A compelling non-Catholic argument

[justasking4]

I did not say that the Scriptures aren’t important - they are the most important books ever written. But no book; not even the Bible, is as important as Jesus Himself. It is Jesus who spoke forth the Creation, and then died for our sins; not the Bible.

I agree in part. However after the Trinity the Scriptures are the most important things in the world. Nothing else is inspired-inerrant as the Scriptures are. No church, no man, no leader, no church teachings etc is greater in authority than the Scriptures.

 

[allhers]

None that i’m aware of. However, how would you define heresy?

Under this principle we could also say the protestant church is also guided by the HS since it has been around for hundreds of years and has no indications of going out of existence.

Well since Jesus prayed that we all would be one, perhaps they will in time and with much prayer come around.
Here’s a link for heresy:
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0602fea5sb1.asp

 

[justasking4]

Well since Jesus prayed that we all would be one, perhaps they will in time and with much prayer come around.

What did Jesus mean when He prayed this? Does He say anything about the church in John 17?

 

[allhers]

Also, in regard to Pope Honorius:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp

 

[CentralFLJames]

Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic.

Q: And just who condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic?
A: The Church ITSELF found Pope Honorious to be a heretic at the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. Actually, Honorious did not personally support Monothelitism and went out of his way to “not define” that doctrine as “teaching” . No ex-cathedra ruling can be made without the “define” formula. Futher he was not really seen as a heretic. He was censured for not being on watch so to speak in seeing that this doctrine could be accidently promulgated to the faithful. The Church NEVER taught Monothelisitsm.

The Church was being responsible in its conduct of duties by examining some writings that proved Honorius favoured Monothelitism; a formula proposed by the Byzantine emperor Heraclius. The intent of Honorius was to bring about a reconciliation between the Monophysites and the Catholics. Sound familiar? In essence Honorius was an advocate for a form of ecumenicalism not too distant to what The Church currently does with softening its views against Protestantism as “seperated brothers” rather than as full heretics (as many of us individually still believe).

Yet in spite of this fact Pope Honorius did some good works while he was pope. The more important thing is The Church corrected itself and Pope Honorius never made an ex Cathedra, infallible, ruling when he was pope. So The Church never taught error and in fact corrected ecclesiastical initiatives before they became bound to infallible teaching doctrine.

Thanks for giving us this opportunity to show yet again how The Holy Spirit is watching over Jesus’ Church.

James

 

[guanophore]

Your statement—“the Catholic faith is not based on the Bible” highlights clearly the differences between biblical protestants and roman catholics. This explains how the catholic church can come up with so many unbiblical doctrines and practices. Actually it is your church that errors in thinking this.

This is puzzling, since the Catholic church “came up with” the Bible in the first place!

This is not entirely true and is disengenous on your part to say this. The NT has its source in Christ and it is by His Spirit that made these writings inspired-inerrant. No human institution can create something this is inspired-inerrant.

The HS worked through men, those men were Catholic. They co-operated with the HS to write the Word of God, just as the Prophets in OT time were able to say “Thus saith the Lord”. The HS is able to speak infallibly through fallible people, and God is able to watch over His Word to perform it. He is powerful enough to preserve inerrancy even through errant people. If you say otherwise, then you are saying God is too weak.

How can you say He loves your church when you just denied that your church is not based on His word? Christ speaks to us not through the church but His Word the Scriptures.

When you say things like “your church”, ja4, it gives the impression that you are trying to be deliberately divisive and contentious. There is only ONE Church.

It is not I who say that Jesus loves His Church (though I affrim this), but His Holy Word to which you state you cling completely.

Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.Eph 5:25-27

I never denied that Catholicism is based on God’s Word. It is entirely based upon His Word. He gave the entirety of His Teaching to the Apostles, an upon the Apostles and Prophets the Church is founded. Some of that Word was also later made into writing. The Catholic Church is based on Jesus, ja4, who is THE Word. There is no distinction between Christ and His Church. The two are One. That is why the Church is Holy.

Are you sure that “The Catholic position is that the passages in Is 22:20-22, Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18 refer to the infallibility of the Church’s teaching, not to individual members’ impeccability”? I thought the roman catholic church claims to be built on Peter and not church teachings. I guess i was wrong.

