Skip to main content

Bill Gray said:

Let's look at the record of just these two books: 11 laymen convert to Roman Catholicism - versus - 50 Roman Catholic PRIESTS convert from Roman Catholicism to the Protestant faith. David, that seems to me like putting a feather weight boxer in the ring with a heavy weight champ.



Bill,

You keep some kind of count?

What kind of stupid sick game is that?

Foolish...

You may know some Bible quotes, but your delivery is graceless, insensible, and benighted. You'll never when over anyone...

Is that why you blog has only 1 follower?

Remember,
A tree is known by it's fruit.
What do you bear?

consider this warning Paul gave: "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22)

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by House of David:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Let's look at the record of just these two books: 11 laymen convert to Roman Catholicism - versus - 50 Roman Catholic PRIESTS convert from Roman Catholicism to the Protestant faith. David, that seems to me like putting a feather weight boxer in the ring with a heavy weight champ.

Bill, You keep some kind of count? What kind of stupid sick game is that? Foolish...

Hi David,

No, you brought up your hero, Scott Hahn, with no source references. So, I offered for you the book I have in my library which has a forward by Scott Hahn. That book includes the testimony of 11 laymen who converted to Roman Catholicism.

And, in comparison to that book blessed by Scott Hahn -- I offered the book "Far From Rome, Near To God" which includes the personal testimony of 50 Roman Catholic PRIESTS who converted from Roman Catholicism.

Keeping a number count? No. Just telling you what these two books contain. If you have more sources; please share them with us.

One thing I have noticed on the Religion Forum we have now -- those who stand up to defend the Roman Catholic faith -- offer no valid Biblical support. All you do is start slinging insults.

If we can get past the insult slinging and start talking valid Biblical points -- we will have much more productive discussions.

How about we get past the "spitting contest" and get into serious, civil discussions of our faith.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
Bill,

you said, " 11 laymen convert to Roman Catholicism - versus - 50 Roman Catholic PRIESTS convert from Roman Catholicism to the Protestant faith. David, that seems to me like putting a feather weight boxer in the ring with a heavy weight champ."

That's not "just telling me about two books"
you're obviously trying to rub it in.

why do you reshape and and avoid....?

and you still haven't answered my question.

Do you, Bill Gray think and/or believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a cult?

Can't do it can ya? Can't answer it....
Where's that needed to turn me now???? HHmmmm??
HOD,

You are new here. I like your post and enjoy reading your thoughts and opinions, so I am going to give you some advice.

Forget about Bill, he is a nutcase fundie that gets off on the drama of stirring the religion pot.

I usually only respond to one of his none sense post when I am bored and want to have a little fun. He is useless otherwise.

Believe how you want and in what makes you happy. Enjoy the other great folks here at the TD forum. Leave Bill to enjoy his sick games without dragging you into it. Its not worth worrying about. I promise. Smiler
quote:
Let's look at the record of just these two books: 11 laymen convert to Roman Catholicism - versus - 50 Roman Catholic PRIESTS convert from Roman Catholicism to the Protestant faith. David, that seems to me like putting a feather weight boxer in the ring with a heavy weight champ



Bill, you say you want to get past the spitting contest. This quote of yours IS spitting. If you want to stop spitting at/with Roman Catholics, instead of making comparisons to boxers, you should stick with what you say about ANY person who has accepted Jesus, regardless of what church they attend, being saved.

You keep saying that a lot of what Roman Catholics do is not Biblical, yet yesterday we had a nice talk about Christmas. Celebrating Christmas is not Biblical either, but we agreed that ANY time we honor and celebrate God, it is a good thing.

Roman Catholics honor and celebrate God in a different way from the way you do, but I know that God appreciates ALL forms of worship, RC, Baptist, Methodist, or even from folks with no church at all, as long as it is sincere.
quote:
Originally posted by House of David:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Next, you mention Dr. Scott Hahn as a convert to Roman Catholicism. True, there have been notable conversions in that direction. However, let me suggest reading material for you, or anyone interested. I have two books in my library which tells of conversions.

The first is "Far From Rome, Near To God" edited by Richard Bennett and Martin Buckingham -- which is a book containing the personal testimonies of 50 Roman Catholic PRIESTS who left Roman Catholicism to become Protestants ministers and evangelists.

In the pre-publication manuscript which I was given about 20 years ago, there are 55 PRIESTS who converted. But, for whatever reason the publisher, when the final book was published in 1994, included only 50 testimonies. Possibly this was to keep the final book from being too bulky. But, these are powerful testimonies, from men such as Dr. Anthony Pezzotta, who left the priesthood of Roman Catholicism to become ministers and evangelists of God in Protestant churches.

