Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Please stop attaching your meaning to what I am writing. There is only one Catholic Church, the one Christ founded, to which Paul referred (One faith, one baptism, one Lord). God can not be divided, only humanity can be.
It follows then that you must hold that those who are not in submission to the pope, who are not in the bosom of visible Catholic Church, are not part of that body.

If so, tell us what sect of Catholicism you belong to.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
even with the adoption of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, the Pope has to cite something as the basis for any decree...and that's almost always going to be mainly a resort to some alleged "tradition."
However, while the pope may invoke some basis for what he presumes to infallibly declare, as he deceptively did with the Assumption, only his decree is held to be protected from error, not his arguments for it.

And in the light of what PI means, Newman, writing to his Cardinal's Bishop during the sitting of the Vatican 1, feared having to defend teachings which may “...be most difficult to maintain logically in the face of historical facts.” - http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/meynell/chapter5.html

But thus real assurance for Cath for the veracity of RCs of teaching does not rest upon the weight and quality of support for it, but the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

"...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true." ” Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
However, while the pope may invoke some basis for what he presumes to infallibly declare, as he deceptively did with the Assumption, only his decree is held to be protected from error, not his arguments for it.
Not exactly. Tradition is also considered to be the word of God and therefore unimpeachable. Of course the church can always pick and choose between the various pieces of evidence that it takes under consideration and, if need be, change its mind. An ex cathedra papal decree puts them in a more difficult position, as you said.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There were wicked popes who had concubines, children out of wedlock, were only interested in worldly power, but none of them had anything to do with instituting doctrine.
Once again your definition of misleading others as only consisting of "instituting doctrine" by what is formally infallibly taught is unScriptural, so that a leader can affirm and be condemned for heresy, and practice immorality yet not be charged with misleading the flock. Besides ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome itself being novel and unScriptural, in Scripture what you do and effect shows what you truly believe, and anything that effects others, whether by word or dead, is teaching. And papal teaching states that the one duty of the flock is to follow the pastors, whose actions (and inactions) interpret the words of the church.
What acts of terror did THE CHURCH commit that needed to be expunged?
So Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council under Pope "Innocent" [Insolence] III in 1215 could require all RC rulers to exterminate all the heretics in their lands, or else their subjects would not be bound to obey him, and which the Spanish Inquisition (among others) diligently worked to do, but not be guilty of acts of terror? (Which early Protestantism had to unlearn.)

Do you believe that it is against the will of the Holy Spirit that heretics be burned by the church?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Not exactly. Tradition is also considered to be the word of God and therefore unimpeachable. Of course the church can always pick and choose between the various pieces of evidence that it takes under consideration and, if need be, change its mind. An ex cathedra papal decree puts them in a more difficult position, as you said.
But it the basis for this papal pick and choose presumption that i was speaking of. Oral Tradition is held to be the word of God as infallibly declared by Rome, which has infallibly declared herself infallible. Yet the arguments for this are not themselves held to be infallible, but the basis for the veracity of which rests upon the premise that she is infallible (under her infallible subject and scope-based criteria). Which circularity is not a problem for those who illogically subscribe to it.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Wrong once again: your church says she uniquely has authority to faithfully interpret Scripture, which does not make it so, while she has not interpreted 1Co. 3 as indisputably referring to purgatory, and in fact, the notes to your own NAB on the Vatican web sight explicitly state:

The text of ⇒ 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZ8.HTM#$4AC) And also states that the judgment here is the great day of the Lord.

And regardless if she did indisputably teach that 1Co. 3 refers to purgatory, as some mistaken CFs did, that still does not make it right under the premise that Rome uniquely has authority to faithfully interpret Scripture, for that is no more valid than that those who sat in the seat of Moses as the magisterial stewards of Scripture over Israel, to whom "were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And thus, sounding like Rome in response to what powerfully contradicted them,

answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) (John 7:47-50)

The elitist arrogant presumption of your remark is no better.
If it was elitist or arrogant in the least, you might have something. Claiming to be part of Christ's Church is not elitist or arrogant, though. Claiming you know better than those in authority, though-that's elitist and arrogant.
 
Upvote 0

AnticipateHisComing

Newbie
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2013
2,787
574
✟103,332.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It was the Holy Spirit which guided the council to a consensus, just as the Holy Spirit guided the apostles to chose Mattias to succeed Judas.

