Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Infallibility
Fisheaters.com ^ | not given | Fisheaters.com

Posted on 05/16/2012 11:39:02 AM PDT by Salvation

Infallibility

St. Peter, by Fernandes (detail)

Christ gave to Simon Peter and his successors, the Keys to the Kingdom and the power of binding and loosing. To the Popes was given the authority to teach. To them, in this regard, was given the charism of infallibility. "Infallibility" is not "impeccability" -- the inability to sin. Catholics do not believe that Popes are sinless and never err. Infallibility is simply a gift that is expressed in very specific ways, limited by Sacred Deposit of Faith -- Tradition, Scripture, and the unanimous writings of the early Fathers. As put by Vatican I:

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.

Or, as put even more bluntly by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Coporis Christi:

[Nor] may anyone argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his Primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone.

The Pope may explain doctrines more fully, he may go more deeply into them, he can extrapolate from moral principles to shed light on new situations that arise, but he cannot contradict what has been handed down by Christ and the Apostles and still claim infallibility for that teaching.
 

Infallibility

Protestants believe the first Pope possessed the charism of infallibility.

Now, they might not believe that Peter was the first Pope (which he was), but they believe that his Epistles are infallible. They also believe that Luke, Matthew, Mark, Paul, Jude and John wrote infallibly. They believe that Moses "was infallible," too. And Hosea, Micah, Nehemiah, Isaiah, David, Solomon, Zechariah -- any Patriarch, Prophet, Apostle, or Evangelist who wrote a Bibilical Book is deemed by Protestants to be infallible.

But somehow they see things as having changed, and the idea of the gift of infallibility being given to man is laughed off as "Popish superstition" at best, and as "Romish sacrilege" at worst.

Why they believe this, when since Israel's origins God has always provided authoritative leaders, I don't know. From Abraham to Jacob to Moses to David to Solomon, et. al., throughout the thousands and thousands of years of Israel's existence, God gave Israel earthly authority. But Protestants see this authority as having abruptly ended when the Old Testament Covenant was fulfilled and Israel's King of Kings took on flesh.

Malachi 2-7
For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.

Matthew 23:2-3
The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Did that earthly authorty pass away? If not, where did that authority pass on to?

Isaiah 22:21-23
And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.

Matthew 16:18-19
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The authority passed to Peter and to the priests of the New Covenant.

"But we don't believe that Moses and Jacob and David were perfect! Look at David -- he committed adultery! Just because they wrote infallible books doesn't mean they were perfect!"

Precisely. And Catholics don't believe that Popes are perfect and can't sin or that every word a Pope mutters is infallible. When David whored around, he sinned. When Solomon prayed to pagan gods, he sinned. When Peter denied Christ three times, he sinned. When Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran or failed to deal with heretic, Modernist Bishops and homosexualist priests, he sinned. Impeccability is not a part of the deal -- but all of these sinners had/have the charism of infallibility.


 

How Infallibility Works

The Authentic (i.e. "authoritative") Magisterium of the Church -- i.e., the teaching office of the Church exercised by proper authority -- has different levels of infallibility:


In addition to Magisterium, the Pope can, of course, simply act as a private person and offer his personal opinions on anything from current events to sports to food to movies. These may be of interest to us Catholics, who tend to sensibly love -- or at least respect the office of -- the Holy Father, but they are not "Church teaching" in any way. In the same way, a Council may be called that is pastoral and not dogmatic in nature (such as Vatican II).

Now, some Catholics forget the second level of the Magisterium, the "Ordinary Infallible Magisterium." They forget the Sacred Deposit of Faith, the unanimous agreement of the early Christian Fathers, and Sacred Tradition. These "Catholics" are the "liberal Catholics" or "modernist Catholics" you hear so much from in the media. They are the ones who root for the ordination of women, the eradication of the Christian view of homosexuality, etc.  These are the well-organized, well-funded loudmouth "Catholics" who eat away at the Church's teachings and have become well-entrenched in various dioceses.

Another type of Catholic forgets about that third level of teaching that is not infallible at all. Any time the Pope teaches, he must be heard, his authority given respect, and the teaching given the benefit of the doubt because it comes from the Vicar of Christ. But if it contradicts prior infallible Magisterium, it is not infallible -- and it must not be obeyed if it proves harmful to the faith. Catholics who forget this level of Magisterium try very hard to be "orthodox" by being obedient, but they often have a false sense of obedience -- an obedience that sometimes borders on a pre-conscious papolatry ("pope worship"), though, of course, they know better and know that "worshipping the Pope" would be a terrible sin. They usually have a very healthy sensus catholicus, a desire for traditional Catholicism, and a virtuous patience, but they simply attribute to the Pope authority he does not have and they truly need to come to a better understanding of what the Magisterium is. These Catholics are often called "neo-conservatives," "conservatives," or "neo-Catholics" (they often think of and refer to themselves as "traditional Catholics" though they are not). You will see these otherwise wonderful Catholics tying themselves into knots trying to defend some of the novelties that followed Vatican II, or sweating bullets making excuses for some of the Holy Father's more scandalous actions (e.g., "ecumenical" services that include praying with Animists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants; allowing altar girls and "Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers", etc.), failures to act (e.g., lack of discipline given to Bishops), and opinions (e.g., support for the anti-subsidiarity, anti-life, anti-Christ United Nations).

