In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

[RnMomof7]

In Christ Alone lyrics

Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm

What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand

In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save

?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live

There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again

And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ

[annalex]

Apparently annalex has chosen not to answer

I did answer when I found time to answer. Get in line.

[annalex]

they were from the community/neighbors - they knew Mary, Joseph, Jesus and his brothers and sisters

For one thing they did not know that St. Joseph was not Jesus's father. All they knew was that they were close in age livingi n the same household. The word for that is "brothers". At least for some of them we know that their mother was not Mary the Mother of God, but rather another Mary (Mk 15:40)

[annalex]

Petros (Peter) a stone or boulder, and petra (a large mass of rock) are not the same thing.

There is no usage of "petros" as small rock in patristic Greek. It is a rare word. "Petra" is rock, and Petros is simply a masculine form of "petra". It is clear form the passage that Jesus praised Peter's faith and so renamed him after the Rock on which He will build His church.

Indeed, that does not make Jesus Himself any less of a "rock of our salvation". What is shows is that St. Peter was chosen as some kind of a human fundament for the Church. That is what the Papacy is.

1 Peter 2:5, by the way, uses another word, "lithoi".

[stfassisi]

“”They were’nt laughing the last time it happend in 1870 when Pius decided he wanted to be infallible and split the church,””

In a hurry here, but this nonsense caught my attention.

This is like saying the Church did not believe the Divinity of Christ until it was declared dogma at the council of Nicea in the 4th century!-which is also not true because the Church always believed in the Divinity Of Christ.

Dogmas are generally declared when heretical movements try to undermine Church teaching and gain momentum(as in the case of Arius etc.)

The Church Fathers taught papal Infallibility ,so it was dogmatic in a sense way before 1870 and was not completely defined.

Here is just one example from Saint Cyprian of Carthage,there are many more from the Church Fathers

“Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come” Cyprian of Carthage(Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.]).

You should also realize that the majority of Popes did not even make 1 infallible statements,so when you read a Pope saying something against consistent church teaching it can not be taken as infallible

Here are lots of good kinks for those who want to educate themselves on this topic

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202sbs.asp

http://www.catholicfaithandreason.or...allibility.htm

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Issues/P...llibility.html

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...entium_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...entium_en.html

[mas cerveza por favor]

Catholics do not accept the premise in Predestination.

Wrong. Catholics most certainly do believe in predestination. God exists outside of time and can see the past and future all at once. At the same time, He limits His omnipotence to allow angels and humans to exercise free will. Does St. Augustine question the doctrine of free will?

[mas cerveza por favor]

Don’t call me a liar - the RCC has put the ‘liar label’ on Mary by their own words - NOT MARY’S. She said and knew she needed a Savior.

You have repeated the false assertion that the Catholic Church teaches Mary does not need a savior. Take it back.

[mas cerveza por favor]

Christ did NOT offer himself on the cross as a living "victim". He offered himself as a living "sacrifice".

victim /vɪktɪm/ –noun
3. a person or animal sacrificed or regarded as sacrificed: war victims.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/victim

[mas cerveza por favor]

This is like saying the Church did not believe the Divinity of Christ until it was declared dogma at the council of Nicea in the 4th century!-which is also not true because the Church always believed in the Divinity Of Christ.

Of course you are right. I have repeated stated this easy-to-grasp principle to the people on your list. Outside of Scripture, doctrines are not explicitly defined unless challenged by heretics. Unfortunately, it is the custom on this forum to "forget" how the Church defines doctrine whenever it suits the purpose of disputation.

[Diamond]

You make a straw argument. The Catholic Encyclopedia did not say Honorius was acting as a private theologian.

I didn't say or intend to imply that the Catholic Encyclopedia said that Honorius was acting as a private theologian. I was pointing out that in the words of the Council Honorius was specifically anathematized in his official capacity as pope. The Catholic Encylopedia acknowledges that the letter was an official reply.

...the Encyclopedia gave reasons why the letter did not meet the test of ex cathedra. Which of these reasons do you dispute?

