J
johnnydigit
Guest
stop feeding the trolls… circular logic, ignorance, denial, and its unwaivering persistence will only continue and the more fuel you feed to its fire will only make it stronger.
- Status
J
justasking4
Guest
I agree that protestant churches also have their false teachers. The problem is the list above are not the false teachers…
J
jmcrae
Guest
Well, some of them have to be, since they completely contradict each other.I agree that protestant churches also have their false teachers. The problem is the list above are not the false teachers…
J
justasking4
Guest
Can you give me a couple of examples?Originally Posted by justasking4
I agree that protestant churches also have their false teachers. The problem is the list above are not the false teachers…
jmcrae;
Well, some of them have to be, since they completely contradict each other.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Calvin’s teachings can be summarized with the acronym “TULIP.” Here is the explanation of “TULIP” from a Calvinist web site.
T – total depravity. This doesn’t mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one’s being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself.
U – unconditional election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.
L – limited atonement. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the elect.
I – irresistible grace. When God has chosen to save someone, He will.
P – perseverence of the saints. Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time.
Luther’s teachings could be summarized with the “five Solas” (Source: Wikipedia)-
Code:
* 1 Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
* 2 Sola fide ("by faith alone")
* 3 Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
* 4 Solus Christus ("Christ alone")
* 5 Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")
Code:
* Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
* Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
* Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
* Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ
J
justasking4
Guest
No doubt there are different perspectives on these matters. It has always been the case that in protestant churches men will have different opinions about these things.
Now, are there differences of opinions in the catholic church in these areas also? Do not catholic scholars and individuals have different views?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Not at the official level, no. For example, our view on the role of Scripture is best summarized in Dei Verbum.
J
justasking4
Guest
Do you think all catholic bishops and priests believe it all the same way?
Do you think that not everyone interprets this document the same?
J
jmcrae
Guest
More or less. Why, do you know of any Catholic Bishops who hold to Sola Scriptura? Or who believe that one’s personal experience is of equal weight and authority with the Scriptures? Or that what one knows or does not know about the teachings that we find in the Scriptures has absolutely no bearing on our salvation?
J
justasking4
Guest
No. However i do know a number of catholics who hold different beliefs about the catholic church on a broad range of issues and doctrines. I don’t think having a pope and magesterium leads necessarily to greater unity among the laity on doctrinal matters.More or less. Why, do you know of any Catholic Bishops who hold to Sola Scriptura? Or who believe that one’s personal experience is of equal weight and authority with the Scriptures?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Well, they know where to go to get the answers when they want them. They don’t have to figure it all out on their own and hope for the best.
G
guanophore
Guest
Are there any conditions under which you might question your perceptions?
This line of reasoning presupposes that all the Truth is in the Scripture. This is an error which Jesus does not teach, and therefore, the Catholic Church does not teach. Even the Scriptures do not teach this about themselves!Thats an understatement and we both cannot be right. Its very easy to check the scriptures on this one and i suspect by now you know its not in there…
When you can show me, from Scripture, the list of books that belong in it, then this point will have some merit.
Unity comes from embracing the Truth. This is what Jesus made clear. To the extent that a person embraces Truth, then that person is in unity with the Head, and the Church that He founded. To the extent that a person rejects Truth (that would include the authority that Jesus appointed) they are improperly joined to the Church (separated brethren).
There is no divine “principle” that says you can learn Divine Revelation from lexicons or other “tools” that guide. Divine Revelation has always been given from God to a person, and from one person to another. Abraham is spinning in his grave, hearing this.
Why? Why must the spiritual state of Catholics concern you? Why is it that you cannot shake the dust off your feet? What is compelling you to slander and attack Catholicism?
I will say it again, because this is one of the works of Mercy to which I am obedient. The Catholic Church is not a “bible church”. Our faith is not founded on the ‘bible’ as yours appears to be. Our faith is founded on the Teachings of Jesus, through the Apostles. It was that faith that produced the Bible. That faith was full and complete prior to a single word of the NT being written. We resist your accusation (based on your reading of our book) because your ideas are not consistent with the Teaching that we have received from the Apostles.
G
guanophore
Guest
It is clear that they indeed did heed the warnings of the Apostles. They took seriously the charge of overseer under the appointment of the Holy Spirit. They shepherded the flock of God with passion. The teaching of the Apostle day and night for three years is preserved to this day!
It is ok, ja4, we have heeded the warning of the Apostle. We mark you, even though you are here as a raveneous wolf, biting and tearing at the flock of God. Though you nip at the heels of Catholics, and attempt to introduce destructive heresies, we have heeded the warnings of the apostles, to whose teaching we adhere. We cling to the Master who has bought us!
It is curious that you wish to introduce a spirit of fear amongst us, as we know that God is not the source of such a spirit. Indeed, so long as we cling to the Teachings of the Apostles, we are indeed safe from such false teachers who come, as you do, among the believers. We hold to the Sacred Traditions, whether they are by word of mouth, or by letter.
We see it differently.
We understand the gates of hell to be the entry point of error. Teaching and believing error takes one through those gates, from which some never return. Jesus most certainly did promise that the gates of hell would not prevail.
Yes, there are many individuals with divergent viewpoints. The difference is that we have One Divine Deposit of Faith that is unchanging, and being of God, is not subject to the opinions of man. To the extent that individuals are not in communion with this Truth, they are not Catholic.
