This Seems Big.

[agedman]

The problem with swimming in a cesspool is that one has to keep one's head above water. Other than that, come on in the water is fine.

Water in a cesspool is "just fine?"

I don't even want to be near a cesspool, much less try to keep my head above the filth!

 

[utilyan]

There's nothing to debate. You revere a man who can literally speak out of both sides of his mouth.

He's infallible, until he's not. My original observation.

Better then self-proclaimed POPE CURTIS. Who literally will read a sentence of GOD's holy word and believe a satanic backwards:

James 2

24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.



Or do you like satan's backward version?


24You see that a man is justified by Faith Alone and not by works.



See the TRUTH is the TRUTH and your LIES are only LIES.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, an infallible Bible. What's the use of having infallible Scriptures if there is no infallible interpretation?

Their can ONLY be certain ways to understanding the essentials of Christian though, as there can only be the truth that Jesus alone saves, Cross is only place salvation came from, Trinity, saved by grace alone Faith alone, things like that are only one way to be seen!
So we can with absolute certainty claim those essentials as truth!

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not debating that Roman Catholicism is wrong about the doctrine that when a pope speaks ex cathedra that he is infallible. All I am saying is that this pope never spoke ex cathedra on the questions that he received complaints about and so therefore he was not infallible in expressing what appears to be his personal opinion.

The Roman Catholic Church only claims infallibility when an ex cathedra statement is made. Read the doctrine for yourself:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility

The point though is that when the doctrines of Rome are contrery to those of scripture, the Popes have been wrong!

 

[Yeshua1]

And the Church! Remember, the Scriptures were not around as we know them for some 300 years. The leaders of the new Christian church were speaking to the other Christians around the world as evidenced by the letters Paul was writing to them. They were controlling the newly emerging Christisn faith from a central authority.

A book was not written and then sent out around the world so the other Christians could then decide things for themselves as you now do.

There was a CHURCH, and it's pronouncements were and remain infallible! It had to be. It was led by the Holy Spirit under the auspices of the people who were appointed to lead. "He that hears you, hears me" and Jesus meant the leaders of the established earthly church when he said it.

The true church of jesus though was establish WAY before there was ever the church of Rome though, as the canon of scripture was already being recognized and used as authorities within local churches by end of first century, early 2nd. The Church merely recognized what the churches for long time already had seen as being the scriptures from God. the Church is founded upon jesus and the scriptures alone, not papacy or Rome!

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, there is not just one church (assembly) ref e.g., 7 churches in Rev, there are many assemblies, Peter may have been the head of the assembly in Rome, at least until he died. If only one apostle is supposed to be in charge for all time, I would vote (if I have a vote in this) for James (Jacob) as head of the Assembly in Jerusalem or second, John as head of the Assembly in Ephesus; Peter (Shimon) would come in third I suppose.

And paul as Pope to the Gentiles!

 

[Walter]

We recognize our hearts are wicked and we try to listen to the in dwelling Holy Spirit. We feel that to trust someone who you can accuse of spreading heresies seems really dumb.

You still don't understand what papal infallibility means. An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics. Most Protestants (yes, despite your claim to the contrary, you ARE a Protestant) believe that infallibility means the pope can never err or sin. This is not the case. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The vicar of Christ beaten to death for adultery. And what happened to the wife? The husband? Maybe John XII was not officially ex cathedral. See also Pope Joan, mistress of John XII.

This is another pathetic example of His Emanence not feeding the lambs. See Alexander VI and the Borgias.

They must have been antipopes. How is there a continuity in the Bishopric of Peter with all the antipopes in the lineup?

"Come out from among them, saith The Lord, touch not the unclean thing."

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

Pope Joan? This has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. A google search will give you more info than you have time to read. Take those blinders off and actually learn what the Catholic Church really teaches. I was a Baptist for a long time and believed The Trail of Blood was accurate. Read for yourself a different viewpoint from what we were taught: http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/TrailOfBlood.pdf

However, as far as your misunderstanding of papal infallibility, often those who object to the doctrine of infallibility confuse it with impeccability or personal inerrancy. It is neither. Impeccability means that a person is incapable of sinning. Popes, like other Christians, are sinners. Personal inerrancy means that Popes cannot make mistakes. Infallibility, on the other hand, refers on to that guidance of the Holy Spirit that guards Popes from officially teaching error in matters of faith and morals. The foundational elements of the doctrine embody the following points. First, Jesus established Peter in a dynastic office as head of the apostles and empowered him with his authority in deciding matters of faith and morals. Secondly, Jesus intended that this office and authority be passed on to Peter's successors. Matthew 16:16-19

 

[agedman]

It amazes me that those who claim Peter was infallible fail to often remember Paul rebuked Peter before the whole assembly.

Well so much for the "head" being without sinfulness.

