Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I?

[Protestant101]

Originally Posted by guanophore forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

The duty to preach and teach belongs to the Bishops, as you observed above. There have been some that do not do well. I think we need to pray for them, support them, and do the work of the ministry.

Accountability in the Church is rancid. If they don’t want to do their job deny them their paycheck and kick em out. That’s what happens to everyone else in the world. Why should they be any different?

It’s too bad that you class the Pope’s teachings as “infallible.” He has no authority to establish doctrine; only to share like any other Christian, what was entrusted to him. He doesn’t own the Scriptures; Jesus does, and He has given His Word to the world, not to a particular denomination.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t think Catholics generally think the pope “owns” the Scriptures but more that he’s a “steward” of them, a guardian, a sentinel, who ensures that the Scriptures are properly understood in light of sacred tradition, in light of the insane trendy modern slants and anachronisms thrown on them, in light of the propensity people have to make the Scriptures fit their agenda, and in light of the need for lucid interpretation for the whole world to be on the same page. I think it is note-worthy that the Catholic Church at Carthage assembled the canon of Scripture and decided what was canonical and wholesome, what was truth and authentic apostolic witness to the faith once delivered, and what was not orthodox, not truth, heretical or just trumped-up. The Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to assemble the Bible. So Catholics are not crazy ego-maniacs to think that they are also appointed to protect and elucidate it for the world. I wouldn’t say accountability in the Catholic Church is “rancid.” I fail to see why you claim that? You have seventh day adventists who splintered off with David Koresh, too, and interpret things wildly in all groups?

Accountability in the Church is rancid. If they don’t want to do their job deny them their paycheck and kick em out. That’s what happens to everyone else in the world. Why should they be any different?

It’s too bad that you class the Pope’s teachings as “infallible.” He has no authority to establish doctrine; only to share like any other Christian, what was entrusted to him. He doesn’t own the Scriptures; Jesus does, and He has given His Word to the world, not to a particular denomination.

 

[Protestant101]

I don’t think Catholics generally think the pope “owns” the Scriptures but more that he’s a “steward” of them, a guardian, a sentinel, who ensures that the Scriptures are properly understood in light of sacred tradition,

Protestants view the canonization of both OT and NT is not a product of human agencies but of the Holy Spirit,and that the canonical books contain internal self-authentifying and self-validating qualities that were recognized as such by the community of faith.
Regarding the OT, Protestants, accept only the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible, and not the so-called deutero-canonical books of the Apocrypha. The latter books, while containing some helpful historical information, were not written by inspired prophets, but came after the close of the OT prophetic period (ca. 400 BC.).

Protestants place the canonization of the OT in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (ca. 400 B.C.), both of whom as prophets played a role in popularizing and affirming the canonized books among the Jewish people (Ezra 7:10; Neh 8:2-8). Jesus Himself recognized the three-part Hebrew canon (Luke 24:44), which was later reaffirmed at many different Councils, in varying degrees.

Regarding the NT, we can note the apostolic witness inherent in all of these writings–all of them written by an inspired apostle or an apostle’s direct disciple who was an inspired eyewitness–and thus the canon of the NT was closed by the end of the first century when the last inspired apostolic document had been written. Such inspired postolicity/canonicity was eventually recognized by the NT covenant community. The Church came to recognize,accept,and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church.

In sum, the Church did not determine the Canon, but discovered it, did not regulate the canon,but recognized it; the Church is not the mother of the canon, but the child of the Canon, not its magistrate,but its minister, not its judge, but its witness, not its master, but its servant.

As long as the Pope insists on the Apocryphal books as being fully “canonized” scripture; his teachings will always differ from the Bible.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I absolutely cannot see how you can justify that last paragraph. The Bible didn’t fall from the sky out of nowhere and the Church “discovered” it. For the first couple of centuries different epistles were floating around and scarcely any church parish had the entire Scriptures together. Look at how long it took all four gospels alone to finally get into circulation and for all parishes to have all four? There were false gospels like the those of the gnostics floating around, pseudo-gospels, etc.

