What ever Luther was; the Roman Catholic Church came up with the COUNTER Reformation for SOME reason!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation

Is this yet another attempt to say, “Luther was an Anti-Semite; therefore Protestantism is bogus” type of article??

"You will likely still be called an antisemite even if you provide an objective analysis,"

Yeah, well, guess what, it really doesn't matter if that's the case especially after it's been used up as much as the race card as far as I'm concerned, especially when there have been far too many instances where stuff like the ADL cry "anti-Semitism" when there really wasn't any (like The Passion of the Christ for example). It's sort of like how the Japanese act like they're innocent victims of the Atomic Bomb and ignore their war crimes during World War II. And quite frankly, that kind of thing is EXACTLY the reason why the Jewish people need to stop peddling anti-Semitism towards ANY form of criticism.

"Then how can you love the Jews if you do not seek their salvation. Which cannot be as under the law, since no one adheres strictly to it in word and spirit. "

I never SAID I wouldn't seek their salvation. Personally, I'd prefer their conversion to Christianity wholesale, but it needs to be a sincere one. And besides, like I said, at least they're FOLLOWING the written Torah, which is STILL what God himself wrote down, rather than following a complete... I'll be blunt, bastardization of the Old Testament. Trust me, getting rid of the Talmud is going to do the Jews a favor regarding salvation. At least getting rid of it doesn't make them effectively the same as Islam's Taqqiya. And quite frankly, the fact that I'm actually willing to spare Israel from destruction when I'm not even willing to do the same for the Middle East, not to mention opt for converting them instead of putting them into gas chambers should be a pretty big hint that I do ultimately care for the Jews.

"But documentation is needed? "

Fine, I'll give you documentation:

*http://talmudical.blogspot.com/

And just as an FYI, there's also videos of people from Israel, many of whom are Jewish, who exposed exactly what the Talmud teaches.

Also, here's a full listing of several quotes from the Talmud:

*http://rense.com/general92/talmud.htm

And for some specific ones:

