Is the Pope Catholic? - The Greatest Schism in Catholic Church History!

Spiritual Food Blogspot ^ | May 10, 2016 | Rev. Joseph Dwight

[Mrs. Don-o]

1) The Promises of the Rosary are not Catholic doctrine. It involves Private Revelation. It is certainly not "defined."

2) Nevertheless: since the Rosary entails a very strong adherence in faith and devotion to Christ ---and Mary doing what we all do for each other, offering intercessory prayer on our behalf --- it all comes down to intercessory prayer to God, availing much.

Any other interpretation would be heretical, would it not?

[Elsie]

The Promises of the Rosary are not Catholic doctrine. It involves Private Revelation. It is certainly not "defined."

Yet MILLIONS worldwide believe it!

Can you give me any LOGICAL reason WHY they do so?

[Elsie]

...and Mary doing what we all do for each other, offering intercessory prayer on our behalf...

Mary is DEAD!

---

Any other interpretation would be heretical speculation, would it not?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Mark 12:26-27
Have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: therefore, you are very much mistaken.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Because they think this private revelation to be reliable.

[Elsie]

Because they think this private revelation to be reliable.

And just WHY do they 'think' it is reliable?

[Elsie]

I'm sure it was not your intention to give a quite truncated view of the Scriptures...

Mark 12    New International Version (NIV)

¹⁸ Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. ¹⁹ “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. ²⁰ Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. ²¹ The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. ²² In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. ²³ At the resurrection^[c] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

²⁴ Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? ²⁵ When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. ²⁶ Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’^[d]? ²⁷ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

[Mrs. Don-o]

You’ll have to ask “them.” Personally, I have never been particularly into the Private Revelation thing.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for giving me the oppoetunity to point out the role of "Abraham, Isaaac, and Jacob" in this passage.

As we know, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have passed on from this earthly life: they are "dead and buried, period" as people would say who are unenlightened by faith. As we also know, they have not yet experienced the resurrection of the body, which we look forward to happening at the end of the world.

So these patriarchs, "dead and buried," not yet resurrected in the body, are nevertheless described as being alive:

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Mark 12:26
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Luke 20:37
Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

Now you might object, "He's talking about them being alive after the Resurrection if the Dead." Yes, after the Resurrection; but not only after the Resurrection, since He speaks of them being alive now because God is the God of the living, and they are living now.

Two other passages make this clearer. in Matthew 6:11 we read of Gentiles coming to join Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who are already there, at the banquet in the kingdom of Heaven:

Matthew 8:11
And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

And Jesus, in another episode, actually meets and speaks with Moses and Elijah, who are also, some would say, "dead". Moses' body is in his grave, while Elijah's status is somewhat different, since he was taken, body and soul, into heaven in the fiery chariot:

Matthew 17:3
And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

(Also Mark 9:4 and Luke 9:30.)

This shows that whether you are resurrected at that particular moment in time or now, (Elijah was, Moses wasn't), you are still alive, and still in heaven, your soul having passed on to is eternal reward.

As you know, most of the Christian world (Catholic and Orthodox) have always taught that Blessed Mary was assumed into Heaven body and soul. However, prescinding from that doctrine, we know that she is alive even if her body were still in the grave somewhere. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses are still in the grave as to the body, but as to God they are alive.

Mary, too. You and I too, I hope, after we pass through death into life eternal.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

This has been a very fascinating debate.

But honestly, I think one need only look at the fruit of Protestantism: over 30,000 different denominations, practically all of which claim inspiration by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of Scripture.

But logically, only one denomination has the fullness of truth (for the Holy Spirit is not divided against itself).

So this is the challenge: how can you tell which denomination has the fullness of truth?

[metmom]

A great deal of what I post is not the in the official catechism of "my religion." It's thoughts and evidence and reasonable inferences from evidence, buttressed by the learned and insightful contributions of saints and scholars past and contemporary. For instance, the Catholic Church has dogmatically interpreted only very few sections of Sacred Scripture. The rest is open to a great deal of flexibility.

Then just wh do so many Catholics blow a gasket when Protestsants offer a different interpretation of Scripture than they do?

Why all the shrieks of dismay and criticism of of *YOPIOS* and *every man his own pope* and *30,000, or whatever the number du jour is, different denomination = 30,000 different interpretations of Scripture*?

