How many agree with this

[ScottBot]

Interpretation is not the same as understanding.
Roman Catholic confusion of terms is Standard Operating Procedure.

Re: Unam Sanctum from The Catholic Encyclopedia:
" The genuineness of the Bull is absolutely established by the entry of it in the official registers of the papal Briefs, and its incorporation in the canon law."

"The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation."

"The main propositions of the Bull are the following: First, the unity of the Church and its necessity for salvation are declared and established by various passages from the Bible and by reference to the one Ark of the Flood, and to the seamless garment of Christ. The pope then affirms that, as the unity of the body of the Church so is the unity of its head established in Peter and his successors. Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the dominion of Peter and his successors. When, therefore, the Greeks and others say they are not subject to the authority of Peter and his successors, they thus acknowledge that they do not belong to Christ's sheep."
Worse yet...
"The Bull also proclaims the subjection of the secular power to the spiritual as the one higher in rank, and draws from it the conclusion that the representatives of the spiritual power can install the possessors of secular authority and exercise judgment over their administration, should it be contrary to Christian law.

Since world domination is the obvious quest, it is curious how the Protocols Of The Elders of Zion got hung around the neck of the Jews.

Since world domination is quite obviously no longer on the manifesto, then one can very easily make the case that Unam Sanctam is OBE.

 

[Rick Otto]

I reject both of yours!!!

I see your rejection and raise you 5 more.

 

[ScottBot]

Originally Posted by mont974x4
That's OK, we reject the man-made interpretations and unbiblical traditions of men from your denomination too

I reject both of yours!!!

Now that we got all that straightened out....


Who wants gum?

 

[Rick Otto]

no longer on the manifesto

How, when, & where did that happen?
Or are you just eating the cover stories they spoon feed ya?
Did the Church err?
Does anyone realy know for sure?

 

[ScottBot]

How, when, & where did that happen?
Or are you just eating the cover stories they spoon feed ya?
Did the Church err?
Does anyone realy know for sure?

SO, you really believe that one of the primary purposes of the Papacy is to dominate the world? If you really think that, you are sunk deeper into your bias than I originally thought.

 

[TraderJack]

No, I don't. I just don't agree with your man-made self interpretation of them.

What do you think this means:

1 John 2:23
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

What do you think this means:

1 John 2:23
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Trader Jack JPII was not saying that Muslims know the Father or "have the Father"...simply that they also worship one God like we do, and there is one God in reality soo..we all worship Him. No one is denying that we need the Son to know the Father!!

 

[TraderJack]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto
Interpretation is not the same as understanding.
Roman Catholic confusion of terms is Standard Operating Procedure.

Re: Unam Sanctum from The Catholic Encyclopedia:
" The genuineness of the Bull is absolutely established by the entry of it in the official registers of the papal Briefs, and its incorporation in the canon law."

"The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation."

"The main propositions of the Bull are the following: First, the unity of the Church and its necessity for salvation are declared and established by various passages from the Bible and by reference to the one Ark of the Flood, and to the seamless garment of Christ. The pope then affirms that, as the unity of the body of the Church so is the unity of its head established in Peter and his successors. Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the dominion of Peter and his successors. When, therefore, the Greeks and others say they are not subject to the authority of Peter and his successors, they thus acknowledge that they do not belong to Christ's sheep."
Worse yet...
"The Bull also proclaims the subjection of the secular power to the spiritual as the one higher in rank, and draws from it the conclusion that the representatives of the spiritual power can install the possessors of secular authority and exercise judgment over their administration, should it be contrary to Christian law.

Since world domination is the obvious quest, it is curious how the Protocols Of The Elders of Zion got hung around the neck of the Jews.

Since world domination is quite obviously no longer on the manifesto

That is but one Romanist dogma that has been changed, but not really, just redefined from what was originally meant and taught prior to Vat II.

 

[ScottBot]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto
Interpretation is not the same as understanding.
Roman Catholic confusion of terms is Standard Operating Procedure.

Re: Unam Sanctum from The Catholic Encyclopedia:
" The genuineness of the Bull is absolutely established by the entry of it in the official registers of the papal Briefs, and its incorporation in the canon law."

"The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation."

"The main propositions of the Bull are the following: First, the unity of the Church and its necessity for salvation are declared and established by various passages from the Bible and by reference to the one Ark of the Flood, and to the seamless garment of Christ. The pope then affirms that, as the unity of the body of the Church so is the unity of its head established in Peter and his successors. Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the dominion of Peter and his successors. When, therefore, the Greeks and others say they are not subject to the authority of Peter and his successors, they thus acknowledge that they do not belong to Christ's sheep."
Worse yet...
"The Bull also proclaims the subjection of the secular power to the spiritual as the one higher in rank, and draws from it the conclusion that the representatives of the spiritual power can install the possessors of secular authority and exercise judgment over their administration, should it be contrary to Christian law.

Since world domination is the obvious quest, it is curious how the Protocols Of The Elders of Zion got hung around the neck of the Jews.


That is but one Romanist dogma that has been changed, but not really, just redefined from what was originally meant and taught prior to Vat II.

WOrld conquest/domination was never on the Catholic agenda, only ensuring that the Gospel was spread to all corners of the world....you know, what Christ commanded.

 

[TraderJack]

Trader Jack JPII was not saying that Muslims know the Father or "have the Father"...simply that they also worship one God like we do

JPII, along with Lumen Gentium, Vat II, the catechism and all other post Vat II sources say Roman Catholicism and Islam worship "one and the same" god, not that Muslims are simply monotheistic.

They say that the god of Islam is the same as Roman Catholicism.


