Define Born again

[John1717]

Church Militant:

It might be if we didn’t already know that it’s a spurious document in a publication put out by anti-Catholic bigots. Don’t be so freakin’ gullible…try REAL Catholic writings. But you won’t…you’d rather follow what MEN tell you about the truth than discover it for yourself. I wouldn’t want to be the guys who created that false witness right there at their judgement.

Talk about being gullible, when was it that you drank the kool-aid? Seriously, you don’t ask the fox, “are any chickens are missing from the henhouse,” if you want a truthful answer!
** **

---

 

[exrc]

Catholic4aReasn:

I know it’s been said before, but the disagreement doesn’t seem at all to be on WHAT being born again is but rather on HOW it happens.

Paul explains that this happens in water baptism:

“we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4)”.

In baptism we die with Christ and are raised to new life. This happens “indeed”, not “symbolically”. We are baptized “into” Christ and those who are “in” Christ are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17).

We’d all agree that being “born again” is to be made a “new creation in Christ”. Scripture always and only equates this with water baptism. Never ever does scripture equate being made a new creation (born again, rebirth, regeneration) with anything other than water baptism…ever.

So the real topic of this thread isn’t really what the definition of “born again” is. We all agree on that. The topic is how this rebirth take place.

In Christ,
Nancy

Thanks Nancy! So we can agree on the definition, right?

Born again: The instantaneous birth of ones spirit, upon the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Also, the reversal of the damage caused by the first Adam,( i.e.) which was instantaneous spiritual death upon the act of one sin. Essentially becomming spiritually alive

Now that we agree ,let’s talk about what it has procured for us.

1.We are now adopted sons of God
2.We are part of the holy nation, and royal priests

Only two for now, O.K.?

can we agree on this?

 

[Fiat]

exrc:

Now that we agree ,let’s talk about what it has procured for us.

1.We are now adopted sons of God
2.We are part of the holy nation, and royal priests

Only two for now, O.K.?

can we agree on this?

*…Sounds okay so far.

Fiat*

 

[dennisknapp]

exrc:

Thanks Nancy! So we can agree on the definition, right?

Born again: The instantaneous birth of ones spirit, upon the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Also, the reversal of the damage caused by the first Adam,( i.e.) which was instantaneous spiritual death upon the act of one sin. Essentially becomming spiritually alive

Now that we agree ,let’s talk about what it has procured for us.

1.We are now adopted sons of God
2.We are part of the holy nation, and royal priests

Only two for now, O.K.?

can we agree on this?

We do agree if:

Born again: The instantaneous birth of ones spirit, by baptism through the Holy Spirit. Also, the reversal of the damage caused by the first Adam,( i.e.) which was instantaneous spiritual death upon the act of one sin. Essentially becomming spiritually alive.

If we can agree on this then we can indeed move forward.

 

[dennisknapp]

Talk about being gullible, when was it that you drank the kool-aid? Seriously, you don’t ask the fox, “are any chickens are missing from the henhouse,” if you want a truthful answer!
** **

Don’t bother arguing with him CM, he has lost the debate and is now trying to malign our position by bring up things that make us Catholics look bad. It is just a more sophicated way of calling us doo doo heads or something like that.

The thing that is interesting is that we don’t disagree that what happened during that period was horrible and did indeed go against the teachings of Christ and the Apostles in both written (bible) and unwritten (Tradition) form. What happened was a sin on both side (Protestant and Catholic), and we (the Church) have repented of it.

To use the example of a few people who used the government (not the Church) to condemn people to death who disagreed with their position is not relivent to the discussion at hand, which is to define what being born again means. Therefore, it is a red-herring and just a ploy to divert our attention.

Peace

 

[Church_Militant]

Talk about being gullible, when was it that you drank the kool-aid? Seriously, you don’t ask the fox, “are any chickens are missing from the henhouse,” if you want a truthful answer!
** **

---

I’ve seen the histories on both sides and I agree with post 224…
You’re not honest…and I will ignore your posts from now on. I despise liars and the way cowards invent them to make themselves look better. As you accuse us, you believe only what you wanna believe.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Talk about being gullible, when was it that you drank the kool-aid? Seriously, you don’t ask the fox, “are any chickens are missing from the henhouse,” if you want a truthful answer!
** **

This is a round about way of saying the same thing I was told not too long ago. “If you want the truth about Catholicism the only place you can find it is in anti-Catholic sources”.

