I think the 14 years he may be referring to can be found in Galatians 2:1-2 which reads—
Actually, the body is incomplete (and dead) if no head exists. If the head is separated, the body is dead, & as a part of the body, so is the head. (Although I just got a funny mental picture of those disembodied heads in glass jars from Futurama!)
I agree, but they are still distinct from each other. A hand is different from a foot, etc. This is distinction.
Agreed:thumbsup:
This is not a direct quote from scripture.
He was still a Desciple
You mean your misquoted bible? If you are going to use scripture, then quote it. Do not expect me to trust your additions to it.
They committed heresy.
As a man, the Pope could be cut off (in which case, he would be immediately replaced), but the Papacy (the role of leader of the Church) can never be cut off.
That seems to be the going opinion of the church. Still, we will not know for sure until Christ returns.
Earlier, you said that he could still teach infallible ex-cathedra. Why would you cut him off?
Well, we know for sure that at least two of them did, since they each excommunicated each other for heresy, too. Truth cannot contradict Truth.
If he were to leave of his own accord, as the Protestants did, then he would be cut off. The Church doesn’t actively cut people off: it’s purpose is to bring people into the Kingdom of God. People leave by themselves, and then sometimes the Church has to make a public declaration that they are gone, so that people don’t become confused about who they are or what they are doing.
Which ones? Who was it that authorized the excommunications?
What about Scizm?
Nobody. Each of them had taken authority for himself, and he excommunicated the other two. Thus, all three of them became excommunicated from each other.
“Schism.”
The Pharisees were not impeccable, but they had been made the custodians of the oracles of God. The personal sins of the teachers did not nullify the Word of God.
ja4, it is YOU who are inaccurately equating the celibate priesthood with Church leadership. You have been repeatedly informed that this is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church, and that most of the leadership in the parishes is comprised of married persons on the pastoral council.
I don’t see how this is a problem. The same is true for Sunday worship, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the canon of scripture. You seem to accept all these other doctrines just fine.
So they did not excommunicate each other, but rather were excommunicated from each other. Either way, this does not prove Heresy.
Read their writings if you want to know about heresy.
Look, what is it that you are looking for? First, you are upset that the most immoral people in the world got excommunicated from the Church, and now you are upset because we didn’t throw them out on their heads at the first sign of trouble, but tried every other avenue to try to convert them, first. :whacky: :whacky: :whacky:
The only thing that upsets me is a lack of unity. If they were rightly excommunicated, then I have no problem with that. I am not saying that you should have thrown them out either. What I am asking is this:Look, what is it that you are looking for? First, you are upset that the most immoral people in the world got excommunicated from the Church, and now you are upset because we didn’t throw them out on their heads at the first sign of trouble, but tried every other avenue to try to convert them, first. :whacky: :whacky: :whacky:
Which way do you want it?
After every other avenue has been exhausted, yes, we do.
Wrong…we know now because we can verify that the New Testament does not teach his doctrines and we can verify that the Early Church did share them. It’s called discernment.
Let’s put it this way. Had Luther been pope he’d have been excommunicated. However, the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit in keeping the promise of Christ that the gates of hell would never prevail against his church and that it would be led into all truth. (Matthew 16:18, John 16:13, John 14:17, and John 15:26) has proved true for 2,000 years because even when the few popes came along who were far less than righteous men, they never attempted to mess with the doctrines of the faith.
Sigh.
Sorry, didn’t mean to get your blood pressure up. Here.The infallible pronouncements of the Church are so because they represent Jesus speaking through the Church.
The Apostles’ Creed is considered a good summary.
No, because if people are willing to relinquish their own stubborn ways and embrace the Teaching of Jesus by faith, unity will happen. Not everyone thinks that their own perception is more important than God’s REvelation, ja4. There do exist people that are humble enough to accept what Jesus taught, even though it does not seem to make sense.
All of Gods Revelation is inspired-inerrant.
The problem with this is that scripture does not have a brain, and does not make decisions. What results is that each man does what is right in his own eyes (perceptions). This just produces more disunity.
When you use the phrase “your church” it indicates that you do not accept the Scripture when it says that there is One Church, and that we are all part of One Body. This is a divisive phrase to use, and represents your hostility toward your brethren in Christ.
How is this relevant? The Teaching is what is unified. Those who reject that for a “different view” are not Catholic.
Both are true. But the charism of infallibility was not given to individuals, only to the Church. A person who follows the leading of the HS will find themselves in unity of belief and doctrine with the church.
Yes, Paul was writing epistles to the young communities. The Teaching he passed on to them was in accord with the Kath holos - the universal faith around the world.
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.
A pope might be cut off for living a sinful life, or embracing heresy, like Honorous did.
Yes, this would be a good example.
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.
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.
Bolded: Show me this in Scripture
I will try to be more sensitive. However, you are engaged in a discussion on the apologetics forum which is about debating ideas. Exposing contradictions is a normal, customary, and necessary component of probing issues.
The relationship between Christ and His Church and His flock is a mystery, mystical, and supernatural. Referring to Christ as the Head and the Church/flock as Body is an allegory. While it is not a complete explanation, this figurative representation is a picture for us limited humans to grasp it in a way that we can understand. However, it is neither a complete or literal representation.
Remember this is an allegory.
That is the rub.
As are all Bishops today.
Instruction? Or Authority? Big difference.
Have I covered this distinction clearly enough above. Lumberjack and axe are distinct. Two people are distinct. Head and Body are a unit. This is an allegory.
If your arguments contain components of Gnostic or Nanicheist theology, denying you are not one doesn’t change the nature of your arguments.
Are you attempting to project infallability here again in your assertion that ‘the day will never come when all Christians will believe all alike’? It seems to me that some who call themselves Christians are nothing of the sort. Could it be that the day will come that Jesus told us about where ‘not everyone who calls me Lord Lord will enter the Kingdom of heaven?’