Their desire to protect the Holy Father is understandable -- and laudable! -- especially since the papacy has been attacked so unfairly since the Protestant Rebellion and the ensuing secular revolution, most often with outrageous lies. But these Catholics have to wake up, study a bit, and defend true Catholic teaching as it has been known for 2,000 years.


 

How to recognize what is and isn't infallible

If it has always been taught by the Church as a matter of faith or morals, it is infallible. If it is a solemn definition, it is infallible.

Ex., you are reading two Encyclicals. The first Encyclical reads:

Venerable Brethren, the red dogs runs at night. The cow jumped over the Moon. Jesus Christ is God. Little Jack Horner sat in a corner. Women may not be ordained to the priesthood.

In this document, the only parts which would be infallible would be the lines "Jesus Christ is God" and "women may not be ordained to the priesthood" because these have always been taught. This is teaching at the level of the Universal Magisterium, which is infallible.

The second Encyclical reads:

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that X, Y, Z. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. And, by the way, the red dog runs at night.

Notice the explicit "we define" here? Notice that it is addressed to "anyone," not just to members of the Latin Church or of the Eastern Churches, etc.? Notice the penalty in place for non-acceptance of what is being said (if you don't believe this, you have fallen away from the Catholic Faith)? By these marks, you can know that infallible teaching is being expressed.

In this document, X, Y, and Z are infallible, but not "the red dog runs at night." This is teaching at the level of the Extraordinary (or Solemn) Magisterium, which is also infallible and is to be accepted "de fide." (Note: Protestants and uneducated Catholics who ask blankly, "Is Enclyclical X infallible?" need to recognize that a 100-page Encyclical may be written that is not infallible in any way, or has 10 paragraphs that are infallible, or 1 sentence that is infallible, etc.). This sort of exercise of the Solemn Magisterium is very rare, but very necessary when clarity is needed over a teaching that has always been taught, but whose details haven't been strictly defined.

All other teachings are owed obedience as long as they do not lead to a loss of Faith, harm the Church, impede the salvation of souls, lead to an evil, etc.

Summary:

How the teachings are passed down

In addition to the above authoritative excercises of the Magisterium is "ecclesiastical tradition." Ecclesiastical tradition is the body of disciplines and practices which Christ's Church has ordained to be the manner in which our Faith is lived out and expressed. To quote Brother Alexis Bugnolo, writing in Seattle Catholic:

Ecclesiastical Tradition is the term used by the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, in 787 A.D., to speak of those pious customs of the Churches founded by the Apostles, which in some manner correctly apply the Catholic Religion to concrete practice over many generations. It does this most importantly in its 4th Anathema:

"If anyone despises or rejects any written or unwritten ecclesiastical tradition, anathema sit."

Some examples cited by this council of ecclesiastical tradition are the veneration of the symbol of the Cross, icons, and statues. As an unwritten practice, kneeling for Communion is an ecclesiastical tradition.

The details of ecclesiastical tradition (small "T") are not a matter of dogma per se, but they are the inerrant manner in which dogma and doctrine are taught, learned, expressed, and lived. The details of ecclesiastical tradition may develop; they are not written in stone. But they may develop only slowly, "organically," in terms of quantity or quality (not substance), and in such a manner that is consistent with Natural Law and which better expresses the Faith (or at least doesn't harm the Faith, such as the novel practices since Vatican II do). Many of the problems in the Church since the Second Vatican Council stem from the almost complete eradication or revolutionizing of ecclesiastical tradition, in spite of the Second Council of Nicaea's anathema against such things and in spite of the fact that they have proven dangerous to the Faith.
 



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: bible; catholic; pope; stpeter; whatacrock
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-181 next last
To: gghd

Not only are you catholic, you know the hearts of men and are a judge. I guess you learned that from your “fathers”, or “pope”, or whatever or whoever you guys have ruling you from Rome these days.

(Eph. 4:5-7 “one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”)


51 posted on 05/18/2012 12:01:25 PM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101

Thank you. I take that as a compliment. I’m obligated to interpret other people’s words in the best manner possible by the Catechism. I ain’t no judge. +++I’m glad I’m NOT NOT the Pope. The Pope is responsible for 7 >Billion souls. It’s in the parable of Talents in Chapter 25 of Matthew.

I’m sorry if I was harsh. + If you are capable of going to a church, you need to go this coming Sunday. There are thousands of them around. Start with a big mega-church, maybe.

I once went to Southern-Baptist church down south once on a Wednesday night. Amazing! There were 3,000 people in a church; all happy to be there on a Wednesday night. On Sunday the church holds 12,000+ people. They had two morning services, I believe. & There was a Sunday night prayer service to Honor God on the ‘Lord Day.’
(Vespers)

Praise God that the Southern Baptist church is a pro-life anti-abortion church.

