Discussing Mary

[justasking4]

guanophore;2741247]In terms of their place in time, yes. But Mary has appeared to even more than Jesus did, even as He said “greater things than I do will you do, since I go to the Father”. However, since you do not accept any of this testimony, you must purport that it does not exist!

You have no way to know with any certainty that these appearences are Mary. It could easily be something else.

Yes, there was. I agree with you that they considered the writings inspired and innerrant, but also the Sacred Oral Tradition. Jesus believed and taught this way, which is why we do so today.

What “Sacred Oral Tradition” that is not recorded in scripture are you referring to? Was there a “Sacred Oral Tradition” in the 2nd century? If so, what was it?

Why is that? Why would Jesus promise, made “until the end of the age” suddenly become null and void?

What you fail to realize is that false teachers would come into the church and deciever many. Jesus never promised that error would not come into the church. Read the 1st 3 chapters of Revelations and you will see error.

The full Divine Revelation is contained in the Sacred Writings, the Sacred Oral Traditions, and the Teaching Authority of the Church appointed by Jesus.

So you believe that Sacred Oral Tradition and Teaching Authority are inspiried-inerrant?

You only say this because you don’t understand the scriptures the way they were written. The NT is the reflection of the Apostolic Teaching, not the source of it. You do not see the Apostolic Teachings in the NT because you have rejected the Authority that Jesus appointed to guide His Church, and to produce those scriptures to which you cling so closely.

I do understand a lot what the catholic church teaches and in many cases you do not see any apostolic teaching (from the apostles) in them. Mary’s assumption and mother of the church are but 2 doctrines not taught by the apostles.

The NT is derived from the Sacred Traditions. Not all of them are are written there, and it was never intended to be a complete compendium of the Traditions. As you can see from my signature, from the beginning, there were two sources.

How are you defining “Tradition”?

 

[Larry1700]

Yes. Any honor given to Mary honors her Son.

Then why not honor the Son directly, by bowing during the part about the Crucifixion?

 

[Axion]

What “Sacred Oral Tradition” that is not recorded in scripture are you referring to? Was there a “Sacred Oral Tradition” in the 2nd century? If so, what was it?

read the thread.

What you fail to realize is that false teachers would come into the church and deciever many. Jesus never promised that error would not come into the church. Read the 1st 3 chapters of Revelations and you will see error.

No. false teachers would appear. they would never take over the Church.
In fact Jesus said “the Gates of hell would never prevail against the Church” and that his Spirit would be with it for ever.

It is those who say that Jesus’s promises failed (and almost immediately) who deny what Jesus said

So you believe that Sacred Oral Tradition and Teaching Authority are inspiried-inerrant?

Yes.

I do understand a lot what the catholic church teaches and in many cases you do not see any apostolic teaching (from the apostles) in them. Mary’s assumption and mother of the church are but 2 doctrines not taught by the apostles.

So again. I ask you to produce your clearly newly-discovered compendium of every doctrine ever taught by the Apostles.

You can’t? Then your statement above is nonsense.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Bowing during the Creed – for Mary or for Jesus?

I’m a Baptist convert, and pray the Rosary daily, but it still bothers me to see some people bow during the portion of the Creed about Jesus, “who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

Since all other portions of the Creed relate to either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, and pertain to creation, crucifixion, etc., the only conclusion I can come to is that the bow is for Mary.

I know the Church condemns worship of Mary, and does not place her on the same level as the Holy Trinity, so the bow really bothers me. In addition, I think it sends the wrong message to uninformed Catholics, as well as non-Catholics.

Am I missing something?

Maybe a little instruction is in order:

Bowing of heads during the Profession of Faith **I noticed that during the Profession of Faith some priests, deacons and people bow their heads at a certain part. Why do they bow their heads and are we supposed to bow our heads? **

You are very observant. There is a part in the Profession of Faith (Nicene Creed) where the Rubrics say one should bow their head. First let me explain Rubrics. The word Rubric comes from ancient times meaning written with red earth and referred to the red earth used to mark where to cut a piece of wood. Today it refers to the red print found in the Sacramentary or Ritual Books used by the priest and deacons. The red print explains to the presider of any Ritual what he should be doing. An example would be: in the middle of a prayer you may see a priest or deacon bless themselves. In the Ritural Book, you might see a small red cross; this tells the priest or deacon that a sign of the cross should be made at the point in the ceremony.

