Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[notuptome]

So, Romans doesn't apply to ALL, but those who have capacity? That's the point - it's not absolute. The point is it being leveled as "ALL" have sinned to condemn the sinlessness of Mary (which I don't believe she was sinless), and it was being applied absolutely without caveat, like those with capacity. But that wasn't the argument - Scripture was being used in an extreme measure to oppose an extreme position... when Scripture is clearly not extreme in that topic, but hyperbole.


Well I don't want to get into a "what is sin" "what is justification" etc argument. Only that what God said to begin with is half the battle, before even interpreting what He said.


Have you ever had a loved one or friend with mental illness? I have bipolar. There are things I own up to - AND there are things that are literally beyond my control via brain activity. That's why I have to take meds. Because my behavior is partly out of my control, quite literally because of the physical activity of my brain.

So how do I stand before God, in this respect? Am I responsible for what I've done when mentally unstable? Because overall, I DO have the capacity, but not absolutely, not all the time. Aborted children, or children who die young COULD have the capacity later if they hadn't died. It's not hiding behind anything... it's the argument that these people are also humans. It's the argument that if you are going to level a Scripture in absolute fashion in respect to another human, then understand the ramifications of doing so. Not offering this caveate, or explaining the position fully, is a very good indication of bias and agenda than actual discussion.


And the point is, what if "you" was an infant? What if "you" was someone who was in an accident that resulted in a vegetative state before she/he accepted the Lord - yet technically still alive?



I agree with that, but what do you mean by corporate? All of x group of people are saved or not, or do you mean a uniform plan or means of salvation?


If your argument is idols or representations, plenty of Protestant churches I HAVE walked into have these things (representations of Jesus or other symbols). Just because they are not typically on the same level of grandeur, doesn't mean that they are not there.

Churches that are usually considered extreme (take JW for example) are the ones that have extremely plain sanctuaries with no crosses, no paintings, no banners, nothing that suggests any religious leaning. Is that what you are talking about? Otherwise, just because something is done in a less extravagant fashion doesn't mean the same thing isn't being done in principle.


lol I beg to differ! I've seen this painting in Protestant churches:

View attachment 135391


You have Veggie Tales and certain posters for children in nurseries. You may have pictures of Jesus on the bulletin when you walk in (I could even SCAN you one I still have!) Crosses are very common. You may see representations of doves. I have been in more Protestant churches, different ones, than I have Catholic and EO and I can tell you that I haven't seen one church completely bare of religious representation, regardless of what it was.



You mean Protestant specifically? And statues of Mary prevents Him from being able to do this in Catholic churches?

*sigh*

You have completely missed the thrust of the entire post.

All men are sinners. Every last person is a sinner. Only by the pity of God are any forgiven and saved into eternal life. Even the most astute person you can think of is just as much in need of Gods pity as the baby who has no concept of sin. Substitute the word grace for pity and understand. By grace are ye saved. Eph 2:8-9

Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?


For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Mec99]

All you Catholics for some reason cannot either understand what God is saying in the Scriptures or really do not give a damn about what God says in the Scriptures.

Romans 5:6-8
[SUP]6 [/SUP] For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 5:12
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

Romans 3:9-12
[SUP]9 [/SUP] What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;
[SUP]11 [/SUP] There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."

Romans 3:23
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Every person born is a sinner and sins, even Mary! The ONLY person born without sin was Jesus Christ!

Hebrews 4:15
[SUP]15 [/SUP] For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Mary was NOT without sin and Mary was NOT righteous!

You can claim all you want that Mary is equal to God and you can Worship and serve Mary all you want. Its you who will be Judged for this and cast into the Lake of Fire, not me. All you Catholics are doing is hurting yourself and keeping yourselves from entering into Heaven.

God see's through your little games, you cannot fool God. Its you who will be Judged for your false teachings.

 

[jamie26301]

*sigh*
You have completely missed the thrust of the entire post.

You’re missing the “thrust” of mine. All have sinned. Well ok. What does it mean when one has sinned in light of the afterlife? Those who don’t repent will perish… isn’t that the theology? That’s usually what is taught, at least in Fundamental circles.