They spotted me as a new comer. I asked how they knew it. I was told there a group of men & women in the church given the responsibility for each section & knowing who typically sits in which seat & how often.
They made me feel welcome & I was encouraged to come back to their church.

God wants all of us in a church >Honoring God. Obviously, I believe the Catholic Church is the true church. >But any good Protestant church is better than no church.


52 posted on 05/18/2012 12:49:03 PM PDT by gghd (A Pro-life Palinista & a member of the NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: gghd

LOL. I can see why the catholic church is in such disarray.

No problem, you weren’t harsh, I was just making a comment. I don’t fear the judgement of any man. Matt 10:28 “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

I don’t need another church. I am a member of the Lord’s Church. The one that Christ established on the day of Pentecost, not some church that began hundreds of yrs. later. My Church has one head and that is Christ, not some sinful pope. We are guided by God and His word, not the word of some sinful man sitting in Rome. We neither bow down to nor look up to any sinful man as the leader of our Church. That is idol worshiping. There is only ONE GOD and ONE FATHER and he is in heaven, not Rome. I worship nor honor NO sinful man. The catholic church can’t say that. You folks adore and treat the pope, a sinful man, as if he is God himself. You laugh at, mock and despise God’s word but the the words of the pope you treat as infallible. I don’t hate you, I feel sorry for you and all the sheeple that follow that sinful, vile man in Rome.


53 posted on 05/18/2012 1:37:29 PM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101

Dang, swampfox101 you be back like the flu that comes around each year.

Swampfox101, you are obligated by Jesus Christ to love everyone. The Commandment of Jesus Christ is to ‘Love one another as I have loved you.’ + ‘Love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself.’

Your words preach hatred for the Pope & the Catholic Church. The true message of your ‘religion’ comes forth from your heart. It doesn’t matter the words you use. You still persist in being a deceitful man with lying-lips.

You can say somewhere in a post that you ‘don’t hate’ but the fact that you come on to a Catholic thread & state falsehoods about the Catholic Church, misquote people & inappropriately use scripture. = proof of true hatred found in your heart. Swampfox repent your sins.

Hatred for other people should not be found in your heart. Swampfox, you come to a Catholic thread to lie + hate & for no other reason. It’s time to throw yourself on the Mercy of God & ask God to have Mercy on your soul.

There is a reason the Catholic Church has 1.2 billion people officially baptized into it. & There are some folks just sitting in an ‘armchair church’ with delusions of grandeur.

Repent all sins swampfox & ask Jesus Christ to transform your life.


54 posted on 05/18/2012 5:18:23 PM PDT by gghd (A Pro-life Palinista & a member of the NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101

**I am a member of the Lord’s Church. The one that Christ established on the day of Pentecost, **

I didn’t know you were Catholic! Pentecost is the birthday of the Catholic Church. The apostles were the first Bishops.

Or did you miss the line in Scripture about Christ breathing on them and imparting the Holy Spirit to them?


55 posted on 05/18/2012 5:23:30 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101

What is the History of Your Church?

 

