|
Post by genesda on Jan 22, 2004 6:18:36 GMT -5
Yes, keeping one's eye's shut only keeps them in darkness. I would think that before one "attacks" something, they should understand exactly what it means, not what they've been told to think it means. Since you blindly refuse to find out what it really means, let me see if I can can quickly summarize it so you will stop holding your breath and stamping your feet. The Doctrine of Infallibility was instituted around 1875. It applies only to when the pope speaks "ex cathera" or from the "Chair of St Peter". It only applies to when he speaks for moral guidance of the Church (the body of Christians that make up the Church). The moral guidance can only come from the Holy Spirit, hence it must be truth as Jesus said He would always guide His people. These pronouncements do not come everyday, nor through the pope alone. When they are made, it comes after a long process of study, contemplation and prayer. So, as much as you like to believe, "infallibilty" does not apply to action of past popes, finances, politics or dinner conversation. The "infallibilty" doctrine is invoked infrequently at best. SInce I know you like to trot out you Mary argument, let's try another that we may agree on. The Sanctity of Life. This doctrine is considered infallible. It it belived that God has santified life from the moment of conception until the moment of death. That is why the Roman Catholic Church has been opposed to artificial birth control, abortion, captital punishment and wars. Do you see anything wrong with this doctrine? Can you see this as being revealed by the Holy Spirit? I'm aware of what ex-cathadra means. I can show you an example of hipocracy in it also. Are you telling me that before 1874 there was no infallable declarations made?
The issue of Mary is an important one because it proves that this ex-cathrada stuff isn't infallable at all.
Let's look at finances. The Vatican bank has been in bed with the mafia for decades. JP1 was going to expose this criminal activity along with other changes that he was going to institute in the Rcc such as celebacy. He was murdered for his position the smae night as he confided in one of his closest confidants.
Politics: God's church has no business in politics. The mission of God's church is the gospel, not elections or lobbying. Your Rcc is up to it's eyeballs in politics. That's why Daniel said the papacy would be different from the othjer kingdoms. The difference is that Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecian and the Roman Empire were all political. Pagan Rome became papal Rome.
While life does begin at conception, your Rcc has exterminated much life during it's rein over the portion of the known world that it ruled unopposed for 1,260 years.
Capital puinishment: Millions have died at the hands of the papacy because people didn't accept the Roman church as what it claimed to be.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jan 22, 2004 11:50:45 GMT -5
cohdra -- be nice. it's not that what he types is infalliable - he's just always right in matters of the scriptures. Heeheehee ;D
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jan 22, 2004 17:14:21 GMT -5
I'm aware of what ex-cathadra means. I can show you an example of hipocracy in it also. Are you telling me that before 1874 there was no infallable declarations made?
The issue of Mary is an important one because it proves that this ex-cathrada stuff isn't infallable at all.
Let's look at finances. The Vatican bank has been in bed with the mafia for decades. JP1 was going to expose this criminal activity along with other changes that he was going to institute in the Rcc such as celebacy. He was murdered for his position the smae night as he confided in one of his closest confidants.
Politics: God's church has no business in politics. The mission of God's church is the gospel, not elections or lobbying. Your Rcc is up to it's eyeballs in politics. That's why Daniel said the papacy would be different from the othjer kingdoms. The difference is that Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecian and the Roman Empire were all political. Pagan Rome became papal Rome.
While life does begin at conception, your Rcc has exterminated much life during it's rein over the portion of the known world that it ruled unopposed for 1,260 years.
Capital puinishment: Millions have died at the hands of the papacy because people didn't accept the Roman church as what it claimed to be.