The Holy Spirit did INDEED help guide the Church to assemble the scriptures and canonize them. And the fact that Protestants a thousand years later decided to drop a few books has nothing to do with anything except to admit that it was Catholics making the decisions, under divine guidance, a millenium before the Reformation even existed. The Church went along just fine for 1,500 years. And a long time before the Seventh Day Adventists came along and started trying to resurrect Jewish customs like the Sabbath and pork prohibitions which amount to little more than trying to judaize the Church and take the Church back from the Pauline vision to a Jewish model…

Protestants the canonization of both OT and NT is not a product of human agencies but of the Holy Spirit,and that the canonical books contain internal self-authentifying and self-validating qualities that were recognized as such by the community of faith.
Regarding the OT, Protestants, accept only the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible, and not the so-called deutero-canonical books of the Apocrypha. The latter books, while containing some helpful historical information, were not written by inspired prophets, but came after the close of the OT prophetic period (ca. 400 BC.).

Protestants place the canonization of the OT in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (ca. 400 B.C.), both of whom as prophets played a role in popularizing and affirming the canonized books among the Jewish people (Ezra 7:10; Neh 8:2-8). Jesus Himself recognized the three-part Hebrew canon (Luke 24:44), which was later reaffirmed at many different Councils, in varying degrees.

Regarding the NT, we can note the apostolic witness inherent in all of these writings–all of them written by an inspired apostle or an apostle’s direct disciple who was an inspired eyewitness–and thus the canon of the NT was closed by the end of the first century when the last inspired apostolic document had been written. Such inspired postolicity/canonicity was eventually recognized by the NT covenant community. The Church came to recognize,accept,and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church.

In sum, the Church did not determine the Canon, but discovered it, did not regulate the canon,but recognized it; the Church is not the mother of the canon, but the child of the Canon, not its magistrate,but its minister, not its judge, but its witness, not its master, but its servant.

 

[Protestant101]

I absolutely cannot see how you can justify that last paragraph. The Bible didn’t fall from the sky out of nowhere and the Church “discovered” it.

And a long time before the Seventh Day Adventists came along and started trying to resurrect Jewish customs like the Sabbath and pork prohibitions which amount to little more than trying to judaize the Church and take the Church back from the Pauline vision to a Jewish model…

Seventh-day Adventists aim to restore that which was thrown out of the Bible, and to educate people as to what has been added to the Bible, such as Apocrypha, and un-Biblical “tradition.”

All Scripture, both OT and NT, is of divine origin. It is inspired by God, literally God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16). The picture here is that of the divine wind or Spirit coming upon the prophet, so that Scripture is a product of the divine creative breath. Thus it is fully authoritative: profitable for doctrine,reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. The scripture is it’s own authority, and needs no Pope or Bishop to force their interpretation at us. The fallible aspect of the Pope surfaces every time they try to change the meaning of scripture to suit Catholic doctrine. [BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here is a scripture that follows along this line; Luke 22:29
and** I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, **

30
that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32
but** I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.” **

The Pope (Peter) has been given the Keys of the Kingdom of God to bind and loose on earth by Jesus independent of the other Apostles although the other successors still hold this power among their bishopric and in the whole church united with Peter (Popes), with the guarantee and protection of the Holy Spirit not to error in the revelations of Jesus Christ handed down from the Apostles if and when the Pope is the only one standing alone “Again” can proclaim these infallible teachings infallibly from the Chair of Peter.

Peter proclaimed infallibly to allow the Gentiles into the Church, a council in Jerusalem occurred Peter spoke infallibly and all fell silent.

We have the guarantee that the Pope will not invent new doctrines infallibly that cannot conflict with sacred scripture and sacred Tradition.

From How i see it from the beginning for the First 1000 years there where 5 Patriarchs.
Also there was a Church council that First started in Jerusalem. And what ever dogma was decided by the church council was proclaimed an Established by the 5 Patriarchs

.

