Click here (http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/anti1.htm).
\"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the Popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. It wounds Christ, robs Christ of His glory, puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread in the place of the Saviour....If we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors; we shall love their souls, though we loathe and detest their dogmas....\"
-- C. H. Spurgeon
Here's how John identified the anti-Christ
2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
A bit less senstional--and less like the pope--than the slide show.
I admit I turned the slideshow off when it started the accusations about Satanic rites in the Vatican. Such accusations do no good for anyone.
Reminds me of a preacher who used to host a show at a station where I worked. he said that he had grown up a Catholic, but had visited the Vatican, and while kneeling to pray suddenly heard the voices of thousands of demons all around him. He had then left the Catholic church.
This man also talked about how the government spyed on people through cable TV, often went several days without showering or changing his clothes, and could have a long conversation with you without ever blinking.
In short, he was obviously--to anyone who knew him--in need of mental help.
I think that we, as Christians, need to be careful about damaging our witness by getting involved in such things.[/color]
I admit I turned the slideshow off when it started the accusations about Satanic rites in the Vatican. Such accusations do no good for anyone.
Unless they are true.
(http://www.remnantofgod.org/crosinv2.jpg)
-Charles[/color]
We need to be less gullible.
The preacher mentioned above also once talked about how Satan's influence was so strong with young people that he was shocked to turn on a college football game and see a large number of the students doing the Satanic hand sign for the camera. This was a University of Texas game he was watching.
We really need to be less gullible.
I admit I turned the slideshow off when it started the accusations about Satanic rites in the Vatican. Such accusations do no good for anyone.
Unless they are true.
(http://www.remnantofgod.org/crosinv2.jpg)
-Charles
You're not serious, are you Charles? Have you ever been to a Catholic service?
The church of Saint Francis and Mother Theresa practices Satanic rites?
Like marc, I'd prefer to stick with the biblical denition of \"antichrists\" from I and II John.
Pax.[/color]
We need to be less gullible.
Indeed we do. (Matthew 24:4-5)
Like marc, I'd prefer to stick with the biblical denition of \"antichrists\" from I and II John.
An antichrist is one who: \"denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father\" (1 John 2:23, KJV)... What does it mean to deny the Son?
John tells what he means by this in the verse I quoted above.
Misrepresenting the faith of other believers in Christ is a serious thing.
[By the way, although I am rather skeptical about some of the conclusions that this slideshow made (i.e. the bent cross, etc.), the quotes seemingly speak for themselves.]
John tells what he means by this in the verse I quoted above.
One can acknowledge Jesus, and one can acknowledge another Jesus. When you read the quotes from various Popes, and the Roman Catholic institution, some of which were included on this slideshow, which Jesus do you think that they are acknowledging?
\"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.\" -- Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unun Sanctum, 1302
-------------
Misrepresenting the faith of other believers in Christ is a serious thing.
Agreed.[/color]
Heres some disturbing images:
(http://www.remnantofgod.org/popeworship7.jpg)(http://www.remnantofgod.org/pope-worship-ordination.jpg)
...the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
-2 Thessalonians 2:2-4
marc:
We really need to be less gullible.
:amen:
We damage the cause of Christ in the world when we agree with foolish statements.
Mike[/color]
Two questions here: Where did he claim his authority originated, and is this claim still made?
And does this at all have to do with the question of whether Jesus came in the flesh.
To me, if you're going to identify someone with Satan, you should have some really strong evidence.
To me, if you're going to identify someone with Satan, you should have some really strong evidence.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
-2 Corinthians 11:14-15
I'm of the opinion that there are anti-Christs, by which I mean those who work against the Church, and then there is the Anti-Christ, which is the Office of the Papacy.
There is ample evidence of the problems that lie within the official teachings of the RCC.
I believe that those who consider the Roman Catholic Church to be a benign or positive influence in Christendom are not looking with open eyes at it.
And these problems mean they deny that Christ came in the flesh?
Have you watched the slide show, btw?
