Pope

[spiderman1917]

I once hated the Catholic Church.  It was a miserable feeling to judge, hate, and be bitter and scared.

Such people are scared and angry, for which I truly feel sorry for them.

Jesus doesn't need anymore angry and judgemental Christians.

Edited September 8, 2017 by spiderman1917

[spiderman1917]

1 John 4 " By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already."

Scripture approves of the spirit of Catholicism

every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God.  The Antichrist will deny Christ, therefore, the Whore of Babylon will be founded by someone who denies Christ.  There are many such people.

[spiderman1917]

13 minutes ago, Giller said:

There is one scripture you are forgetting Spider, here it is:

2Co 11:4
(4)  For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
 

When someone talks of Jesus, which Jesus are they talking about? For it is not just acknowledging that Jesus was born, died and rose again that counts, but what is this Jesus actually teaching, and what is this Jesus actually preaching? 

If the Jesus that people proclaim says that we are saved by works and tradition, that is not the Jesus of the bible.

And say that is the mode of salvation proclaimed, then Jesus' death would have been in vain.

You can proclaim that Jesus died for our sins, and yet deny the gospel message by adding a works, tradition based salvation, which points us to another gospel, or another Jesus.

Which Jesus came in the flesh? A Jesus that died on the cross for my sins, yet you still have to save yourself by works and traditions?

Or a Jesus that brought complete salvation, to were you are truly saved by grace through faith?

Which Jesus do you proclaim has come in the flesh?

I don't believe we are saved by works.  Neither does the Church.  The Church teaches that we are saved by grace.

I've read the Catholic Gospels.  They are read at every Mass as well.  They are the same Gospel.  The same Jesus.

Another Gospel would fall in line with things like the book of Mormon and the Koran.

Also, I see the "Bible alone" Dogma as another Gospel.  No where does the Bible teach that the Bible is the only source of theological truth.  That teaching is unbiblical, therefore another Gospel.

Jesus knew the RCC would rise to power.  For centuries the RCC was the only Church on Earth proclaiming Jesus is Lord.  Jesus knew his followers would use graven images.  He lived in the Roman Empire after all.  Yet the New Testament remains silent about such practices.

If it was so offensive to Jesus, surely He or Paul would have said something about it.

Much of what was forbidden for the Jews was permitted for Christians.

[spiderman1917]

1 hour ago, Yowm said:

Read Rome's Council of Trent. It is full of 'anathema's' against any that don't follow their program. 

And I disagree with a lot the Church has done.  The Church never taught that the Pope is infallible in all his acts.

The Pope almost never speaks ex cathedra which means the Pope is almost never infallible according to Church teaching on Papal infallibility.

However, I don't like much of what I see in Catholicism, so I'd rather not defend Catholic Dogma, because I'm not at this site to promote anything else but love and unity among Christians.

1 Corinthians 1:10-11 ESV 

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers."

Christian unity is sooo important to God!

 

Edited September 8, 2017 by spiderman1917

[HAZARD]

1 hour ago, spiderman1917 said:

And I disagree with a lot the Church has done.  The Church never taught that the Pope is infallible in all his acts.

The Pope almost never speaks ex cathedra which means the Pope is almost never infallible according to Church teaching on Papal infallibility.

However, I don't like much of what I see in Catholicism, so I'd rather not defend Catholic Dogma, because I'm not at this site to promote anything else but love and unity among Christians.

1 Corinthians 1:10-11 ESV 

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers."

Christian unity is sooo important to God!

 

I don't hate the people who belong to the Catholic church. I have many relatives who are catholic, including my departed father and mother. What I do not like is the way the leaders of this church teach lies and lead their brethren away from God.

Infallibly Infallible — Or What?

891. "'The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,' above all in an Ecumenical Council.[LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3074.] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine 'for belief as being divinely revealed,'[DV 10 # 2.] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions 'must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.'[LG 25 # 2.] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.[Cf. LG 25.]" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 568)

It appears to be yet another case of Roman Catholic infallible doctrine conflicting with Roman Catholic infallible doctrine. What I read prompted the question: When infallible doctrines are in opposition, was either one infallible?

First some background:

The Catholic dictionary defines infallibility as:

The inability to err in teaching the truth. In theology, it refers to: 1) the Church, in that she preserves and teaches the deposit of truth as revealed by Christ; 2) the Roman Pontiff, when he teaches 'ex cathedra' in matters of faith or morals, and indicates that the doctrine is to be believed by all the faithfull; and 3) the college of bishops, when speaking in unnion with the Pope in matters of faith and morals, agreeing that a doctrine must be held by the universal Church, and the doctrine is promulgated by the Pontiff.--Peter M.J.Stravinskay, Ed., Catholic Dictionary, (c) 1997 Our Sunday Visitor, Inc.

In 1546, the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent established an "infallible" rule to be applied when interpreting Scriptures in matters of faith and morals.

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, OR EVEN CONTRARY TO THE UNANIMOUS TEACHING OF THE FATHERS, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published. Those who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law. 

This rule has not been rescinded – nor is it likely ever to be rescinded, for doing so would suggest that the Extraordinary Magisterium had made an error. In fact, it was re-iterated in the "Profession of Faith" and in the "Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith, infallible documents produced by the infallible First Vatican Council:

1. I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman church uses, namely…

2. Apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same church I most firmly accept and embrace.

3. Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.--First Vatican Council, 2nd Session, Profession of Faith, 6 January 1870 - [My emphasis)

8. Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.--First Vatican Council, 3rd Session, Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith, 24 April 1870 )

9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE FATHERS--Ibid.

