A compelling non-Catholic argument

[CentralFLJames]

Not pontificating but showing you what the scriptures teach. All men have sinned— Romans 5:12–Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Oh fallable man who sayist with certainty that thou art a sinner. Shalt ye seek even to appearances of refuge; yea, even to appeares therein to delight thee to confess of perditious nature? Be it not doubly sinful to boast of ill nature whilst taking refugee and shelter therein? Doest thou intend to inspire men to boast of disorder through disordered demonstration? Mean thee to teach in the manner a fumbling jester taxes the king with self effacing laughter whilest the latter suffers his competence and becomes the bigger fool in giving the lesser his wage and more? Alas poor Yurik, me thinks he never knew all his children nor imagined the number of present day descendants; but me thinks too his queen secretly smiled. Shalt all take thou at thy impression in word and manner to believest thou arst certainly most perfectly fallable; evenest so in sin whilst yet conjuring as by paradoxical and majik vapor an enigma of infallability? Be this witchcraft or be this “touched” of the mind in manner most curious as thou claims refuge in the common depravity of nature?

Does the King of Kings smile or scowl at thy foolishness? Me thinks the latter.

Secondly if Mary had ever said she never sinned she would have violated this Scripture in I John 1:10 and would have lied if she thought it.

Me thinks thou speculates thine opinion as a manner of Pope in matters that thou lack competence and authority to speak.

How many times has a pope spoken ex cathedra?

Suffice to the wiseman one time only to heed. How many times shalt The Vicar speak for the disobedient or the miscreant to reveal contempt? Take heed thee not to count, rather listen and obey least thou be counted each time among with the disobedient and unfaithful.

Was Jesus born of 2 human parents? Is He just like the rest of us?

Thou knows by thy very nature that Jesus was born of both Father and Mother. Thou shoudst question thyself ‘are thou a child of God or the child of Adam and Eve’?

Lot of false statements here. For one Mary is never referred to as an ark in the NT by anyone.
Secondly, could men handle the ark when the presence of God was gone from the ark?

Thou arst in error since tho can’t see that which is plainly writ.
Our Lord said ‘Let them who have eyes see and them who have ears listen’. Thou have been invited to see and hear the good news. Are thou blind and deaf or are thou talking out of turn and thereby unable to hear instruction?

Take heed that what thou conjectures in thy mind of Mary and the Arc is sacrilege to even think since it contemplates adulterating that which bore God’s Word.

If this is the case then why do we find one verse, one word that mentions she was “in a more perfect way became the temple” in the NT?

Thou claims privilege to privy insights yet would deny others theirs. Take heed that The Lord condemned the Pharisees for hypocrisy. Where doest thou get thy authority to take onto thyself privy insight and authority to deny others? The same testaments thou speaks of commands obedience to God’s authority given to His Vicar.

This idea that you mention here has been soundly refuted by catholic scholarship…

Thou speaks as an infallible authority. Do thou imagine thee a pope? Doest thou take this claim unto thee in the manner of Simon Magus, Luther and others? Perhaps thou is giving another lesson in the error of fallibility? Thou shouldst consider that somethings are yet too sublime for thee. Consider thee then thy apostle Paul’s words: ‘I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.’ Take ye heed if ye be not weened not to bite things thou can’t digest lest the teat be denied the anxious babe.

James

 

[deanarrca]

Not pontificating but showing you what the scriptures teach. All men have sinned— Romans 5:12–Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Catholics believe that “all have sinned” refers to original sin, and refers to Mary as well. But Mary was saved in anticipation of original sin. Infants are included in “all have sinned” for they have original sin. Mary needed to be saved from original sin in order not to pass it onto christ in childbirth.

Second, Paul means that all people are subject to original sin. Mary was also subject to original sin, but God redeemed her from the moment of her conception. Mary’s sinlessness is completely based on the anticipated sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In other words, God let all of us fall into the mud pudddle, and then washed us in baptism. For Mary, God did not let her fall into the mud puddle. But both scenarios are based on Christ’s redemption.