Church Year Established Founder Where Established
 
Catholic 33 Jesus Christ Jerusalem
 
Orthodox 1054 Schismatic Catholic
Bishops
Constantinople
 
Lutheran 1517 Martin Luther Germany
 
Anabaptist 1521 Nicholas Storch &
Thomas Munzer
Germany
 
Anglican 1534 Henry VIII England
 
Mennonites 1536 Menno Simons Switzerland
 
Calvinist 1555 John Calvin Switzerland
 
Presbyterian 1560 John Knox Scotland
 
Congregational 1582 Robert Brown Holland
 
Baptist 1609 John Smyth Amsterdam
 
Dutch Reformed 1628 Michaelis Jones New York
 
Congregationalist 1648 Pilgrims and Puritans Massachusetts
 
Quakers 1649 George Fox England
 
Amish 1693 Jacob Amman France
 
Freemasons 1717 Masons from four lodges London
 
Methodist 1739 John & Charles
Wesley
England
 
Unitarian 1774 Theophilus Lindey London
 
Methodist Episcopal 1784 60 Preachers Baltimore, MD
 
Episcopalian 1789 Samuel Seabury American Colonies
 
United Brethren 1800 Philip Otterbein &
Martin Boehn
Maryland
 
Disciples of Christ 1827 Thomas & Alexander
Campbell
Kentucky
 
Mormon 1830 Joseph Smith New York
 
Methodist Protestant 1830 Methodist United States
 
Church of Christ 1836 Warren Stone &
Alexander Campbell
Kentucky
 
Seventh Day Adventist 1844 Ellen White Washington, NH
 
Christadelphian (Brethren
of Christ
1844 John Thomas Richmond, VA
 
Salvation Army 1865 William Booth London
 
Holiness 1867 Methodist United States
 
Jehovah's Witnesses 1874 Charles Taze Russell Pennsylvania
 
Christian Science 1879 Mary Baker Eddy Boston
 
Church of God in Christ 1895 Various churches of God Arkansas
 
Church of Nazarene c. 1850-1900 Various religious bodies Pilot Point, TX
 
Pentecstal 1901 Charles F. Parkham Topeka, KS
 
Aglipayan 1902 Gregorio Aglipay Philippines
 
Assemblies of God 1914 Pentecostalism Hot Springs, AZ
 
Iglesia ni Christo 1914 Felix Manalo Philippines
 
Four-square Gospel 1917 Aimee Semple
McPherson
Los Angeles, CA
 
United Church of Christ 1961 Reformed and
Congregationalist
Philadelphia, PA
 
Calvary Chapel 1965 Chuck Smith Costa Mesa, CA
 
United Methodist 1968 Methodist and United
Brethren
Dallas, TX
 
Born-again c. 1970s Various religious bodies United States
 
Harvest Christian 1972 Greg Laurie Riverside, CA
 
Saddleback 1982 Rick Warren California
 
Non-denominational c. 1990s various United States

56 posted on 05/18/2012 5:24:35 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

The Lord’s Church established on the day of Pentecost. One head of the Church, Jesus Christ. One Father, God himself. One Spirit, the Spirit of God himself. We have NO creeds, only God’s word. We have no rulers like popes or cardinals, only overseers or elders.

We believe in one Lord, on faith, one baptism, one head of the Church, one God, NO man written creeds only the inspired word of God.

Its the Church you find in the scriptures, the one that Christ died for, the one that is built upon Him and His teachings. Its the one the apostles help build upon the foundation of Christ. Christ is its Chief corner stone and its head.

Everyone who hears God word, believes God’s word, repents of sins, confesses the name of Christ and is baptized for the remission of sins is saved and added to his Church. Just as was done on the day of pentecost when it was established.

Just as the first century Church called themselves Christias, so do we. I am a Christian that is a memeber of the Lord’s Church. We are simply called Christians just as those in the New Testament.

I follow Christ and His teachings so I proudly wear His name.

Who do you follow and serve and who is the head of ur Church? How many heads does ur church have? How many man written creeds does ur church have? Do you follow only God’s word and what it teaches or do you rely upon the creeds and words of men?


57 posted on 05/19/2012 4:26:09 AM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101
The Lord's Church is the Apostolic Church. the beliefs are encapsulated in the Nicene Creed.

you say We believe in one Lord, on faith, one baptism, one head of the Church, one God, -- question, do you believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God -- all God, yet there is only One God? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is both God and man, both natures irrevocably intertwined in the one who is the bridge between man and God?

If yes, I have no quarrel with you, we will debate but not argue

58 posted on 05/19/2012 5:49:16 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101; Salvation
The head of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ, our High Priest who is present at every mass in the form of the Eucharist Malachi 1:11, "For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts."

We are a community of priests at every mass, led by the High priest, with his ministerial priests playing their role as do the lay priests.

The Creed is not man-made, but an encapsulation of beliefs.

Remember that the Word of God is Jesus Christ. The Bible is the written word, not the entire Word of God (which is Christ) and like all man-written thigns is open to interpretation, hence the varied interpretations around

59 posted on 05/19/2012 5:56:48 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

I believe Christ is our one and only mediator between God and man.

1 Tim 2:4-6 (4)who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (5) For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, (6) who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

As for the Nicene Creed, I have heard of it but that’s about it. I have never taken time to study it.

And, yes I believe in God, Christ, The Holy Spirit, three personalities but ONE GOD. Thats what the scriptures teach.

Thank you.


60 posted on 05/19/2012 6:07:06 AM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101; gghd; Salvation
Do read the article before making such bounding errors. Your post is utterly false in this part You folks adore and treat the pope, a sinful man, as if he is God himself. You laugh at, mock and despise God’s word but the the words of the pope you treat as infallible. -- The Pope is a sinful man, and if you did read the aticle you'd see that the word of the Pope are not all infallible. The Pope is a fallible, sinful man just as is you or me, yet God has prevented the many sinful men who have followed Peter's position as leader, from leading the flock astray. That is why now the Church is the bastion of Christianity, just as it was when there were persecutions by the Romans, just as when in 450 it seemed that Christianity would end under barbarian and Arian Germanic invaders. Just as in the 700s it seemed that Christianity would end under the Moslem invaders and the same in the 1600s. Just as it seemed in the 1920s that Christianity would end under the Bolsheviks

Each time, The Church has survived and mostly inspite of itself, because God protects and God inaugurated the Church, his bride Eph 5: 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior

As Christ said in MAtt 5:14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. and as +Paul reminds us Rom 12:5 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. handed down one from the other 2 tim 2:2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.

For us God's Word, i.e. Jesus Christ is the One High Priest who we follow that is why we believe in what He taught -- and He taught that we must repent, believe, eat of His body and endure to the end.

