Papal Infallibility

[jcrichton]

I see that it is in some supernatural way…a mystery…like the trinity…eucharist…but isn’t not a controlling of the Pope’s free will if he did happen to want to teach something anti-christian??

Anyone can choose to teach anti-Christian values… even the Pope. But the Pope cannot teach in a vacuum. If he is guided by the Holy Spirit, he will not teach anti-Christian values; if he is going against the Holy Spirit, the Bishops will not allow his error to become Catholic Doctrine for they will be guided by the Holy Spirit to stop the error.

The problem with “free” will is that we want to do as we please and blame God when things go wrong!

When we read through the Holy Scriptures we will not find God tricking us into engaging in a behavior that is destructive; everything that God demands of us is proven to be conductive to a better life; yet, we rebel against His Will and commit ourselves to things that bring us pain, peril, and even death; each time we refuse to accept responsibility for our own actions and we blindly blame God for our misfortune.

I’ve not heard of a single person who has been forced to become a Priest, a Bishop or a Pope; when a person decides to serve God in such capacities, He is exercising his will to abide in God’s Will; when this relationship is broken, we find that the Priest, Bishop or Pope errs, sins, and eventually destroys himself and hinders the Body of Christ (this is true of all Believers, both male and female alike, when they abandon God’s Will and attempt to live their life according to thier own whims).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Romulus]

if he is going against the Holy Spirit, the Bishops will not allow his error to become Catholic Doctrine for they will be guided by the Holy Spirit to stop the error.

And so therefore…the Bishops are infallible for going against the Popes supposedly infallible teaching?

 

[po18guy]

And so therefore…the Bishops are infallible for going against the Popes supposedly infallible teaching?

This whole infallibility thing has been blown up like a balloon! Infallibility is extremely limited. The vast majority of popes never spoke infallibly (ex cathedra). Such infallible pronouncements are usually made in answer to heresy. Since 1870, an infallible pronouncement has been made only once. If you are under 59 years of age, no Pope has spoken infallibly. Bishops are infallible only when they act in a council in union with the Pope, and that council addresses matters of faith or morals, and addresses the entire Church. Period.

It is amazing how many (NOT ALL!!!) non-Catholics accept infallibility on the part of the pastor of the corner church each time he or she speaks, yet they take the Catholic Church to task over a doctrine that has not been used in their lifetime. A real head scratcher there.

 

[jcrichton]

And so therefore…the Bishops are infallible for going against the Popes supposedly infallible teaching?

I do not mean to be unkind but, :banghead:

The Holy Spirit cannot allow man to speak against God (this includes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit); when confronted with this sort of thought here’s what Jesus said:

28 ‘In truth I tell you, all human sins will be forgiven, and all the blasphemies ever uttered; 29 but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin.’ 30 This was because they were saying, ‘There is an unclean spirit in him.’ (St. Mark 3:28-30)

Any anti-Christ theology/teachings/philosophy cannot be given by the Holy Spirit; the Pope cannot claim anti-Christian theology and teach it as revelation; the source of Divine Revelation is the Holy Spirit and He will not reveal anti-Christian theology.

Infallibility applies to the Pope’s pronouncement of Faith (theology); the Pope, as well as any other human on earth, can have an opinion on anything and it might be wrong (say, he can chose some soccer team as his favorite, and he can hope that it wins the world cup–that team can drop to the bottom of the heap just as soon as the Pope says it’s a winner… that is not theology); the Pope cannot state something to the effect that “Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married…” and claim that He is teaching/pronouncing with infallibility; if the Pope were to make such claim the Bishops, which are also guided by the Holy Spirit, will not allow the teaching to become Doctrine.

I am Catholic from birth and the Holy Spirit may choose to reveal something to me, but since He did not select me to be the visible head of Christ’s Church I cannot make a pronouncement of Faith.