The issue is not what the Catholic Encyclopedia says, but what the Sixth Ecumenical Council said. Nevertheless, I first dispute its whole premise of ex post facto application of criterion that did not exist at the time. The official 1870 definition of ex cathedra that I posted earlier is:

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

"The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation." - The Pope was acting in his official capacity. Check.
"It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical." - Irrelevant. I don't see the word, "publicity" in the formal definition.
"As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance." - This is a multi-part sentence so I will take one at a time:
"As the letter does not define or condemn.." - The word, "condemn" does not appear in the official 1870 definition. (The word, "anathema" does, but it apparently applies in the context to anyone who does not accept the definition being enunciated in 1870) The word, "define" does appear in 1870. "...and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching," The word "bind" does not appear in the 1870 definition. The word, "doctrine" does appear there. The word "Church" does appear as well as the phrase, "universal Church." - Read the words of the Council and tell me with a straight face that Honorius did not "define a doctrine of faith" "to be held by the universal Church."

Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.

Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!... Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris "

And as far as the Catholic Encyclopedia's assertion that ".. it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance", goes, it is a statement based on entirely on years ex post facto dogma in the face of the facts of history.

The facts of history are that Honorius, a supposedly "infallible" pope, in his official capacity, was condemned for heresy by a supposedly "infallible" Ecumenical Council for heresy. No amount of re-definition of the terms can rewind and then alter those facts of history.

In the words of one of your (formerly) own preeminent historians of the 19th century, which are forbidden for you read:

This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church.
(Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61).

Cordially,

[Quix]

WELL DONE. Particularly:

---

And as far as the Catholic Encyclopedia’s assertion that “.. it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance”, goes, it is a statement based on entirely on years ex post facto dogma in the face of the facts of history.

The facts of history are that Honorius, a supposedly “infallible” pope, in his official capacity, was condemned for heresy by a supposedly “infallible” Ecumenical Council for heresy. No amount of re-definition of the terms can rewind and then alter those facts of history.

In the words of one of your (formerly) own preeminent historians of the 19th century, which are forbidden for you read:

This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church.
(Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61).

[presently no screen name]

LOL!! That’s too funny. Is she sinless or not? They are saying she is sinless, anyone sinless doesn’t need a Savior but MARY knew she needed a Savior. They blaspheme and contradict Mary - singling her out and abusing her name with titles above and beyond - no ‘person’ could fulfill almost like mocking her. I’m surprised they didn’t give her the name Sybil.

Have the RCC take back ALL it’s heresy against God’s Word and Mary, a faithful servant, and then we’ll talk. The list is endless, so all the best!

[RnMomof7]

So in effect the church relies on men to determine if they are the tradition of men.. there is not one source ?

[bkaycee]

In a hurry here, but this nonsense caught my attention.

This is like saying the Church did not believe the Divinity of Christ until it was declared dogma at the council of Nicea in the 4th century!-which is also not true because the Church always believed in the Divinity Of Christ.

Interesting that papal authority is not mentioned in the creeds.

The Church Fathers taught papal Infallibility ,so it was dogmatic in a sense way before 1870 and was not completely defined.

Here is just one example from Saint Cyprian of Carthage,there are many more from the Church Fathers

“Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come” Cyprian of Carthage(Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.]).

Offcourse, Cyprian never accepted Papal authority as noted in his rejection of Pope Stephen's demanded submission to his decree on the rebaptism of heretics and apparently had couched the language of the decree in terms of a claim to primacy using the Petrine texts from the Gospels. At least this is what is implied from the letters of Cyprian and Firmilian. He had threatened to cut off communion, not only with the Churches of North Africa, but also in Asia Minor, where Firmilian was one of the leading bishops. What Cyprian and the other 86 bishops are saying is that they repudiate both the teaching of Stephen and his claims of authority or primacy. Cyprian’s statement is made in the context of the claims and assertions of Stephen and manifests a unanimous rejection by the bishops of those claims. What he is asserting is that such a claim is unheard of and is unlawful in the Church. It is an innovation. The statement taken in full context makes this clear. Cyprian says:

"It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us (a direct allusion to Stephen). For neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let all of us wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there (Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, p. 565).

Catholic Historian Michael Winter: ‘Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connexions of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a propapal sense which was alien to his thought...Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority...Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter’ (Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), pp. 47-48). Obviously, the Eastern Churches never accepted this bogus claim of universal authority (never mind infallability).

[bkaycee]

The Church Fathers taught papal Infallibility ,so it was dogmatic in a sense way before 1870 and was not completely defined.