The second book I have is "Surprised By Truth" by Patrick Madrid -- also published in 1994, and with a forward by Scott Hahn -- and it includes only 11 testimonies of conversion. And, most of these testimonies of conversion are from men who were not clergy, only laymen.

Let's look at the record of just these two books: 11 laymen convert to Roman Catholicism - versus - 50 Roman Catholic PRIESTS convert from Roman Catholicism to the Protestant faith. David, that seems to me like putting a feather weight boxer in the ring with a heavy weight champ.

That's not "just telling me about two books" you're obviously trying to rub it in. why do you reshape and and avoid....? and you still haven't answered my question. Do you, Bill Gray think and/or believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a cult? Can't do it can ya? Can't answer it.... Where's that needed to turn me now???? HHmmmm??

Hi David,

Since you have no Biblical support for your Roman Catholic doctrines -- you throw up a smoke screen in an attempt to hide that fact.

So, okay, let's put your "smoke screen" questions to rest: NO, I never said the Roman Catholic church is a cult church. NO, I do not believe the Roman Catholic church is a cult. I believe a person is saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ -- plus nothing else. And that includes the church he attends.

Your church cannot save you! Only Jesus Christ can save you! So, if you have Jesus Christ in your heart -- regardless of the name on your church -- you are saved. If you do not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ -- you are not saved. Simple as that.

Yet, I DO believe that many of your Roman Catholic doctrines are NOT Biblical. And, since I believe all theologies must be based upon the Bible -- I can never worship in a Roman Catholic church. I will attend a Roman Catholic church for a funeral or a wedding. And, about twelve years ago, I did go to a morning mass with a good friend. We were on a business trip together and this was a high mass for him -- so, I accompanied him. Then, we went to breakfast and on to our business meetings.

Second question: Why did I bring up the two books? Was I trying to, as you say, "rub it in"? No. In your previous post you proudly told me of Dr. Scott Hahn who had converted to Roman Catholicism. And, since the book I have, "Surprised By Truth" by Patrick Madrid, has a forward written by Hahn -- I compared the two books.

Yes, many more priests, 50, who are intimately knowledgeable of Roman Catholicism left that church. And, in the Hahn blessed book -- there were only 11 not that knowledgeable laymen who converted to Roman Catholicism. Not bragging; not rubbing anything in -- just stating facts based upon YOUR introduction of Scott Hahn into our discussion.

Just as in a criminal court case -- when the prosecuting attorney introduces evidence into the record -- the defense attorney has the right to discuss that evidence. You introduced Hahn -- and I took that to the logical conclusion.

Now, let's get back to discussing Biblical doctrines.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SOLA_Outline
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
quote:
Let's look at the record of just these two books: 11 laymen convert to Roman Catholicism - versus - 50 Roman Catholic PRIESTS convert from Roman Catholicism to the Protestant faith. David, that seems to me like putting a feather weight boxer in the ring with a heavy weight champ

Bill, you say you want to get past the spitting contest. This quote of yours IS spitting. If you want to stop spitting at/with Roman Catholics, instead of making comparisons to boxers, you should stick with what you say about ANY person who has accepted Jesus, regardless of what church they attend, being saved.

You keep saying that a lot of what Roman Catholics do is not Biblical, yet yesterday we had a nice talk about Christmas. Celebrating Christmas is not Biblical either, but we agreed that ANY time we honor and celebrate God, it is a good thing.

Roman Catholics honor and celebrate God in a different way from the way you do, but I know that God appreciates ALL forms of worship, RC, Baptist, Methodist, or even from folks with no church at all, as long as it is sincere.

Hi O,

If you will read my previous post, I have fully explained that statement. As you will see, I was only responding to what David had written -- filling in facts that he had claimed but had not supported.

Yes, we did have a good discussion of our Christmas celebration -- which as we agreed then is not a Christian doctrine. Instead, it is a Christian practice which we do to honor our Lord -- but, our salvation is not based upon how we view Christmas. So, if a person is saved, he/she is saved. Celebrating Christmas, or not celebrating it, does not affect that salvation.

You tell me, "Roman Catholics honor and celebrate God in a different way from the way you do, but I know that God appreciates ALL forms of worship, RC, Baptist, Methodist, or even from folks with no church at all, as long as it is sincere."