There are no promises that any individuals will be preserved from sin. God only promised that the Church would be preserved from error. It is not the “Roman” Church that is built on Peter, but the Church of Jesus. He said "upon this Rock I will build MY Church. In that moment, Jesus grafted Peter into His own rockiness. Jesus is the cornerstone, and the Apostles and Prophets the foundation stones.

If what you say is true that “Jesus and His Church are one and the same” then it follows that Jesus is also responsible for all the evil that has been done by catholic leaders. This is what follows from your assertion.

**

What you are failing to do, ja4, is distinguish that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Jesus is not responsible for the individual sins of men. Although the errant members of the Body sin, the Church herself is pure, and cannot sin, because She has Christ as Her Head, and the HS as Her Soul. This is why sin separates us from Christ. When members of the Body sin, they separate themselves from Christ, and the Church.**

 

[justasking4]

Q: And just who condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic?
A: The Church ITSELF found Pope Honorious to be a heretic at the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The Church was being responsible in its conduct of duties by examining some writings that proved Honorius favoured Monothelitism; a formula proposed by the Byzantine emperor Heraclius. The intent of Honorius was to bring about a reconciliation between the Monophysites and the Catholics. Sound familiar? In essence Honorius was an advocate for a form of ecumenicalism not too distant to what The Church currently does with softening its views against Protestantism as “seperated brothers” rather than as full heretics (as many of us individually still believe).

Yet in spite of this fact Pope Honorius did some good works while he was pope. The more important thing is The Church corrected itself and Pope Honorius never made an ex Cathedra, infallible, ruling when he was pope. So The Church never taught error and in fact corrected ecclesiastical initiatives before they became bound to infallible teaching doctrine.

Thanks for giving us this opportunity to show yet again how The Holy Spirit is watching over Jesus’ Church.

James

The mere fact that a pope not only taught error but was corrected is another fact that shows your church is not protected from erring. If it was, this would never have happened.

For a picture of true infalliblity look at the Lord Jesus in the gospels. He never once erred in anything He said or did. This is the criteria for infalliblity. Thats why any church or man who claims to be infallible is deceived or a false teacher.

 

[guanophore]

Were catholics obligated to follow and listen to some of the evil popes of the past? Did not God place these men as leaders in the catholic church?

We are obligated to follow the Teachings of God. Yes, there are times when God allows people in positions of leadership that are poor role models:

Matt 23:1-4
2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

We are still to observe the Teachings, in spite of the poor role models.

Are there any passages in the NT that show that Peter alone was recognized as being the supreme leader of the entire church?

The use of the word “supreme” indicates a fallen and secular attitude toward leadership that does not apply to the Kingdom.

Does Peter himself ever speak of himself like this in any of his letters?

I should think not! Unlike some of his successors, Peter was a very humble man, and did not presume to think of himself more highly than he ought.

This is what i was responding to:

If this assertion is true then it follows that Jesus is responsible for all the evil done by catholic leaders.

Do you then deny that Jesus said this? Why do you call it an “assertion”? It is right from Scripture!

I agree. However not all men who profess Christ are truly Christians either. By their fruits you will know.

This is precisely why you cannot blame Jesus for the sins of those who claim to belong to Him.

This especially be troubling in light of the claims of the catholic church being the only church and being guided by the HS.

This is a baseless accusation, more calumny. If you cannot produce an official Church source for this, then it is a baldfaced lie. The Church never “claims” anything of the sort!

I would need to see your support for this claim. Also, if true, does this suprise you that this would be true since the HS does not guide the protestant churches and is in total chaos due to Sola Scriptura?

This is not Catholic teaching. In fact, Catholic Teaching states the opposite. It seems that you are just attempting to stir divisiveness and contention.

I can accept that protestants do err. i expect it. However, catholics claim their church cannot err in matters of faith and morals and yet we have many many examples that shows that they have. Even their vicars of Christ have erred. I can see why it is so difficult to accept this as a catholic given what you have been taught.

This is not difficult at all. Catholics understand that the Church consists of much more that the fallible members who are part of Her. We know that inerrancy was not promised to any individuals,a nd that we are all capable of sin, including the vicar of Christ. It seems problematic to you because you do not understand that the sum of who makes up the Church is bigger than the tangible parts that you find to criticize. Christ, the Head, is far above your criticism, though you wound Him like a thorn every time you stab at HIs bride.

