G. Wells

"Superstition, idolatry and hypocrisy have ample wages, but the truth goes begging." Martin Luther

 

[Heidi]

.

Anyone who believes a fallible human being over the bible is indeed susceptible to being deceived by the anti-Christ. That's why Jesus said we have one teacher and that is the Christ. So Jesus is where we look for the words of eternal life. And if people don't understand his words, ask God to give you that understanding because only He has the complete truth. It's that simple.

Greetings, Heidi -

I'm afraid the method of discovering the sacred truth that you have described above is really not as simple as you make it sound.

Your advice is to listen only to Jesus, and that is well. But unless He appears to you in person and on a regular basis, I'm guessing that you receive His messages indirectly, through some medium like the written record of his life and sayings.

This seems straighforward enough at first glance. However, there are a couple of things about the written word that complicate things. Firstly, it is an imprecise method of communication. As I write these words to you, I have to go slowly and choose my words carefully, because the words have a good deal of 'slop' in them - their meaning can change depending upon which other words they are combined with, and they can connote different things to different people. The sad truth is, we do not always understand what the Bible or any other written document is trying to say.

Secondly, when you are dealing with a classic document like the Bible, and you are having trouble understanding what it says, you cannot ask it questions. If you ask me, "could you elaborate on that please?", I can reword what I have said. But if you ask the Bible to clarify what it said, it just sits there saying the same thing as it said before. It is a static medium that you cannot converse with as you can with a person.

So what do you do? You pray for help as you use your intuition, your learning and your reason to interpret as best you can what the Bible is trying to say to you. Sometimes you consult a trusted authority, like a Bible commentary, a pastor or a learned friend for help with a difficult passage of scripture.

That is what all faithful followers of Jesus do. But to our frustration, we do not always end up agreeing on what the Bible means, do we? There are so many different points of view about what are the essentials of the faith that non-Catholic Christendom has splintered into a thousand different denominations, each with a different perspective on what Jesus is trying to say through the words written in the Bible.

That is one of the drawbacks to being a protestant. The philosophy of sola scriptura boils down to "just me and my Bible", which results in a kind of theological anarchy. "Just me and my Bible" yields a billion different theologies among a billion Christian believers who all have a billion different life stories and psychological profiles.

The Roman Catholics are not as susceptible to this problem. They give authority to a single person of great learning, wisdom, character and devotion who unifies the faith as the supreme bishop. The Catholic Pope is a "the buck stops here" kind of guy - when confusion creeps into Catholic practise or theology, the Holy Father is called upon settle the matter in consultation with the Holy Spirit so that the church stays true to one vision.

Can the Pope be mistaken? Certainly. But he had better not be! The poor guy has billions of believers under his guidance. He sees it as no light matter when he is forced to speak as the Pontiff, because all Catholics in good standing agree to place his understanding of things above their own - because they see him as having a very intimate relationship with God.

Now, I am not a Catholic. There are things about Catholicism that I just can't get with. But I do envy them their Pope, I understand why they value having one, and I do not count the Papacy per se as being a Catholic error. I think it's a darn good idea.

But unfortunately, so far, I haven't heard one catholic who thinks what the pope says is fallible. They will go to great lengths to make up their own scripture to justify what the pope says. But they will never change the pope's doctrine regardless of what scripture says about it. That is worshiping the pope as God.

Can you give us an example of a Papal pronouncement that is in clear contradiction with the scriptures? It will have to be very clear and obvious - because as I pointed out, we all have a zillion opinions on what the scriptures mean. The Pope is a person who has studied the scriptures for decades, and he would not knowingly contradict them.

[quote:cb7b0]I'm afraid that the catholics will then be one of the first to be deceived by anyone who calls himself "Our Holy Father."

I am a Lakota Indian. I call every elder "father". I am certain none of them are the antichrist. Don't be led astray by titles and words of respect.


.[/quote:cb7b0]

Do you believe Jesus is the truth? if so, then why do you not believe him when he tells us not to call anyone on earth 'father'? You can't both believe he is the truth and a liar at the same time. It's one or the other.

The catholic doctrine speaks for itself. Now the catholics are going to have to say their own doctrine lies as well as that the bible lies if they deny the above post.

Their refusal to not discount anything that the pope says speaks for itself, as does their quickness to discount Jesus when he tells us not to call anyone on earth 'father'. It's very obvious where their loyalty is.

 

[Jay T]

But unfortunately, so far, I haven't heard one catholic who thinks what the pope says is fallible. They will go to great lengths to make up their own scripture to justify what the pope says. But they will never change the pope's doctrine regardless of what scripture says about it. That is worshiping the pope as God.

DOCUMENTATION:

"Protestants accept Sunday rather than Saturday
as the day for public worship 'after' the
Catholic Church made the change .....BUT the
Protestant mind does not seem to realize
that....in observing the Sunday, they are
accepting the authority of the spokesman for the
church, the Pope", ('Our Sunday Visitor',
February 5, 1950).

Romans 6:16 "Know ye not, that to whom ye
yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants
ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto
death, or of obedience unto righteousness ?"


