Christianity: Divided always?

[Abu]

The Catholic Church has never taught nor sanctioned the persecution of anyone, much less Jews, and St John certainly did not.

The world has the Sacred Scriptures only because Christ’s Catholic Church, established by God the Son, proclaimed which writings, and no others, form the Word of God and which has defined that: “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” [Vatican II, *Dei Verbum, (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelatio), 11].

 

[Kelt]

The Catholic Church has never taught nor sanctioned the persecution of anyone, much less Jews, and St John certainly did not.

The world has the Sacred Scriptures only because Christ’s Catholic Church, established by God the Son, proclaimed which writings, and no others, form the Word of God and which has defined that: “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” [Vatican II, *Dei Verbum

, (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelatio), 11].

The history of the Crusades is a long and complicated one, where politics and religion are mixed up. Some might be defended as ‘defence’ of Christian lands under attack from Muslims. That the Middle East was fought over continually is a fact. But there were other crusades of a political nature. In753 pope Stephen told the ruler of the Franks that St Peter will remit the sins of those who fight for his church. He wanted them to fight the Lombards who were threatening papal land in Italy. In 1199 Pope Innocent III started crusades against ‘heresy’ in Spain and Italy and was responsible for famous bloodbath of the crusade against the Cathars. Obviously, it depends on which side you’re on whether you call that ‘persecution’ or not. Presumably the Church acknowledges that there was some persecution or they wouldn’t have apologised for past wrongs.
Whether intentional or not, the anti - Jewish rhetoric in John (we don’t know who wrote it) did cause people to persecute Jews. (Did a WHOLE crowd declare that their children should bear the consequences of their actions when they condemned Jesus?)

 

[Kelt]

This is interesting to read…

ushmm.org/research/the-center-for-advanced-holocaust-studies/programs-ethics-religion-the-holocaust/articles-and-resources/christian-persecution-of-jews-over-the-centuries/christian-persecution-of-jews-over-the-centuries

The inquisitions are pertinent too. While the Spanish Inquisition may have been somewhat distorted in the various arguments between Christian factions, they were not a good advert for the church. There was also a Roman inquisition and a Portuguese Inquisition - targeting the Jews who had converted to Catholicism but weren’t trusted. The Portuguese inquisition also operated in Goa, India, against the Hindus in the 16th century. Where monarchs ordered the Inquisitions, the church sanctioned them.
This is just history. And one of the reasons why there are divisions, and why some people reject religion.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Whoever wrote John had a developed Christology, already different from early followers of Jesus, a lot of whom didn’t believe him to be divine.

Please give your source for all the Christians who did not believe Christ to be divine.

Doubtless some did not, but were they the mainstream of Christians? Were they followers of Peter and Paul and the apostles? This needs to be fleshed out. As you seem to be the scholarly type, please do so.

Thank you.

 

[Kelt]

Please give your source for all the Christians who did not believe Christ to be divine.

Doubtless some did not, but were they the mainstream of Christians? Were they followers of Peter and Paul and the apostles? This needs to be fleshed out. As you seem to be the scholarly type, please do so.

Thank you.

I guess I can try! The first followers of Jesus were almost all or maybe all Jews . They would have considered it blasphemous to claim a man to be divine. They had to live under the Romans with their many gods and their habit of declaring leaders to be divine, and they would have strongly objected when expected to worship them. The early followers led by James, didn’t seem to give themselves a name as such. They seem to have been known as the ‘followers of Jesus’ or followers of ‘the way’. The term Christian apparently occurs very few times in the NT and is a Greek word. (I may stand corrected on that but I think that’s so.) it stuck though, as it appears in the histories of the period. Other names given to the early Jesus movement were Nazarenes and Ebionites - which means ‘poor ones’ and reflects Jesus’s teachings. How the Jesus movement/s developed and changed as non Jews brought in other ideas and developed them is complicated. Mostly, the survival of the teachings of Jesus and subsequent Christianity is down to Paul, who never met Jesus and had a conversion experience. He did believe Jesus was God and seems to have had a quite highly developed Christology, ( and also had a few clashes with Peter over ‘Jewishness’) but, to cut a long story short, as you know, the final settlement of the ‘Trinity’ was not finally thrashed out until the 4th century. Up to then, there was a lot of debate as to the exact nature of the divinity. I’m not sure when the Ebionite beliefs were considered heresy.

