M
mattrue
Guest
if you have time and have speakers on your computer go to relevantradio.com every weekday 10am central and listen to Fr. Corapi.
- Status
M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
No it doesn’t. In John 20 21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
(KJV)
Now this is Jesus talking to the aposltes and it isn’t being mean or wrathful. Confession is biblical (and from Jesus).
But God in the old testament was quick to forgive though. I remeber when the children of isreal sinned and they were all going to die he told Moses to make a Snake stick and whoever looked upon it wouldn’t die, and all the times on the way out of eypt the isrealites kept complaining about things but, God kept showing his love for them by delvivering them. He wasn’t any diffrent then than he is now. He still shows love like he did then and he punishs like he did then.
Yes but, as he told us to (as shown above).
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Yes I did. And they always demonstrated a misunderstanding of the Catholic perspective on infallibility, the Magisterium, and Sacred Tradition. Thus for us to properly address your questions, we had to get on the same page (both understanding what the Church actually teaches in these matters and not mispercieved). I’m not asking you to yet accept what the Church teaches but our discussion requires you to properly understand it.
As Bishop Sheen said, “There are a million people who hate what they percieve the Catholic Church teaches but only hundreds who hate what the Church actually teaches.”
M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
Matt. 16 Jesus says “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against, and whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven and you will have the keys to the kingdom of heaven”. I might have the statement out of order (I don’t have a bible in front of me right now as I am at school) but, Jesus gave Peter and the Church Authority.
See Matt. 16 as above. There is a church that has authority. Why do you have a problem with that, it’s in the bible?
Why put your trust in your mother when your small? Or Police when you are big? Because they are their to help. The Popes are here to help and just like mothers (though good children will never admitt it) have sinned and so have police but, that doesn’t negate the fact that we should trust them (and plus the papcy is in the Bible; see Matt. 16).
I am speacking for myself. When You obey the authorities is when you are most free. It might seem like a paradox but, let me explain. When you pay your taxes (which is something that forced on you by “Men”) they make you roads and you have the freedom to drive your car on a clear cerface that wouldn’t destroy it, something you proboly have if you didn’t do what they told you to. But, they are men? and Sinfull, lustfull horrid men at that.
In Romans 13 (I think it could be a diffrent chapeter but, right book) Paul tell us to subjectate ourshelves to the higher authorities for all authorty is from God. Not if you feel like it or only if they are stand up people. He said obey. Obey Obey Obey. For they bear not the sword in vain. And in Matt. 16 he establishs a church with aurhtoirty. And the BIBLE SAYS TO OBEY. I am not trying to be mean and I apologize if I have but, I think I still have to much German in me to find disobediance allowable.
But, he put an authoritaive church down. And didn’t he pick Judas, whom would betray him to death, as an apostle?!?
M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
Yes, Popes have said wrong things as well as preist and bishops, but, only when they (popes) are speaking ex chaldea (SP?) or in a council is it inffaliable (My understanding and I might be wrong on that).
We never said we replaced Christ with the Church. The Church is a tool that Christ gave us.
M
milimac
Guest
Hi Jpete,
First of all, I think you may have a misconception of the Catholic definition of infallibility. It sounds like you are thinking that infallibility extends to the Pope’s personal decisions, but that would not be correct. Even Peter denied Christ 3 times after he had been given the keys. Rather than try to explain it myself, I refer you to this excellent article: catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp.
And now a thought for you to ponder. We Catholics believe in the inerrency of the Bible as it sounds like you do as well. This means that the those who wrote the books included in the Bible wrote them infallibly did they not? Yes, the Holy Spirit wrote the bible, but He used people to do it, and they did it infallibly. The Holy Spirit didn’t do this by sitting on their shoulders and dictating word for word what they were to write. Did this infallibility mean that those who wrote the Bible never sinned or never sinned after they wrote it? Perhaps, but I really doubt it.
It appears that Protestants believe in the one-time infallibility of the writers of the Bible (which is really the infallibility of the Holy Spirit working in them), but do not believe the infallibility of the Holy Spirit can continue to work in the Church through a person (the Pope) when he speaks authoritatively on faith and morals.
The misconception of infallibility that Protestants (and sometimes Catholics) often apply to the Pope is much more than what is taught by the Catholic Church.
J
jpete79
Guest
I want to ask you if you believe that both the Catechism and the Bible are infallible?
J
jpete79
Guest
Can you send me a link to Part 1 Chapter 3 Article 9?