61 posted on 05/19/2012 6:10:41 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101; gghd; Salvation
You just don’t think God word is infallible.

God's Word i.e. Jesus Christ is infallible, the written word that is scripture is inerrant. the Pope as a person is Fallible, but only on occasion (twice in the past 200 years) has God's spirit directed or even controlled the person sitting in Peter's chair to state something that the Spirit deems infallible.

62 posted on 05/19/2012 6:13:48 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

“Jesus Christ is infallible, the written word that is scripture is inerrant.”

Same difference.

‘the Pope as a person is Fallible,’

Indeed, we are all sinnners. (Rom. 3:23)

“, but only on occasion (twice in the past 200 years) has God’s spirit directed or even controlled the person sitting in Peter’s chair to state something that the Spirit deems infallible.”

Hebrews 1:1 (”God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;”)

1 Cor. 13:8-13 (”Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”)

As you see from these verses, I don’t agree with your premise.


63 posted on 05/19/2012 7:01:28 AM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101
Cronos: “Jesus Christ is infallible, the written word that is scripture is inerrant.”

Swamp: Same difference.

Wrong. Jesus is not a colleciton of books. We Christians worship Jesus, the true Word of God, we Christians don't worship a collection of books.

Scripture is inerrant as in it does not contain error, it is not "infallible" no more than it (or any other inanimate object) is fallible. Fallibility is of an animate object, in the ability to arrive at decisions.

The Bible is inerrant.

64 posted on 05/19/2012 8:37:57 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101
of course, all men are fallible, that is why sola scripture leads to Jehovah's witnesses, Unitarians, Mormons, gay justification (like Obama).

Jesus gave us a community, the Church to prevent this, that is why the Church remains true, 2000 years later, due to the work of Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit and all the various errors have died out (the latest being the bunch of gay-led implosions we see)

65 posted on 05/19/2012 8:46:59 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101
of course, all men are fallible, that is why sola scripture leads to Jehovah's witnesses, Unitarians, Mormons, gay justification (like Obama).

Jesus gave us a community, the Church to prevent this, that is why the Church remains true, 2000 years later, due to the work of Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit and all the various errors have died out (the latest being the bunch of gay-led implosions we see)

Now those armchair errors also lead to people quoting scripture out of context and out of place -- as Obama did and as your post does

Christ gave us the Church, the community, through which the collection of books called the Bible, under the grace of God was collected.

the Love of God is what has guided the Church through the centuries. The Love of God, and His grace is what provides the infallibility on occasion (twice in the past 200 years) has God’s spirit directed or even controlled the person sitting in Peter’s chair to state something that the Spirit deems infallible.

If you read the Bible, you should also believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, just as Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Orientals and Assyrians believe, indeed the overwhelming majority of Christians for 2000 years and today. do you trust Christ? do you believe His words? Then do you believe in the True presence in the Eucharist? If one does not, then one does not believe in Christ's words...

66 posted on 05/19/2012 8:51:44 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

“Your post is utterly false in this part You folks adore and treat the pope, a sinful man, as if he is God himself. You laugh at, mock and despise God’s word but the the words of the pope you treat as infallible. — “

I was somewhat harsh. What I should have said is that the Catholic Church is somewhat lackadaisical is its treatment of the scriptures. Here are a few examples:

“The very nature of the Bible ought to prove to any thinking man the impossibility of its being the one safe method to find out what the Saviour taught.
[Question Box, 1913 edition, page 67]”

“the text of the Bible is not clear and conclusive on many points of doctrine on which it does treat, is efficiently proved by the very discordances of those who attempt to deduce doctrine from it without any other aid.
[George M. Searle, Plain Facts, Paulist Press, New York, page 23] “

“Again, it has ever been practically impossible for men, generally to find out Christ from the Bible only.
[Question Box, 1913 edition, page 70]”

“Second, ... a competent religious guide must be clear and intelligible to all, so that everyone may fully understand the true meaning of the instructions it contains. Is the Bible a book intelligible to all? Far from it; it is full of obscurities and difficulties not only for the illiterate, but even for the learned”.
[The Faith of Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, 1917, page 70]

“In other spiritual books the truths of the Bible are presented more fully, and in a more modern and familiar style, so that we can hardly wonder that they are, as a rule preferred; and that though Catholic families generally have a Bible, it is more venerated than read.
[George M. Searle, Plain Facts, Paulist Press, New York, page 154]”

“Akin to these divine laws is the purely ecclesiastical law or law of the Church. Christ sent forth His Church clothed with His own and His Father’s authority ... To enable her to carry out this divine plan she makes laws, laws purely ecclesiastical, but laws that have the same binding force as the divine laws themselves ... For Catholics, therefore, as far as obligations are concerned there is no practical difference between God’s law and the law of the Church.”
[John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Benziger Brothers, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, 1904, page 26]


67 posted on 05/19/2012 8:54:18 AM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101
[Question Box, 1913 edition, page 67]”

Question box -- that's not a source of the Church's position. No more than me posting an opinion from someone in the 1910s who was not a Catholic and asking you why you believe in that..

