Vatican II not infallible??

http://www.island-of-freedom.com/RAHNER.HTM

Since everyone ignored my post, read it from his own lips.

PeterPaul said:

I think Aaron, there is a difference between attacking the "Church" and some of her members within her. That there was an agenda on the part of certain members of her, and some of those in charge of specific addresses from the Council has been well documented by their own mouths (no need go to a schismatic site, read what THEY have to say).

Read Bugnini (liturgy), read Rahner (the most influential theologian of the Council). Then tell me I'm on crack.

Click to expand...

So much for the Holy Spirt protection then.

Aaron-Aggie said:

So much for the Holy Spirt protection then.

Click to expand...

"I am a Catholic theologian who attempts an absolute loyalty to the magisterium of the Church to rethink Catholic teaching" -Karl Rahner

Toe: Taking for granted the Church’s teaching of the hierarchy of truth, are there some areas in which your own theology exercises its freedom to disagree with the opinions of Church authority?

Rahner: This is a difficult question. I can point to two areas. One has to do with the question of birth control. "On the one hand,… I am obliged to attach great importance to the position of the highest authority in the Catholic Church presented" in the birth control encyclical. "On the other hand, I also have the right and the duty not to consider such a position simply and absolutely the last word, but to give it more thought and eventually to reach my own personal position, assumed on my own responsibility." Without saying "that this is my solid, my clear, my unequivocal conviction," "I would rather think that the approval of certain forms of contraceptives "would not conflict with the essential Catholic conception of sexuality."


Toe: What do you think about the question of the ordination of women?

Rahner: "When the Vatican declaration against the ordination of women (even in the future) came out a few years back, I published an article saying that it failed to convince me. (Of course, it was not an infallible definition). Rome is digging in its heels, it seems to me, against the development that one ought to admit calmly might not be a bad thing."

Aaron-Aggie said:

So much for the Holy Spirt protection then.

Click to expand...

The Holy Spirit protects The Church, that is why the VII did not teach anything dogmatic and is not infallible. The Pope and other Church men and speak and write letters even if they go contrary to Church teaching, what they can't do is to teach those as infallible, that is where the Church is protected from error. What we must be careful is to not fall into those errors.

Also it is a well documented thing that 6 protestants were consulted for the elaboration of the new Mass as to make it more acceptable to them for the sake of eccumenism. The Church has never "negotiated" it's teachings with anyone in the pass and has rightly condemned those who stray away from them, why is it not so in this council?

geocajun said:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Click to expand...

You have negated, with this canon, your response to my post. Catholics are to follow the teachings of Vatican II. The College of Bishops, with the Pope as its head, came together to explore the foundation of the Church. It was pastoral in nature, not dogmatic. Its goal was to explore the roots of its underlying theology and to examine ways of moving forward as a fully alive institution during a time of great change.

It was the only council in the history of the Church to not expressly condemn or properly define a matter with the purpose of refuting some error. No dogmatic statements were necessary, nor made.

A dogma precedes infallibility. There were no dogmatic statements made from Vatican II, there was no act of infallibilty. Just because the College of Bishops hold an Ecumenical Council does not mean that it is de facto making dogmatic statements. However, if it did, they would be made infallibly. How is this possible? Because through the Vicar of Christ, as the head of the college, the Holy Spirit guides his tongue. Without the Pope, there can never be a dogma explicitly stated as such, infallibly. The Pope is the key, not the other bishops. Though sadly, the bishops would seem to believe they are the key in this instance. Rereading the canon, many seem to forget it is only when in union with Peter that the Divine direction exacting infallibility, is possible.

I am not a schismatic, though I do enjoy a Tridentine Liturgy now and again. That sight is clearly schismatic; however, there is truth in their words. Vatican II was not infallible.

Toe: What about clerical celibacy?

Rahner: "The obligation of the Church to provide sufficient clergy is of divine right and takes precedence over the ecclesiastically desirable law of celibacy. If, in practice, you cannot obtain a sufficient number of priests in a given cultural setting without relinquishing celibacy, then the Church must suspend the law of celibacy, at least there."

Wow, now sufficient clergy is a divine right above the disciplines of the Church.