In the Profession of Faith, the Sacramentary has, in red “All bow during these two lines;” followed by these two lines

*“by the power of the Holy Spirit *
*He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.” *

We bow our heads out of respect for the Incarnation. We honor our belief that the Divine came down from heaven and became human, being born of the Virgin Mary. Even though it isn’t done all the time, the practice of bowing one’s head during this part of the Creed is coming back. It has always been part of the Creed and over the years it has slowly disappeared, a new view of Liturgical practices will probably bring it back as common practice.

As for the second part of the question, if one should bow their head right now, if you feel comfortable doing it then by all means do it. You may see more and more people bowing their heads at this point. I always bow during these two lines. Remember it doesn’t have to be a deep bow.

Source: saintroseoflimachurch.org/content/view/62/84/

 

[NotWorthy]

The incarnation is the greatest event in Human History, let alone Salvation History.

THAT is why we bow during the Nicene Creed!

Good point, Joey!

 

[justasking4]

Axion;2747560]read the thread.

What thread?

No. false teachers would appear. they would never take over the Church.

Thats not what 2 Peter 2:1-2 or Acts 20:29-30 and 2 Timothy 4:3-4 teach.

In fact Jesus said “the Gates of hell would never prevail against the Church” and that his Spirit would be with it for ever.

This does not mean the church would be incapble of teaching false doctrines.

It is those who say that Jesus’s promises failed (and almost immediately) who deny what Jesus said

Quote:justasking4
So you believe that Sacred Oral Tradition and Teaching Authority are inspiried-inerrant?

Yes.

Can you give me a couple of examples of “Sacred Oral Tradition and Teaching Authority are inspiried-inerrant”?

So again. I ask you to produce your clearly newly-discovered compendium of every doctrine ever taught by the Apostles.

You can’t? Then your statement above is nonsense.
Not so. Study the NT. It is there that we have what the apostles taught.

 

[guanophore]

Bowing during the Creed – for Mary or for Jesus?

I’m a Baptist convert, and pray the Rosary daily, but it still bothers me to see some people bow during the portion of the Creed about Jesus, “who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

Since all other portions of the Creed relate to either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, and pertain to creation, crucifixion, etc., the only conclusion I can come to is that the bow is for Mary.

I know the Church condemns worship of Mary, and does not place her on the same level as the Holy Trinity, so the bow really bothers me. In addition, I think it sends the wrong message to uninformed Catholics, as well as non-Catholics.

Am I missing something?

The incarnation principle is a complex and deep one. We believe that God has condescended Himself to become human, so that humanity may partake in divinity.

Phil 2:5-8
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross."

Jesus left his heavenly dwelling to enter the womb of Mary,and subsequently gave Himself for us on the cross. Who cannot bow?

 

[guanophore]

Why shouldn’t? If the catholic cannot err, then it should also follow that it can not sin either.

This can only be true if one does not believe in free will. If we cannot sin against the truth, then we really have no free will. This is the Calvanist position. Jesus said He would preserve His Church from error. He did not take away the individual members’ free will to sin against Him, or the Church. Or do you believe that all of Jesus’ teachings are not valid because Judas betrayed Him?

 

[guanophore]

You have no way to know with any certainty that these appearences are Mary. It could easily be something else.

Apparently you have not studied the apparitions. No one who says “Jesus is Lord” is from “somthing else”.

What “Sacred Oral Tradition” that is not recorded in scripture are you referring to?

The one that says that Mary was assumed into heaven to be with her Son.

Was there a “Sacred Oral Tradition” in the 2nd century? If so, what was it?

Well, of course?! Where do you think you got your NT? The whole NT is produced from Sacred Tradition. The whole canon (old and new) is from Sacred Tradition. It is from that tradition that we learn the Apostles baptized infants, revered Mary, and believed that Jesus really gave us his Body and Blood.

What you fail to realize is that false teachers would come into the church and deciever many. Jesus never promised that error would not come into the church. Read the 1st 3 chapters of Revelations and you will see error.