Third, not “all have sinned,” because babies, the mentally retarded, and the senile cannot sin (that is, they are not culpable for their sin). (Note to clarify: they have original sin from Adam but they have no actual sins)

Fourth, the word “all” in Rom 3:23 in Greek is pantes. It is the same word used in 1 Cor 15:22 where Paul says “all” have died. But we know that Enoch and Elijah did not die; they were assumed into heaven. This means that when Paul says “all” (pantes), he does not mean every single one. In fact, Paul says in Rom 5:19 that “many” were made sinners. This means that when Paul says “all” in regard to sinners, he really means “many.”

scripturecatholic.com/mary_qa.html#allhavesinned

Other examples where all doesn’t mean all as in every last one, but most

“The Lord looks down from heaven on humankind to see if there are any who are wise, who seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse; there is no one who does good.” {Ps 14, 2-3; cf. 53, 1-3}

Yet Jesus says: “The good person brings good things out of a good treasure…” {Mt 12,35; cf. 5,45, 7,17-20, 22:10}

Also “All” does not mean “All”, as in “then came down to him all of Judea and Jerusalem to be baptized”. I’m pretty sure every person in Judea did not get baptized by John.

 

[mikeledes]

Even if that is the case, is there the kind of unity in the catholic church that Jesus prayed for?

There is unity in fundamental doctrine, which cannot be said about Protestantism. This fundamental doctrine is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

God bless,
Michael

 

[deanarrca]

Just a though on Unity. I don’t know how old Justaskingk4 is but Protestantman in his post I believe posted he was only 25. I believe that if you have been basically raised in only one church or have been a member of only one or two like minded churches then you have not really experienced all the actual disunity out there among Protestant churches.

I only became really troubled when after I was married and we moved to a new town and went about the task of trying to find a home church. It is really a difficult task as many claim to be Bible based but yet teach many different things. Then what ends up happening is you try to find the church that teaches the Bible the most like you’ve been taught. So are you trusting the Bible alone or what you were taught it’s interpretation says by your previous Church and Pastor. I use to pray night and day for the Lord to show me his Church - the Church that was teaching and worshipping in Spirit and Truth. I clung to the Scripture “Seek and Ye shall find.” I couldn’t stand when I went to a Bible class or Bible study at a new Church how everyone taught something different. Which one has the Holy Spirit?

I know a lovely couple who are close to 80years old and who never became members of any church and just churched hopped their whole life because no Church interpreted the Scriptures like they did. I guess they had the guidance of the Holy Spirit (or so they thought) and nobody else did. They also never grew in their faith because of it or had the spirtual support or guidance and edification of the Church.

The Church is universal but it is also visible. If the Church is the Pillar and foundation of Truth which Church is it. The Bible very clearly tells you how to discern correct doctrine. know from whom you have been taught .If it is from Jesus and the Apostles that Jesus taught, then it is trustworthy. The whole problem is with Authority. I trust the Church that proves Apostolic Succession, that has a consistent history, and a consistent presence throughout History because I believe God’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail over the Church. There is a consistent rule of faith and standard for all Catholic Churches worldwide which is the Bible and the Catechism. The Catechism is how those Scripture are interpreted and understood. Wether or not individuals within the Church espouse everything or not. The Individual Congregations are not deciding doctrine individually among themselves like Protestant Non-Denominational Churches.

Anyway it took 20 years for my prayers to be answered but I needed that time of growth. There are no contradictions of Scripture within the Catholic Church, Their is a unity that goes back 2000 years. It is awesome to read the ECF’s and know it is the same faith of the Apostles. (Now the ECF’s are not infallible and did not agree with each other on every single point but as a whole they are in agreement.) Not a faith that Protestants tried to re-create with just the Bible alone (trying to guess the mind of Jesus and the Apostles and what they might have meant in the many passages of the Bible) 1500 years after the fact. The Catholic Church doesn’t have to guess. It had that knowledge and passed it down along with the Holy Scriptures.

I don’t want to spend my next 40 years trying to find which Protestant church out of hundreds or thousands is correct. It is time to settle Down at Home in the Church Christ founded and worship, grow in knowledge, service, love and devotion to Jesus

OK that was more than a few thoughts. I have more, but I better stop.

 

[guanophore]

Who is piecemealing anything here? I asked a simple and direct question about the passage that could easily been answered quickly and simply. I would think you to have read John 17 and would agree that there is no mention of any pope or leader.
The same principle applies to John 21:15-19.

Yes. I gave you my “simple” answer. These passages are taken together with all the rest, to acquire a full picture of the Teaching.