 

[Abu]

Kelt #42
Presumably the Church acknowledges that there was some persecution or they wouldn’t have apologised for past wrongs.

The Catholic Church teaches faith and morals, sanctification and salvation. It is time to recognise the reality already detailed:
Any “persecution” comes from human frailty not from His Church. In *First Things *(November 1997), Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote that “the Pope himself has acknowledged the mistakes and sins of Christians in connection with, among other things, the Crusades, the Inquisition, persecution of the Jews, religious wars, Galileo, and the treatment of women. Thus, though the Pope himself is careful to speak of sin or error on the part of the Church’s members or representatives, rather than the Church in its fullness, that important theological distinction is almost always lost in the transmission.”

bloodbath of the crusade against the Cathars.

Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 03-03-2002:
“They were heretics of the 13th century, concentrated in Southern France, who taught that child-bearing is sinful and that the best way to die is to commit suicide. They are described at length in my volume THE GLORY OF CHRISTENDOM, which you may obtain from Christendom Press in Front Royal, Virginia.”

Answer by Matthew Bunson on 12-14-2002:
Extract:
“The Cathari (or Cathars) were both popular and, in some regions, a definite threat to the Church. They were largely adherents of Manichaean dualism, preaching the corruption and evil of the flesh, demanding severe asceticism for members, and attacking the Church, particularly the clergy, as corrupt and beyond reform. They were probably much influenced by the Bogomils and spread throughout Germany and Italy. Members of the sect in France became known under the title Albigensians (see Albigensian Movement for details), causing such chaos in various cities that secular authorities and Church leaders were forced to organize the Albigensian Crusade. As a result of the crusade as well as assorted pogroms and especially the work of the Inquisition, the Cathari declined rapidly and ceased to be a major influence.
Judged by today’s standards, the efforts against the Cathars were extreme, including the use of physical force and burnings at the stake for those heretics who refused to recant. There is no question that such measures should not have been used, but we must remember the setting of the times.
**“In the medieval world, heresy was not merely a rejection of Church authority, it was a crime against the social order.” **
tinyurl.com/o3f5c5z

the anti - Jewish rhetoric in John (we don’t know who wrote it) did cause people to persecute Jews
#45
The first followers of Jesus were almost all or maybe all Jews . They would have considered it blasphemous to claim a man to be divine.

Only the ignorant don’t know who wrote the Gospel of John and he sanctioned no persecution of anyone. Face reality --some three thousand Jews converted, as St Peter testifies to the divinity of Jesus by His Resurrection.

The Catholic Church has never taught the persecution of anyone, much less Jews, and St John certainly did not. The reality: Thus the Pope never apologises for the Church which is ‘held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy’ [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium, art 39].

Mostly, the survival of the teachings of Jesus and subsequent Christianity is down to Paul,

While St Paul is great, the teaching of Jesus is recorded in four Gospels, protected by the Magisterium of St Peter and the following popes, and as the third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

 

[Kelt]

The Catholic Church teaches faith and morals, sanctification and salvation. It is time to recognise the reality already detailed:
Any “persecution” comes from human frailty not from His Church. In *First Things *(November 1997), Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote that “the Pope himself has acknowledged the mistakes and sins of Christians in connection with, among other things, the Crusades, the Inquisition, persecution of the Jews, religious wars, Galileo, and the treatment of women. Thus, though the Pope himself is careful to speak of sin or error on the part of the Church’s members or representatives, rather than the Church in its fullness, that important theological distinction is almost always lost in the transmission.”
Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 03-03-2002:
“They were heretics of the 13th century, concentrated in Southern France, who taught that child-bearing is sinful and that the best way to die is to commit suicide. They are described at length in my volume THE GLORY OF CHRISTENDOM, which you may obtain from Christendom Press in Front Royal, Virginia.”

Answer by Matthew Bunson on 12-14-2002:
Extract:
“The Cathari (or Cathars) were both popular and, in some regions, a definite threat to the Church. They were largely adherents of Manichaean dualism, preaching the corruption and evil of the flesh, demanding severe asceticism for members, and attacking the Church, particularly the clergy, as corrupt and beyond reform. They were probably much influenced by the Bogomils and spread throughout Germany and Italy. Members of the sect in France became known under the title Albigensians (see Albigensian Movement for details), causing such chaos in various cities that secular authorities and Church leaders were forced to organize the Albigensian Crusade. As a result of the crusade as well as assorted pogroms and especially the work of the Inquisition, the Cathari declined rapidly and ceased to be a major influence.
Judged by today’s standards, the efforts against the Cathars were extreme, including the use of physical force and burnings at the stake for those heretics who refused to recant. There is no question that such measures should not have been used, but we must remember the setting of the times.
**“In the medieval world, heresy was not merely a rejection of Church authority, it was a crime against the social order.” **
tinyurl.com/o3f5c5z
Only the ignorant don’t know who wrote the Gospel of John and he sanctioned no persecution of anyone. Face reality --some three thousand Jews converted, as St Peter testifies to the divinity of Jesus by His Resurrection.

The Catholic Church has never taught the persecution of anyone, much less Jews, and St John certainly did not. The reality: Thus the Pope never apologises for the Church which is ‘held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy’ [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium

, art 39].
While St Paul is great, the teaching of Jesus is recorded in four Gospels, protected by the Magisterium of St Peter and the following popes, and as the third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].
Plenty of learned scholars doubt the authorship of the gospels. You are confusing ignorance with opinion.
adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/why-scholars-doubt-the-traditional-authors-of-the-gospels/

Without the prodigious travels and letter writing of Paul, (who, as a Roman citizen was therefore better able to deal with Gentiles, ) Christianity would have struggled far harder for far longer.
I’m puzzled about the succession of the popes though…if they are supposed to be a direct line from Peter…what is taught about popes like the Borgias?

 

[Kelt]

The Catholic Church teaches faith and morals, sanctification and salvation. It is time to recognise the reality already detailed:
Any “persecution” comes from human frailty not from His Church. In *First Things *(November 1997), Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote that “the Pope himself has acknowledged the mistakes and sins of Christians in connection with, among other things, the Crusades, the Inquisition, persecution of the Jews, religious wars, Galileo, and the treatment of women. Thus, though the Pope himself is careful to speak of sin or error on the part of the Church’s members or representatives, rather than the Church in its fullness, that important theological distinction is almost always lost in the transmission.”
Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 03-03-2002:
“They were heretics of the 13th century, concentrated in Southern France, who taught that child-bearing is sinful and that the best way to die is to commit suicide. They are described at length in my volume THE GLORY OF CHRISTENDOM, which you may obtain from Christendom Press in Front Royal, Virginia.”

Answer by Matthew Bunson on 12-14-2002:
Extract:
“The Cathari (or Cathars) were both popular and, in some regions, a definite threat to the Church. They were largely adherents of Manichaean dualism, preaching the corruption and evil of the flesh, demanding severe asceticism for members, and attacking the Church, particularly the clergy, as corrupt and beyond reform. They were probably much influenced by the Bogomils and spread throughout Germany and Italy. Members of the sect in France became known under the title Albigensians (see Albigensian Movement for details), causing such chaos in various cities that secular authorities and Church leaders were forced to organize the Albigensian Crusade. As a result of the crusade as well as assorted pogroms and especially the work of the Inquisition, the Cathari declined rapidly and ceased to be a major influence.
Judged by today’s standards, the efforts against the Cathars were extreme, including the use of physical force and burnings at the stake for those heretics who refused to recant. There is no question that such measures should not have been used, but we must remember the setting of the times.
**“In the medieval world, heresy was not merely a rejection of Church authority, it was a crime against the social order.” **
tinyurl.com/o3f5c5z
Only the ignorant don’t know who wrote the Gospel of John and he sanctioned no persecution of anyone. Face reality --some three thousand Jews converted, as St Peter testifies to the divinity of Jesus by His Resurrection.

The Catholic Church has never taught the persecution of anyone, much less Jews, and St John certainly did not. The reality: Thus the Pope never apologises for the Church which is ‘held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy’ [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium

, art 39].
While St Paul is great, the teaching of Jesus is recorded in four Gospels, protected by the Magisterium of St Peter and the following popes, and as the third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

Plenty of learned scholars doubt the authorship of the gospels. You are confusing ignorance with opinion.
adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/why-scholars-doubt-the-traditional-authors-of-the-gospels/

Without the prodigious travels and letter writing of Paul, (who, as a Roman citizen was therefore better able to deal with Gentiles, ) Christianity would have struggled far harder for far longer.
I’m puzzled about the succession of the popes though…if they are supposed to be a direct line from Peter…what is taught about popes like the Borgias?

 

[Kelt]

The Catholic Church teaches faith and morals, sanctification and salvation. It is time to recognise the reality already detailed:
Any “persecution” comes from human frailty not from His Church. In *First Things *(November 1997), Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote that “the Pope himself has acknowledged the mistakes and sins of Christians in connection with, among other things, the Crusades, the Inquisition, persecution of the Jews, religious wars, Galileo, and the treatment of women. Thus, though the Pope himself is careful to speak of sin or error on the part of the Church’s members or representatives, rather than the Church in its fullness, that important theological distinction is almost always lost in the transmission.”
Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 03-03-2002:
“They were heretics of the 13th century, concentrated in Southern France, who taught that child-bearing is sinful and that the best way to die is to commit suicide. They are described at length in my volume THE GLORY OF CHRISTENDOM, which you may obtain from Christendom Press in Front Royal, Virginia.”

Answer by Matthew Bunson on 12-14-2002:
Extract:
“The Cathari (or Cathars) were both popular and, in some regions, a definite threat to the Church. They were largely adherents of Manichaean dualism, preaching the corruption and evil of the flesh, demanding severe asceticism for members, and attacking the Church, particularly the clergy, as corrupt and beyond reform. They were probably much influenced by the Bogomils and spread throughout Germany and Italy. Members of the sect in France became known under the title Albigensians (see Albigensian Movement for details), causing such chaos in various cities that secular authorities and Church leaders were forced to organize the Albigensian Crusade. As a result of the crusade as well as assorted pogroms and especially the work of the Inquisition, the Cathari declined rapidly and ceased to be a major influence.
Judged by today’s standards, the efforts against the Cathars were extreme, including the use of physical force and burnings at the stake for those heretics who refused to recant. There is no question that such measures should not have been used, but we must remember the setting of the times.
**“In the medieval world, heresy was not merely a rejection of Church authority, it was a crime against the social order.” **
tinyurl.com/o3f5c5z
Only the ignorant don’t know who wrote the Gospel of John and he sanctioned no persecution of anyone. Face reality --some three thousand Jews converted, as St Peter testifies to the divinity of Jesus by His Resurrection.

The Catholic Church has never taught the persecution of anyone, much less Jews, and St John certainly did not. The reality: Thus the Pope never apologises for the Church which is ‘held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy’ [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium

, art 39].
While St Paul is great, the teaching of Jesus is recorded in four Gospels, protected by the Magisterium of St Peter and the following popes, and as the third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

I don’t doubt the Cathars were far from angels, but as usual, history is complicated…
‘The Cathar view of the Catholic Church was as bleak as the Catholic Church’s view of the Cathar Church. On the Cathar side it manifested itself in ridiculing Catholic doctrine and practices, and characterising the Catholic Church as the “Church of Wolves”. The Catholics accused Cathars of heresy or apostasy and said they belonged to the “Synagogue of Satan”. The Catholic side created some striking propaganda. When the propaganda proved only partly successful, there was only one option left - a crusade - the Albigensian Crusade.’

cathar.info

 

[Abu]

Kelt #47
Plenty of learned scholars doubt the authorship of the gospels.

Forget the so-called “learned scholars” – many of whom doubt even the existence of God, much less the divinity of Jesus and of His miracles and His foundation of His Church including “He that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16).

It is not surprising that Kelt would be unaware of the testimony of the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack concerning Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

I’m puzzled about the succession of the popes though…if they are supposed to be a direct line from Peter…what is taught about popes like the Borgias?

The reality is that Popes do not possess impeccability (freedom from sin) but infallibility from teaching error when definitively teaching the whole Church on faith and morals. The fact of a few evidently bad popes, none of whom taught error in defining faith or morals to the whole Church, exemplifies Christ’s protection.

**Unbroken Apostolic Succession (EWTN)
Question from Steve on 06-30-2003: **
I don’t understand the catholic position on the following: if Peter was the first pope, and there is an unbroken Apostolic Succession between him and the current pope, how is it that the Borgias (and any other of the obviously corrupt, sinful, and wordly popes) don’t interrupt or “break” the God ordained line of church fathers?
**Answer by Catholic Answers on 07-01-2003: **
That some popes were less than holy, as in the case of the Borgias, does not interrupt the line of succession. They were valid popes. That men of such low morals headed Christ’s Church without doing damage to her teachings simply testifies to the presence of the Holy Spirit protecting her from error – as Jesus promised.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
tinyurl.com/qcuesx4

 

[murkymick]

I’m sorry for my absence within this thread. It’s quite quickly gone beyond my ability to weigh in. However, thank you everyone. It has given me quite a lot to ponder.

 

[Kelt]

Forget the so-called “learned scholars” – many of whom doubt even the existence of God, much less the divinity of Jesus and of His miracles and His foundation of His Church including “He that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16).

It is not surprising that Kelt would be unaware of the testimony of the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack concerning Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

The reality is that Popes do not possess impeccability (freedom from sin) but infallibility from teaching error when definitively teaching the whole Church on faith and morals. The fact of a few evidently bad popes, none of whom taught error in defining faith or morals to the whole Church, exemplifies Christ’s protection.

**Unbroken Apostolic Succession (EWTN)
Question from Steve on 06-30-2003: **
I don’t understand the catholic position on the following: if Peter was the first pope, and there is an unbroken Apostolic Succession between him and the current pope, how is it that the Borgias (and any other of the obviously corrupt, sinful, and wordly popes) don’t interrupt or “break” the God ordained line of church fathers?
**Answer by Catholic Answers on 07-01-2003: **
That some popes were less than holy, as in the case of the Borgias, does not interrupt the line of succession. They were valid popes. That men of such low morals headed Christ’s Church without doing damage to her teachings simply testifies to the presence of the Holy Spirit protecting her from error – as Jesus promised.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
tinyurl.com/qcuesx4

Are you suggesting that you pick and choose your ‘learned scholars’ by their religious beliefs? Presumably picking the one that agree with you, before deciding whether they ARE learned or just ‘so-called’ learned? Or indeed, ignorant? The study of the gospels and their authorship doesn’t require the Catholic Christian belief of the author in order to be valid. It follows that it doesn’t necessarily turn you atheist to study them with the evidence and historical knowledge available!
I’m not sure what point you’re making as regards to Adolf Von Harnack’s ‘admission’ that pope Victor was recognised as a special guardian of the common unity of the church at that time? After all, this was the man who believed that there was so much Hellenistic philosophy influencing the development of the early church that he questioned whether many of its doctrines were truly ‘Christian’. He could acknowledge the popes’ power without endorsing it. (Unfortunately I haven’t been able to access the pages you p(name removed by moderator)ointed.)
It remains that whoever wrote the gospel of John was a scholar with a knowledge of philosophy, a developed christology and wrote in educated Greek. John the son of Zebedee was apparently not a scholar and while he could have spoken Greek, his 1st language would have been Aramaic. It was never signed. But why should that matter? Should it shake your faith to find you don’t know the actual author?

I still really don’t understand how you can say that bad popes can still make inerrant decisions! While the Borgias probably weren’t as bad as they’re always made out, they were still pretty flagrant in their ‘sinning’ by anyone’s standards at any time! What made them make such uncharacteristic ‘good’ decisions every so often?

 

[Abu]

Kelt #51
I still really don’t understand how you can say that bad popes can still make inerrant decisions! While the Borgias probably weren’t as bad as they’re always made out, they were still pretty flagrant in their ‘sinning’ by anyone’s standards at any time! What made them make such uncharacteristic ‘good’ decisions every so often?

It is NOT “decisions”, it is only teaching on faith and morals to the whole Church as Christ’s Supreme Vicar – confusion resulting only because there is an illogical refusal to acknowledge that God has established His own Church through Jesus of Nazareth, and only papal teaching on faith and morals to the whole Church is protected as clearly referenced in post #16.
‘The mandate:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)’

Thus, as clearly stated in post #49:
“That men of such low morals headed Christ’s Church without doing damage to her teachings simply testifies to the presence of the Holy Spirit protecting her from error – as Jesus promised.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.”
tinyurl.com/qcuesx4

**Truth (again)
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 01-27-2012 (EWTN): **
“You have to understand that obedience is due to the teachings of the Pope only when he speaks for the Church. One is not obliged to obey the Pope when he have given an immoral command, which some have probably done. When made a Pope, the man does not become Christ Himself. He becomes the Vicar of Christ. That title does not wipe out his humanity. That is why even the Pope will go to confession on a regular basis. Christ would never have to go to confession.”

Furthermore Christ’s own Church has confirmed “…the Pontifical Biblical Commission was formally established by Pope Leo XIII in 1902, and in 1907, in Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae, Pope Pius X declared its decisions to be binding:
4) On the Author and the Historical Truth of the Fourth Gospel, 1907.
There is sufficient evidence that John the Apostle wrote the Fourth Gospel, the Commission stated, to uphold this opinion against adverse critics. We may not say that the discourses of Our Lord that are reported therein are not really the words of Jesus but theological compositions of the authors.”
What Does The Church Really Say About The Bible? by Edith Myers
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3752

No one has any authority to declare what books comprise the Bible, or who the authors are, except Christ’s Church which gave us the complete Word of God with no more nor less books than She has defined.

 

[Kelt]

It is NOT “decisions”, it is only teaching on faith and morals to the whole Church as Christ’s Supreme Vicar – confusion resulting only because there is an illogical refusal to acknowledge that God has established His own Church through Jesus of Nazareth, and only papal teaching on faith and morals to the whole Church is protected as clearly referenced in post #16.
‘The mandate:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)’

Thus, as clearly stated in post #49:
“That men of such low morals headed Christ’s Church without doing damage to her teachings simply testifies to the presence of the Holy Spirit protecting her from error – as Jesus promised.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.”
tinyurl.com/qcuesx4

**Truth (again)
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 01-27-2012 (EWTN): **
“You have to understand that obedience is due to the teachings of the Pope only when he speaks for the Church. One is not obliged to obey the Pope when he have given an immoral command, which some have probably done. When made a Pope, the man does not become Christ Himself. He becomes the Vicar of Christ. That title does not wipe out his humanity. That is why even the Pope will go to confession on a regular basis. Christ would never have to go to confession.”

Furthermore Christ’s own Church has confirmed “…the Pontifical Biblical Commission was formally established by Pope Leo XIII in 1902, and in 1907, in Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae, Pope Pius X declared its decisions to be binding:
4) On the Author and the Historical Truth of the Fourth Gospel, 1907.
There is sufficient evidence that John the Apostle wrote the Fourth Gospel, the Commission stated, to uphold this opinion against adverse critics. We may not say that the discourses of Our Lord that are reported therein are not really the words of Jesus but theological compositions of the authors.”
What Does The Church Really Say About The Bible? by Edith Myers
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3752

No one has any authority to declare what books comprise the Bible, or who the authors are, except Christ’s Church which gave us the complete Word of God with no more nor less books than She has defined.

Is that, in other words…do as I say, not as I do…? Because I can’t imagine how the Borgia popes had any moral authority at all within the church. Alexander VI kept a mistress and had children by her. I don’t think he was a very safe guardian of church morals.
So a man, who’s chosen by other men to speak for the church, decides that what he says about the authorship of the gospels is binding? ( If God chose that man, what happened in the case of the Borgias?) Debate closed? What if new evidence comes to light…does the then pope have the authority to ‘unsay’ what the previous pope had said? Or do they have to just deny the evidence for the sake of the unification of the church, because that would prove that he had been fallible after all?
As to John’s gospel…how could they possibly be the EXACT words of someone who died around 60 years earlier, by one of his uneducated followers? It was written in Greek wasn’t it? There are so many inconsistencies in the 4 gospels and if you include the OT then it paints a very confusing picture of contradictions.
Some men got together in the early days of the formation of the church and selected the books for the canon of the NT. Obviously the church want people to believe that God had influence there…but how can they say where he has, and has not, had influence throughout the history of the church? You say the people are fallible but the church is not - HOW do you tell the difference??
My original thought on this post…there is no proof for any religion, it’s all about belief. Study of theology won’t make you necessarily a follower or an atheist but it will provoke debate. So there will never be ‘unity’. The Catholic church has a vested interest to make people toe their line and has been very succesful. Some people like to have decisions made for them, I prefer to make my own. I can’t say I’ve got it right, but neither can anyone, because we just don’t know and never will - while we’re here!