Kahner was a pragmatist and believe God should be brought down to our needs, not the other way around. And this was his semi-motto “Our Lord must conform to the world, not it to Him.

I'm going to pick up his book, Unity of the Churches: an Actual Possibility, where he discusses that all the churches can come together under one umbrella, the Pope, but they can maintain autonomy in views post 4th century Christianity. This, IMO, is where some in our Church seek the ecumenical spirit to led.

You know sometimes, I myself have had serious misgivings and problems with things that I have studied in Vatican II, but I always remember one thing, Submission....

I am a Traditionalist, and No I do not agree with the many abuses that have taken place of this particular council. This does not mean though that, I forget that I am to be in submission.... It does not mean that I try to find ways to get around that submission....

And when I forget that I hope the Lord will always find ways to remind me that my submission should always be foremost, because in the end it is the only way to Him....

This constant compulsion to bring Vat II into contention lately, with all the threads that I have continually seen on it, is distressing to me. The fact that you have lay people trying to second guess what was meant in ecunemical councils is bothersome to me... Especially since we can see that sometimes our own Pastoral Leaders can abuse it and do not understand it when they do not have the proper knowledge about it. Do I know that we have to have some sort of knowledge so that we can be informed, so that if abuses do occur then we can see them and report them? Yes I know this... But I also know that even those that are abusing it have still been placed in their robes by the Lord, and because of this their position alone deserves our respect.

How many threads using different ways of approach are you all going to use to take shots at the Magesterium?

And before anyone thinks anything, I attend Tridentine Mass in a Marionite Rite Catholic Church. So, truly without question I am a Traditionalist, and I am about to switch my Rite from Western to Eastern within the Church itself.... I though still recognize that I sit under the authority of the Pope....

SpiritualGladiator said:

You have negated, with this canon, your response to my post. Catholics are to follow the teachings of Vatican II. The College of Bishops, with the Pope as its head, came together to explore the foundation of the Church. It was pastoral in nature, not dogmatic. Its goal was to explore the roots of its underlying theology and to examine ways of moving forward as a fully alive institution during a time of great change.

Click to expand...

wait a minute here, I haven't negated a darn thing. Slow down there partner
The point of my posting that was to show the catch 22 that either way, Vatican II is magisterial, thus must be adhered to with religious assent by anyone who calls themself catholic. This has to do with teachings which are not de fide dogma being asserted by the magisterium. As you said, Vatican II asserted no new dogmas, and this is true.
That does not preclude the council from being infallible, and I attempted to clarify that point to you above, showing that you are mixing dogmatic and infallible and building your case on that "sandy" premise which is incorrect.

A dogma precedes infallibility.

Click to expand...

No, it does not. As I said, I could read a dogma, however I would not be doing it infallibly.

There were no dogmatic statements made from Vatican II, there was no act of infallibilty.

Click to expand...

It being an ecumenical council is evidence that the charism of infallibility was present.

Just because the College of Bishops hold an Ecumenical Council does not mean that it is de facto making dogmatic statements.

Click to expand...

There you go again, mixing dogmatic and infallible as if they mean the same thing.

However, if it did, they would be made infallibly. How is this possible? Because through the Vicar of Christ, as the head of the college, the Holy Spirit guides his tongue. Without the Pope, there can never be a dogma explicitly stated as such, infallibly. The Pope is the key, not the other bishops. Though sadly, the bishops would seem to believe they are the key in this instance. Rereading the canon, many seem to forget it is only when in union with Peter that the Divine direction exacting infallibility, is possible

Click to expand...

When the Pope speaks infallibily, that is the extra-ordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium is the Bishops united with the Pope. I think you are taking an extreme position of Pope being the principle and instrumental cause of doctrine, and Bishops being decorative or ornamental and not much more.
In reality however, as I stated above, Bishops united with the Pope constitute the ordinary Magisterium, not the Pope by himself. That would be the extraordinary Magisterium.

geocajun said:

The point of my posting that was to show the catch 22 that either way, Vatican II is magisterial, thus must be adhered to with religious assent by anyone who calls themself catholic.

Click to expand...