I kid you not, that’s direct quote!!!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Church_Militant]

Catholic4aReasn:

This is a round about way of saying the same thing I was told not too long ago. “If you want the truth about Catholicism the only place you can find it is in anti-Catholic sources”.

I kid you not, that’s direct quote!!!

In Christ,
Nancy

The same old lame non-sequitur. The fact is that they simply haven’t the guts to really study what the real Catholics say…they’d rather get their ideas from some second hand bigot who doesn’t know what he’s talkin’ about and then boost their ego by attacking Catholics with lies and ludicrous allegations. Then of course they consider themselves some sort of expert on Catholicism and come into OUR forum and unload on us. To be 100% honest…it makes me wanna puke.

 

[exrc]

dennisknapp:

We do agree if:

Born again: The instantaneous birth of ones spirit, by baptism through the Holy Spirit. Also, the reversal of the damage caused by the first Adam,( i.e.) which was instantaneous spiritual death upon the act of one sin. Essentially becomming spiritually alive.

If we can agree on this then we can indeed move forward.

I don’t see the difference in the wording, but if it is o.k. with you I can also agree. This is providing you mean that we are baptized by the Spirit unto life, and into the body of Christ. Again, we are not discussing** what provokes** the Spirit to baptize us, but what it procures o.k.?

I say it is faith alone, and you say it is faith plus water baptism(normatively) Right?

1.We are now adopted sons of God

John tells us that we now are sons of God. Could you tell me what we were before that? Who’s sons were we?

2.We are part of the holy nation, and royal priests
Peter tells us that we are all priests, what does this mean , and what are our priestly duties? How were Levitical priests able to become priests?

Thanks for cooperating in a meaningful discussion.
**

**

 

[dcdurel]

Ever read about the Inquisition?
:tsktsk:

Same as before. There were many inquisitions. The Spanish inquisition was by the Spanish goverment, and it put people to death, not the Church. The Goverment used Catholic theologians to determine who were Catholics heretics. Once determined the Spanish goverment put people to death. The Church never taught heretics were to be put to death. They had other inquisitions the Church started because some ex Catholic priests were members of the illuminati and were masquerading as Catholics. The Church urged that they be kicked out the country, because in this heresy suicide was encourged and men were urged to abandon their wives and families and take up fornication instead. The goverments began to kick these people out the country, these people revolted, the goverments fought back and considered them as enemies, and these goverments began executions and torture. NOT THE CHURCH.
The Catholic Church has not teaching and has never had a teaching that heretics are to be put to death. And by the way, Protestants are outside the Church thus cannot be considered heretics. Only Catholics can be heretics.

 

[Philthy]

MariaG:

I believe it would be covered under baptism of desire? I wondered why baptism of desire would not apply to infants, because we are all born with a desire to know God, but I was told I was wrong.

But we are trying to define what born again means.

The Catholic Church defines it as Baptism. Even an infant can be born again into the family of God. This is both Biblical and historical.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

Sorry to butt in here so late, but you guys are spinning in circles. Have you considered yet that the Catholic “baptism of desire” is essentially equivalent to Spokenwords “born again” concept? In attempting to define “born again” it appears that at first MariaG would like to exclusively define it as Baptism of water, but that is unnecessarily limited in scope. this is not to imply that one should purposely avoid baptism of water, but you guys seem to be talking about similar topics using different words - gee, isn’t that why we started this thread?!

Phil

 

[John1717]

Church Militant:

The same old lame non-sequitur. The fact is that they simply haven’t the guts to really study what the real Catholics say…they’d rather get their ideas from some second hand bigot who doesn’t know what he’s talkin’ about and then boost their ego by attacking Catholics with lies and ludicrous allegations. Then of course they consider themselves some sort of expert on Catholicism and come into OUR forum and unload on us. To be 100% honest…it makes me wanna puke.

Are you so naive that you believe that the Catholic Church would express the whole truth on a matter of history that reflects so poorly upon itself? It would be like asking Saddam how many Kurds he exterminated or Nazi’s how manyJews were killed, and then expecting a truthful answer!

