Non-catholics!

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1262901' date='May 2 2007, 10:25 PM']If they get rid of papal infallibility, then it might mean that St. Gregory the Great, sixth century pope of Rome, was wrong when he said whosoever raises himself above the other bishops to make himself Universal Bishop would be the precursor of the anti-Christ.[/quote]I had to work a little bit to track down the quote. It's from his Epistle VII:33:

Link: [url="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.v.vii.xxi.html"]http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.v.vii.xxi.html[/url]

In any event, Catholic.com provides a solid response here: [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9212qq.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9212qq.asp[/url]

Refer to the second question.

Briefly reading through Pope Gregory the Great's letters (there's a lot to read!), a clear indication of Rome's primacy is in Epistle IX:12 ([url="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf213.ii.v.xii.html"]link[/url])
[quote]For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see.[/quote]As Pope Gregory mentions, others continually recognized the primacy of the Roman See. This shows up in some letters to the pope written by church and civil leaders, which are included in the collection at CCEL.

Much of Pope Gregory's humble words toward his office reflect both an awe for the it (which he felt unworthy to fill) and a profound respect for Episcopal collegiality, in which he desired to treat all bishops as brothers. This was not unlike the papacy of the late Pope John Paul II.

Lastly, regardless how one interprets the pope's words, I don't think that Catholics believe that every word written by a given pope is subject to papal infallibility. I think this is a distortion of how to properly view the the charism of infallibility.

[hoosieranna]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1262987' date='May 2 2007, 10:09 PM']Lastly, regardless how one interprets the pope's words, I don't think that Catholics believe that every word written by a given pope is subject to papal infallibility. I think this is a distortion of how to properly view the the charism of infallibility.[/quote]

That's what I was talking about when I used the silly potato example. Having the subject explained to me in terms of what conditions must be met really helped. I never thought Catholics weren't Christian. I just wasn't sure how they could believe words said by someone very obviously human were infallible. I understand now, thanks to a kind and informative Legionary of Christ!

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]Lastly, regardless how one interprets the pope's words, I don't think that Catholics believe that every word written by a given pope is subject to papal infallibility. I think this is a distortion of how to properly view the the charism of infallibility.[/quote]

I guess that's one method to justifying it...

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1262901' date='May 2 2007, 09:25 PM']The Roman Catholic Church isn't prophesied about thou, that was to all the Roman Churches in Rome, not specifically the Roman Catholic[/quote]

Reza, tell us the names of all these different Christian churches in Rome to which St. Paul (allegedly) wrote his Epistle to the Romans.

[quote], while the Coptic, Syriac and Antiochian are prophesied about in Isaiah 19, and are mentioned as being indestructable.[/quote]

Methinks this is a case of eisogesis rather than exegesis.

[code]If they get rid of papal infallibility, then it might mean that St. Gregory the Great, sixth century pope of Rome, was wrong when he said whosoever raises himself above the other bishops to make himself Universal Bishop would be the precursor of the anti-Christ.[/code]

Neither St. Peter nor any of his 264 successors raised themselves above the other bishops. Christ elevated them to the job, which is servant of the servants of God. Somebody's gotta chart the course and steer the ship.

[i]Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.[/i] ~ St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Church at Smyrna, A.D. 107.

Peace, Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1263060' date='May 2 2007, 10:42 PM']Reza, tell us the names of all these different Christian churches in Rome to which St. Paul (allegedly) wrote his Epistle to the Romans.

[code]We don't know their names posetively [there were lots in Rome], but it's a matter of jurisdiction. Etheopian Orthodox rite will always look to the See of St. Mark, just as the Eritrean Orthodox rite will always look to the See of St. Mark, just as the Chaldonian Christians [in Iraq] will always look to Rome and the See of St. Peter. Historically it's a fact that there were four original rites, and the others were under their jurisdiction.

Read in Revelation, it says "the church of Philidelphia", was it really a seperate church? No it was part of the universal church, but it was it's own rite. Even Roman Catholics acknowledge this![/code]

Methinks this is a case of eisogesis rather than exegesis.

[code]You're welcome to your opinion, but if I were to anaylize it, it's a case of you crediting everything in the Bible to Roman Catholics, when Roman Catholics probably weren't nearly as responsible for the Bible's Compilation, etc. as you're giving them credit for. It's a fact that Egypt is geographically closer to Jerusalem, that the Holy Family traveled to Egypt, when they fled from Isreal, that the most Saints [pre-schism] came from Egypt, that Egypt had the most theologians [St. Athanaus, etc], that a Copt even wrote the Nicene Creed. You've been repeatedly attributing Roman Catholics to the Compilation of the Bible, the council of Nicene, the Nicene Creed, etc. when it doesn't belong to them... it was a Copt that wrote the Nicene Creed but does that mean that it belongs to Copts? No because the Roman Rite, the Coptic Rite, Antiochian Rite [among others] all equally contributed and are all the True Church of Jesus Christ. I may not agree with the Chalcedonian Antiochians but I'm going to give them their props as being part of the Early Church, doing their duty. I'm also not going to say that they aren't part of "the truth church", because I believe that the schism is much greater then politics, it's also in the hearts of people and it's a fact that the Apostles founded the Antiochian Church along with the Coptic, so we're brothers divided by things that will be overcome in due time.[/code]

[code]If they get rid of papal infallibility, then it might mean that St. Gregory the Great, sixth century pope of Rome, was wrong when he said whosoever raises himself above the other bishops to make himself Universal Bishop would be the precursor of the anti-Christ.[/code]

Neither St. Peter nor any of his 264 successors raised themselves above the other bishops. Christ elevated them to the job, which is servant of the servants of God. Somebody's gotta chart the course and steer the ship.

