Infallibility?

[thessalonian]

Paulicians:

The cardinal point of the Paulician heresy is a distinction between the God who made and governs the material world and the God of heaven who created souls, who alone should be adored. They thought all matter bad. It seems therefore obvious to count them as one of the many neo-Manichaean sects, in spite of their own denial and that of modern writers (Ter-Mkrttschian, Conybeare, Adeney, loc. cit.; Harnack, "Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschicte", Tubingen, 1909, II, 528). But there is a strong Marcionite element too. They rejected the Old Testament; there was no Incarnation, Christ was an angel sent into the world by God, his real mother was the heavenly Jerusalem. His work consisted only in his teaching; to believe in him saves men from judgment. The true baptism and Eucharist consist in hearing his word, as in John, iv, 10. But many Paulicians, nevertheless, let their children be baptized by the Catholic clergy. They honoured not the Cross, but only the book of the Gospel. They were Iconoclasts, rejecting all pictures. Their Bible was a fragmentary New Testament. They rejected St. Peter's epistles because he had denied Christ. They referred always to the "Gospel and Apostle", apparently only St Luke and St. Paul; though they quoted other Gospels in controversy.

I guess if they were Iconoclasts that is all that matters. They were true Christians. Dual God eh.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by JFS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with much of what you said. Much of the time it was the Catholic sanctioned government that persecuted the believers. So it happened under the reign of Bloody Mary Tudor. But it was the Pope that approved it, and did nothing to stop the carnage. In her zeal to rid the land of the Protestants, the Catholic Church was right behind her and abetting her.

As Baptists we have nothing to do with the Presbyterians who originated with Calvin. We do not sanction what Calvin did, and acknowledge that he did much evil and damage to the cause of Christ. Calvin also persecuted many, many Baptists. I have no sympathy for Calvin at all. Though many on this board may be Calvinistic, I am not.
DHK

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by 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

Your attempt to separate yourself from the scandal within is common to human nature but not biblical. In 1 Cor 5 Paul said shape up, not, your not really a part of the Church. We are told there will be "wolves AMONG you". The wheat and the tares are separated at the harvest, for if the tares are pulled early the wheat might be damaged.

Matthew 13:25
"But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away.
"But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also.
"The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?'
"And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' The slaves *said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?'
"But he *said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them.
'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.""

This does not mean that the wheat around the tares will not produce fruit.

Blessings

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
I guess if they were Iconoclasts that is all that matters. They were true Christians. Dual God eh.

Some obscurity rests upon their origin, and additional mystery has on purpose been cast over it, but a fair and impartial examination of the matter leaves no doubt that the Paulicians are the remnant that escaped the apostasy of the Eastern Church, just as the Waldenses are the remnant saved from the apostasy of the Western Church. Doubt, too, has been thrown upon their religious opinions; they have been painted as a confederacy of Manicheans, just as the Waldenses were branded as a synagogue of heretics; but in the former case, as in the latter, an examination of the matter satisfies us that these imputations had no sufficient foundation, that the Paulicians repudiated the errors imputed to them, and that as a body their opinions were in substantial agreement with the doctrine of Holy Writ. Nearly all the information we have of them is that which Petrus Siculus, their bitter enemy, has communicated. He visited them when they were in their most flourishing condition, and the account he has given of their distinguishing doctrines sufficiently proves that the Paulicians had rejected the leading errors of the Greek and Roman Churches; but it fails to show that they had embraced the doctrine of Manes,[1] or were justly liable to be styled Manicheans.

In A.D. 653, a deacon returning from captivity in Syria rested a night in the house of an Armenian named Constantine, who lived in the neighborhood of Samosata. On the morrow, before taking his departure, he presented his host with a copy of the New Testament. Constantine studied the sacred volume. A new light broke upon his mind: the errors of the Greek Church stood clearly revealed, and he instantly resolved to separate himself from so corrupt a communion. He drew others to the study of the Scriptures, and the same light shone into their minds which had irradiated his. Sharing his views, they shared with him his secession from the established Church of the Empire. It was the boast of this new party, now grown to considerable numbers, that they adhered to the Scriptures, and especially to the writings of Paul. "I am Sylvanus," said Constantine, "and ye are Macedonians," intimating thereby that the Gospel which he would teach, and they should learn, was that of Paul; hence the name of Paulicians, a designation they would not have been ambitious to wear had their doctrine been Manichean.[2]