Is your problem accepting the Authority of the Church or do you truly do not understand that Christ founded His Church on the Apostles, giving Kephas (Cephas) the primacy, and that He sent the Holy Spirit to continue to guide His Church?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It is amazing how many (NOT ALL!!!) non-Catholics accept infallibility on the part of the pastor of the corner church each time he or she speaks, yet they take the Catholic Church to task over a doctrine that has not been used in their lifetime. A real head scratcher there.

I think that it is a two-fold issue:

Location: Vatican vs. not, and
Language: infallibility (ex cathedra) vs. “the Lord told me…” or “the Spirit told me/showed me…”

I’ve just recalled a tel-evangelist that told his congregation that God would take him away if he did not get Him 8 million by the end of the year; his people got together and gave him more than the 8 million–he quicky informed them that it had to be done every year or else… see?!, not once did he claim ex cathedra!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[po18guy]

I think that it is a two-fold issue:

Location: Vatican vs. not, and
Language: infallibility (ex cathedra) vs. “the Lord told me…” or “the Spirit told me/showed me…”

I’ve just recalled a tel-evangelist that told his congregation that God would take him away if he did not get Him 8 million by the end of the year; his people got together and gave him more than the 8 million–he quicky informed them that it had to be done every year or else… see?!, not once did he claim ex cathedra!

Maran atha!

Angel

That’s known as the Oral (Roberts) Tradition.

 

[jcrichton]

That’s known as the Oral (Roberts) Tradition.

:bowdown2:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Seraphim25]

Your problem is that you chose what passages of the Bible you will accept; this pick-at-whim theology is very liberating, but it is not Christ’s.

Christ did not say that the Will of the Father is that you “love your neighbor.” Christ said that if we Love Him we will Obey Him; the Will of the Father is that we Listen to Him (the Son); the Son tells us that we must abide in Him (believe and obey) so that He may abide in Us (give us Life).

When Jesus founded His Church He did not say “follow what is in your heart.” He expressly ordered that we bring our issues to the Church; He delegated His Authority to the Church as He gave her the power to bind or loosen–even to the point of excommunication!

“Catholics” who follow their own mind/heart are deluding themselves as they reject the Authority of Christ under the guise of following a fundamental/Biblical Christianity; this is verified by the more than 40,000 “Christian” denominations, the Jehovah Witnesses, and the Mormons: they all claim to be “true” Bible-based church of God.

Maran atha!

Angel

Actually Christ did in fact say this and yes God the Father did say to us to listen to the son but look at the context it is in.: Please re-read your bible! I don’t pick and choose verses soley on the premise of conveying my argument. Don’t take my word for it look it up yourself. Draw a consensus on your own accord. I am just sharing what the bible says and teaches.

Point in case hypothetically if the pope were to call you up and told you that you need to jump off a bridge would you do it? I would link to think not but I can definitely argue that on a much smaller scale we would and do. We don’t question certian things in the church that needs and should get addressed. Secondly, re read the early church history and you will find and discovery huge amounts of errors and problematic ventures taking place. If we don’t ask questions then that same time period will just take place agian. History is in fact proven to repeat it self.

Back on track the popes infallibility is a cover to “show” that the pope has authority. Read your bible and understand what God himself says. If the pope didn’t say anything about abortion, does God? if the pope didn’t say anything about contraception does God? The answer to all of these is YES. All found in the old testaments. Likewise back to the contraception what does this mean. Contraception is defined as withholding your sperm or egg to concieve in a natural way. This is NOT out of love if a couple is using a form of contraceptive. Moreover, most of the time contraceptives are being used solely by young adults who can’t control their own sexual desires. Consequently, they do NOT want to feel culpable if they were to conceive.

And if the pope didn’t say anything about homosexuality and transgenders orientation does God? the answer is also, YES.

The role of the pope is to insure that all of the words God has spoken still carries weight all around the world to ensure that we Gods flock is in one fold.

God did in fact set up in church and he did set up in fact authoritative figures to keep and to watch over the fold. I just do not accept that solely the pope speaks infallible.

