Luke 10:16

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote]Either you believe the whole truth and nothing but the truth or Jesus is a liar? Yeah, right. Where does it say that? Where has God given people the ability to comprehend and believe the 'truth' with perfection? Did even Paul or Peter have it? Nope.
You sum it up with "But why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord', AND DO NOT PRACTICE THE THINGS THAT I SAY?" Matthew 7:21
The point I made is the Church speaks but it is not always the voice of Jesus. I have to follow when I believe it's Jesus, and I have the option not to if I beleive it contradicts what I believe Jesus has said.[/quote]

Anomaly,
O ye' of little faith of the [b]promises of Christ [/b]to send the [b]ADVOCATE[/b] to REVEAL the TRUTH to THEM and never to forsake them and be with them, leading them into all truth, till the end of this age.

As for me, Jesus made a promise to never leave his apostles orphans, that we would not have to wonder to and fro, with every wind of doctrine, like infants. Ephesians 4:14, the Catholic church can trace it's lineage all the way back to the original apostles of Christ, whom he made these many promises. No other church can do this. My mind, my heart and intellect, tell me to look to the church and follow the church in which Jesus made these promises and know without a doubt that Jesus has deposited his truth and it has been upheld to present day, till the end of time

My prayer for you and others who are searching is for you to come into the fullness of truth.

God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the [b]truth[/b]," 1 Tim. 2:3-4

[Anomaly]

O ye of faith in what you want, but not what is. It would be pleasant and comfortable to believe in a human organization that tells you everything you want to know, need to do, what to believe so you have no worries. Imagine the disappointment of rich man that asks Jesus is there anything else he needs to do besides follow the letter of the law. Didn't the pharisees get caught up in the details and were telling others they weren't complying with the law. Did that make Jesus happy?

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1384903' date='Sep 13 2007, 01:49 PM']O ye of faith in what you want, but not what is. It would be pleasant and comfortable to believe in a human organization that tells you everything you want to know, need to do, what to believe so you have no worries. Imagine the disappointment of rich man that asks Jesus is there anything else he needs to do besides follow the letter of the law. Didn't the pharisees get caught up in the details and were telling others they weren't complying with the law. Did that make Jesus happy?[/quote]



John 8
31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

The truth is out there Anomaly and it will set you free and no one can take that truth from you, when you have found it and you would be martyr for it, just as the others who have given their lives throughout the centuries to ATTEST to the TRUTH and SAFEGUARD IT.

[Anthony]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1384357' date='Sep 12 2007, 04:01 PM']Exactly. So we can reject imperfection and Catholics shouldn't get upset when people reject what they see as error in the Catholic Church.[/quote]

It is not the Church herself, it is the members. The Church is perfect, people are not.

[Dismas]

Written during the last year of Emperor Domitian's reign, or immediately after, most closely believed to be 96 AD, a letter was delivered to Greek Corinth. It wasn't Paul, who died along with Peter shortly after the fire of Rome in 64. Of the other apostles, only John still drew breath in this world.

John oversaw much of what is the core of the Eastern Church, and even in his exile in Patmos at this very time, his influence as apostle and bishop of Ephesus was great. The letter that I am writing about is not about John's three epistles, his Gospel, or even his Apocalypse.

The letter came from Rome. I am referring to Pope St. Clement I and his epistle to the Corinthians. It is a long read, and yet from it are the oldest surviving record in Sacred Tradition of universal, Papal authority, even within the sphere of influence of a living apostle. Indeed, even the Anglican scholar Joseph Barber Lightfoot attested to the importance of this document.
[quote name='Joseph Barber Lightfoot']It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal domination. And yet undoubtedly this is the case.[/quote]

You can read it for yourself if you like.
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm[/url]

[Anomaly]

Dismas,
Read section 44. [quote]We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.[/quote]
Obvioiusly if the appointed eposcopate do not blamelessly serve the flock, are not humble, peaceable, etc., can (and should be) justly dismised from the ministry.
If they aren't, what does that mean? If they are misbehaving, should they be obeyed? Nobody's denying that. Silly quips like 'the Church is perfect, the people are not' is a diservice to the Catholic Church, Christianity, and human reason. Are not the people part of the Church on earth? Cannot the appointed wielders of Jesus' authority on earth misuse what's been entrusted to them, just as the servants who were entrusted talents from the Master's own stores?