So, here we have an infallible doctrine, infallibly defined by two infallible church councils (Trent and Vatican I), and infallibly promulgated by infallible popes as matters of faith or morals to be believed by all the RCC. The doctrine: no one, not even the Roman Catholic church itself, is to hold an interpretation of Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

With all these infallible declarations, one wonders that the Roman Catholic church, which preserves and teaches the "deposit of faith as revealed by Christ," should violate one of the rules she infallibly established to determine infallibility.

You see, it is a fact that the church fathers did not unanimously consent to the doctrine of infallibility as currently held and taught by the Roman church:

God alone swears securely, because HE ALONE IS INFALLIBLE.--Augustine of Hippo, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm LXXXIX, Sec. 4

Therefore, one must wonder whether the doctrine of infallibility, which does not meet it's own test of authenticity, is infallibly taught.

There is no doubt that Roman apologists will have ready defenses to explain this apparent conflict. However, the clear wording of the Councils leaves no room for equivocation: The dogma of Mary's assumption fails Rome's own test of the unanimous consent of the fathers.

When these present their charges and unsupported opinions, bear in mind the words of another church father much beloved of Rome:

Concerning the Hearers: that those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them; and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be strictly avoided.--Basil of Caesarea, Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, Ascetical Works, The Morals, Rule 72, p. 185-186.

Or, as the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.--Colossians 2:8

---

Ye Must Be Born Again

 

[OldSchool2]

"In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

[Omegaman 3.0]

On 8/27/2017 at 5:29 AM, KiwiChristian said:

The Pope, is, of course, an Antichrist, while the religious machinery of the Vatican itself is the Whore of Babylon (as it derives its rituals and symbolism from the Babylonian religion of the seductive Semiramis). The Beast is the political structure of the so called "Holy Roman Empire of the Vatican, which will eventually amalgamate into a One World Religion and Government.

Pope Nicholas assumed the title of God. His words are:—‘I am all in all and above all, so that God Himself, and I, the Vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do . . . Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God. WHAT CAN YOU MAKE ME BUT GOD? Again, if prelates of the Church be called and counted of Constantine for gods, I then, being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be ABOVE ALL GODS. Wherefore, no marvel if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ.’ See Decret. Par Distinct 96 Ch. 7 Edit Lugd. 1661.

Pope Nicholas said of himself: "I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do…wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God? Again, if prelates of the Church be called of Constantine for gods, I then being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods. Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ." (Decret. par. Distinct 96 ch. 7 edit. Lugo 1661)

Pope Pius X : "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but He is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ that speaks. Does the Pope accord a favor or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ who pronounces the anathema Or accords the favor." (Protestant Alliance Magazine, March, 1922).

 "All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope." On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth...by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth." Quoted in the New York Catechism.

Father A. Pereira says: "It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title 'Lord God the Pope,' for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII."

Writers on the Canon Law say, "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth." Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. - Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.

Pope Nicholas I declared: "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man." Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para

"For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman, finally thou art another God on earth." Labbe and Cossart's 'History of the Councils' Vol. XIV, col. 109

These words appeared in the Roman Canon Law: "To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.-I?i the Gloss "Extravagantes" o.f Pope John XXII Cum inter, Tit. XIV, Cap. IV. Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris, 1685. http://biblelight.net/Extravagantes.htm

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty". Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894

"The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man (...) he is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power." -Lucius Ferraris, «Prompta Bibliotheca», 1763, Volume VI, 'Papa II', pp.25-29

Roman Catholic Canon Law stipulates through Pope Innocent III that the Roman pontiff is "the vicegerent upon earth, not a mere man, but of a very God;" and in a gloss on the passage it is explained that this is because he is the vicegerent of Christ, who is "very God and very man." Decretales Domini Gregorii translatione Episcoporum, (on the transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Devretales, col. 205

 "And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priest and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse to give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it." -Liguori, «Duties and Dignities of the Priest», p.27

So, are these Popes wrong in saying they are basically God on Earth? This is a statement on faith and morals, is it not? How is this reconcilable?  

You know KIWI, you should really hesitate to just rebroadcast anti-Catholic junk from books and websites. If you have something to criticize, do so based on honesty and real history, not biased propaganda, it hurts your credibility.

For example, it did not take me but a couple of seconds to discover that there was no Pope Nicholas in 1661, so it is hard to imagine that either, and earlier Pope said something in his future, or in 1661 this statement came from a none existent pope.

Back up such claims with documentation that can actually be checked and confirmed, and don't rely on sources with an ax to grind and a willingness to propagate falsities. 

One can criticize the Roman Catholic Church, for actual errors and problems, but let's be truthful and responsible first!

[spiderman1917]

Thanks Omegaman!

And please Kiwi, recite what the Church actually teaches when you wish to point out an error.

For example, the Church actually does not teach that we are saved by works, though the myth remains strangely prevalent.  Neither does the Church teach that Mary is Divine or that it is permissable to adore anyone other than God.

 Also, you said the Church doesn't allow married Bishops.  False!  The Church does permit there to be married Bishops, they just can't be in the Latin rite.  There are more than 20 rites in Catholicism.  If one wishes to be a married priest , one must simply join another rite.

I also see your understanding of Papal infallibility is off. 

Your understanding of what the Antichrist teaches is way off and totally contradicts the Scriptures you claim to cherish.

Scripture clearly spells out how to test the spirits and what the spirit of the Antichrist teaches.

I suggest you not harm your credibility so much.  That would be the first step in winning people to your cause.

[spiderman1917]

I understand that the Church has what appears to be errors taught and done much that should appall us, just please get your facts straight!

[Amazing Horse]

23 hours ago, spiderman1917 said:

Mary is not a Deity in the Church.  There is one God in Catholicism.  Mary is known as the ark of the new covenant and an intercessor in heaven who prays for the world night and day.

Which is against Scriptures .

1 Timothy 2:5

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;