Misconceptions

[LittleLambofJesus]

In that case: Where is the evidence Mary DIDN'T assume into heaven?

Hah! Hoisted on your own petard

As long as I am not hoisted by my neck


http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/va.html

US Department of State's background notes on the Holy See explain the situation this way:
"The term "Holy See" refers to the composite of the authority, jurisdiction, and sovereignty vested in the Pope and his advisers to direct the worldwide Roman Catholic Church.

 

[fated]

Yes Monica, we know what Rome asserted to be "infallibility".

In essence, it claims that God the Holy Spirit is speaking directly through either the pope or the Roman magesterium when proclaiming dogma, as "Divinely revealed truth", just as God spoke through the prophets.

Since Rome claims to be speaking the very words of God, as did the Prophets, then the Biblical test for it must be applied.

So, when tested by Scripture and the early church fathers, it is conclusively proven out a great many of those so called "Divinely revealed truths" are in fact, contrary to God.

This is somewhat of an evasion of the seriousness of the situation.

1)The Church does not set the... Papal Encyclical on the same footing as the Scripture. It must also be understood that the Bible contains a large number of seeming contradictions that must be understood in order to understand God and Creation, these works, then, are not different in this respect.

2)The loss of the infallible Spirit, which appears to have been with mankind, at least, since Moses and down unto Jesus time, would then be lost. I would claim that the Spirit was with us through Adam, Noah, Melchisedech (some claim this is Seth I believe), Abraham, David, and so forth, to Peter, and down through the Popes. Thus, "have I not been with you all this time?" bears a very prophetic tone as well.

Please, don't dismiss it because you don't like something a Pope called doctrine, but rather investigate to see whether it could be true.

 

[fated]

Infallibility, by the way, occurs only in rare circumstances, not in every word or action the Pope speaks or takes.

 

[sunlover1]

I see people bringing up this point...I just want to say that it's different with Jesus...we're not Him. He knows the whole truth and knows people's hearts, and He has the right to judge. We do not. He is allowed to point out the flaws in others, because He is perfect and is God. We do not.

But you seem to think what Jesus said was a bad thing.
Jesus loved those men, died for them, wanted to help not
only them, but those they were infecting with their disease, no?
Sometimes truth SOUNDS harsh. But it's still love.
We must speak truth if we love someone!!
If I see you walking towards a cults doors and I dont
argue it with you, what good am I to you? I can pray for you,
but as James said, what good is that without the works?
(wasnt speaking of catholicism)
So this has been a great study for me,
because Im normally not one to speak up,
lest I'm called a fanatic. Where's the boldness
in that attitude?


These passages have to do with teaching, doctrine,
turning from the truth etc.

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season;
reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine;
but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers,
having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth,
and shall be turned unto fables.
5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions,
do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry



12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said,
The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply,
that they may be sound in the faith;
14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men,
that turn from the truth.


20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels,
that thou observe these things without preferring one before another,
doing nothing by partiality.

15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. ​

rebuke ​

• Strong's Greek #1651
  1651 ἐλέγχω [elegcho /el·eng·kho/] v.
  1 to convict, refute, confute.
  1a generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted.
  1b by conviction to bring to the light, to expose.
  2 to find fault with, correct.
  2a by word.
  2a1 to reprehend severely, chide, admonish, reprove.
  2a2 to call to account, show one his fault, demand an explanation.
  2b by deed.
  2b1 to chasten, to punish.​

As with all things, we need to follow GOD's leading. He knows when and how and who is deceived.
But from what I see here on the boards, many of us
are deceived, or we'd speak the same language imo.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever.
 Amen.​

​

 

[TexasSky]

With all due respect, the catholic church makes no mistakes. They have the full truth, we have only part.
That's what bothers TJ (I'm guessing).
Must be he thinks they're deceived about it.



LOL, I cant help but to see the irony here.
CC says all Christians have to be under the pope.
TJ says that CC is unbiblical for saying such.
You say (below) 'TJ isnt following the Christ..
Pretty soon we can all have a finger pointing somewhere!
Yikes.


This one.