Religious assent yes, but within the generously broad limits as described by Rahner, expressly because there were no dogmas pronounced. There is a reason the clergy have so many problems understanding Vatican II, it was so wishy washy in so many ways, instead of explicitly stating facts in many places, left meanings wide open,in order for great interpretations to be made for, presumably the betterment of the understanding of what Church means for the 3rd millenium.

This has to do with teachings which are not de fide dogma being asserted by the magisterium. As you said, Vatican II asserted no new dogmas, and this is true.

Click to expand...

Glad we agree.

That does not preclude the council from being infallible, and I attempted to clarify that point to you above, showing that you are mixing dogmatic and infallible and building your case on that "sandy" premise which is incorrect.

Click to expand...

My statement is correct when the word infallible is used in conjunction with the Church. If the Church is infallible on a given subject, that subject is dogmatic, necessary for our salvation. Otherwise, the infallibility, i.e. without error would contradict the option of dissent with the statement while retaining the means of salvation.

There ARE errors within the documents, and thus by definition, the "charism" of infallibility as you put it could not have existed, or if it did exist in principle, was not exacted once the documents were promulgated.

No, it does not. As I said, I could read a dogma, however I would not be doing it infallibly.

Click to expand...

Sure but I never stated you had the power of infallibilty. One does not exclude the other. A dogma is necessary for the power of infallibility to be used else sine qua non.

It being an ecumenical council is evidence that the charism of infallibility was present.

Click to expand...

Really? The council never stated this, and again, simply because a council is convened does not mean it is automatically acting infallibly. You confuse the two. A is sometimes necessary for B, but A does not automatically mean B.

There you go again, mixing dogmatic and infallible as if they mean the same thing.

Click to expand...

Not in the least, I realize the difference, it seems you don't realize that an Ecumenical Council can be convened and act without acting infallibly.

When the Pope speaks infallibily, that is the extra-ordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium is the Bishops united with the Pope.

Click to expand...

Sure I never stated anything to the opposite.

I think you are taking an extreme position of Pope being the principle and instrumental cause of doctrine, and Bishops being decorative or ornamental and not much more.
In reality however, as I stated above, Bishops united with the Pope constitute the ordinary Magisterium, not the Pope by himself. That would be the extraordinary Magisterium.

Click to expand...

I do not have an extreme position, my point was to note that the Pope is always essential and without which, there is no infallibility. The point was to draw a line between the Pope himself and the Holy Spirit acting through the Vicar of Christ first, in unison with the Body (i.e., the bishops). However, just because the complete Body (bishops + pope) act, does not mean they act infallibly. This has been discussed extensively in the literature.

Edit: After rereading my posts, I should have qualified my remarks with an explanation of the differences between the levels of dogmas, since of course, Dei Verbum for example, is entitled a dogmatic constitution on Divine Revelation. I will do so at a later time.

St. Robert Bellarmine abandonded his quest for understanding through science rather than be led astray. I, personally, am of the camp that there are great minds at work in the Church and that I will not delve too deeply so as not to be led astray. If it is not immoral, I will obey. If I am unsure- I will ask my spiritual director and obey him....

SpiritualGladiator said:

Religious assent yes, but within the generously broad limits as described by Rahner

Click to expand...

When someone uses Rahner to support their opinion, it gives me pause.

My statement is correct when the word infallible is used in conjunction with the Church. If the Church is infallible on a given subject, that subject is dogmatic, necessary for our salvation.

Click to expand...

Not nessecarily, for example, the Council of Trent was infallible, however only the canons issued had anathemas attached to them, yet the entire council was protected from error or misleading the faithful by infallibility, even when not asserting dogma. This is the case with Vatican II - Protected from error or misleading the faithful, while not asserting dogmas.

Otherwise, the infallibility, i.e. without error would contradict the option of dissent with the statement while retaining the means of salvation.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean by this so I won't touch it.

There ARE errors within the documents, and thus by definition, the "charism" of infallibility as you put it could not have existed, or if it did exist in principle, was not exacted once the documents were promulgated.

Click to expand...

doctrinal errors? cite.

Sure but I never stated you had the power of infallibilty. One does not exclude the other. A dogma is necessary for the power of infallibility to be used else sine qua non.

Click to expand...

I believe I addressed this above. Not every word of an infallible council is dogmatic, for example Trent is 300 pages of doctrine of which only a smart part of it is dogma. It would have been an infallible council even if there was no dogmas defined at all in fact.