Of course it's not just the pope.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v710/marcshoe/bush_rockon.jpg)
(I shouldn't have done that. :angel: )
Marc, is the definition of \"antichrist\" and \"spirit of antichrist\" limited to denying that Jesus \"came in the flesh\"? And, regardless of this, what does it mean to deny that He came in the flesh?
Does the Bible offer any other definitions? I don't know of any.
As to the definition, the words themselves are self-explanatory, but the background is found in gnosticism, which John wrote specifically to combat.
Here's the way the Marsh Commentary explains it:
This belief system holds that the physical world is inherently evil, while the spiritual world was inherently good. They believed in the deity of Jesus, but they would not believe that He came in a real physical body. They also believed that they could do any sin they wanted with their bodies as long as they kept their spirits pure.
(no, I have no idea what the Marsh Commentary is either, but this statement seems concise and accurate, based on what I know of gnosticism.)[/color]
Bush is prolly the one who precedes the anti-Christ ----->
(http://www.promoteliberty.org/upload/HillaryClintonCollapse.jpg)
I'm of the opinion that there are anti-Christs, by which I mean those who work against the Church, and then there is the Anti-Christ, which is the Office of the Papacy.
There is ample evidence of the problems that lie within the official teachings of the RCC.
I believe that those who consider the Roman Catholic Church to be a benign or positive influence in Christendom are not looking with open eyes at it.
That's exactly what I used to believe; until I started reading actual RCC literature, watching EWTN, and talking to my friends who are Catholic. While I certainly don't endorse everything the RCC teaches I believe that calling the Pope or the RCC the antichrist is going a bit far. I've just started reading a book now by Benedict XVI (written before his election)
Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions; IMO Ratzinger/Benedict is quite the theologian.
Not much chance of a fruitful dialogue with these people if they hear us calling their church or its pope the antichrist.
Pax vobiscum.[/color]
James, I refer you to Jude 9-11
9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, \"The Lord rebuke you!\" 10 Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.
11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.
If I were you, I would be more careful with my accusations.[/color]
James, I refer you to Jude 9-11
9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, \"The Lord rebuke you!\" 10 Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.
11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.
If I were you, I would be more careful with my accusations.[/color]
What accusations would those be, Tidbit?
The slideshow makes clear at the beginning that you must rely on the KJV. It then relies on a novel as one of its authorities for the alleged satanic ceremonies. I quit at that point.
If I were you, I would be more careful with my accusations.
What accusations would those be, Tidbit?
I was about to ask the same thing.
-Charles[/color]
James, I refer you to Jude 9-11
9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, \"The Lord rebuke you!\" 10 Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.
11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.
If I were you, I would be more careful with my accusations.
What accusations would those be, Tidbit?[/color]
don't play dumb, James. It does not become you.
I'm not playing dumb. What accusations?
That website was pure anti-Catholic propaganda.
I would encourage anyone who wants to know what the RCC really believes and teaches to pick up a copy of the catechism or tune in to EWTN, rather than rely upon a slanted web-site like that which has an agenda.
Pax.
The slideshow makes clear at the beginning that you must rely on the KJV. It then relies on a novel as one of its authorities for the alleged satanic ceremonies. I quit at that point.
I don't agree with, nor advocate everything on this slideshow. I've already alluded to that earlier. Nevertheless, there are several things on there that one should not overlook... Such as the quotes from Popes and other Roman Catholic sources.
\"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.\" -- Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unun Sanctum, 1302
[/color]
James,
As a former Catholic, I can truly attest that many who are reared in this faith and reiligon love God very much and desire to do what's true.
I did not read the entire slideshow, but did skim through all the pages.
Let's not give Satan more power than he deserves. This was a very strong statement against the Catholic church.
I agree with Tidbit, I would be more careful as well. Generalizing with such a broad stroke is never a good thing.
JAIA
When did I \"generalize with such a broad stroke\", JAIA?
\"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.\" -- Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unun Sanctum, 1302
[/color]
So every group that believes they are the only ones going to heaven is the antichrist?