Jesus promised to lead his disciples into all truth. Either He is a liar, or He kept His promise. I guess that is up to you to decide. Jesus did not promise that error would not occur. He promised that He would preserve them in all truth. Through the ages we have always known those who are in error by looking at those who have departed from the Teachings of Jesus.

So you believe that Sacred Oral Tradition and Teaching Authority are inspiried-inerrant?

Absolutely. Jesus said “my word is Truth”, and we believe Him.

I do understand a lot what the catholic church teaches and in many cases you do not see any apostolic teaching (from the apostles) in them.

Well, speak for yourself!

YOU do not see it because you have rejected 2/3 of the Divine Revelation. You have fallen for the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and cannot accept the rest of the revelation.

Mary’s assumption and mother of the church are but 2 doctrines not taught by the apostles.

You think not, because the only Apostolic evidence you have is your bible. Catholics (and Orthodox) know differently, because we have never stopped embracing the Sacred Tradition, from which the Scripture was produced.

How are you defining “Tradition”?

See my signature? That part of Divine Revelation not contained in the “letters”.

2 Thess 3:6-7

6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in **accord with the tradition that you received **from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you…"

That divinely inspired example and message that has been handed down to us from the Apostles.

1 Cor 11:2

2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

The behavior, belief, and manner of life that was demonstrated by the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

Thats not what 2 Peter 2:1-2 or Acts 20:29-30 and 2 Timothy 4:3-4 teach.

Well, let’s look at these, shall we?

2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled." 2 Peter 2:1-2

Here the Apostle prophesies that false teachers will arise. He says that “because of them, the way of truth will be reviled”. This makes it clear that there are 1) false teachers, and 2) the way of truth.

The Catholic Church, the way of truth, is still reviled today, by such as yourself, because of the false teachers that have arisen. The emergence of falseness does not take away truth. The betrayal of Judas does not nullify the truth of the gospel of Christ.

Read further down the passage:
15 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; 2 Peter 2:15

Clearly, there is a right way, and a stray way. The fact that some go astray does not make the right way disappear.

29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified." Acts 20:28-32

Paul speaks of the fierce wolves, not sparing the flock. After his warning, he commend the disciples to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified."

Are you saying that the Word of God’s grace is insufficient? Did God’s grace, or His Word somehow fall short of giving the true disciples an inheritance? Was God’s arm too short?

2 Tim 4:3-5
3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. 5 As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry.

Do you mean to say that Timothy was unable, by the grace of God, to remain steady? are you saying Timothy did NOT fulfill his ministry? Do you mean to say that he failed to persist in the truth, whereby those who had not turned away from it would be known?

3 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
John 16:13-15

This does not mean the church would be incapble of teaching false doctrines.

Well…what do YOU think it means? How can the Spirit guide the Church into all truth, and at the same time, allow the teaching of false doctrine?

On the contrary, we believe it means just that, and that "the
church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
1 Tim 3:15-16 has prevailed against the gates of hell. Those that teach false doctrine end up outside.

Can you give me a couple of examples of “Sacred Oral Tradition and Teaching Authority are inspiried-inerrant”?

Yes! One of them is above, that the Church is protected from teaching error by the Spirit of Christ.

Several relate to the topic of the thread. Mary is “full of grace” which means she is without sin. She was assumed into heaven by her beloved Son.

The contents of the Bible were infallibly determined by the same Authority that declared the two above.

John Chapter 6 is to be taken literally.

So again. I ask you to produce your clearly newly-discovered compendium of every doctrine ever taught by the Apostles.

justasking, the compendium of Apostolic teaching is 2000 years old. The fact that you have just now “newly discovered” it does not make it “new” to everyone else.

You can’t? Then your statement above is nonsense.

1 Cor 1:24-25
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men,"

14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.1 Cor 2:14

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

JA4, How long did the Oral Tradition exist before some one sat down a either wrote Genesis or compiled separate texts into one known now as Genesis?

 

[juliamajor]

JA4, How long did the Oral Tradition exist before some one sat down a either wrote Genesis or compiled separate texts into one known now as Genesis?