Love doesnt always sound pretty or lovely.
I've found that out the hard way.
Here is how Jesus said it..

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? ...

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anisec and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?


I'm not saying that Jesus was speaking to catholics,
He was speaking to the religious leaders of His day.
I'm just saying that IF TJ thinks this is how the CC operates,
then he IS acting in love.
(In his own manly testosteronesque way) jk.
God IS love, and we did read His words above.

Guess God isnt politically correct lol.
Truth reigns with Him.

Bless your heart for pulling for what you perceive to
be the attacked party.

IT's hard to remember sometimes that there are real live
human beings on the other side of the screen.
And you kindly reminded us of that.


Blessings,
sunlover

Again, you are spreading a lie if you spread the view that Catholics do not admit to errors.

Why do think there was such a controversy over Vatican II? It was the Catholic Church standing up in front of the entire world and saying, "We've made mistakes, lets correct them."

 

[TraderJack]

With all due respect, the catholic church makes no mistakes. They have the full truth, we have only part.
That's what bothers TJ (I'm guessing).
Must be he thinks they're deceived about it.

SL, it is much, much deeper than that.

In it's claims of "infallibility", Rome claims that when speaking "infallibly", either by the pope or magesterium, to be just as the Old Testament Prophets, by which they are pronouncing the very words of God, in fact that God the Holy Spirit is speaking directly through them.

That is quite a serious, bold and incredible claim.

It is so serious, that God gave us commands to actully test those who claim to be speaking for God as prophets, and the way to do so.

It is so serious that repeatedly, Jesus warned us of false prophets, as did the rest of the Apostles.

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Jesus tells us that false prophets come looking like "sheep", they disguise themselves to appear to be genuine. Paul says they disguise themselves as "angels of light".

God in the OT tells us that if a man presumes to speak for God, and what he speaks is contrary to what God has already proclaimed, that he is a false prophet, and to have nothing to do with them.

John exhorts us to expose them for what they are, which is what a good shepherd does to protect the sheep from being deceived and injured.

John exhorts, and commands to "test the spirits" because of false prophets who claim to be speaking for God as Rome does.

Yet when we test so many of the "infallible" dogmas of Rome, in which Rome declares it is God Himself speaking through them, they are found to be contrary to the Truth God has already spoken and are contrary to the teachings of the ECFs as well.

If this was not truly, very serious business, the OT prophets, Jesus and the Apostles would not have placed such a heavy emphasis on it.

So, when Rome claims that it is absolutely neccessary for salvation to be subject to the pope of Rome, claiming that it is actually God who is speaking through the pope, then the pope is speaking things God has never declared and is in fact contrary to and in opposition to God and the Gospel.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Again, you are spreading a lie if you spread the view that Catholics do not admit to errors.

Why do think there was such a controversy over Vatican II? It was the Catholic Church standing up in front of the entire world and saying, "We've made mistakes, lets correct them."

Ya think it might just be they started to actually read the Bible.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I think this peculiarity stems from the fact that many people see that Jesus was... I'm not sure how to say... ?reluctant? to judge any individual before His Apostles, and therefore, we hold out hope that Jesus won't sentence good (yes little "g" good) people who did not know any better to Hell.

I believe that there is hope for those who have never heard of Christ, because that is not their fault. I'm leaving this up to God, and I believe He is merciful. If someone does know the right information about Christ and rejects Him, even if they are a "good person", I think they would not be able to enter heaven..however, I do not want to make that judgement on any individual, because only God knows and He is the judge

God bless

monica

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Yes Monica, we know what Rome asserted to be "infallibility".

In essence, it claims that God the Holy Spirit is speaking directly through either the pope or the Roman magesterium when proclaiming dogma, as "Divinely revealed truth", just as God spoke through the prophets.

Since Rome claims to be speaking the very words of God, as did the Prophets, then the Biblical test for it must be applied.

So, when tested by Scripture and the early church fathers, it is conclusively proven out a great many of those so called "Divinely revealed truths" are in fact, contrary to God.

Do you have a specific example of one of these "divinely inspired truths" which are contradicted by Scripture? (by Scripture, not by Protestantism or your individual understanding of Scripture)

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Infallibility, by the way, occurs only in rare circumstances, not in every word or action the Pope speaks or takes.