 

[Seraphim25]

All I know is that all “what ifs” lead back to “what if there is no God?”. We must deal with what has actually happened, not with every doubt that is raised in our minds.

In such cases, free will is subjugated to, and obedient to the leading of the Holy Spirit. It’s still there, but just placed under control in the service of truth.

If you will, obedience is a suppression of free will. It does not eliminate or deny free will, it acknowledges it and controls it.

or you could just respond and and not worry about the length to it!!!

 

[jcrichton]

Actually Christ did in fact say this and yes God the Father did say to us to listen to the son but look at the context it is in.: Please re-read your bible! I don’t pick and choose verses soley on the premise of conveying my argument. Don’t take my word for it look it up yourself. Draw a consensus on your own accord. I am just sharing what the bible says and teaches.

If you are saying that Christ said it, then yes; it is the passage where He is asked which is the most important (#1) of the Commandments… what is interesting is that you will not find that exact wording in the original list of the Ten Commandments–this is another example where Christ demonstrates that He is God.

I thought that you were quoting Scriptures when you stated:

What is the will of the father? To love your neighbor as yourself

The only passages that directly speak on the Will of the Father are St. John 6:40; St Matthew 7:21 and 17:5.

Point in case hypothetically if the pope were to call you up and told you that you need to jump off a bridge would you do it? I would link to think not but I can definitely argue that on a much smaller scale we would and do. We don’t question certian things in the church that needs and should get addressed.

Why would the Pope call me to tell me to commit suicide?

When we simply allow are machinations to get the better of us we are not far from hollo-wood’s spirituality!

Secondly, re read the early church history and you will find and discovery huge amounts of errors and problematic ventures taking place. If we don’t ask questions then that same time period will just take place agian. History is in fact proven to repeat it self.

You are speaking of errors that ocurred in the past when the Church was at the mercies of political powers and the wealthy… when Bishops had personal armies and their alliagence was first to their families before God and the Church… when communication was haphazard and the Church’s Authority was easily usurped by greedy and power-lusting pretenders who oppressed and killed at will… finally, you are speaking from an anti-Catholic bias that has permeated throughout historical accounts…

If we are to ask questions, should we not be willing to help heal and improve the Body of Christ, instead of looking for ways to dismantle Chirst’s Church?

Back on track the popes infallibility is a cover to “show” that the pope has authority. Read your bible and understand what God himself says. If the pope didn’t say anything about abortion, does God? if the pope didn’t say anything about contraception does God? The answer to all of these is YES. All found in the old testaments.

I don’t follow… do you mean to say that “Pope’s infallibility” is a title to mean that the Pope, as a representative of Christ’s Church, will teach the truth or are you saying we do not need the Pope to guide us because the Truth can be found in Scriptures?

Likewise back to the contraception what does this mean. Contraception is defined as withholding your sperm or egg to concieve in a natural way. This is NOT out of love if a couple is using a form of contraceptive. Moreover, most of the time contraceptives are being used solely by young adults who can’t control their own sexual desires. Consequently, they do NOT want to feel culpable if they were to conceive.

…but it is not just young adults who are engaged in such behavior; the abortion industry originated in the late seventies, if I am not mistaken; the sixties and seventies gave rise to the flower power: free love, alcohol, and drugs… but I concur with you, humanity is always seeking ways to rid itself of God and any spiritual, moral, and legal responsibility.

And if the pope didn’t say anything about homosexuality and transgenders orientation does God? the answer is also, YES.

The role of the pope is to insure that all of the words God has spoken still carries weight all around the world to ensure that we Gods flock is in one fold.

God did in fact set up in church and he did set up in fact authoritative figures to keep and to watch over the fold. I just do not accept that solely the pope speaks infallible.

