Protestant saying hello

  • Thread starter Thread starter redshock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ja4 is trying to make the case that an individual who falls into error means that the whole Church has fallen into error. Along the lines that, since Judas fell into error, then the Teaching of Jesus must be wrong, because Judas was one of the 12, and knew better. 🤷
 
ja4 is trying to make the case that an individual who falls into error means that the whole Church has fallen into error. Along the lines that, since Judas fell into error, then the Teaching of Jesus must be wrong, because Judas was one of the 12, and knew better. 🤷
If a pope falls into error has the entire church fallen into error since the pope is supposedly the vicar of Christ on earth and represents the catholic church?
 
If a pope falls into error has the entire church fallen into error since the pope is supposedly the vicar of Christ on earth and represents the catholic church?
Your continual (I dare say intentional) misunderstandings of the Catholic church and its structure, even after it is explained to you, is really baffling to me. 🙂
 
If a pope falls into error has the entire church fallen into error since the pope is supposedly the vicar of Christ on earth and represents the catholic church?
It is certainly a poor witness, and has much more impact than it would if a layperson such as myself fell into error, because he is so visible. But it does not mean that the Teaching of the Church has changed, or fallen into error. It is like saying that, since George W. Bush represents the United States, and he engages us in an immoral or illegal war, then the whole country is guilty of his error. In fact the opposite happened. The councils roundly and repeatedly made sure that everyone understood that he was not consistent with the Teaching of the Church.
 
It does not baffle me Ja4 was continued throughout this entire post to ignore what he can not twist and twist everything else. At one point I thought he was just playing devils advocate, but I realized that he just wants to argue and ignore what he can not argue with. short of the a personal appearance from Our Lord to verify the Teachings of the Church he will have no part of faith. He acknowledge that Scripture tells us to Follow traditions but refuse to see and believe those teachings and traditions. Is very sad
 
If a pope falls into error has the entire church fallen into error since the pope is supposedly the vicar of Christ on earth and represents the catholic church?
lol, this is really something…

Proof positive that JA4 doesn’t actually listen to what he is told.

We have talked about this over and over and over with JA4 in so many different threads and he still insists on ‘playing dumb’ about Catholic belief. I am continually more and more convinced that he is here to be a devil’s advocate to any person wanting to learn about the Catholic faith.

JustAsking4 how many times do we have to explain this?
 
Your continual (I dare say intentional) misunderstandings of the Catholic church and its structure, even after it is explained to you, is really baffling to me. 🙂
What do you think i’m saying here?
 
I think I’m still waiting to hear which day you observe as your high day of worship… Saturday or Sunday… or do you just not go to church at all?
I answered this on the thread:

Is Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church the only way to salvation?

#673
 
I answered this on the thread:

Is Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church the only way to salvation?

#673
you didn’t actually say which you adhere to, or practice yourself, and I think that is the question.
 
JustAsking4 how many times do we have to explain this?
I think every time. “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.” Matt 18:15

Since his expressed purpose here is to pursuade Catholics to become “bible christians” then it is necessary to continue with him as long as he wishes to pander his calumny here. I urge all to keep in mind the lurkers, who often outnumber the posters 10:1 or more. Even if ja4 chooses to remain in a state of bigotry and ignorance about the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith, perhaps those reading the threads may be enlightened.
Your continual (I dare say intentional) misunderstandings of the Catholic church and its structure, even after it is explained to you, is really baffling to me. 🙂
What do you think i’m saying here?
This was a commentary on your attitude and deportment, ja4. To answer with such an odd question is just a dodge, and an avoidance. The observation here is that you appear to intentionally misconstrue the Teachings of the Catholic Church and its structure. You do not accept multiple explanations geared to correct the misinformation and bigotry that you have been spood fed. Yet you continually and persistently reject this information, and cling to the lies you have been told. It is baffling. 🤷
 
Lets also add a pope who was later condemed by later councils as a heretic:
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.
This attack against Pope Honorius 1 is a “red herring” cast by some Christians who oppose the dogma of papal infallibilty. Meanwhile they confuse papal infallibilty with human impeccabilty: the legal or authoritative with the moral. JA4 fails to notice that Pope Honorius was not condemned for having officially “taught” Monothelitism. The Holy See in Rome ruled that Honorius had not intended to “teach” this heresy, and was thus not a positive heretic. He was not condemned as a Monothelite.

When, in 680, Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside at the Council on his behalf. They brought with them a dogmatic letter in which the pope confirmed the faith in light of Honorius’ negligence (He had failed to publicly issue a definition ‘ex cathedra’.): that the Apostolic Church of St. Peter has never fallen into error and never will. No valdily elected pontiff has ever been condemned by the Church for having taught something non-infallibly or infallibly in an encyclical or Apostolic Constitution of his and never will be, for he is inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit in these capacities. This is the Catholic faith! 👍

Pope Honorius may have been expected to reach a dogmatic decision on the question of one or two wills in the Person of Christ, but the fact is he never expressed a final decision. Meanwhile his reply in an official letter to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was not an authoritative declaration of the Church. The pope did not claim to make a pronouncement from the Chair of Peter: ‘ex-cathedra’. He merely agreed with Sergius’ caution of having discarded the expression “one operation” for it sounded Eutychian, but he was mistaken by agreeing that Sergius should reject the expression “two operations” because the latter expression smacked of Nestorianism. It appears both Honorius and Sergius asserted only one will in Christ meaning that he possessed no contrary human will which was vitiated by sin. Honorius, at least, did not intend to deny the existence of a human will in Christ, but he expressed himself in his letter so ambiguously that it reflected Monophysitism [cf. John Chapman: Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol Vll]. This was while Honorius was still alive. The controversy flared up after he died. So he wasn’t around to explain what he actually meant to say to Sergius with respect to the latter’s formula. Still he hadn’t made a final and conclusive decision for or against the patriarch’s Christology during his pontificate; more a bungling of the exercise of the Divine Office than anything else and an instance of human imperfection. For this he was condemned by the Council.

Pope Honorius was not condemned because he taught heresy, but because of his apparently permissive attitude toward Monothelitism. When Pope Leo ll confirmed the anathema borne by the 6th Ecumenical Council, convoked by Pope Agatho before his death, he pointed out that the offense consisted in this: Honorius did not extinguish the fire of heresy at the beginning as was fitting for the pope to do, but on the contrary he fomented it by his guilty negligence. [cf. New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol Vll, p.123; Vol Vlll, p.639]. Hence, Pope Leo condemned Pope Honorius for negligence of duty in the face of heresy; he should have ascertained that Sergius was teaching not a mere oneness of wills in Christ, but literally one divine will in Christ to the exclusion of his human will. Since Honorius never made an ‘ex cathedra’ pronouncement on this matter, the question of papal infallibilty does not arise. Don’t expect Pope Pius lX to be anathematized for dogmatically declaring the Immaculate Conception a divinely revealed truth. It ain’t gonna happen. :nope: On the other hand, Bishop Nestorious, the priest Arius, and the priest Martin Luther were condemned as positive heretics, for their heresies originated with them and these men consciously taught and spread their false doctrines. :yup:

In memory of our venerable Pope Honorius 1 ( 625-638) and for the repose of his immortal soul:

In you Lord is our hope.
We shall never hope in vain.
We shall dance and rejoice in your mercy.
We shall never hope in vain.
Amen :byzsoc:

{From the Divine Office for the Dead}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top