The answer is a “very long time”. But JAA either doesn’t believe that or thinks the bible(KJV of course!) was handed down all written out -ready to be preached! The Jewish people have a very strong belief in oral tradition- and oral methods of transmission were very common among people who were mainly illiterate -why this is so difficult to believe or grasp-I don’t know ECF are always referring to it!
There are no original of any book of the Bible-every one is a copy of a copy of a copy etc.So as authenticity goes it’s ORAL TRADITION that determined that

 

[justasking4]

JA4, How long did the Oral Tradition exist before some one sat down a either wrote Genesis or compiled separate texts into one known now as Genesis?

I have no idea.

Who do you think wrote Genesis?

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

guanophore;2755800]Well, let’s look at these, shall we?

2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled." 2 Peter 2:1-2

Here the Apostle prophesies that false teachers will arise. He says that “because of them, the way of truth will be reviled”. This makes it clear that there are 1) false teachers, and 2) the way of truth.

The Catholic Church, the way of truth, is still reviled today, by such as yourself, because of the false teachers that have arisen. The emergence of falseness does not take away truth. The betrayal of Judas does not nullify the truth of the gospel of Christ.

You may want to look at where the false teachers will appear. In
2 Peter 2:1 it says " just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies,… These teachers will be of your own kind and not necessarily from the outside. It will be teachers who profess to be catholic who will teach false doctrines.

Read further down the passage:
15 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; 2 Peter 2:15

Clearly, there is a right way, and a stray way. The fact that some go astray does not make the right way disappear.

29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified." Acts 20:28-32

Paul speaks of the fierce wolves, not sparing the flock. After his warning, he commend the disciples to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified."

Was Paul referring to the marian doctrines when these words were written?

Are you saying that the Word of God’s grace is insufficient?

What do you mean by “the Word of God’s grace”?

Did God’s grace, or His Word somehow fall short of giving the true disciples an inheritance? Was God’s arm too short?

Of course not. That’s why i asked does a person need to believe the marian doctrines to be saved. Since the scriptures don’t teach them, does a person need to have some kind of relationship to Mary to be forgiven or mature in Christ?

2 Tim 4:3-5
3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. 5 As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry.

Do you mean to say that Timothy was unable, by the grace of God, to remain steady? are you saying Timothy did NOT fulfill his ministry? Do you mean to say that he failed to persist in the truth, whereby those who had not turned away from it would be known?

No. The passage you quote here is a warning about those who will “4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths”. In regards to the marian doctrines, these are myths since the scriptures don’t teach such things about her. Study the scriptures and you will not find any apostles teaching that she was assumed into heaven, queen of heaven, prayed to for help, immaculate conception etc. These are all the speculations of men.

 

[justasking4]

Part2

3 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
John 16:13-15

Well…what do YOU think it means? How can the Spirit guide the Church into all truth, and at the same time, allow the teaching of false doctrine?

Look at the context where this verse appears in John. Its to His immediate disciples. There is no mention of any successors here.

On the contrary, we believe it means just that, and that "the
church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
1 Tim 3:15-16 has prevailed against the gates of hell. Those that teach false doctrine end up outside.

Yes! One of them is above, that the Church is protected from teaching error by the Spirit of Christ.

Jesus never made such a promise. Take any of the verses used to support this in context and you will not find Him promising this.

Several relate to the topic of the thread. Mary is “full of grace” which means she is without sin. She was assumed into heaven by her beloved Son.

The contents of the Bible were infallibly determined by the same Authority that declared the two above.

John Chapter 6 is to be taken literally.

Is there some offical source in the catholic church that says this about these things as being Sacred Oral Tradition and Teaching Authority are inspiried-inerrant"?

justasking, the compendium of Apostolic teaching is 2000 years old. The fact that you have just now “newly discovered” it does not make it “new” to everyone else.

So is there a list of these teachings for the past 2000 years that i can study?

1 Cor 1:24-25
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men,"

14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.1 Cor 2:14

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2755744]This can only be true if one does not believe in free will. If we cannot sin against the truth, then we really have no free will. This is the Calvanist position.

Jesus said He would preserve His Church from error.

There is no such promise to the church. History also shows that the church many times.

He did not take away the individual members’ free will to sin against Him, or the Church.