The issue is not, the Holy Spirit being God. It is the difference between one being inspired by the Holy Spirit vs a direct choosing by God. Now certainly Peter was inspired by the Holy Spirit in his service of God. It could have went down that Peter just prayed for God to direct his choice of a replacement for Judas. If Peter would then have chosen Matthias, then we would all agree it was guided/inspired by the Holy Spirit.

But, scripture gives a different description of how Judas was replaced. It says they cast lots and Proverbs 16:33 says the Lord is then the one deciding; not the Holy Spirit inspiring man. The distinction being that it was directly God that chose the 13 apostles and not man inspired to do it. There is no doubt the 13 received their authority from God.

Contrast this to the many other apostles that came later. If Peter laid hands on a hundred and charged many of them to be apostles, how would we know when Peter might have done the special one where he then transferred the authority that Jesus gave him directly to a successor of his choosing? It is a matter of testimony and authority. Jesus set apart those he called saying they will sit on 12 thrones. This is reinforced with the OT prophets being called directly by God and tasked with speaking for him.

1 Kings 19:9 And the word of the Lord came to him: “What are you doing here, Elijah?” 16 Also, anoint Jehu son of Nimshi king over Israel, and anoint Elisha son of Shaphat from Abel Meholah to succeed you as prophet.
Casting lots is, as is using umim and thurim in the OT, relying on God to give us his decision. Therefore, Mattias was chosen by God to replace Judas.
Gotta love it when one argues back and forth only to change what they say to actually agree with my first contention. Read your first statement that choosing Matthias was inspired by the Holy Spirit just as the councils' actions with the canon. After multiple posts you now agree that Matthias was chosen by God. Recognize the difference between casting lots for Matthias and the actions of a council in arguments and debates. But the main point I wish to argue is that no "successor" to Peter was called out as chosen by God, nor prophesied to occur.

But, go ahead and keep on asserting that your interpretations are true because you have some special authority from God.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Friend, this awefully sounds like the same pleadings to institutional immunity, by the Jewish church hierarchy, when they defended their Abrahamic faith by saying......

Abraham is our father,” they answered.

We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me?47Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

See Jesus charges their religious institution as having murdered Abel right down to the last Old Testament prophet Zechariah. This means that Jesus is placing this religious Institution and its very Abrahamic faith on notice and calling it a corrupt institution from its foundational beginnings. The children who try to defend its Abrahamic faith, results in Jesus calling them liars and the devil's children.

This is a very serious charge that Jesus placed on what was believed by its children as an infallible institution that was acknowledged by its children as an institution that made mistakes, at the hands of their fathers who murdered prophets, but would adamantly continuously repeat that the faith is still 100% correct.

My question to you is, is it so?

Don't believe me, please believe Jesus he is correct in saying what he said. His saying, places on notice any religious institution that makes similar claims.

At least read what Jesus thought and had to say about your statement.....

The institution can make mistakes, but the faith be still 100% correct

Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. 48So your testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

The testimony of Jesus refutes the claim by any religious institution that declares to have 100% correct faith. This is what the Jewish church hierarchy during the time of Jesus claimed, by saying that thy were the true 100% correct/ligitamate Abrahamic faith, regardless of what crimes their ancestors did in the name of religion. Jesus calls them liars like their father the Devil.

The false claims that are made by any religious institution in regards to being that 100% correct/ligitamate faith, must therefore be dismissed, because this false claim goes against everything that Jesus had taught.
I see. You claim that you have the truth, and that what I'm saying is false, yet you have no proof of anything the Church did - no atrocities, no mass-murder, no nothing. See what I mean? End of story, unless you have some proof.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If it was elitist or arrogant in the least, you might have something.
It was and I do.
" Claiming to be part of Christ's Church is not elitist or arrogant,
Which was not the charge, but as per your typical tactic, it misrepresents it.
" Claiming you know better than those in authority, though-that's elitist and arrogant." "
Which was what those in authority basically charged some first century Scripture invoking preachers with, under the arrogant elitist presumption that their authority rendered them irreprovable by such, which is what your church likewise presumes, and you are guilty of defending.

Even while you reject my rejection of 1Cor. 3 as being about purgatory, due to this being contrary to what your church teaches, yet which is not indisputable RC interpretation, and which for decades your own Bible notes have contradicted. As shown and ignored.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I see. You claim that you have the truth, and that what I'm saying is false, yet you have no proof of anything the Church did - no atrocities, no mass-murder, no nothing. See what I mean? End of story, unless you have some proof.
Pure insolence, and likely relies on defining "terror" as something less than placing all who dared to express opinions or teach contrary to Rome in terror of the office of Inquisition for hundreds of years. And or dismissing such as being by secular authorities, carried out the commission of Rome.