Don't we have better things to do?
That website was pure anti-Catholic propaganda.
I would encourage anyone who wants to know what the RCC really believes and teaches to pick up a copy of the catechism or tune in to EWTN, rather than rely upon a slanted web-site like that which has an agenda.
Pax.
What do you think about this quote, Lee?
\"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.\" -- Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unun Sanctum, 1302
[/color]
I posted this concerning this quote a few pages back. You may have missed it:
Two questions here: Where did he claim his authority originated, and is this claim still made?
[/color]
\"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.\" -- Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unun Sanctum, 1302
So every group that believes they are the only ones going to heaven is the antichrist?
Don't we have better things to do?[/color]
There is much more to it than that. And there are many other quotes that we could deal with, such as those which assign Mary as mediator, advocate, and co-redeemer.
------------
[I wonder if we were discussing the Watchtower Society how different this discussion would be?...]
I would encourage anyone who wants to know what the RCC really believes and teaches to pick up a copy of the catechism or tune in to EWTN, rather than rely upon a slanted web-site like that which has an agenda.
Let me make mention of what the Catholic Church believes and teaches:
... some have employed the words of the Psalmist: \"Arise, O Lord, and go into Thy resting place, Thou and the ark of Thy might\" and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and places in the Lord's temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempted from all corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven. (Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus)
\"Mary, the immaculate perpetually Virgin Mother of God, after the completion of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.\" (Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, 1950)
\"If therefore it might come to pass before the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death does reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your mother and take her with you, rejoicing into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: 'Be it done according to your will\" (Pseudo-Melito The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17; 300 AD).
\"It was fitting...that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinized, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory...should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.\" (Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption; before 650 A.D.)
The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in bringing about death, so also a woman should contribute to life. . . . Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man's salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she \"being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.\" Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching: \"the knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.\" Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her \"Mother of the living,\" and frequently claim: \"death through Eve, life through Mary.\" - - Second Vatican Council(2)
She it was who, immune from all sin, personal or inherited, and ever more closely united with her Son, offered him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and motherly love. . . . - - Mystici Corporis(4)
Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim which was born of her. - - Second Vatican Council(5)
Mary suffered and, as it were, nearly died with her suffering Son; for the salvation of mankind she renounced her mother's rights and, as far as it depended on her, offered her Son to placate divine justice; so we may well say that she with Christ redeemed mankind. - - Inter Sodalicia(7)
The Blessed Virgin Mary is to be called Queen not only on account of her divine motherhood but also because by the will of God she had a great part in the work of our salvation. . . . In this work of redemption the blessed Virgin Mary was closely associated with her Christ. . . . Just as Christ, because he redeemed us, is by a special title our King and Lord, so too is Blessed Mary, our Queen and our Mistress, because of the unique way in which she co-operated in our redemption. She provided her very substance for his body, she offered him willingly for us, and she took a unique part in our salvation by desiring it, praying for it, and so obtaining it. . . . - - Ad Coeli Reginam(13)[/color]
marc,
Do you believe that infants MUST be baptized?
I posted this concerning this quote a few pages back. You may have missed it:
Two questions here: Where did he claim his authority originated, and is this claim still made?
[/color]
I didn't know that this question was addressed to me. Are you speaking about Boniface, or the Papacy in general? Regarding the claim, are you speaking of the claim of authority (i.e. as Pope) in general, or the claim that salvation comes from being subject to the Pope? Just looking for clarification.
indulgence
As in, indulgences? :;):
James, I refer you to Jude 9-11
9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, \"The Lord rebuke you!\" 10 Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.
11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.
If I were you, I would be more careful with my accusations.
What accusations would those be, Tidbit?[/color]
Still waiting, Tidbit...
I posted this concerning this quote a few pages back. You may have missed it:
Two questions here: Where did he claim his authority originated, and is this claim still made?
I didn't know that this question was addressed to me. Are you speaking about Boniface, or the Papacy in general? Regarding the claim, are you speaking of the claim of authority (i.e. as Pope) in general, or the claim that salvation comes from being subject to the Pope? Just looking for clarification.[/color]
It's your quote. :headscratch:
[I wonder if we were discussing the Watchtower Society how different this discussion would be?...]
Yeah it probably would but since we're not, what's your point?
marc,
Do you believe that infants MUST be baptized?
Huh? :confused:
[I wonder if we were discussing the Watchtower Society how different this discussion would be?...]
Yeah it probably would but since we're not, what's your point?[/color]
That is my point.
Okay, I understand what you were asking now. The claim I'm speaking of was the all-non-Catholics-go-to-Hell one made in the quote.
Okay, I understand what you were asking now. The claim I'm speaking of was the all-non-Catholics-go-to-Hell one made in the quote.
Marc,
I asked you that question because, if you reject infant baptism, or insist that one who was baptized as an infant must/should be rebaptized at an older age, then you are anathematized by the findings of the Council of Trent, which is still offical doctrine within the RCC.
As someone who is in such a state, you are not going to heaven as far as those in the RCC are concerned.
Correct me if I'm wrong...
Do you disbelieve that the RCC officially teaches that non-Catholics go to hell?[/color]
I posted this concerning this quote a few pages back. You may have missed it:
Two questions here: Where did he claim his authority originated, and is this claim still made?
I didn't know that this question was addressed to me. Are you speaking about Boniface, or the Papacy in general? Regarding the claim, are you speaking of the claim of authority (i.e. as Pope) in general, or the claim that salvation comes from being subject to the Pope? Just looking for clarification.
It's your quote. :headscratch:
Actually, it is Boniface's quote.
As far as Boniface's authority, and supposed Papal authority in general is concerned, I'm sure Boniface would claim that such authority came from Jesus. Although, I don't really know... As far as the claim still being made is concerned, I'm not really sure. But remember, Boniface was a Pope. Based upon all of what that office supposedly assumes and implies, once should be enough...[/color]
[!--EDIT|James Rondon|1122870803--]
Okay, I understand what you were asking now. The claim I'm speaking of was the all-non-Catholics-go-to-Hell one made in the quote.
Marc,
I asked you that question because, if you reject infant baptism, or insist that one who was baptized as an infant must/should be rebaptized at an older age, then you are anathematized by the findings of the Council of Trent, which is still offical doctrine within the RCC.
As someone who is in such a state, you are not going to heaven as far as those in the RCC are concerned.
Correct me if I'm wrong...
Do you disbelieve that the RCC officially teaches that non-Catholics go to hell?
I don't have any idea. I have greater concerns.
I do know (from experience) that teaching such a thing does not make you an antiChrist.
btw, the post you quoted was directed at James concerning his question about my question about his quote. It's getting late, I'm sleepy, and I'm not being clear.[/color]
Comparing JW and Catholic is quite unfair.
False doctrine is false doctrine.
-Charles
Comparing JW and Catholic is quite unfair.
False doctrine is false doctrine.
-Charles[/color]
Is all error the same? Does a mistake concerning any other doctrinal detail equate with a denial of the identity of Christ?
I posted this concerning this quote a few pages back. You may have missed it:
Two questions here: Where did he claim his authority originated, and is this claim still made?
I didn't know that this question was addressed to me. Are you speaking about Boniface, or the Papacy in general? Regarding the claim, are you speaking of the claim of authority (i.e. as Pope) in general, or the claim that salvation comes from being subject to the Pope? Just looking for clarification.
It's your quote. :headscratch:
Actually, it is Boniface's quote.
As far as Boniface's authority, and supposed Papal authority in general is concerned, I'm sure Boniface would claim that such authority came from Jesus. Although, I don't really know... As far as the claim still being made is concerned, I'm not really sure. But remember, Boniface was a Pope. Based upon all of what that office supposedly assumes and implies, once should be enough...
I certainly hope that someone doesn't identify me with all of the claims ever made by members of the Church of Christ.