You bring up a complex and a very much misunderstanding of the Patriarchs. First of all many of the early Patriarchs from the East became heretics or fell into heresy. They were the reason for many of the early Catholic Church first councils.

Secondly; Patriarchs are ecclesiastical which is subject to changes. The only divine office instituted by Jesus Christ is the Chair of Peter “to precide over the Church in Love” as St.Ignatius stated. And the other divine office are the successors to the Apostles in the Bishops never the Partriarchs which is an ecclesastical office, not to confuse a Patriarch is not a bishop (a Patriarch is an internal ecclesastical Heirarchy arrangement of authority over other church’s in unity with it, the Orthodoxy in communion with the Popes from the early Church is not the same Orthodoxy today who are in “disunity” with the Pope, this is not to speak for all of Orthodoxy who maintain communion with the Pope from the originality of Orthodoxy ), but we have these Eastern Orthodox church’s in disunity. This becomes complex and may require further clarification.

Eastern Orthodox have “Church’s” which is a confederation of church’s without no supreme visible head. What united these in the Early Church was Peter’s office.

Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople. Constantinople which came much later after the pagan emperor Constantine removed the persecution of the Catholic Church and his capital (Constantinople) usurped the authority of Antioch and Alexandria removing this false pretense of 5 Patriarchs ever ruling the Catholic Church independently. In summary never did 5 Patriarchs rule independently the Whole Catholic Church, this is a false pretense that would of created Chaos. Without the unity of Peter you have no “universal” Catholic Church. The Pentarchy (5 Patriarch) to which you mentioned is only an Ecclisastical institution, the Orthodox can have as many as they want, or remove them without ever affecting the Apostolic Tradition or sacred Scripture.

Yet only the Papacy “Peter’s Chair” and the Bishops are of a divine office from scripture and Sacred Tradition, a Patriarch ecclisial office is not.

cont.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

shaky;

So why was the church council not used when it came to deciding on a Head Patriarch.
Instead in was Just the group number of Bishops + Head bishop >Patriarch in Rome that decided this is the way it is going to be. They Just wanted to change things without the Church councils Agreement by putting it to a vote with the other bishops + 4 Patriarchs in the Eastern church.

I think I may have answered this above as far as unity with Peter’s chair and his successors in the Popes. Again you have a misunderstanding of Patriarchs not being present at a Church council, with a Unity of Bishops with the Popes coming to a decision from council. Many times Patriarchs were not allowed to unite or attend Church councils due to their emperors who ruled over them, because they did not want to see a unification between the East and Western Catholic Church’s. We would have to take each case by case when arriving at such generalizations. I would have to object to your assumption here about the Pope and bishops acting independently without the consent of the whole Church, when others may have refused or could not attend.

The scriptures are clear by saying everything has to be Established by 2 or 3 witnesses
Jesus would not have left Peter on his Own to Establish things Because Peter is not Like Jesus who is GOD. Also Jeremiah 23:4 God said he will set up shepherds to feed his Flock. Not Just One shepherd.

The Popes (successors of Peter) are never alone for one the Popes have the Holy Spirit who is a person, supported by the Word of God who is Jesus incarnated, then Apostolic Tradition which is a living body of the Church. So there are your 3 persons and witnesses, infact the witnesses are infallible. The Pope can only speak infallibly when these 3 are present.

Its not Just a mater of Going Against scripture. Its a mater of interpertation of scripture.

You said a body cannot function without a head. Your saying Peter is the Head. When scriptures are clear that Jesus is the Head of the Church

Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church, His Kingdom comprises of all of creation visible and invisible. Jesus confered a Kingdom upon Peter and the Apostles on earth. Peter is never a King, Jesus is our King, Peter is our Kings Vicar on earth binding and loosing as Jesus binds and loose in heaven whatever Peter and the Popes bind and loose on earth, this is infallibility when ever this occurs. Jesus will return finding His Vicar Peter and his successors in the Popes in every age feeding, tending and teaching His flock all Jesus commanded of him.