*A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance. - Sanhedrin 59a
*We beg Thee, O Lord, indict Thy wrath on the nations not believing in Thee, and not calling on Thy name. Let down Thy wrath on them and inflict them with Thy wrath. Drive them away in Thy wrath and crush them into pieces. Take away, O Lord, all bone from them. In a moment indict all disbelievers. Destroy in a moment all foes of Thy nation. Draw out with the root, disperse and ruin unworthy nations. Destroy them! Destroy them immediately, in this very moment! - Zohar, Toldoth Noah 63b
*When the Messiah comes, every Jew will have 2800 slaves. - Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D
*When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it. - Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156
*If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth. - Choschen Hamm 388, 15
*Happy will be the lost of Israel, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has chosen from amongst the Goyim, of whom the Scriptures say: "Their work is but vanity, it is an illusion at which we must laugh; they will all perish when God visits them in His wrath." At the moment when the Holy One, blessed be He, will exterminate all the Goyim of the world, Israel alone will subsist, even as it is written: The Lord alone will appear great on that day! - Zohar, Vayshlah 177b
*That the Jewish nation is the only nation selected by God, while all the remaining ones are contemptible and hateful. That all property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which consequently is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general. A Jew may rob a Goy, he may cheat him over a bill, which should not be perceived by him, otherwise the name of God would become dishonoured. - Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat, 348
*If a goy killed a goy or a Jew he is responsible, but if a Jew killed a goy he is not responsible. - Tosefta, Aboda Zara, VIII, 5
*Has it not been taught: “With respect to robbery – if one stole or robbed or seized a beautiful woman, or committed similar offences, if these were perpetrated by one Cuthean [non-Jew] against another, what is taken must not be kept, and likewise the theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained?” - Sanhedrin 57a
*Everyone who sheds the blood of the impious [non-Jews] is as acceptable to God as he who offers a sacrifice to God. - Yalkut 245c
*Extermination of the Christians is a necessary sacrifice. - Zohar, Shemoth
*Even the best of the Goyim should be killed. (“Tob shebbe goyyim harog.”) - Soferim 15, rule 10
*Why then should we not leave female animals alone with female heathens? said Mar 'Ukba b. Hama: Because heathens frequent their neighbours' wives, and should one by chance not find her at home, and find the cattle there, he might use it immorally. You may also say that even if he should find her at home he might use the animal, as a Master has said: Heathens prefer the cattle of Israelites to their own wives, for R. Johanan said: When the serpent came unto Eve he infused filthy lust into her. - Avodah Zarah 22a-b
*All Israelites will have a part in the future world.... The Goyim, at the end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to hell. - Zohar, Shemoth, Toldoth Noah, Lekh-Lekha
*Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night. - Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L
*Everything a Jew needs for his church ritual no goy is permitted to manufacture, but only a Jew, because this must be manufactured by human beings and the Jew is not permitted to consider the goyim as human beings. - Schulchan Oruch, Orach Chaim 14, 20, 32, 33, 39
*A Jew may do to a non-Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat. - Hadarine, 20, B; Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348
*A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl. - Gad. Shas. 2:2
*A male goy after nine years and one day old, and a girl after three years and one day old, are considered filthy. - Pereferkowicz, Talmud t.v., p. 11
*R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition [intercourse], and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. - Sanhedrin 55b
*Raba said. It means this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this [three years old], it is as if one puts the finger into the eye; but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as 'a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.'... - Kethuboth 11b
*It was taught: Rabbi Judah used to say, A man is bound to say the following three blessings daily: "Blessed art thou … who hast not made me a heathen … who hast not made me a woman; and ... who hast not made me a brutish man. Rabbi Ahab Jacob once overheard his son saying “Blessed art thou ... who hast not made me a brutish man,” whereupon he said to him, “And this too!” Said the other, “Then what blessing should I say instead?” He replied ... “who hast not made me a slave.” “And is not that the same as a woman?” – “A slave is more contemptible.” - Menachoth 43b-44a
*Show no mercy to the Goyim. - Hilkkoth Akum X1
*A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean. - Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122
Source for quotes:
*http://researchlist.blogspot.com/2011/06/quotes-from-talmud.html

There's also this quote and where you can find it:

"Tanna of the beginning of the second century; a nephew of Ishmael b. Elisha. His inclination toward Hellenism and the Judæo-Christians contrasted with the attitude of his uncle, whom he once asked if he should study "Greek Wisdom," since he had finished the study of the Torah. The answer of Ishmael was: "Study the Torah day and night and 'Greek Wisdom' when it is neither day nor night." Ben Dama died of a snake's bite, and the following account is given of his last moments:

"Jacob of Kefar Sama (Sakonya), a Judæo-Christian, wanted to charm away the deadly effects of the bite by formulas in the name of Jesus; but Ishmael did not believe in such charms and would not allow him to come in. Just as Ben Dama essayed to prove to his uncle that there could be no objection to the cure from a Jewish standpoint, he died, and Ishmael exclaimed, "God has shown thee mercy in that thou didst depart in peace and didst not transgress the law of the sages" (Tosef., Ḥul. ii. 22, 23; 'Ab. Zarah 27b; Yer. 'Ab. Zarah ii. 40d).

"It is not improbable that Ben Dama's inclination toward the Judæo-Christians was the reason that nothing written by him was transmitted either by the Halakah or by the Haggadah, and that neither the Babylonian nor the Palestinian Talmud gives him the title "Rabbi." His title and full name have been preserved by the Tosefta (Ḥul. l.c.), which contains a halakic controversy between Ben Dama and Ishmael (Sheb." iii. 4)."

*http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2863-ben-dama

And here's some links and at least one commentary dealing with what the connection between Yeshua/Yeshu and Jesus are:

*http://www.v-a.com/bible/jesus.html

*https://askdrbrown.org/library/what-original-hebrew-name-jesus-and-it-true-name-jesus-really

"Consequently, centuries ago he was called by the name Yeshu, a “play” on His correct name that is actually an acronym standing for Yimmach Shemo Ve-zikro—May his name and memory be blotted out. He is still viewed that way by some, especially Ultra-Orthodox Jews"

*https://jewsforjesus.org/newsletter-mar-2008/y-shua-or-yeshu

*http://www.halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_57.html

And bear in mind, several of the sources I supplied came from actual practicing Jewish people.