If the theology actually says “wait, not ALL; except for these” then what is being leveled against the Catholic doctrine is not honestly represented. Either some are not damned because they are sinless, or God makes exceptions in light of eternal penalty for not repenting. If the latter, then you’re right, that doesn’t apply to the argument of Mary.


But the point is that the doctrines leveled against her sinlessness are not absolute. If you say people go to hell for not repenting, then you have to deal with those who can’t make decisions… or haven’t heard. If they are exempt, then decide if it is because of sinlessness or because of God’s mercy.


The “thrust” of my argument is that usually the nature of these arguments are NOT absolute when you investigate the beliefs further. Age of accountability teaches that a child is exempt from the eternal penalty of sin until they know right and wrong.

It’s either:
1) Not ALL have sinned, and those are exempt from the eternal penalty, or
2) ALL have sinned, but some are exempt from damnation anyway.


That’s the whole point I'm making. That these biblical doctrines are not as absolute as they say they are. But to say some are exempt in any fashion is to open the possibility that Mary is, and we can’t have that. We would have to actually LISTEN and UNDERSTAND to counter the doctrine from there, instead of pulling out all our little prepared bag of “ah-ha!” quips.


I am only saying that the IMPLICATIONS of the Romans “all have sinned” argument, when you delve deeper into the theology that is “trumping” the sinless Mary doctrine is not being fully discussed. That’s the point – again, not what Scripture does or doesn’t say on this, but the need to win an argument trumps understanding brothers and sisters in Christ. That’s sad, it really is.

 

[KenAllan]

What is really sad is people like the Catholics who refuse to listen to what God says in the Scriptures to follow and teach what deceiving Spirits say.

Romans 3:10
[SUP]10 [/SUP] As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;

Clearly this verse says none is righteous, no, not one. Which means Mary was not righteous. If Mary was not righteous then Mary was a sinner.

Romans 3:23
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 5:12
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

God clearly says all have sinned. What you are doing jamie26301 is trying to muddy the waters by leading people into believing what the Catholic Church teaches and we all know there is no Truth in the Catholic Church today.

It does not matter if someone else cannot make a decision to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior or repent for their sins. It does not matter if there is an "age" of "accountability". Neither one of these applies to Mary or you. This is just a red herring thrown up by the Catholics to justify their false Doctrine that Mary was without sin.

In fact there is a Catholic on this site who claims there are millions of people who have never sinned. Clearly this person has never accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

I have come to realize the Catholic Church is walking away from God to teach the Doctrines of Satan.

You can claim all you want jamie26301 that Mary was without sin. BUT! You will be judged by God for Worshiping and serving Mary as your God.

Exodus 20:4-5
[SUP]4 [/SUP] "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
[SUP]5 [/SUP] you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,

A statue of Mary is a carved image. I have seen with my own eyes many Catholics on their knees in front of a statue of Mary. In fact there are many pictures of Pope John Paul II on his knees bowing down to a statue of Mary.

So yes, the Catholics do Worship and serve Mary as their God and all those Catholics will never be allowed into Heaven.

Galatians 5:19-21 (NKJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
[SUP]20 [/SUP]IDOLATRY, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
[SUP]21 [/SUP] envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

No Catholic, not even you jamie26301 will be allowed to enter into Heaven for your Idolatry.

 

[Grandpa]

*sigh*

You have completely missed the thrust of the entire post.

All men are sinners. Every last person is a sinner. Only by the pity of God are any forgiven and saved into eternal life. Even the most astute person you can think of is just as much in need of Gods pity as the baby who has no concept of sin. Substitute the word grace for pity and understand. By grace are ye saved. Eph 2:8-9

Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?


For the cause of Christ
Roger

They really never expected to be questioned. Especially not by common folk.

Now they made up a doctrine so they still can't be questioned. Their authority is 'beyond question'. Their 'interpretation' is highest.

Its sad. But that's what everyones strongholds can be. Its just that the religious hide behind fake righteousness. And don't know it.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

They really never expected to be questioned. Especially not by common folk.

Now they made up a doctrine so they still can't be questioned. Their authority is 'beyond question'. Their 'interpretation' is highest.