There is only ONE mediator between God and man, and that ONE mediator is the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Bro. James]

You still don't understand what papal infallibility means. An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics. Most Protestants (yes, despite your claim to the contrary, you ARE a Protestant) believe that infallibility means the pope can never err or sin. This is not the case. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study.


Pope Joan? This has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. A google search will give you more info than you have time to read. Take those blinders off and actually learn what the Catholic Church really teaches. I was a Baptist for a long time and believed The Trail of Blood was accurate. Read for yourself a different viewpoint from what we were taught: http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/TrailOfBlood.pdf

However, as far as your misunderstanding of papal infallibility, often those who object to the doctrine of infallibility confuse it with impeccability or personal inerrancy. It is neither. Impeccability means that a person is incapable of sinning. Popes, like other Christians, are sinners. Personal inerrancy means that Popes cannot make mistakes. Infallibility, on the other hand, refers on to that guidance of the Holy Spirit that guards Popes from officially teaching error in matters of faith and morals. The foundational elements of the doctrine embody the following points. First, Jesus established Peter in a dynastic office as head of the apostles and empowered him with his authority in deciding matters of faith and morals. Secondly, Jesus intended that this office and authority be passed on to Peter's successors. Matthew 16:16-19

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does one debunk John XII being killed for adultery? It is difficult to tell which apostates are infallible.

Bottom line: Christ has no vicar. Jesus is the Vicar. This is done through the Holy Spirit. Jesus know a man cannot handle it.

If you were a real Baptist, you would still be a real baptist.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

Their can ONLY be certain ways to understanding the essentials of Christian though, as there can only be the truth that Jesus alone saves, Cross is only place salvation came from, Trinity, saved by grace alone Faith alone, things like that are only one way to be seen!
So we can with absolute certainty claim those essentials as truth!

And who determines what those essentials are? You? Me?

 

[Matt Black]

The point though is that when the doctrines of Rome are contrery to those of scripture, the Popes have been wrong!

And what are the 'doctrines of Scripture'? And how have you determined what they are?

 

[church mouse guy]

Water in a cesspool is "just fine?"

I don't even want to be near a cesspool, much less try to keep my head above the filth!

Obviously, it is a discussion of dealing with heretical doctrines and was written in that context--so you do need to keep your head above water. What are you thinking?

 

[church mouse guy]

The point though is that when the doctrines of Rome are contrary to those of scripture, the Popes have been wrong!

That has never been the issue so you have a straw man. I have merely said that attributing false statements to Roman Catholic dogma is a type of lie and is poor debate tactics. I have denounced Roman Catholic doctrine as a cesspool and I have denounced countless times Pope Francis as a Peronist and a believer in communistic Liberation Theology and on other threads I have noted that in Latin America, Pope Francis is called Papa Che for his open friendships with repressive dictators such as Raul Castro, Nicolas Maduro, Evo Morales and Cristina Kirchner.

 

[Yeshua1]

And who determines what those essentials are? You? Me?

No, the Lord in His bible!

 

[Yeshua1]

And what are the 'doctrines of Scripture'? And how have you determined what they are?

They are the doctrines given to us by the Holy Spirit thru the scriptures.

 

[Yeshua1]

That has never been the issue so you have a straw man. I have merely said that attributing false statements to Roman Catholic dogma is a type of lie and is poor debate tactics. I have denounced Roman Catholic doctrine as a cesspool and I have denounced countless times Pope Francis as a Peronist and a believer in communistic Liberation Theology and on other threads I have noted that in Latin America, Pope Francis is called Papa Che for his open friendships with repressive dictators such as Raul Castro, Nicolas Maduro, Evo Morales and Cristina Kirchner.

You are saying that the various doctrines pronounced by the papacy over history are true?

 

[church mouse guy]

You are saying that the various doctrines pronounced by the papacy over history are true?

No, I am not saying anything except that what Pope Francis was criticized for was not said ex cathedra and therefore was not an infallible statement by him. I have repeated this several times and I have invited everyone concerned to look at actual Roman Catholic rules about what is infallible. Check out this link:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility

 

[Matt Black]

No, the Lord in His bible!

How?

 

[Matt Black]

They are the doctrines given to us by the Holy Spirit thru the scriptures.

Which ones? Calvinism or Arminianism? Covenant or dispensationalist? Cessationist or charismatic? Episcopal, Presbyterian or congregational church government?

 

[Bro. James]

Ex cathedral and infallibility are meaningless if there is no Vicar of Christ. The pivotal scripture is Mt. 16:18. Jesus either makes Peter pope or He does not. The papacy stands or falls here. If Peter is pope, anyone outside the Holy See is apostate, They are usurping authority. Rome gives authority to no one outside her jurisdiction. See Council of Trent. If Peter is not Vicar of Christ, Rome is apostate and without authority--a usurper. This would include her daughters. They could take no authority from her--she has none to take. This notion would get you burned at the stake 500 years ago. Millions have died refusing to bow to the authority of Rome. We are still out here.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James