A few questions for Protestants

[renniks]

Name one instance of a Pope opposing another Pope's infallible declaration.

None of their declarations are infallible. And their theologies vary a great deal. That would be impossible if they had an infallible understanding of scripture.

 

[renniks]

What does it say?

Paul appeals to Christians to live in a way that reflects the grace we've been given by God and to be mature instead of being swayed by every teaching they hear. In life, this is going to mean that at times we disagree with people, even people in authority about doctrine, but we do our best to live in unity anyway. Of course, there are key doctrines that we must hold to, but we let the main thing be the main thing and don't get sidetracked by petty differences.

 

[concretecamper]

Immaculate conception of Mary

The Gospel of Luke tells us Mary is Full of Grace. The Gospel of Luke tells us that her soul magnifies The Lord. The only way these things are possible is if she is free from sin. There are many other references in the OT if you would like to study the Catholic position.

her bodily assumption

The book of Revelation tells us the Ark of His Covenant was seen bodily in Heaven. The Ark is a Woman clothed with the sun.

 

[Buzzard3]

I don't know about a Pope's infallible declaration, as I don't think that Popes are infallible -- ever. Two concepts immediately come to mind: the crusades and the inquisition. Does the Pope still believe in these activities?

It sounds like you are yet another Protestant who doesn't understand the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

The personal opinions of different Popes on various Church matters can vary greatly and even be conflict, but their personal opinions have nothing whatsoever to do with Pope's Infallible declarations.

You should take he time learn something about the subject you're criticizing.

 

[Buzzard3]

Was that before or after Jesus called Peter "Satan"?

Peter's infallibility as the first Pope didn't take effect until the Holy Spirit descended on the Church on the day of Pentecost.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Peter's infallibility as the first Pope didn't take effect until the Holy Spirit descended on the Church on the day of Pentecost.

except that there was NO biblical record of him being the first Pope, as they had him for the Jews, Paul unto the gentiles, and James head of the "mother church: in jerusalem!

 

[YeshuaFan]

The Gospel of Luke tells us Mary is Full of Grace. The Gospel of Luke tells us that her soul magnifies The Lord. The only way these things are possible is if she is free from sin. There are many other references in the OT if you would like to study the Catholic position.
The book of Revelation tells us the Ark of His Covenant was seen bodily in Heaven. The Ark is a Woman clothed with the sun.

Mary rejoiced i her savior, and she was a sinner, as the Virgin Birth was what God used to bypass the effects of the fall!
And the woman in Revelation is Israel

 

[Buzzard3]

except that there was NO biblical record of him being the first Pope

Yes there is ... Jesus gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" to one man only - Peter (Matt 16:19).

 

[Albion]

It sounds like you are yet another Protestant who doesn't understand the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

The personal opinions of different Popes on various Church matters can vary greatly and even be conflict, but their personal opinions have nothing whatsoever to do with Pope's Infallible declarations.

You should take he time learn something about the subject you're criticizing.

Yes, it does help to be familiar with all the many ways that people loyal to their church cover up for the inconsistencies in its teachings. And there have been many inconsistencies as, for example, with the matter of Papal infallibility.

One of them is to say that only ex cathedra decrees of the Pope are infallible (that would be two in number), as though all sorts of pronouncements prior to 1870 when this was instituted were not also deemed to be infallible.

 

[Buzzard3]

Mary rejoiced i her savior, and she was a sinner, as the Virgin Birth was what God used to bypass the effects of the fall!
And the woman in Revelation is Israel

Rev 12 says that woman clothed with the sun gave birth to Jesus ... that would be Mary, wouldn't it?

 

[concretecamper]

Mary rejoiced i her savior, and she was a sinner, as the Virgin Birth was what God used to bypass the effects of the fall!
And the woman in Revelation is Israel

ah, so you reject the interpretation of The Church. You are free to do so, it's the protestant thing to do. But that's a lot different than saying these 2 things aren't supported by scripture ( which is your earlier claim).