G
guanophore
Guest
I can see your point. When Jesus preached, some mocked, some scoffed, and only some believed. However, the reactions of sinful men do not invalidate the Holy Teaching that Jesus brought from heaven. He established the standard, and commanded His Apostles to teach it, which they did. They chose faithful men who were able to instruct others also, and that is why today we have the Word as it was delivered to us, both in the Holy Writing and in practice.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
I agree. Martin Luther and Arius were priests. Nestorious was a bishop. However, lone individuals are not the Church. Not one Pope or the Universal Magisterium ever taught heresy; nor will any validly elected Pope or the Magisterium ever do so.
“For it will not be you who speak but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.”
{Matthew 10, 20}
“If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”
{Matthew 18, 17}
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
J
justasking4
Guest
Lets also add a pope who was later condemed by later councils as a heretic:Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
Patriarch Macarius of Antioch was deposed in the 12th session. In the thirteenth session (28 March, 681) after anathematizing the chief Monothelitic heretics mentioned in the letter of Pope Agatho, i.e. Sergius of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and Theodore of Pharan, the council added : “**And in addition to these we decide that **Honorius also, who was Pope of Elder Rome, be with them cast out of the Holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things and confirmed his wicked dogmas.” A similar condemnation of Pope Honorius occurs in the dogmatic decree of the final session (16 Sept., 681), which was signed by the legates and the emperor.
D
Deconi
Guest
Your ignorance is quite profound!
Honorius himself was not anathematized but the false teaching he failed to condemn through, what the later Pope viewed as, negligence! Having been tricked by another, Honorius argued with St Augustine, who was trying to tell him that he had been tricked.
This is yet another demonstration that whilst the Pope CAN speak infallibly, he himself, is NOT ALWAYS infallible, which is a repeat of the example of St Peter denying Our Lord 3-times. This is prudent for every Catholic to realise (and we do) because otherwise, we start believing that every word spoken by The Holy Father is infallible, and we may make the mistake of believing him ALWAYS infallible throughout his entire life as Pope, which is not the case.
He is The Vicar of Christ, the representative of The Famous Jew, but NOT INFALLIBLE AS HE! The Pope always remains human and free to choose to continue the gospel of Christ, or not. Christ is God, and ONLY He is Infallible, always.
When you’re done carving snippets from materials to make the context fit your erroneous position, perhaps you might want to read and study the entire body of work concerned so you may understand it. Otherwise, you will remain a “protestant” of the same ilk as all who cite Honorius as a case against the Papacy.
Many have before you. Even here on this forum, there is plenty information available for your perusal; were you honest…
…but you are not!
Honorius himself was not anathematized but the false teaching he failed to condemn through, what the later Pope viewed as, negligence! Having been tricked by another, Honorius argued with St Augustine, who was trying to tell him that he had been tricked.
This is yet another demonstration that whilst the Pope CAN speak infallibly, he himself, is NOT ALWAYS infallible, which is a repeat of the example of St Peter denying Our Lord 3-times. This is prudent for every Catholic to realise (and we do) because otherwise, we start believing that every word spoken by The Holy Father is infallible, and we may make the mistake of believing him ALWAYS infallible throughout his entire life as Pope, which is not the case.
He is The Vicar of Christ, the representative of The Famous Jew, but NOT INFALLIBLE AS HE! The Pope always remains human and free to choose to continue the gospel of Christ, or not. Christ is God, and ONLY He is Infallible, always.
When you’re done carving snippets from materials to make the context fit your erroneous position, perhaps you might want to read and study the entire body of work concerned so you may understand it. Otherwise, you will remain a “protestant” of the same ilk as all who cite Honorius as a case against the Papacy.
Many have before you. Even here on this forum, there is plenty information available for your perusal; were you honest…
…but you are not!
D
Deconi
Guest
Of note, why don’t we cite some of the councils and leaders of your denomination who spoke up against Honorius when they thought he was being “false” and teaching heretical views of the faith?
Oh. That’s right, I forgot. THEY HADN’T BEEN INVENTED YET !!
Oh. That’s right, I forgot. THEY HADN’T BEEN INVENTED YET !!
J
justasking4
Guest
We know that this pope was condemned for centuries by various councils. These councils understood him to be a heretic and condemned for it in later councils.Your ignorance is quite profound!
Honorius himself was not anathematized but the false teaching he failed to condemn through, what the later Pope viewed as, negligence! Having been tricked by another, Honorius argued with St Augustine, who was trying to tell him that he had been tricked.
This is yet another demonstration that whilst the Pope CAN speak infallibly, he himself, is NOT ALWAYS infallible, which is a repeat of the example of St Peter denying Our Lord 3-times. This is prudent for every Catholic to realise (and we do) because otherwise, we start believing that every word spoken by The Holy Father is infallible, and we may make the mistake of believing him ALWAYS infallible throughout his entire life as Pope, which is not the case.
He is The Vicar of Christ, the representative of The Famous Jew, but NOT INFALLIBLE AS HE! The Pope always remains human and free to choose to continue the gospel of Christ, or not. Christ is God, and ONLY He is Infallible, always.
When you’re done carving snippets from materials to make the context fit your erroneous position, perhaps you might want to read and study the entire body of work concerned so you may understand it. Otherwise, you will remain a “protestant” of the same ilk as all who cite Honorius as a case against the Papacy.
Many have before you. Even here on this forum, there is plenty information available for your perusal; were you honest…
…but you are not!
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
what???
- Status