That is true. However, the 14 Roman Catholic doctrines I listed in my previous post are not Biblical. And, the danger they present is that believing them possibly could keep a new Christian or a new seeker from having a true, saving, personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Just to review:

1. The infallibility of the Pope and Bishops. Only Jesus Christ is infallible.

2. That Mary is the Mother of God. God has no mother.

3. That Mary is Queen of Heaven. Heaven has no queen. What you will find in heaven will be God, i.e., the Trinity; the angels; and all the saints who have died. I like the way J. Vernon McGee said it last night in his Through The Bible broadcast, "There are the "saints" and the "aints." The pretty clearly defines all mankind.

4. The Eucharist -- that the unleavened wafer and juice become the actual human flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. There was even an article I posted a few weeks ago showing a bishop standing before a nun -- and the nun had raw meat in her mouth. They were claiming this was part of the human body of Jesus Christ. And, for the sake of convenience -- knowing this miracle was going to happen -- they just happen to have the cameras ready.

5. Purgatory, a holding cell for all who die. When we die, believers go directly into heaven and none believers go directly to Hades/Torment.

6. Roman Catholic Traditions have higher authority than the Bible. Any time there is a dispute over doctrine -- their Traditions always trump the Bible.

7. Infant baptism. In the Bible we see only Adult Baptism; not one single instance of Infant Baptism.

8. Church appointed Saints. The Bible tells us that all Christian believers are saints. And, J. Vernon McGee tells us all non-believers are "aints."

9. Mary was born without sin. The Bible tells us that ONLY Jesus Christ was born without sin; the rest of mankind, including Mary, was born with a sin nature.

10. Mary was taken into heaven without dying. You will not find that ANYWHERE in the Bible. Elijah and Enoch, yes! Mary, no!

11. Confessing to a priest. The Bible tells us that the ONLY mediator between God and man is the Man, Jesus Christ.

12. The Rosary -- 80% of their prayers are to Mary and not to God the Father or Jesus Christ. So, Mary trumps God and Jesus Christ.

13. The Roman Catholic church is a "works oriented" church -- believing one must work his way into heaven. Yet, no one can tell us how MUCH works one must do to gain entrance into heaven.

14. No Sense of Eternal Security: Not even the Pope can say that he believes he is saved and will go to heaven. Even the Pope will have to wait until he dies to know if he earned enough points to get into heaven. That most certainly is not Biblical.

There are many things our Roman Catholic Friends and I can enjoyably discuss. But, when they insist upon posting these doctrines which are not Biblical -- I will refute them; just as I will refute the non-Biblical teachings of our atheist Friends. And, no, I am not saying that Roman Catholics are atheists. I am saying that when anyone posts a false teaching, i.e., one which is not Biblical -- I will refute it.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SOLA_Outline-1a
quote:
Originally posted by House of David:
I've already told you Bishops are (sic) infalable (sic). Why do you keep saying that.

Mother of God is a symbolic title. Know one honestly beileves (sic- Mary gave birth to God.... Your a spin doctor.

Hi David,

From Roman Catholic web site: Catholic Answers
http://www.catholic.com/librar...al_Infallibility.asp

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly.

From the web site: Catholic Answers
http://www.catholic.com/librar...ry_Mother_of_God.asp

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God:

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SOLA_Outline-1a
quote:
Originally posted by House of David:
The Bishops are not infallible, they are reading infallible doctrine.

Hi David,

Go back and read my post: they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly.

This says that they can PROCLAIM! Proclaim to me means speaking, i.e., when they speak -- they are infallible. And, after all, the pope is really only a bishop also -- and, isn't he infallible?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SOLA_Outline-1a
Pope is not a bishop, even though he's called the Bishop of Rome.

Only cardinals can be elected Pope.

Bishops reading/speaking aloud infallible doctrine, does not mean they are sinless or incapable of sin.

Bill if you don't agree with this, that's fine, you don't have to be a catholic. I am NOT willing to convert to other denomination.
Here's an extensive explanation;

Papal Infallibility



Misconceptions?

Non-Catholics often confuse the pope’s gift of ‘infallibility’ with ‘impeccability’. They think the Catholic Church is claiming her Popes are sinless or that the Pope is claiming inspiration from God for every pronouncement he makes. This is not the case. In fact, infallibility is attached to his office, not his person. It is a protective gift, not a creative one introducing new revelation. Peter Kreeft observes that the Church should not be mistaken for a political body because it is an organic body and no organic body can be a democracy. It must have a head. Christ gave the Church a head.

What is the gift of infallibility?