and "George M. Searle"< and James were posting their opinions, just as you are. That is why sola scriptura and individual interpretation is open to errors

68 posted on 05/19/2012 9:11:51 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101
Let's show you how silly you posting the opinions of someone and stating that as lackadaisical of Christ's entire Church is a silly statement

Supposed if one said "What I should have said is that those outside the Catholic Church is somewhat lackadaisical is its treatment of the scriptures" like Obama quotes the golden rule to justify gay marriages

So why do non-Catholics play fast and loose with scripture to justify this, to justify their beliefs that Jesus Christ is Not God (Jehovah's Witnesses or Unitarians) or one of many gods (Mormons) or denying the Trinity (Oneness Pentecostals) or saying "God has no power over life or death, you have it" (Pentecostal preacher Jesse Duplantis) or saying "Abortion is a blessing" (anglican pastoress) etc. etc.

69 posted on 05/19/2012 9:19:19 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101; gghd; Salvation
I was somewhat harsh No, actually your post was false, a repetition of a lie at worst, utterly inane at best.

Do read the article before making such bounding errors

if you had read the article you'd see that your statements in that post and subsequent are utterly devoid of facts.

70 posted on 05/19/2012 9:49:46 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Thank you for your reply. Are you another person coming on to a Catholic thread to insult people & lie? What evil is in your heart that you are >driven to generate more discord?

What church do you go to? I consider it a very appropriate question >just by looking at the >name you have chosen as your Moniker?

I do believe, Cronos, that you be the one using >Catholic language inappropriately. I recommend you read the article.

+My advice is you throw yourself on the Mercy of God & ask Jesus Christ to transform you & give you >Humility (Included in Piety) which is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Cronos you sound like a person that is consumed with sin & needs redemption through Jesus Christ. Cronos it’s time to get on your knees & acknowledge Jesus Christ is Lord & the real King. It’s time to give up your hateful-life.


71 posted on 05/19/2012 10:10:53 AM PDT by gghd (A Pro-life Palinista & a member of the NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Do you think idolatry counts when it is the Bible? Just curious....


72 posted on 05/19/2012 10:18:12 AM PDT by MarMema (freedom for Amir)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

I will not concede your point. The Catholic Church does think that God’s word isn’t sufficient for salvation and they DO put just as much creedence and faith in the writigs of mere sinful man.

The Catholic Church is just a guilty as the first century Jews in trying to write their own laws. The Jewish leaders felt themselves to be above the law of God and the Catholic Church does the exact same thing. Hence they try to add to and take away from God’s written Word.


73 posted on 05/19/2012 11:21:00 AM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

“Let’s show you how silly you posting the opinions of someone and stating that as lackadaisical of Christ’s entire Church is a silly statement”

No, what’s silly is the the pope calling himself the vicar of Christ. You wanna talk silly, look at the Catholic Church and its teachings.

“So why do non-Catholics play fast and loose with scripture to justify this, to justify their beliefs that Jesus Christ is Not God “

Should we discard the word of God because men abuse it?

The world is full of sinful people and they try to use the scriptures to justify many things. Thats why God instructs us to study (2 Tim 2:15) All Christians were warned that many wolves in sheep’s clothig would enter the Church and lead astray.(Matt. 7:15&16) Not only that but Jesus told us that many of them would be part of the folk. (Matt 7:21)

Knowing that man are sinful, why would the Catholic Church put their faith in mere men like the pope? Why would you want to exchange, supplement, add to, or take away from the perfect word of God?


74 posted on 05/19/2012 11:39:28 AM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101
"The Catholic Church does think that God’s word isn’t sufficient for salvation and they DO put just as much creedence and faith in the writigs of mere sinful man."

That is a gross mischaracterization that had its origin in the propaganda of the Reformation. The Catholic Church affirms that Scripture contains all that is necessary for Salvation. Going ever further, the Church teaches that Salvation van be found in the Gospels or even a few of the words of Jesus.

The original Protestant premise that Scripture Alone is all that is necessary for Salvation has morphed into a doctrine that claims that Scripture Alone shall be the exclusive source of Salvation. The Traditions of the Church, derived from the oral teachings of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Early Church Fathers were considered counter-scriptural.

"There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." - John 21:25

75 posted on 05/19/2012 11:45:24 AM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

“That is why sola scriptura and individual interpretation is open to errors”

And sola papa can’t make a mistake huh? Yeah..., right.

You keep your sinful pope and I’ll keep may sinless savior and his “Perfect Gospel” and His loving Father.

You can choose to serve your pope if you want but I and my household,just like Joshua, choose to serve God.

Joshua 24:14-16
14 “Now therefore, fear the Lord, serve Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the Lord! 15 And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”


76 posted on 05/19/2012 11:46:28 AM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

“That is a gross mischaracterization that had its origin in the propaganda of the Reformation”

The Catholic Church had to be reformed it was corrupt and it is still an apostate church.