[code]And that's a major difference, Orthodox believe that Jesus Christ is the head of the church and that patriarches are not infallible but are mere men that God appointed to authority [thou not infallible authority]. At Nicene, as I'd pointed out, everyone of the rites has a part in it, it wasnt just one patriarch/bishop, one rite but something that the church together did by being Guided by Jesus Christ as the head and final authority. Non-Traditionalists [like Protestants] often use this as an example of why they disagree with the Roman Church for a good reason... Romans elevate their patriarch to an infallible state, attribute themselves to having been "the head ones in church" at Nicene and other events, but in reality Jesus Christ is the head, the one in church that inspired the bishops to all agree.

That's the thing: At Nicene, the Bishops from every rite agreed! It wasn't a situation of "Roman Pope, what do you think" and having the Roman Pope dictate what's the truth and what isn't, it was Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit inspiring the bishops to know what scriptures were of God and what one's weren't. Luther rejected this and put faith in the council of Jamnia because he didn't have faith that God inspired the Bishops and guided them to what books should be included, rather he believed men merely compiled the Bible and made these decisions [as gnostics also believe].[/code]

[i]Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.[/i] ~ St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Church at Smyrna, A.D. 107.

[code]The Pre-schism Catholic Church [as that was the proper context]. Copts and Antiochians that disagree with Rome's current traditions, are also part of that Church, don't EVER FORGET THAT![/code]

Peace, Likos

[code]May God's peace be with you,
Reza[/code][/quote]

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1263026' date='May 3 2007, 12:58 AM']I guess that's one method to justifying it... [/quote]Kind of dismissive...I do hope you've had the opportunity to read the links I've provided.

BTW, for the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that "Universal Bishop" has never been used as a title for the pope, and one cannot find the term on the Vatican website. The only place I could find it was on pages (such as those at Catholic.com) which referred to Pope St. Gregory the Great's epistle.

For a little more reading, see:
1) Pope John Paul's Pastores Gregis: [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_20031016_pastores-gregis_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_pau...-gregis_en.html[/url]

Specifically, read the section called: [i]The collegial nature of the episcopal ministry[/i]

2) Vatican II's Christus Dominus: [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_council...dominus_en.html[/url]

These are faithful to the both the dignity of the office of the bishop and the primacy of the Roman See, which can be seen when taking Pope St. Gregory the Great's writings as a whole (i.e. not isolating particular phrases without context).

Edited May 3, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[carrdero]

[quote name='prose' post='1262675' date='May 2 2007, 04:42 PM']Can you name ten things you absolutely can not accept in the Catholic Church?

I am guessing these will come up:

Mary, the papacy, reconciliation, faith and works relationship....

Are there more?[/quote]

I saw the exclamation mark in the title and thought it was urgent. (phew) I'm just glad everything is alright.

[Budge]

1. First and foremost, Rome's diminishment of Scripture, putting Magisterium and their traditions on the same level as scripture. For any truly born again Christian who loves God's Word. {Jesus is the WORD--and that means the WORD too in scripture} this dismissal hits home.

2. Catholics have scripture chained away from their hearts being told that only their experts can understand it. The interpetation lie.

3. The interfaith movement, in fact I have been studying it and preaching against it online for years. {I include the Prots who believe this way}

4. The fact that Catholicism makes the cross insufficient...{adding sacraments and more}
instead of adhereing to the true gospel of grace. Jesus died for us and FINISHED THE JOB.
I know when I became saved, that Jesus now means everything to me.

5. Purgatory, I believe it is really hell.

6. Marian promotions. Mary is in heaven, but the Mary as presented by Rome is NOT the humble Mary of the Bible.

7. The Papacy...do not believe that is Biblical.

8. Rome's love of the world, fornication of kings and joining with globalist elites and UN.

9. Amillenialism and dismissal of Bible Prophecy.

10. The Eucharist, actually this should be higher on the list, I believe it is idolatry and what is used to keep poor folks in bondage.



and you all have heard many more things I disagree with.

Edited May 3, 2007 by Budge

[prose]

That is really interesting. I find in here that most of the debates are about Mary, the pope, sola fide, and sola scriptura. I think it is good to hear other areas of discrepancy.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Budge' post='1263129' date='May 3 2007, 09:53 AM']1. First and foremost, Rome's diminishment of Scripture, putting Magisterium and their traditions on the same level as scripture. For any truly born again Christian who loves God's Word. {Jesus is the WORD--and that means the WORD too in scripture} this dismissal hits home.
...[/quote]
So... you worship the bible? I KNEW IT!... (hahaha.. that is an apologetics nono...)

