Catholic Christians (Epistles, preacher, Mary, Matthew)

[Tarheelhombre]

Originally Posted by 007.5

'The problem with not having a Pope, is that Jesus was a failure if he came just to leave'

RESPONSE : Thats just it...he never left us and he even said he would never leave us ; and that when he left physically, he would send us his Holy Spirit to carry on guiding us, leading us, convicting us, teaching us, and empowering us .... which he has. Therefore, it is Jesus who is still in authority over his Church on Earth (believers everywhere) and a Pope as well as a Priest today are now defunct positions . Im so pleased that Christ is still our Leader and always will be . Will you allow him that honor in your own life ? I trust you will decide to , and not fallable Men who demand your allegiance.

awesome, true response!

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by lee9786

Born and raised Catholic. Went to a Catholic private school grades K-5. An alter server. Confirmed et al. I ultimately was discouraged from the external religious hypocrisy I saw in the church leading me away from "religion." I then became a victim of the pagan propaganda embedded in our culture becoming another humanist agnostic. Most my family considers themselves "Catholic." It is one of the the hardest groups to reach with the gospel message.

Are Catholics saved? Only God knows the heart. What is scriptural is repentance of sin and depending on the righteousness of Christ to cleanse us from our iniquities. What concerns me about the Catholic brethren is that I'm afraid many are still bound to their sin. In an environment of religious externalism, they risk not being truly "born again" into the spirit of Christ by transforming themselves (ie conforming to Christ.) Confirmation isn't a spiritual thing but a man-made ritual.

What is scary is the lack of acgknowledgement that God is jealous for our affection. Scripture supports one mediator in Christ to God, but Catholisicm requires mediators through Mary and the "Saints." While they deny the concept that they are in danger of Idolatry and bowing down to them, the scriptural point of view shows this could be very dangerous.

What's scary is the response you get when you approach many Catholics on these issues. It's deemed as an "attack" not as a concerned brethren trying to shed light on the issue. This is probably due to the anathmetizing of "Protestantism." What's really sad is that much of "protestantism" is in a massive state of apostacy as prophesied would happen in these times in the scriptures, but the umbrella encompasses all into one erroneously.

My advise for Catholics reading this is to open the Bible and look at both sides of the story. We should all come to an agreement at least that no man reserves the right to anathemtize/ "condemn" another. We are instructed to use the scriptures as the authority for correction of doctrine and to correct in a loving manner focusing on what it says.

Regarding Peter as the 1st pope, I'll just say it's interesting Paul not Peter was chosen to reveal the mystery of the "church" to the gentiles. Peter's focus was on the Jews. One would think the head of the "church" would be the one to introduce it.

That is exaclty my point when I said


Funny that you mention the Paul was to bear witness in Rome and NOT Peter.

[Augusta33]

Originally Posted by pneuma

August this will be in two posts as it is quite long.




So how did this Ex Cathedra come about? Was it because the people realised that what the pope spoke or did was sometimes in error so that they knew the pope was not infallible so the pope comes up with a knew idea, I am only infallible when I speak Ex Cathedra.

Pneuma, it originated when Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles in all truth.

Here's a link for you.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility

So in effect the pope preaches the gospel of do as I say not as I do, seems to me that is the same thing Paul upbraided Peter for. The popes have not learn anything by their hypocrisies, at least Peter did as he went on to teach we are taught by examples.

Only when he teaches ex cathdra. Note from scripture: Acts 1:15
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said...

The term "stood up" signifies he was teaching. It's also used with Paul.




Paul upbraided Peter for teaching others to follow his (Peter) hypocrisy. You keep sweeping this under the rug as if you are scared to look at it, but it happened, Peter was in error for teaching others hypocrisy. For setting an example the led others astray.

August I have given you scripture showing Peter taught hypocrisy by his actions, that Peter taught we are to learn by example, and that the church is to be sinless, you reply with what the pope says as if what the pope says supersedes the scriptures.

You need to address these issues sis

See above.




Read the scripture sis

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The keys of the kingdom of heaven were for the binding and loosing in HEAVEN and EARTH.
What is a key used for? Is it not for unlocking and locking things, binding and loosing?
And ALL the disciples had those same keys or they would not have been able to bind and loose things in HEAVEN and things in the EARTH.

The key represents Peter's primacy, which corresponds with the OT type.