I think I understand you a little better…

…let’s see if I can clarify the issue… the Pope (any Pope) is still a human being, capable of error as any of us… the Holy Spirit never left the Church–yes, inspite of the errors that have crept into her (and still continue to assail her)… here’s where the Pope’s infallibility comes in… as St. Paul said, we are not all called be be Apostles or Teachers or healers… if every Catholic, in every parish, all over the world would one day determine that he/she has infallible teaching to offer the Church, would there not be hundreds of thousands of new “churhces” all over the place?

We would be in a state of complete chaos as every person would subscribe to whatever interpretation of Scriptures he/she deemed the correct message God is giving us through Scriptures; did St. Paul not state that God is a God of order and not chaos?

The Pope does not replace God in any way… he, as you have stated, has been delegated Christ’s Authority to guide His Body… this of course does not distract from our personal relationship with God; the Holy Spirit is not limited by man–He will continue to make friends of God as He has done so throughout Creation.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Seraphim25]

Why would the Pope call me to tell me to commit suicide?

This was only to show that many people today just go with the flow and don’t question any authoritative personal. Look up max webber if I am ignorantly misspelling his name I owe a thousand apologies. Anyway, the experiment shows the consequences of obedience to authority and with which comes great disturbance that it could open up some of our eyes. The experienemt is called “Obedience to authority”

When we simply allow are machinations to get the better of us we are not far from hollo-wood’s spirituality!

True, but God does in fact state that we need to test all things to make sure that it does come from God. I really do hate going into the past and resurfacing problematic errors of the church. However, just consider the problem and the physiological harm it caused on the peasants who were being harassed because they weren’t giving enough alms for the poor. The priests and the bishops or both were teaching that if you gave more than normal they would reduce the time spent in purgatory. Now, I am just getting this out of the way I am not in any way defending Luther for leaving the church but he most certainly questioned the pertinent flaws associated with such teaching.And we need to give credit when credit is due. I don’t think him leaving the church should have happened but like I stated earlier he stood up.

You are speaking of errors that ocurred in the past when the Church was at the mercies of political powers and the wealthy… when Bishops had personal armies and their alliagence was first to their families before God and the Church… when communication was haphazard and the Church’s Authority was easily usurped by greedy and power-lusting pretenders who oppressed and killed at will… finally, you are speaking from an anti-Catholic bias that has permeated throughout historical accounts…

But is it bias or is it one making a case that those types of people whether it be in the pastis also taking place now?>
We are all biased on levels, but it is at what spectrum do we draw our concensous. Do we draw it immediately upon looking at secular or religious right out of the gate? Or do we and should we look at both sides.

If we are to ask questions, should we not be willing to help heal and improve the Body of Christ, instead of looking for ways to dismantle Chirst’s Church?

Truly, that is exactly what we should be doing but unfortunately nobody does just that. We all conform to what is being stated and not ask questions.

I don’t follow… do you mean to say that “Pope’s infallibility” is a title to mean that the Pope, as a representative of Christ’s Church, will teach the truth or are you saying we do not need the Pope to guide us because the Truth can be found in Scriptures?

We need the pope to guide the church but the pope can still make fallible errors just as much as any of us can. Even when it is on moral issues. It is just that we need to know what the word says and teaches also.

 

[jcrichton]

This was only to show that many people today just go with the flow and don’t question any authoritative personal. Look up max webber if I am ignorantly misspelling his name I owe a thousand apologies. Anyway, the experiment shows the consequences of obedience to authority and with which comes great disturbance that it could open up some of our eyes. The experienemt is called “Obedience to authority”

I agree that there is error in blid obedience; yet, that is not the Catholic Doctrine–the Pope does not rule as a tyrant–those who wish to follow the world are not forcefully kept within the confines of the Church. Once we have decided to enter or remain in the Church we must adhere to the Church’s Authority. Should we question her? Only as much as we seek to build the Body of Christ through our personal commitment and involvement. Sadly, during the last decades more and more Catholics are rejecting the Authority of the Church as they seek the liberties the world offers; they think, as the world does, that the Body of Christ should change to reflect whatever is deemed as modern and politically correct.

