Catholics Have To Submit To The Pope No Matter How Wicked

[Budge]

I keep reading the line...

"Did the Bible just fall out of the SKY?"

[mod]Taking quotes out of context for the sole purpose of insulting another person's faith or intelligence is not allowed. -Raphael[/mod]

[thessalonian]

[mod]Uncharitable comment. -Raphael[/mod] Read the context instead of taking things out of context and twisting them and making false accusations. [mod]Uncharitable comment. -Raphael[/mod]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1221426' date='Mar 28 2007, 05:30 PM']Did the Bible fall out of the sky or did some men write it.
I find this irrational inability to comprehend among those who have no real wish to at least have productive dialogue and understand even if they don't accept Catholicism. It's annoying. Here is what I said:

"Did the Bible fall out of the sky or did some men write it?"

Now it's a bit sarcastic but it is a question and I expect you to give the obvious answer and so quite the contrary, I don't think you think it fell out of the sky.

[b]It was directed at me, because of my statement that the pope isn't infallible and St. Peter isn't infallible, in the context of if I don't think that St. Peter was infallible, then I must believe that the Bible fell out of the sky.[/b]


It doesn't matter if he only wrote two letters, unless of course you think only the gospels are infallible. I'm not saying you do. The point is that at least in that limited time frame when he wrote those two letters he wrote infallibly. Do you agree or are the two letters errant? It's one or the other.

[b]I'm putting it into context for you, that if you use the example of St. Peter supposedly being infallible because he'd partaken in writing the Bible, then you should also put into context that the other Apostles [particularly those that wrote the gospels] must also have been infallible. In the context of the Roman Pope, if you're saying that St. Peter was infallible as such and the Roman Pope, through Apostolic Succession, was given that same infallible authority, then the other Apostles that wrote the scriptures also would be infallible and those that succeeded them.[/b]

I am saying that in limited circustances for the purpose of God he was infallible. But quite clearly not always. Your having trouble grasping this and I'm not sure why. Someone who is a successor of an Apostle is not infallible because Matt 16:18 has no application to him. The keys and several other things that you don't believe in, but are nontheless quite true do show that the papacy is the throne of Peter. That the singular words said to him are associated with 2000 years of Popes as well. There is no such promise individually for Mark. There is collectively for all the Apostles and that collective LIMITED infallibility (i.e. not always and individually infallible) is manifest in the unanimous cosent of the bishops and during binding decrees of councils ratified by the Pope.

[b]Therefore those same limited circumstances apply to the other Apostles too, not just St. Peter. I'm not having trouble grasping what you're saying, I just don't agree with you. I know what you're saying and why you believe it, I just believe that it's wrong.

Note: The Roman Pope wasn't what validated the Councils, it was everyone of the Patriarches as a whole, with God's approval that validated it. The Roman Pope [as you'd mentioned above] can squabble whatever he'd like but that doesn't validate it.[/b]

Don't know how else I can explain it. Especially if your not willing to understand.

[b]Its not that I'm "not willing to understand", its that I don't agree with you and believe that you're wrong.[/b]

[qoute]St. Peter wasn't present at the councils [Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc].

Coptics don't believe in any kind of succession?

[b]No we believe in succession, as His Holiness Pope Shenounda III is the successor of St. Mark's Throne.[/b]

The keys are an indication that the authroity of Peter was to be passed on.

[b]That's your interpretation but nowhere does the Bible indicate that. St. Peter had special powers, I'm not going to deny that but I'm going to deny that your Patriarch has everyone of the powers that were given to him.[/b]

The parallel to Is 22:22 also indicates this as the steward, the forshadowing of the Papacy, that also had the key to the house of david and binding and loosing authority, also indicates this, since that office was a successionary office.

[b]I'd very much interpret that scripture quite differently then you but I'd like you to research Isaiah 19, as you can see that God promised to build an alter dedicated to him in Egypt and that it would never dissolve. Notice also that it says that there would be a connection between Jerusalem, Egypt and Assyria, which still are present today in the Oriental Orthodox Church. Nowhere in the Bible is the Roman Church EVER MENTIONED but the Coptic and Syriac Churches are mentioned and the same Aramaic that is used in the Syriac Church [that St. Peter founded] is used throughout the Bible.[/b]

There are indictions that there were successors of the other Apostles to. But I fear I'm wasting my time. You have your hands over your ears when I write.