These disciples multiplied. A congenial soil favored their increase, for in these same mountains, where are placed the sources of the Euphrates, the Nestorian remnant had found a refuge. The attention of the Government at Constantinople was at length turned to them, and persecution followed. Constantine, whose zeal, constancy, and piety had been amply tested by the labors of twenty-seven years, was stoned to death. From his ashes arose a leader still more powerful. Simeon, an officer of the palace who had been sent with a body of troops to superintend his execution, was converted by his martyrdom; and, like Paul after the stoning of Stephen, forthwith began to preach the faith which he had once persecuted. Simeon ended his career, as Constantine had done, by sealing his testimony with his blood; the stake being planted beside the heap of stones piled above the ashes of Constantine.

"Iconoclastic...dual God"
Typical slander and revisionist history of the Catholics.
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

From the listed article:

"Thus, when the inquisitors handed a guilty person over to civil authorities, it was tantamount to a demand for that person's execution."

Executions were done under civil law, not by the Church. The Church was at fault for not intervening on a punishment far too strict. The Church's decision ended when the "guilty" were turned over to civil authorities.

I am in no way saying that this is good or holy. Quite the opposite. I am saying that these WERE the civil punishments of the time, and that the Church did not DIRECTLY (as has been highly insinuated, if not stated) in SUPPORT or ORDERING the death of these people.

Anyway, the article was a very informative.

God bless,

Grant

 

[thessalonian]

"As Baptists we have nothing to do with the Presbyterians who originated with Calvin. We do not sanction what Calvin did, and acknowledge that he did much evil and damage to the cause of Christ. Calvin also persecuted many, many Baptists. I have no sympathy for Calvin at all. Though many on this board may be Calvinistic, I am not. "


Why is Calvin Baptist a common name for baptist Churches and schools?

CALVIN BAPTIST CHURCH 224 2ND ST CALVIN LA 00007-1410 (318) 727-4533 LAKESIDE

Calvin Baptist Church (White County, Ill.); 12

etc.

Put Calvinist AND Baptist in google.com and you get over 11,000 hits. Calvin AND Baptist over 100,000 hits. So it seems to me that the division you are making between Baptists and John Calvin is not likely there. Needless to say I don't have time to check in to them all but I don't think they all say, "we have nothing to do with Calvin and Calvinism".

Blessings

 

[neal4christ]

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.

I don't know what statements have been made ex cathedra, but I would like to ask the Catholics here if this is true. Are there really that few ex cathedra statements (less than five)?

Neal

 

[thessalonian]

"Typical slander and revisionist history of the Catholics."

 

[Ps104_33]

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.

Hooray Johnnyv! I'm glad you are back in full force to defend the great "church" that you saw fit to leave.

You seem to spend more time defending error than you do defending the TRUTH. I think I'll sign up under another screen name as a Catholic and defend the Protestant position.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Psalm,

You wrote, "Hooray Johnnyv! I'm glad you are back in full force to defend the great "church" that you saw fit to leave."

John arrives on the scene to basically state up front that the Catholic Church isn't being attacked but, rather, a false image, a straw man, of the Catholic Church is being addressed.

And, this clear statement of fact brings you to this sarcastic treatment of Johnv.

John comes in to clear up the situation, bringing order from chaos, and you sarcastically attack him. Pray tell, Psalm, how is this helpful again?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
"Typical slander and revisionist history of the Catholics."

The point is Thessalonian, you will never look at history objectively. You will only consider history from a biased Catholic outlook, reading only Catholic historians. So you come up with a distorted view of what the Waldenses and Paulicians believe because all you know about them is what their enemies wrote about them. Is that objective and fair? Hardly. You complain when we appeal to Foxes Book of Martyrs, yet you do the exact same thing. At least Foxe has more integrity than most Catholic historians who purposely revise history because those who left the Catholic Church, did so out of the heresies that the Catholics brought into the Church--heresies which are indefensible from the Scripture.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:

Put Calvinist AND Baptist in google.com and you get over 11,000 hits. Calvin AND Baptist over 100,000 hits. So it seems to me that the division you are making between Baptists and John Calvin is not likely there. Needless to say I don't have time to check in to them all but I don't think they all say, "we have nothing to do with Calvin and Calvinism".

Blessings

There are many kinds of Baptists. Some of them are Reformed Baptists, who have incorportated some of
Calvin's teachngs into their own Baptist doctrine. My contention was, that no matter what teaching Calvin taught, he headed up a state church, much like the Catholics did in Britain, and persecuted those who did not adhere to the doctrines that he taught. Many Baptists were persecuted, and even died for their faith.