"Sunday is a Catholic insitution,and its claims
to observance can be defended only on Catholic
principles....Fromthe beginning of scripture to
the end (Genesis-Revelation) there is not one
single passage that warrants the transfer of
public worship from the 7th day of the week, to
the 1st day of the week", ('Catholic Press',
Sydney, Autralia, August, 1900).


"IF Protestants would follow the Bible, they
shouldworship God on the Sabbath day. In keeping
the Sunday they are following a Law of the
Catholic Church" (Albert Smith, Chancellor of the
Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the
Cardinal, in a letter dated February 10, 1920).

"The Church changed the observance of the Sabbath
to Sunday by right of the divine, unfallable
authority given her by her founder, Jesus Christ.
The Protestant claiming the Bible to be their
only guide to faith, has no warrant for observing
Sunday.
In this matter, the Seventh-Day Adventist is the
only consistent Protestant", ("The Catholic
Universe Bulletin', August 14, 1942).


"It was the Catholic church which by the
authority of Jesus Christ, has transferred this
rest (from the Bible Sabbath) to Sunday....Thus
the observance of Sunday by the Protesant is in
homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the
authority of the Catholic Church", (Monsignor
Louis Segur, 'Plain Talk about the Protestant of
Today', Page 213).


=====
"And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a [sign] between me and
you, that ye may know that I [am] the LORD your God".

 

[Heidi]

Jay, this is not a thread on the Sabbath, which it appears you are trying to make it.

You need to read the New Testament about the Sabbath, not the old because Jesus has fulfilled the whole, law, including the Sabbath, not just some of it. So this conversaiont can again be re-hashed in another thread. But if people only believed the New testament about what the Sabbath is, then there would be no need to argue with the bible. Until then, please read; Hebrews 4:1-9 and Colossians 2: 16-17, paricularly verse 17. Then re-read verse 17 until you understand it. Then we can discuss it in a different thread.

 

[Drew]

Excellent post, Duder.

It is simply impossible to disentangle the content of scripture from an act of interpretation by the reader. And that act is informed by the cultural milieu in which the reader is situated as wells the specifics of his / her personal background.

The fact that interpretation is required is (partly) the result of the inherent ambiguity of language itself. Human languages, such as English, Hebrew, or Greek, are incredibly rich constructions. However, their rich expressiveness is generally purchased at a cost - ambiguity. The very sophistication of language - the fact of the existence of such linguistic devices as metaphor, for example - introduces a kind of unavoidable ambiguity. One manifestation of this is the debate that rages over young earth creationism. Some think the text is to be taken literally. Others argue that that an allegory is being used.

Languages are also built in an unguided evolutionary kind of way. No group of "language engineers" sat down in a room for month and custom-engineered an ideal language - one with both high expressiveness and low ambiguity. We are stuck with what we have.

So, in the end, we simply are forced to struggle with the scriptures in order to resolve the ambiguities, trying to understand the context in which they were written and also applying the "data of the world" to help resolve ambiguities.

The protestant is engaged in act of interpretation as much as the catholic. As Duder has said, "The philosophy of sola scriptura boils down to "just me and my Bible", which results in a kind of theological anarchy. "Just me and my Bible" yields a billion different theologies among a billion Christian believers who all have a billion different life stories and psychological profiles". So we protestants need to be a little more humble about claims that the Bible's meaning is self-evident.

 

[DivineNames]

This seems to be a doctrine that could be put to the test. What if the Pope, in his capacity as "infallible", when he comes out with doctrine, what if he tries to come out with the doctrine that he isn't actually infallible? If he can successfully make the pronouncement then it must be correct. (For it to be wrong would involve a contradiction.)

By all means test it. But first a little understanding would help...

Now armed with that information, one of the great writers of Catholic Dogma has put together all the statements by Popes and Councils (of which there have been 20 and their pronouncements on faith and morals for the whole Church, intended to be binding) are infallible as well. None of these statements in 2000 years contradicts another. Further no pope has contradicted something that has been declared dogma. EVER. And yes it can all be reconciled with scripture for those who have ears to hear. Over 400 infallible declarations by Popes and Councils.

OK, but these "declarations", how many of them can be proved to be true?

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Well if transmutation of the substance of the the sacraments is 1 and it probably is, i defy you or the Catholic Church or science to prove its the literal body of christ. Should be easy enough!

Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, 400 infallible declarations, all sunday worshippers really just apostate catholics, is just the mouth of that old dragon speaking! Pretty lame, way to easy to refute, wake up!

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. (Peter from ... Writes you!)

 

[Duder]

.

Do you believe Jesus is the truth? if so, then why do you not believe him when he tells us not to call anyone on earth 'father'? You can't both believe he is the truth and a liar at the same time. It's one or the other.

Greetings, Heidi -

Don't you think you're being just a little bit naive? I mean no disrespect, but this is a perfect example of what I meant about the difficulties involved in communicating with the written word. You read that Jesus said not to call anyone "father". You figure a plain reading of that verse yields the full substance of his meaning?

All right, try this. Jesus also said that if your hand offends you, then you should cut it off. You figure he meant that literally, or is there some deeper, subtler substance to it?

You do still have your hands attached, don't you? :wink:

.