Really? The council never stated this, and again, simply because a council is convened does not mean it is automatically acting infallibly. You confuse the two. A is sometimes necessary for B, but A does not automatically mean B.

Click to expand...

of course it didn't... can you find one council which did state that it is infallible? I go no further than the CCC does, when stating that infallibility is present in ecumenical councils, and I think you know that.

Not in the least, I realize the difference, it seems you don't realize that an Ecumenical Council can be convened and act without acting infallibly.

Click to expand...

all you have to do is show me something from the Church stating that, and I'll believe it.

I do not have an extreme position, my point was to note that the Pope is always essential and without which, there is no infallibility. The point was to draw a line between the Pope himself and the Holy Spirit acting through the Vicar of Christ first, in unison with the Body (i.e., the bishops). However, just because the complete Body (bishops + pope) act, does not mean they act infallibly. This has been discussed extensively in the literature.

Click to expand...

yes, this is true, and that is where the requirement of religious assent comes in on the part of the faithful.

I am interested in seeing a quote from the Magisterium, showing that ecumenical councils are not nessecarily gifted with the charism of infallibility.

ShannonMcMorland said:

St. Robert Bellarmine abandonded his quest for understanding through science rather than be led astray. I, personally, am of the camp that there are great minds at work in the Church and that I will not delve too deeply so as not to be led astray. If it is not immoral, I will obey. If I am unsure- I will ask my spiritual director and obey him....

Click to expand...

That is always sound advice Shannon.
There is an old saying "if you wish to sail smoothly on the barque of Peter, its best to stay out of the engine room."

debiwebi said:

You know sometimes, I myself have had serious misgivings and problems with things that I have studied in Vatican II, but I always remember one thing, Submission....

I am a Traditionalist, and No I do not agree with the many abuses that have taken place of this particular council. This does not mean though that, I forget that I am to be in submission.... It does not mean that I try to find ways to get around that submission....

And when I forget that I hope the Lord will always find ways to remind me that my submission should always be foremost, because in the end it is the only way to Him....

This constant compulsion to bring Vat II into contention lately, with all the threads that I have continually seen on it, is distressing to me. The fact that you have lay people trying to second guess what was meant in ecunemical councils is bothersome to me... Especially since we can see that sometimes our own Pastoral Leaders can abuse it and do not understand it when they do not have the proper knowledge about it. Do I know that we have to have some sort of knowledge so that we can be informed, so that if abuses do occur then we can see them and report them? Yes I know this... But I also know that even those that are abusing it have still been placed in their robes by the Lord, and because of this their position alone deserves our respect.

How many threads using different ways of approach are you all going to use to take shots at the Magesterium?

And before anyone thinks anything, I attend Tridentine Mass in a Marionite Rite Catholic Church. So, truly without question I am a Traditionalist, and I am about to switch my Rite from Western to Eastern within the Church itself.... I though still recognize that I sit under the authority of the Pope....

Click to expand...

I understand what you mean Debi.

Its hard however to submit, not to the Magisterium or the Pope, but to the undercurrent which made those documents ambigious.

Lately, and I know I'm going to be swiped for this, I'm been thinking about another subject, possibly related.

I have read over the years two sides to a quasi-parallel issue. This issue is the Constitution and the governance of Law in the States. One side says religion and beliefs were never absolute nor even close to endorsement of religion. The other says it was always Christian, yet was twisted to be used against. They claim the Founding Fathers never intended for what we are surrounded with (Locke is often grabbed by both conservatives and progressives) today, such as 'spirits of the law'.

After some research, I'm slowly coming to the realisation that the conservatives are wrong. The Fathers had no intention of protecting religion, as much as they truly wanted to protect the State, and to defend religion only when individualised, not institutionalised (one of the reasons some of them were Anti-Catholic, as we submit to a Magisterium). They held, as Locke did, that tolerance was above all because it served the State and as long as it did not usurp the State.

Along similar lines, I started to ask myself if there were really Catholics who used the 'spirit of Vatican II' for their own ends, or if the documents themselves were not ambigious, and if so, why? Were they purposely ambigious ? Did they lean towards one end of the spectrum and conservatives read them as ambigious, only to be misappropriated by progressives?