‘”The Catholic Church affirms that Scripture contains all that is necessary for Salvation. Going ever further, the Church teaches that Salvation van be found in the Gospels or even a few of the words of Jesus.”

If you believe that, then why add to God’s word? Get rid of all of the nonsense in the Catholic church and return to God’s word.

“The Traditions of the Church, derived from the oral teachings of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Early Church Fathers were considered counter-scriptural.”

The oral traditions of the Church is the GOSPEL thats what the apostles taught. That’s exactly what John is talking about in John 21:25.

You and I are to teach Jesus, the very same Jesus that the apostles taught. We aren’t supposed to teach the ideas, commandments, and theories and traditions of men. Matt. 15:8-108 “These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”

2 Thess 2:14-16 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle

As you can see from scripture, the oral traditions and the epistles were the same.


77 posted on 05/19/2012 12:04:43 PM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

‘of course, all men are fallible, that is why sola scripture leads to Jehovah’s witnesses, Unitarians, Mormons, gay justification (like Obama).’

Are you saying God’s word corrupts?

“Now those armchair errors also lead to people quoting scripture out of context and out of place — as Obama did and as your post does”

What makes you more capable than others at quoting scripture or the Cathoic church for that matter? You just have a problem with God’s word. You don’t like what it says and don’t agree with it so therefore you try to discredit scripture. That’s a very dangerous thing my friend.

“If you read the Bible, you should also believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, just as Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Orientals and Assyrians believe, indeed the overwhelming majority of Christians for 2000 years and today. do you trust Christ? do you believe His words? Then do you believe in the True presence in the Eucharist? If one does not, then one does not believe in Christ’s words...”

Says who? The pope? Where is eucharist mentioned in God’s word? I believe in the Lord’s supper if that’s what you mean.

I believe the bread represents the body and the wine represents the blood. Matt. 14: 22-23 22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take, eat;[a] this is My body.”
23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.


78 posted on 05/19/2012 12:17:55 PM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101
No, you are saying that God's word corrupts

I am saying that God's Word is Jesus Christ. It is man's fallacy in believing in sola scriptura that corrupts the written word so that you have Obama using scripture to justify gay marriage, so that you have unitarians, mormons, jehovah's witnesses etc., so that you have your own interpretation

79 posted on 05/19/2012 1:28:04 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101; Salvation
What makes you more capable than others at quoting scripture or the Cathoic church for that matter?

Oh, I am very fallible as an individual -- as are you. The difference is that I believe God did not leave it up to individuals like you and me to fallibly interpret the written word, but to the community that is the Church

Now, God's community to which I belong, aka the Apostolic Church, we learn and pray God's word as a community

do you?

80 posted on 05/19/2012 1:30:00 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101; Salvation
? You just have a problem with God’s word. You don’t like what it says and don’t agree with it so therefore you try to discredit scripture.

That's more descriptive of your post's position when it says Where is eucharist mentioned in God’s word? -- goes to show that you really need to read the scripture.

Firstly, the Word of God is Jesus Christ, not some collection of books -- we Christians don't work a collection of books, we worship the true Word of God: Jesus Christ

Secondly, let's look at scripture:

if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”
Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying
John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)
6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
and also 1 Cor 11:27-29
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said
so, do you believe Jesus's words when He says that Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. ? Or are you like those who doubted Him?
81 posted on 05/19/2012 1:34:07 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101; Salvation
swampfox: I believe the bread represents the body and the wine represents the blood

Jesus: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

Jesus spoke of those who falsely believe His words on the eucharist are metaphorical -- the false belief you hold in that post is the same that those ignoratnt people around Him had, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
and the disbelievers then and now says “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12


82 posted on 05/19/2012 1:38:13 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101; Salvation
You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).
83 posted on 05/19/2012 1:38:41 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101; Salvation
swamp: And sola papa can’t make a mistake huh? Yeah..., right.

of course he makes mistakes -- he's fallible. Do READ the article.

Piece of advice -- read before shooting your mouth off. Folks who don't read end up looking like fools, like your post shows

Our sinless savior and High priest is there in each mass. We serve Jesus Christ -- as repeated to you ad nauseum, so do stop repeating lies

And do follow Jesus Christ who clearly says that the eating of His body is not a metaphor -- only the disbelievers in Christ said that.

84 posted on 05/19/2012 1:41:14 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101; Salvation
swamp: what’s silly is the the pope calling himself the vicar of Christ.

Jesus He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. John 21:16

Really? your post smacks of disbelief in Jesus Christ's own words...

85 posted on 05/19/2012 1:44:39 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101; Salvation
swamp: Should we discard the word of God because men abuse it?

well, you can do that if you wish, but we Christians follow the Word of God: Jesus Christ who taught the Apostles so much that could not be contained in all the collections of books. Christ passed down the correct interpretation -- HIS interpretation which is why from the Earliest Christians we believe in Christ's words telling us to repent, belief, eat of His body and endure to the end.

those who hold to sola scriptura disbelief these words of Christs..