True, but God does in fact state that we need to test all things to make sure that it does come from God. I really do hate going into the past and resurfacing problematic errors of the church. However, just consider the problem and the physiological harm it caused on the peasants who were being harassed because they weren’t giving enough alms for the poor. The priests and the bishops or both were teaching that if you gave more than normal they would reduce the time spent in purgatory. Now, I am just getting this out of the way I am not in any way defending Luther for leaving the church but he most certainly questioned the pertinent flaws associated with such teaching.And we need to give credit when credit is due. I don’t think him leaving the church should have happened but like I stated earlier he stood up.

Here’s where reality meets fiction; there was a time when Bishops would maintain their family ties and political power and even kept their own private armies; it was also a time when communication was slow and far between… a time when monarchs usurped the Church’s Authority and even supplanted/killed Bishops and Priests in order to maintain their power/control. Did the Church practice pay-for-play? I am not certain but it is quite probable that some Priests and Bishops did accept money in lieu of forgiving sins–though I have not researched this issue, I doubt very much that the Popes had orchestrated such agenda.

You are correct in stating that we should question what may be errors in the Church… but Luther’s true agenda was quickly revealed as he not only questioned what seemed wrong but proceeded to make himself the authority of the Church: he not only challenged the Authority of the Pope and Bishops but created his own theology removing books from the Bible’s Canon, changing text, and even slandering St. James Epistle!

The Catholic Priest who sought to correct the errors of the Church ended up giving rise to a schism which today has permeated to over 40 thousand separate and different but only true churches of God!

He should have lived a more prayerful and humble life before attempting to right the wrongs in the Church.

But is it bias or is it one making a case that those types of people whether it be in the pastis also taking place now?>
We are all biased on levels, but it is at what spectrum do we draw our concensous. Do we draw it immediately upon looking at secular or religious right out of the gate? Or do we and should we look at both sides.

If you are speaking about human rights… none has brought this about more than the Catholic Church; if you are speaking of oppression none have suffered more oppression, from her very origins till the 20th century, than the Church (millions upon millions killed, raped, mutilated, exiled, forced into slavery…); if you are talking about contribution to the sciences, art, literature, education… the Church has always been at the forefront of these issues. What the Church cannot and will not support are those anti-values which society uphold as enlightenment and progress inspite of their explicit immorality and active involvement in the culture of death.

Truly, that is exactly what we should be doing but unfortunately nobody does just that. We all conform to what is being stated and not ask questions.

…actually, I hear that more and more Catholics are ignoring the Authority of the Church and her teachings and being true to their *hearts/conscience *(this was specially attested to during the elections by the many “Catholics” who supported an abortionist who refuses to even allow the rescue of those babies who survive the abortion process); they, inclusive of politicians, want to nurture the culture of death while demanding that the Church change her Doctrine to reflect their values.

We need the pope to guide the church but the pope can still make fallible errors just as much as any of us can. Even when it is on moral issues. It is just that we need to know what the word says and teaches also.

The problem that exists is that under the guise of “sola Scriptura” or “personal revelation” everyone wants to determine for him/herself what the Catholic Doctrine should be. Non-Catholics have tried for nearly 500 years and the more they rely on their own understanding the more they stray from Scriptures and the more they embrace the world and its values.

We continue to ignore Scriptures when it tells us that we cannot be friends of the world and expect to be friends of God!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[po18guy]

This was only to show that many people today just go with the flow and don’t question any authoritative personal. Look up max webber if I am ignorantly misspelling his name I owe a thousand apologies. Anyway, the experiment shows the consequences of obedience to authority and with which comes great disturbance that it could open up some of our eyes. The experienemt is called “Obedience to authority”

None of the “authorities” in the test was guided by the Holy Spirit, correct? So, obedience to them might just lead you off a cliff. Obedience to someone who is shown by scripture, tradition and history to be guided by the Spirit cannot go wrong. But, you must place all faith and trust in God. Agreed that it is difficult to do.