Its sad. But that's what everyones strongholds can be. Its just that the religious hide behind fake righteousness. And don't know it.

it is prety amazing,

they would judge a pharisee as a worker of law and condemned for trying to be saved by those rules and regulations, when they themselves teach one is saved by a set of rules and regulations.

They do judge Israel for here heresy and rejection of the true God, when they are no different in their heresys and rejection of the true God.

The names may have changed, and the religious ceremony and tradition changed, But they are identical in all other ways.

 

[notuptome]

You’re missing the “thrust” of mine. All have sinned. Well ok. What does it mean when one has sinned in light of the afterlife? Those who don’t repent will perish… isn’t that the theology? That’s usually what is taught, at least in Fundamental circles.

If the theology actually says “wait, not ALL; except for these” then what is being leveled against the Catholic doctrine is not honestly represented. Either some are not damned because they are sinless, or God makes exceptions in light of eternal penalty for not repenting. If the latter, then you’re right, that doesn’t apply to the argument of Mary.


But the point is that the doctrines leveled against her sinlessness are not absolute. If you say people go to hell for not repenting, then you have to deal with those who can’t make decisions… or haven’t heard. If they are exempt, then decide if it is because of sinlessness or because of God’s mercy.


The “thrust” of my argument is that usually the nature of these arguments are NOT absolute when you investigate the beliefs further. Age of accountability teaches that a child is exempt from the eternal penalty of sin until they know right and wrong.

It’s either:
1) Not ALL have sinned, and those are exempt from the eternal penalty, or
2) ALL have sinned, but some are exempt from damnation anyway.


That’s the whole point I'm making. That these biblical doctrines are not as absolute as they say they are. But to say some are exempt in any fashion is to open the possibility that Mary is, and we can’t have that. We would have to actually LISTEN and UNDERSTAND to counter the doctrine from there, instead of pulling out all our little prepared bag of “ah-ha!” quips.


I am only saying that the IMPLICATIONS of the Romans “all have sinned” argument, when you delve deeper into the theology that is “trumping” the sinless Mary doctrine is not being fully discussed. That’s the point – again, not what Scripture does or doesn’t say on this, but the need to win an argument trumps understanding brothers and sisters in Christ. That’s sad, it really is.

Just amazing that you would attempt to construe grace for those who lack the capacity to respond to the gospel as justification for Mary being sinless.

Every descendent of Adam is condemned by virtue of their sin nature. Every one with no exceptions. Every person dies because their flesh is tainted by sin. Mary died contrary to the supposition that she was assumed into heaven.

Babies and persons lacking the mental capacity to decide are under the same curse of sin as the rocket scientists and theologians of the world. Romans teaches is that all men are sinners and that there are none righteous no not one. It goes on to further state that God has concluded all in unbelief so that He might have mercy upon all.

Salvation and forgiveness of sin are not accomplished by what we do or don't do or are able to do. It is all by Gods grace. It always has been by Gods grace.

Ro 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Paul is quoting David here in this passage.

God would be perfectly justified in condemning every aborted child and every person who lacks the capacity to repent and receive Christ as Savior. I do not see God as interested in doing that because God is a merciful God or none would or could be saved.

I'm not going to argue with God. I will seek understanding and I will trust in Gods compassion toward mankind. This does not relieve me of my responsibility to receive Christ as my Savior. Unless Christ comes for His church before I will die in the flesh trusting to be resurrected in the Spirit unto eternal life. If He returns my flesh will die and be changed in an instant at His appearing. Much preferred in my never to be considered humble opinion.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[jamie26301]

I'm not going to argue with God. I will seek understanding and I will trust in Gods compassion toward mankind.

You're not arguing with God, you're arguing with me over long a established doctrine/interpretation about about God has said... that is AGAIN and for the final time, NOT the point my posts. I am saying that people are stupid for thinking they can marginalize, or misrepresent someone's beliefs (as done in this thread), and expect that someone to humbly listen. Which suggests it's not about truth or love, but bias and the arrogant demanding to be right..

Contensciously contending, if you will.

I am not expressing beliefs, but correcting bigoted behavior, but you don't seem to be reading my words close enough to understand that. I say again and again "the point, the point" and I'm not following it with "God REALLY said or mean [dogma here]."