This is what is confusing with this claim of the catholic church. It claims it can’t teach error becasue Jesus promised it would not and yet the power of Jesus can’t promise to keep its leaders from sin.

Or do you believe that all of Jesus’ teachings are not valid because Judas betrayed Him?

No. The truth of the gospel is not dependent on any man. Just because men do teach falsely does not mean truth has been destroyed. Even in the catholic church which adheres to false teachings is still able to teach the truth at various times. Same thing applies to protestant churches.

 

[Mannyfit75]

There is no such promise to the church. History also shows that the church many times.

History shows the Church leaders are impeccable. History also show that when the Church teaches on matters on faith and morals, she cannot error. The Holy Spirit preserves that.

This is what is confusing with this claim of the catholic church. It claims it can’t teach error becasue Jesus promised it would not and yet the power of Jesus can’t promise to keep its leaders from sin.

Jesus said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. He also said that he will send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church in all truths. I take the words of Christ over someone who have no authority to criticized His original Church.

No. The truth of the gospel is not dependent on any man. Just because men do teach falsely does not mean truth has been destroyed. Even in the catholic church which adheres to false teachings is still able to teach the truth at various times. Same thing applies to protestant churches.

True Gospel is living the faith. There is a old saying, “We live by faith not by sight.” The Catholic Church never taught falsely. She has protected the truth from heresies of Gnosticism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Sabellianism, Marcionism, etc.

Protestant churches falls apart in their many doctrines. They live by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Since each pastors can independently intrepret Scripture, he has made himself a type of 'pope." If someone disagree on doctrinal issues, that elder leaves and forms another Church.

It is different in the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church doctrine and dogmas are defined in order to preserve the truth. The soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit, and for 2,000 yrs, the Holy Spirit has protected the Church from all forms of heresy.

 

[guanophore]

How about this quote from the article…
" …Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.
Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7,9; 3:6,9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin…
The problem is his application of grace in regards to Mary being sinless. Grace never means to be without sin or devoid of it. In the context of Luke 1:28 it means – To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem.
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary .

The other problem with his reasoning is the context. The angel is giving Mary a greeting with the meaning that she is highly favored to bring Christ into the world. There is no implication of her being without sin all her life.

Further problems with this is that Mary herself acknowledges her need for a Savior. Neither Jesus or any the apostles claim she was sinless.
These are just some of the problems with so many aspects of the marian doctrines.

"

The angel Gabriel greets Mary with this title, as though it were a proper name. Hail, Full of Grace, instead of saying Hail, Mary. I wonder how Mary appeared to the angels? What does it look like from the other side to be “full of grace”? Anyway, of course Mary acknowledged her need for a savior. She was a faithful Jewess, and she had been taught all the prophesies of the Messiah. No doubt she still had a lot to learn about her own role in salvation history, but she recognized immediately what a great part she had been given within that history.

Number of issues with this:
1- do any of the OT writers ever refer to the mother of the messiah as some kind of ark? 2- In the OT, is any human being ever referred to as a type of ark?

Not that I know of, but there are many types in the OT that we don’t see revealed until the New. The Ark of Noah, for example, as a type of baptism.

3- Since the ark was sacred and as you bring up the case of Uzziah touching the ark irrevenantly, would you apply the same thing to Mary in regards to those who may have mistreated her? Would they to be struck dead?

Fortunately they have not! However, this is the understanding about why Joseph did not have sexual relations with her after Jesus was born. He would have considered her a Holy vessel, not for profane use.

4- Since you claim Mary had to be sinless so Jesus would not be “contaminated” by sin, it would follow that her parents would also have to be sinless. Are you willing to believe that also?

No. But they were righteous, and were saved by grace, through faith.

5 Are you aware that even Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the immaculate conception?

Yes, and neither do the Orthodox.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;2758190]History shows the Church leaders are impeccable.

Are you sure you want to go with this statement? Look at some of the popes in history and you will see what i mean.

History also show that when the Church teaches on matters on faith and morals, she cannot error. The Holy Spirit preserves that.

Did the church err in the case of Joan of Arc and Galieo? Both were considered heretics at the time. Joan was put to death for being a heretic and later declared a saint.
How about the inquisitions which were approved by many popes? Was that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Jesus said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. He also said that he will send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church in all truths.