"Sounds too much like,

The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ...When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man...Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary [who is said to be all but almighty herself]...The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command. - The Faith of Millions." The Credentials of the Catholic Religion, pp. 255-256 (Nihil obstat; Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend; March 16, 1974) "

If it's not either a Papal Bull (ie, a pronouncement made by the Pope WHILE he's on the seat of Peter), in the Bible, or in the Catechism, I see zero reason to count it as Church doctrine or Christian doctrine (heck, despite my loathing of Luther, I'm not sure I'd consider his private writings official Lutheran Church doctrine since they're, you know, private rather than manifestos disseminated to the public.). This is completely unlike the Talmud, which is pretty much the Jewish equivalent of the Bible in all but name.

"But documentation is needed? " Fine, I'll give you documentation: *http://talmudical.blogspot.com/ And just as an FYI, there's also videos of people from Israel, many of whom are Jewish, who exposed exactly what the Talmud teaches. Also, here's a full listing of several quotes from the Talmud: *http://rense.com/general92/talmud.htm And for some specific ones: *A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance. - Sanhedrin 59a *We beg Thee, O Lord, indict Thy wrath on the nations not believing in Thee, and not calling on Thy name. Let down Thy wrath on them and inflict them with Thy wrath. Drive them away in Thy wrath and crush them into pieces. Take away, O Lord, all bone from them. In a moment indict all disbelievers. Destroy in a moment all foes of Thy nation. Draw out with the root, disperse and ruin unworthy nations. Destroy them! Destroy them immediately, in this very moment! - Zohar, Toldoth Noah 63b *When the Messiah comes, every Jew will have 2800 slaves. - Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D *When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it. - Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156 *If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth. - Choschen Hamm 388, 15 *Happy will be the lost of Israel, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has chosen from amongst the Goyim, of whom the Scriptures say: "Their work is but vanity, it is an illusion at which we must laugh; they will all perish when God visits them in His wrath." At the moment when the Holy One, blessed be He, will exterminate all the Goyim of the world, Israel alone will subsist, even as it is written: The Lord alone will appear great on that day! - Zohar, Vayshlah 177b *That the Jewish nation is the only nation selected by God, while all the remaining ones are contemptible and hateful. That all property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which consequently is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general. A Jew may rob a Goy, he may cheat him over a bill, which should not be perceived by him, otherwise the name of God would become dishonoured. - Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat, 348 *If a goy killed a goy or a Jew he is responsible, but if a Jew killed a goy he is not responsible. - Tosefta, Aboda Zara, VIII, 5 *Has it not been taught: “With respect to robbery – if one stole or robbed or seized a beautiful woman, or committed similar offences, if these were perpetrated by one Cuthean [non-Jew] against another, what is taken must not be kept, and likewise the theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained?” - Sanhedrin 57a *Everyone who sheds the blood of the impious [non-Jews] is as acceptable to God as he who offers a sacrifice to God. - Yalkut 245c *Extermination of the Christians is a necessary sacrifice. - Zohar, Shemoth *Even the best of the Goyim should be killed. (“Tob shebbe goyyim harog.”) - Soferim 15, rule 10 *Why then should we not leave female animals alone with female heathens? said Mar 'Ukba b. Hama: Because heathens frequent their neighbours' wives, and should one by chance not find her at home, and find the cattle there, he might use it immorally. You may also say that even if he should find her at home he might use the animal, as a Master has said: Heathens prefer the cattle of Israelites to their own wives, for R. Johanan said: When the serpent came unto Eve he infused filthy lust into her. - Avodah Zarah 22a-b *All Israelites will have a part in the future world.... The Goyim, at the end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to hell. - Zohar, Shemoth, Toldoth Noah, Lekh-Lekha *Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night. - Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L *Everything a Jew needs for his church ritual no goy is permitted to manufacture, but only a Jew, because this must be manufactured by human beings and the Jew is not permitted to consider the goyim as human beings. - Schulchan Oruch, Orach Chaim 14, 20, 32, 33, 39 *A Jew may do to a non-Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat. - Hadarine, 20, B; Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348 *A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl. - Gad. Shas. 2:2 *A male goy after nine years and one day old, and a girl after three years and one day old, are considered filthy. - Pereferkowicz, Talmud t.v., p. 11 *R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition [intercourse], and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. - Sanhedrin 55b *Raba said. It means this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this [three years old], it is as if one puts the finger into the eye; but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as 'a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.'... - Kethuboth 11b *It was taught: Rabbi Judah used to say, A man is bound to say the following three blessings daily: "Blessed art thou … who hast not made me a heathen … who hast not made me a woman; and ... who hast not made me a brutish man. Rabbi Ahab Jacob once overheard his son saying “Blessed art thou ... who hast not made me a brutish man,” whereupon he said to him, “And this too!” Said the other, “Then what blessing should I say instead?” He replied ... “who hast not made me a slave.” “And is not that the same as a woman?” – “A slave is more contemptible.” - Menachoth 43b-44a *Show no mercy to the Goyim. - Hilkkoth Akum X1 *A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean. - Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122 Source for quotes: *http://researchlist.blogspot.com/2011/06/quotes-from-talmud.html There's also this quote and where you can find it: "Tanna of the beginning of the second century; a nephew of Ishmael b. Elisha. His inclination toward Hellenism and the Judæo-Christians contrasted with the attitude of his uncle, whom he once asked if he should study "Greek Wisdom," since he had finished the study of the Torah. The answer of Ishmael was: "Study the Torah day and night and 'Greek Wisdom' when it is neither day nor night." Ben Dama died of a snake's bite, and the following account is given of his last moments: "Jacob of Kefar Sama (Sakonya), a Judæo-Christian, wanted to charm away the deadly effects of the bite by formulas in the name of Jesus; but Ishmael did not believe in such charms and would not allow him to come in. Just as Ben Dama essayed to prove to his uncle that there could be no objection to the cure from a Jewish standpoint, he died, and Ishmael exclaimed, "God has shown thee mercy in that thou didst depart in peace and didst not transgress the law of the sages" (Tosef., Ḥul. ii. 22, 23; 'Ab. Zarah 27b; Yer. 'Ab. Zarah ii. 40d). "It is not improbable that Ben Dama's inclination toward the Judæo-Christians was the reason that nothing written by him was transmitted either by the Halakah or by the Haggadah, and that neither the Babylonian nor the Palestinian Talmud gives him the title "Rabbi." His title and full name have been preserved by the Tosefta (Ḥul. l.c.), which contains a halakic controversy between Ben Dama and Ishmael (Sheb." iii. 4)." *http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2863-ben-dama And here's some links and at least one commentary dealing with what the connection between Yeshua/Yeshu and Jesus are: *http://www.v-a.com/bible/jesus.html *https://askdrbrown.org/library/what-original-hebrew-name-jesus-and-it-true-name-jesus-really "Consequently, centuries ago he was called by the name Yeshu, a “play” on His correct name that is actually an acronym standing for Yimmach Shemo Ve-zikro—May his name and memory be blotted out. He is still viewed that way by some, especially Ultra-Orthodox Jews" *https://jewsforjesus.org/newsletter-mar-2008/y-shua-or-yeshu *http://www.halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_57.html And bear in mind, several of the sources I supplied came from actual practicing Jewish people.

Thanks for the info, from more than me most likely.

If it's not either a Papal Bull (ie, a pronouncement made by the Pope WHILE he's on the seat of Peter), in the Bible, or in the Catechism, I see zero reason to count it as Church doctrine

If you count all Papal Bulls as Church doctrine - which even most RCs do not do - then we have even more problems. Yet the stamps are sppsd to assure what they express.

“If you count all Papal Bulls as Church doctrine - which even most RCs do not do - then we have even more problems. Yet the stamps are sppsd to assure what they express.”

