Posted on 05/01/2014 3:25:30 AM PDT by GonzoII
Error condemned] If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor. Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe, Session VIII, https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTANC.HTM#4
"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom." ( St. Catherine of Siena: A Biography By Anne B. Baldwin, p. 125 ,
Contra,
"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat...Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. " (1 Corinthians 5:11,13)
All this and more testifies against “rock” as meaning Peter, but to the Christ of his confession.
If the Roman Catholic church was as clear as RC state there wouldn’t be so many interpretations. Some appreciate the effort though for each sect.
LOL! Who's confusing infallibility with impeccability?
No kidding.
However, that does not square with the Scripture that Catholics claim their church wrote.
Matthew 5:48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Matthew 7:15-23 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
1 PETER 1:14-16 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”
1 Timothy 3:1-13 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Titus 1:5-15 5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
1 Corinthians 5:6-13 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
According to Scripture, those immoral (bad) popes have disqualified themselves from even being considered qualified to hold the office.
Scripture does not allow for the man's personal life from being separated from the office he holds. And believers are commanded to not associate with those who call themselves brothers who live immoral lives. They should not even EAT with him, not be in communion with him.
This business of separately an immoral man from the office he holds is rationalization, plain and simple.
Just.... wow.....
Did you all happen to notice that Jesus did not put Judas in charge of His church?
Hey, gamecock. Another one.
If it was considered debatable in the 13th century, it must not have been established.
*snicker*
Comparing one church with many, which even includes Unitarians to Mormons, is a perverse comparison. But comparing Rome with herself we see different interpretations even here.
Some believe Lumen Gentium generally precludes Prots from salvation unless they convert to Catholicism,and even deny that they have the Spirit of God in baptism, as they must in order to be consistent with their literal interpretation of Jn. 6:53,54.
Some also uphold that it is right to burn heretics.
And in such contrast with historical teaching they have strong support (if not from Scripture).
Can you say *Vatican 2*?
Can you say *pope Francis*?
That's funny, a Catholic criticizing other churches for not being stable.
Small details that escape the notice of the brainwashed.
You do bring up a very good question, Petrosius. And in the spirit of each of us trying to understand what the other believes or bases his/her faith in, let me try to give you an answer.
Protestantism is a very BROAD label. And I will not attempt to defend it's varied definitions. Suffice it to say that defining you as a Catholic pretty much tells us what you believe. Defining me as a Protestant will not tell you much, other than I am not a Catholic. That in itself does not define my beliefs. Catholics seem to want to lump all Protestants into one definition.
I do not base my faith in "Protestantism", for that would be such a broad statement that it would encompass many apposing beliefs. And because of this, when asked to state my religion, I always say "Christian" and if asked to explain further, I go on to say, I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and the basic tenets it lays out are those in the creed that I quoted above. I believe that creed is in your Roman Catholic Catechism as well, for it is the basis of what the Bible teaches. During the Reformation, many Christians who had read and studied the words of the Bible began to understand that there were certain practices in the Roman Catholic Church that they felt were not totally biblical, some of which they felt dangerously detracted from their wish to put total, compromised faith that salvation came from Jesus Christ alone. One example: Selling indulgences did not give one forgiveness, only Grace given freely to those who professed faith in Jesus Christ brought about forgiveness of sin. There are many others.
Thus, I am not putting my salvation and daily guidance in the hands of ANY human person or organization, but rather in the hands of the Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit. The "Church" means to me the "Body of Christ" and "Saints" are all true believers, and they come from various protestant denominations as well as the Roman Catholic church, though belonging to one of the above does not necessarily assure one to belong to the "Body of Christ" as there are true Christians and false Christians in all.
I choose to attend worship and teaching at a Presbyterian (PCA)church. PCA is a branch of the Presbyterian church that adheres closely to the Bible without any variation.
If “the blues brothers” movie has taught me anything, it’s that Catholics and Protestants can find common moral planes to cooperate and resist tyranny.
Of course popes aren’t infallible on any level. But he must be the leader of the catholic faith without question, so he has to be right by definition. This was needed in the aftermath of the protestant reformation be cause the pope could no longer claim political leadership of the civilized world. It was to beef up his credentials when Rome lost political control so the catholic faithful would not question his authority as had become routine for developing democracies. Catholicism can’t survive as a democracy. So he needed to be perceived by the rank and file as not subject to their griping.
Think of it as the doctrine of “presidential infallibility” in place today by the Democrat faithful. It was a needed tool at the time.
During the Reformation, many Christians who had read and studied the words of the Bible began to understand that there were certain practices in the Roman Catholic Church that they felt were not totally biblical, some of which they felt dangerously detracted from their wish to put total, uncompromised faith that salvation came from Jesus Christ alone.
So you’re saying you know better, but you’re sinning?
Well, there are when you use the standard definition of "Protestant" that includes those which even deny Truths that the Reformers concurred with Rome on. And even among those who most strongly hold to the most distinctive Prot doctrine, that of Scripture only being the infallible rule of faith as is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as it is abundantly evidenced as being, then there is much interpretive variation.
However, they also testify to the strongest unity in core truths, which is manifest by their historical contentions against those that deny them, while the variation of belief as well as consent to core truths is also is the reality among Catholics, but the latter is inferior to evangelicals .
Moreover, Catholicism not only exists in schisms and sects, but while RCs will point to official statements a constituting what their church believes, and superior this is not valid testimony of what they believe, which is shown by what we do and effect. (Mt. 7:20: Ja. 2:18)
And by treating her liberal majority as members in life and in death, Rome reveals what she believes constitutes Catholic faith. Yet RCs insist conservative evangelicals should leave their conservative churches and join Rome, now with a pope who even asserts inequality is the root of social evils.
Your analysis is revealing what helped you obtain your engineering degree.
Was my post so unclear as to be capable of many interpretations? Did I write it in code?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.