J
justasking4
Guest
What specific “distributing lies and propaganda against the true church” are you referring to?
- Status
P
Peter_Da_Rock
Guest
Just about everything you have presented so far. You name it, I have done it. If it is in Lorraine Boettner’s book I have spout it out of an unholy tongue.
G
Gamera
Guest
Huh? When did Pope Honorius exercise his office as teacher of all Christians to define any doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, which was later called heretical? Details please.
My understanding is that Honorius was blasted for negligence – for failing to adequately oppose a heresy. Negligence is bad, but it isn’t the same as teaching a heresy, let alone proclaiming a heresy to be a required doctrine.
J
justasking4
Guest
J
justasking4
Guest
Are you aware that he was condemned by a later council? This would indicate that the church considered him to be a serious heretic.
G
Gamera
Guest
No. He was condemned for negligence, not for heresy.
At the 6th Ecumenical Council, Pope Agatho said that ALL of his predecessors (which included Honorius) had rejected Monothelism. The Council adopted this statement as its own. So the 6th Ecumenical Council therefore specifically found that ALL prior popes (which included Honorius) had opposed this heresy. The same Council anathematized Honorius, not because of his doctrine, but because he neglected to take sufficient affirmative steps to combat the heresy when he could have. Pope Leo II confirmed the Council’s statement and found that Honorius “permitted” the heresy to grow. Not that he taught it.
The next two ecumeical councils (7th and 8th) just ratified the findings of the 6th regarding Honorius. They found nothing new about the man.
No council ever condemned Honorius for heresy. He was condemned for negligence.
Y
YADA
Guest
Peter and Paul would not have mentioned it, as Mary was probably still living when much of the New Testament letters and Gospels were written [an even if you give the Gospels and letters a late composition date they are referencing the time of Jesus’ pubilc ministry, His Passion, Resurection and the earliest formation of the Church.
The focus is on Jesus in writings that *“cannot contain all that He said and did” The Book of Revelation is most probably written during the second persecution [Nero’s] being the first. By this time Mary is no longer on earth but is in Heaven [as John rightly places her]
John, in his Gospel tells of mary’s role, she instructs - “do whatever He tells you”, Mary is every present during the journeys and travels, faithfull at the cross and present at the irth of the church on pentacost…
Luke presents Mary, redeemed [Full of Grace] the handmadid of God and spouse of the Holy Spirit. Luke presents the imagery of the Ark, re-telling the story of David and the Ark in Mary, Elizabeth and John the Baptist.
You are a person who fails to see…like the Rich Man …- even though one would rise from the dead…you would not believe…
G
guanophore
Guest
Ahh, I thought you would bring this. You are taking this passage out of context. Paul is talking about what he has written immediately before, which has to do with not being factious, and the need to be humble. He is giving specific instructions to the Corinthians about receiving the Apostolic Teaching, and not getting hung up on who is bringing it. How do we know he is not talking about Sola Scriptura?
- Most of the NT had not yet been written.
- Paul is talking about teaching them orally, not with written words
1 Cor 3:2-10
2 I fed you with milk, … I planted, Apol’los watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. …
10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.
- Paul describes himself and the other Apostles…1 Cor 4:1-3
4:1 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy.
The mysteries had not yet been committed to writing, although he is in process of doing so. The Apostles were the stewards of the mysteries, not the writing.
- Paul does not direct them to the scripture as the rule of faith, but to himself and his own example, and that of the Apostolic succession:
1 Cor 4:14-19 16 I urge you, then, be imitators of me. 17 Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.
How will they be reminded of what he taught? By watching and learning from Timothy, who Paul appointed as Bishop. This Apostolic succession preceeded the writing of the NT.
The Divine Deposit of Faith exists in the Sacred Writing, and in the Sacred Tradition. Paul himself attests to this in 2 thess 3:15
- Paul does not direct them to the scripture as the rule of faith, but to himself and his own example, and that of the Apostolic succession:
- Paul describes himself and the other Apostles…1 Cor 4:1-3
- Paul is talking about teaching them orally, not with written words
G
guanophore
Guest
The HS never promised to prevent individuals from committing sin and heresy. The promise was to the Church, that she would be preserved from all error. That is why Honorius was never permitted to teach his personal views publicly, or as official Church Teaching.
G
guanophore
Guest
guanophore;:
So Joey is wrong, you are not here to deceive us, you are here to confront and expose the false doctrines and teachers that have crept into the church? Why let this concern you, since it is not your church anyway?
G
guanophore
Guest
"justasking4:
"justasking4:justasking4 said:
justasking4 said:
justasking4 said:
H
HailMary
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
GOING BEYOND
By Patrick Madrid
Recently, a Baptist minister wrote us a letter. He’d heard a Catholic Answers staffer being interviewed on an Evangelical radio station say, “There is not even a single verse in the Bible which supports the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.” The minister disagreed, expressing his conviction that 1 Corinthians 4:6 fits the bill: “I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written.” He asked how Catholics could deny that this verse teaches sola scriptura.
For reasons which will soon become obvious, proponents of sola scriptura don’t often turn to 1 Corinthians 4:6. But since it does come up from time to time, Catholics should know how to refute the misuse of this verse. (This article will not address any of the other arguments Protestants use in support of sola scriptura; it will look only at 1 Corinthians 4:6.)
There are several of ways to demonstrate that 1 Corinthians 4:6 can’t rescue sola scriptura from the realm of myth. First, note that none of the Reformers attempted to use this verse to vindicate sola scriptura. In fact, John Calvin says Paul’s use of the phrase “what is written” is probably either a reference to the Old Testament verses he quotes within his epistle or to the epistle itself (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4:6). Not only did Calvin not see in 1 Corinthians any support for sola scriptura, a theory he vociferously promoted, he regarded the verse as obscure at best and of negligible value in the effort to vindicate Protestantism.
for the rest of the article which refutes this silly argument, visit catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208chap.asp
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Guilty Only of Failure to Teach
The Case of Pope Honorius Doesn’t Disprove Papal Infallibility
By Steve O’Reilly
In the early seventh century, Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, with the consent of Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, attempted to reunite the monophysites to the Church through a heretical formulation that claimed in Christ there was “one operation.” Controversy loomed when Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, raised objections regarding the orthodoxy of this new expression. The dispute centered over whether in Christ the human nature, like the divine nature, had its own will and operation.
The orthodox belief is that each nature has its own will and operation, hence the expressions “two wills” or “two operations” were adopted by the orthodox. The opposing view is that the divine will and operation essentially took the place of the human will and operation, hence the expressions “one will” or “one operation” from which the heresy of “monothelitism” takes its name.
Faced with controversy over an expression that he himself had approved and desirous to safeguard the false reconciliation of the monophysites, Sergius proposed that all parties refrain from using the new terms in order to maintain the peace of the Church. To this end, Sergius sought and received the approval for this rule of silence from Pope Honorius (625–638).
The Sixth Ecumenical Council (681) posthumously anathematized Pope Honorius for his responses to Sergius. Not surprisingly, this case has attracted considerable attention and is alleged by some to disprove the doctrine of papal infallibility. William Webster claims Honorius “officially embraced the heresy of monothelitism” and was condemned by the council as a heretic “in his official capacity as pope.” (All Webster quotes are taken from his book The Church of Rome at the Bar of History and from his article “An Ecumenical Council Officially Condemns a Pope for Heresy” posted online at christiantruth.com.)
for the rest of the article which refutes this silly argument, visit catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea5.asp
- Status