Is there any source of information, that isn’t Catholic, that you accept? How about the papal Bull of Innocent IV - Ad Extirpanda

The Inquisition properly so called did not come into existence until 1231, with the constitution Excommunicamus of Pope Gregory IX…
Copyright © Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, Microsoft Corporation, Inquisition
… Pope Gregory IX in 1231 instituted the papal Inquisition for the apprehension and trial of heretics.
Copyright © 1994-2000 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., Inquisition

… In Italy Emperor Frederick II, as early as 22 November, 1220 (Mon. Germ., II, 243), issued a rescript against heretics, conceived, however quite in the spirit of Innocent III, and Honorius III commissioned his legates to see to the enforcement in Italian cities of both the canonical decrees of 1215 and the imperial legislation of 1220. From the foregoing it cannot be doubted that up to 1224 there was no imperial law ordering, or presupposing as legal, the burning of heretics. The rescript for Lombardy of 1224 (Mon. Germ., II, 252; cf. ibid., 288) is accordingly the first law in which death by fire is contemplated (cf. Ficker, op. cit., 196)… The imperial rescripts of 1220 and 1224 were adopted into ecclesiastical criminal law in 1231, and were soon applied at Rome. It was then that the Inquisition of the Middle Ages came into being.
New Advent (Roman) Catholic Encyclopedia, Inquisition

Con’t

 

[John1717]

Church Militant:

The same old lame non-sequitur. The fact is that they simply haven’t the guts to really study what the real Catholics say…they’d rather get their ideas from some second hand bigot who doesn’t know what he’s talkin’ about and then boost their ego by attacking Catholics with lies and ludicrous allegations. Then of course they consider themselves some sort of expert on Catholicism and come into OUR forum and unload on us. To be 100% honest…it makes me wanna puke.

The principle of toleration was unknown, or at best only here and there a voice was raised against the death penalty … . The opinion came to prevail, that what disease is to the body that heresy is to the Church, and the most merciful procedure was to cut off the heretic. No distinction was made between the man and the error. The popes were chiefly responsible for the policy which acted upon this view…. § 79
¶ … From the latter part of the twelfth century, councils advocated the death penalty, popes insisted upon it, and Thomas Aquinas elaborately defended it. Heresy … was a crime the Church could not tolerate…§ 86
History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff, Volume V, Chapter 10, §§ 79, 86

It wasn’t long after the papacy authorized the Inquisition that it authorized torture as a method of carrying it out. ‘Pope’ Innocent IV, in his bull ad extirpanda (1252) ordered the civil magistrates to extort from all heretics by torture a confession of their own guilt and a betrayal of all their accomplices.

… The use of torture to obtain confessions and the names of other heretics was at first rejected but was authorized in 1252 by Innocent IV…
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., Inquisition, Copyright © 1994-2000

… Soon after the Inquisition was instituted, Pope Innocent IV, influenced by the revival of Roman law, issued a decree (in 1252) that called on civil magistrates to have persons accused of heresy tortured to elicit confessions against themselves and others; this was probably the earliest instance of ecclesiastical sanction of this mode of examination.
Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, torture, Copyright © 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation

Ad Extirpanda effectively established a police state in Italy and is noteworthy for having introduced the use of torture into inquisitorial procedure, and for explicitly condoning burning alive at the stake for relapsed heretics. Resistance amongst secular lords was overcome by a brilliant diplomatic manoeuvre: Innocent incorporated the Sicilian Constitutions of 1239 into a subsidiary Bull, Cum adversus haereticam, thus turning Frederick’s legislation against the heretics and Ghibellines that the Emperor had previously protected…
¶ Later Bulls served to refine this legislation, and it is interesting to see amendments being made constantly in response to specific demands or problems that arose in the work of inquisitors: personal letters written by the Pope carry the force of Bulls. But Innocent IV had, with this single stroke, instituted a system of repression that was then honed by Alexander IV (1254-1261), Urban IV (1261-1265), and Clement IV (1265-1268), himself an ex-inquisitor, and finally codified by Boniface VIII in the Liber Sextus of 1298. The provisions of the Bull were accorded theological respectability by St Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica.
The Inquisition - Hammer of Heresy, pp. 41-42, by Edward Burman, Copyright © 1984 … torture … . was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull Ad exstirpanda of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum—i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life…
New Advent (Roman) Catholic Encyclopedia, Inquisition

You can continue in your attempt to whitewast history but the truth is still out there for those willing to accept it!