I wish the critics remembered this more

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Again, you are spreading a lie if you spread the view that Catholics do not admit to errors.

Why do think there was such a controversy over Vatican II? It was the Catholic Church standing up in front of the entire world and saying, "We've made mistakes, lets correct them."

Exactly

Take a look at this everyone:

Apologies
Over the later parts of his reign, John Paul II made several apologies to various peoples that had been wronged by some members of the Catholic Church through the years. Even before he became the Pope, he was a prominent supporter of initiatives like the Letter of Reconciliation of the Polish Bishops to the German Bishops from 1965. During his reign as a Pope, he publicly made apologies for over 100 of these wrongdoings, including:

• The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).
• Catholics' involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).
• The Church Hierarchy's role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic).
• The injustices committed against women, the violation of women's rights and for the historical denigration of women (10 July 1995, in a letter to "every woman").
• Inactivity and silence of some Catholics during the Holocaust (16 March 1998).
• For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18 December 1999 in Prague). When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter "to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church's reformers, and acknowledged that "independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation's moral education." It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants.
• For the sins of some Catholics throughout the ages for violating "the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions". (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).
• For the sins of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204. (4 May 2001, to the Patriarch of Constantinople).

 

[TraderJack]

Again, you are spreading a lie if you spread the view that Catholics do not admit to errors.

Rome does not admit to errors in dogma, which is the context of this discussion.

Rather, what post Lumen Gentium and post Vatican II Rome does, is not to renounce what are clearly errors in dogma, but to redefine them so they can have it both ways, and to make it seem like they are admitting to an error when in fact they are not.

Since the dogmas of Lateran IV, Unam Sanctum, Trent and others are formal dogmas, thus are "infallible Divinely revealed truth", Rome cannot renounce them or else be admitting that Rome is not infallible as it claims.

So, Rome will never, ever, ever formally renounce Trent or:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

If Rome truly wants to admit that is an error, then let Rome do so in a formal manner, that will be an "infallible" vehicle, so it cannot come back later and say it was a speculation by a private theolgian as Rome claims so often when discoved in contradiction.

But Rome will never, ever, ever formally renounce those things, because in that renouncement will be admitting it is not "infallible".

Rome has painted itself into a corner it cannot escape from.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Take a look at this everyone:

Apologies
Over the later parts of his reign, John Paul II made several apologies to various peoples that had been wronged by some members of the Catholic Church

I accept his apologies.

 

[Thekla]

how much of our "rebukes" are the action of the Holy Spirit speaking in us versus our human passions being inflamed ?

 

[sunlover1]

Again, you are spreading a lie if you spread the view that Catholics do not admit to errors.

Actually, it was said in jest.
I'm not the one spreading that lie.

No denomination is error free,
and that includes catholicism.

 

[TraderJack]

Not in the modern sense of the popular usage of that word, same as with the word "worship" which y'all used to not be embarrassed about giving to Mary because of the dulia/latria nuancing of it that hasn't survived common sense vernacular.
However it is entirely true in any sense, that they were in protest of Rome's power lust.

I hate it when this happens:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Rick Otto again.

 

[TexasSky]

SL, it is much, much deeper than that.

In it's claims of "infallibility", Rome claims that when speaking "infallibly", either by the pope or magesterium, to be just as the Old Testament Prophets, by which they are pronouncing the very words of God, in fact that God the Holy Spirit is speaking directly through them.

That is quite a serious, bold and incredible claim.

It is so serious, that God gave us commands to actully test those who claim to be speaking for God as prophets, and the way to do so.

It is so serious that repeatedly, Jesus warned us of false prophets, as did the rest of the Apostles.



Jesus tells us that false prophets come looking like "sheep", they disguise themselves to appear to be genuine. Paul says they disguise themselves as "angels of light".

God in the OT tells us that if a man presumes to speak for God, and what he speaks is contrary to what God has already proclaimed, that he is a false prophet, and to have nothing to do with them.

John exhorts us to expose them for what they are, which is what a good shepherd does to protect the sheep from being deceived and injured.

