Infallibility?

[faithcontender]

The point is that all who claim to be true church of Christ wether they are so called baptist, catholic, methodist and others and yet fail to meet the standard of a christian church in matters of doctrine and practice should be rejected.

We have to be careful, for in the last days many false prophets will arise.

Matthew
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good

 

[Kathryn]

Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:3

Catholics and the Catholic church have been faithfully proclaiming "Jesus is Lord" for 2000 years. Must be the Holy Spirit.


God Bless

 

[faithcontender]

Kathryn,

Is it also by the Holy Spirit that the Catholic church killed many non-catholics?

 

[Kathryn]

Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:3

Is it also by the Holy Spirit that the Catholic church killed many non-catholics?

I don’t know. I do know that the word of God tells us that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed,” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. People like Nero, Hitler, etc. did not proclaim “Jesus is Lord”, as the Catholic Church faithfully does. This presents a problem to anyone claiming she is the anti-Christ. The word of God says this is the Holy Spirit.

God Bless

 

[neal4christ]

I am not nearly as mad as I sound. But some of these issues have to be dealt head on and so I come accross that way.

No problem, Thess.

I understand.

Neal

 

[faithcontender]

Kathryn,

I'm speaking of the catholic church who killed many Donatists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Anabaptists and many others. Is this the catholic church you are talking about?

 

[LaRae]

Originally posted by faithcontender:
Kathryn,

I'm speaking of the catholic church who killed many Donatists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Anabaptists and many others. Is this the catholic church you are talking about?

You are conveniently ignoring the MANY other Churches who have participated in killing others (including Catholics).

Funny thing happens when you start pointing that finger of blame...it often ends up pointed right back at you.


LaRae

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by faithcontender:
Kathryn,

I'm speaking of the catholic church who killed many Donatists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Anabaptists and many others. Is this the catholic church you are talking about?

The Catholic Church is universal, and the universal Church, which is holy, is not responsible for the individual sins of its members, though it certainly suffers because of them. Rather, you are speaking of the "Catholics" who killed people of other faiths, contrary to the One True Faith.

God bless,

Grant

 

[faithcontender]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by faithcontender:
Kathryn,

I'm speaking of the catholic church who killed many Donatists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Anabaptists and many others. Is this the catholic church you are talking about?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Catholic Church is universal, and the universal Church, which is holy, is not responsible for the individual sins of its members, though it certainly suffers because of them. Rather, you are speaking of the "Catholics" who killed people of other faiths, contrary to the One True Faith

It was not some of the catholics but the whole catholic church in that period set up the inquisition. It was set up by the the papacy.

The catholic church as a whole with the approval of the pope killed these "heretics".

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by faithcontender:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by faithcontender:
Kathryn,

I'm speaking of the catholic church who killed many Donatists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Anabaptists and many others. Is this the catholic church you are talking about?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The Catholic Church is universal, and the universal Church, which is holy, is not responsible for the individual sins of its members, though it certainly suffers because of them. Rather, you are speaking of the "Catholics" who killed people of other faiths, contrary to the One True Faith

It was not some of the catholics but the whole catholic church in that period set up the inquisition. It was set up by the the papacy.

The catholic church as a whole with the approval of the pope killed these "heretics". </font>[/QUOTE]Bold statement. How about some source documents testifying to the universality of the approval of the deaths of these people. I mean, that is your assumption above.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Kathryn]

I can not buy "Trail of Blood" type history. Dr. Carrol is not a real historian. This distortion of history is not substantiated in the academic world. I know that the Church has defended the faith as it was called to do, against heretics who denied the divinity of Jesus Christ and sought to tear the church apart with falshoods. Heretics who taught people to starve themselves to death because the body is evil, heretics who taught people not to have children because all the physical was evil, etc. All these groups came out of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic clergy in the east basically became Arian. It was the western half of the Catholic Church that held the one true faith alone, until the east cleaned up its clergy and returned to the one true faith. Orthodoxy acknowleges this. Interestingly these splinter groups called the Catholic Church the anti-Christ as they left her. I know Baptists like to look at Arians and other heretic groups as their forefathers, but they are no more Baptist forefathers than the man in the moon.

Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:3

So, do you guys not accept the word of God as true? You change the subject, and don't address the issue of if God's word is true. Like I say, this is a problem because the Anti-Christ doesn't confess belief in Jesus Christ as Lord, Redeemer, and Savior. You can say that maybe we don't believe it, but you still have to accept that the word of God tells us that "No one can say, "Jesus is Lord" accept by the Holy Spirit.

God Bless

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Kathryn:

The Catholic clergy in the east basically became Arian.

Glad to see that you accept that there are and were many Catholics that are heretics.
DHK

 

[faithcontender]

Bold statement. How about some source documents testifying to the universality of the approval of the deaths of these people. I mean, that is your assumption above.

It is a fact of history that the papacy set up inquistion and approved the killing of "heretics".

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/refarticle.aspx?refid=761552909

 

[DHK]

1Tim.1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Gal.2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Paul and Peter had sinned. Paul was the chief of all sinners. They admitted their infallibility. They would never qualify as popes. I guess Peter should have thrown away those keys according to Catholic theology. Also remember the bickering among the disciples (including Peter) about who should be the greatest? No sin there, was there? Wasn’t it Peter who denied the Lord three times?
DHK

[ June 17, 2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[Johnv]

Since this thread (for lack of a better word) began with the subject of infallibility, it should be pointed out that RCC infallibility applies only to statements made ex cathedra. In the entire history of the RCC I think I can cound the number of ex cathedral statements on less than one hand.

The inference that the RCC claims to be infallible in all spiritual matters is a lie that is spread by anti-catholics on this board. Normally, I'd say that it's an honest error in one's understanding, but the error has been corrected so many times, the only conclusion is that people are choosing to spread this lie to attack the RCC. Criticize if you must, but please refrain from lying.

 

[Kathryn]

Role of Heresy in History (Catholic Encyclopedia)

The role of heresy in history is that of evil generally. Its roots are in corrupted human nature. It has come over the Church as predicted by her Divine Founder; it has rent asunder the bonds of charity in families, provinces, states, and nations; the sword has been drawn and pyres erected both for its defence and its repression; misery and ruin have followed in its track. The prevalence of heresy, however, does not disprove the Divinity of the Church, any more than the existence of evil disproves the existence of an all-good God. Heresy, like other evils, is permitted as a test of faith and a trial of strength in the Church militant; probably also as a punishment for other sins. The disruption and disintegration of heretical sects also furnishes a solid argument for the necessity of a strong teaching authority. The endless controversies with heretics have been indirectly the cause of most important doctrinal developments and definitions formulated in councils to the edification of the body of Christ. Thus the spurious gospels of the Gnostics prepared the way for the canon of Scripture; Patripassian, Sabellian, Arian, and Macedonian heresies drew out a clearer concept of the Trinity; the Nestorian and Eutychian errors led to definite dogmas on the nature and Person of Christ. And so down to Modernism, which has called forth a solemn assertion of the claims of the supernatural in history.

God Bless

 

[Kathryn]

Tolerance and Cruelty (Catholic Encyclopedia)

The Church's legislation on heresy and heretics is often reproached with cruelty and intolerance. Intolerant it is: in fact its raison d'être is intolerance of doctrines subversive of the faith. But such intolerance is essential to all that is, or moves, or lives, for tolerance of destructive elements within the organism amounts to suicide. Heretical sects are subject to the same law: they live or die in the measure they apply or neglect it. The charge of cruelty is also easy to meet. All repressive measures cause suffering or inconvenience of some sort: it is their nature. But they are not therefore cruel. The father who chastises his guilty son is just and may be tender-hearted. Cruelty only comes in where the punishment exceeds the requirements of the case. Opponents say: Precisely; the rigours of the Inquisition violated all humane feelings. We answer: they offend the feelings of later ages in which there is less regard for the purity of faith; but they did not antagonize the feelings of their own time, when heresy was looked on as more malignant than treason. In proof of which it suffices to remark that the inquisitors only renounced on the guilt of the accused and then handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according to the laws framed by emperors and kings. Medieval people found no fault with the system, in fact heretics had been burned by the populace centuries before the Inquisition became a regular institution. And whenever heretics gained the upper hand, they were never slow in applying the same laws: so the Huguenots in France, the Hussites in Bohemia, the Calvinists in Geneva, the Elizabethan statesmen and the Puritans in England. Toleration came in only when faith went out; lenient measures were resorted to only where the power to apply more severe measures was wanting. The embers of the Kulturkampf in Germany still smoulder; the separation and confiscation laws and the ostracism of Catholics in France are the scandal of the day. Christ said: "Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matt., x, 34). The history of heresy verifies this prediction and shows, moreover, that the greater number of the victims of the sword is on the side of the faithful adherents of the one Church founded by Christ.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Bold statement. How about some source documents testifying to the universality of the approval of the deaths of these people. I mean, that is your assumption above.