[b]I'm very sorry that this isn't a dialogue but your agenda to try and prove everyone wrong.[/b][/quote]

Reza

[Aloysius]

Budge, You present a false dichotemy as if wanting to understand the mechanism by which God inspired the Bible is somehow impious.

It is a perfectly fine thing to oppose the idea of the Bible as falling out of the sky. Why? Because that is not factual. That is false. And the devil is the father of all falsehoods. God is truth, believing falshoods about His scriptures is therefore evil. It is evil, obstinant, ignorant, and heretical to hold a view of the bible as falling out of the sky instead of the factual view that God inspired the innerrant words by utilizing the faculties of the human authors. But then there is this evil and false attitude by which people treat the Bible as if it had fallen out of the sky and it is disgustingly terrible to treat the beautiful scriptures based on falsehoods.

Reza, what do you think of the old axom from St. Augustine "Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est", or the early role of arbitration the bishop of Old Rome had in all matters? surely you must at least admit a certain role of the Petrine ministry in arbitration in disputes between churches when they come to an irreconcilable disagreement. the majority of the Eastern Orthodox would at least admit to this role in the Early Church; and a role of the Bishop of Old Rome as first among equals.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1221402' date='Mar 28 2007, 06:13 PM']St. Peter wasn't present at the councils [Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc].

Reza[/quote]
I meant Peter and his Successors (or their representatives, whom he sent to speak on his behalf).

Peter was at the Council of Jerusalem. It was when he spoke that the decision was made. After that, the bishop of the local Church of Jerusalem proclaimed a disciplinary measure for his diocese to ensure that the measure could be carried out without scandal to his flock.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]Peter was at the Council of Jerusalem. It was when he spoke that the decision was made.[/quote]This is roman propaganda.

[quote]Reza, what do you think of the old axom from St. Augustine "Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est", or the early role of arbitration the bishop of Old Rome had in all matters[/quote] Sorry my friend, I'm not familiar enough with it to discuss it but I'm glad that you mentioned it, because I'd very much be interested in researching. St. Augustine isn't as admired in the East as in the West [as a matter of fact in Eastern Orthodoxy, he's not even referred to as "St." but "Blessed"] but it would still be very interesting to read.

Reza

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1221056' date='Mar 28 2007, 06:44 AM']In the situation of Copts, we are of the original church and were wrongfully labeled as Monophysites instead of Miaphysites and weren't given the opportunity to present the truth. We were kept from attending Chalcedon because of politics, dirty - nasty politics, nothing more. That asserted about Copts at Chalcedon was hersay, nothing more and should be treated as such.[/quote]Finally getting to this comment. I have read through the text of Chalcedon. I disagree that the council labeled Copts as Monophysites. The only mention of Coptic bishops is the 30th canon, pertaining to the acceptance letter of Pope Leo to Flavian, archbishop of Constantinople about Eutyches. Far from being accusatory, the text actually assumes that the Coptic bishops continue to hold the catholic Faith.

In any event, if we (i.e. you and I) can agree that Monophysitism is rejected by the Coptic Church, and that this is really a linguistic problem (e.g. if the meaning of "nature" vs. "physis" differ), then a linguistic solution (i.e. a term like miaphysite) may be the most effective and appropriate way to build bridges of unity between us.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1221839' date='Mar 29 2007, 01:15 AM']Finally getting to this comment. I have read through the text of Chalcedon. I disagree that the council labeled Copts as Monophysites. The only mention of Coptic bishops is the 30th canon, pertaining to the acceptance letter of Pope Leo to Flavian, archbishop of Constantinople about Eutyches. Far from being accusatory, the text actually assumes that the Coptic bishops continue to hold the catholic Faith.

[b] I was curious if you were going to respond back, but to respond to your post, I'm not sure what source you'd read about the council but it's true that the Coptic Church was kept from attending because of the monophysite/miaphysite situation and was labeled as "heretics". This is the primary [and pretty much the only] situation that keeps the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox seperate. At this point in history, the Eastern Orthodox had began sending their bishops to "replace" our Bishops in Egypt.[/b]

In any event, if we (i.e. you and I) can agree that Monophysitism is rejected by the Coptic Church, and that this is really a linguistic problem (e.g. if the meaning of "nature" vs. "physis" differ), then a linguistic solution (i.e. a term like miaphysite) may be the most effective and appropriate way to build bridges of unity between us.