What you say here has nothing to do with the passages above. The unity that Jesus prayed for has nothing to do with the pope in these passages.

This is what I mean when I say piecemealing, ja4. You don’t see what you are looking for in these particular passages,a nd that seems to indicate to you that it does not exist. It is as if you expect each passage to be whole and entire all in itself. This is not the purpose for which the NT was written. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to teach all that He commanded. He did not expect people to learn this by reading the Scripture. All the Apostles understood what Jesus taught about unity, and they all knew that Jesus expected them to stay together with Peter.

More dodging the issue. Anyone can read the letters of the NT and what they will not find is any of this balderdash i.e. “unity with the pope” that you and others are trying to make the Scriptures say something they never do.

Well, that was not my phrase, or one I would prefer to use, so I cannot really defend it. What I can defend is that unity is found in adherance to right doctrine, and that the Apostles were all in unity with one another on that doctrine. Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom, and the charge to feed and guard the sheep. These happenings are quite clear in the NT.

I have to admit you say some amazing things. What are “the Teachings of Jesus, which came before the NT”? Can you give me a couple of examples of what you are referring to?

The entire teachings of Jesus occured before a word of the NT was written. The best examples of them are the ‘gospels, where Jesus’ teachings are recored, many years after He was resurrected. I am not sure how to convince you that Jesus founded His Church without a NT, and that He is the Source of the Teachings, not the NT. The NT accurately reflects these, but it was never intended to be a complete compilation of them all. If that were the case, He would not have needed to appoint a teaching authority.

If this is the case this is all the more we need to discuss this. Sometimes trying to understand Catholicism is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Perhaps you might consider another approach, if you really wish to understand what Catholics believe? You might wish to consider, at first, that Catholicism is not a 'Bible Religion" as Fundamentalism is. None of our doctrines are “based on the bible”. Once you get that down, the rest will come much easier.

 

[protestantman]

Acts 9:17-19
17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

This laying on of hands was a healing of his sight. The laying on of hands was used for Healing, as well as other things. Here it is done to heal, not to assign apostleship.

Granted, Acts does not specifically say how long Paul was in Damascus or Arabia before going to Jerusalem, nor does the Bible specifically state when Paul became an apostle, although it is apparent in Scripture that he did become one at some point. He could have been ordained at or at any time between the two events. I’m not sure exactly if (or when) the Church identified it, but scripture and history generally agree that Paul’s conversion was in the year 35, & his first visit to Jerusalem (in which he met the apostles Peter & James) occurred in the year 37.

Yes it says he visited to do what though? TO GET ACQUAINTED. Nothing in there about Apostleship.

Galations agrees with this, disproving the claim of ministry for 14 years before acceptance by the apostles. Additionally, Gal 2, from which people get the figure of 14 years, actually says that this was a repeat visit to Jerusalem for Paul.

So, because he went to Jerusalem, you can just assume that he was made an Apostle? Scripture does not say that.

In comparing Galations 1, to Acts 9, it is apparent that they agree that Paul went to Jerusalem only three years after his conversion & baptism.

But it does not say what he went there for, other than to get acquainted.

Gal 1:15-17
15But when God, who set me apart from birth[a] and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.18-Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.

Read those colored passages again, and explain how this proves your point.

Acts agrees:
Acts 9:8 – “Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus.”).
Acts 9:26-28 “26When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.”

Sounds like he was accepted by the two apostles he met, especially if they put him up & all. Could Paul have been been ordained a full apostle (aka-bishop) in Jerusalem by Peter or James at that time? Or perhaps earlier, or later? Who’s to say?

Yes, as a disciple, not an Apostle. Again read the colored text.

Neither Paul, nor any of the other apostles, nor any of their successors, nor does the Church make any claim but that it is revealed by the Father through the Holy Spirit, as Jesus both stated & promised. This gift of the Holy Spirit is passed down through apostolic succession - again, as Jesus stated.

The Apostles NEVER stated that the Apostolic gifts were passed on to their successors. Remember that the Apostles were unique, in the fact that they had been appointed directly by Christ, and had seen Christ. No other Bishops or Popes can make that same claim.

 

[protestantman]

No, we don’t have to wait that long. The Church has the Divine Revelation. We know that what the Reformers taught is not consistent with what we have received from Jesus through the Apostles.