An interesting side note is that Calvin was not the originator of Calvinism. It was Augustine. Augustine first came up with the basic tenets of what Calvin taught.
DHK

 

[LaRae]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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.

I don't know what statements have been made ex cathedra, but I would like to ask the Catholics here if this is true. Are there really that few ex cathedra statements (less than five)?

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Yes Neal this is true....over the past 2000 or so years there have been 2 ex cathedra statements made by a pope. Here's a clip below that will help explain

*******************************************

Yes, Ex Cathedra pronouncements ARE infallible (of which they've been but two)

Yet, Ex Cathedra pronouncements are NOT the ONLY infallible statements..

Some Catholics wrongly believe that ONLY "ex cathedra" Papal Statements are
infallible. This would limit infallible dogma to two, the Immaculate Conception
and the Assumption. Obviously, only 2 infallible dogmas in 2,000 years sounds
very sparse. Some theologians incorrectly proliferate a notion that ONLY the
Extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. Even Raymond Brown has abandoned
this notion. Ergo, propositions like the one you mention, that the doctrine of the
perpetual virginity of the B.V.M. is NOT infallible, are ridiculous. If in doubt, the
BEST resource is Denziger's Enchiridion Symbolorum. Next, is Ludwig Ott's
monumental work, "The Fundamentals of Dogma." There, one can find the
theological distinctions made between divinely revealed truths (DE FIDE) and
those which are only theologically certain.

DE FIDE is the highest level of theological/doctrinal truth. They are INFALLIBLE
statements by their very nature, like the Holy Trinity, The Real Presence, etc.

Next, are VERITATES CATHOLICAE (catholic truths) like the existence of God
which can be known through reason alone.

Finally, there are four types of THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS:

1. SENTENTIA FIDEI PROXIMA (proximate to the Faith) like the Trinity can be
known only through Revelation.

2. SENTENTIA CERTA (theologically certain) like Monogenism, i.e., that the
human race came from one set of parents.

3. SENTENTIA COMMUNIA (common teaching) like the Church's prohibition &
proscription of artificial contraception.

4. SENTENTIA PROBABILIS (probable teaching) like the premise that the Virgin
Mary died before being Assumed into Heaven.

According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium
#25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will
of the faithful. While not requiring the ASSENT OF FAITH, they CANNOT be
disputed nor rejected publicly and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the
one possessing the fullness of teaching authority. The heterodox concept of a
dual magisteria, i.e., the theologians, is not based on scriptural nor traditional
grounds. Some have gone as far as to propose a triple magisteria, the body of
believers. While it is true that as a whole, the body of believers is infallible in that
SENSUS FIDEI is that the Church as the Mystical Body cannot be in error on
matters of faith and morals, the TEACHING AUTHORITY (Magisterium) resides
solely with the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops in union with him.

 

[Ps104_33]

Hi Psalm,

You wrote, "Hooray Johnnyv! I'm glad you are back in full force to defend the great "church" that you saw fit to leave."

John arrives on the scene to basically state up front that the Catholic Church isn't being attacked but, rather, a false image, a straw man, of the Catholic Church is being addressed.

And, this clear statement of fact brings you to this sarcastic treatment of Johnv.

John comes in to clear up the situation, bringing order from chaos, and you sarcastically attack him. Pray tell, Psalm, how is this helpful again?

Johnnyv,
See how much they love you?

You are the best apologist the Roman Catholic Church has on this board. How much would all we Baptists love to have a Roman Catholic on this board who would constantly stand up and defend the Baptist Distinctives for us. I think all the fine work you are doing in helping us to understand all the misunderstandings and double-speak of the true church will surely shorten your stay in purgatory. You do believe in purgatory dont you?

 

[DHK]

LaRae,
I appreciate your explanation and delineation of what is infallible, what is not, and what is opinion.

Where does that leave the Catechism, then? Is every statement in the Catechism infallibly true.

Sincerely,
DHK

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
I said quite clearly and have said it multiple times before SCANDAL DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT TRUTH OR ERROR OF A DENOMINATION.

It does if the person committing that crime is claiming to be infallible. Hello, I am your pope and can tell you what to do, but turn your eyes while I rape, pillage and murder. If you can't see how irrational this is, then I pray for your soul.