During thirty-four years, and in the course of innumerable journeys, he preached the Gospel from East to West, and converted great numbers of his countrymen. The result was more terrible persecutions, which were continued through successive reigns. Foremost in this work we find the Emperor Leo, the Patriarch Nicephorus, and notably the Empress Theodora. Under the latter it was affirmed, says Gibbon, "that one hundred thousand Paulicians were extirpated by the sword, the gibbet, or the flames." It is admitted by the same historian that the chief guilt of many of those who were thus destroyed lay in their being Iconoclasts.[4] The sanguinary zeal of Theodora kindled a flame which had well-nigh consumed the Empire of the East. The Paulicians, stung by these cruel injuries, now prolonged for two centuries, at last took up arms, as the Waldenses of Piedmont, the Hussites of Bohemia, and the Huguenots of France did in similar circumstances. They placed their camp in the mountains between Sewas and Trebizond, and for thirty-five years (A.D. 845 – 880) the Empire of Constantinople was afflicted with the calamities of civil war. Repeated victories, won over the troops of the emperor, crowned the arms of the Paulicians, and at length the insurgents were joined by the Saracens, who hung on the frontier of the Empire. The flames of battle extended into the heart of Asia; and as it is impossible to restrain the ravages of the sword when once unsheathed, the Paulicians passed from a righteous defense to an inexcusable revenge. Entire provinces were wasted, opulent cities were sacked, ancient and famous churches were turned into stables, and troops of captives were held to ransom or delivered to the executioner. But it must not be forgotten that the original cause of these manifold miseries was the bigotry of the government and the zeal of the clergy for image-worship. The fortune of war at last declared in favor of the troops of the emperor, and the insurgents were driven back into their mountains, where for a century afterwards they enjoyed a partial independence, and maintained the profession of their religious faith.
Wylie, A History of Protestantism, Chapter 8.of Vol. I
hISTORY OF PROTESTANTISM
DHK

 

[JFS]

It is a fact of history that the papacy set up inquistion and approved the killing of "heretics".

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/refarticle.aspx?refid=761552909

I know that I do not post that often here. So I hope you will bare with me. I read the article which was presented and found no were in it that the Pope approved killing heritics. He approved torcher though. Another interesting note about the article that I am sure our separated betheren would rather not discus is this quote:

Historians have noted that many Protestant lands had institutions as repressive as the Spanish Inquisition, such as the consistory in Geneva at the time of the French reformer John Calvin.

Thank you for your attention
God Bless you all

John Secker

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by DHK:
1Tim.1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Gal.2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Paul and Peter had sinner. Paul was the chief of all sinners. They admitted their infallibility. They would never qualify as popes. I guess Peter should have thrown away those keys according to Catholic theology. Also remember the bickering among the disciples (including Peter) about who should be the greatest? No sin there, was there? Wasn’t it Peter who denied the Lord three times?
DHK

See John's post above. If the shoe fits where it. The Catholic Church fully recognizes the words of Peter and Paul as infallible even though they sinned. It fits exactly with our concept on infallibility. We do not say popes are impecable. By the way in case you didn't know Peter does qualify as a Pope and is listed as such.

[ June 17, 2003, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]