A couple of points here sis

First Zozimus examined Caelestius and the profession and found NOTHING heretical in them. Remember this is the infallible pope who get his directions straight from the mouth of God. This infallible pope EXAMINED and found NOTHING heretical.

So what happens.

The African bishops point out to Zozimus that this matter had ALREADY been settled by the infallible pope Innocent 1. This according to the infallibility of the popes should have settled the matter right then and there. But did it? NO

Zozimus said he did not definitively settle the matter (Innocent already had so it should not have mattered) so he tells the African bishops that he would not settle the matter until he had consulted with them ( what need does one who is infallible have need to consult with bishops if a matter is true or not?) and that Innocent 1 decision would remain in effect until he had consulted them. Zozimus obviously did not believe the infallibility of pope Innocent 1 or he would not have said that Innocents decision would remain in effect until he looked more closely into it.

So even though the website you gave says The case of Zozimus thus does not touch the doctrine of papal infallibility.It clearly does speak on the issue of the infallibility of the pope as I have pointed out.

Don't forget I also pointed out the case of pope Honorious which you did not touch on.

Honorious taught the Monothelite heresy, which was condemned by the 6th ecumenical council, which led to Honorious excommunication.

So Honorious was an infallible pope that other infallible popes excommunicated for heresy. Clearly this shows the infallibility of the pope to be nothing more then wishful thinking on the side of the popes.






That's ok sis, sometimes work calls me away for two or three days at a time so I cannot get back to answer for a few days.




August the only place the assumption of Mary is ever recorded is in the apocryphal writings.


In the list of apocryphal writings which are to be rejected Gelasius signifies the following work: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162). This specifically means the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary.




At the end of the decree he states that this and all the other listed literature is heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble.

Pope Gelasius explicitly condemns the authors as well as their writings and the teachings which they promote and all who follow them. And significantly, this entire decree and its condemnation was reaffirmed by pope Hormisdas in the sixth century around A.D. 520. (Migne Vol. 62. Col. 537-542).

So here we have two infallible popes stating the assumption of Mary is heretical.

I can't find thees writings you posted. >>> ( Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus ...404 Not Found)


Send me a link and I'll read them later today.


Pneuma, do you mind separating your posts from now on instead of making one long one? That will help me a lot when replying. Thanks, brother!


Blessings,

augusta

[pneuma]

Pneuma, it originated when Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles in all truth.

Here's a link for you.

August even the link says the apostles, were all the apostles popes? No so why is it only today that the pope is infallible?

The promise of the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth is given to ALL followers of Christ. It is NOT the pope who lead us into all truth it is the Holy Spirit.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him

The last time I looked the pope was a man. You simply have no need of him to teach you if you follow the Holy Spirit.

Only when he teaches ex cathdra. Note from scripture: Acts 1:15
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said...

The term "stood up" signifies he was teaching. It's also used with Paul.

And that is the dogma of the RCC but it is NOT scripturally based. Again, I showed you Paul’s upbraiding of Peter for teaching by his action hypocrisy. I showed you where Peter learn from his mistake and taught we are taught by example. And I showed you that the church is to be sinless.

All these points you have swept under the rug refusing to look at them, you just keep saying the dogma of the RCC as if you believe what the pope says supersedes the scriptures.

What in essence you are telling me is that Paul was in error or had no reason to upbraid Peter because the pope is infallible. Sorry sis but that don’t cut it with me, I would take Paul’s word over the popes any day of the week.

So tell me why Paul upbraided Peter if Peter did not teach by his actions hypocrisy.

Keep in mind these scriptures that show one cannot preach do as I say not as I do without dishonouring God.

Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 23Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

The key represents Peter's primacy, which corresponds with the OT type.

Again that is nothing but RCC dogma which the scriptures show to be in error.

I will repeat

The keys of the kingdom of heaven were for the binding and loosing in HEAVEN and EARTH.
What is a key used for? Is it not for unlocking and locking things, binding and loosing?
And ALL the disciples had those same keys or they would not have been able to bind and loose things in HEAVEN and things in the EARTH.

Pneuma, do you mind separating your posts from now on instead of making one long one? That will help me a lot when replying. Thanks, brother!

Ok sis I will repost some of what I have said in smaller posts as there are many points you have yet to respond to.

[pneuma]

First Zozimus examined Caelestius and the profession and found NOTHING heretical in them. Remember this is the infallible pope who get his directions straight from the mouth of God. This infallible pope EXAMINED and found NOTHING heretical.