This does not relieve me of my responsibility to receive Christ as my Savior. Unless Christ comes for His church before I will die in the flesh trusting to be resurrected in the Spirit unto eternal life.

Exactly. Part of that responsibility is trying to understand others. One side IS MAKING no effort to understand the other, and that's the thrust by my "amazing attempt to construe grace," when I'm not even arguing for doctrine but honest discussion, and by doing such I bring up doctrines as examples.

But for some people, any biblical discussion that doesn't consist of a absolute stand is rejection of God or His words. Any neutral stance is considered agasint Chrsit. Peacemakers are defined as people on the fence who are lukewarm, or a closet Catholic/Protestant whatever.

And Americans wonder why people run to the hills when they perceive a "witnessing" to take place. It's an all or nothing mindset, which can't accodmate a questioning seeker of truth. A black and white mind can't lead to truth, because true understanding comes by weighing both sides and the stuff in the middle. As soon as hard questions are raised, then "we'll, you're not honest about learning anything" or "you're still brainwashed" etc etc.

Yeah, what a mystery.

 

[jamie26301]

They really never expected to be questioned. Especially not by common folk.

Just to clarify, Matin Luther and the reformers were educated men schooled in Catholic doctrine and had access to the Scriptures... not "common folk" at the time.

 

[Grandpa]

Just to clarify, Matin Luther and the reformers were educated men schooled in Catholic doctrine and had access to the Scriptures... not "common folk" at the time.

Roger that. I wasn't talking about him. I was talking about common folk.

Regular people just sitting in the pew. Bereans.

 

[jamie26301]

Roger that. I wasn't talking about him. I was talking about common folk.

Regular people just sitting in the pew. Bereans.

Ah. I see, I'm sorry.

 

[fordman]

sigh*You have completely missed the thrust of the entire post.

Nope.... I believed it is Mecc99, KenAllan, eternally-grateful, along with yourself notuptome that can't seem to grasp the gist of the entire post.

All men are sinners. Every last person is a sinner.

You all never have answerd my question if you believe that "ALL" babies in the womb, "ALL" Children below the age of reason, and "ALL" people that are in a vegetative state or severely mentally-handicapped have commited a sin? Now I will admit that we all, with the exceptions of Adam and Eve, the Virgin Mary (The Immaculate Conception) and of course Jesus are without the stain of Original Sin. And you see, this is where you seem to understand the crux of it. What you all seem to understand is that Original Sin is the deprivation of original holiness and justice. It is called "sin" only in an analogical sense. It is a sin "contracted" and not "committed". It is a state and not an act. It is transmitted by propagation from Adam and Eve to their descendants. ( you and I) Now, if you know Catholic Doctrine and teachings as much as you say you do, you'd know that we believe that though our baptisim we are freed of Original Sin.

Back on page 462, post 9204, your ol' buddy KenAllan says........ "In fact there is a Catholic on this site who claims there are millions of people who have never sinned." and I still stick to that! ( for the life of me, I don't know why he just didn't say,,,, "fordman." It's no big secret) {rolling eyes} Anyhoo, out of the worlds population of 7.3 billion, I would be willing to bet there are at least a million, if not tens of million people in this world that are in thier mothers womb, below the age of reason, born in a vegetative state or severely mentally-handicapped. Would you not agree? You do believe that life begins at conception, do you not? If not, may God help you. We Catholics have a saying..... "you can't be a Catholic, and be Pro Abortion!" Back to my point. My point being, yes these people were born with the inherited stain of Original stain. However, unlike you and your minions, I don't believe these people have the capacity of commiting a personal sin such as stealing, swearing, adultery, ect... as you claim they do in your "personal interpretation" of Rom.3:23. Not sure about you, but the God I believe in is a God of understanding and mercy.

Only by the pity of God are any forgiven and saved into eternal life. Even the most astute person you can think of is just as much in need of Gods pity as the baby who has no concept of sin.

Yet you litterally believe because of what it says in Rom.2:23 that people like....... the unborn, under the age of reason, and severly mentally handicapped or born in a vegitative state can still commit personal sins! Wow!!!