 

[John1717]

Church Militant:

The same old lame non-sequitur. The fact is that they simply haven’t the guts to really study what the real Catholics say…they’d rather get their ideas from some second hand bigot who doesn’t know what he’s talkin’ about and then boost their ego by attacking Catholics with lies and ludicrous allegations. Then of course they consider themselves some sort of expert on Catholicism and come into OUR forum and unload on us. To be 100% honest…it makes me wanna puke.

The principle of toleration was unknown, or at best only here and there a voice was raised against the death penalty … . The opinion came to prevail, that what disease is to the body that heresy is to the Church, and the most merciful procedure was to cut off the heretic. No distinction was made between the man and the error. The popes were chiefly responsible for the policy which acted upon this view… § 79
¶ … From the latter part of the twelfth century, councils advocated the death penalty, popes insisted upon it, and Thomas Aquinas elaborately defended it. Heresy … was a crime the Church could not tolerate…§ 86
History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff, Volume V, Chapter 10, §§ 79, 86

It wasn’t long after the papacy authorized the Inquisition that it authorized torture as a method of carrying it out. ‘Pope’ Innocent IV, in his bull ad extirpanda (1252) ordered the civil magistrates to extort from all heretics by torture a confession of their own guilt and a betrayal of all their accomplices.

… The use of torture to obtain confessions and the names of other heretics was at first rejected but was authorized in 1252 by Innocent IV…
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., Inquisition, Copyright © 1994-2000

… Soon after the Inquisition was instituted, Pope Innocent IV, influenced by the revival of Roman law, issued a decree (in 1252) that called on civil magistrates to have persons accused of heresy tortured to elicit confessions against themselves and others; this was probably the earliest instance of ecclesiastical sanction of this mode of examination.
Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, torture, Copyright © 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation

Ad Extirpanda effectively established a police state in Italy and is noteworthy for having introduced the use of torture into inquisitorial procedure, and for explicitly condoning burning alive at the stake for relapsed heretics. Resistance amongst secular lords was overcome by a brilliant diplomatic manoeuvre: Innocent incorporated the Sicilian Constitutions of 1239 into a subsidiary Bull, Cum adversus haereticam, thus turning Frederick’s legislation against the heretics and Ghibellines that the Emperor had previously protected…
¶ Later Bulls served to refine this legislation, and it is interesting to see amendments being made constantly in response to specific demands or problems that arose in the work of inquisitors: personal letters written by the Pope carry the force of Bulls. But Innocent IV had, with this single stroke, instituted a system of repression that was then honed by Alexander IV (1254-1261), Urban IV (1261-1265), and Clement IV (1265-1268), himself an ex-inquisitor, and finally codified by Boniface VIII in the Liber Sextus of 1298. The provisions of the Bull were accorded theological respectability by St Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica.
The Inquisition - Hammer of Heresy, pp. 41-42, by Edward Burman, Copyright © 1984 … torture … . was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull Ad exstirpanda of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum—i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life…
New Advent (Roman) Catholic Encyclopedia, Inquisition

You can continue to believe the whitewashed history presented by the Roman Church or you can believe that these supposed infalible men did nothing wrong!

Now let’s get off this rabbit trail and get back to the subject of this thread-Define Born Again!

 

[John1717]

Born again: The instantaneous birth of ones spirit, upon the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Also, the reversal of the damage caused by the first Adam,( i.e.) which was instantaneous spiritual death upon the act of one sin. Essentially becomming spiritually alive

Now that we agree ,let’s talk about what it has procured for us.

I agree with exrc’s definition so let’s get on with it.
:yup:

 

[Church_Militant]

Inquisition

You can continue to believe the whitewashed history presented by the Roman Church or you can believe that these supposed infalible men did nothing wrong! Read what it says…IT WAS THE GOVERNMENTS … You also fail to mention that the Popes spoke out against all those punishments…shamefully dishonest of you.

Now let’s get off this rabbit trail and get back to the subject of this thread-Define Born Again!

I just checked this guys quotes on New advent…They are TOTALLY out of context…he is dishonest and I recommend that you see the entire entry about the inquisition. And then I recommend that no one else answer him since all his posts are just so much A/C drivel.

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/AN878.gif

 

[John1717]

Philthy:

Sorry to butt in here so late, but you guys are spinning in circles. Have you considered yet that the Catholic “baptism of desire” is essentially equivalent to Spokenwords “born again” concept? In attempting to define “born again” it appears that at first MariaG would like to exclusively define it as Baptism of water, but that is unnecessarily limited in scope. this is not to imply that one should purposely avoid baptism of water, but you guys seem to be talking about similar topics using different words - gee, isn’t that why we started this thread?!

Phil

I think the biggest problem we have is the definition of baptism!

I would submit that here are two types of baptism:

---

**1. The most important type and the one required for salvation is Baptism By The Holy Spirit. **

**2. The second type, Water Baptism, IS NOT required for salvation but is still extremely important. **

---

The most important thing: When you accept Jesus into your life, repent your sins, ask forgiveness, acknowledge that Jesus is the son of God, born of the virgin Mary, was crucified, died on the cross for us, rose on the third day, and is our true Lord and Savior you will receive the Holy Spirit. (This is baptism by the Holy Spirit). Many of us call this being saved and born again.

The second most important thing: That you realize by doing the above you have established a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You then have to cultivate that friendship through prayer, worship, praise, studying the bible, and by following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

**Water Baptism is not a requirement for salvation. The only examples of Baptism in the New Testament involves adults. Paul, the most prolific apostle who wrote most of the New Testament rarely used water Baptism as a ministry. **

**We do not believe that it is necessary to baptize infants. Baptism should occur after a youth or adult is saved and born again, decides they want to become baptized, and asks their pastor, leader of the church or other Christian for assistance.
** **We do not believe infants or mentally challenged individuals are denied salvation because they have not been saved and born again, received the Holy Spirit as a result or have not had water baptism… A person needs to be aware of and understand the rules before he/she can be held responsible by them. Those who are incapable of making that decision or any other concerning being saved and born again **will not be penalized.

My definition of Baptism=The Outward Declaration of an Inner Transformation!

 

[dcdurel]

John1717:

It wasn’t long after the papacy authorized the Inquisition that it authorized torture as a method of carrying it out. ‘Pope’ Innocent IV, in his bull ad extirpanda (1252) ordered the civil magistrates to extort from all heretics by torture a confession of their own guilt and a betrayal of all their accomplices.

Please quote the entire bull “ad extirpanda” in which the Pope ordered torture.
You can’t because the bull never said such a thing.

The opinions of St. Thomas Aquinas are not Church teachings. ST. Thomas was not a member of the magisterium, and was not infallible and he said he subjected everything he wrote to the judgment of the Church. The fact the St. Thomas may have believed in the death of heretics means that was his belief. ** The teaching of the Church was always to kick them out the Church, for no one is to forced to become a Catholic. That is Church dogma. **

Second, legal and govermental actions by the Popes are not Church teaching.

After all, the Popes allowed Arian Bishops to remain in the Church despite the fact that these were Catholic Bishops who promoted and defended the teaching that Jesus was not God.
But the Popes taught Jesus was God and approved the Council of Nicea which affirmed this teaching.

Thus the Church teaches that the Popes do not teach by their actions, for all Popes are sinners.

Popes only teach when they proclaim teachings related to faith or morals, when teaching as head of the Church, for all Christians.

You do just as all anti-Catholics do. You find sinful actions by Popes, Cardinial, bishops, etc. Then you imply they acted sinfully because there must have been Church teachings somewhere. Of course you can never find these Church teachings. Then you knock down the straw horse (mythical “Church teachings”) and thus proclaim the Church taught error.

The Church has never taught error and protestants, anti-Catholics, athiests, etc have tried for 2000 years and they have never been able to find a single teaching document, despite encyclicals, papal bulls, apostolic letters, Church councils etc. that would fill up a library.

Try again. It is amusing.