John exhorts, and commands to "test the spirits" because of false prophets who claim to be speaking for God as Rome does.

Yet when we test so many of the "infallible" dogmas of Rome, in which Rome declares it is God Himself speaking through them, they are found to be contrary to the Truth God has already spoken and are contrary to the teachings of the ECFs as well.

If this was not truly, very serious business, the OT prophets, Jesus and the Apostles would not have placed such a heavy emphasis on it.

So, when Rome claims that it is absolutely neccessary for salvation to be subject to the pope of Rome, claiming that it is actually God who is speaking through the pope, then the pope is speaking things God has never declared and is in fact contrary to and in opposition to God and the Gospel.

16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?

Christ said the greatest commandment is to love God.
I don't know any Catholics that don't.

Christ said the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor.

Do the names Francis Bernardone, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu or Thomas Becket mean anything to you?

Are you familiar with Catholic Family Services? Catholic Chairites USA? Catholic Health and Human Services? St. Jude's Hospital?

Christ said people will come shouting that they preached in His name and He will turn them away saying He never knew them because when He was hungry, in prison, and sick, those people ignored His need. He said that others, who took care of the hungry, the sick, the poor, and the imprisoned, would sit on His right side in heaven.

Again - I am not saying that I agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches. If I did, I would just convert.

However, the fact is, the Catholics DO teach that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of the one true God, Jehovah. That all men have sinned, and need the forgiveness of God. That Christ is the way, the truth and the life. They teach obedience to God, and to Christ. They teach that the bible is God's holy word.

They do their best to ACT on God's holy word.

So, for you to list them with Muslims and Hindu's is the epitome of unChristian behavior.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Actually, it was said in jest.
I'm not the one spreading that lie.

No denomination is error free,
and that includes catholicism.

I would say that is a correct statement. All may hold part of the Truth but only the Scriptures hold all Truth.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sunlover1 again.

 

[TexasSky]

Rome does not admit to errors in dogma, which is the context of this discussion.

Rather, what post Lumen Gentium and post Vatican II Rome does, is not to renounce what are clearly errors in dogma, but to redefine them so they can have it both ways, and to make it seem like they are admitting to an error when in fact they are not.

Since the dogmas of Lateran IV, Unam Sanctum, Trent and others are formal dogmas, thus are "infallible Divinely revealed truth", Rome cannot renounce them or else be admitting that Rome is not infallible as it claims.

So, Rome will never, ever, ever formally renounce Trent or:

If Rome truly wants to admit that is an error, then let Rome do so in a formal manner, that will be an "infallible" vehicle, so it cannot come back later and say it was a speculation by a private theolgian as Rome claims so often when discoved in contradiction.

But Rome will never, ever, ever formally renounce those things, because in that renouncement will be admitting it is not "infallible".

Rome has painted itself into a corner it cannot escape from.

Trader Jack,

Vatican II ~was~ admitting to errors in Dogma.

If you do not understand that, then you either do not know ANYTHING about Vatican II or you don't understand the definition of dogma.

And you cannot possibly get more formal than Rome did at Vatican II. The very reason the Catholics CALLED Vatican II's council into place was to correct Catholic Doctorine. (Which IS what dogma means.)

It took a tremendous amount of courage and of faith to do that. To stand up and admit, "We've taught you things as if they were from God, and they were not." It took a tremendous amount of faith to say, "We have to correct church doctrine. We have to put God's word above tradition."

The council actually stated their purpose as "reviving the central role of Scripture in the tehological and devotional life of the church."

They risked the condemnation of the world when they refused to embrace, "religious freedom", and stood firm on "Christ is the ONLY way." They came out firm on the inerrancy of the bible.
They stated that the only inchangeable doctorine that should be embraced in the world was the bible.

Now, where would John Calvin disagree with any of that?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Trader Jack,

Vatican II ~was~ admitting to errors in Dogma.

If you do not understand that, then you either do not know ANYTHING about Vatican II or you don't understand the definition of dogma.

Hi. So why does the Roman Pope still try to proclaim himself Vicar of Christ to the world?