A compelling non-Catholic argument

[protestantman]

This we know, even if Liberius 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.

Peter never altered his decrees. Liberius did.

 

[wanner47]

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

I’m saying that a* reliable Catholic source* is a good place to get information about Catholicism.

You wouldn’t expect me to go to, say, the website of the Church of Latter-Day Saints for reliable information about the Presbyterian Church, would you? Same concept.

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.

This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say (note here how am citing the portion of the article in question as opposed to just posting the link):

At the time of his return, the Romans cannot have known that Liberius had fallen, for St. Jerome (who is so fond of telling us of the simplicity of their faith and the delicacy of their pious ears) says he entered Rome as a conquerer. It was clearly not supposed that he had been conquered by Constantius. There is no sign of his ever having admitted that he had fallen. In 359 were held the simultaneous Councils of Seleucia and Rimini. At the latter, where most of the bishops were orthodox, the pressure and delay, and the underhand machinations of the court party entrapped the bishops into error. The pope was not there, nor did he send legates. **After the council his disapproval was soon known, and after the death of Constantius at the end of 361 he was able publicly to annul it, and to decide, much as a council under Athanasius at Alexandria decided, that the bishops who had fallen could be restored on condition of their proving the sincerity of their repentance by their zeal against the Arians. **About 366 he received a deputation of the Semi-Arians led by Eustathius; he treated them first as Arians (which he could not have done had he ever joined them), and insisted on their accepting the Nicene formula before he would receive them to communion; he was unaware that many of them were to turn out later to be unsound on the question of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. We learn also from St. Siricius that, after annulling the Council of Rimini, Liberius issued a decree forbidding the re-baptism of those baptized by Arians, which was being practiced by the Luciferian schismatics.

 

[SCALCO]

Peter never altered his decrees. Liberius did.

Peter denied Christ three times.

 

[jmcrae]

Scripture indicates that the origional sin is passed down from the seed of the Father.

Cite chapter and verse for this, please.

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.

Christ took on Mary’s flesh - the flesh of her ovum, in her womb - and became Man. He was her biological son; she was not a surrogate mother, or “just a vessel.”

 

[protestantman]

Peter denied Christ three times.

Not after the Great Commision. Thus even by the standards of the Catholic Church, he was not yet a Pope. Therefore, this argument is null and void.

 

[jmcrae]

Scripture never stated that this was the manner in which this should be done. Attending church is a fellowship of believers.

Except that they are not “in fellowship,” meaning that they do not participate in the Sacraments, and they aren’t allowed to hold leadership positions. They are treated exactly the same way that we treat non-Catholics, who, by the way, are also allowed to come to Church if they want to, without participating in the Sacraments, or taking leadership positions.

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

They are “excommunicated,” not “expelled.”

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

We don’t read it literalistically, as you seem to do. Show me a Protestant church that forbids non-members to attend their Church, and I’ll convert - oh, wait, how can I convert? I can’t even visit them. OH, well!!

 

[davidv]

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.

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.**
I do not see in any of this where God’s good became devoid of good.

 

[SCALCO]

Not after the Great Commision. Thus even by the standards of the Catholic Church, he was not yet a Pope. Therefore, this argument is null and void.

 

[sodak]

And yet you can not show conlusive scriptural evidence.

As you and others continue to ignore, Catholics’ faith come in 3 deposits - Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Teaching Magesterium. All are of equal value, or rank. To continue to ask for “scriptural” or “biblical” evidence is ignoring 2 of the 3. Note that I didn’t say “Roman” Catholic, but all of the Catholic Churches throughout the world believe this. The Orthodox Churches do also, IIRC. If something in Scripture isn’t there, or isn’t plain to us, we consult the other 2.
Sometimes, we consult the other 2 first!!!

You may not like it or agree with it, but you need to understand it from a Catholic perspective. My first thought to your above objection is “So what?” I have a Church to keep me on the straight and narrow and it also answers my questions. It is the Pillar and and Foundation of Truth, and selectively pulling verses out of the Bible for your own means only works against you.

You need to come to terms with this, or leave. If you continue attacking our faith, you’ll get yourself banned.

 

[protestantman]

Cite chapter and verse for this, please.

Genesis 3 says

22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil./COLOR] He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Even though Eve was the first to eat the fruit, the blame was ultimately Adams. God told Adam the rules of the Garden, before he made Eve. It was Adams responsibility to keep these rules.

Exodus 34 makes a claim that it is the Sins of the Fathers that is passed from generation to generation.

4 So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the LORD had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands. 5 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”

Adam was created in the image of God. Adam was created first, and Eve was created from man. There are many other references about this subject. God established the man as the Authority of the family because he was created first. It is his responsibility to keep his family from error. God did not call out to Adam until after Adam had eaten the fruit. Why did God wait? He could have immediately expelled Eve before she tempted Adam. The point is that sin is the result of MAN and not WOMAN. This point is evident throughout scripture.

Exodus 13 points out that Gods covenants were made and consecrated through man and NOT WOMAN.

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Consecrate to me every firstborn male.

Christ took on Mary’s flesh - the flesh of her ovum, in her womb - and became Man. He was her biological son; she was not

a surrogate mother, or “just a vessel.”

And what scripture do you get that from? Cite chapter and verse for this, please.

 

[mikeledes]

And what scripture do you get that from? Cite chapter and verse for this, please.

Was Jesus a blood descendant of David?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[protestantman]

They are “excommunicated,” not “expelled.”

This is my point. The catholic church has neglected to uphold this command, that came from the mouth of the Apostles.

We don’t read it literalistically, as you seem to do. Show me a Protestant church that forbids non-members to attend their Church, and I’ll convert - oh, wait, how can I convert? I can’t even visit them. OH, well!!

This is your missunderstanding of what he is talking about when he says, “an immoral brother”? This is relavant to members only, hence they are called BROTHER. If a current member is established himself as an immoral brother, he is to be expelled. It does not say, talk to him sternly, IT SAYS EXPELL. Our church does practice this, in league with the steps to establishing that a particular member is immoral. I have attended the same church for over 18 years, under 2 pastors. In that time I have seen the church address the actions of a member in this way. When a member was considered guilty by the elders of the church, his membership was terminated.

 

[deanarrca]

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.

Seed of the Father? - So women can’t have seed? Who is this speaking of
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmityBetween you and the woman,And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head,And you shall bruise him on the heel."

Revelation 12:17
And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

[protestantman]

I do not see in any of this where God’s good became devoid of good.

Hmmm apparently you did not see the word CURSED.
Curious that you think that something that is cursed is still good.

What do you say cursed means?

 

[SCALCO]

Not after the Great Commision. Thus even by the standards of the Catholic Church, he was not yet a Pope. Therefore, this argument is null and void.

He had already been given the keys.

 

[protestantman]

Was Jesus a blood descendant of David?

God Bless,
Michael

No. He was only a descendat in that he was born of Mary. NOT CONSECRATED BY MARY. Note that OT lineage is through FATHER TO SON. Joseph was not Jesus’ true father. He was CONSECRATED by the Holy Spirit.

Remember that Mary was still a Virgin. Therefore Jesus was not born in a manner that can be considered Usual by any means. That is why Christ was refered to as the second Adam. What makes Christ Like Adam? Adam also did not have biological parents. Adam was also created without typical conseption. You can not avoid that Christ was unique. You can however argue that Mary was unique, unrighteous, seed of fallen man, etc.

 

[protestantman]

Seed of the Father? - So women can’t have seed?

Both have seed, but sin comes from the seed of the father. Since the two seeds join to make one baby, sin is in the child.

 

[mikeledes]

No. He was only a descendat in that he was born of Mary. NOT CONSECRATED BY MARY. Note that OT lineage is through FATHER TO SON. Joseph was not Jesus’ true father. He was CONSECRATED by the Holy Spirit.

Remember that Mary was still a Virgin. Therefore Jesus was not born in a manner that can be considered Usual by any means. That is why Christ was refered to as the second Adam. What makes Christ Like Adam? Adam also did not have biological parents. Adam was also created without typical conseption. You can not avoid that Christ was unique. You can however argue that Mary was unique, unrighteous, seed of fallen man, etc.

And Adam was created from pre-existent material, namely, clay. You believe it is impossible that God created Jesus’s body from Mary’s flesh?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

No. He was only a descendat in that he was born of Mary. NOT CONSECRATED BY MARY. Note that OT lineage is through FATHER TO SON. Joseph was not Jesus’ true father. He was CONSECRATED by the Holy Spirit.

Remember that Mary was still a Virgin. Therefore Jesus was not born in a manner that can be considered Usual by any means. That is why Christ was refered to as the second Adam. What makes Christ Like Adam? Adam also did not have biological parents. Adam was also created without typical conseption. You can not avoid that Christ was unique. You can however argue that Mary was unique, unrighteous, seed of fallen man, etc.

BTW, why are there two contradictory geneologies of Jesus (Matthew vs. Luke)?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[protestantman]

And Adam was created from pre-existent material, namely, clay. You believe it is impossible that God created Jesus’s body from Mary’s flesh?

God Bless,
Michael

Yes.