Originally posted by thessalonian:
What a tremendous display of biggotry and hatred is going on here. You are not concerned for anyone's soul. You are the damnable cowards. How many baptists and other protestants covered for people they knew who had white hoods draped over there heads in fron of a burning cross or a burning Church? In the early 1900's there were 6 million members of the KKK if my memory serves me right. They weren't Catholic. How many negro women were RAPED. How many burned homes and Churches and how many went to jail. Who knew of their crimes? Only God knows but you would be neive if you believed many Protestants didn't and didnt cover up for them. You guys have just as much coverup in your past in this country as the Catholic Church has and then some and you know it. How much biggorty has there been toward Catholic men trying to find a job. My brother had a Methodist shoot at him when he went to pick up his daughter for a date not all that long ago. Shall I show you the statistics for fornicating Protestant pastors again. It ain't good.

I'll pray for your rotten hateful minds.

Then why bring it up if it doesn't prove a thing? We brought it up because we believe it does. Our rotten hatelful minds are appreciative of the love the supposedly "real" church displays. To downplay the crimes committed by your church is hurtful and rotten to the innocent victims who were violated. I will send them your loving devotion, I am sure it will ammend all the sins your church fathers have bestowed upon them.

~Lorelei

 

[Glen Seeker]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thessalonian:
I said quite clearly and have said it multiple times before SCANDAL DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT TRUTH OR ERROR OF A DENOMINATION.

It does if the person committing that crime is claiming to be infallible. Hello, I am your pope and can tell you what to do, but turn your eyes while I rape, pillage and murder. If you can't see how irrational this is, then I pray for your soul. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you saying that Pope John Paul II is guilty of rape, pillage and murder? "If you can't see how irrational this is, then I pray for your soul."

What do you think infallibility means? That the Pope never sins? Wrong. That the Pope is always correct in everything he says? Wrong. That the Pope can pick people for jobs who can never sin? Wrong.

Originally posted by thessalonian:
What a tremendous display of biggotry and hatred is going on here. You are not concerned for anyone's soul. You are the damnable cowards. How many baptists and other protestants covered for people they knew who had white hoods draped over there heads in fron of a burning cross or a burning Church? In the early 1900's there were 6 million members of the KKK if my memory serves me right. They weren't Catholic. How many negro women were RAPED. How many burned homes and Churches and how many went to jail. Who knew of their crimes? Only God knows but you would be neive if you believed many Protestants didn't and didnt cover up for them. You guys have just as much coverup in your past in this country as the Catholic Church has and then some and you know it. How much biggorty has there been toward Catholic men trying to find a job. My brother had a Methodist shoot at him when he went to pick up his daughter for a date not all that long ago. Shall I show you the statistics for fornicating Protestant pastors again. It ain't good.

I'll pray for your rotten hateful minds.

Then why bring it up if it doesn't prove a thing? We brought it up because we believe it does. Our rotten hatelful minds are appreciative of the love the supposedly "real" church displays. To downplay the crimes committed by your church is hurtful and rotten to the innocent victims who were violated. I will send them your loving devotion, I am sure it will ammend all the sins your church fathers have bestowed upon them.

~Lorelei [/QUOTE]


I believe it was posted to show that individuals in a church don't necessarily represent that church just as up to six million KKK members in the "Bible Belt" don't necessarily represent the Bible believing churches in the South.

 

[neal4christ]

Thank-you for that clarification, LaRae.

Neal

 

[neal4christ]

Ps104_33, forgive me for questioning you, but do you have to be so harsh? Are you trying to help Johnv out and edify him or are you trying to tear him down? Yes, I disagree with Johnv a good bit, but I appreciate his input and understand what he is trying to do. Discuss the true issues, not ones we have cooked up in our heads. Look at the facts, not myths. For that I greatly thank him. I have seen nothing from him that deserves the treatment you are giving him. (Actually, whether he deserves it or not, we should be big enough to rise above teasing.)

Neal

 

[thessalonian]

"I believe it was posted to show that individuals in a church don't necessarily represent that church just as up to six million KKK members in the "Bible Belt" don't necessarily represent the Bible believing churches in the South. "

This is why I will no longer discuss this issue with the aformentioned. My purpose is plain to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see rather than those blinded by hatred. They have the very same skeltons in their closet even among their leaders. They supposedly have the Holy Spirit, while we do not (according to them).

[ June 18, 2003, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]