So what happens.

The African bishops point out to Zozimus that this matter had ALREADY been settled by the infallible pope Innocent 1. This according to the infallibility of the popes should have settled the matter right then and there. But did it? NO

Zozimus said he did not definitively settle the matter (Innocent already had so it should not have mattered) so he tells the African bishops that he would not settle the matter until he had consulted with them ( what need does one who is infallible have need to consult with bishops if a matter is true or not?) and that Innocent 1 decision would remain in effect until he had consulted them. Zozimus obviously did not believe the infallibility of pope Innocent 1 or he would not have said that Innocents decision would remain in effect until he looked more closely into it.

So even though the website you gave says The case of Zozimus thus does not touch the doctrine of papal infallibility.It clearly does speak on the issue of the infallibility of the pope as I have pointed out.

Don't forget I also pointed out the case of pope Honorious which you did not touch on.

Honorious taught the Monothelite heresy, which was condemned by the 6th ecumenical council, which led to Honorious excommunication.

So Honorious was an infallible pope that other infallible popes excommunicated for heresy. Clearly this shows the infallibility of the pope to be nothing more then wishful thinking on the side of the popes.

[pneuma]

August the only place the assumption of Mary is ever recorded is in the apocryphal writings.


In the list of apocryphal writings which are to be rejected Gelasius signifies the following work: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162). This specifically means the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary.


At the end of the decree he states that this and all the other listed literature is heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble.

Pope Gelasius explicitly condemns the authors as well as their writings and the teachings which they promote and all who follow them. And significantly, this entire decree and its condemnation was reaffirmed by pope Hormisdas in the sixth century around A.D. 520. (Migne Vol. 62. Col. 537-542).

So here we have two infallible popes stating the assumption of Mary is heretical.

I can't find thees writings you posted. >>> ( Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus ...404 Not Found)


Send me a link and I'll read them later today.

Just put in Gelasius 1 on the assumption of Mary and you will get a lot of links concerning it.

Here a link that quotes Migne vol59 Col.162

http://brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=89.0;wap2

[pneuma]

I will await your finding, but you will find that Pope Pius IX and Vatican 2 are at odds with one another.

Funny that you mention the Paul was to bear witness in Rome and NOT Peter. Surely, Peter must have bore witness in Rome if he was the first pope.

It is also funny that Paul in his letter to Rome never acknowledges Peter in his salutation, surely the pope of Rome would not be forgotten by Paul.

[pneuma]

Two councils, that of Constance (1415) and Basle (1432) declared that the pope is to OBEY the councils. The council of Constance even deposed pope John XXIII.

However, in 1870 it was declared that the pope alone is infallible.


The Council of Pisa declared that a council is superior to a pope.


The Council of Constance also declared that a council is superior to a pope

So who is superior the councils or the popes?

Remember the councils have deposed popes, how can this be if the pope is infallible?

Remember you said (referring to the RCC) the gates of hell would not prevail against the church.

Yet the infallible pope Vigilinus confessed he had been a tool of Satan at the 5th Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 553 (History of the Christian Councils, Vol. IV, p. 345).


How can one infallible pope, Eugene IV (1431-1447), condemn Joan of Arc (1412-1431) to be burned alive as a witch, while another pope, Benedict XV, in 1919, declares her to be a saint?

And what about Galileo who was condemned by Pope Paul V and pope Urban VIII for teaching the earth moves around the sun. These popes imprisoned Galileo and said his theory was false, heretical and contrary to the word of God.

Now remember these popes did not just say what Galileo believed was false and heretical they said it was contrary to the WORD OF GOD, something they are suppose to be infallible in regards to.

Yet we today know Galileo was correct in his view and the infallible popes were in error of the WORD OF GOD.

[Augusta33]

Originally Posted by pneuma

August even the link says the apostles, were all the apostles popes? No so why is it only today that the pope is infallible?

Don't our ecumenical councils count? And btw, did you know that papal infallibility has only been invoked twice?

The promise of the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth is given to ALL followers of Christ. It is NOT the pope who lead us into all truth it is the Holy Spirit.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him

Pneuma, we know that Christ send us men to teach us:

2 Timothy 2:2
and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

James 3:1
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.

So we know that this verse doesn'tmean what it appears to. I've read several commentaries on this but my take is that it is the teaching through the Church because we know that Jesus said the Holy Spirit would come to teach the apostles all things.