Papal Bulls are specifically pronouncements that the Pope gives from the Chair of Peter. This is not stuff he says off the cuff like, say, stating contrary to Church doctrine that gay marriage is good during an interview with some reporter, to use a fairly recent example.

A time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.

Also, here's a full listing of several quotes from the Talmud:

Why are you posting from Jeff Rense? Antisemitism is a grave sin.

*http://rense.com/general92/talmud.htm

It was indeed a Reformation, albeit as yet imperfect and incomplete, and a necessitated rebellion against the rebellious Catholic church.

This is the problem; there were no Prophets or Apostles in this re-formation, re-construction, or re-creation of the faith once delivered to the saints. It was done by men of different convictions and split, and continues to split, into different denominations, sects, most of which do not hold the same faith as their fathers. This is in direction contradiction to the following:

The Messiah said He would build His church on πέτρα (this rock), after naming the Apostle Peter Κηφας (Cephas in Aramaic, which is how the Greek transliterates it, again meaning "rock."

The Messiah said the gates of hell would not prevail against this Church.

The Messiah said He would give the Apostle Peter the keys of the kingdom and that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven (authority to make binding rulings on the people of God passing from rabbis and scribes to the Apostle(s)).

The Apostle Paul wrote that the one body (one holy catholic and apostolic Church) was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with the Messiah Himself being the chief cornerstone.

Thus, it is reasonable to assume it was a rebellion against the Messiah. It did lead to a series of horrible wars.

By that logic, God sinned gravely by arranging for the Temple of Jerusalem be destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

In any case, I also posted plenty of evidence that came from actual Jewish rabbis or at the very least people who had been Jewish. Heck, I’ve even got one more source regarding Jewish stuff, one dealing with the infamous Rabbi debates and defeats God bit:

http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/salafi/RabbiDebateGodAndGodAdmitsDefeat.htm

And quite frankly, when the ADL is used as a claim for him being anti-Semitic, I’m tuning out, especially when ADL is pretty much the Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, or heck, even the NAACP of Jewish people. For goodness sakes, they denounced “The Passion of the Christ” as anti-Semitic, and yet they’re actually siding with actual anti-Semites.

Papal Bulls are specifically pronouncements that the Pope gives from the Chair of Peter. This is not stuff he says off the cuff like, say, stating contrary to Church doctrine that gay marriage is good during an interview with some reporter, to use a fairly recent example.

I see. So such Bulls as below are indeed Church doctrine, perhaps even ex cathedra (an ultramontanist view):

Dum Diversas (English: Until different) is a papal bull issued on 18 June 1452 by Pope Nicholas V. It authorized Afonso V of Portugal to conquer Saracens and pagans and consign them to "perpetual servitude".^[1]^[2] Pope Calixtus III reiterated the bull in 1456 with Inter Caetera (not to be confused with Alexander VI's), renewed by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481 and Pope Leo X in 1514 with Precelse denotionis. The concept of the consignment of exclusive spheres of influence to certain nation states was extended to the Americas in 1493 by Pope Alexander VI with Inter caetera.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum_Diversas

Papal Bull Dum Diversas 18 June, 1452 It authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. This facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa. The same pope wrote the bull Romanus Pontifex on January 5, 1455 to the same Alfonso.

“We weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso — to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit — by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors”. https://doctrineofdiscovery.org/dum-diversas/

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some]

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, promulgated on November 18, 1302:

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself." — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda, papal bull, promulgated on May 15, 1252:Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda>:

(25) Those convicted of heresy by the aforesaid Diocesan Bishop,surrogate or inquisitors, shall be taken in shackles to the head of state or ruler or his special representative, instantly, or at least within five days, and the latter shall apply the regulations promulgated against such persons.{7}

(26)The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody,{8} provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs, as actual robbers and murderers of souls and thieves of the sacraments of God and Christian faith, to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives, {9} and those whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended them, as thieves and robbers of material goods are made to accuse their accomplices and confess the crimes they have committed.