So, a little digging into who and what were a part of the Council explains it all. No one should go to a schismatic site for their information as a groundwork for any critique of Vatican II. What they should do is read the Council from the progressive angle. Read it from their own lips, if anyone is interested. Then read what the 'conservative' complaint is. Amazingly, they are one and the same. The complaint matches the intent. Wow.

geocajun said:

That is always sound advice Shannon.
There is an old saying "if you wish to sail smoothly on the barque of Peter, its best to stay out of the engine room."

Click to expand...

I just think this whole thing can be such a disrtraction from being holy- I am not saying that no one should ever question anything- but more that I am not the one who ought to do so!

(PS geo- how's baby and momma?? I still have your package waiting out the Foley Flu Plague to be mailed- I'm so lame!)

ShannonMcMorland said:

I just think this whole thing can be such a disrtraction from being holy- I am not saying that no one should ever question anything- but more that I am not the one who ought to do so!

Click to expand...

I can say from my own experience that what you say is true.

(PS geo- how's baby and momma?? I still have your package waiting out the Foley Flu Plague to be mailed- I'm so lame!)

Click to expand...

Mom and Baby are good. at her 2 week checkup, Camille has already gained 1 pound, and grown 2 inches in length!
I go back to work on Monday so so I hope mom holds up well next week.

Oh, and thanks for not mailing the flu to me!

PeterPaul said:

I understand what you mean Debi.

Its hard however to submit, not to the Magisterium or the Pope, but to the undercurrent which made those documents ambigious.

Lately, and I know I'm going to be swiped for this, I'm been thinking about another subject, possibly related.

I have read over the years two sides to a quasi-parallel issue. This issue is the Constitution and the governance of Law in the States. One side says religion and beliefs were never absolute nor even close to endorsement of religion. The other says it was always Christian, yet was twisted to be used against. They claim the Founding Fathers never intended for what we are surrounded with (Locke is often grabbed by both conservatives and progressives) today, such as 'spirits of the law'.

After some research, I'm slowly coming to the realisation that the conservatives are wrong. The Fathers had no intention of protecting religion, as much as they truly wanted to protect the State, and to defend religion only when individualised, not institutionalised (one of the reasons some of them were Anti-Catholic, as we submit to a Magisterium). They held, as Locke did, that tolerance was above all because it served the State and as long as it did not usurp the State.

Along similar lines, I started to ask myself if there were really Catholics who used the 'spirit of Vatican II' for their own ends, or if the documents themselves were not ambigious, and if so, why? Were they purposely ambigious ? Did they lean towards one end of the spectrum and conservatives read them as ambigious, only to be misappropriated by progressives?

So, a little digging into who and what were a part of the Council explains it all. No one should go to a schismatic site for their information as a groundwork for any critique of Vatican II. What they should do is read the Council from the progressive angle. Read it from their own lips, if anyone is interested. Then read what the 'conservative' complaint is. Amazingly, they are one and the same. The complaint matches the intent. Wow.

Click to expand...

PP, The comparison is faulty because God never promised that a secular government would be Infallible, but He did promise that the Church would be and that the Gates of Hell would never Prevail against the Church. Reguardless, of the of the ambiguities that may appear in the Documents of the Vat II, nothing goes against the teachings of the Church. The Holy Spirit protected the Church and protected that Council. And reguardless, of elements of that Council that wanted to change the Doctrines of the Church they were unable to do so, because of the Holy Spirit's protection....

All we have to do is go back to the Council of Nicea that was overrun by Arians but they did not succeed either because the Holy Spirit prevailed and so did the Church because of this... If one thinks or believes because of the ambiguities of VatII can lead the Church into changing it's Doctrines and teachings in the future, then they are saying that Christ's promise is null and void and that the Gates of Hell will prevail against the Church...