[metmom]

But it was from the Protestants that they got the idea that they could subtract several books. Ver-r-r-r-r-y inter-r-r-r-resting.

Except that *Protestants* did not "subtract" any books from the canon of Scripture.

At the Council of Trent, some 1500 years after the canon was settled, the Apocrypha was ADDED to the canon by the Catholic church.

Why did the Catholic church take 1500 years to decide that some books were canon after all?

So at the time the Bible was translated by Luther and Hus, etc, they used what was already widely recognized as canon, which continues today as the Protestant Bible. After that, at the Council of Trent, the Catholic church ADDED the Apocrypha.

Pinging boatbums because she has the source documents to back up the claim and has been the most steadfast in exposing the untruthfulness of the claim (that Protsq removed books from Scripture) by Catholics.

[metmom]

And when he finally broke with the Church and departed from Her midst, he was in very great error. In the Church, he could have been a great reformer. Outside of the Church --- well, "The severed Hand cannot heal the Body."

Was the before or after the Roman Catholic church ex-communicated him.

He DID try to reform it from within.

The church ex-communicated him for his efforts.

That doesn't sound like him deciding to break with the Catholic church.

He departed when he was kicked out.

Here. From Catholic answers.....

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=55707

But anyway, hello Goldy-

Martin Luther din't "leave"- he was fired because he wouldn't tolerate the corruption going on.

The Pope sent one of his best theologians to demand Luther to recant his position on indulgences: Cardinal Cajetan. Luther refused. The Cardinal was well versed in Roman Catholic doctrine, and realized quickly the dilemma the Pope had: there was no adequate foundation to condemn Luther as a heretic. Why? Because there was not an official teaching on indulgences when Luther posted the 95 Theses. There was no official doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence upon Purgatory.

So Cajetan knew that in order to put Luther down as a heretic, he must first be declared one according to some sort of doctrinal standard. Cajetan quickly drafted a declaration of dogma on the subject of indulgences. Pope Leo X found this to be a good idea. Thus came the decretal Cum postquam. The dogma of indulgences was defined as Cajetan outlined them. The Pope also threatened any of his representatives that may have held a divergent view on the subject.

Sometimes as we read history, we forget to do so existentially. Put yourself in Luther’s shoes. He spoke out against abuse, and was met by an Papal juggernaut that would not listen to him. He was, in effect betrayed by the superior spiritual authority of his day: the Roman Catholic Church held a mighty physical and (so he thought) spiritual power. They were supposed to protect the church, but rather had betrayed her by allowing the abuse of the indulgence.

Now, continue putting yourself in Luther’s shoes. Wouldn’t you begin to question other aspects of Roman Catholic power as well? Perhaps papal authority? Perhaps the authority of councils? Perhaps you knew that God had spoken truly and infallibly in His word, because the Holy Spirit regenerated your heart. Now, when you are faced with a system that claims to be speaking for God, would you not cling to the Bible as your sole authority? I’m beginning to preach, but I’m sure you get the idea. So of course, Luther continued to build strong opposition to the Papacy through his writings. By the time he was formally excommunicated, there were many writings of his disapproved of by the Papacy.

James Swan

[metmom]

But honestly, I think one need only look at the fruit of Protestantism: over 30,000 different denominations, practically all of which claim inspiration by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of Scripture.

That is NOT the claim made by non-Catholics.

Christians recognize the inspiration of Scripture, but I have NEVER heard a church claim that its interpretation was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

And in light of Mrs. Don-o's admission about the fact that only a few verses in Scripture have been officially interpreted by the Catholic church and the rest are open to a great deal of "flexibility", on what grounds do you criticize that personal interpretation of Scripture by non-Catholic Christians when Catholics are given that very leeway?

And have you ever personally read the statements of faith of any *Protestant* denominations to see just if those claims you are making (repeating) are actually, indeed, fact?

Here are some statements of faith from several non-Catholic denominations.

Please show us where they claim infallible interpretation and show us just where they differ from each other.