Yes you do. Also, this DIVINE REVELATION, is it complete? Absolutely not, and you dont even know what part is incomplete. All truth will only be made known when Christ returns, or when you die and meet him.

A pope might be cut off for living a sinful life, or embracing heresy, like Honorous did.

Good. What about Pope Liberius, who’s fear of Constantine was apparently greater than his fear of False teaching?

Yes. However, most Catholics fall into a state of mortal sin, separating themselves from the Church, so a public statement is not necessary. Some engage in behaviors, such as abortion, that incur an automatic excommunicaiton.

In some of my own observations, I have not seen this done consistantly. I would address that as a problem, wouldn’t you?

 

[jmcrae]

Good. What about Pope Liberius, who’s fear of Constantine was apparently greater than his fear of False teaching?

What did Liberius teach that was false, under pressure from the pagan emperor Constantine? Also, I find it strange that the first pagan Emperor to entertain sympathies for Christianity would inspire such terror that Nero, et al could only dream of, to influence the Catholic Church. What - after three hundred years of martyrs, we just suddenly and randomly get a pansy-pants for Pope? Somehow, I doubt it.

In some of my own observations, I have not seen this done consistantly. I would address that as a problem, wouldn’t you?

Automatic excommunication takes effect regardless of the actions of the individual. They are still allowed to attend church, by the way - they are just not allowed to participate in the Sacraments. And only their Confessor knows for sure whether they are partaking of the Sacraments in a worthy manner.

 

[protestantman]

You are new to apologetics but you must learn to separate statements about your ideas and not take them so personally. Apologetics is about discussing ideas.

Apologetics has nothing to do with comments about a specific person. One should be carefull how he argues his belief. I only take comments personally, if they have been made personal. If I said that you must be an idiot to believe one thing or another, then I have made it personal by insulting you intelligence.

Bolded: Show me this in Scripture
Underlined: I do not understand what you are trying to say here.

I have shown the scripture. The underlined point, is that Paul did not get any instruction from the Apostles. NONE. NOTHING. NADA. ZERO. His teaching was not from the result of the Laying on of hands. The verse that talks about Ananias, is talking specifically about the laying on of hands TO HEAL.

I’m not sure that I accept that he DID not have Apostolic Authority before then. Scripture is silent on whether it may have occurred 1 day before or 13 years before.

Bingo. Uncertainty. But the fact remains, that Paul went to Jeruselam a second time, and was excepted as an Apostle then. Why would he have done this, if he had already been accepted 11 years before?

You seem not grasping the distinction between the Office of the Pope (Chair of Peter) and the person of the Pope. I told you much much earlier that there was a procedure for removing the person of the Pope. But even without a Pope the Chair exists, the Teaching Authority exists, etc. Unless you grasp this, understanding and discussing this entire issue is impossible.

Ye I do. Yet Scripture never made the claim that such a position even existed. When does it say in scripture, that the Apostolic gifts were to be handed to a successor? When does scripture say that Timothy was anything more than a Disciple? Other than the 13 origional Apostles, when does scripture call anyone else an Apostle? Does scripture say that Barnabus was an Apostle(SPECIFICALLY)? Or Titus, or anyone?

I will say this again. A Pope is not impeccible. He suffers from temptation just like you and me and he falls just like you and me. However, when He speaks from the Chair on teaching matters of Faith and Morals, he is nfallible becuase of the power of the Holy Spirit.

According to the scripture of a good tree and a bad tree, impeccable and infallible are infact INSEPERABLE?

 

[jmcrae]

I have shown the scripture. The underlined point, is that Paul did not get any instruction from the Apostles. NONE. NOTHING. NADA. ZERO.

Then he got it from someone else. When he was baptized, he became a member of the Church. He wasn’t a “lone ranger.” The only time we know of that he received direct information from Jesus was on the road to Damascus. Apart from that, he must have had human teachers.

According to the scripture of a good tree and a bad tree, impeccable and infallible are infact INSEPERABLE?

So, if the writer of a particular Scripture passage had sinned in the past, then we have to doubt the truth of that Scripture passage? Since we believe that the writers of Scripture were infallible, but they were definitely not impeccable.

 

[protestantman]

Second, you are now trying to introduce not theology but what happens at the Second Coming.

Third, God described all of His creation good and His creation of humanity as very good. Catholics reject the idea that our bodies are not bad. What is bad is in our hearts.