Ad abolendam issued by Pope Lucius III, Synod of Verona 4th November 1184
Its chief aim was the complete abolition of Christian heresy...More important than the direct attack on heresy, however, was the stipulation of equal measures for those who supported heretics, overtly or indirectly, and modern historians have noted that, these groups being primarily based around Lombardy and the Languedoc, Papal motivation in condemning them was probably as politically motivated as it was theological.[5] All associated with heresy would be placed under excommunication, too; but the heretics themselves were an ill-defined grouping, some of which hardly existed by 1184, and some of whom had never been previously established as heretics. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_abolendam

Pope Innocent III, Cum ex Officii Nostri of 1207: In order altogether to remove the patrimony of St. Peter from heretics, we decree as a perpetual law, that whatsoever heretic, especially if he be a Patarene, shall be found therein, shall immediately be taken and delivered to the secular court to be punished according to the law. All his goods also shall be sold, so that he who took him shall receive one part; another shall go the court which convicted him, and the third shall be applied to the building of prisons in the country wherein he was taken. The house, however, in which a heretic has been received shall be altogether destroyed, nor shall anyone presume to rebuild it; but let that which was a den of iniquity become a receptacle of filth. Moreover, their believers and defenders shall be fined one fourth part of their goods, which shall be applied to the service of the public. — Cum ex Officii Nostri Pope Innocent III, 1207, Inquisition, by Edward Peters, p. 49 review Living Tradition, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum

Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215:

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)

Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of 1559: Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred without exception by all members of the following categories:

(i) Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things.

(ii) Anysoever who (which may God, in His clemency and goodness to all, deign to avert) shall in the future so deviate or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both of these.

(iii) Anysoever who shall be detected to have so deviated, fallen, incurred, provoked or committed, or who shall confess to have done any of these things, or who shall be convicted of having done any of these things....

5. [By this Our Constitution,] moreover, [which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, decree and define:] as follows concerning those who shall have presumed in any way knowingly to receive, defend, favour, believe or teach the teaching of those so apprehended, confessed or convicted:

(i) they shall automatically incur sentence of excommunication;

(ii) they shall be rendered infamous;

(iii) they shall be excluded on pain of invalidity from any public or private office, deliberation, Synod, general or provincial Council and any conclave of Cardinals or other congregation of the faithful, and from any election or function of witness, so that they cannot take part in any of these by vote, in person, by writings, representative or by any agent;

(iv) they shall be incapable of making a will;

(v) they shall not accede to the succession of heredity;

(vi) no one shall be forced to respond to them concerning any business;

(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgements shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing;

(viii) if they shall have been Advocates, their pleading shall nowise be received;
(ix) if they shall have been Notaries, documents drafted by them shall be entirely without strength or weight;..

(xii) finally, all Kingdoms, Duchies, Dominions, Fiefs and goods of this kind shall be confiscated, made public and shall remain so, and shall be made the rightful property of those who shall first occupy them if these shall be sincere in faith, in the unity of the Holy Roman Church and under obedience to Us and to Our successors the Roman Pontiffs canonically entering office. [Note: This Constitution was reinforced in his Papal Bull Inter multiplices [December 21, 1566] by Pope St. Pius V Note: Those words in brackets signify the Latin significance of the full authority of this Constitution above.] — Cum ex Officii Nostri Pope Innocent III, 1207

Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda, papal bull, promulgated on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, which explicitly authorized (and defined the appropriate circumstances for) the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics.

The following parameters were placed on the use of torture:[1]

that it did not cause loss of life or limb (citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum)
that it was used only once
that the Inquisitor deemed the evidence against the accused to be virtually certain.

The requirement that torture only be used once was effectively meaningless in practice as it was interpreted as authorizing torture with each new piece of evidence that was produced and by considering most practices to be a continuation (rather than repetition) of the torture session (non ad modum iterationis sed continuationis).[1]

The bull conceded to the State a portion of the property to be confiscated from convicted heretics.[3] The State in return assumed the burden of carrying out the penalty. The relevant portion of the bull read: "When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podestà or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them."[4]

Innocent’s Bull prescribes that captured heretics, being "murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, . . . are to be coerced – as are thieves and bandits – into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb." — Bull Ad Extirpanda (Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum, vol. 3 [Turin: Franco, Fory & Dalmazzo, 1858], Lex 25, p. 556a.) — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_extirpanda

The Church has the right, as a perfect and independent society provided with all the means for attaining its end,...has, therefore, the right to admonish or warn its members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws and also, if needful to punish them by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction...