The last time I looked the pope was a man. You simply have no need of him to teach you if you follow the Holy Spirit.



And that is the dogma of the RCC but it is NOT scripturally based. Again, I showed you Paul’s upbraiding of Peter for teaching by his action hypocrisy. I showed you where Peter learn from his mistake and taught we are taught by example. And I showed you that the church is to be sinless.


All these points you have swept under the rug refusing to look at them, you just keep saying the dogma of the RCC as if you believe what the pope says supersedes the scriptures.

Pneuma, again I disagree as we are all prone to sin/error or else we would not have been told to ask forgiveness for our sins. So all teachers would have to be free of sin before teaching by your standard and we know that isn't likely.



What in essence you are telling me is that Paul was in error or had no reason to upbraid Peter because the pope is infallible. Sorry sis but that don’t cut it with me, I would take Paul’s word over the popes any day of the week.

No, I never said that. Infallibility has nothing to do with sin. My point was that if Peter didn't have primacy then Paul wouldn't have made such a big deal about rebuking him.

So tell me why Paul upbraided Peter if Peter did not teach by his actions hypocrisy.

Keep in mind these scriptures that show one cannot preach do as I say not as I do without dishonouring God.



Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 23Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

All these are mortal sins.



Again that is nothing but RCC dogma which the scriptures show to be in error.http://www.city-data.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=20641147

I will repeat

The keys of the kingdom of heaven were for the binding and loosing in HEAVEN and EARTH.
What is a key used for? Is it not for unlocking and locking things, binding and loosing?
And ALL the disciples had those same keys or they would not have been able to bind and loose things in HEAVEN and things in the EARTH.

And I repeat only Peter was given the keys, signifying his primacy.

Pneuma, I want to add to please take reason into account. The Catholic Church, with a head, has thrived since the beginning until this very day. That's pretty miraculous if you stop and think about it.


Ok sis I will repost some of what I have said in smaller posts as there are many points you have yet to respond to.

Thanks!


God bless, and have a nice day.

augusta

[pneuma]

Don't our ecumenical councils count?

Your ecumenical councils has condemned an infallible pope and so have other pope condemned other infallible popes

And btw, did you know that papal infallibility has only been invoked twice?

That say more then you know sis. What it tells me is that the popes have only heard the word of God twice. It also tells me they are scared to say what they teach is Ex Cathedra as they know that by saying it is Ex Cathedra their infallibility doctrine would be exposed for the sham it is.

Pneuma, we know that Christ send us men to teach us:

2 Timothy 2:2
and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

James 3:1
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.

So we know that this verse doesn'tmean what it appears to. I've read several commentaries on this but my take is that it is the teaching through the Church because we know that Jesus said the Holy Spirit would come to teach the apostles all things.

Yes God sends men to teach, but who is it that they teach to? Those who have yet to be given the anointing. Once the anointing of the Holy Spirit comes to live inside you, you no longer need any man to teach you as it is the Holy Spirit that lead us into ALL truth.

Pneuma, again I disagree as we are all prone to sin/error or else we would not have been told to ask forgiveness for our sins. So all teachers would have to be free of sin before teaching by your standard and we know that isn't likely.

You can disagree with my stance here sis but I gave you scriptures that back up what I have put forth.
You have ignored those scriptures.
And I am not the one who states he is infallible, that statement belongs to the pope.

No, I never said that. Infallibility has nothing to do with sin. My point was that if Peter didn't have primacy then Paul wouldn't have made such a big deal about rebuking him.

Peter was a leader, and according to Paul Peter lead people into hypocrisy. One is a hypocrite if one says do as I say not as I do, Which according to Paul Peter was doing.

Sis you keep ignoring my question

So tell me why Paul upbraided Peter if Peter did not teach by his actions hypocrisy.

And I repeat only Peter was given the keys, signifying his primacy.

Well I have scripture for backing you have the word of a pope, I'll believe what the scripture show. Show me in those scriptures where it says the keys were given to Peter to signifying his primacy.

Pneuma, I want to add to please take reason into account. The Catholic Church, with a head, has thrived since the beginning until this very day. That's pretty miraculous if you stop and think about it.

Sorry but the catholic Church has not survived unto this day under a pope. In 1054 the catholic church became divided into the RCC and eastern orthodox

The true Catholic Church only has ONE head, that being Jesus Christ.