• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Another Catholic question- Pope

milby

Member
In the book I am currently reading the author made the statement that the Pope is not perfect, faultless, or sinless, but no Pope in the history of Popes has ever taught Heresy.

Obviously many on here disagree with that. I'm looking for verifiable examples that I can research. I'm trying to get it settled in my own mind once and for all as to who is teaching truth. The Catholic Church or Protestants.
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
In the book I am currently reading the author made the statement that the Pope is not perfect, faultless, or sinless, but no Pope in the history of Popes has ever taught Heresy.

Obviously many on here disagree with that. I'm looking for verifiable examples that I can research. I'm trying to get it settled in my own mind once and for all as to who is teaching truth. The Catholic Church or Protestants.

Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic at the 6th Ecumenical Council.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
In the book I am currently reading the author made the statement that the Pope is not perfect, faultless, or sinless, but no Pope in the history of Popes has ever taught Heresy.

Obviously many on here disagree with that. I'm looking for verifiable examples that I can research. I'm trying to get it settled in my own mind once and for all as to who is teaching truth. The Catholic Church or Protestants.
Pope Innocent III ordered a crusade against Bible believing Albigenses, and all but exterminated them. That was his goal--to wipe them out. He was an ungodly wicked man. The crusades were a time of killing people, innocent people who just wanted to live peaceably.

The various Inquistions were set up where those who disagreed with the doctrine of the RCC were horribly tortured until they recanted their faith in Christ, and submitted to the pope.

If you read the older commentaries, like Albert Barnes, Jameison Faucett and Brown, Matthew Henry, etc. (all easily obtainable on the internet), they will all equate the Catholic Church with the antichrist or false prophet of Revelation 17.

Revelation 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
Revelation 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Revelation 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
--No other institution on earth has killed more Christians than the RCC.
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
In the book I am currently reading the author made the statement that the Pope is not perfect, faultless, or sinless, but no Pope in the history of Popes has ever taught Heresy.

Obviously many on here disagree with that. I'm looking for verifiable examples that I can research. I'm trying to get it settled in my own mind once and for all as to who is teaching truth. The Catholic Church or Protestants.
Before Christ ascended into heaven to sit at His Father’s right hand, He didn’t leave one man to oversee His Church…He left the Holy Spirit…The doctrines that the popes of Rome have absolute authority over all other bishops throughout Christianity and that they are infallible in matters pertaining to faith and morals are dogmas that never existed until the 9th Century, when more and more Roman popes were seeking to assert their spiritual authority as the supreme expression of the Faith.

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I cannot accept such beliefs because these ideals were never part of the early Church. Early Christian bishops, including Eastern Orthodox ones, have always utilized a consensus of opinions and spiritual authority, usually by council or synod. It is this wider perspective of decision making that is considered infallible due only in part by the guidance of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ Himself regarding matters of doctrine and absolute authority.

Then, once the councils agree, the Church has to accept it…Look no further than the Russian Orthodox Church during Communism…The Russian government did everything in their power to address and adjust the Russian Church so they could control her bishops, priests and people…but nothing was accepted that was contrary to what was already firmly in place and held fast by the Church…and thousands of people perished because of their faith…bishops, priests and Christians all were imprisoned or murdered…

There has to be checks and balances…putting all the power in the hands of one man is a dangerous proposition…
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
There has to be checks and balances…putting all the power in the hands of one man is a dangerous proposition…
Hardly one man. How about one triune God.
The Bible has 66 books, written by about 40 different authors over a span of 1500 years, all perfectly in harmony one with another speaking of redemption through Jesus Christ. Within its pages are no contradictions, and each page is inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

The hand of the Holy Spirit is not a dangerous proposition.
However the wicked hands of both the RCC and EOC are.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
“The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals.”