Under this principle we could also say the protestant church is also guided by the HS since it has been around for hundreds of years and has no indications of going out of existence.

God desires all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the Truth. He reaches out to people in every place, so that He can draw all men unto HImself. This is Catholic teaching.
[/quote]

 

[allhers]

What did Jesus mean when He prayed this? Does He say anything about the church in John 17?

As a matter of fact, yes, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to HIS CHURCH that HE started, HE told HIS APOSTLES that HE would send the HOLY SPIRIT upon THEM.
As you can read in the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles while they were in prayer with HIS BLESSED MOTHER (that is what we call PENTACOST, the beginning of the Catholic Church.)
John 17:26 when Jesus says I will make it known…(HE is speaking of the ADVOCATE, the HOLY SPIRIT).

 

[CentralFLJames]

The mere fact that a pope not only taught error but was corrected is another fact that shows your church is not protected from erring. If it was, this would never have happened.

For a picture of true infalliblity look at the Lord Jesus in the gospels. He never once erred in anything He said or did. This is the criteria for infalliblity. Thats why any church or man who claims to be infallible is deceived or a false teacher.

This is wilful or careless false witness. Do you read anything people tell you? I just told you The Catholic Church NEVER taught false doctrine. This pope was censured 40 years later when a private letter was found indicating he was in favor of unifying a sect that had spun off.
Extracts From Catholic Answers:

Rebuttal on Honorius Infallabiluty Charges

Pope Honorius letters in this subject area were known to a select few Eastern bishops, not to the faithful at large, and thus were hardly the instrument to convey a dogmatic definition. Far from being the case that no pope “uttered a word” regarding Honorius’ letters, the John IV (640-642) defended the orthodoxy of Honorius when Pyrrhus, patriarch of Constantinople, appealed to these letters in defense of his monothelite position.
[ed: this is evidence that Honorius letters were not “taught”]

Regardless, the faithful would not have to wait forty years for a council to either “correct” letters unknown to them or make clear the bishop of Rome’s stand on monothelitism. Even a brief survey of Rome’s stand against the monothelites during the forty years between Honorius (d. 638) and Constantinople III (680-681) makes it clear that there can be no doubt where Rome stood during the controversy. Popes Severinus (640), John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653), and others declared numerous condemnations and anathemas against monothelitism and various monothelites. Synods were also held by popes during this forty-year period, such as the Lateran Council of 649 whose acts, sent throughout the East and West, anathematized the works Ecthesis and the Type, as well as the individuals Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul.

It is a lie to promote that The Catholic Church taught Monothelitism.

Pope Honorius was anathematized because he had “fostered” or exposed the church to heresy through negligence. That is a far cry from active heresy. In essence Honorius was careless with the flock and let his guard (staff) down and exposed The Church to heresy. Fortunately, no heresy entered the flock during this period of carelessness. But it was more an accident than anything. That is grave to us Catholics since the Pope’s primary responsibility is to feed and protect the sheep. Pope Honorius was no doubt a good man but just made a mistake and left the gate open to wolves. Fortunately none entered when he fell asleep at his post. Fortunately, other popes quickly came in to shut the gate firm and then later Pope Honorius was spanked 40 years later posthumously.

James

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3402590]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Your statement—“the Catholic faith is not based on the Bible” highlights clearly the differences between biblical protestants and roman catholics. This explains how the catholic church can come up with so many unbiblical doctrines and practices. Actually it is your church that errors in thinking this.

guanophore
This is puzzling, since the Catholic church “came up with” the Bible in the first place!

I honestly don’t know how you can say this. By the time of Jesus there was already the OT inspired-inerrant Scriptures which predates by centuries before the church came into being.

Secondly, its not entirely correct to say the “Catholic church “came up with” the Bible” since it can be taken to mean that the Roman Catholic church is the authors of them when in reality that is not the case at all. Thirdly the church which is composed of fallible men and women could not have produced a greater authority i.e. the inspired-inerrant Scriptures. God did by using fallible men. None of these fallible men can claim any credit for them.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

The mere fact that a pope not only taught error but was corrected is another fact that shows your church is not protected from erring. If it was, this would never have happened.