So, therefore it does not matter how someone uses it, if they are abusing it, or if there are ambiguities, because we have Christ's promise that the Gates of Hell will not Prevail against the Church....

karenmarie said:

Just to clarify. I am the one that started this thread and my intention was not to take shots at the magisterium. I am a person who grew up Catholic and then left the Catholic church at age 20 because of a "born again" experience which led me to 12 years in Protestant churches. I have only recently come back to the Catholic church. this is my first time in the church as an ADULT and I am trying to learn things that i dont understand. If we are confused about something i think we need to question it. I posted this article because i didnt understand it. I dont understand alot about Vatican II or the traditionalist vs. the modernist and all that stuff. This thread has been informative to me. I have a long way to go in understanding things from a Catholic Perspective because i still have alot of "protestant thoughts" brewing inside me. So i am trying to learn. I am honestly seeking answers. Just wanted to point that out that i am not some "traditionalist trying to take pot shots at the magesterium. Rather, i am somewhat of an ignorant Catholic..trying to become informed. So when i run across something strange or odd or that i dont understand i come here seeking answers. Please be gentle. thanks.
karen

Click to expand...

Karen maybe I should have been more careful to clarify myself....

I meant, threads being used, not that you started the thread with that direct intent....But that for the most part it will side track to that...

BTW, that post was gentle for me, you can ask anyone here....I can be very forthright when I want to be.... I do not believe in mincing my words...

debiwebi said:

PP, The comparison is faulty because God never promised that a secular government would be Infallible, but He did promise that the Church would be and that the Gates of Hell would never Prevail against the Church. Reguardless, of the of the ambiguities that may appear in the Documents of the Vat II, nothing goes against the teachings of the Church. The Holy Spirit protected the Church and protected that Council. And reguardless, of elements of that Council that wanted to change the Doctrines of the Church they were unable to do so, because of the Holy Spirit's protection....

Click to expand...

I see you missed my point completely. That's on the first part.

On your second, the proof is in the pudding. The concepts were there beforehand, not twisted after.

DebiWebi said:

All we have to do is go back to the Council of Nicea that was overrun by Arians but they did not succeed either because the Holy Spirit prevailed and so did the Church because of this... If one thinks or believes because of the ambiguities of VatII can lead the Church into changing it's Doctrines and teachings in the future, then they are saying that Christ's promise is null and void and that the Gates of Hell will prevail against the Church...

So, therefore it does not matter how someone uses it, if they are abusing it, or if there are ambiguities, because we have Christ's promise that the Gates of Hell will not Prevail against the Church....

Click to expand...

Prevailing and succeeding for a time are not the same thing Debi.

I can succeed in making the Mass less reverant, but not prevail to having a lifelong effect. Entering and commanding are not the same thing.

It doesn't matter how someone uses the Church, whether they are abusing her or if she makes ambigious statements? Yeah, that is what most Catholics have thought for the past forty years. A complete success for the formation of Catholics, I must say.

Again, prevailing and temporal success are not the same.

debiwebi said:

PP, The comparison is faulty because God never promised that a secular government would be Infallible, but He did promise that the Church would be and that the Gates of Hell would never Prevail against the Church. Reguardless, of the of the ambiguities that may appear in the Documents of the Vat II, nothing goes against the teachings of the Church. The Holy Spirit protected the Church and protected that Council. And reguardless, of elements of that Council that wanted to change the Doctrines of the Church they were unable to do so, because of the Holy Spirit's protection..

Click to expand...

Like it was already noted by PeterPaul, the fact that there can be confusion like for example with the VII documents does not meant that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church. If the Vatican II were infallible then it would in fact be the case.

The VII did put fort things that go contrary to several dogmas of the church. Eccumenism(for example) while an honorable thing(and one I support) should not be persued at the expense of Church doctrines like it is being done with the NO Mass today. Which as should be noted undermines and betrays the dogma of the real presence.

Another one is the dogma, that has been repeated and stated many times across the history of the Church is that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, the "invisible church" to which even Hindus can belong is a novelty and it contradicts an infallible dogma.

The same goes for the necesity of baptism for salvation, another infallible dogma. Now the talk about "baptism of desire" which assumes many things and undermines it.

The thing is not that one is taking shots at the magisterium or attacking the Church, it is about keeping our foot in the ground and not falling into the line of thinking of "the pope says so, so it is right".. There is a reason why we keep track of the councils and the dogmas of the Church. Future revelation cannot contradict previous revelation.

I think that in here the words of Jesus apply: "For many will come in my name, saying,' I am he!' and will lead many astray."