Doctrines are considered infallible when issued by the pope in his own name according to the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching (within the official discharge of his office).
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
Pope Innocent III ordered a crusade against Bible believing Albigenses, and all but exterminated them.
I hate to tell you but the Albigenses were not believers and certainly not baptist.
The Albigenses asserted the co-existence of two mutually opposed principles, one good, the other evil The former is the creator of the spiritual, the latter of the material world. The bad principle is the source of all evil; natural phenomena, either ordinary like the growth of plants, or extraordinary as earthquakes, likewise moral disorders (war), must be attributed to him... This earth is a place of punishment, the only hell that exists for the human soul. Punishment, however, is not everlasting; for all souls, being Divine in nature, must eventually be liberated. To accomplish this deliverance God sent upon earth Jesus Christ, who, although very perfect, like the Holy Ghost, is still a mere creature. The Redeemer could not take on a genuine human body, because he would thereby have come under the control of the evil principle...The dualism of the Albigenses was also the basis of their moral teaching. Man, they taught, is a living contradiction. Hence, the liberation of the soul from its captivity in the body is the true end of our being. To attain this, suicide is commendable - Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur
The Albigenses stood on a totally different standpoint. The procreation of children was for them the supreme sin. A woman with child was described as having a devil, as possessed by the evil one. No one could be saved unless he renounced marriage. Even sins between unmarried folk, or unnatural crimes were looked upon as of less malice than marriage, for marriage was held to be the shameless flaunting of evil under the cover of legality, and there was less hope of repentance for so-called "wedded" folk. -THE ALBIGENSES
By J.P Arendzen
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
I hate to tell you but the Albigenses were not believers and certainly not baptist.
And why should I accept your Catholic revisionist historian???
David Cloud, Rome and the Bible:
“The persecutions which were poured out upon these Bible-believing people beginning in the 7th century caused them to be scattered throughout Europe, everywhere carrying with them the New Testament faith. The Lutheran historian Mosheim, writing in the 17th century, says:... They were later known by many names, including Paterini, Cathari, Bulgarians, Patarins, Gazarians, Turlupins, Runcarians, and Albigenses... The term ‘Albigenses’ probably derived from a Council which was held in the year 1176 at the town of Lombers near Albi, ‘for the purpose of examining certain reputed heretics’ (Faber, p. 221)...
“The Bogomiles, possibly an offshoot from the Paulicians, were condemned as heretics and suffered great persecution...The Alibgenses rejected the Roman Church and esteemed the New Testament above all its traditions and ceremonies... Reineriou also falsely accused the Waldensians with Manicheanism. This Reinerius is probably the same persecutor employed by Pope Innocent III to hunt out the ‘heretical’ Waldenses and Cathari throughout southern France and northern Spain...” (Way of Life Literature, 1996, pp. 34, 36, 37)

Samuel Gipp, An Understandable History of the Bible:
“‘From Antioch…the Universal Text was sent up into Europe. From there is spread through Syria and Europe through its translation into the Syraic Peshitto version and the Old Latin Vulgate… The Old Latin Vulgate was used by the Christians in the churches of the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albigenses, and other fundamental groups throughout Europe.” (p. 67)

William P. Grady, Final Authority:
“The first Latin translation of the Bible is known as the ‘Old Latin’ and was made no later than A.D. 157 for the young churches established throughout the Italian Alps. The fifty extant manuscripts of this version are classified by either of their eventual twofold areas of expanded circulation – Europe or Asia. Also referred to as the Itala Bible, this venerable witness was also closely allied with the Textus Receptus – a full century before the so-called Lucian Recension!
“Because of this we are not surprised to learn that the Roman Bishop Damascus commissioned Jerome to revive the ‘archaic’ Old Latin Bible in A.D. 382. As mentioned in chapter two, the completed monstrosity became known as the Latin ‘Vulgate’ (for received) and was used by the devil to usher in the Dark Ages.
“By contract and in the face of this romanish recension, true Latin-speaking believers continued to perpetuate their beloved Itala through the centuries. These readings were eventually preserved through a translation into sixteenth-century Italian by the reformer Diodati becoming the official Bible of the Albigensen and Waldensian assemblies. Satan’s wrath for this pure Alpine text was vividly confirmed by the blood which flowed through the otherwise peaceful valleys amidst repeated Catholic atrocities.” (pp. 35-6)

Floyd Jones, Ripped Out Of the Bible:
“…the ‘Traditional Text’…has been read and preserved by the Greek Orthodox Church throughout the centuries. From it came the Peshitta, the Italic, Celtic, Gallic, and Gothic Bibles, the medieval versions of the evangelical Waldenses and Albigenses, and other versions suppressed by Rome during the Middles Ages.” (p. 40)

http://www.watch-unto-prayer.org/TR-13-albigenses-cathari.html


Though you may not like the original source, he has far more historical references than your biased Catholic.
 

billwald

New Member
These incidents occurred because at that time the Church had authority over the civil government. Like Sharia Law. Like Christian Reconstructionists want to impose on the entire world.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Pope Innocent III ordered a crusade against Bible believing Albigenses, and all but exterminated them. That was his goal--to wipe them out. He was an ungodly wicked man. The crusades were a time of killing people, innocent people who just wanted to live peaceably.

The various Inquistions were set up where those who disagreed with the doctrine of the RCC were horribly tortured until they recanted their faith in Christ, and submitted to the pope.