The dogma of infallibility was formally proclaimed at the First Vatican Council in 1870. There are several requirements for a dogmatic, papal infallible pronouncement: (1) The pronouncement must be made by the lawful successor to Peter. (2) The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. (3) The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the very seat and office of Peter. In this way he must be specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine, binding the entire Church to its assent. If one or more of these elements is missing, there is no infallible pronouncement. Most "examples" of papal "errors" emerge when critics ignore the necessity of these three points. (Madrid, pp. 135-136, Pope Fiction)

Biblical Basis and Tradition

The infallibility of the pope is certainly a doctrine that has been more clearly understood over time, but is not one that was invented in 1870. It is clear in Scripture that Christ promised the protection of the Holy Spirit, saying, "I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete—to be with you always; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, since it neither sees him nor recognizes him because he remains with you and will be within you . . . . the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send will remind you of all that I have told you" (John 14: 16-17, 26). "When the Spirit of truth comes He will guide you to all truth . . ." (John 16:14). Peter shares the gift of infallibility (a negative gift in the sense it keeps him from teaching error on matters of faith and morals) with the other apostles and their successors, the bishops. The "pope" (an Italian word meaning "father") and the bishops together are the magisterium of the Church, that is, the teaching authority. As Jesus said, "He who listens to you, listens to me" (Luke 10:16); "all that you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Mt. 18:18). When bishops of the world meet together summoned by the papacy, they meet in ecumenical council, which if held at the Vatican is referred to as a Vatican council. They are usually called infrequently only at times of pivotal or critical moments in the life of the Church. The Council of Jerusalem about 50 A.D. discussed in Acts15 was a precursor of later councils. After that Council made its decision to not require Gentile Christians to be circumcised as desired by the Judaizers, it wrote to the Church that " . .it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden . . ." The first formal ecumenical council was that of Nicaea in 325 A.D., which condemned the Arian heresy and declared that Christ was consubstantial with the Father. The Nestorian and Pelagian heresies were condemned at Ephesus in 431 A.D. and Mary was formally given the title "Mother of God." Thus Councils are called to decide matters of doctrine and discipline for the whole Church. It was St. Paul who described the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth" in 1 Timothy 3:15. The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution of the Church puts it this way: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively."

Authority in Virtue of the Office

Infallibility belongs to the Pope in a special way since Christ gave him primacy (Mt. 16:17-10 "you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death [gates of hell] shall not prevail against it.") Only Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (see Isaiah 22) and only Peter is declared the rock (see Jn 1:42 where the Aramaic term Cephas or rock is given to him by Jesus). This primacy is seen in John 21: 15-17, where Jesus instructs Peter as chief shepherd of the flock, his Church, to"feed my lambs…tend my sheep." [Note: The Greek word for "tend," poimanao, means "to rule." The same Greek word is used in Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, 12:5, and 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus himself.] Together with the apostles he enjoys the power to "bind and loose" on earth and in heaven. Vatican II puts it this way: " [Infallibility] is something he enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith. (Luke 22:32 "…but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

Doctrinal Understanding over Time

The doctrine is one that developed as the Church got a clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the bishops and the primacy of the Pope. St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage writing about 256 A.D. said, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" Augustine reflected this same Tradition when he said at , "Rome has spoken; the cause is concluded." In 433 A.D. Pope Sixtus III declared that assenting to the Bishop of Rome’s decision on matters of faith and morals was as assent to Peter, "who lives in his successors and whose faith does not fail." Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, the famous radio priests of the 1930’s, declared that: "Before the definition of infallibility in 1870, the Popes did not know they were infallible with the same full certainty of faith as that possessed by later Popes. But they were infallible in fact. The gift of papal infallibility was essential to the Church, not the definition of the gift. You wonder why was it defined only in 1870. But definitions are not given unnecessarily. If no discussion arises on a given point, and no one disputes it, there is no need for a definition. But in the seventeenth century the question of the Pope’s doctrinal authority came more and more to the front, until in 1870, the Vatican Council was asked to settle this question once and for all. The time had come for the Church to know herself fully on this point" (Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies 3: 95).

Infallible papal pronouncements are few because they could not be made without merely endorsing earlier infallible pronouncements from other sources, namely ecumenical councils or the unanimous teaching of the Early Church Fathers. An example of this would be Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. This encyclical on human life does not meet the strict requirements for an infallible pronouncement, but it nonetheless teaches infallible truths because they can be enunciated in a document that is not itself infallible.

Testimony of the Early Church Fathers

Although the two radio priests stated that the early Popes did not know they were infallible with the same certainty of faith as later Popes, some might believe, that the popes, as well as others, did understand their own authority in the Church. The following passages are a testimony to this:

Pope Clement I: "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us [that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…" (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).

As men received clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the church and the primacy of the Pope, they also got a clearer understanding of the Pope’s infallibility. For example, quoting from the early Church Fathers:

Ignatius of Antioch: "… to the Church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

Cyprian of Carthage: "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"



Cyprian of Carthage: "the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19-20 "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nation . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…"), and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit (John. 16:13). That command and Jesus’ promise guarantee that the Church will never fall away from His teachings, even if an individual Catholic might. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad examples. What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from formally teaching as the "truth" something that is not. It does not help him know, what is true, he has to do his homework the way we all do to find this out. "It doesn’t even guarantee that the pope, when he does teach, will be as effective or persuasive, or as clear as he should be in what he teaches (Madrid, p. 138, Pope Fiction)." A pope’s private personal or theological opinions are not infallible.

Many incorrectly think that the popes are given a special power that helps them in teaching infallibly. This is confused with "inspiration". "While inspiration gives information, infallibility protects information. It doesn’t provide the Pope with the information he needs to teach, that comes from his own efforts to study and understand the deposit of Faith. It does make sure that when he formally teaches the doctrines of Faith, he’ll do so without error. The only pope who was inspired and who received revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Peter. All the other popes who followed Peter and sat in his chair, had to do their teaching the hard way— studying and then learning it first!" (Madrid, pp. 139-140, Pope Fiction).

Cases against Infallibility?

Now let’s turn to history and point out some favorite cases cited against papal infallibility.

What about Peter’s conduct at Antioch, certainly this would be a perfect example of papal infallibility being non-existent.

Remember Peter’s conduct at Antioch, when he refused to eat with the Gentile Christians in order to not offend certain Jews (Gal. 2:11-16). Paul reprimanded him, not because of his lack of papal infallibility, but because Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals. It was Peter’s actions that were being brought into question, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter was well aware of the correct teaching (Gal. 2:15-16), the problem was that Peter wasn’t living up to his own teachings! "Another example of this is found in the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus points out the Jewish leaders and reminds all that they possessed a God-given authority to teach, even though many of them were corrupt. Jesus later calls them ‘hypocrites’ and ‘a brood of vipers’ but that they nonetheless had an office with authority. Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples saying, "‘The Scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore do, and observe all the things, whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.’" Through God's providence there have only been a few bad apples in the papacy, these bad popes stand out so much because they are so rare. Even so, infallibility has nothing to do with sin. Thankfully the overwhelming majority of popes have been very holy men. Some unfortunately, were very heavy sinners, who lived horrible lives, but they were prevented by this grace of the Holy Spirit from formally teaching error to the Church." (Madrid, pp. 132-33, 139, Pope Fiction)

"Catholics claim that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, yet Pope Liberious signed an Arian creed, thereby endorsing a heretical view of Christ. Obviously, then, papal infallibility is a fallicy." (Madrid, p. 145, Pope Fiction)

"Allegedly Pope Liberius not only held to an incorrect view of Jesus, but actually endorsed this by signing onto a heretical creed. The fourth century was a hard time for the Catholic Church. Despite all hopes of orthodox Catholics, the Arian movement was growing, especially when Emperor Constantius made it his business to spread Arianism throughout the empire. He was gaining strong ecclesiastical support, but he wasn’t able to change Pope Liberius’ mind. Constantius had Liberius arrested and taken to Milan to appear before him. He was pressured to comply with his will, but Pope Liberius resisted, thus Constantius banished Liberius to live in exile. After 2 years of imprisonment, harassment and exile Liberius was released. Why was he released—did he finally give in and sign this heretical creed, or did the emperor finally give up this battle of the wills? Although it’s possible that Liberius did buckle under the pressure the following evidence indicates he didn’t. Patrick Madrid writes, "Had he really given in to the emperor during his exile, the emperor would have published his victory far and wide; there would have been no possible doubt about it….." So if Pope Liberius did end up signing this creed, why was there only silence? While it’s true that this is an argument from silence, it can’t be ignored. Assuming the worst case scenario is true, Pope Liberius only signed the creed after two years of harassment, exile and coercion. The signing didn’t come from his own free will, and for this reason papal infallibility isn’t an issue" (Pope Fiction, pp. 144-147).

"How can the Catholic Church claim infallibility when it officially condemned Galileo for heresy when he declared that the Earth revolves around the sun? Add to this fact that Galileo was cruelly imprisoned and force to recant under pains of torture. Modern science show that Galileo was right and the ‘infallible pope’ was wrong." (Madrid, p. 178, Pope Fiction)

"Galileo was a brilliant physicist and astronomer who’s heliocentric theories were contrary to the understanding of the Church of his day, true, but his ideas were also contrary to the Ptolemaic school of thought which was accepted by all contemporary scientists of his day." (Madrid, p. 179, Pope Fiction) Interestingly another scientific peer, Johannes Kepler, a Protestant, was vehemently condemned 10 years earlier by a Protestant University of Tubingen, for advocating the very same theory, and we don’t hear the same blown-out-of proportion stories, that Galileo has led us to. Actually for many years, Galileo was held in high regard by many Roman officials, and his work received high honors from three successive popes. So why was he condemned?

"First of all, is that Galileo’s heliocentric theory, although completely opposed by theologians, wasn’t the real source of his difficulties with the Church. Actually it was a presumption to teach that God was merely accidental, and not substantial. Galileo confused truths with scientific discoveries by saying that in the Bible ‘are found propositions which, when taken literally, are false; that Holy Writ out of regard for the incapacity of the people, expresses itself inexactly…’. Thus it was Galileo’s attack on theology that brought about the heated response from the Church." (Madrid, pp. 181-82, Pope Fiction) Even with all of this the Church neither violated nor compromised the doctrine of infallibility. Remember that in order for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility, he must offically be defining a doctrine relating to faith or morals—the pope is not infallible when it comes to science or any other field of thought, furthermore, the other two conditions to pronounce an infallible doctrine were not present.

As Frs. Rumble and Carty in Radio Replies explain: "All his [Galileo] arguments [of the day] gave probability only. In the present state of general education we all know that there is no doubt on the subject, and that the movement of the Earth is in no way opposed to Sacred Scripture, rightly understood. But people did not know that then, and they were not ready for the new knowledge. It’s general publication could result only in widespread disturbance due to a lack of preparatory knowledge . . . the conservatism of the Church was prudence itself in the face of these novelties not yet proved."

Wasn't Galileo imprisoned and brutally tortured to get a confession from him? He was imprisoned but there is no evidence that he was tortured because he provided a retraction of his original statements against the Church regarding his scientific theories.

"The Galileo story when wrongly understood seems to stain the credibility of the Church, but when understood correctly, it proves nothing, except that the Catholic Church is very serious in her efforts to safeguard the flock from error or scandal. Throughout the Galileo ordeal, the Pope Urban VIII, was not acting in his capacity of teacher, but of protective guardian. So as disturbing as this case was it doesn’t conflict with the Catholic teaching of infallibility." (Madrid, pp. 188-89, Pope Fiction).

"What about when Pope Sixtus V issued a botched revision of the Latin Vulgate Bible. This edition was so filled with errors, omissions and deformities of the text, that it was hastily recalled after his death by embarrassed Roman cardinals. But the damage was done. Sixtus V had formally taught that the defective edition was to be the only Bible used for the entire Church. If that isn’t a perfect example of a pope fulfilling all the necessary ingredients for teaching ‘infallibly’, nothing else in papal history is. The pope clearly taught error." (Madrid, p. 242, Pope Fiction)

Sixtus V reigned as pope from 1585-1590. He has been described as a "brilliant leader in political and ecclesiastical arenas, a tireless innovator in agriculture, engineering and law, he effectively enacted and enforced laws, created an impressive aqueduct system, reformed clergy and the Church’s liturgical customs, tackled building projects, drained the swamps near Rome to eliminate the siege of malaria, spent large amounts of money on charitable works and missions, and oversaw the completion of the St. Peter’s Basilica." Unfortunately he had an ego to match and this got him into serious trouble when a revision of the Latin Vulgate edition of the holy Bible was begun. "Historian Francis Gasquet explains the background of the Vulgate: ‘The Latin text of the Sacred Scriptures had existed from the earliest times of Christianity.’ The translators were unknown to St. Augustine and St. Jerome; but the former says that the old Latin version had certainly come ‘from the first days of the Faith’, and the latter that it ‘ had helped strengthen the Faith of the infant Church.’ Made and copied without any official supervision these western texts soon became corrupt or doubtful."

Since the Church was much threatened by Protestant doctrines that were fast appearing throughout much of Europe and since there were numerous editions of the Vulgate in circulation, Pope Sixtus recognized that the Church required best biblical translation possible to meet Protestant arguments. He acted forthrightly in assembling a team of scholars and linguists, headed by eminent theologians like Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and others. They compiled as many Greek manuscripts as could be assembled and finished the revision process by the end of 1588. But apparently overcome by pride, the pope found the ten thousand readings they had diligently chosen inadequate, and angrily announced he would personally revise the Vulgate. He declared, ‘We, weighing the importance of the matter, and considering carefully the great and singular privilege we hold of God, and our true and legitimate succession from Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles . . . Are the proper and specially constituted Person to decide this whole question."

Ill equipped for the task, Sixtus eliminated all the work done by the former commission, and started fresh. Unfortunately his abilities to translate, edit and make all the appropriate decisions were beyond his capabilities and the result was an error filled translation presented to the cardinals in early 1590.

Cardinal Bellarmine and Fr. Toledo, another Jesuit scholar revealed their fears "…that by such mutilation he [Sixtus] was laying himself open to the attacks of the heretics, and was giving more serious scandal to the faithful than anything else the pope could do . . . " If Sixtus had formally promulgated this distorted version, it would have allowed a strong case to be argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility since the Pope would have fulfilled the three requirements layed out by Vatican I for an infallible teaching. But the weight of opposition was sufficient, thanks to Bellarmine and others, to stope the Pope from releasing it. Still, he worked on correction of typographical errors with the apparent intention of releasing a corrected version soon. Patrick Madrid writes, "Expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him." But at the last moment Sixtus, whose health and vigor were never questioned, took to his bed, dying on August 27, 1590 after a brief illness. The Holy Spirit's promise to guide the Church to all truth seems to have been fulfilled again. "Only God knows if Sixtus’ sudden death was dramatic proof of divine intervention-- the evidence that papal infallibility isn’t just a Catholic idea, but that God Himself will prevent, by death if necessary, the pope from teaching an error formally to the Church." (Madrid, pps. 242-51, Pope Fiction).

The reason for the gift

"The rejection of papal infallibility by non-Catholics stems from their views of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope. It should be enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after the Master’s instruction, a visible organization. Every Christian in the early centuries until the Reformation took for granted, that Christ set up an on-going organization" (Catholic Answers, p. 3, Papal Infallibility). Doubtless, our Lord also set up a means, once he ascended into heaven, by which the teachings he provided could be preserved.

"All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of the popes, and the preservation of the Christian message, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility. If the Church is to do what Christ said it would do, and not do what he said it would not do, such as have the gates of hell prevail against it, it must be able to teach infallibly The Church cannot teach heresy, or it ceases to be Jesus’ church. As Paul stated "the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth". The Pope must be able to teach rightly. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. And that is why papal infallibility exists" (Catholic Answers, p. 3, Papal Infallibility).
quote:
Originally posted by themax:
Bill, even though we don't agree much of the time, please allow me to give you a little advice. Your dealing with some hard core Catholics here, you can no more change them than I could convince you that it takes water to be baptized.

However I have learned a lot, and enjoyed the exchange.

Hi Max,

Truly, I am not trying to change them or convert them. If they are born again believers and happy in their Roman Catholic faith; God bless them. What I am trying to do is to prevent the false teachings they present as Christian doctrine from misleading a new believer or a new seeker in their quest for Biblical knowledge.

The Roman Catholic doctrines we have been discussing do not affect a person's salvation. However, they can drastically affect a new believers peace with God (Romans 5:1) and his/her sense of eternal security in Christ (John 6:47, Romans 8:1). When we are saved, we are indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13, 4:30) for the day of redemption. We have eternal security in Christ. And, I want all Christian believers to know this and believe it.

Even the Roman Catholic Pope does not know if he is saved or not, if he will go to heaven or not. I do not want to see new believers living with that doubt. So, not trying to convert VP or David; only trying to share the Biblical truth with those reading our posts.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_TiggerToo_Bear_Piggy_On-Limb-TEXT
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by themax:
Bill, even though we don't agree much of the time, please allow me to give you a little advice. Your dealing with some hard core Catholics here, you can no more change them than I could convince you that it takes water to be baptized.

However I have learned a lot, and enjoyed the exchange.

Hi Max,

Truly, I am not trying to change them or convert them. If they are born again believers and happy in their Roman Catholic faith; God bless them. What I am trying to do is to prevent the false teachings they present as Christian doctrine from misleading a new believer or a new seeker in their quest for Biblical knowledge.