Hmmm, what did Early Church Fathers say about papal infallibility?

Pope John XXII (1316-1334) went so far as to call it (papal infallibility) “…a work of the devil…the Father of Lies.” and in 1324 actually issued a papal bull condemning it as heresy.

Was this Pope considered a church father?

[mas cerveza por favor]

I first dispute its whole premise of ex post facto application of criterion that did not exist at the time. The official 1870 definition of ex cathedra

You are like a reprobate liberal who still insists Palin said she sees Russia from her house. I already wrote you in a previous post that Church doctrines are operational long before they are explicitly defined:

"Just about all Catholic doctrine is implicit in her sacraments, such as the mass, baptism, confession, marriage, and consecration of priests, or in the Church hierarchical structure. The sacraments and hierarchy was set by the Apostles. Other than by Scripture, the Church does not define doctrine explicitly unless it is necessary to counter an heresy. Explicitly defined teachings are always based upon implicit teachings that have existed for many years or since the beginning of the Church. Petrine infallibility has been operational since it was established by Christ and exercised by Peter's early successors."

You never disputed this point. I can understand that you do not accept the doctrine of infallibility, but it makes no sense for you to mindlessly repeat the falsehood that Catholics themselves did not believe this doctrine prior to 1870.

[mas cerveza por favor]

Is she sinless or not? They are saying she is sinless, anyone sinless doesn’t need a Savior but MARY knew she needed a Savior.

Take back your lie that the Church teaches Mary did not need the Savior to protect her from sin.

[bkaycee]

You are like a reprobate liberal who still insists Palin said she sees Russia from her house. I already wrote you in a previous post that Church doctrines are operational long before they are explicitly defined:

"Just about all Catholic doctrine is implicit in her sacraments, such as the mass, baptism, confession, marriage, and consecration of priests, or in the Church hierarchical structure. The sacraments and hierarchy was set by the Apostles. Other than by Scripture, the Church does not define doctrine explicitly unless it is necessary to counter an heresy. Explicitly defined teachings are always based upon implicit teachings that have existed for many years or since the beginning of the Church. Petrine infallibility has been operational since it was established by Christ and exercised by Peter's early successors."

You never disputed this point. I can understand that you do not accept the doctrine of infallibility, but it makes no sense for you to mindlessly repeat the falsehood that Catholics themselves did not believe this doctrine prior to 1870.

Maybe I wasnt clear, i never said no one believed until 1870. It was only officially put on the backs of the faithfull as required belief in 1870.

Certainly, it was believed by some(not universal) before 1870 as noted by Pope John XXII (1316-1334) who issued a papal bull condemning it as heresy.

The Jesuits convinced Pius IX to steam roll it thru the first Vatican council (likely a response to losing temporal authority), causing many non Italians to break with the church.

[mas cerveza por favor]

Read the words of the Council and tell me with a straight face that Honorius did not "define a doctrine of faith" "to be held by the universal Church."

The words of the Council are a secondary source, only infallible to the extent they define doctrine ex cathedra. Accusing that Honorius "confirmed" false doctrine does not fall into that category. The accusation is not a doctrine. Without reading the letter, and going just by the Cathlolic Encyclopedia, it would appear that Honorius "confirmed" false doctrine by his silence or ambiguity, not by explicit definition.

Why hinge all your argument upon noninfallible language of a secondary source. Why not find the actual letter from Honorius to prove the alleged heresy? Here is an example of an ex cathedra statement:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

Does the letter from Honorius contain any definitions like this propounding heresy?

[stfassisi]

Offcourse, Cyprian never accepted Papal authority as noted in his rejection of Pope Stephen's demanded submission

Wrong Again! You don't seem to understand how infallibility operates and Blessed Cyprian going against a Pope on re-baptism says nothing about rejecting infallibility since re-baptism is not now or ever was infallible . Many of the Church fathers and Saints have corrected Popes when they are not speaking infallibly.

You really need to do better homework on this topic before posting crap you read off the internet

Back to work-perhaps I will be back later

I wish you a blessed day

[mas cerveza por favor]

Certainly, it was believed by some(not universal) before 1870 as noted by Pope John XXII (1316-1334) who issued a papal bull condemning it as heresy.

I cannot find a bull from John XXII condemning papal infallibility as heresy. Can you provide a citation?