Substitute the word grace for pity and understand. By grace are ye saved. Eph 2:8-9

Hmmm..... now you want to change what it says in Scripture? Sounds very Martin Luther to me. {rolling eyes}

Heb.2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

For the cause of Christ Roger

Hmmmmm....
　
　


Pax Christi

 

[fordman]

Well first Catholic's did not write the bible, but they were the one's who put the letters together for the bible we have.

Good to see you achknowledge it Ken C.!

The gospel books and epistles were written by the original Apostles or their understudies, and was passed around from church to church in the first 4+ centuries.

The list was compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church. Initially, local canons were assembled by individual bishops. These canons were lists of books which could be read aloud in Churches at Mass. Despite the fact that these canons were independently assembled they bore a great deal of similarity to each other – because the Catholic bishops were all using the same criteria to determine which books should be included. They looked to see if the books were written by an apostle or someone who was reporting the words of an apostle. They checked to see how much the book was being used by other bishops and priests in their Masses, and also looked at how often the book was quoted by the Church Fathers in their writings. Only those books which "scored" favorably on all three of these criteria made it into their canons.

In the early fourth century Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire and it became possible for the bishops to meet without being imprisoned or killed by the pagan authorities. Beginning in the late fourth century and continuing until the very early fifth century the Catholic Church met at a number of councils where the canon of the Bible was debated. These councils produced canons which were identical to the current 73 book of Catholic Church canon.

As can clearly be seen the canon of the Bible was produced by the Catholic Church. The Church also existed long before the Bible – it was the early fifth century before the Bible existed as we might recognize it today, and none of the books of the Bible were even written until around 50 AD. But the Catholic Church began 20 years earlier, at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles.

The Christians who wrote the New Testament were Catholic – they were Catholic for two reasons. One, they believed everything which the current Catholic Church (and only the Catholic Church) teaches (as is shown by the writings of the Church Fathers).

Accordingly, the Bible can be considered to be two things – it is younger than the Catholic Church and it is the product of the Catholic Church. This means that the bible is not the sole rule of faith for Christians, but rather "the Church is the pillar and the foundation of the truth" as it says in 1 Tim.3:15.

The Catholic church was formed in the 4th century so the epistles from the Apostles and the gospel books were done by Christians who were the first fruits of the faith in the Lord, not Catholic !!!

So then let me ask you Ken C. Do you believe that the belief of The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist is solely a Doctrine of the Catholic Church?
　



Pax Christi
　

 

[Ahwatukee]

Greetings Forman,

So then let me ask you Ken C. Do you believe that the belief of The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist is solely a Doctrine of the Catholic Church?

First of all, the Codex Vaticanus is not the only source of Scripture, for we have the Codex Sinaiticus, which is the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament, which was not put together by the RCC.

Also, the Eucharist is a pagan version of the Lord' supper, which has two elements to it, the bread and the wine. We know that the bread was being used figuratively to represent the body of the Lord that was broken for us. And the wine that he gave them was figurative of his blood that was shed for us. We know this because after they took the bread Jesus said regarding the cup, "Truly I tell you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom." The Lord instituted his supper as something that believers could do symbolically in remembrance of his sacrifice until he returns. What you are speaking about regarding Christ coming down into the Eucharist is not Scriptural. Jesus does not literally come down into the Eucharist so that "Transubstantiation" can take place, which according to RCC dogma is where the appearance of the Eucharist remains the same, but the substance of it becomes the literal flesh and blood of the Lord. This belief is of pagan origin. When Jesus said, "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood" he was speaking metaphorically and not literally.

This means that the bible is not the sole rule of faith for Christians, but rather "the Church is the pillar and the foundation of the truth"

Paul states in the Scriptures that the Berean's were more noble than the Thessalonian's and that because they examined the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul was teaching them was the truth (Acts 17:11). When you say that the bible is not the sole rule of faith and that what the counsels and popes decree are equal to Scripture, then a believer cannot be like the Berean's and check the accuracy of what the RCC is claiming as dogma and they would have to simply take their word for it. This is why God provided his God word for us, otherwise we could not tell what is true and what is false. Roman Catholic's would have to take what the counsels and pope's have said and are saying as the gospel. That being said, pretty much every bit of the teachings of Roman Catholicism are in opposition to the word of God, starting with that pagan, Egyptian obelisk sitting out in the middle of St.Peter's square. For the RCC to be proclaiming itself as being the true church of Christ, there is absolutely no apologetic or excuse for having that object sitting there.

