Authority of the Church

[Pixie_Dust]

So you won’t find any more homosexual predators in the RCC? I guess the hundreds of millions the pope has had to pay out may be helping…

Oh, please. Don’t. Go. There. You won’t find any more predators in the Catholic Church than you’ll find in your local public schools or Protestant churches. It’s a human sin problem, not a Catholic problem.

I have always maintained, and still do that justification is by faith and faith alone. Once justified, your works will show when you have faith, but there is nothing else necessary for justification except faith. That’s one of the things Martin Luther attempted to get the church back to without succcess, hence the reformation.

Nope, my Bible says “Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?” I think I’ll go with the Word of God on this one.

It was no reformation, it was a defection. Reform was happening within the Church before Martin Luther.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I guess we read different news bulletins about the homos. I feel certain however that we both know the RCC agreed that homosexuals could serve as priests now. I believe that happened about 2 - 3 years ago.

If they’re celibate it makes no difference. It is not a sin to have homosexual tendencies. It is a sin to act upon them.

I am very glad to see however, that we are together with justification by faith. Paul taught that and James confirmed it. If you have faith, then works will follow but works will not justify you. If one has faith, then works will surely follow.

Exactly - it’s not faith OR works, it’s faith AND works that justify. Can’t have one without the other.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Please cite chapter and verse where *sola scriptura *is taught in the Bible. (Before you go looking, it isn’t in there. It’s un-Scriptural.) Please give the passages from the Bible that teach *sola scriptura *before moving on to your next lie about the Catholic Church.

How dare you throw out these lies about the Catholic Church! Your slanders against the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church are really getting old. Please give one example of a Catholic bishop who is homosexual, and one church that performs homosexual marriages. If you can’t provide these examples, it means you are a liar.

St. Joseph Catholic Church in San Francisco is advertising on a gay marriage site for special programs and packages.

As to the Catholic homosexual bishops, there have been hundreds of lawsuits filed against catholic homosexual bishops and the diocese has paid out hundreds of millions in the LA area alone to settle such lawsuits. Do you live in a vacuum?

 

[MDK]

James doesn’t contradict Paul. James writes that it is faith that produces works and that faith without works is dead. Where does he say it is works and works alone that produces faith?

Your attempts to deceive do not work with me. Neither does your straw man argument. Like Satan, you attempt to work by deception.

For instance, there was no claim that James contradicts Paul. Please tell us where that was claimed. What was and is still claimed is that James contradicts you, and the false Protestant doctrine of Faith Alone (sola fide). You have false doctrine, so, you neither know Paul nor James.

Catholic Church rightly teaches that God’s Grace saves us. We need faith, and faith is confirmed in works. Faith without works is dead, and how can dead faith obtain saving grace. Works without faith is useless.

Neither me, nor the Catholic Church claim that works alone we are saved. Once again, you attempt to deceive, like Satan.

Since you make these false claims, please tell us where the Church teaches that we are saved by works alone.

 

[MDK]

St. Joseph Catholic Church in San Francisco is advertising on a gay marriage site for special programs and packages.

As to the Catholic homosexual bishops, there have been hundreds of lawsuits filed against catholic homosexual bishops and the diocese has paid out hundreds of millions in the LA area alone to settle such lawsuits. Do you live in a vacuum?

What you do is really evil, denigrating the whole, by seeking and showing poor behaviors of some. Face it, you believe in a false doctrine, and nothing will change that until you change to believe in Catholicism. What you do is the work of the evil one.

 

[MDK]

I am very glad to see however, that we are together with justification by faith. Paul taught that and James confirmed it. If you have faith, then works will follow but works will not justify you. If one has faith, then works will surely follow.

You’re deceitful here again… can dead faith save you. Faith and Works are required. They work together. If faith and works are required, then the Doctrine of Salvation by faith alone is non scriptural, as are other things in Protestant faith systems.

Satan has to make an effort to attack the Catholic Church, and it’s his favorite hope for a target. Satan doesn’t have to worry about the Protestant church too much, as he’s already fooled enough by getting you to believe in false doctrine, created from twisting Scripture.

 

[MDK]

If you go into most protestant churches today you will find that they all have a copy of the Bible there. That is their rule of faith. Nothing else is required. And with the Roman Catholics you will find many churches where the bishop is homosexual, and where they perform homosexual marriages, where they offer communion to whomever comes forward, where some priests are married and some are not, etc…on and on.

Justification by faith is taught often in Scripture. There are many verses pertaining to that—not just a few.

In the case of James, you are not reading it accurately. He is saying that faith is what produces the works—not that works produces the faith. Keep reading that chapter.

Yes, Protestants do indeed say that the Bible is their rule of faith. However, this is misleading, because what is actually their rule of faith is their interpretation of the Bible. Lots of problems with that, like an infallible interpretation would tell one that it was never meant to be the Bible alone. Next, they are not infallible interpreters, as the Church who gave us the Bible is. With fallible and wrong interpretations, as you demonstrate, this is ignorance of Scripture’s real meaning. Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. Lots of problems with Protestant belief systems… all man made attempts to have their own fallible interpretations of God’s word.

Why do you seek to slander and denigrate by throwing around comments without proper context, as you make them seem to mean something they don’t. Christ told us there would be things like this, and this is a great testiment to the Church, in that the errors of humans don’t become doctrine. Contrast that with Protestantism, where the errors of humans become doctrine.

We are justified by faith, but not faith alone. Therefore, you parrot a false doctrine, made from errors of humans.

You very much are doing the work of Satan by your deceit and slander of the Church built by Christ.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

St. Joseph Catholic Church in San Francisco is advertising on a gay marriage site for special programs and packages.

As to the Catholic homosexual bishops, there have been hundreds of lawsuits filed against catholic homosexual bishops and the diocese has paid out hundreds of millions in the LA area alone to settle such lawsuits. Do you live in a vacuum?

What is the address of the “gay marriage site”? Did you just make this up, or read it on some anti-Catholic trash site and post it here without checking it out?

Lawsuits were filed against pedophile priests and the dioceses they worked in, not homosexual bishops. This was a terrible scandal for the Church, and certainly nothing that was sanctioned by the hierarchy of the Church.

The Vatican has said that homosexuals cannot be ordained to the priesthood. There are no homosexual bishops in the Catholic Church. You have exposed yourself as a liar and a deceiver. Your credibility here is ZERO.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I guess we read different news bulletins about the homos. I feel certain however that we both know the RCC agreed that homosexuals could serve as priests now. I believe that happened about 2 - 3 years ago.

Your lies about the Catholic Church are getting old, and there is nothing “scholarly” about them. Is your sect filling you with these lies, or are you coming up with them on your own? in 2005, the CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION published “Instruction
Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations
with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders” It says in part:

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

So, again, you are exposed as a liar.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Your lies about the Catholic Church are getting old, and there is nothing “scholarly” about them. Is your sect filling you with these lies, or are you coming up with them on your own? in 2005, the CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION published “Instruction
Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations
with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders” It says in part:

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

So, again, you are exposed as a liar.

Thanks for posting this! It is very helpful.

 

[elts1956]

Watch out. You’re treading on thin ice. When we receive the Host, we are partaking of HIs Body and Blood. The same with the Chalice.

Not to contradict you, why didn’t we “always” partake of both the bread and wine? Didn’t that practice come into effect after Vatican II? I am not sure of the history of taking communion under both species. So please enlighten me. Thanks.

 

[elts1956]

Watch out. You’re treading on thin ice. When we receive the Host, we are partaking of HIs Body and Blood. The same with the Chalice.

Unfortunately the RCC only considers the early fathers after the first 4 or 5 hundred years as authoritative. If they listened to the very early leaders they would understand all about false tradition.

Once you deviate from the written word of the Bible, then you are using theological opinions only and not the word of God. That is the problem.

When you have to wonder what the ‘dogma of the day’ is then that should tell you something.

Cyprian wrote that he viewed traditions of the church acceptable only when they agreed with the Bible and wrote about those traditions that contradicted Scripture, thus; “custom without truth is the antiquity of error.”

Cyprian proves here that he viewed traditions of the church to be acceptable only when they agreed with the Bible and for those “traditions” that contradict scripture Cyprian says, “custom without truth is the antiquity of error”.

What are the earliest writings of the Church Fathers you have read?

 

[elts1956]

Would you then say that all churches that are in communion with the Pope in Rome are Roman Catholic?

Not sure what the Church’s position on this is, but I would say not ALL churches in communion with the Pope in Rome are called Roman Catholic as we also have other branches, ie. Eastern Catholics.

 

[elts1956]

Would you then say that all churches that are in communion with the Pope in Rome are Roman Catholic?

Now that’s much better except you forgot the author of most of the Bible, Paul. You mentioned only the gospels, and who wrote some of them are in question.

Yep, Old Paul the forgotten one. Some of his writings I agree with, some I don’t, but that doesn’t mean I don’t read them.

 

[elts1956]

Unfortunately the RCC only considers the early fathers after the first 4 or 5 hundred years as authoritative. If they listened to the very early leaders they would understand all about false tradition.

Once you deviate from the written word of the Bible, then you are using theological opinions only and not the word of God. That is the problem.

When you have to wonder what the ‘dogma of the day’ is then that should tell you something.

Cyprian wrote that he viewed traditions of the church acceptable only when they agreed with the Bible and wrote about those traditions that contradicted Scripture, thus; “custom without truth is the antiquity of error.”

Cyprian proves here that he viewed traditions of the church to be acceptable only when they agreed with the Bible and for those “traditions” that contradict scripture Cyprian says, “custom without truth is the antiquity of error”.

“Dogma of the day”??? The Dogmas and Doctrines of the Roman Catholic church have never been contradicted since the beginning of such. There may be different understandings and explanations, which really get confusing, but “changed” never.

 

[elts1956]

Unfortunately the RCC only considers the early fathers after the first 4 or 5 hundred years as authoritative. If they listened to the very early leaders they would understand all about false tradition.

Once you deviate from the written word of the Bible, then you are using theological opinions only and not the word of God. That is the problem.

When you have to wonder what the ‘dogma of the day’ is then that should tell you something.

Cyprian wrote that he viewed traditions of the church acceptable only when they agreed with the Bible and wrote about those traditions that contradicted Scripture, thus; “custom without truth is the antiquity of error.”

Cyprian proves here that he viewed traditions of the church to be acceptable only when they agreed with the Bible and for those “traditions” that contradict scripture Cyprian says, “custom without truth is the antiquity of error”.

Anything other than separate species, eating the bread and drinking the wine as two separate things violates God’s word and that should be obvious. Attempting to authenticate a false belief by such means is foolish.

I wonder why Paul called it wine and bread. Also I wonder why Christ called it the ‘fruit of the vine’ instead of blood.

Did Christ say that at the last supper, or another time? I think His final words, while offering the wine to his apostles, was “This is my blood”.

 

[NotWorthy]

(Edited)

I have always maintained, and still do that justification is by faith and faith alone. Once justified, your works will show when you have faith, but there is nothing else necessary for justification except faith. That’s one of the things Martin Luther attempted to get the church back to without succcess, hence the reformation.

The problem you didn’t recognize is that a priest has to take a vow of celibacy. This is difficult for married men.

It’s very difficult for my priest - who is married. I’m pretty sure Father Martin doesn’t have a vow of celibacy, but to be honest with you, I’ve never asked (and never will!).

 

[NotWorthy]

Not to contradict you, why didn’t we “always” partake of both the bread and wine? Didn’t that practice come into effect after Vatican II? I am not sure of the history of taking communion under both species. So please enlighten me. Thanks.

Which are you asking.

When we receive the host, we receive His Body and Blood (as well as His Soul and Divinity). We receive all of the Risen Christ in His Glorified Body.

Now, the Church has offered Communion in the form of bread and wine prior to the 14th century (give or take 100 or so years). But the faithful were stuck with thinking the bread was Jesus’ Body and the Wine was Jesus’ Blood. Personally, I think the words “The Body of Christ” and “The Blood of Christ” tends to lead one to think this exact fallacy.

Also, the Black Plague led people to worry that sharing the Chalice could spread the disease.

Both of these incidents (If I remember correctly) contributed to the Church calling for this practice to cease until the Vatican II Lifted the ban.

 

[elts1956]

Which are you asking.

When we receive the host, we receive His Body and Blood (as well as His Soul and Divinity). We receive all of the Risen Christ in His Glorified Body.

Now, the Church has offered Communion in the form of bread and wine prior to the 14th century (give or take 100 or so years). But the faithful were stuck with thinking the bread was Jesus’ Body and the Wine was Jesus’ Blood. Personally, I think the words “The Body of Christ” and “The Blood of Christ” tends to lead one to think this exact fallacy.

Also, the Black Plague led people to worry that sharing the Chalice could spread the disease.

Both of these incidents (If I remember correctly) contributed to the Church calling for this practice to cease until the Vatican II Lifted the ban.

Okay, because I didn’t receive both bread and wine during my teen and early adult years til after Vatican II. So I probably misunderstand most of it. So I went to communion with the mind set that the receiving of the bread was the body and blood of Christ. Now you say both the bread and wine are both the body and blood of Christ? So could we receive only wine and that would be communion? Sorry to be such a dummy.

 

[Church_Militant]

This letter could not have been written in advance because it mentions things that happened much later than Elijah’s departure.

Wouldn’t that be because he’s a prophet?!