[/color][/quote] You may be aware, but you did not read what I wrote. If you did, you would not have posted such silliness.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jan 28, 2004 10:10:34 GMT -5
I'm aware of what ex-cathadra means. I can show you an example of hipocracy in it also. Are you telling me that before 1874 there was no infallable declarations made? The issue of Mary is an important one because it proves that this ex-cathrada stuff isn't infallable at all. Let's look at finances. The Vatican bank has been in bed with the mafia for decades. JP1 was going to expose this criminal activity along with other changes that he was going to institute in the Rcc such as celibacy. He was murdered for his position the smae night as he confided in one of his closest confidants. Politics: God's church has no business in politics. The mission of God's church is the gospel, not elections or lobbying. Your Rcc is up to it's eyeballs in politics. That's why Daniel said the papacy would be different from the other kingdoms. The difference is that Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecian and the Roman Empire were all political. Pagan Rome became papal Rome which is a mix of religion and politics.While life does begin at conception, your Rcc has exterminated much life during it's rein over the portion of the known world that it ruled unopposed for 1,260 years. Capital puinishment: Millions have died at the hands of the papacy because people didn't accept the Roman church as what it claimed to be. (I should have said at the behest of the papacy, not hands)------------------------------------------------------- You may be aware, but you did not read what I wrote. If you did, you would not have posted such silliness. Perhaps you can show what part of the above is "silliness"? As far as I know, it's all historical fact.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jan 28, 2004 15:07:04 GMT -5
An interesting point regarding Papal Infallability:
The (A) Pope has spoken ex cathedra only three times in the history of the RCC.
Blessings, LJ
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jan 28, 2004 22:25:13 GMT -5
[/color][/quote]
Pretty much all of what you wrote. What you claim to be "historical fact" is riddled with errors.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jan 29, 2004 5:49:21 GMT -5
An interesting point regarding Papal Infallability: The (A) Pope has spoken ex cathedra only three times in the history of the RCC. Blessings, LJ One of those tiomes when he declared that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. Let's look at what the Roman church really claims about the papacy:
But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself. Source: Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, "On the Chief Duties of Christians as Citizens," dated January 10, 1890, trans. in The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII (New York: Benziger, 1903), p. 193. As to God Himself? So, when the pope tells you to obey something that is opposed to God,and there is much of this, what happens then? [/b][/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jan 29, 2004 5:50:56 GMT -5
Pretty much all of what you wrote. What you claim to be "historical fact" is riddled with errors. I see denials in your reply, but nothing else.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jan 29, 2004 20:39:22 GMT -5
I see denials in your reply, but nothing else. [/color][/quote] Since you don't read or accept what I post, why re-post. It's getting a bit re-dundant. If you really read what marysia wrote, you would not have posted the quote from 1898. It was not ex cathera
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jan 30, 2004 5:12:24 GMT -5
Since you don't read or accept what I post, why re-post. It's getting a bit re-dundant. If you really read what marysia wrote, you would not have posted the quote from 1898. It was not ex cathera You must obey the pope as if it were God Himself. This is from POPE LEO.
Maybe you should be questioniong his words instead of mine. Where is the denial of Leo by your church leaders if this isn't meant to remain as truth?
Post the denials I've asked for and maybe we can have some useful dialog. Until then, the words of your leadership have to stand above your personal denial of these facts.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jan 30, 2004 5:55:29 GMT -5
You must obey the pope as if it were God Himself. This is from POPE LEO.
Maybe you should be questioniong his words instead of mine. Where is the denial of Leo by your church leaders if this isn't meant to remain as truth?
Post the denials I've asked for and maybe we can have some useful dialog. Until then, the words of your leadership have to stand above your personal denial of these facts.
[/color][/quote] I cannot tell if you're thick or purposely being obstinate. First, here is a link to the entire document. I'm pretty sure we went over this one before, but I guess we can go through this again. Please take notes this time so you do not repeat the same error. www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sapie.htmHere is the paragraph fromwhich you lifted the phrase. Second, please note the entire paragraph in context. If the Holy Spirit can only reveal Truth, you are obeying God, not man. Just as you believe the truth was revealed the elders of your church, is that not infallible doctrine to you? Are you obeying the truth according to Miller and Bates, or are you obeying the truth as revealed to them?