You and all those who trust in the pope and its liturgy need to compare the Scriptures to what is being taught in their dogmas and put God's word first as the source of all truth. If what they are teaching doesn't agree with the word of God, then you need to remove yourself from that religious system and that goes the same for every false religious system, and there are many.

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

 

[jamie26301]

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

What "we have preached" and what "we have written" is different things, isn't it? It literally says what was spoken orally (not written). Which is one reason there is weight on tradition in some churches, one being the RCC.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

What "we have preached" and what "we have written" is different things, isn't it? It literally says what was spoken orally (not written). Which is one reason there is weight on tradition in some churches, one being the RCC.

They taught the OT and other scriptures already written or being written. So it is not much different.

Also. paul said to use scripture to test each spirit. and that scripture was able to make one complete..

so oral tradition not confirmed by scripture is dangerous (the jews tried to use this line of thinking, and it got them in trouble

 

[Ahwatukee]

What "we have preached" and what "we have written" is different things, isn't it? It literally says what was spoken orally (not written). Which is one reason there is weight on tradition in some churches, one being the RCC.

HI Jamie,

The spoken word of God is the written word of God, in ink. The RCC accepts what is spoken from the seat of the pope (ex-cathedra) as equal to the authority of the Scriptures. Furthermore, any new revelations that come from pope's and their counsels are to be considered equal to the word of God. The problem with this is that they have nothing to back up what they are claiming and Catholics just have to take their word for it as the gospel truth. We as believers have to have a source to be able discern was is the truth and what is false and that is where the word of God comes in.

 

[ThomistColin]

The RCC accepts what is spoken from the seat of the pope (ex-cathedra) as equal to the authority of the Scriptures. Furthermore, any new revelations that come from pope's and their counsels are to be considered equal to the word of God.

Nope, the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra (which he has only done twice) and the Councils are infallible, but not inerrant. Only Scripture is Infallible and Inerrant. Not even Sacred Tradition is inerrant.

 

[jamie26301]

HI Jamie,

The spoken word of God is the written word of God, in ink. The RCC accepts what is spoken from the seat of the pope (ex-cathedra) as equal to the authority of the Scriptures. Furthermore, any new revelations that come from pope's and their counsels are to be considered equal to the word of God. The problem with this is that they have nothing to back up what they are claiming and Catholics just have to take their word for it as the gospel truth. We as believers have to have a source to be able discern was is the truth and what is false and that is where the word of God comes in.

I sympathize and I do not agree with one man giving that authority. But I do try to make an effort to understand something I disagree with, and there are some things I appreciate about it. One is more focus on the Christians in the past. They teach Church History in a far more intimate way, in that they discuss individual lives through the centuries as examples to live by.

The beams I often see (not all the time) in the Protestant's eye is that for many churches, they honor tradition as well. They just call it the correct understanding of the Bible. More traditional churches (Presynterian, Lutheran, Episcopalian) get accused of being like Catholics in that they have Absolution as part of their service.

These accusers almost never discuss John 20:23.... Yet, there isn't anything in their service or practice that resembles this gift, because their TRADITIONAL understanding associates that with the Catholic church, or like "Only God can forgive sins." Hmmm, that echos the exact words of a certain group of people in the Scriptures, ironically, people who Jesus accused of following traditions above God's word.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Nope, the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra (which he has only done twice) and the Councils are infallible, but not inerrant. Only Scripture is Infallible and Inerrant. Not even Sacred Tradition is inerrant.

Um, from what I see above, you sliced and diced my post so that it looks like I am supporting the RCC, when in actuality I was rebuking it as a pagan system. Also, I wasn't just talking about this pope, but all pope's and all of the Roman counsels. Neither the pope's nor any of the counsels are infallible. Scripture on the other hand is the written word of God, the source of all truth. A believer has to be able to check whether something said is the truth or not and the only way to do that is to examine what God has to say about it in his word. That being said, there are just way too many false teachings within the RCC to post them here.