[Dismas]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1385337' date='Sep 14 2007, 07:56 AM']Dismas,
Read section 44.
Obvioiusly if the appointed eposcopate do not blamelessly serve the flock, are not humble, peaceable, etc., can (and should be) justly dismised from the ministry.[/quote]
Does the name Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo ring a bell? How about Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc? And Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre? These were excommunicated for their actions - not just retired, not just stripped, excommunicated. What about America? Well, Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee was retired early for not blamelessly serving his flock.

What about Cardinal Mahoney? Well, I certainly doubt that the Vatican does not know about him and his antics. Why don't they stop him? Because the Pope cannot micromanage every episcopacy in the world. Also, there has been since the reign of Pope Paul VI the fear that if the Vatican were to lay down the law too hard, that regions such as the U.S. would go from dissidence to outright rebellion. Even so, there are a number of lines in the sand, and I would not doubt that one day Cardinal Mahoney will reach too far, forget that it isn't the 1970's, and get into trouble.

There are even popes who have failed to minister as they aught, sometimes with great infamy. Are Catholics guaranteed that we won't have following the reign of Pope Benedict XVI, another Alexander VI? No, we aren't. We are only guaranteed that the fullness of Truth subsides within the Catholic Church.
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1385337' date='Sep 14 2007, 07:56 AM']If they aren't, what does that mean?[/quote]
It means that his superior, the pope, either is incapable of replacing him for a number of reasons, is dealing with bigger problems and isn't able to get to a nuisance offender, believes that such action will only cause further scandal and even schism and must therefore wait, is naturally a weak manager with poor skills regarding confrontation himself, or might even be corrupt himself.
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1385337' date='Sep 14 2007, 07:56 AM']If they are misbehaving, should they be obeyed? Nobody's denying that. Silly quips like 'the Church is perfect, the people are not' is a diservice to the Catholic Church, Christianity, and human reason. Are not the people part of the Church on earth?[/quote]
Only so long as the command is not for the sake of sin. Sin is defined in Sacred Scripture, especially in the Commandments, as well as in Sacred Tradition (big T). This is one of the reasons to have some reference material in Canon Law as well as the Catechism if you wish to be on the forefront of opposing the likes of Cardinal Mahoney.
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1385337' date='Sep 14 2007, 07:56 AM']Cannot the appointed wielders of Jesus' authority on earth misuse what's been entrusted to them, just as the servants who were entrusted talents from the Master's own stores?[/quote]
Verily they have, and are, and will continue to. Was Judas not sent by Jesus, though he was a traitor? Was not Simon Peter perhaps the most flawed of the apostles, and wasn't John the closest to Jesus's heart? And yet Christ Jesus made Peter the leader of the apostles.

Life isn't fair, and hasn't been since our banishment from Eden. People, even those who are given ministry over others still have fallen natures. Some give into that nature, and turn away from the God they vowed to serve. For all we know, Pope Benedict XVI will be followed by a man who shall seek to outdo Alexander VI in iniquity. Even so, even if such a monster be placed upon the papal throne, he may sin in all ways, and misuse his power in all ways, except when speaking ex-cathedra on faith and morals. That is cold comfort, but comfort nonetheless.

Even so, the Church marches on through time.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1385694' date='Sep 14 2007, 11:20 PM']Life isn't fair, and hasn't been since our banishment from Eden. People, even those who are given ministry over others still have fallen natures. Some give into that nature, and turn away from the God they vowed to serve. For all we know, Pope Benedict XVI will be followed by a man who shall seek to outdo Alexander VI in iniquity. Even so, even if such a monster be placed upon the papal throne, he may sin in all ways, and misuse his power in all ways, except when speaking ex-cathedra on faith and morals. That is cold comfort, but comfort nonetheless.

Even so, the Church marches on through time.[/quote]Agreed very much with most of what you've written, especially this part, as that is my point. The Church is infallible only in very rare, extreme, and specific occasions because of the nature of Man. The Church is infallible on those unique circumstances because of God's participation. The difference is the gap between when the humans of the Church demand obedience in all matters and when the humans can actually be infallible and demand obedience. The Filoque-Schism came to be and continues to exist, because the Roman Church insists it IS and Was speaking infallibly despite insincere efforts to include and hear from all it's successors of Christ's authority, a neccessary element required to cooperate with Christ's authority and speak infallibly. The Filoque was not a response to heresy, but a response to a pertinent question. The Church should have answered it with a 'most likely and worthy of belief' answer, not a black or white, schism causing 'either/or' answer. Huge difference. That is why Catholic Christianity has helped caused the splintering of Christianity. Even today most Caholics think that a different Rite can't be Catholic and are just some obscure, old, Protestants. That same arrogant idea of 'being right in all matters of faith' is what causes further splintering of the Protestants.