The Roman Catholic doctrines we have been discussing do not affect a person's salvation. However, they can drastically affect a new believers peace with God (Romans 5:1) and his/her sense of eternal security in Christ (John 6:47, Romans 8:1). When we are saved, we are indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13, 4:30) for the day of redemption. We have eternal security in Christ. And, I want all Christian believers to know this and believe it.

Even the Roman Catholic Pope does not know if he is saved or not, if he will go to heaven or not. I do not want to see new believers living with that doubt. So, not trying to convert VP or David; only trying to share the Biblical truth with those reading our posts.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


Translation:

I'm not trying to save anyone, at all. see, i KNOW i am saved, because i am way more holy and sactified than all of you people. i don't really care whether any of you are saved or not. the only reason i am posting in here at all is so that i can point to this body or writing when i get to heaven and say "SEE JESUS! i was ministering to all the poor unwashed heathens. see how holy i am! i spead your word like a hooker in thailand speads the clap!
i TOLD em, Jesus, i TOLD em... not my fault if they didn't listen to my holy.. i mean.. your holy words...
quote:
Originally posted by thenagel:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by themax:
Bill, even though we don't agree much of the time, please allow me to give you a little advice. Your dealing with some hard core Catholics here, you can no more change them than I could convince you that it takes water to be baptized.

However I have learned a lot, and enjoyed the exchange.

Hi Max,

Truly, I am not trying to change them or convert them. If they are born again believers and happy in their Roman Catholic faith; God bless them. What I am trying to do is to prevent the false teachings they present as Christian doctrine from misleading a new believer or a new seeker in their quest for Biblical knowledge.

The Roman Catholic doctrines we have been discussing do not affect a person's salvation. However, they can drastically affect a new believers peace with God (Romans 5:1) and his/her sense of eternal security in Christ (John 6:47, Romans 8:1). When we are saved, we are indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13, 4:30) for the day of redemption. We have eternal security in Christ. And, I want all Christian believers to know this and believe it.

Even the Roman Catholic Pope does not know if he is saved or not, if he will go to heaven or not. I do not want to see new believers living with that doubt. So, not trying to convert VP or David; only trying to share the Biblical truth with those reading our posts.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Translation: I'm not trying to save anyone, at all. see, i KNOW i am saved, because i am way more holy and sactified than all of you people. i don't really care whether any of you are saved or not. the only reason i am posting in here at all is so that i can point to this body or writing when i get to heaven and say "SEE JESUS! i was ministering to all the poor unwashed heathens. see how holy i am! i spead your word like a hooker in thailand speads the clap!
i TOLD em, Jesus, i TOLD em... not my fault if they didn't listen to my holy.. i mean.. your holy words...

BUT, NAGEL, DO YOU STILL LOVE ME?

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Frog-Kiss_Animated
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by thenagel:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by themax:
Bill, even though we don't agree much of the time, please allow me to give you a little advice. Your dealing with some hard core Catholics here, you can no more change them than I could convince you that it takes water to be baptized.

However I have learned a lot, and enjoyed the exchange.

Hi Max,

Truly, I am not trying to change them or convert them. If they are born again believers and happy in their Roman Catholic faith; God bless them. What I am trying to do is to prevent the false teachings they present as Christian doctrine from misleading a new believer or a new seeker in their quest for Biblical knowledge.

The Roman Catholic doctrines we have been discussing do not affect a person's salvation. However, they can drastically affect a new believers peace with God (Romans 5:1) and his/her sense of eternal security in Christ (John 6:47, Romans 8:1). When we are saved, we are indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13, 4:30) for the day of redemption. We have eternal security in Christ. And, I want all Christian believers to know this and believe it.

Even the Roman Catholic Pope does not know if he is saved or not, if he will go to heaven or not. I do not want to see new believers living with that doubt. So, not trying to convert VP or David; only trying to share the Biblical truth with those reading our posts.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Translation: I'm not trying to save anyone, at all. see, i KNOW i am saved, because i am way more holy and sactified than all of you people. i don't really care whether any of you are saved or not. the only reason i am posting in here at all is so that i can point to this body or writing when i get to heaven and say "SEE JESUS! i was ministering to all the poor unwashed heathens. see how holy i am! i spead your word like a hooker in thailand speads the clap!
i TOLD em, Jesus, i TOLD em... not my fault if they didn't listen to my holy.. i mean.. your holy words...

BUT, NAGEL, DO YOU STILL LOVE ME?


Bill, i love you so much that i want you to stop denying yourself the joy of gods light and hurry up to meet him right away.
today. now.
i'll look for the write up in the paper.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×