 

[Albion]

except that there was NO biblical record of him being the first Pope, as they had him for the Jews, Paul unto the gentiles, and James head of the "mother church: in jerusalem!

Yes there is ... Jesus gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" to one man only - Peter (Matt 16:19).

There is a record of Jesus saying that the keys were given to Peter.

There is no record of Jesus creating the Papacy, of Peter being considered a Pope in his own lifetime, or that 200 or so other men coming after him get to be Popes as well.

And that's to say nothing of the way that "keys" got to be defined, several hundred years later, and by only the Western portion of the Christian church, as referring to what's called "Papal Supremacy."

 

[concretecamper]

Rev 12 says that woman clothed with the sun gave birth to Jesus ... that would be Mary, wouldn't it?

correct, but it can also be Isreal. There is so much meaning buried in Revelation that a single view is often inadequate. The clue most protestants miss is the preceding verse.

"And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail."

They get hung up on chapters.

 

[Buzzard3]

Yes, it does help to be familiar with all the many ways that people loyal to their church cover up for the inconsistencies in its teachings. And there have been many inconsistencies as, for example, with the matter of Papal infallibility.

One of them is to say that only ex cathedra decrees of the Pope are infallible (that would be two in number), as though all sorts of pronouncements prior to 1870 when this was instituted were not also deemed to be infallible.

For starters, there are 255 Catholics dogmas that were declared infallible by various Popes.

 

[concretecamper]

For starters, there are 255 Catholics dogmas that were declared infallible by various Popes.

and Eccuminical Councils

 

[Buzzard3]

correct, but it can also be Isreal. There is so much meaning buried in Revelation that a single view is often inadequate. The clue most protestants miss is the preceding verse.

"And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail."

They get hung up on chapters.

The "woman" in Rev 12:1-6 is multi-layered. According to Scott Hahn, she is the Virgin Mary, the faithful of Israel, and the Church.

 

[Buzzard3]

There is a record of Jesus saying that the keys were given to Peter.

There is no record of Jesus creating the Papacy, of Peter being considered a Pope in his own lifetime, or that 200 or so other men coming after him get to be Popes as well.

Not only that, but the Bible says nothing at all about computers or Tiger Woods!

And that's to say nothing of the way that "keys" got to be defined, several hundred years later, and by only the Western portion of the Christian church, as referring to what's called "Papal Supremacy."

News flash: Contrary to Protestant folklore, not everything is in the Bible.

It is the CHURCH that provides the full story (Eph 1:22-23; Eph 4).

 

[pescador]

It sounds like you are yet another Protestant who doesn't understand the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

The personal opinions of different Popes on various Church matters can vary greatly and even be conflict, but their personal opinions have nothing whatsoever to do with Pope's Infallible declarations.

You should take he time learn something about the subject you're criticizing.

This sounds to me like sophistry: their personal opinions have nothing whatsoever to do with Pope's Infallible declarations.

No person, Pope or otherwise, is now and never has been infallible -- with one obvious exception: Jesus Christ

The doctrine of papal infallibility, the Latin phrase ex cathedra (literally, "from the chair"), was proclaimed by Pius IX in 1870 as meaning "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, [the Bishop of Rome] defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

That raises the question: what about papal declarations prior to 1870? Were the doctrines proclaimed prior to 1870 fallible?

 

[The Liturgist]

"Catholic" means "universal, we have a record of the term being used by Ignatius of Antioch in the early 100s. His audience was obviously enough familiar with it at that time for him to use it. While Hindus and pagans reject a lot of Catholicism, many Christian religions accept much of what the Catholic Church teaches. For example, most accept the majority of the books of the Bible and have even adopted the order of books that the Catholic Church established in the late 300s. Unfortunately a lot of non-Catholics don't know much about actual Church history.

Minor nitpick: Catholic actually means “According to the Whole.”

 

[The Liturgist]

If they expounded on scripture correctly the Catholic church wouldn't have so many doctrines that are directly opposite of what scripture says.

I am not aware of any Roman Catholic doctrines directly contrary to Scripture.