For a picture of true infalliblity look at the Lord Jesus in the gospels. He never once erred in anything He said or did. This is the criteria for infalliblity. Thats why any church or man who claims to be infallible is deceived or a false teacher.

First of all, that a given pope may have been a heretic does not shoot holes in the papacy. To say it does, you must demonstrate that he at any time declared a teaching that meets the criteria of an infallible teaching (paraphrased from the Catholic Encyclopedia):

1. He must make it clear that he is speaking as the universal pastor of all Christians.
2. He must teach on a matter of faith or morals.
3. He must make it clear that he intends to define a doctrine finally and irrevocably.
4. He must make it clear that all believers are bound to this doctrine.

Now, if these criteria aren’t met, then Pope ___'s personal belief is just that – personal. If he believes that the sun is a manifestation of the risen Christ, he’s a heretic – but he hasn’t attempted to define that as a doctrine for all believers.

If you can find ONE pope who has made an ex cathedra statement that is demonstrably wrong, you will have a leg to stand on.

Honorius? Nope. According to this article at catholic.com, Honorius never came close to promulgating a heretical doctrine – rather, he declined to make any pronouncement.

From the Catholic Encyclopedianewadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm:

It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing.

The catholic.com article goes on to quote Ronald Knox as pointing out that, rather than huge masses of contradictory doctrines promulgated by the 266 different popes, we instead have a mere few alleged errors – and nothing really demonstrable.

He has a point. If 266 different men over the course of 2000 years were not guided by the Holy Spirit, one would expect to find a bevy of erroneous doctrines – or at least some real contradictions from one pope to another. Instead, there is nothing really to latch onto.

Finally, your point about Jesus being the true model of infallibility is absolutely correct – but Jesus’ infallibility is a characteristic of his person. The pope’s infallibility is a charism of his office that is given as a gift of the Holy Spirit. We have never claimed otherwise, and there is no pope who has claimed that his infallibility is by virtue of his own nature.

Peace,
Dante

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3402686]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The mere fact that a pope not only taught error but was corrected is another fact that shows your church is not protected from erring. If it was, this would never have happened.

For a picture of true infalliblity look at the Lord Jesus in the gospels. He never once erred in anything He said or did. This is the criteria for infalliblity. Thats why any church or man who claims to be infallible is deceived or a false teacher.

CentralFLJames
This is wilful or careless false witness. Do you read anything people tell you? I just told you The Catholic Church NEVER taught false doctrine.

Just because you say something doesn’t mean its true or accepted. I have just shown you one of many examples that refutes your claim has never erred. I have presented many facts to demonstrate this but for many catholics it cannot be true since their church tells them it cannot be. This is the same kind of argumentation i get from Mormons and the cults.

This pope was censured 40 years later when a private letter was found indicating he was in favor of unifying a sect that had spun off.

Is it not true that for centuries he was one of the heretics mentioned that popes were to take some kind of vow when they offically became popes? It was some kind statement popes had to make.

 

[guanophore]

Have you looked at what Luke 24:25-27 says in regards to what Jesus said after His resurrection and how the Scriptures foretold this:
25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26 “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?”
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

This is a great reference, but I don’t see how it proves that Jesus is not bigger than the word that is written about Him.

 

[guanophore]

I agree in part. However after the Trinity the Scriptures are the most important things in the world. Nothing else is inspired-inerrant as the Scriptures are. No church, no man, no leader, no church teachings etc is greater in authority than the Scriptures.

It is very sad to read things like this. It shows such a misguided disregard of God’s creation. Jesus taught that the greatest commandment was to love God and neighbor. He taught that when we do to the least of His brethren, we do unto Him. In that way, he showed that people are much more important than books. It is my fervent prayer that someday you are able to set aside the idol you have made of the Bible, and be able to see Christ in His Church, and in your neighbors.

What did Jesus mean when He prayed this? Does He say anything about the church in John 17?

Yes! He is praying for those the Father gave Him.

6 "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me, and they have kept thy word. John 17:6-7

Do you think this is not the Church?