86 posted on 05/19/2012 1:46:41 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101; Salvation
swamp: Knowing that man are sinful, why would the...

wow, your posts keep repeating the same lie. We, in the One Holy and Apostolic Church which Christ Himself inaugurated put our faith in Jesus Christ the Word of God

Others put faith in themselves, in their own individual interpretations of God's written word. no thank you, we believe in Christ -- I would urge you to do the same.

87 posted on 05/19/2012 1:48:45 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101; Salvation
swamp: Knowing that man are sinful, why would the...

wow, your posts keep repeating the same lie. We, in the One Holy and Apostolic Church which Christ Himself inaugurated put our faith in Jesus Christ the Word of God

Others put faith in themselves, in their own individual interpretations of God's written word. no thank you, we believe in Christ -- I would urge you to do the same. Why do you exchange, supplement, add to, or take away from the perfect word of God?

Why do you not believe Christ's own words inaugurating the Eucharist, one baptism for the remission of sins?

why?

88 posted on 05/19/2012 1:49:47 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101; Salvation
swamp: does think that God’s word isn’t sufficient

Actually your statements keep repeating lies. We, the community of Christ -- the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church believe that the Word of God - Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation -- now, those who worship a collection of books, slavishly follow just their own flawed interpretation of the written word instead of following the Word of God - Jesus Christ -- why do you?

89 posted on 05/19/2012 1:51:50 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; swampfox101

**swamp: And sola papa can’t make a mistake huh? Yeah..., right.**

Swamp — the article explains the difference between impeccability and infaliability.

They are not the same thing.

Please, swamp, go back and read the article and desist in making false statements about the Catholic Church.


90 posted on 05/19/2012 1:52:39 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101; Salvation
swamp: Hence they try to add to and take away from God’s written Word.

Actually that's what those outside Christ's One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church do -- did you know that the first King James Version bible had the books of Maccabees etc. included? and only in the past 200 odd years have they been excluded?

Does your Bible contain Maccabees? If not, then you should ask the publishers why they try to take away from God's written word

91 posted on 05/19/2012 1:53:52 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

?


92 posted on 05/19/2012 1:54:47 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

“those who hold to sola scriptura disbelief these words of Christs..”

My faith is in Jesus and His words, the Bible. You put ur faith in a sinful corrupt pope and a bunch of other men that declare themselves infallible. And you say I don’t believe in Christ .......lol!!!


93 posted on 05/19/2012 1:54:56 PM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101

Actually, no, your post is incorrect. If you really had faith in Jesus Christ, the Word of God, you would believe when He said to eat of His body. But if your post thinks that that is a metaphor... woooo — utter disbelief in Jesus Christ


94 posted on 05/19/2012 1:59:56 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101

your statements keep repeating lies. We, the community of Christ — the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church believe that the Word of God - Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation — now, those who worship a collection of books, slavishly follow just their own flawed interpretation of the written word instead of following the Word of God - Jesus Christ — why do you?


95 posted on 05/19/2012 2:00:23 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; swampfox101

Exactly — swamp, why don’t you read the article before shooting off? And why not read the Bible?


96 posted on 05/19/2012 2:03:10 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; swampfox101
Exactly -- swamp, why don't you read the article before shooting off? And why not read the Bible?

i've given you enough of the written word in post 82 showing that Jesus didn't speak in a metaphor for that. Now, please do believe in Jesus Christ -- He said to eat of His body, not a metaphor as the disbelievers in His time and now say

97 posted on 05/19/2012 2:05:28 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

swamp: Hence they try to add to and take away from God’s written Word.

“Actually that’s what those outside Christ’s One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church do — “

We don’t, we believe in God’s word only. Period...!

“did you know that the first King James Version bible had the books of Maccabees etc. included? and only in the past 200 odd years have they been excluded?”

What’s so special about the KJV, it has manny, many errors. The ASV is a much better version as well as the NKJV.

The original KJV was a much a political document as it was scripture. Those translating didn’t wanna wind up dead, they had to please king James.

“Does your Bible contain Maccabees? If not, then you should ask the publishers why they try to take away from God’s written word”

We don’t believe those books were written by inspired writers.

Why does the Catholic Church reject the books of 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manassah.


98 posted on 05/19/2012 2:05:36 PM PDT by swampfox101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101
Actually, your posts show a disbelief in Jesus Christ

let's compare what you say and what Jesus says?

swampfox: I believe the bread represents the body and the wine represents the blood

Jesus: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

Jesus spoke of those who falsely believe His words on the eucharist are metaphorical -- the false belief you hold in that post is the same that those ignoratnt people around Him had, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
and the disbelievers then and now says “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12


99 posted on 05/19/2012 2:10:22 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: swampfox101
let's look at scripture:
if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”
Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying
John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)
6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
and also 1 Cor 11:27-29
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said
so, do you believe Jesus's words when He says that Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. ? Or are you like those who doubted Him?

So, swamp -- why do you doubt Jesus Christ?

100 posted on 05/19/2012 2:11:12 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-181 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson