The Truth about the RCC

1. I hope you are not saying that Roman Catholic priests commit sexual misconduct at the rate of 2-3% while Protestant Ministers commit the sexual misconduct at the rate of 80-90%:laugh:

2. Most of the Protestant groups are corrupted quite a lot.

3. Baptists are different though many Baptists are becoming "Catholic" too.:wavey:

4. I hope you realized the difference between the Bible Teaching on the qualification and requirements for the Offices ( Elder, Overseer, Bishop) and the practice or policy of RCC demanding the Celibacy for their priests.
Roman Religion is different from Christian Religion on this issue again.

5. You may be working very hard to prove that the Bible teaching is useless as Bible says this:

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Are you saying the Bible is useless? I hope you are not!

 

I was talking to the alive in the meantime! This thread is talking to the living.
Another thread is for the Dead!

 

Infalibility

Bob, from memory I believe that the Pope must speak in "Ex-cathreda" mode to be "infallible". I also think this has been done (according to different sources) either nine or 13 times in the history of RCC. Really a very small number of times. I really am not Catholic nor a Catholic sympathizer but feel if the RCC is going to get bashed it should be accurate info. or it accomplishes little. Much of what has been posted in this thread is simply mis-information, half truths, that has been oft repeated until Protestants take it as gospel. accusations taken from Protestant "propaganda" (for lack of a better word).

 

mes228, you're correct in regards to Papal Infallibility. I would also add that fundamentalist confuse what the difference is between 'infallible' and 'impeccable'. They often believe that the Pope is 'sinless' and whenever he speaks its 'infallible'. This even comes from those who 'claim' to have been Catholic, which is really hard to believe, since I can find nothing in the catechism that supports their claims.

They don't understand that Ex Cathedra (latin for ‘from the seat’) is actually a Jewish concept, by the teaching authority of Moses, who took his seat (Exodus 18:13, 15-16). They also fail to understand that only is the Pope Infallibly when he speaks, again Ex Cathedra in regard to faith and morals. Christ promised His Church that He would send the Holy Spirit and He will lead them into all truth and that Christ would be with His Church until the end of the world. This is one way Christ protects His Church from teaching error.

Also a lot goes into the process when a Pope speaks Ex Cahthedra a lot of players are involved, the whole College of Cardinals are involved, searching through Scripture, Church Tradition, and above all praying. The Pope just doesn’t wake up one morning and decides to speak Ex Cathedra.

Finally, when I’m asked as question concerning faith and morals, I can rely upon a teaching authority and answer the question confidently. As a Protestant, just one of many thousands of competing sects, I couldn’t answer confidently, b/c what I believed to be correct teaching, another sect may disagree with me, even though we both appealed to scripture as our final authority, but oddly came to different conclusions.

A number of things played and is still playing in my decision to reconcile with the Church, but one was a Critical Thinking Class I took in college a few years ago, which so happened to coincide with me just discovering the Early Church Fathers. As a fundamentalist, I was very anti-Catholic and what I was discovering in the ECF’s just didn’t jive with what I have been and was being taught as a Baptist. So as a project I wrote a paper detailing what I believed about the Catholic faith and then I had to write a second paper using non-biased sources. It was then that I discovered that what I was taught concerning Catholicism was false.

The Critical Think Class showed me that I was being told ‘what to think’ and not ‘how to think’. I also learned that when reading the New Testament, I needed to keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew talking mainly to Jews, so I needed to try and interpret the NT in a first Century Jewish context with a Hebrew mindset and not a 2007 mindset. Jesus often spoke using ‘cultural literacy’, meaning Christ spoke and acted in ways that the Jews of that time period would’ve understood and may be confusing for an American in 2007.

Blessings to you mes228
-

 

That may be an accurate assessment about "ex cathedra."
But does it matter? Does that mean that everything else the Pope says is non-authoritative and can be considered as lies? Does Agnus disregard the words of the Pope when they are not spoken ex cathedra? Is he not still the head of the RCC? On the one hand he accuses a Baptist of using other sources such as commentaries, and then tells us that we have other sources than the Bible (which isn't really true). The Bible is our sole authority. But now comes the disclaimer that the Pope really isn't the RCC's authority unless he is speaking ex cathedra. Is this right Agnus? Is he your authority or not? Is what he speaks (ex cathedra or not) authoritative? If it is not authoritative why do you listen to him?

 

Mes228 and Agnus,

Both of you are in a deep quagmire of the fallacy.

1. What kind of Magic Power is attached to the Cathedra and therefore the Bulls from Ex Cathedra become Infallible?

I hope you know that the attaching special magic power or believing in such is a kind of Idolatry.

2. If only the statements from Ex Cathedra are Infallible, why don't the popes make all the statements from Ex Cathedra to avoid any errors?
Why doesn't the Pope carry the Peter's Chair with him all the time?
Is it because he wants to enjoy making mistakes or errors?

3. When Pope Pius IX claimed the Papal Infallibility, did he declare it Ex Cathedra? Could you show me any article showing where he announced such Bull?
If he didn't announce the Bull of Papal Infallibility ex Cathedra, the Bull itself is falliable, right? Then the claiming Papal Infallibility was fallible, right?

4. What are the list of the Infallible Papal statements? Could you show us here? They may be often in Latin, but we can manage it. Show them here.


5. Some of the Infallible Papal Bulls were confirmed and they are:

Mary's Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary.

As for Mary's assumption, nobody has seen it but RCC claims. Even Apostle John who was supposed to take care of her and lived long enough( maybe even upto 100AD) to see her death or assumption never mentioned it in his epistles 1,2,3 or Revelation. Why did he omit it? Was it because the Assumption was not important?

As for Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bible says this:

" There is none righteous, no, not one" Rom 3:10

Was Mary an exeption ? Do you understand what " None, No, Not one" mean?
Was Bible wrong?

Why did Immaculate Mary say this?

My spirit has rejoiced in God, My Savior? ( Luke 1:47)

Don't sinners need a Savior? Wasn't Mary a sinner but redeemed by the Blood of Jesus? Didn't Mary need the Blood of Jesus for the forgiveness of her sins?

How come Mary could be born Immaculate?

Are those 2 theories still Infallible?


6. I hope you know that there were several Popes who disclaimed the Papal Infallibility. As far as I know they are :

There is a startling record of popes who disagreed with lone another. Adrian II declared civil marriages valid; Pius VII condemned them. Popes Vigilinus, Innocent III, Clement IV, Gregory XI, Adrian VI and Paul IV all disclaimed the attribute of infallibility.

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/RadioPI.html

7. These days, RCC limits the Papal Infallibility to Doctrine and Morals etc ex cathedra, because they are in the pinch and realize they are somehow ridiculous, in order to evade the responsibility for the Infallibility.
Could you show any statements attached to the Papal Infallibility before beginning of 20 century which limit the Infallibility only to Ex Cathedra ?

8. Can the notorious Pope like Alexander 6 who had many mistress and ran the Simony business and showed strong Nepotism make Infallibel Statements as long as He speaks out of Ex Cathedra?

9. You are claiming the Fallibility of the Popes in the normal life and in most of the life, but that they can become Infallible if they are seated in the peter's chair, which sounds quite fallible! In General you are claiming Papal Fallibility, right? Please be honest!

10. Where did you, Agnus, bring the limitation of " College of Cardinals" Is it your own definition? I may have to watch carefully over Agnus because he may become Next Pope liberalizing the Marriage of Priests from the celibacy, right?

As long as you are in RCC, you are standing on the sinking sand, which is a pity.

 

If the Popes of RCC announced the Infallible Statements ex Cathedra only 13 times during the past 1700 years, it means that they announced Infallible Statements only once in 14 years.

Then, how many Bulls have been announced during the past 1700 years? Maybe thousands. Can they still claim the Papal Infallibility while the most of them were fallible?

I want to see the list of the Infallible Papal Statements!

When there were 3 popes in the history, the Infallible Pope must have been the one who possess the Peter's Chair! The chair makes the Pope Infallible!

Ex Cathedra was just a retreat from the ridiculous claim when they couldn't substantiate it.

 

Per Vatican II, when a pope doesn’t speak ex cathedra, loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect and sincerest assent be given to decisions made by him.