God said his creation was good, ONLY BEFORE THE ORIGIONAL SIN. He even destroyed much of the creation in the flood. Only Noah’s family and some animals were sparred. Why does Revelations talk a good deal about the significance of the men in white robes?

As are all Bishops today.

Name one bishop who has set eyes on the Son of God. Saul was the last to see Christ in person. Ironically, he was also the last one in scripture to be called an Apostle.

Instruction? Or Authority? Big difference.

If your 14 year interim period is correct, why do you think Christ would need 14 years? Could it be that he was being instructed by men?

You assume that his acceptance was absolutely neccesary to teach what Christ himself told him. He recieved neither Instruction OR authority from the Apostles, but from the mouth of Christ.

If your arguments contain components of Gnostic or Nanicheist theology, denying you are not one doesn’t change the nature of your arguments.

Your arguments contain components of Satans theology. Satan believes in God. Satan believes in Christ. Satan knows more about scripture than you. Satan acknowleges the power of angels. He acknowleged God before you were born. Do you also not acknowlege these things? So then by your own admission, the nature of your arguments are Satanic, right?

To answer your last question, it is just to make our new glorified nature to be more like God’s nature as it is more appropriate in Heaven to be in God’s Presence.

What is it about the ones we have now that are innapropriate?

 

[protestantman]

Christ has no body here on earth now but ours. We are His hands, His feet, the eyes through which He looks. He would have no earthly presence if His Body were cut off.

So Christ does not have the power to return to Earth? I think revelations says that he will. Its absured to think that Christ does not have absolute power, regardless of the state of the Church.

 

[davidv]

God said his creation was good, ONLY BEFORE THE ORIGIONAL SIN. He even destroyed much of the creation in the flood. Only Noah’s family and some animals were sparred. Why does Revelations talk a good deal about the significance of the men in white robes?

Please supply scripture that declares that Adam and Eve’s sins made mankind evil. The white robes have nothing to do with our earthly state, which is fallen but not evil, but with our eventual heavenly state.

Name one bishop who has set eyes on the Son of God. Saul was the last to see Christ in person. Ironically, he was also the last one in scripture to be called an Apostle.

When was that last time you set your eyes on the Son of God? I guess that means you have no authority to teach either.

 

[protestantman]

Scripture indicates that the origional sin is passed down from the seed of the Father. Thus, I recieved the origional sin from My dad. Christ was without the origional sin, because he was not a decendant of any earthly man. It had nothing to do with Mary. Christ was created in Mary’s womb in a unique way. There was no sperm joined to an egg. He was concieved by the Holy Spirit. It does not say that he was concieved by the HS and Mary, JUST THE HS. You have taken something so sacred and humanized it so that you can say you understand it. The conception of Christ is something that no man is capable of explaining, other than it was a miracle from the HS. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MARY.

 

[protestantman]

What did Liberius teach that was false, under pressure from the pagan emperor Constantine? Also, I find it strange that the first pagan Emperor to entertain sympathies for Christianity would inspire such terror that Nero, et al could only dream of, to influence the Catholic Church. What - after three hundred years of martyrs, we just suddenly and randomly get a pansy-pants for Pope? Somehow, I doubt it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Liberius

Automatic excommunication takes effect regardless of the actions of the individual. They are still allowed to attend church, by the way - they are just not allowed to participate in the Sacraments. And only their Confessor knows for sure whether they are partaking of the Sacraments in a worthy manner.

Scripture never stated that this was the manner in which this should be done. Attending church is a fellowship of believers. Why would you accept someone who is not equally yoked with the church to continue in this fellowship? Apparently the word EXPELL means something differnt to me than it does to you.
But then again it is defined below
1 : to force out : eject
2 : to force to leave (as a place or organization) by official action : take away rights or privileges of membership

It seems that you do not completely follow this direct scriptural command.

 

[protestantman]

Then he got it from someone else. When he was baptized, he became a member of the Church. He wasn’t a “lone ranger.” The only time we know of that he received direct information from Jesus was on the road to Damascus. Apart from that, he must have had human teachers.

And yet you can not show conlusive scriptural evidence.

So, if the writer of a particular Scripture passage had sinned in the past, then we have to doubt the truth of that Scripture passage?

The writer was the Holy Spirit. the vessels he chose, were just vessels.