Bsically, my point here was that he was not, by this statement, usurping the position of Christ, but instead was claiming that his authority came from Christ. He was neither denying nor belittling Christ.
While I would disagree with the doctring presented here, it does not, by definition, make the Pope the antiChrist.
I'm going to bed. In the end, the slide show speaks for itself. And what it speaks is damaging to the influence of Christianity.[/color]
Comparing JW and Catholic is quite unfair.
False doctrine is false doctrine.
-Charles
Is all error the same? Does a mistake concerning any other doctrinal detail equate with a denial of the identity of Christ?
Being mistaken is different than teaching false doctrine.
I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
- 1 John 2:21[/color]
Comparing JW and Catholic is quite unfair.
False doctrine is false doctrine.
-Charles
Is all error the same? Does a mistake concerning any other doctrinal detail equate with a denial of the identity of Christ?[/color]
If one were to claim that Mary is advocate, mediator, and co-redeemer, would that deny Christ? Would that deny His identity?
\"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous...\" (1 John 2:1, KJV).
\"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus...\" (1 Tim. 2:5, KJV).
\"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.\" (Tit. 2:13-15, KJV).
Marc,
I certainly hope that someone doesn't identify me with all of the claims ever made by members of the Church of Christ.
I agree, I don't want someone to do that to me either. You speak my point in better ways than I do.
Much too tired I guess.
:sleeping:[/color]
The thing is, the Pope speaks for the entire Roman Catholic institution... A quote from someone claiming to be Roman Catholic is one thing, a quote from a Pope is quite another.
I certainly hope that someone doesn't identify me with all of the claims ever made by members of the Church of Christ.
I agree, I don't want someone to do that to me either.
I speak out againt their teachings, not their members.
-Charles[/color]
JAIA,
Just because the lay people are ignorant of Church doctrine does not excuse the substance of that doctrine.
I hear what you are saying about the Pope speaking for the entire Roman Catholic institution....my question would remain, does he really?
He does. By very definition.
As far as the Roman Catholic sitting in the pew is concerned, isn't there a pledge that one makes at confirmation about agreeing with the teachings of the church, and about submitting to the authority of the Pope...?
By the way, why aren't you still sitting in a Roman Catholic pew?... Why did you leave Roman Catholicism?
I still attest, as Scripture says, we must use caution.
I couldn't agree more, especially with Matthew 24:4 in mind.
But thank you again for your comments and concerns, sleep well.
-Charles[/color]
Of course it's not just the pope.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v710/marcshoe/bush_rockon.jpg)
(I shouldn't have done that. :angel: )
:rofl:
Bush is prolly the one who precedes the anti-Christ ----->
(http://www.promoteliberty.org/upload/HillaryClintonCollapse.jpg)
:rofl:
Pray hard!
\"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.\" -- Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unun Sanctum, 1302
So every group that believes they are the only ones going to heaven is the antichrist?
Don't we have better things to do?
You just may have given one answer to Jame's question of what it means to deny Christ. Division![/color]
\"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.\" -- Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unun Sanctum, 1302
So every group that believes they are the only ones going to heaven is the antichrist?
Don't we have better things to do?
There is much more to it than that. And there are many other quotes that we could deal with, such as those which assign Mary as mediator, advocate, and co-redeemer.
------------
[I wonder if we were discussing the Watchtower Society how different this discussion would be?...][/color]
I find the Vatican and the Watchtower Society very similar.
Their word is truth and anything else is not of God.
That website was pure anti-Catholic propaganda.
I would encourage anyone who wants to know what the RCC really believes and teaches to pick up a copy of the catechism or tune in to EWTN, rather than rely upon a slanted web-site like that which has an agenda.
Pax.
Been there, done that. They are guilty of adultery with God's word. They seem the whore mentioned in Revelation due to this adultery.
Here was my sincere and honest reaction to viewing the anti-christ website in its entirety:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
And I think that's about the only reaction that site is worth.
That website was pure anti-Catholic propaganda.