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jan 30, 2004 7:28:27 GMT -5
I cannot tell if you're thick or purposely being obstinate. First, here is a link to the entire document. I'm pretty sure we went over this one before, but I guess we can go through this again. Please take notes this time so you do not repeat the same error. www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sapie.htmHere is the paragraph fromwhich you lifted the phrase. Second, please note the entire paragraph in context. If the Holy Spirit can only reveal Truth, you are obeying God, not man. Just as you believe the truth was revealed the elders of your church, is that not infallible doctrine to you? Are you obeying the truth according to Miller and Bates, or are you obeying the truth as revealed to them? The truth of the scriptures is what's important, not Miller or Bates or Leo or any other church leader, no matter what denomination it is. I see a definite difference. Neither Miller or Bates dared tell anyone that they must obey them as they would God Himself, and they believed they were being guided by the H.s. too. Now you can place any kind of explanation you wish on what Leo said, the fact is that he said all should obey him as if it were God Himself. Even if the holy spirit were guiding him, he shouldn't be obeyed as God, but I doube seriously that the holy spirit would stay with anyone who preached disobedience to God's commandments, and obedience to the man, as Leo did.
The bible says to study for yourself. There's nothing about letting others tell you what's in the Word. The Bereans listened to Paul, but checked him out with the scriptures to see if he was telling them the truth. They didn't listen to him and accept his words as God Himself were speaking. The Bereans were a good example and were called "more noble" than the others because of their stance. I'm getting the impression that you don't really care what the scriptures say unless it is to quote a verse that you think upholds the Rc position. That only comes from indoctrination, not true study.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Jan 30, 2004 8:27:26 GMT -5
The bible says to study for yourself. There's nothing about letting others tell you what's in the Word. [/b][/color][/quote] in 1 corinthian 12:28-30 we are told that God has set some in the church - apostles, prophets, teachers, so on and so forth. why then, if no one is to learn from another? if we are to learn only from ourselves - we shouldn't be on this board or in any congregation - for fear that we may be learning from someone else. also - if you feel we shouldn't learn from others what's within the Word -- why do you try so hard to make people see it in your point of view? gene - you have taught me - is that wrong? by your constant - where is that in scripture comments - you've opened a pkmtyolpion for me to read and study the bible that i'd not had before. you taught me how to find my answers - even when they don't jive with what you want to hear. i've thanked you for that before and no matter how we squabble and bicker - you know that for that which you taught me -- i will always be thankful!
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jan 30, 2004 8:38:23 GMT -5
in 1 corinthian 12:28-30 we are told that God has set some in the church - apostles, prophets, teachers, so on and so forth. why then, if no one is to learn from another? if we are to learn only from ourselves - we shouldn't be on this board or in any congregation - for fear that we may be learning from someone else. also - if you feel we shouldn't learn from others what's within the Word -- why do you try so hard to make people see it in your point of view? I think you've misunderstood me. There is nothing wrong with teachers, just the accepting of what gthey say without verifying what they say from the scriptures. No one should ever believe what I say or anyone without studying the subject for themselves.[/color] gene - you have taught me - is that wrong? by your constant - where is that in scripture comments - you've opened a pkmtyolpion for me to read and study the bible that i'd not had before. you taught me how to find my answers - even when they don't jive with what you want to hear. i've thanked you for that before and no matter how we squabble and bicker - you know that for that which you taught me -- i will always be thankful![/quote] Thanks for the compliment, but I do believe I've written the straight biblical truth here, but, search for yourself. One day you'll come to the truth as i have.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Jan 30, 2004 9:00:10 GMT -5
Thanks for the compliment, but I do believe I've written the straight biblical truth here, but, search for yourself. One day you'll come to the truth as i have. [/color][/quote] or you may come to the truth as I have sorry gene - just couldn't resist ;D just as within the gospels there will be different views on the same subject. i'm just thankful we both know Who and Why we are - we are brohters & sisters in Christ first and foremost.
|
|