T
TamaraS
Guest
I’m saying that false doctrine can be found anywhere through anyone (even Popes, Bishops, Priests and others).
Hi there! I normally just read the threads on here and often do not post because I’m not nearly as knowledgable as most of the people here, plus I’m usually too lazy to take the time to research and respond. On that note, I’m curious, can you give me an example of a false doctrine? Plus, I can still tell that you do not yet understand infallability. As far as there being bad Popes, even though we would like to think that if someone is preaching the truth,and even if they fail to do so, that they will at least be trying to live it, but sadly, that is not always so. People can and do often not practice the truth they preach, but that does not mean that what they said is not truth. I know a lot of people who preach the truth, but personally they are heeding those very words. I believe the truth and whatever their personal intentions or actions are is something that they will have to reconcile with God some day. What they do with the truth is up to them. God will take care them, I only need to worry what I am doing with the truth.
Hi there! I normally just read the threads on here and often do not post because I’m not nearly as knowledgable as most of the people here, plus I’m usually too lazy to take the time to research and respond. On that note, I’m curious, can you give me an example of a false doctrine? Plus, I can still tell that you do not yet understand infallability. As far as there being bad Popes, even though we would like to think that if someone is preaching the truth,and even if they fail to do so, that they will at least be trying to live it, but sadly, that is not always so. People can and do often not practice the truth they preach, but that does not mean that what they said is not truth. I know a lot of people who preach the truth, but personally they are heeding those very words. I believe the truth and whatever their personal intentions or actions are is something that they will have to reconcile with God some day. What they do with the truth is up to them. God will take care them, I only need to worry what I am doing with the truth.
P
Philthy
Guest
Of course it is, which makes it a useless claim.
I don’t know what self-authenticating means, but it sounds like it is simply the opinion of a person. What exactly is “self-authentication” independent of the person who forms that opinion? Do you not think Muslims believe the same of the Q’uran? Do you not believe some felt the apocrypha to be “self authenticating”? Did not Luther stumble in identifying several books that you hold as “self-authenticating”? How could that happen?
“It” was around? What exactly does that mean? The writings were around,of course, but so was a LOT of other stuff which needed to be “distinguished” from Scripture…the apocrypha. Many felt various apocryphal books were “self authenticating” as well. Self authentication and age are not means of determining Scripture. Period. Common sense and experience have demonstrated this repeatedly.
I don’t understand what your point is here. The bible had not been definitively assembled - there was still some apocrypha that people wanted included, and some Scripture that some wanted excluded. Facts of history.
Just so we are clear, you do realize that there are NO ORIGINALS remaining - we only have copies of copies and the reputation of the men who preserved them.
No one questions whether the bible CAN be interpreted, the question is," Can it be MISINTERPRETED?" And the answer is a resounding YES IT CAN. Only one question remains, how do we know when we have arrived at the “correct” interpretation?
You apparently believe that the church was not going to change…ever…despite the fact that as the numbers of Christians grew and the distances between them increased there would be increasingly less and less direct interaction between the leaders of those communities. How were they to remain united in their faith? **Think **about it.
Searching for a spotless church is just as naive as thinking that the faith could simply continue apart from some increasingly elaborate organization of its leaders.
I assume you are referring to infallibility here. Infallibility has NOTHING to do with the situations you mention. Of course the Church isn’t spotless and unblemished in that sense, and it doesn’t claim to be, either.
P
Philthy
Guest
jpete:
jpete79:
jpete79:
jpete:
We are free to worship how we please, as long as it’s not morally objectionable, however, it is not the morally objectionable acts of Worship which “define” us, it’s what’s in our “heart”, so whatever acts we “worship” with are pleasing to God if our “heart” is in the right place. Is that a fair summary? We are free to worship in a morally objectional way as long as our heart is in the right place?
I can tell you really despise authority - that’s only natural
Phil
No kidding! And how was it done? By the AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, which resided with the Apostles initially and to their successors successively.
Sounds great Pete, but “faith in Jesus Christ alone” is not particularly unifying when we can’t agree on the definition of faith. All christian denominations believe that their particular beliefs constitute “faith in Jesus Christ alone”. This does not accomplish what you believe it to, and history has repeatedly demonstrated this also. We don’t even need to get into all the different understands of who “Jesus” was…
Without specifics, this is meaningless. How can I possibly know what you mean here, and how am I to determine what is/is not morally objectionable?
jpete:
Yes you did, and you contradicted yourself in the process. Here let me summarize your statements:
We are free to worship how we please, as long as it’s not morally objectionable, however, it is not the morally objectionable acts of Worship which “define” us, it’s what’s in our “heart”, so whatever acts we “worship” with are pleasing to God if our “heart” is in the right place. Is that a fair summary? We are free to worship in a morally objectional way as long as our heart is in the right place?