True, but God does in fact state that we need to test all things to make sure that it does come from God. I really do hate going into the past and resurfacing problematic errors of the church.

It is a common error to lump the errors of behavior in with the perfect teachings of the Church. We must separate the sinners from the truth being taught, otherwise the evil one leads us astray.

 

[anon5216]

None of the “authorities” in the test was guided by the Holy Spirit, correct? So, obedience to them might just lead you off a cliff. Obedience to someone who is shown by scripture, tradition and history to be guided by the Spirit cannot go wrong. But, you must place all faith and trust in God. Agreed that it is difficult to do.

It is a common error to lump the errors of behavior in with the perfect teachings of the Church. We must separate the sinners from the truth being taught, otherwise the evil one leads us astray.

This assumes, of course, a few things:

1. Papal infallibility is true.
2. The guidance provided by the Holy Spirit is actually followed.
3. The inspiration for the “obedience test” referred to by a prior poster wasn’t actually inspired by the Holy Spirit to show us the dangers inherent in authoritarian structures.

As you said, “we must place all faith and trust in God - and that is difficult to do.”
Especially for those of us still relying on indirect connections to God
- and all religious structures provide only indirect connections (which occasionally someone is able to use to transcend them and make a direct connection with God).

 

[po18guy]

This assumes, of course, a few things:

1. Papal infallibility is true.

If you are not Christian, the point for you is moot. However, the doctrine is easy to disprove: just demonstrate that any of the “ex catherdra” pronouncements are morally wrong.

1. The guidance provided by the Holy Spirit is actually followed.

Well, there is no church, neither Catholic nor its tens of thousands of Protestant derivatives, if this is not the case.

1. The inspiration for the “obedience test” referred to by a prior poster wasn’t actually inspired by the Holy Spirit to show us the dangers inherent in authoritarian structures.

Keeping Jesus’ commands is following the authoritarian structure of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

As you said, “we must place all faith and trust in God - and that is difficult to do.” Especially for those of us still relying on indirect connections to God
- and all religious structures provide only indirect connections (which occasionally someone is able to use to transcend them and make a direct connection with God).

Catholics who believe and practice correctly do not access God through any intermediary or indirect mechanism, except Jesus, Who is also God. We do ask the Saints, both on earth and in Heaven to pray for us. Guess Who they go to?

 

[jcrichton]

This assumes, of course, a few things:

1. Papal infallibility is true.
2. The guidance provided by the Holy Spirit is actually followed.
3. The inspiration for the “obedience test” referred to by a prior poster wasn’t actually inspired by the Holy Spirit to show us the dangers inherent in authoritarian structures.

…so you subscribe to hollo-wood’s theology where “it takes evil to do good” and God chooses the worst unrepentant sinners to bring about His Salvific Plan?

Especially for those of us still relying on indirect connections to God
- and all religious structures provide only indirect connections (which occasionally someone is able to use to transcend them and make a direct connection with God).

…so Jesus was wrong in founding His Church?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[anon5216]

…so you subscribe to hollo-wood’s theology where “it takes evil to do good” and God chooses the worst unrepentant sinners to bring about His Salvific Plan?

…so Jesus was wrong in founding His Church?

Maran atha!

Angel

Please! Associating my post with “hollo-wood” is absurd and a non-response to my post.
Nowhere do I even imply “it takes evil to do good”.
Nowhere did I claim “God chooses the worst unrepentant sinners to bring about His Salvific Plan”.

I state that Papal infallibility is an unproven assumption.
I state that the guidance provided by the Holy Spirit is guaranteed to be followed,
is an unproven assumption.
I state that the study regarding human behavior under authoritarian structures not being guided by the Holy Spirit, is an unproven assumption - (referring back to po18guy’s post).
(I’m not claiming it was guided either - just that there is no proof one way or the other).