[Captain_Fantastic]

[quote name='prose' post='1262675' date='May 2 2007, 04:42 PM']Can you name ten things you absolutely can not accept in the Catholic Church?[/quote]

1. Judgmentalism
2. Lack of Tolerance
3. Humane Vitae
4. Transubstantiation
5. Papacy
6. Assumption of Mary
7. Christological issues including the Trinity
8. Confession
9. Strong heirarchy, and the hypocrisy of many in that heirarchy.
10. Paedophile priests who are transferred by their superiors to escape the strong arm of justice.

Captain
-agnostic-

[Budge]

Captain Fantastic,

I used to be an unbeliever, humanist pagan in the UU, [Unitarian Universalist Association] also went through my agnostic phase.

Here is my suggestion for you, get a good KJV, and just read for yourself what is in there.

Do NOT let the Catholic Church define what is Christianity for you or what Jesus taught, find out for yourself right in scripture.

I rejected what I thought was "Christiantiy"

Christianity is not about people like a heirarchy lording over people or church membership, or phariseeical rules, or canon law but a relationship with Jesus Christ.

[Guest eahaddix]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1263486' date='May 3 2007, 07:44 PM'][quote name='Budge' post='1263129' date='May 3 2007, 09:53 AM']
1. First and foremost, Rome's diminishment of Scripture, putting Magisterium and their traditions on the same level as scripture. For any truly born again Christian who loves God's Word. {Jesus is the WORD--and that means the WORD too in scripture} this dismissal hits home.[/quote]

So... you worship the bible? I KNEW IT!... (hahaha.. that is an apologetics nono...)[/quote]

[color="#8B0000"][size=3][font="Arial"]Yes, we should not make Biblical Scripture an idol, as KJV-Onlyists make it. However, according to the [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"]CCC[/url], is not Biblical Scripture the written expression[url="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/expression"][def. 1b(1)][/url] of the divine Word himself, as the Word himself is the eternally begotten expression[url="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/expression"][def. 1b(1)][/url] of God the Father (Paragraphs [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/102.htm"]#110[/url], [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/65.htm"]#65[/url], and [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/254.htm"]#254[/url] of the CCC)?

So then, Biblical Scripture is literally part of the Word himself, whom you worship, yes?[/font][/size][/color]

Edited May 5, 2007 by eahaddix

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='Budge' post='1264652' date='May 4 2007, 08:16 PM']Captain Fantastic,

I used to be an unbeliever, humanist pagan in the UU, [Unitarian Universalist Association] also went through my agnostic phase.

Here is my suggestion for you, get a good KJV, and just read for yourself what is in there.

Do NOT let the Catholic Church define what is Christianity for you or what Jesus taught, find out for yourself right in scripture.

I rejected what I thought was "Christiantiy"

Christianity is not about people like a heirarchy lording over people or church membership, or phariseeical rules, or canon law but a relationship with Jesus Christ.[/quote]



A "good KJV"?


Are there bad KJV's around? I don't use the KJV that much anymore for it uses alot of words we don't use today and after being in debates with Oneness groups and Seventhday Adventists I think it is best if people move on to more updated standard Bibles. Alot of groups come up with weird and wrong doctrines from the KJV.





INLOVE Jnorm

Your problem might be the KJV itself. Try the NASB or at least the NKJV

Edited May 6, 2007 by jnorm888

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='eahaddix' post='1264854' date='May 5 2007, 03:14 AM']So... you worship the bible? I KNEW IT!... (hahaha.. that is an apologetics nono...)

[color="#8B0000"][size=3][font="Arial"]Yes, we should not make Biblical Scripture an idol, as KJV-Onlyists make it. However, according to the [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"]CCC[/url], is not Biblical Scripture the written expression[url="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/expression"][def. 1b(1)][/url] of the divine Word himself, as the Word himself is the eternally begotten expression[url="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/expression"][def. 1b(1)][/url] of God the Father (Paragraphs [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/102.htm"]#110[/url], [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/65.htm"]#65[/url], and [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/254.htm"]#254[/url] of the CCC)?

So then, Biblical Scripture is literally part of the Word himself, whom you worship, yes?[/font][/size][/color][/quote]
Unlike some, I will budge to give a reply to this comment on one of my previous comments (hahaha finally I get to play on words!). I think it is a thought provoking statement. One might think it is a straight up answer but I have to say that I need to think about it and pray about it. I was really being sarcastic. Anywho, I revere the actual print on the page because it is compiled by the Church to help spread the Gospel of Christ, and is not the sole source of doctrine. Taking it that way is pushing a form of idolatry in itself. That is sort of what I meant.... though I WAS being sarcastic... In short, I worship the God who inspired this word, that is I worship the Word, not the other word...