 

[guanophore]

I honestly don’t know how you can say this. By the time of Jesus there was already the OT inspired-inerrant Scriptures which predates by centuries before the church came into being.

It was the Catholic Church that defined which Scriptures were used by Jesus and the Apostles, and assembled them into one book. There were many collections of the "Law, Psalms and the Prophets. The Jews did not canonize their scriptures until after the first century, and purposefully excluded books and teachings used by Jesus and the Apostles to distinguish themselves from the Christians.

Secondly, its not entirely correct to say the "Catholic church "came up with" the Bible" since it can be taken to mean that the Roman Catholic church is the authors of them when in reality that is not the case at all.

I never said anything about “Roman”. Actually, I rarely do, except to counter your bigoted remarks toward the Roman Rite, in which you often erroneously attribute doctrines that are not “Roman”. It appears to be a reflection of your prejudice against “Romanism”.

The men who were inspired by God to write the NT books were Catholic. They wrote what the Catholic Church believed and taught.

Thirdly the church which is composed of fallible men and women could not have produced a greater authority i.e. the inspired-inerrant Scriptures.

You are in error if you think that God is not able to use fallible people to produce infallibility. He is able, and He does! He can make the rocks cry out, and donkeys prophesy. He can pour pure contents from an impure vessel.

God did by using fallible men. None of these fallible men can claim any credit for them.

Who is “claiming credit”? I am just pointing out that Sacred Tradition preceeded the Scripture, an that the NT is a written record of the Teachings.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Just because you say something doesn’t mean its true or accepted. I have just shown you one of many examples that refutes your claim has never erred. I have presented many facts to demonstrate this but for many catholics it cannot be true since their church tells them it cannot be. This is the same kind of argumentation i get from Mormons and the cults.

Is it not true that for centuries he was one of the heretics mentioned that popes were to take some kind of vow when they officially became popes? It was some kind statement popes had to make.

Least you forget the Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah yet Christians know it to be the truth. Truth is never held to a standard of of majority rule or consent. Nonetheless I have give you irrefutable evidence that the Pope you mentioned while being declared heretical BY THE CHURH (not by non believers) for not decisively quashing heretical developments outside the church never himself gave heretical teaching. You refuse to counter this fact with any objective evidence so I can only assume you have none to offer and can only make unsubstantiated claims.

I don’t have a clue what you are referring to in your last statement.

Sorry try again. Care to make anymore claims where The Church allegedly was fallable in its teaching?

Hint: there are none - the expert anti-catholics have already all been soundly defeated in this false charge.

James

 

[mlchance]

I never said that you were sinning, I said that you were contradicting scripture.

The Church does not contradict Scripture. The Church might contradict you, but you’re not Scripture.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[pneuma07]

So God would sooner take the sinfull Pope’s life then to continue to let him speak the word of God unchecked.

 

[guanophore]

Just because you say something doesn’t mean its true or accepted.

No, but when the Church says it, that means it is true and accepted.

I have just shown you one of many examples that refutes your claim has never erred.

No, what you have shown is individual persons who have erred. In your mind, this proves the Church is not Holy because you don’t recognize that part of the Church is in heaven, where there is nothing impure, and that the Head of the Church is Christ, and that She is ensouled by the HS, and because these aspects of the Church are Divine, she cannot err.

I have presented many facts to demonstrate this but for many catholics it cannot be true since their church tells them it cannot beThis is the same kind of argumentation i get from Mormons and the cults.

I don’t think this is quite right. It is not only the Church who testifies, as anyone can give witness to themselves, but that the Scriptures and the Lord Jesus testify that the Church is Holy.

Eph 5:25-27
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

You see, the Church is Holy because Jesus cleansed her by the washing of water and the word. I am surprised you reject this, since it is so plain in scripture. I can see better how you reject the Apostolic Creed, even though it was accepted by all Christians, even the Reformers.

Is it not true that for centuries he was one of the heretics mentioned that popes were to take some kind of vow when they offically became popes? It was some kind statement popes had to make.

The Popes take on many responsibilities when they undertake to feed and guard the sheep. Although I am not familiar with the details on this, it would not surprise me at all. What you don’t seem to understand it that one person’s sin does not invalidate the Teaching of Jesus, any more than Judas’ sin’s disqualified anything that Jesus taught.