1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Infallibility or Ecumenical Error?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by jimraboin, Sep 15, 2002.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 6
  1. jimraboin

    jimraboin Guest

    Ron,

    Catholic Encyclopedia says this concerning infallibility:

    First we find that an ecumenical can be infallible and further proves consent and co-operation of the Pope.

    Consider further:

    We have such a decree from an ecumenical council of over 300 bishops at Nicaea.

    It says,

    So this Council acknowledges it is totally free from error.

    Now consider the ecumenical decree:

    Constantine's decree, fully empowered according to Catholic definition, commands Catholics to cut the Jews off from this "other way" supposedly directed by Jesus. A lie. A deception. A complete falsehood. Jesus made no such command, instruction or revelation. So we can conclusively conclude Nicaea was NOT free from error. Hatred is not of God. Not hatred for the Jews anyway.

    Need I go further?

    Jim
     
    #1 jimraboin, Sep 15, 2002
  2. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, you need to go further in developing your reading comprehension skills.

    The Council declared that from that time forward the Church will observe Easter, no longer Passover.

    They were not cutting Jews off from the "other way", they were cutting themselves off from the ways of Jews who rejected Jesus.

    Ron
     
    #2 trying2understand, Sep 15, 2002
  3. jimraboin

    jimraboin Guest

    Ron,

    I see you completely ignored the hatred. This is clear error. So why should anybody accept Catholic departure if it is built upon said error?

    No. I have clearly shown you Nicaea claimed to be infallible. As an ecumenical council any decrees are supposedly without error. It issued a decree of hate for the Jews from Israel. Hatred is not of God but is error. Thus Nicaea was not infallible nor free from all error. Hence, Catholicism is built upon deception and error which you are attempting to cover for.

    That is between you and God. But know this, God is not the author of Nicaea's hatred. Catholic foundation is opposed to the God of Israel. If you wish to maintain you integrity with Israel's God and the rest of us believers, you must admit Catholic error and begin testing all things Catholic in order to remove whatever else is not of God.

    Jim
     
    #3 jimraboin, Sep 15, 2002
  4. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jim,
    It is all typical Roman Catholic backpedaling at its best. Thats why the Catholic Church now follows Newman's teaching viva voce or whatever we say. I commend you to the following article and be prepared for the Catholics on this board to spread all kind of lies about William Webster, a former Catholic.

    Romes new and novel concept, Viva voce

    [ September 15, 2002, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Ps104_33 ]
     
    #4 Ps104_33, Sep 15, 2002
  5. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    JIm, you still haven't addressed "surpressed in silence". You have not admitted that you did not understand the basic doctrine being declared in your excerpt above.

    Instead of diverting to a tangent, why don't you argue your original assertions, or admit your error.

    So you are saying that hatred of Jews was the doctrine being offically and infallibly declared?

    BTW you still have not told me how many Old Testament Jews are members of your church. Why is that? Does your church hate Jews?

    What is your religious affiliation? You do not state it in your profile. I have no reference point in talking with you other than you are anti-Catholic.

    [ September 15, 2002, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]
     
    #5 trying2understand, Sep 15, 2002
  6. jimraboin

    jimraboin Guest

    Stay on topic Ron,

    Constantine is at worst a collection of minutes for Nicaea corporate meeting. A historical input not exclusively Constantine's opinion.

    Notice he says,

    http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-02/Npnf2-02-06.htm#P175_39588

    So Constantine doesn't just say this Council was correct...No. He says they were "relieved from ALL ERROR". That includes this hatred of the Jews from Israel. Meaning, their hatred was not in error.

    Socrates continued Constantine's letter:

    Clear and unequivicable evidence that error did exist where Catholic institution says it is not possible. The 300 bishops agreed with and separated Catholicism from the Jews of Israel according to Constantine's justifications. Error. God is not the author of this hatred therefore this Council was in opposition to the God of Israel. The only thing left to do from a Catholic perspective is to deceive, cover up and extort. If you are willing to accept it, Catholicism is the "gates of hell" that Jesus spoke about. But praise God the believing Jews from Israel have not been wiped out. The gates have not prevailed to the glory of ADONAI. Rome's mistake came through its arrogance. Rome thought it could wipe out all Israel and any trace of the believing brethren from Israel. Then it would have removed any evidence against it. But Rome failed and now has to deal with explaining error. God is good!

    Jim
     
    #6 jimraboin, Sep 15, 2002
  7. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jim, I am staying on topic.

    Please answer the question.

    Are you saying that hatred of Jews was the doctrine being offically and infallibly declared?

    I must admit that I don't understand why you won't explain the "surpressed in silence" thing that you thought was important enough for us to jot down. What's with that?

    Ron
     
    #7 trying2understand, Sep 15, 2002
  8. jimraboin

    jimraboin Guest

    Ron,

    Try to consentrate.
    I have presented clear and unequivicable evidence that error did exist where Catholic institution says it is not possible. The 300 bishops agreed with and separated Catholicism from the Jews of Israel according to Constantine's justifications. Error. God is not the author of this hatred therefore this Council was in opposition to the God of Israel. The only thing left to do from a Catholic perspective is to deceive, cover up and extort. If you are willing to accept it, Catholicism is the "gates of hell" that Jesus spoke about. But praise God the believing Jews from Israel have not been wiped out. The gates have not prevailed to the glory of ADONAI. Rome's mistake came through its arrogance. Rome thought it could wipe out all Israel and any trace of the believing brethren from Israel. Then it would have removed any evidence against it. But Rome failed and now has to deal with explaining error. God is good!