As to “Jesus being wrong in founding His Church”:
I do not believe the document compiled by the Catholic Church known as the Bible, is inerrantly accurate and true to history from start to finish. Therefore, Jesus allegedly founded a Church, and we only have Church documents and assertions as “proof”.

 

[jcrichton]

Please! Associating my post with “hollo-wood” is absurd and a non-response to my post.
Nowhere do I even imply “it takes evil to do good”.
Nowhere did I claim “God chooses the worst unrepentant sinners to bring about His Salvific Plan”.

I state that Papal infallibility is an unproven assumption.
I state that the guidance provided by the Holy Spirit is guaranteed to be followed,
is an unproven assumption.
I state that the study regarding human behavior under authoritarian structures not being guided by the Holy Spirit, is an unproven assumption - (referring back to po18guy’s post).
(I’m not claiming it was guided either - just that there is no proof one way or the other).

But this is your particular belief not the Church (I include myself as part of the Body of Christ); what you are stating is that the historical existence of the Chruch means nothing and that and the heresies that have been fought by the Church means nothing.

Jesus stated that He would send another Paraclete to be with the Church and that it would be He who would reveal the total Truth; if there’s no guidence of the Holy Spirit than Jesus’ Word is invalid; yet, for Jesus’ Word to be invalid there would have to be no Church.

By stating that the Holy Spirit would guide secularism, which more often than not works to disprove the existence of God, is nothing more than hollo-wood theology: “Good needs Evil to exist; Evil is the way to battle Evil”

As to “Jesus being wrong in founding His Church”:
I do not believe the document compiled by the Catholic Church known as the Bible, is inerrantly accurate and true to history from start to finish. Therefore, Jesus allegedly founded a Church, and we only have Church documents and assertions as “proof”.

This is pure hollo-wood theology: God does not exists, but if God does exists He exists according to my design.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[anon5216]

But this is your particular belief not the Church (I include myself as part of the Body of Christ); what you are stating is that the historical existence of the Chruch means nothing and that and the heresies that have been fought by the Church means nothing.
Excuse me, but this is nowhere in my posts.

Jesus stated that He would send another Paraclete to be with the Church and that it would be He who would reveal the total Truth; if there’s no guidence of the Holy Spirit than Jesus’ Word is invalid; yet, for Jesus’ Word to be invalid there would have to be no Church.
Nowhere did I say there is no guidance from the Holy Spirit.

By stating that the Holy Spirit would guide secularism, which more often than not works to disprove the existence of God, is nothing more than hollo-wood theology: “Good needs Evil to exist; Evil is the way to battle Evil”
Nowhere did I say this. I made that clear last post and anyone can read my posts to see for themselves. Why do you keep repeating an obvious lie?

This is pure hollo-wood theology: God does not exists, but if God does exists He exists according to my design.
Nowhere do I say God does not exist. Although it can be argued that the Catholic Church insists God exists according to their design.

Maran atha!

Angel

Again, you are simply trying to dismiss my points by misrepresenting them and then arguing against your own misrepresentations. And in case that fails, trying to associate my points with superficial hollywood entertainment concepts.

Why don’t you just say that you trust the Church’s teachings and oppose my points on the basis of pure loyalty to that Church. I could respect that. I do believe saints like Padre Pio have proven that it is possible to achieve spiritual results within the context of the Catholic Church.

If you can’t counter my actual points as I made them, then just ignore me and stay safe in your belief system. I have no vested interest in convincing anyone to leave Catholicism.

 

[Seraphim25]

describe to me a specific case were the pope has stated an infallible case against a degenerative moral agenda? That has never been alluded to in the bible?

Secondly; I most assuredly exclaim that I do not mean to say that the bible( trying to choose my words carefully) is not the final word. However, the bible is a benchmark to show the authority from the words out of Gods mouth. To test the waters of certian practices or to expose a malpractice we must refer to the bible because these incurs our attention back to what God has actually stated.