Yet the RCC believes these people speak for God!
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
And why should I accept your Catholic revisionist historian???

For two obvious reason. The historian lived at the time of the events and two your baptist revisionist are trying to prove a non tennable position that baptist were the primative church.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
For two obvious reason. The historian lived at the time of the events and two your baptist revisionist are trying to prove a non tennable position that baptist were the primative church.

This is an issue that can never be settled between Catholic and non-Catholic historians simply because all uninspired human history is subject to bias, distortion and interpretation. Rome is going to vouch for its sources while non-Roman historians are going to point out factors that cast doubt on those sources and statements.

However, that is precisely why I choose to view secular church history from the perspective of inspired prophetic scriptures. God's word is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16). The writers are not biased (1 Pet. 1:20-21).

1. False religion is clearly predicted to rise - 1 Tim. 4:1-5; Mt. 24:24-25; etc.

2. False religion is clearly characterized:

a. False religion persecutes, slanders, murders other professed Christians - Jn. 16;1-4; Mt. 5:10-13; Rev. 17:5.

b. False religion is characterized by prominent false doctrines - Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Tim. 4:1-5; 1 Jn. 4:1-6;

3. True Biblical religion is in the minority and decreasing as the age ends

a. "little flock"
b. "hid" among the tares - Mt. 13
c. "few be that find it" - Mt. 7:13-14
d. "Shall I find faith" - Lk. 18:8

Rome along with many others fits every single characteristic of false religion. And if Rome fits every single characteristic of false religion then the "few" and "the little flock" must be among whom they persecuted and killed throughout the centuries - Just that simple!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
“The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals.”

Doctrines are considered infallible when issued by the pope in his own name according to the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching (within the official discharge of his office).

actually Higher authority then the bible, as he can made pronouncements as concerning perpetual virginity of mary, her assumption etc NON of that found un the sacred texts!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
I hate to tell you but the Albigenses were not believers and certainly not baptist.
The Albigenses stood on a totally different standpoint. The procreation of children was for them the supreme sin. A woman with child was described as having a devil, as possessed by the evil one. No one could be saved unless he renounced marriage. Even sins between unmarried folk, or unnatural crimes were looked upon as of less malice than marriage, for marriage was held to be the shameless flaunting of evil under the cover of legality, and there was less hope of repentance for so-called "wedded" folk. -THE ALBIGENSES
By J.P Arendzen

Sounds a little like the RCC priesthood doesn't it!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
I hate to tell you but the Albigenses were not believers and certainly not baptist.

It is exceedingly difficult to form any very precise idea of the Albigensian doctrines because present knowledge of them is derived from their opponents and from the very rare and uninformative Albigensian texts which have come down to us. What is certain is that, above all, they formed an antisacerdotal party in permanent opposition to the Roman church and raised a continued protest against the corruption of the clergy of their time. The Albigensian theologians and ascetics, known in the south of France as bons hommes or bons chrétiens, were always few in number.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/12965/Albigenses
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
It is exceedingly difficult to form any very precise idea of the Albigensian doctrines because present knowledge of them is derived from their opponents and from the very rare and uninformative Albigensian texts which have come down to us. What is certain is that, above all, they formed an antisacerdotal party in permanent opposition to the Roman church and raised a continued protest against the corruption of the clergy of their time. The Albigensian theologians and ascetics, known in the south of France as bons hommes or bons chrétiens, were always few in number.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/12965/Albigenses

Pour argument. We can tell what the beliefs were from the Trojans who's only written history is from their advisaries the greeks. We Know alot about the carthaginians though most of their history is derived from their enemies the Romans. In fact we understand some things about the hebrew people from their advesaries writings the egyptians. We know alot about the philistines through their enemy the Jews and the bible. We can tell accurately about the early church from their advisaries the Roman government. So quite incorrectly we can tell a lot from the writings of peoples advesaries. And the Albigenisans did have some sacraments in their belief system as people of the time are able to tell in their writings.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Pour argument. We can tell what the beliefs were from the Trojans who's only written history is from their advisaries the greeks. We Know alot about the carthaginians though most of their history is derived from their enemies the Romans. In fact we understand some things about the hebrew people from their advesaries writings the egyptians. We know alot about the philistines through their enemy the Jews and the bible. We can tell accurately about the early church from their advisaries the Roman government. So quite incorrectly we can tell a lot from the writings of peoples advesaries. And the Albigenisans did have some sacraments in their belief system as people of the time are able to tell in their writings.

You are entitled to your opinion, but where are your sources?
 
Top