What you misunderstand is that Jesus lives, and that Jesus never left Peter alone as He promised Peter.

Peace be with you

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So let me get this straight…

Christ allowed his Church to become corrupted and preach a false gospel, get loaded down with un-biblical and un-Christian traditions, and be led by a wolf in sheep’s clothing for the better part of 1700 plus years before He inspired a group of folks in the 1860’s to restore and properly teach what the corrupt Catholics usurped and perverted for the better part of 1,700 plus years? So God allowed the gates of hell to not only prevail, but conquer and destroy for almost two millenia until the Adventists came along…why do I have trouble swallowing that one?

And why did Paul tell us not to try and be Judaizers trying to back in time to the Law? Paul wanted the Church to move away from the Sabbath, straining gnats, worrying about eating pork, and all that other Jewish nonsense that was thrown out the window with the New Covenant? Why did Paul preach the new covenant and throw away circumcision and all the Jewish temple laws, etc. if you Adventists are just going to bring them all back? Seems like you guys skipped the heart of the Pauline New Testaments yourselves?

Seventh-day Adventists aim to restore that which was thrown out of the Bible, and to educate people as to what has been added to the Bible, such as Apocrypha, and un-Biblical “tradition.”

All Scripture, both OT and NT, is of divine origin. It is inspired by God, literally God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16). The picture here is that of the divine wind or Spirit coming upon the prophet, so that Scripture is a product of the divine creative breath. Thus it is fully authoritative: profitable for doctrine,reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. The scripture is it’s own authority, and needs no Pope or Bishop to force their interpretation at us. The fallible aspect of the Pope surfaces every time they try to change the meaning of scripture to suit Catholic doctrine. [BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Nine_Two]

Seventh-day Adventists aim to restore that which was thrown out of the Bible, and to educate people as to what has been added to the Bible, such as Apocrypha, and un-Biblical “tradition.”

On what authority do you decree what was and what was not added to the bible?

Keeping in mind that the Bible clearly tells us of the celebration of Christs resurrection over the observance of the Sabbath.

 

[Protestant101]

So let me get this straight…

Christ allowed his Church to become corrupted and preach a false gospel, get loaded down with un-biblical and un-Christian traditions, and be led by a wolf in sheep’s clothing for the better part of 1700 plus years before He inspired a group of folks in the 1860’s to restore and properly teach what the corrupt Catholics usurped and perverted for the better part of 1,700 plus years? So God allowed the gates of hell to not only prevail, but conquer and destroy for almost two millenia until the Adventists came along…why do I have trouble swallowing that one?

And why did Paul tell us not to try and be Judaizers trying to back in time to the Law? Paul wanted the Church to move away from the Sabbath, straining gnats, worrying about eating pork, and all that other Jewish nonsense that was thrown out the window with the New Covenant? Why did Paul preach the new covenant and throw away circumcision and all the Jewish temple laws, etc. if you Adventists are just going to bring them all back? Seems like you guys skipped the heart of the Pauline New Testaments yourselves?

The first of many problems with what you say is that the Sabbath is not Jewish.

 

[Protestant101]

On what authority do you decree what was and what was not added to the bible?

Keeping in mind that the Bible clearly tells us of the celebration of Christs resurrection over the observance of the Sabbath.

Baptism is how the Bible tells us to “celebrate the resurrection.”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sure it is. Last time I checked “shabbat” is Jewish and the Abrahamic religions all celebrated it. It was a commandment and part of the Jewish culture. How it relates to salvation from a Christian point of view is beyond me. Funny how you don’t respond to the rest of my “many problems…”

The first of many problems with what you say is that the Sabbath is not Jewish.