I can tell you really despise authority - that’s only natural
Phil
J
jpete79
Guest
Yes we are free to Worship how we please. As far as music goes as far as prayer goes. There are no specifics that say you can’t worship in certain ways unless it is morally objectionable to God. What would be morally objectionable? Look at Galatians 5 for a list of fleshly sins and look at who will be left out of the New Jerusalem.
I don’t hate authority. But let me ask you…if you live in 1940’s Germany and they ask citizens to identify Jews knowing fully well that the Jews will be exterminated, do you blindly obey? I know that is a lot more drastic than followin Catholic doctrine but a line can’t be drawn saying this authority obey and that one don’t.
Now I do love authority and I find the authority in God through Jesus Christ. I don’t blindly disregard US authority (though I really don’t agree with many of Bush’s policies and actually didn’t vote for him). I also would not be able to be a Missionary in a Muslim nation by hating authority (and I will be in time to come).
M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
Then why not follow the papacy? You admit that you can follow someone that you don’t agree with.
I mean scripture says so.
Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority. scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
and the early church beleived to.
“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).
"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171). scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
It is not asking you to immulate them for some tend to be sinful but, then again Jesus picked Judas to be an apostle too (which shows me that well is there bad people the church hiarchy? yes. Does what God need to get done still get done? Yes. Judas in a weird way helped Jesus do what he was sent to do). Like being a U.S. citizen doesn’t mean that you have to act like your president (or else we would all be having affairs with our secretaries and starting wars like presidents have done now and is the past, though maybe not both).
M
mattrue
Guest
Jesus is the head of the Church, so by following the church we are following Jesus. Devine Revelation…Magesterium, Scripture and Tradition.
L
LSK
Guest
Absolutely it can! You are equating the immoral authority of a secular government with the Apostolic Authority given to the Holy Mother Church by Christ HIMSELF…you owe us an apology and should be ashamed of yourself for making such a comparison. I lost family in that war. Pope Pius protected some of those Italian partisans who gave their lives during that time - my family was a part of that, so be very circumspect when you throw historical comparisons around that can be so hurtful.
Remember, many Baptist preachers saw no problem with lynching African American men, or putting bombs in churches and killing little girls. If you want to start using history as a sword it can cut both ways.
J
jpete79
Guest
I’m sorry that you had family that died in that war. It was atrocious and horrific, but I used it to prove a point.
You say that a line can be drawn on what authority to obey and which not to…that is all I wanted to hear because so many people tell me to sit by and obey the teachings of Catholicism because I must obey authority. Paul says to not follow anyone that preaches a different Gospel than the one taught by Christ.(Galatians 1). He also says that our war is against the powers of this world, the rulers, authorities, etc (Ephesians 6)
I asked a question before and didn’t get an answer as to whether the Catechism was infallible as it is the teachings of the Church. Well the Catechism talks about a place called Purgatory. Where did Jesus Christ or his apostles speak of this place?
What is the purpose of Purgatory? How I read it is, Purgatory is where people are purified to come into the presence of Christ…we are purified to come into his presence because of the blood he shed on the cross not because of a place where it is purged from us.
There was a man on a cross next to Christ…Christ told the man on this day he would be with him in paradise. He didn’t tell him that he was not pure. And this is a man who was crucified. That was an execution for the worst crimes. If this man didn’t have to be purified why would anyone else?
Is Purgatory in the Gospel that was preached by Paul or was taught by Christ himself?
If so let me see Scriptural references…
M
mattrue
Guest
we believe purgatory is a blessing. its a safety net as Fr.Corapi teaches. if you go to purgatory you go to heaven. i dont know the scripture vs. off hand but i will try to get back to you on the scripture vs. , i have to get back to work!!
T
TamaraS
Guest
*–I asked a question before and didn’t get an answer as to whether the Catechism was infallible as it is the teachings of the Church. Well the Catechism talks about a place called Purgatory. Where did Jesus Christ or his apostles speak of this place?
What is the purpose of Purgatory? How I read it is, Purgatory is where people are purified to come into the presence of Christ…we are purified to come into his presence because of the blood he shed on the cross not because of a place where it is purged from us.