I would encourage anyone who wants to know what the RCC really believes and teaches to pick up a copy of the catechism or tune in to EWTN, rather than rely upon a slanted web-site like that which has an agenda.
Pax.
What do you think about this quote, Lee?
\"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.\" -- Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unun Sanctum, 1302
I'd say, consider when it was made-1302. Is the statement considered normative by the Church today in the way Boniface intended? Did the Church in Boniface's day regard it as authoritative? I'd say the text of this bull must be read in context and interpreted as one would any otherm, similar document-it cannot simply be taken at face value. As we'll see below, Boniface intended to assert booth temporal
and spiritual authority with this bull, something modern popes would never do.
Here's modern Catholic commentary on Boniface's statements in
Unum Sanctum:When the Pope sought to bind, Holy Spirit proclaimed freedom!On this account of Boniface's definition, one sees that it is in objective fact entirely benign, though in subjective intention malign. Given that the Roman Pontif
is, by Divine Right, the vicarious head of the Church Militant; all members of the Church Militant are necessarily subject to his jurisdiction. This is inevitable. At the particular judgement, a person passes from membership of the Church Militant to the Church Triumphant (possibly via purgatory, which is not at issue here). Someone who dies in invincible ignorance (i.e. as a friend of God, in a state of grace, but only associated with the Church Militant, not formally a member of it and so not subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontif) will become a member of the Church Militant at the moment of death, when God makes clear to them the truth of their lives. Hence, for at least an instant, they do become subject to papal jurisdiction: though not in any way that any pope could ever use against them! It follows that non-Catholics can benefit from the plenary indulgence applicable at the moment of death, because (in accordance with Boniface's definition) at that very moment they become momentarily subject to the pope's pastoral care!
So, the objective import of Boniface's definition is more or less the opposite of what he subjectively intended. He meant to impose his
coercive will on the King of France by threatening His Majesty with damnation if he didn't do as he was told. In fact he established only
the liberality of God, in that every person appearing in good faith before the Judgement Throne can benefit equally from the \"Church's Treasury of Grace\", whether or not they were in their earthly life a formal member of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Evangelical and Orthodox Church!
FR. ADRIAN FORTESCUE (1874-1923) \"The Pope has no authority from Christ in temporal matters, in questions of politics.... His authority is ecclesiastical authority; it goes no further than that of the Church herself. But even in religious matters,
the Pope is bound, very considerably, by the divine constitution of the Church. There are any number of things that the pope cannot do in religion. He cannot modify, nor touch in any way, one single point of the revelation Christ gave to the Church; his business is only to guard this against attack and false interpretation. We believe that God will guide him that his decisions of this nature will be nothing more than a defence or unfolding of what Christ revealed.\"
\"The pope can neither make nor unmake a sacrament; he cannot affect the essence of any sacrament in any way. He cannot touch the Bible; he can neither take away a text from the inspired Scriptures nor add one to them.
He has no fresh inspiration nor revelation.\" \"His business is to believe the revelation of Christ, as all Catholics believe it, and to defend it against heresy.... The Pope is not, in the absolute sense, head of the Church; the head of the Church is Jesus Christ our Lord.... The Pope is the vicar of that head, and therefore visible head of the Church on earth, having authority delegate from Christ over the Church on Earth only....
If the Pope is a monarch, he is a very constitutional monarch indeed, bound on all sides by the constitution of the Church, as this has been given to her by Christ.\" (The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, pp. 27-28)
MICHAEL DAVIESA pope who, while not being guilty of formal heresy in the strict sense, has allowed heresy to undermine the Church through compromise, weakness, ambiguous or even gravely imprudent teaching remains Pope, but can be judged by his successors,
and condemned as was the case with Honorius I.
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) The Liturgy cannot be compared to a piece of equipment, something made, but rather to a plant, something organic that grows and whose laws of growth determine the possibilities of further development. In the West there has been, of course, another factor involved. This was the Papal authority, the Pope took ever more clearly the responsibility upon himself for the liturgical legislation, and so doing foresaw in a juridical authority for the forth setting of the liturgical development. The stronger the papal primacy was exercised, the more the question arose, just what the limits of this authority were, which of course, no-one had ever before thought about. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression has been made that the Pope, as far as the Liturgy goes, can actually do everything he wishes to do, certainly when he was acting with the mandate of an Oecumenical Council. Finally, the idea that the Liturgy is a predetermined ''given'', the fact that nobody can simply do what he wishes with her, disappeared out of the public conscience of the Western [Church].
In fact, the First Vatican Council did not in any way define that the Pope was an absolute monarch! Au contraire, the first Vatican Council sketched his role as that of a guarantee for the obedience to the Revealed Word. The papal authority is limited by the Holy Tradition of the Faith, and that regards also the Liturgy. The Liturgy is no ''creation'' of the authorities. Even the Pope can be nothing other than a humble servant of the Liturgy's legitimate development and of her everlasting integrity and identity. (Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000 AD)
IMO stuff like this should be taken into consideration before we rush to pronounce judgement. These issues are complex, and making snap judgements without knowing the background and context of the issues does not reflect that.
Pax vobiscum.[/color]
That website was pure anti-Catholic propaganda.
I would encourage anyone who wants to know what the RCC really believes and teaches to pick up a copy of the catechism or tune in to EWTN, rather than rely upon a slanted web-site like that which has an agenda.
Pax.
Been there, done that. They are guilty of adultery with God's word. They seem the whore mentioned in Revelation due to this adultery.
Are Catholics not every bit as sincere as Protestants? How have they \"adulterated God's Word?\" Are you accusing them of of tampering with Scripture, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses have done, or of adding unbiblical traditions, or what?
Regardless, how does Christ's statement in Mark 9 apply here, or does it? Christ told John in Mark 9 after the disciples tried to stop a man casting out demons who wasn't one of the twelve: \"Do not forbid him. . . Whoever is not against us is for us.\"
Pax.[/color]
Lee, I don't know if sincerity is a proper measure for anything.
Oh....and about the argument that the Catholic Church is the anti-Christ because it claims that anyone outside the Catholic Church cannot be saved:
1. I agree (as far as the 'universal' Catholic Church goes, after all there is only one church); and
2. I've heard lots of people say that only 'member's of the Lord's Church' (i.e., SoF CoC) are going to be saved. Are we then the anti-Christ?
Are we then the anti-Christ?
yeah :rofl:
(this is what Bog likes to call bomb-throwing) :D
I don't know which is better.... the antichrist slideshow or this site...
[a href=\"http://www.bushisantichrist.com/\" target=\'_blank\']http://www.bushisantichrist.com/[/a][/color]
Are we then the anti-Christ?
yeah :rofl:
(this is what Bog likes to call bomb-throwing) :D
I don't know which is better.... the antichrist slideshow or this site...
http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ (http://www.bushisantichrist.com/)
\"I don't know which is better.... the antichrist slideshow or this site...
http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ (http://www.bushisantichrist.com/)\":announcement: :shrug:[/color]
That website was pure anti-Catholic propaganda.
I would encourage anyone who wants to know what the RCC really believes and teaches to pick up a copy of the catechism or tune in to EWTN, rather than rely upon a slanted web-site like that which has an agenda.
Pax.
Been there, done that. They are guilty of adultery with God's word. They seem the whore mentioned in Revelation due to this adultery.
Are Catholics not every bit as sincere as Protestants? How have they \"adulterated God's Word?\" Are you accusing them of of tampering with Scripture, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses have done, or of adding unbiblical traditions, or what?
Regardless, how does Christ's statement in Mark 9 apply here, or does it? Christ told John in Mark 9 after the disciples tried to stop a man casting out demons who wasn't one of the twelve: \"Do not forbid him. . . Whoever is not against us is for us.\"
Pax.
That website was pure anti-Catholic propaganda.
I would encourage anyone who wants to know what the RCC really believes and teaches to pick up a copy of the catechism or tune in to EWTN, rather than rely upon a slanted web-site like that which has an agenda.
Pax.
Been there, done that. They are guilty of adultery with God's word. They seem the whore mentioned in Revelation due to this adultery.
Are Catholics not every bit as sincere as Protestants?
It is a toss up. Some are some are not. There are sincere catholics and there are sincere protestants.
How have they \"adulterated God's Word?\"
You have to be kidding?
Are you accusing them of of tampering with Scripture, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses have done,
I gave the reason in one of my posts. They both proclaim truth only comes through them. No matter how unscriptural it may be.
or of adding unbiblical traditions, or what?
I donot see much similarity between TWTS and the church at Rome in this regard. I mentioned above and in another post how I see them similar.
Regardless, how does Christ's statement in Mark 9 apply here, or does it? Christ told John in Mark 9 after the disciples tried to stop a man casting out demons who wasn't one of the twelve: \"Do not forbid him. . . Whoever is not against us is for us.\"
Pax.
Perhaps the difference is doing it in
His name. In
His authority. It seems an apples and oranges comparison as Christ also said:
Matthew 7:21.
\"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.\"ollie[/color]
IMO stuff like this should be taken into consideration before we rush to pronounce judgement. These issues are complex, and making snap judgements without knowing the background and context of the issues does not reflect that.
Alfonzo would probably say the same thing regarding the Watchtower...
Perhaps the difference is doing it in His name. In His authority. It seems an apples and oranges comparison as Christ also said:
Matthew 7:21. \"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.\"
ollie
You didn't answer my question of how, specifically, the Catholic Church has \"adulterated God's Word.\" Can you provide specific examples?
As for claims to speak the Truth and nothing but the Truth, no matter how unbiblical, other denominations, like the Puritans, Zwinglians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Church of Christ have all made similar claims. As I recalll, the Church of Christ has made some unscriptural claims as well. Does that make us the antichrist too?
The Catholic Church claims to do what it does in Christ's name. I'm not saying whether I think its claims are legitimate or not, only that it believes in one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. It claims to act under the authority of Christ and in his name.
The man casting ourt demons also claimed to be acting in Jesus' name and Jesus said \"Do not forbid him.\"And remember, that \"antichrist\" Catholic Church gave us the canon of Scripture (and a whole lot of other things we take for granted, such as hospitals and universities, historical chronicles, scienctific treatises, etc.).
Pax vobiscum.[/color]
IMO stuff like this should be taken into consideration before we rush to pronounce judgement. These issues are complex, and making snap judgements without knowing the background and context of the issues does not reflect that.
Alfonzo would probably say the same thing regarding the Watchtower...
Yes, and I'd give the Watchtower the same benefit of the doubt as I would the RCC. Before criticizing someone else's theology I'd study it first so I'd know whether my criticisms were valid or not. The website lifted quotations out of context, devoid of any historical context, with no explanatory note. As if statements made by a long dead pope are automatically binding upon modern Catholics. Just because Boniface VIII made such a statement doesn't mean the modern RCC endorses it. They most likely don't endorse a lot of things said by certain popes.
IMO the Watchtower fails miserably upon an examination of both their theology and practices. Their Christ isn't the Christ of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, and they've made dozens of end-time prophecies which have failed. As far as I know, the Watchtower has never publicly repudiated anything it has ever taught as being wrong or as non-binding upon modern JW's.
The RCC worships a divine Christ and has never claimed to know the date of armageddon.
The Catholic Church of today in many ways isn't the same Catholic Church of 1302.
Look, all I'm saying is before we criticize someone else we need to know what we're talking about first, and walk a mile or so in their shoes first. Then, if we still have substantive objections, so be it.
The website under discussion offered nothing but the same tired anti-Catholic propaganda that's been hurled at the RCC for decades, centuries, even. It is not an objective assessment of RCC doctrine. Its blatant objective is to convince its readers that the RCC is the antichrist.
Pax.[/color]