Statements of faith for different churches

Assemblies of God
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/index.cfm#

Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
http://arpchurch.org/documents/confession-of-faith/

Calvary Chapel
http://calvarychapel.com/home/about/

The Christian and Missionary Alliance
http://www.cmalliance.org/about/history/

Elim Fellowship Churches
http://www.elimfellowship.org/about-us/statement-of-faith/

The Father's House
http://tfhny.org/the-house/what-we-believe/

Osais LA
http://www.oasisla.org/about/what-we-believe/

Presbyterian Church in Americahttp://www.pcaac.org/resources/wcf/

United Reformed church in North America https://www.urcna.org/sysfiles/site_uploads/custom_public/custom2642.pdf

Westside Christian Fellowship
http://westsidechristianfellowship.org/about-wcf/statement-of-faith/

But logically, only one denomination has the fullness of truth (for the Holy Spirit is not divided against itself).

Except that unity is not unity of denomination, so human *logic* fails here. It's the unity of being one body of believers who are born again by faith in Christ, REGARDLESS of denominational affiliation, not BECAUSE of it.

And absolutely lockstep agreement with the doctrinal position of a theological governing body that calls itself a church is not required by God anywhere in Scripture.

God allows for what He calls *disputable matters*. See Romans 14 for that, unless you want me to post the entire chapter here.

So this is the challenge: how can you tell which denomination has the fullness of truth?

No denomination has the *fullness of truth*. That was never promised to any one corporate body or church.

Scripture has the fullness of truth. It's found in there. And it's available to anyone who wants it.

TRUTH

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

[MHGinTN]

Why is it that when Catholics want to end a discussion they seem to gravitate to focusing on the orgs, like catholiciism, or Methodism, etcetera, rather than focusing upon the Lord, God with us? Dozens of dogma points have been manufactured and posed as truth by the catholic church over the centuries. These aspects did not exist in the early body of believers but got added as bureaucracies developed.

When Jesus established The New Covenant, HE identified it as His body of believers, hence the term ekklesia was used to focus upon ALL those who believe/faithe that Jesus is The Savior, their individual Savior. Jesus did not establish and organization and His Holy Spirit does not oversee any particular org, rather The Holy Spirit is individually raising up a bunch of newborns int he way that they should go. By God's Grace indulging use without chastising instantly, there are many, many different additions to the simple Gospel of Grace in Christ, thought up by men (and a few women) forming orgs, the largest and most prominent being the catholic org.

Some of the additions are outright blasphemies, not the authority of The Holy Spirit working in the Ekklesia.

[ealgeone]

1) The Promises of the Rosary are not Catholic doctrine. It involves Private Revelation. It is certainly not "defined."

2) Nevertheless: since the Rosary entails a very strong adherence in faith and devotion to Christ ---and Mary doing what we all do for each other, offering intercessory prayer on our behalf --- it all comes down to intercessory prayer to God, availing much.

Any other interpretation would be heretical, would it not?

You may want to check out these pages regarding the popes on the rosary. http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/poperosary/popesandrosary.html

https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/2002/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae.html

2. It has always been the habit of Catholics in danger and in troublous times to fly for refuge to Mary, and to seek for peace in her maternal goodness; showing that the Catholic Church has always, and with justice, put all her hope and trust in the Mother of God.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01091883_supremi-apostolatus-officio.html

However, The Word tells us:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. Proverbs 3:5

Trust in Him at all times, O people; Pour out your heart before Him; God is a refuge for us. Selah. Proverbs 62:8

There's a whole bunch more passages that tell us to place our trust in the Lord.

No where....repeat, no where in the Word are we told to place our trust in anyone other than Him.

No where in the NT do we have an admonition to place all of our trust in Mary.

In the quote from leo xiii, change out Mary and insert Baal or any other name.

Hopefully this illustrates why the practice of relying upon Mary for salvation or placing "all of your trust in her" goes against the Word.

[MHGinTN]

Jesus did not establish and an organization and His Holy Spirit does not oversee any particular org, rather The Holy Spirit is individually raising up a bunch of newborns in the way that they should go.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

At the Council of Trent, some 1500 years after the canon was settled, the Apocrypha was ADDED to the canon by the Catholic church.

The Latin Vulgate was *affirmed* as the official Latin Bible at the Council of Trent, true. The same Vulgate composed and translated by St. Jerome in the *late 4th century* to serve as a replacement of the Vestus Latin manuscripts.

Affirming is not the same as creating out of nowhere. Even the Muratorian Fragment attests to the inclusion of the book of Wisdom.

[Mrs. Don-o]

To whom does Mary pray?

In whom does Mary put all her hope an trust?

To whom does Mary pour out her heart?

[ealgeone]

That’s not the question. Why do catholics place all their trust and hope in Mary?