*
There was a man on a cross next to Christ…Christ told the man on this day he would be with him in paradise. He didn’t tell him that he was not pure. And this is a man who was crucified. That was an execution for the worst crimes. If this man didn’t have to be purified why would anyone else?–
Just because Jesus said “that day he would be with him in Paradise” doesn’t mean that he did not go through purification. Purgatory is not defined as being a “time out”, so to speak. I don’t think anyone has said that there is a time limit in regards to purgatory. God is completely outside of time. And with all due respect, why bring up another troublesome topic when we haven’t resolved authority and infallibility. Usually if those are resolved, alot of other doctrines make sense. I know you said earlier that there were false doctines, can you name at least one? I’m not familiar with any, maybe because I must admit that papal writings are not on the top of my reading list. And also, a lot of times people mistake some things as doctrine when they are not.
Tamara
What is the purpose of Purgatory? How I read it is, Purgatory is where people are purified to come into the presence of Christ…we are purified to come into his presence because of the blood he shed on the cross not because of a place where it is purged from us.
*
There was a man on a cross next to Christ…Christ told the man on this day he would be with him in paradise. He didn’t tell him that he was not pure. And this is a man who was crucified. That was an execution for the worst crimes. If this man didn’t have to be purified why would anyone else?–
Just because Jesus said “that day he would be with him in Paradise” doesn’t mean that he did not go through purification. Purgatory is not defined as being a “time out”, so to speak. I don’t think anyone has said that there is a time limit in regards to purgatory. God is completely outside of time. And with all due respect, why bring up another troublesome topic when we haven’t resolved authority and infallibility. Usually if those are resolved, alot of other doctrines make sense. I know you said earlier that there were false doctines, can you name at least one? I’m not familiar with any, maybe because I must admit that papal writings are not on the top of my reading list. And also, a lot of times people mistake some things as doctrine when they are not.
Tamara
H
hurst
Guest
And what is to be done with all the people who have put their faith in Him? That is what the Church is for, so we can live as a community in charity with one another and be a witness to the world. They will know we are Christians by our love. Yet, this body of Christians has to be governed, fed, and instructed. Just as the Israelites had a special tribe (Levites) for handling the work of God, so Christ’s Church has the hierarchy of men consecrated to the task of doing God’s work.
You stand out preaching faith in Christ. Ok…
But now what if you die? Who takes over? You may say God handles it. Ok…
Now what is wrong with believing that God has handled it in the form of the 2000 year-old Catholic Church? You say there are examples of evil leaders. Ok…
But the Israelites had the same, so it should be no surprise. Even you, being the standard bearer of your own doctrine, cannot claim to be sinless. Why should anyone believe you? Don’t believe you, but the believe the Bible you give them? Ok…
Which version? Why not believe a mormon standard-bearer and his bible? Or yet a muslim and his koran, as others have pointed out? The one that has been around the longest? Ok…
But that would be the one maintained by the Catholic Church. Don’t rely on them because they might mislead you? But now we are back to the error of Core against Moses, who objected to having to follow him (Numbers 16). God provides for His people on earth to be a witness to the world. This is not about personal salvation as much as it is about obeying God and giving Him glory.
Do you see that you are asserting something on your own strength? You cut loose from the CC ship in a little dingy, and are trying to rescue people in the water, but you have limited yourself, and you direct others to avoid the ship that is able to hold them all, because you don’t like some people on board, or some of their policies… You deny that God would possibly allow His ship to full of hypocrites, wicked men, and apathetic people. But consider the parable that concludes thus:
Matthew 13:30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.
Although God allows it for a time, it will be taken care of in the end. We must believe God allows us to endure the evils of our neighbor that we may both do penance for our own and also show forth virtue in the face of vice. For we must not hide our light under a bushel basket, but let it shine unto the glory of Our Father in heaven.
hurst
M
mlchance
Guest
Why do I get the feeling you really don’t know much about the history of the Crusades or the Inquisition (by which you most likely mean the Spanish Inquisition, which was not conducted under the authority of the any pope)? No pope “stood by while the Holocaust went on” and no pope ever covered up “sexual abuse scandals.”
Again, I don’t say that people can’t be Catholic and Christian but to have people that have stood by while millions were killed in different periods of time and say they are infallible in matters of morals and faith I just can’t understand.
The doctrine of infallibility does not state that any pope is “perfect in his moral decisions.” If you’re going to object to a doctrine, at least get the doctrine right.
– Mark L. Chance.
- Status