(32)The head of state or ruler must, within ten days after the accusation, complete the following tasks: the destruction of the houses, the imposition of the fines, the consigning and dividing-up of the valuables that have been found or seized,

These are just a minute sample:

Think of how many human laws nearly 300 so-called popes could make through the centuries. The following quotation states that only two of them issued nearly nine thousand. "Alexander III is said to have issued thirty-nine hundred and thirty-nine decrees and Innocent II over five thousand." (General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, p. 42; H.A. Ayrinhac, Longmans, Green & Co., New York, 1969).

Another example of how burdensome and perplexing this maze of human doctrine has become, just the "Bulls" of the popes from 540 to 1857 fills forty-one volumes. This does not include the countless laws formulated by synods and councils. It is no wonder that a cry of despair went up from the Catholic bishops for relief from this babel of confusion.

"Moreover, not a few ordinances, whether included in the Corpus Juris or of more recent date, appear to be contradictory; some have been repealed, others had become obsolete by long disuse; others, again, had ceased to be useful or applicable in the present condition of society. Great confusion was thus engendered and correct knowledge of the law was rendered very difficult even for those who had to enforce it." (General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, p. 70).

It is very evident and has long been recognized by all and proclaimed everywhere that some revision and reformation of Canon Law is necessary and very urgent. For, owing to the changes that have taken place in society, many laws have become useless and others very difficult if not impossible to observe; of others it is doubtful whether they are still in vigor or not. Finally in the course of centuries, their number is so multiplied and they have been heaped up in voluminous collections that, in a sense, we may say, we are buried beneath the laws. Hence it is that the study of Canon Law is beset with almost inextricable difficulties, the door is open to disputes and litigations, consciences are troubled with a thousand anxieties, and people are driven to despise the law." (Ibid, p. 71; see also Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 645 and Vol. IX, p. 64).
- http://oakridgechurch.com/riggs/interpre.htm
And in addition to papal bulls, you have,
Papal Encyclicals
Papal Briefs
Apostolic Exhortations
Apostolic Constitutions
Apostolic Letters
Motu Proprios (“Catholicism for Dummies”)
You may now want to argue that not all papal bulls are binding, but which opens up a can of worms, that of ascertaining what magisterial level each teaching - or parts thereof - falls under, and thus what decgree of dissent. As well as the meaning of each. For the relatively unknown reality is that,
The weight of authority behind a teaching of the Papal Magisterium depends on the dogmatic history of the teaching and the intention of the Supreme Pontiff. Papal addresses and documents invariably contain teachings in several categories of authority. https://www.ewtn.com/holysee/pontiff/categories.asp#authority
Which problem led to the exasperated reply by this seeker: rrr1213: Boy. No disrespect intended…and I mean that honestly…but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn’t trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/30
The response to which is just obey everything:
Well, the question pertained to theology. The Catholic faithful don’t need to know any of this stuff to be faithful Catholics, so you are confusing theology with praxis. Praxis is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That’s what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that’s what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to “obey your leaders and submit to them.” This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/31
Some Catholics contend that,
"EVERY Papal Bull is ex cathedra, unless the Pope does not sign it with the Fihserman's ring. The Ring is a sign of His authority and power. Not only that, but even Encyclicals that are sealed with the fishermans ring and which have to do with faith and morals are ex cathedra.".. And another thing: the Pope does not speak ex cathedra ONLY hwne defining a doctrine on faith and morals but also when He speaks as Pope and teacher of all Catholics without defining any article of faith. Canonizations are infallible, not like how some crazy heretics who call Pius X an anti-pope say; encyclicals are infallible (most of them anyway); Bulls are infallible. https://forums.catholic.com/t/does-papal-bull-ex-cathedra/142005/23 Others opine,
A Papal Bull (ie, bulletin) is a very low-level form of communication. It is unlikely that a Pope would use a Bull to express a teaching which requires the “religious assent” of all of the Faithful (I cannot think of an example where this has ever happened - and if it ever did, it would probably be a long time ago). Teaching requiring “religious assent” would usually be promulgated through an Encyclical or an Apostolic Constitution. https://forums.catholic.com/t/we-dont-have-to-believe-every-papal-bull/285482/3
I think you may now see at least one of the problems I warned of.

This is the problem; there were no Prophets or Apostles in this re-formation, re-construction, or re-creation of the faith once delivered to the saints

This is the problem; there were no Biblical Prophets or Apostles in your Catholic de-formation, re-construction, or re-creation of the faith once delivered to the saints

The Messiah said He would build His church on πέτρα (this rock), after naming the Apostle Peter Κηφας (Cephas in Aramaic, which is how the Greek transliterates it, again meaning "rock."

The belief that Peter was the rock of Mt. 16:18, and thus that the church looked to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church (esp. from Rome) is not what we see manifest in the record of the NT church (and which even Catholic researchers, among others, provide testimony against , and is contrary to it. In contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

And rather than the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church, we see no exalted reverence of Peter as in Roman Catholicism, with not even one exhortation in any of the letters to the churches to look to or submit to Peter as their supreme head. For good (the norm) or for bad, Peter is street-level leader among the 11, and lead pastor of the first church, and the first to use the keys to the kingdom of God, that being the evangelical gospel. (Acts 2; 10; 15:7-9; Col. 1:13) As such, unlike Paul, (Acts 20:17) he does not call any council and charge preachers, but exhorts the assembled elders to treat the Gentiles consistent with the gospel of grace, God having "purifying their heart by faith," (Acts 15:9) while consistent with this, it is James who issues the concluding Scripturally substantiated judgment as to what should be done. (Acts 15)

Peter is also listed after James in Gal. 2 as one of those who appeared to be pillars, and who (contrary to his overall holy character) lead souls astray by his example, resulting in him being publicly rebuked by Paul, who stated "in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing," (2 Corinthians 12:11) but who of his own accord sought to make manifest his sanction by those who seemed to be pillars.

After in contrast to the focus and centrality ascribed to the pope in Catholicism,Acts 15 Peter is left out of any mention in the last 13 chapters of Acts, the narrative focusing on the labors of Paul, who only mentions Peter (sometimes as Cephas) in two of his 13 letters of instruction, nor is Peter mentioned in Hebrews, James, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. And while Peters own 2 letters convey a general pastoral sense, what is lacking is any reference to him as a supreme head ("a servant," "an apostle," "an elder") or anything distinctively Catholic. Instead, Peter refers to Scripture as "a more sure word of prophecy," distinctively attesting to its Divine inspiration. (Note also that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" is not referring to interpretation of Scripture, which Catholics wrongly interpret it as forbidding, but of how prophecy was given by Divine inspiration, so that the prophets did not know "what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." - 1 Peter 1:11)

The Messiah said the gates of hell would not prevail against this Church.

And your false church has sadly become as the gates of Hell for multitudes. In contrast, the body of Christ, (Colossians 1:18) is the one true church to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) for it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.

The degree that a church retains and preaches the convicting gospel of grace, of salvation by grave thru heart-purifying, justifying faith, then they are part of the church which the Lord promised would overcome the gates of Hell, that being

The Messiah said He would give the Apostle Peter the keys of the kingdom and that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven (authority to make binding rulings on the people of God passing from rabbis and scribes to the Apostle(s)).

Nowhere did Peter do so (James issued the definitive judgment in Acts 15, confirmatory of Peter and Paul), but the key issue is that of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

The power of binding loosing, like that of the promise "whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do," (John 14:13,14)" is not an autocratic power, one that can add to the word of God such as inventing ordained church offices, but such is subject to the will of God, and conformity with Scripture. This applies to the church and it also did to the Scribes and Pharisees. Who, though they sat in the seat of Moses, were reproved by the Lord from Scripture for teaching as doctrines the traditions of men. Based on Catholic logic, they had that power, however, the Lord makes it clear they were not above Scripture. (Mark 7:2-16)