 

[John1717]

Church Militant:

I just checked this guys quotes on New advent…They are TOTALLY out of context…he is dishonest and I recommend that you see the entire entry about the inquisition. And then I recommend that no one else answer him since all his posts are just so much A/C drivel.

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/AN878.gif

It wasn’t long after the papacy authorized the Inquisition that it authorized torture as a method of carrying it out. ‘Pope’ Innocent IV, in his bull ad extirpanda (1252) ordered the civil magistrates to extort from all heretics by torture a confession of their own guilt and a betrayal of all their accomplices.

… The use of torture to obtain confessions and the names of other heretics was at first rejected but was authorized in 1252 by Innocent IV….
Encycloedia Britannica, Inc., Inquisition, Copyright © 1994-2000

… Soon after the Inquisition was instituted, Pope Innocent IV, influenced by the revival of Roman law, issued a decree (in 1252) that called on civil magistrates to have persons accused of heresy tortured to elicit confessions against themselves and others; this was probably the earliest instance of ecclesiastical sanction of this mode of examination.
Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, torture, Copyright © 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation

Ad Extirpanda effectively established a police state in Italy and is noteworthy for having introduced the use of torture into inquisitorial procedure, and for explicitly condoning burning alive at the stake for relapsed heretics. Resistance amongst secular lords was overcome by a brilliant diplomatic manoeuvre: Innocent incorporated the Sicilian Constitutions of 1239 into a subsidiary Bull, Cum adversus haereticam, thus turning Frederick’s legislation against the heretics and Ghibellines that the Emperor had previously protected…
¶ Later Bulls served to refine this legislation, and it is interesting to see amendments being made constantly in response to specific demands or problems that arose in the work of inquisitors: personal letters written by the Pope carry the force of Bulls. But Innocent IV had, with this single stroke, instituted a system of repression that was then honed by Alexander IV (1254-1261), Urban IV (1261-1265), and Clement IV (1265-1268), himself an ex-inquisitor, and finally codified by Boniface VIII in the Liber Sextus of 1298. The provisions of the Bull were accorded theological respectability by St Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica.

Are you saying that all sources of information, outside of Catholic sources, are anti-Catholic? These statements are not my own but have been obtained from reputable sources. Your hostility is misdirected! Don’t blame me for the record of history!

It is obvious to me that anyone who disagrees with your position is labled as an anti-Catholic bigot. Rather than defend your position, you resort to name calling, how sad!

I wish to continue the discussion on the original topic but you continue to berate me for my opposing viewpoint. I thought this was the reason for these fourms, to hear both sides - “Fair and Balanced”

 

[John1717]

dcdurel:

Please quote the entire bull “ad extirpanda” in which the Pope ordered torture.
You can’t because the bull never said such a thing.

The opinions of St. Thomas Aquinas are not Church teachings. ST. Thomas was not a member of the magisterium, and was not infallible and he said he subjected everything he wrote to the judgment of the Church. The fact the St. Thomas may have believed in the death of heretics means that was his belief. **The teaching of the Church was always to kick them out the Church, for no one is to forced to become a Catholic. That is Church dogma. **

Second, legal and govermental actions by the Popes are not Church teaching.

After all, the Popes allowed Arian Bishops to remain in the Church despite the fact that these were Catholic Bishops who promoted and defended the teaching that Jesus was not God.
But the Popes taught Jesus was God and approved the Council of Nicea which affirmed this teaching.

Thus the Church teaches that the Popes do not teach by their actions, for all Popes are sinners.

Popes only teach when they proclaim teachings related to faith or morals, when teaching as head of the Church, for all Christians.

You do just as all anti-Catholics do. You find sinful actions by Popes, Cardinial, bishops, etc. Then you imply they acted sinfully because there must have been Church teachings somewhere. Of course you can never find these Church teachings. Then you knock down the straw horse (mythical “Church teachings”) and thus proclaim the Church taught error.

The Church has never taught error and protestants, anti-Catholics, athiests, etc have tried for 2000 years and they have never been able to find a single teaching document, despite encyclicals, papal bulls, apostolic letters, Church councils etc. that would fill up a library.

Try again. It is amusing.

My friend, if you believe **The Church has never taught error, **then you are indeed blinded by your indoctrination!

:yup: