Christian Forums

When you were a kid, did your teacher ever leave the classroom and appoint one of the students (often a teacher's pet, lol) to be "in charge" while she was gone? I remember once having to "write down names" of those who misbehaved while she was gone. The child is given a small bit of authority for a time, just until she comes back. That's the idea here. To be "in the place of" does not mean one is that person or thing.


This analogy is pretty worthless when you take into consideration that we are not children, we have bibles, and He (Jesus) sent the Holy Spirit to ALL OF US when He left the room. Thus, we don't need a monitor. We all stand on our own before the LORD.

Your analogy makes the Pope a baby sitter. But, since he cannot possible even know who is and who is not misbehaving as your analogy states... It's a moot point. 

The BIBLE gave us doctrine, concerning morals and behavior. And we have the Holy Spirit to keep us.  Man created the Pope. The fact that someone can pull scriptures out to make it appear as though it is the will of God, or appointed isn't truth.

To the objectors who claim that this book was not the Koran, we present an excerpt from an interview with FIDES News Service (June 1, 1999). In it, Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Raphael I affirmed that he was present when John Paul II kissed the Muslim "holy" book:

"At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu'ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam."


You have got to be kidding me!  That is one for the record books.  The same lips that kiss the Holy Bible too! For shame. 

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 15:27:40
When you were a kid, did your teacher ever leave the classroom and appoint one of the students (often a teacher's pet, lol) to be "in charge" while she was gone? I remember once having to "write down names" of those who misbehaved while she was gone. The child is given a small bit of authority for a time, just until she comes back. That's the idea here. To be "in the place of" does not mean one is that person or thing.


This analogy is pretty worthless when you take into consideration that we are not children, we have bibles, and He (Jesus) sent the Holy Spirit to ALL OF US when He left the room. Thus, we don't need a monitor. We all stand on our own before the LORD.

Just as worthless as Christ's analogy? - He is the Sheppard and we are His sheep.  Of course, He isn't really a sheppard and we are really not sheep......

No.. Jesus really was and is the Sheperd, and the Holy Spirit really is the teacher who NEVER leaves the room.  That was my point.

Silly boy. 

Now write on the chalk board 100 times... I will be good in class while Jesus is with me at all times. HTH.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 16:06:29
No.. Jesus really was and is the Sheperd, and the Holy Spirit really is the teacher who NEVER leaves the room.  That was my point.

Silly boy. 

Now write on the chalk board 100 times... I will be good in class while Jesus is with me at all times. HTH.

Your contempt aside, it is the same sort of analogy.

There was no contempt.  I'm not stuck in what happened yesterday.   

It was humor... classroom humor.  I guess you don't get it.   

It's not the same, saying that the Pope is the same as the Holy Spirit who God sent to "watch" over us, or Jesus in Spirit who never leaves us is not the same at all.

Infact, if you understand the word, the Holy Spirit and His purpose in our lives, you will see that no classroom monitor to take down names is ever needed.

The Holy Spirit already knows all the names.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 15:27:40

This analogy is pretty worthless when you take into consideration that we are not children, we have bibles, and He (Jesus) sent the Holy Spirit to ALL OF US when He left the room. Thus, we don't need a monitor. We all stand on our own before the LORD.

Considering that there are thousands of protestant denominations, I would venture to guess that this system hasn't worked all that well.  I would say that a "monitor" is certainly in need, and Jesus made sure that such a "monitor" would be present.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 11:34:44
And, in context if you read the whole section of the catechism, we understand that Catholics believe this power is given to him by Christ...so he's not above Christ or equal to Christ, he is under Christ. But he acts as Christ's vicar, steward of the visible Church, while Christ is away, he is a visible head.

I understand others don't agree that Christ set up a vicar for His Church, but we do...however, that doesn't mean we believe he is equal to Christ in any way.

It simply means, as I've already explained above, that we believe that the pope is a "stand in" for Christ while Christ is gone. He "holds the place," that doesn't mean he IS Christ or is equal to him. (Exactly like the steward talked about in Isaiah 22). And actually, it seems this letter is directed to all bishops, so the "we" refers to all of them, not just popes. It's a reference to the authority they've been given to shephard the flock.

     Stephanie, we have given you indisputable evidence, over and over, from Catholic sources, and quotations from past popes themselves, that the Roman "Pontiff" considers himself, not only equal to God, but is God on earth. 