So it’s my understanding that when a pope speaks on issues regarding a teaching on a moral issue, the Church respects it as a true teaching guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ and even thought the statement isn’t technically declared infallible and may later undergo further clarification. Take for instance the moral teachings on euthanasia and bioethics, which provide true guidance to the faithful, but probably will be clarified, although not changed, as the parameters of these issues evolve.

As I said before, I take comfort and finally can rejoice that there’s a magisterium that courageously teaches the truth, especially in a world where so many people think truth fluctuates or is simply a matter of personal whim…Sadly, I see this often played out in Protestantism.
-

 

Hi Bob, I understand that the only offensive tactic you have in your small, limited arsenal is the inquisition card. Again, I’m not going to defend this accusation you have against the Church, but I do know that SDA’s (and I have family members that are SDA) don’t know what honest research is or how to go about employing such methods. They rather have biased protestant and secular sources do all their homework and take that as the gospel truth and ignore the Churches side of the story. You’re not only disingenuous, but you’ll end up being deceived. So my challenge to you Bob is to get some good Church history books by Catholics and see their side of the story, after all, it’s only fair wouldn’t you say?

Now, in regard to corrupt popes, please keep in mind, that this Authority of the Church is invested in an office, not a person Bob. The authority of the office prevails even if the office holder fails; case-in-point former president Bill Clinton. Clinton was still Commander and Chief with more political authority than any other man. Yet you and I both know that Clinton himself failed to live up to that office, yet his signature is still the Law of the Land.

One last comment, the Catholic Church that I have found is the ONLY Church in HISTORY that has the reputation for caring for the poor. In many countries, today, the Church is the only source of medical and social care. The Church has always obeyed her Lord in this. Evangelicals have failed miserably, b/c they believe that getting saved is much more important than caring for the poor and the fact that they can never get together with other competing denominations to provide such service. Even James Dobson asked, “Where were the Protestants”, when the Church was in Cairo defending life!
-

 

He can say what he wants about moral issues such as abortion and euthanasia, and then have the right to change his mind. That is not what bothers us.

The fact is: You claimed that the Popes have spoken only 13 times "ex cathedra" in past history. Now stick to doctrinal issues. I can name far more than 13 man-made doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that are heretical, some of them denying the sufficiency of the blood of Christ, the penalty of Christ dying on the cross for our sins, in fact even a denial of Christ dying on the cross for our sins. These doctrines that you believe have very seriuous implications. And if only 13 of them are infallible, then the rest of them can easily be challenged as being only man's opinion and subject to change at any time. So which ones are infallible

 

I don’t know why I even bother answering Eliyahu or yourself. All Roman Catholic threads, regardless the topic, always seems to fall back to the “inquisition” when all else fails.

I don’t deny that the Catholic Church engaged in the “inquisition”, but “exterminated” millions as you claim is just absurd! Historians credit the plague, which killed a third of Europe’s population, with major changes in social structure. The “inquisition” is credit with few, precisely b/c the numbers are so few! And no one knows for sure the exact number, so it’s easy for you anti-Catholic likes to flippantly throw out millions.

Now, the pagans over the centuries, have murdered millions of Christians, which continues today. So I’d say you have your facts skewed.

It’s my wife’s aunt and uncle who are SDA and they’ve never enlighten me to that “little” known fact…is it a new organization, maybe 55 years old? LOL, the SDA has some “catching-up” to do, but it is good that they’re doing something, but they’re notorious for false witness and one that they’ll have to answer for one day.

Speaking of SDA and the other topic…”Talking to the Dead”. My wife’s grandmother passed away a little over a year ago. This past Easter we were visiting and they (the SDA’s) were there, encouraging the husband to “visit” her gravesite, b/c she was “all alone there” and to “keep her company, by talking with her”. Is this an SDA ritual or something?

It’s sad to see them. Especially the uncle, he’s miserable, whenever they’re around for family cookouts, he’s not allowed to eat any meat products…he has to sneak a quick bite of chicken whenever she’s not looking and he they speak of Ellen G. White like she’s some pope in her own right, but that’s the cultic life I guess.
-