How does you church infallibly interpret these passages in John? For example what does it say it means to “prevail against the church”?

I take the words of Christ over someone who have no authority to criticized His original Church

Do you ever criticize your church? Are you in ageement with everything it has ever done?

True Gospel is living the faith. There is a old saying, “We live by faith not by sight.” The Catholic Church never taught falsely. She has protected the truth from heresies of Gnosticism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Sabellianism, Marcionism, etc.

These are not the only things you need to contend with though. Was the catholic church teaching rightly when it was a partner with the secular authorties during the middle ages?

Was the catholic church teaching rightly when it supported the tactics used in the inquisitions that was supported by many popes?

Protestant churches falls apart in their many doctrines. They live by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Since each pastors can independently intrepret Scripture, he has made himself a type of 'pope." If someone disagree on doctrinal issues, that elder leaves and forms another Church.

I suppose this is true for some. Actually there is quite a wide agreement on the core doctrines of the faith. For examples all protestants that i’m aware of believe that Christ was God and died for our sins.

Do all catholics believe everything the catholic church teaches?

It is different in the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church doctrine and dogmas are defined in order to preserve the truth. The soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit, and for 2,000 yrs, the Holy Spirit has protected the Church from all forms of heresy.

Much could be said about this. What i see has happened is that for many catholics they are incapable of discerning error in their church primarily becasue they have been told the church can never error.

 

[guanophore]

Are you sure you want to go with this statement? Look at some of the popes in history and you will see what i mean.

I think he left a word out. “not impeccable”

Did the church err in the case of Joan of Arc and Galieo? Both were considered heretics at the time. Joan was put to death for being a heretic and later declared a saint.

Go to the library and search these. You can read the non Jack Chick version.

I think it is imporant to distinguish between the sins of certain members of the Church, even some in positions of authority, and the Official Teaching of the Church. Neither of these cases were related to the Teaching of Faith and Morals.

How about the inquisitions which were approved by many popes? Was that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Looking back, we can sure wonder! It is hard for us, living in modern times, to understand what they were thinking and doing. I am sure there were instances of selfishness, power, and greed involved by some of the individuals.

How does you church infallibly interpret these passages in John? For example what does it say it means to “prevail against the church”?

That the Church is incapable of error in the teaching of faith and morals. That the Spirit will preserve the Body in all truth. That the Soul of the Church is the HS, and therefore, she is divine and incapable of error.

Do you ever criticize your church? Are you in ageement with everything it has ever done?

There is a difference between criticizing the actions of individuals in the church, and the Church itself. Of course there are members that commit deplorable sins. This does not change the perfection of the Teachings. Would you say that Judas, by betraying Jesus, made His teachings invalid?

These are not the only things you need to contend with though. Was the catholic church teaching rightly when it was a partner with the secular authorties during the middle ages?

Indeed, we do! I think there were many leaders in the middle ages, both secular and religious, that were more concerned about worldly matters than they were spritual. I also think that some people did not receive the teaching of Jesus that His kingdom is “not of this world” and confused the Church and State.

Was the catholic church teaching rightly when it supported the tactics used in the inquisitions that was supported by many popes?

Popes and inquisitors are not infallible. It is also difficult for us to judge this from our perspective, because in that day and age, heresy was equated with treason. We have never had that in our lifetimes.

I suppose this is true for some. Actually there is quite a wide agreement on the core doctrines of the faith. For examples all protestants that i’m aware of believe that Christ was God and died for our sins.

Do all catholics believe everything the catholic church teaches?

Yes, or they are not really “Catholic”. There are many people that call themselves Catholic who are really Protestant, and don;t realize it. I was like that for a long time. By definition, a Catholic embraces all the teachings of the Church.

Much could be said about this. What i see has happened is that for many catholics they are incapable of discerning error in their church primarily becasue they have been told the church can never error.

I know, you have said this before, but it is not the case. If this were true, we would not be able to recognize heresy either. The reason we don’t see error in the church is because of the Promise of Jesus that He would keep the Church unified, and in Truth. We believe that He is not too weak to keep this promise. We are able to see error in the individuals that make up the church, but we know that the Church and Jesus are one and the same,and since Jesus cannot have error in Himself, there is no error in the Church.