 

[Abu]

Kelt #63
So a man, who’s chosen by other men to speak for the church, decides that what he says about the authorship of the gospels is binding?
Some men got together in the early days of the formation of the church and selected the books for the canon of the NT.

Such foolish ideas will persist as long as the reality of Christ as God, proved by His Resurrection and manifold miracles, is ignored.

As long as God’s words are ignored – the God who chose who would lead His Church as expressly shown in post #52, giving the holder the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven – then the teaching on the books which carry the Word of God for the Bible cannot be understood. The books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God was decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament.

You say the people are fallible but the church is not - HOW do you tell the difference??

Simple – as Jesus, God provided, as stated and restated, that His Popes teach infallibly on faith and morals to be held when defining doctrine or dogma to the whole Church. St Peter himself denied Christ, before he repented, led the Church, welcomed many converts, and was crucified.

 

[oldcelt]

Is that, in other words…do as I say, not as I do…? Because I can’t imagine how the Borgia popes had any moral authority at all within the church. Alexander VI kept a mistress and had children by her. I don’t think he was a very safe guardian of church morals.
So a man, who’s chosen by other men to speak for the church, decides that what he says about the authorship of the gospels is binding? ( If God chose that man, what happened in the case of the Borgias?) Debate closed? What if new evidence comes to light…does the then pope have the authority to ‘unsay’ what the previous pope had said? Or do they have to just deny the evidence for the sake of the unification of the church, because that would prove that he had been fallible after all?
As to John’s gospel…how could they possibly be the EXACT words of someone who died around 60 years earlier, by one of his uneducated followers? It was written in Greek wasn’t it? There are so many inconsistencies in the 4 gospels and if you include the OT then it paints a very confusing picture of contradictions.
Some men got together in the early days of the formation of the church and selected the books for the canon of the NT. Obviously the church want people to believe that God had influence there…but how can they say where he has, and has not, had influence throughout the history of the church? You say the people are fallible but the church is not - HOW do you tell the difference??
My original thought on this post…there is no proof for any religion, it’s all about belief. Study of theology won’t make you necessarily a follower or an atheist but it will provoke debate. So there will never be ‘unity’. The Catholic church has a vested interest to make people toe their line and has been very succesful. Some people like to have decisions made for them, I prefer to make my own. I can’t say I’ve got it right, but neither can anyone, because we just don’t know and never will - while we’re here!

Thank you for you excellent insights regarding the Borgias. I also agree that the early councils (see Congress) chose what followed their vision from the many books available.These men were no different than any of us and had no more insight than you or me.

 

[Kelt]

Such foolish ideas will persist as long as the reality of Christ as God, proved by His Resurrection and manifold miracles, is ignored.

As long as God’s words are ignored – the God who chose who would lead His Church as expressly shown in post #52, giving the holder the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven – then the teaching on the books which carry the Word of God for the Bible cannot be understood. The books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God was decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament.
Simple – as Jesus, God provided, as stated and restated, that His Popes teach infallibly on faith and morals to be held when defining doctrine or dogma to the whole Church. St Peter himself denied Christ, before he repented, led the Church, welcomed many converts, and was crucified.

Foolish? How so; foolish? I’ve heard claims of infallibility from error from Muslims too. They believe Jesus was a prophet but that Muhammed was the last one. In order to maintain authority their leaders have to claim that law-makers were infallible. Presumably they have their own evidence for their beliefs too.
I’m only trying to explain why there will never be unity in belief. Should it matter? Do they worship a different God, or the same one in a different way?
There are so many discrepancies with the books of the NT that it would appear, very clearly to some, that they have been put together by human hands and minds, not God’s. Discrepancies easy to understand when you recall the turmoil of the times for Jews at the end of the 1st century, trying to make sense of everything and Jesus’ followers gathering verbal accounts and recollections. They’re not perfect, but they carry a message which will be interpreted and reinterpreted for as long as people draw breath.