The power of binding loosing actually flows from the OT, judicially to bind or loose one from guilt, (Dt. 17:8-13) and even civil courts have that power (Matthew 18:34) as well as husbands or fathers to bind or loose a wife or daughter to her vow. (Numbers 30:1-15) Yet formal judicial actions by the church are executed under leadership, not autocratically but in union with all the church. (Matthew 18:16-18; which text in context deals with personal disputes). The formal corporate judicial binding and loosing is seen in action in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5. Likewise is the corporate nature of forgiveness by the body that was harmed by public sin. (2 Corinthians 2:10-11)

But as seen in Matthew 18:19-20 and James 5:16-18, the spiritual power of binding and loosing are is not restricted to clergy, but as many of Elijah-type righteousness and fervent prayer (Elijah bound and loosed the heavens), though that is sadly not me.

The Apostle Paul wrote that the one body (one holy catholic and apostolic Church) was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with the Messiah Himself being the chief cornerstone.

And the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. In which Catholic distinctives are not manifest, and thus it cannot be "the faith once delivered to the saints," (Jude 1:3) but it largely contrary to it. Just the facts.

Thus, it is reasonable to assume it was a rebellion against the Messiah. It did lead to a series of horrible wars.

Thus, it is reason-able to conclude the Catholic deformation was a progressive rebellion against the Messiah. And it did lead to a series of horrible years of the use of the sword of men for theological beliefs, as required by heretical papacy.

So much for your parroted propaganda.

Addendum: And use common sense, do you REALLY think I’d make clear I’d spare Israel over the Middle East, spare the Jewish people while sentencing the Muslims to be eliminated if given the choice, if I were truly anti-Semitic?

By that logic, God sinned gravely by arranging for the Temple of Jerusalem be destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

Based upon the apparent premise that anything and anyone that impugns Judaism and the Jews is anti-Semitic, God Himself is implicitly charged with being so, by laying the charges against them of overall being rebellious, killing their own Messiah, and persecuting the church, and therefore punishing for it.

Yet such were all of us, to varying degrees, and still can be, and to whitewash that in either regard is not honest. Moreover, Gentiles who are born again overall most manifest a special love for the Jews and Israel, while Rome has a history of disfavor, and presently her American bishops (at least) go out of their way to laud their physical enemies, the Islamic faith.

"Talking in a code?!" Go find someone else who cannot comprehend my response in post 55* , in context, and you both get back to us.

You must have nosebleeds from riding that high on your horse. You have spent more time harumphing about the infallibility your typo-ridden, incomprehensible post than it would have taken to simply write a clarification for us unworthies down here. Go fight a crusade why don't you, and please don't bother responding.

The Messiah said He would build His church on πέτρα (this rock), after naming the Apostle Peter Κηφας (Cephas in Aramaic, which is how the Greek transliterates it, again meaning "rock."

Still pushing this; even after being SHOWN countless times that you are disagreeing with some very well known Catholic leaders.

Oh well; if ya can diss the pope; I'd guess that anything else is permissible; too.

As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following Early Church Fathers promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:

• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:

'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.

• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:

You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].

• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:

'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455

• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:

Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)

• Cyril of Alexandria:

When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.

• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):

“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'

“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)

• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II):

Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.

The Messiah said He would build His church on (this rock), after naming the Apostle Peter …

OH??

NIV Matthew 4:18-19
18. As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.
19. "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."

NIV Matthew 8:14
When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.

NIV Matthew 10:1-2
1. He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
2. These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;

NIV Matthew 14:28-31
28. "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
29. "Come," he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
30. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
31. Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

NIV Matthew 15:13-16
13. He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.
14. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
15. Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
16. "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.

As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'

BEFORE the following verses came along.....

NIV Matthew 16:13-18
13. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14. They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15. "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16. Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17. Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

19. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

How TODAY's Catechism of the Catholic Church” now describes the “Petrine succession”:

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

Sure different than what Augustine and many OTHER Early Church Fathers taught; isn't it!!

It was done by men of different convictions and split, and continues to split, into different denominations, sects, most of which do not hold the same faith as their fathers.

Yep; after the Eastern Catholics SPLIT from Rome; there HAVE been many other Catholic groups that seem to differ from what today's Rome preaches.

I guess you told HIM!!

Butt out.