     I have no desire to repeat those bits of official evidence, and I'd rather think that others share the same feeling.  It isn't a matter of taking something out of context, as you cry every time someone submits a quotation that conflicts with your views, but a matter of your rejecting the evidence. 

     And just here I'm going to suggest that you take those quotations—indisputable evidence—up with the Vatican, because the Vatican's popes issued them.  And once you get this matter straightened out and settled with the Vatican, inform us of the results.

—Buff.

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:28:28

Quote from: Mere Nick on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 11:59:45

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:26:46
The problem is that if one has an ecumenical desire, they refuse to see past it to the truth when it is presented.

CRP

The only reasonable course, istm, is that if I want to know what a Roman Catholic who posts here believes, I ask that Roman Catholic.  The same goes for other folks who post here whatever is the SOF.

Whatever the SOF?

I can't think of anyone better to help me understand the beliefs of James Rondon than James Rondon.  Only when I can say to James that James believes A because of B, and James says I'm correct, do I understand his beliefs.

Quote from: Reformer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 17:18:10

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 11:34:44
And, in context if you read the whole section of the catechism, we understand that Catholics believe this power is given to him by Christ...so he's not above Christ or equal to Christ, he is under Christ. But he acts as Christ's vicar, steward of the visible Church, while Christ is away, he is a visible head.

I understand others don't agree that Christ set up a vicar for His Church, but we do...however, that doesn't mean we believe he is equal to Christ in any way.

It simply means, as I've already explained above, that we believe that the pope is a "stand in" for Christ while Christ is gone. He "holds the place," that doesn't mean he IS Christ or is equal to him. (Exactly like the steward talked about in Isaiah 22). And actually, it seems this letter is directed to all bishops, so the "we" refers to all of them, not just popes. It's a reference to the authority they've been given to shephard the flock.

     Stephanie, we have given you indisputable evidence, over and over, from Catholic sources, and quotations from past popes themselves, that the Roman "Pontiff" considers himself, not only equal to God, but is God on earth. 

     I have no desire to repeat those bits of official evidence, and I'd rather think that others share the same feeling.  It isn't a matter of taking something out of context, as you cry every time someone submits a quotation that conflicts with your views, but a matter of your rejecting the evidence. 

     And just here I'm going to suggest that you take those quotations—indisputable evidence—up with the Vatican, because the Vatican's popes issued them.  And once you get this matter straightened out and settled with the Vatican, inform us of the results.

—Buff.

It seems that you are bent on remaining ignorant of Catholic doctrine, and I doubt anything that Stephanie says will be of value to you.  She has given a clear explanation, not to mention from the Catechism.  This pope certainly doesn't believe that he is equal to God and anyone who believes otherwise is engaging in deception and misinformation.  What you propose has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church.  Context is everything and pulling a simple quote here and there, while ignoring the context, is just plain wrong and dishonest.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:25:06

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 11:55:17
I'd say not always, but it can certainly happen if one isn't careful about what their understanding of ecumenism is...

I know exactly what kind of ecumenism is being promoted through the Roman Catholic Church, and it has no place in Christianity.

---

The Assisi Interfaith Gatherings of 1986

In 1986 the Pope John Paul gathered at Assi, Italy, together with 130 leaders of 12 major religions to pray for peace. He told them , we are all praying to the same God. He allowed his friend, Dali Lama, who considers himself God and the fourteenth reincarnation of the original Dali Lama, to remove the cross from the altar and to replace it with Buddha. The Buddhist monks perform their worship at the alter.


May 14, 1999 - John Paul II kisses the Koran (Qu'ran) at the Vatican.

To the objectors who claim that this book was not the Koran, we present an excerpt from an interview with FIDES News Service (June 1, 1999). In it, Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Raphael I affirmed that he was present when John Paul II kissed the Muslim "holy" book:

"At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu'ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam."

It's funny how Catholics are accused, in the same breath, of being "too ecumenical" (or thinking that whatever religion you are doesn't matter) and then of being "too restrictive" with quotes thrown around about how there's no salvation outside the Church. So...which is it? (I know what it is, because I understand Church teaching and what it says rather than the misconceptions others have of it.)

I'm reminded of a quote from G.K. Chesterton...

If you hear a thing being accused of being too tall and too short, too red and too green, too bad in one way and too bad also in the opposite way, then you may be sure that it is very good.

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 17:42:54
It seems that you are bent on remaining ignorant of Catholic doctrine, and I doubt anything that Stephanie says will be of value to you.  She has given a clear explanation, not to mention from the Catechism.  This pope certainly doesn't believe that he is equal to God and anyone who believes otherwise is engaging in deception and misinformation.  What you propose has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church.  Context is everything and pulling a simple quote here and there, while ignoring the context, is just plain wrong and dishonest.

"Wrong and dishonest"?  Oh, what love you have in your heart!  What you are actually saying, my friend, is that past popes were wrong and dishonest when they affirmed to be God, or equal to God.  Yet you and Stephanie contend that Catholic doctrine has not changed through the centuries.  That being the case, your current pope still holds to the affirmation that he is God on earth.  But if he disavows that affirmation, which is doubtful, the Catholic doctrine has changed. 

     Any way you peel the orange, you and Stephanie will meet yourselves coming backwards.  I call this "Catholicism against itself."

—Buff.

Quote from: Reformer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 17:18:10

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 11:34:44
And, in context if you read the whole section of the catechism, we understand that Catholics believe this power is given to him by Christ...so he's not above Christ or equal to Christ, he is under Christ. But he acts as Christ's vicar, steward of the visible Church, while Christ is away, he is a visible head.

I understand others don't agree that Christ set up a vicar for His Church, but we do...however, that doesn't mean we believe he is equal to Christ in any way.

It simply means, as I've already explained above, that we believe that the pope is a "stand in" for Christ while Christ is gone. He "holds the place," that doesn't mean he IS Christ or is equal to him. (Exactly like the steward talked about in Isaiah 22). And actually, it seems this letter is directed to all bishops, so the "we" refers to all of them, not just popes. It's a reference to the authority they've been given to shephard the flock.

     Stephanie, we have given you indisputable evidence, over and over, from Catholic sources, and quotations from past popes themselves, that the Roman "Pontiff" considers himself, not only equal to God, but is God on earth. 

     I have no desire to repeat those bits of official evidence, and I'd rather think that others share the same feeling.  It isn't a matter of taking something out of context, as you cry every time someone submits a quotation that conflicts with your views, but a matter of your rejecting the evidence. 

     And just here I'm going to suggest that you take those quotations—indisputable evidence—up with the Vatican, because the Vatican's popes issued them.  And once you get this matter straightened out and settled with the Vatican, inform us of the results.

—Buff.

Umm...no, you haven't provided evidence of those things. You've provided out of context and/or misunderstood bits and pieces, and I've placed them back in context, and explained the proper Catholic understanding of them. Now all you've done in response is essentially cry "Nuh-uh!!!!" without even attempting to explain how my explanations fail.

But I'm not going to spend my time arguing about it. This is exactly what I said would happen...I would say what we believe, and others would tell me they know better than I do what we believe, and that I'm wrong.   What can I do about it? You're free to believe what you want. I've explained what Catholics understand those bits of "evidence" to mean, and it's up to others to believe me or not.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 15:27:40
When you were a kid, did your teacher ever leave the classroom and appoint one of the students (often a teacher's pet, lol) to be "in charge" while she was gone? I remember once having to "write down names" of those who misbehaved while she was gone. The child is given a small bit of authority for a time, just until she comes back. That's the idea here. To be "in the place of" does not mean one is that person or thing.


This analogy is pretty worthless when you take into consideration that we are not children, we have bibles, and He (Jesus) sent the Holy Spirit to ALL OF US when He left the room. Thus, we don't need a monitor. We all stand on our own before the LORD.

Wow...we're not God's children? For some reason I was under the impression that we were...I still pray the Our Father, and I consider myself an adopted child of God, so....

If we didn't need a moniter, I'd think we would have no division, but there is division so I do see the need for a moniter.

Regardless, whether you think we need one or not, this is what we see the Pope as...and not as God on Earth or some such thing. That was my primary point, really. 

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 17:58:21

Quote from: Reformer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 17:18:10

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 11:34:44
And, in context if you read the whole section of the catechism, we understand that Catholics believe this power is given to him by Christ...so he's not above Christ or equal to Christ, he is under Christ. But he acts as Christ's vicar, steward of the visible Church, while Christ is away, he is a visible head.

I understand others don't agree that Christ set up a vicar for His Church, but we do...however, that doesn't mean we believe he is equal to Christ in any way.

It simply means, as I've already explained above, that we believe that the pope is a "stand in" for Christ while Christ is gone. He "holds the place," that doesn't mean he IS Christ or is equal to him. (Exactly like the steward talked about in Isaiah 22). And actually, it seems this letter is directed to all bishops, so the "we" refers to all of them, not just popes. It's a reference to the authority they've been given to shephard the flock.