,

and there is one God in reality soo..we all worship Him.

Do you worship the same god as the Mormons too?

 

[TraderJack]

WOrld conquest/domination was never on the Catholic agenda

Not according to the "two swords doctrine" of Unam Sanctum and Lateran IV, as well as traditional Roman dogma prior to Vat II.

 

[TraderJack]

"None realy knows", excuse me, but that sounds hilarious coming from someone whose church claims to have the "fullness of truth".
The Vatican produces a document, and "no one realy knows" its value.
The pope can be infallible, but "no one realy knows" when.

It's a secret known by the magesterium only, and when they decide to enlighten they do, but change it when it suits them.

Gnosticism at it's finest.

They always leave themselves a back door that is hinged on a technicality.

In legal terms it's called "plausible deniability".

 

[ScottBot]

JPII, along with Lumen Gentium, Vat II, the catechism and all other post Vat II sources say Roman Catholicism and Islam worship "one and the same" god, not that Muslims are simply monotheistic.

They say that the god of Islam is the same as Roman Catholicism.


,

Do you worship the same god as the Mormons too?

Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Whether or not the prayer and worship of Muslims is effective because of their stance on Jesus is a point of debate. I tend to believe that a sincere Muslim who honestly seeks to serve God to the best of his/her knowledge and has been prevented from hearing the Gospel will not be judged harshly by Jesus. But that is His call, not mine.

Now, the gods of the mormons is a completely different thing altogether and is not an appropriate topic for discussion here. If you want to debate Mormon theology, there is an established forum in Unorthodox Theology for that. Don't keep doing it here. (That last bit was an official staff thing, I can make it a mod hat if you aren't clear about it).

 

[ScottBot]

It's a secret known by the magesterium only, and when they decide to enlighten they do, but change it when it suits them.

Gnosticism at it's finest.



In legal terms it's called "plausible deniability".

Gnosticism? You really are drowning in your own bias, aren't you?

 

[Albion]

Muslims and Christians worship the same God.... Now, the gods of the mormons is a completely different thing altogether

No, it's not. It's exactly the same situation.

You/We either have to say that all three worship the same God or that three different Gods are described by these three faiths. Those are the only choices.

 

[QuantaCura]

This might help some understand:

Some idolaters worship contingent beings that exist (stone carvings, golden calves, money, etc.)

Some idolaters worship contingent beings that don't exist (Athena, Thor, Tlaloc, etc.). The Mormon god is also contingent as the essence they postulate is created (even though it doesn't exist).

Muslims, however acknowledge the non-contingent being. There can only be one non-contingent being and it exists because its essence necessitates its existence. It is impossible to postulate a non-contingent being that doesn't exist.

 

[ScottBot]

This might help some understand:

Some idolaters worship contingent beings that exist (stone carvings, golden calves, money, etc.)

Some idolaters worship contingent beings that don't exist (Athena, Thor, Tlaloc, etc.).

Muslims, however acknowledge the non-contingent being. There can only be one non-contingent being and it exists because its essence necessitates its existence. It is impossible to postulate a non-contingent being that doesn't exist.

I will beat the others to the punch here.

Where is that in the bible?

(gratuituous note, this question is not for my edification, as I understand what QC is saying and understand that rational logic can both be true and not found in the text of Scripture)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This might help some understand:

Some idolaters worship contingent beings that exist (stone carvings, golden calves, money, etc.)

Some idolaters worship contingent beings that don't exist (Athena, Thor, Tlaloc, etc.). The Mormon god is also contingent as the essence they postulate is created (even though it doesn't exist).

Muslims, however acknowledge the non-contingent being. There can only be one non-contingent being and it exists because its essence necessitates its existence. It is impossible to postulate a non-contingent being that doesn't exist.

Well, it is rather difficult debating with Jews, Muslims and other religions concerning Christianity when we cannot ALL agree on the Bible itself.

http://christianforums.com/t5754684&page=2
Senior Veteran

I almost laugh to note that the first few posts started with Christians VS Messianics, rather than Christians VS Non-Christians.

Maybe Christians and non-christians should come to a common ground first before grouping them together.

 

[TraderJack]

Muslims and Christians worship the same God.

Correction.

Muslims and Roman Catholics do.

Now, the gods of the mormons is a completely different thing altogether and is not an appropriate topic for discussion here.

Of course it is relevant to this discussion, and here is why.

The discussion is NOT about the use of the word, "God", but the definition and meaning that is poured into the word.

As has been clearly demonstrated, the Muslim god is NOT the same God described in the Holy Scriptures and the historic Christian faith.

So the question is, since Roman Catholics are united with Muslims in worshipping "one and the same" god, with JPII calling Muslims, "brothers and sisters" of the same god, do Roman Catholics say the same about any group that uses the word, "God" and claims to be monotheistic such as the Mormons?

 

[QuantaCura]

I will beat the others to the punch here.

Where is that in the bible?

(gratuituous note, this question is not for my edification, as I understand what QC is saying and understand that rational logic can both be true and not found in the text of Scripture)

I think the best example is here (notice especially, St. Paul also says the pagan poets have described the true God as well as those with the altar--also notice the distinction between idols--contingent beings--and the true God, Creator of which all else has its being):

Acts 17:22 But Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious. 23 For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you: 24 God, who made the world, and all things therein; he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is he served with men's hands, as though he needed any thing; seeing it is he who giveth to all life, and breath, and all things: 26 And hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times, and the limits of their habitation. 27 That they should seek God, if happily they may feel after him or find him, although he be not far from every one of us: 28For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring.

Here is another good passage:

Rom. 1:19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. 21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things.