...with the formal recognition of the Church by the State and the increase of ecclesiastical penalties proportioned to the increase of ecclesiastical offences, came an appeal from the Church to the secular arm for aid in enforcing the said penalties, which aid was always willingly granted.... — Catholic Encyclopedia>Jurisdiction

Now we expect, like as devout Mormons, to see you blithely dismiss such as not inuring guilt on the part of your church.

More
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
It follows then that you must hold that those who are not in submission to the pope, who are not in the bosom of visible Catholic Church, are not part of that body.
No, it doesn't.
If so, tell us what sect of Catholicism you belong to.
No sect at all.
 
Upvote 0

AnticipateHisComing

Newbie
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2013
2,787
574
✟103,332.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Please stop attaching your meaning to what I am writing. There is only one Catholic Church, the one Christ founded, to which Paul referred (One faith, one baptism, one Lord). God can not be divided, only humanity can be.

Actually, it's you imposing your interpretation on us, and therefore, it's you on the soapbox. My interpretation comes with authority, given by Christ.

I disagree with your interpretation, because my Church has authority to interpret Scripture, and says otherwise.See above.

If it was elitist or arrogant in the least, you might have something. Claiming to be part of Christ's Church is not elitist or arrogant, though. Claiming you know better than those in authority, though-that's elitist and arrogant.

So Root says his Church gives him the truth and Protestants can't argue with him because we are not in his Church and therefore don't have the truth. Further we are elitist because we dare to challenge him.

And you wonder why I question your belief and statement that all baptized Christians are part of God's Catholic Church. At one point we are all brothers in Christ, in another you claim something special from being in you RCC. You, when convenient, divide the universal Catholic Church when it comes down to arguing doctrine.

You insist you are correct because your church says so. How do you know your church is correct, because someone in your church told you so, and he knew it was so because someone in the church told him so. The RCC is correct because of tradition.

This is the ultimate conclusion I anticipated. I just wish the Catholics would admit this.

The problem is that many religions make such claims and that is why I will never follow one based on self promoting claims. I am right because I am right. I need to see some evidence of being right. Even Jesus the Son of God did not use such argument for his truth. He used those that testified to him being the Son of God; from that we can be assured that it is true.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Once again your definition of misleading others as only consisting of "instituting doctrine" by what is formally infallibly taught is unScriptural, so that a leader can affirm and be condemned for heresy, and practice immorality yet not be charged with misleading the flock. Besides ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome itself being novel and unScriptural, in Scripture what you do and effect shows what you truly believe, and anything that effects others, whether by word or dead, is teaching. And papal teaching states that the one duty of the flock is to follow the pastors, whose actions (and inactions) interpret the words of the church.

So Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council under Pope "Innocent" [Insolence] III in 1215 could require all RC rulers to exterminate all the heretics in their lands, or else their subjects would not be bound to obey him, and which the Spanish Inquisition (among others) diligently worked to do, but not be guilty of acts of terror? (Which early Protestantism had to unlearn.)
Prove that. The Church never thought to exterminate heretics, but to bring them back into the faith.
Do you believe that it is against the will of the Holy Spirit that heretics be burned by the church?
The Church never burned heretics. The Church tried to convert them. If conversion was impossible, then the government dealt with them as governments then did. You DO know that, often, when the head of a group converted, everyone with the head of that group were converted as well, don't you?
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,685
8,021
PA
Visit site
✟1,025,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Here in GT, scripture is the ultimate authority.

That's not true. GT allows for all views that fit within the CF Statement of Faith (Nicene Creed). It is "General Theology", not "Sola Scriptura" theology. There are other forums where only scripture is allowed.

General Theology Statement of Purpose

The General Theology forums are for discussing and debating the various theological doctrines of the Christian faith. All member's who participate in GT are self-identified Christians through adherence to the Christian Forums' Statement of Faith and the Trinitarian nature of God. It is expected that people who post in GT will respect all members of the Christian faith. Theological discussions can at times become heated, so please remember to keep your emotions in check and your responses in line with our sitewide rules
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Tigger45
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Gotta love it when one argues back and forth only to change what they say to actually agree with my first contention. Read your first statement that choosing Matthias was inspired by the Holy Spirit just as the councils' actions with the canon. After multiple posts you now agree that Matthias was chosen by God. Recognize the difference between casting lots for Matthias and the actions of a council in arguments and debates. But the main point I wish to argue is that no "successor" to Peter was called out as chosen by God, nor prophesied to occur.
Yes, they were.
But, go ahead and keep on asserting that your interpretations are true because you have some special authority from God.
My Church does, I don't.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Pure insolence, and likely relies on defining "terror" as something less than placing all who dared to express opinions or teach contrary to Rome in terror of the office of Inquisition for hundreds of years. And or dismissing such as being by secular authorities, carried out the commission of Rome.