 

[Protestant101]

Sure it is. Last time I checked “shabbat” is Jewish and the Abrahamic religions all celebrated it. It was a commandment and part of the Jewish culture. How it relates to salvation from a Christian point of view is beyond me. Funny how you don’t respond to the rest of my “many problems…”

Oh I respond - maybe you just don’t like the response? But you are very wrong about the Sabbath. It is NOT Jewish at all. The Bible calls it “the Sabbath of the Lord thy God…” (see Ex 20:10) . The seventh day Sabbath is God’s Sabbath; not the “Jewish Sabbath.” Anything or anyone that teaches different than the Bible on this is fallible, not infallible.

Funny how you did not reply to my comment about baptism and how that is what God told us to do to celebrate His resurrection. He never once said to change the seventh day Sabbath to Sunday, the first day of the week “in honor of the resurrection.” This is another VERY FALLIBLE TEACHING.

 

[Josh316]

I absolutely cannot see how you can justify that last paragraph. The Bible didn’t fall from the sky out of nowhere and the Church “discovered” it. For the first couple of centuries different epistles were floating around and scarcely any church parish had the entire Scriptures together. Look at how long it took all four gospels alone to finally get into circulation and for all parishes to have all four? There were false gospels like the those of the gnostics floating around, pseudo-gospels, etc.

The Holy Spirit did INDEED help guide the Church to assemble the scriptures and canonize them. And the fact that Protestants a thousand years later decided to drop a few books has nothing to do with anything except to admit that it was Catholics making the decisions, under divine guidance, a millenium before the Reformation even existed. The Church went along just fine for 1,500 years. And a long time before the Seventh Day Adventists came along and started trying to resurrect Jewish customs like the Sabbath and pork prohibitions which amount to little more than trying to judaize the Church and take the Church back from the Pauline vision to a Jewish model…

Gurney, thank God for you man, I really mean it. You are very unbiased and are very quick to correct false statements about the Church even if you do have different views then other Catholics. Thanks for that. And even though I’m a Yankees fan and Texas just beat the socks off my over-paid team, what the heck, GO GIANTS !!!

 

[schaick]

…The Church went along just fine for 1,500 years. And a long time before the Seventh Day Adventists came along and started trying to resurrect Jewish customs like the Sabbath and pork prohibitions which amount to little more than trying to judaize the Church and take the Church back from the Pauline vision to a Jewish model…

Did it really? No one questioned any of it’s teachings? No crisis and no schism occured? No attempts to manipulate and control Popes?

**If a person is going to claim to be the “Vicar of Christ” on earth then he should pretty darn well be impeccable, **even Christ-like in all actions thought and word.

Jesus was Jewish, didn’t HE follow traditions set up by GOD?

 

[ron77nyc]

It seems like those flaws are used as an excuse to lower the bar. There are some things that the apostles and early fathers would have never tolerated but those things are now tolerated. The pope and bishops have placed themselves in a position that allows them to circumvent the law but they want everyone to submit to them. They gloss over any scripture that pertains to their own deficiencies. How you can do that and still take pride in being infallible shows a very large character flaw.

1 Corinthians 5:6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

Romans 13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

1 Corinthians 5:11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Jesus never told us to quit cicumcising either. He never told us to stop the Mosaic laws about menstruation and ritual washing, never told us to continue to stay away from Gentiles and all sorts of other things. He never talked about abortion, stem cells, trial marriages, in vitro fertilization, or a plethora of other things. He never told us the Trinitarian definitions or creeds either. That’s why you need the Church to support the Bible—a living document that breathes through the Church and not through individual interpretation with all our personal biases, ego-centrism, and lack of context.

I’m not sure what you want me to say about baptism? If you read the catechism 1121 it discusses baptism. It leaves an indelible mark on us, brings us into union with the Holy Spirit, grants us new life, helps us share in Christ’s priesthood, and seals us in union with Him. That’s what the catechism says. It puts us in a positive disposition for grace and Christian living. It’s salvific, necessary, and life-changing. I’m not sure what you’re trying to trick me into saying here? The Catholic Church loves and demands baptism from believers, including infants!

Just a question for you, Protestant 101, have you actually read the Early Church Fathers’ writings? (Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, etc.)?

Also, I notice you put a red thumbs-down on my post then send a friend request. I’m confused!

Oh I respond - maybe you just don’t like the response? But you are very wrong about the Sabbath. It is NOT Jewish at all. The Bible calls it “the Sabbath of the Lord thy God…” (see Ex 20:10) . The seventh day Sabbath is God’s Sabbath; not the “Jewish Sabbath.” Anything or anyone that teaches different than the Bible on this is fallible, not infallible.

Funny how you did not reply to my comment about baptism and how that is what God told us to do to celebrate His resurrection. He never once said to change the seventh day Sabbath to Sunday, the first day of the week “in honor of the resurrection.” This is another VERY FALLIBLE TEACHING.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sure, plenty of folks questioned its teachings…ARIUS, NESTORIUS, DONATUS, PELAGIUS…they’re called…(drumroll)…heretics!

If a person is infallible in teachings of offcial capacity, it doesn’t necessarily mean he will behave perfectly. Just like a teacher. You might have a teacher who reads Playboy magazine at home and picks up chicks at a bar every Friday night, who smokes, drinks, and carouses. Then he returns to work and does his job 100% and doesn’t teach these things to kids. In fact, he teaches them the opposite and does a fabulous job. Problem is, he’s a hypocrite. He does his job, positively affects students, and God works through him. But after hours, he’s not taking the Lord into his OWN heart. Can this happen? You bet! It’s not the desired situation but we’re dealing with human beings, concupiscence, and the Fall. Original Sin has a long-reaching arm…sadly. You’re expecting infallibility to breed a mini-Christ in the pope. Not going to happen nor can it.

Did it really? No one questioned any of it’s teachings? No crisis and no schism occured? No attempts to manipulate and control Popes?

If a person is going to claim to be the “Vicar of Christ” on earth then he should pretty darn well be impeccable, even Christ-like in all actions thought and word.

Jesus was Jewish, didn’t HE follow traditions set up by GOD?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You are just too kind, Josh. What a shot in the arm from an awesome poster. I appreciate your kind words and pulling for my Giants! We need all the help we can get! 1954 was the last time we made it over that giant hump called the World Series! Help! :thumbsup:

Gurney, thank God for you man, I really mean it. You are very unbiased and are very quick to correct false statements about the Church even if you do have different views then other Catholics. Thanks for that. And even though I’m a Yankees fan and Texas just beat the socks off my over-paid team, what the heck, GO GIANTS !!!

 

[Protestant101]

Jesus never told us to quit cicumcising either. He never told us to stop the Mosaic laws about menstruation and ritual washing, never told us to continue to stay away from Gentiles and all sorts of other things. He never talked about abortion, stem cells, trial marriages, in vitro fertilization, or a plethora of other things. He never told us the Trinitarian definitions or creeds either. That’s why you need the Church to support the Bible—a living document that breathes through the Church and not through individual interpretation with all our personal biases, ego-centrism, and lack of context.

I’m not sure what you want me to say about baptism? If you read the catechism 1121 it discusses baptism. It leaves an indelible mark on us, brings us into union with the Holy Spirit, grants us new life, helps us share in Christ’s priesthood, and seals us in union with Him. That’s what the catechism says. It puts us in a positive disposition for grace and Christian living. It’s salvific, necessary, and life-changing. I’m not sure what you’re trying to trick me into saying here? The Catholic Church loves and demands baptism from believers, including infants!

Just a question for you, Protestant 101, have you actually read the Early Church Fathers’ writings? (Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, etc.)?

Also, I notice you put a red thumbs-down on my post then send a friend request. I’m confused!

I have many Catholic books including the Catechism.

My point about baptism is that the Bible says that is what we are to do in honor of the resurrection; not in honor of Sunday.

If you don’t want to accept the friendship request, don’t worry about it - no harm done! I just figure that we don’t have to agree on everything to be friends.