    Jim
     
    #8 jimraboin, Sep 15, 2002
  9. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jim, you conclude your original post with this:

    "Constantine's decree, fully empowered according to Catholic definition, commands Catholics to cut the Jews off from this "other way" supposedly directed by Jesus."

    Your errors in basic reading comprhension need to be addressed first.

    Do you still assert your prior conclusion as quoted above?

    Ron
     
    #9 trying2understand, Sep 15, 2002
  10. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you believe that Christians are supposed to continue to observe Passover?

    That is the separation that you are protesting.

    So, for the third time, how many Old Testament practicing Jews are members of your local church? If none, why is that so? Is it because your church hates Jews?

    Does your church observe Passover? If not, is it because your church hates Jews?

    Ron
     
    #10 trying2understand, Sep 15, 2002
  11. jimraboin

    jimraboin Guest

    Ron,

    I'll make it simple for you. Was or is the formal hatred towards Israeli Jews issued by Constantine and the 300 bishops at Nicaea error? If not, why not? If so, why so?

    Jim
     
    #11 jimraboin, Sep 15, 2002
  12. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    No.

    Hatred was not promulgated as doctrine. If it is not thus promulgated, it is not infallibly declared. Thus there is no question as to error.

    This is why I have repeatedly asked you if it is your position that hatred was declared as a matter of doctrine.

    I have answered your question. Now will you answer mine?

    Does your church accept Old Testament practicing Jews as members? If not why not? Hatred?

    Does your church observe Passover? If not why not? Hatred?

    Do you conceed your error as to your understanding of "oppressed in silence" in the other thread you started?

    Do you understand that the doctrine declared at the Council you cite was to observe Easter and to not observe Passover?

    Do you understand that the Council was not saying to exclude Jews from "the way" but that Christians were to seperate themselves from practicing the old ways (ie. Passover)?

    An answer to my repeated questions would be most appreciated. [​IMG]

    Ron
     
    #12 trying2understand, Sep 15, 2002
  13. jimraboin

    jimraboin Guest

    Ron,

    I wonder who needs to comprehend?

    Promulgate is defined thus:

    1. to announce officially; proclaim formally

    2. to spread far and wide:

    So you really haven't answered my question directly. What you have done is prove Constantine's letters were the "official act" that spread hatred of Israeli Jews as he instructed. How much more promulgated do you require? You have Constantine...Emperor who called the meeting. You have ecumenical council o 300 bishops who agreed with Constantine. You have a letter written by Socrates who recorded much like one records minutes of a meeting the acts, decisions and attitudes of Nicaea.

    Conclusion. Hatred was official. It is error. Admit it. Only one who is deceived will try to deny it.

    Jim
     
    #13 jimraboin, Sep 15, 2002
  14. jimraboin

    jimraboin Guest

    Care to revise your statement Ron?

    Jim
     
    #14 jimraboin, Sep 16, 2002
  15. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "dictionary" arguement is quite weak.

    If you wish to argue against the Church, then you must first understand the vocabulary of the Church.

    Hint, you aren't going to find it in a dictionary.

    If you wish to argue against "infallibilty" of the Church, you need to know what that means to the Church.

    Again, no, there was no "error" because "hatred" was not being declared as "offical doctrine."

    Ron [​IMG]
     
    #15 trying2understand, Sep 16, 2002
  16. jimraboin

    jimraboin Guest

    So what you are saying Ron is this:

    "One must first accept Catholic opinion of itself is true before one can make a determination that it really is true."

    Oh, by the way, throw out all knowledge in the real world. It is of no use within Catholicism.

    Great argument, Ron.

    Care to take another stab at it?

    Jim
     
    #16 jimraboin, Sep 16, 2002
  17. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, what I am saying is that in a discussion, there must be a common understanding of the meanings of words within the specific context.

    We are discussing "infallibility" and "error" within the context of the Catholic Church.

    I understand the meanings of those words within the context. You, to be blunt, apparently do not.
     
    #17 trying2understand, Sep 16, 2002
  18. jimraboin

    jimraboin Guest

    No Ron,

    What you require of me is that I accept Catholic definitions as if they are true before we test for Truth. This entirely leaves out any possibility to challenge Catholic accuracy because I am forced, if I submit to your terms, to judge Catholicism by its own standard. A standard not based on anything other than Catholic opinion.

    Care to try again?

    Jim
     
    #18 jimraboin, Sep 16, 2002
  19. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that we may have gotten to the core of your reading comprehension problem. [​IMG]

    As I said before, in a discussion there must be a common understanding of the meanings of words within the specific context.

    We are discussing "infallibility" and "error" within the context of the Catholic Church.

    If you do not have an understanding of the meanings of the words within the context, you have no basis for a discussion.

    We might as well be trying to discuss "dfjioejio". That word may have a specific meaning with a specific context, but until you understand them, you have no basis for a discussion.

    Ron
     
    #19 trying2understand, Sep 16, 2002
  20. jimraboin

    jimraboin Guest

    Ron,

    You are still assuming that Catholic definitions it developed for itself are true and then turning around and using those definitions to establishe truth.

    But for argument's sake, why don't you define "infallibility" and "error" so the conversation can continue.

    Jim
     
    #20 jimraboin, Sep 16, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 6
Loading...