[b]That's what I could definately agree with, most of the problems with the Copts and the situation at Chalcedon was just that, "linguistic differences". Everyone at Chalcedon and the Oriental Orthodox, agree that Jesus Christ had two natures [divine and human], that they were never seperated [Jesus was always God] but they were never intermingled.[/b][/quote]

Reza

[Aloysius]

The Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence-Rome (commonly referred to as Florence) happened after Chalcedon; it was there that the Bull of Union with the Copts was agreed to by the delegate of the Coptic Patriarch, Andrew. Any insult incurred by not being involved in Chalcedon due to misunderstandings should be ancient history considering that at Florence we condemned Monophysitism together. Your Patriarch's delegate was questioned at length and we determined he did not hold any monophysite heresy. That particular matter was settled there in the year of our Lord 1434ish.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'm a militant Catholic, and if utter loyalty and obedience to one's commander-in-chief is a bad thing in your mind so be it. As for me: death before dishonor.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1221866' date='Mar 29 2007, 01:30 AM']The Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence-Rome (commonly referred to as Florence) happened after Chalcedon; it was there that the Bull of Union with the Copts was agreed to by the delegate of the Coptic Patriarch, Andrew. Any insult incurred by not being involved in Chalcedon due to misunderstandings should be ancient history considering that at Florence we condemned Monophysitism together. Your Patriarch's delegate was questioned at length and we determined he did not hold any monophysite heresy. That particular matter was settled there in the year of our Lord 1434ish.[/quote]

[b]Copts suffered under the rule of the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire. The Melkite Patriarchs, appointed by the emperors as both spiritual leaders and civil governors, massacred the Egyptian population whom they considered heretics. Many Egyptians were tortured and martyred to accept the terms of Chalcedon, but Egyptians remained loyal to the faith of their fathers and to the Cyrillian view of Christology. One of the most renowned Egyptian saints of that period is Saint Samuel the Confessor.[/b]

[Winchester]

[quote name='Budge' post='1214889' date='Mar 17 2007, 07:12 AM']Catholics do have to SUBMIT to the Pope no matter how wicked The CCC says this...[and it doesnt matter if the man is wicked, an apostate and more]





."

It gets even better then this...


If a Catholic is not following a Pope in matters of faith and morals...[that would include the Popes interfaith plans] they are sinning by the RCCs own teachings...
There are no provisions made for wicked Popes, and for one to NOT submit to that Popes teachings regarding faith and morals...is to be in sin according to Catholic teaching.

The house of cards fell for me, when I realized there was no charisma on a Magisterium that could be capable of such things as this...

[img]http://www.cephasministry.com/pope_assissi.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.infowars.com/headline_photos/April/pope.jpg[/img]
I KNEW the Pope was not infallible when it came to faith or morals.

Gods Word was truth, the Pope no longer represented it.[/quote]
Budge! You're back. It's obviously old news.

You've managed to come up with an interpretation of passages that no one ever has before. Excellent work. I am sadmused (my own word, don't cut up your fingers flipping through the dictionary looking for it.) that this theory has warranted several pages.

It's probably been addressed already, but if the pope tells us something outside his authority (which is issued by Christ, not fro mthe pope himself and therefore does not excuse the pope's immoralities) then we can oppose him. If he's breaking into our houses or killing our children, we can defend ourselves the same as any other person. Of course, he usually sends the Swiss Guard to do those things while he eats bon bons made by SATAN HIMSELF!

NEXT!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[Anomaly]

[quote]I'm a militant Catholic, and if utter loyalty and obedience to one's commander-in-chief is a bad thing in your mind so be it. As for me: death before dishonor. [/quote][quote]It's probably been addressed already, but if the pope tells us something outside his authority (which is issued by Christ, not fro mthe pope himself and therefore does not excuse the pope's immoralities) then we can oppose him. If he's breaking into our houses or killing our children, we can defend ourselves the same as any other person. Of course, he usually sends the Swiss Guard to do those things while he eats bon bons made by SATAN HIMSELF![/quote]Does this mean that the Catholics have abandoned the tactic of establishing, clarifying, discussing, and defending their perspective as being most correct with reason and logic has been abandoned?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1221904' date='Mar 29 2007, 06:14 AM']Does this mean that the Catholics have abandoned the tactic of establishing, clarifying, discussing, and defending their perspective as being most correct with reason and logic has been abandoned?[/quote]
No.

Anything else you'd like to know?