 

[wanner47]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Liberius

Protestman, for future reference – you may not know this, but when you make a claim such as “Pope Liberius did [or taught] such-and-such,” and you are asked to back it up with evidence, it’s common courtesy to cite the passage to which you are referring as well as the source itself. That way those reading the debate don’t have to wade through pages and pages of an article to find out what the heck you’re talking about.

Also, you should know that since Wikipedia is a user-edited source, it’s not always reliable, so you should look in places like the Catholic Encyclopedia if you want reliable information about Catholicism.

Be that as it may, this is the Wiki article in its entirety:

Pope Liberius, pope from May 17, 352 to September 24, 366, remains the earliest pope not yet canonized as a saint (however, he is canonized in the Eastern Orthodox Church). The successor of Pope Julius I, he was consecrated according to the Catalogus Liberianus on May 22. His first recorded act was, after a synod had been held at Rome, to write to Emperor Constantius II, then in quarters at Arles (353-354), asking that a council might be called at Aquileia with reference to the affairs of Athanasius of Alexandria; but his messenger Vincentius of Capua was compelled by the emperor at a conciliabulum held in Arles, to subscribe against his will a condemnation of the orthodox patriarch of Alexandria.

In 355 Liberius was one of the few who, along with Eusebius of Vercelli, Dionysius of Milan, and Lucifer of Cagliari, refused to sign the condemnation of Athanasius, which had anew been imposed at Milan by imperial command upon all the Western bishops; the consequence was his relegation to Beroea in Thrace; Antipope Felix II being consecrated his successor by three catascopi haud episcopi (spies, in no way [are they] bishops), as Athanasius called them.

At the end of an exile of more than two years, the emperor recalled him; but, as the Roman See was officially occupied by Antipope Felix, a year passed before Liberius was sent to Rome. It was the emperor’s intention that Liberius should govern the Church jointly with Felix, but on the arrival of Liberius, Felix was expelled by the Roman people. Neither Liberius nor Felix took part in the Council of Rimini (359).

After the death of the emperor Constantius in 361, Liberius annulled the decrees of that assembly, but, with the concurrence of bishops Athanasius and Hilarius, retained the bishops who had signed and then withdrew their adherence. In 366 Liberius gave a favourable reception to a deputation of the Eastern episcopate, and admitted into his communion the more moderate of the old Arian party. He died on September 24, 366.

I’m sorry, but I still don’t see what you are referring to. Can you point it out?

 

[protestantman]

Please supply scripture that declares that Adam and Eve’s sins made mankind evil. The white robes have nothing to do with our earthly state, which is fallen but not evil, but with our eventual heavenly state.

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush ** your head,
and you will strike his heel."

16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

Genesis 3 seems to think so.

When was that last time you set your eyes on the Son of God? I guess that means you have no authority to teach either.

You evade my question so strangely. I said this to seperate the deciples from the Apostles. I have not declared myself an Apostle. Both Apostles and Deciples had authority to teach. So, has any pope ever seen Christ on earth? If not, why do you call them Apostles? Please study the difference between a disciple and an Apostle, as it might make my argument more clear.**

 

[SCALCO]

Catholic Encyclopedia on Pope Liberius:

newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

If he really consorted with heretics, condemned Athanasius, or even denied the Son of God, it was a momentary human weakness which no more compromises the papacy than does that of St. Peter.

 

[protestantman]

Also, you should know that since Wikipedia is a user-edited source, it’s not always reliable, so you should look in places like the Catholic Encyclopedia if you want reliable information about Catholicism.

I do not hold it as reliable as you do. Are you saying it is absolutely devoid of denominational favoritism?

I’m sorry, but I still don’t see what you are referring to. Can you point it out?

After the death of the emperor Constantius in 361, Liberius annulled the decrees of that assembly,

Why did he wait until after his death to annull the decrees? Doesn’t common sense suggest that if Liberius has done this prior to his death, that he would have been exiled again or even worse. From my understanding of this incident, Constantius was rather persuasive. My point is this:

Stephen chose to be stoned, rather than recant. Paul, Peter, John, and many others, chose imprissonment and in Peters case death over recanting. Why did Liberius not follow the example set by the Apostles. Initially Liberius suffered exile for two years. Then he recanted his stance on the Arian contraversy. Out of fear, he waited until the emperor was dead before he annulled his own decrees.