Pope Innocent III, Cum ex Officii Nostri of 1207: In order altogether to remove the patrimony of St. Peter from heretics, we decree as a perpetual law, that whatsoever heretic, especially if he be a Patarene, shall be found therein, shall immediately be taken and delivered to the secular court to be punished according to the law. All his goods also shall be sold, so that he who took him shall receive one part; another shall go the court which convicted him, and the third shall be applied to the building of prisons in the country wherein he was taken. The house, however, in which a heretic has been received shall be altogether destroyed, nor shall anyone presume to rebuild it; but let that which was a den of iniquity become a receptacle of filth. Moreover, their believers and defenders shall be fined one fourth part of their goods, which shall be applied to the service of the public. — Cum ex Officii Nostri Pope Innocent III, 1207, Inquisition, by Edward Peters, p. 49 review Living Tradition, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum

Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215:

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.
The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)

Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of 1559: Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred without exception by all members of the following categories:

(i) Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things.

(ii) Anysoever who (which may God, in His clemency and goodness to all, deign to avert) shall in the future so deviate or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both of these.

(iii) Anysoever who shall be detected to have so deviated, fallen, incurred, provoked or committed, or who shall confess to have done any of these things, or who shall be convicted of having done any of these things....

5. [By this Our Constitution,] moreover, [which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, decree and define:] as follows concerning those who shall have presumed in any way knowingly to receive, defend, favour, believe or teach the teaching of those so apprehended, confessed or convicted:

(i) they shall automatically incur sentence of excommunication;

(ii) they shall be rendered infamous;

(iii) they shall be excluded on pain of invalidity from any public or private office, deliberation, Synod, general or provincial Council and any conclave of Cardinals or other congregation of the faithful, and from any election or function of witness, so that they cannot take part in any of these by vote, in person, by writings, representative or by any agent;

(iv) they shall be incapable of making a will;

(v) they shall not accede to the succession of heredity;

(vi) no one shall be forced to respond to them concerning any business;

(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgements shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing;

(viii) if they shall have been Advocates, their pleading shall nowise be received;
(ix) if they shall have been Notaries, documents drafted by them shall be entirely without strength or weight;..

(xii) finally, all Kingdoms, Duchies, Dominions, Fiefs and goods of this kind shall be confiscated, made public and shall remain so, and shall be made the rightful property of those who shall first occupy them if these shall be sincere in faith, in the unity of the Holy Roman Church and under obedience to Us and to Our successors the Roman Pontiffs canonically entering office. [Note: This Constitution was reinforced in his Papal Bull Inter multiplices [December 21, 1566] by Pope St. Pius V Note: Those words in brackets signify the Latin significance of the full authority of this Constitution above.] — Cum ex Officii Nostri Pope Innocent III, 1207

Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda, papal bull, promulgated on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, which explicitly authorized (and defined the appropriate circumstances for) the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics.

The following parameters were placed on the use of torture:[1]

that it did not cause loss of life or limb (citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum)
that it was used only once
that the Inquisitor deemed the evidence against the accused to be virtually certain.

The requirement that torture only be used once was effectively meaningless in practice as it was interpreted as authorizing torture with each new piece of evidence that was produced and by considering most practices to be a continuation (rather than repetition) of the torture session (non ad modum iterationis sed continuationis).[1]

The bull conceded to the State a portion of the property to be confiscated from convicted heretics.[3] The State in return assumed the burden of carrying out the penalty. The relevant portion of the bull read: "When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podestà or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them."[4]

Innocent’s Bull prescribes that captured heretics, being "murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, . . . are to be coerced – as are thieves and bandits – into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb." — Bull Ad Extirpanda (Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum, vol. 3 [Turin: Franco, Fory & Dalmazzo, 1858], Lex 25, p. 556a.) — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_extirpanda

The Church has the right, as a perfect and independent society provided with all the means for attaining its end,...has, therefore, the right to admonish or warn its members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws and also, if needful to punish them by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction...

...with the formal recognition of the Church by the State and the increase of ecclesiastical penalties proportioned to the increase of ecclesiastical offences, came an appeal from the Church to the secular arm for aid in enforcing the said penalties, which aid was always willingly granted.... — Catholic Encyclopedia>Jurisdiction

Now we expect, like as devout Mormons, to see you blithely dismiss such as not inuring guilt on the part of your church.

More
Nice cut and paste job. Of course, in Dr. Peter's quote, you ignored the preceding and the postceding paragraphs. He says that much of the activity of Innocent III was directed at reconverting those suspected and convicted of heresy. The point is that the Church cared for the souls of those they were responsible for and heresy put that soul in danger of hell. It also says that the Pope was largely not responsible for the atrocities committed during the Albigensian Crusade. He convoked the army for a purpose, and, as armies sometimes do, they overstepped their authority.
Otherwise, your cut/paste job is mostly allegations that have no substance. The Church didn't use torture for anything. The Church didn't have to. If a person was convicted of heresy, he was give the chance to convert, and if that didn't happen, he was turned over to the state.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No, it doesn't.No sect at all.
However, logically, if there is only one body of Christ, into which the Spirit baptizes souls, then those who are not part of this body, and which in Catholicism requires submission to the pope according to infallible teaching, then they indeed are not part of that body, according to erroneous RC presumption.

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.” - 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.”

...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)

..in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. - Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos


However, since only the mystical body of Christ always and only consists of believers, while the visible particular bodies inevitably becomes an admixture of both, then the "one body" Eph. 4 refers to is the former, and does not wholly only subsist in any of the latter.

And even some (relative few) Catholics are part of said one Body, by the grace of God.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
So Root says his Church gives him the truth and Protestants can't argue with him because we are not in his Church and therefore don't have the truth. Further we are elitist because we dare to challenge him.

And you wonder why I question your belief and statement that all baptized Christians are part of God's Catholic Church. At one point we are all brothers in Christ, in another you claim something special from being in you RCC. You, when convenient, divide the universal Catholic Church when it comes down to arguing doctrine.
That happens. Sometimes, however, it's because converts (especially recent ones) tend to reflect an "I've found it at last! Now all questions are answered! It's so simple" mindset. They're the "true believers." And they want the world to know it.

This happens in many denominations, AHC. Characteristically, these folks tend to hold to black and white understandings of doctrines that their church itself either no longer defends or, if not that, do not understand the nuances that the church and its longtime members appreciate. You'll notice that, in the RCC case, the higher clergy and (for example) Jesuits, who are the most extensively educated, are the least inclined to pound the table and insist on simplistic explanations of complicated issues.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Nice cut and paste job. ....The Church didn't use torture for anything. The Church didn't have to. If a person was convicted of heresy, he was give the chance to convert, and if that didn't happen, he was turned over to the state
What? It is you who, once again, engages in deceptive cut and paste, for true to form, you blithely dismiss what condemns you, and focus on one paragraph which simply provided testimony to the fact that Catholicism engage in torture, by handing over her enemies to the state to do so, knowing what would be done.

You tried to this insolent attempt to absolve the object of the object of your devotion of any guilt under the premise that handing over those to the RC state to punish those whom the church judges guilty, means she is not guilty herself, though she commanded such exterminate the heretics.

Which desperate insolence is so obvious as to be embarrassing, and means that Paul was wrong in charging the Jews with killing the Lord Jesus, as are judgments against those who willingly handing over Jews to Nazis, knowing what would happen to them.
Of course, in Dr. Peter's quote, you ignored the preceding and the postceding paragraphs. He says that much of the activity of Innocent III was directed at reconverting those suspected and convicted of heresy.
The point is that the Church cared for the souls of those they were responsible for and heresy put that soul in danger of hell.
Irrelevant. Motive for using torture to accomplish what the NT church never used physical compulsion for is not the issue here. And the larger body of what i provided goes beyond simply Albigensian crusades.
It also says that the Pope was largely not responsible for the atrocities committed during the Albigensian Crusade.
Irrelevant. To what degree the pope and church under him was responsible for atrocities in one crusade is not the issue here, but that he was guilty of such, including beyond the Albigensian Crusade, regardless of compelled denials by apologists.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
T You'll notice that, in the RCC case, the higher clergy and (for example) Jesuits, who are the most extensively educated, are the least inclined to pound the table and insist on simplistic explanations of complicated issues.
You mean like this?
RNS-ROBISON-POPEthumb.jpg

http://religionnews.com/2014/07/09/...vangelist-first-ever-papal-high-five-follows/
 
Upvote 0