     Stephanie, we have given you indisputable evidence, over and over, from Catholic sources, and quotations from past popes themselves, that the Roman "Pontiff" considers himself, not only equal to God, but is God on earth. 

     I have no desire to repeat those bits of official evidence, and I'd rather think that others share the same feeling.  It isn't a matter of taking something out of context, as you cry every time someone submits a quotation that conflicts with your views, but a matter of your rejecting the evidence. 

     And just here I'm going to suggest that you take those quotations—indisputable evidence—up with the Vatican, because the Vatican's popes issued them.  And once you get this matter straightened out and settled with the Vatican, inform us of the results.

—Buff.

Umm...no, you haven't provided evidence of those things. You've provided out of context and/or misunderstood bits and pieces, and I've placed them back in context, and explained the proper Catholic understanding of them. Now all you've done in response is essentially cry "Nuh-uh!!!!" without even attempting to explain how my explanations fail.

But I'm not going to spend my time arguing about it. This is exactly what I said would happen...I would say what we believe, and others would tell me they know better than I do what we believe, and that I'm wrong.   What can I do about it? You're free to believe what you want. I've explained what Catholics understand those bits of "evidence" to mean, and it's up to others to believe me or not.

Mllevaleur,

Here is where the rubber meets the road.

Would you like to be the first Catholic I know to answer the following question in the affirmative?

Do you HAVE EVERLASTING life?

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.


CRP

Quite a change of subject there, but ok I'll bite...

Right now I'm unaware of any mortal sin I've committed, so at the moment yes, I have everlasting life, also known as supernatural life residing in my soul, also known as sanctifying grace.

I'm off to orchestra rehearsal so I may not be back soon. Have a nice evening!

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 17:58:21
Umm...no, you haven't provided evidence of those things. You've provided out of context and/or misunderstood bits and pieces, and I've placed them back in context, and explained the proper Catholic understanding of them. Now all you've done in response is essentially cry "Nuh-uh!!!!" without even attempting to explain how my explanations fail.

But I'm not going to spend my time arguing about it. This is exactly what I said would happen...I would say what we believe, and others would tell me they know better than I do what we believe, and that I'm wrong.   What can I do about it? You're free to believe what you want. I've explained what Catholics understand those bits of "evidence" to mean, and it's up to others to believe me or not.

    "Out of context" quotations, huh?  That's exactly what I said earlier:  Every time a piece of indisputable evidence is submitted, you accuse us of "taking it out of context."  It won't work, Stephanie.  The quotations were not taken out of context.  They are there and cannot be discredited, except by those who say "they were taken out of context."

    In regards to "Catholicism against itself," here is something I lifted from www.mindspring.com/~renewal/Pope.html that might be of interest:

    John Paul II outdid most politicians in playing all sides. During his 1987 visit to Los Angeles, he told Rabbi Emeritus Harvey Fields of Wilshire Boulevard Temple and the late Rabbi Alfred Wolf that everyone serves the "same God...no matter what their religion.

Quote from: Reformer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 18:16:18

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 17:58:21
Umm...no, you haven't provided evidence of those things. You've provided out of context and/or misunderstood bits and pieces, and I've placed them back in context, and explained the proper Catholic understanding of them. Now all you've done in response is essentially cry "Nuh-uh!!!!" without even attempting to explain how my explanations fail.

But I'm not going to spend my time arguing about it. This is exactly what I said would happen...I would say what we believe, and others would tell me they know better than I do what we believe, and that I'm wrong.   What can I do about it? You're free to believe what you want. I've explained what Catholics understand those bits of "evidence" to mean, and it's up to others to believe me or not.

    "Out of context" quotations, huh?  That's exactly what I said earlier:  Every time a piece of indisputable evidence is submitted, you accuse us of "taking it out of context."  It won't work, Stephanie.  The quotations were not taken out of context.  They are there and cannot be discredited, except by those who say "they were taken out of context."

That still doesn't explain how my explanation of the quotes are incorrect...we can shout "It is not!!" "It is so!!" at each other all we want, but that doesn't do much to foster understanding.

   

QuoteIn regards to "Catholicism against itself," here is something I lifted from www.mindspring.com/renewal/Pope.html that might be of interest:

   

Did Pope John Paul Speak With A Forked Tongue?

John Paul II outdid most politicians in playing all sides. During his 1987 visit to Los Angeles, he told Rabbi Emeritus Harvey Fields of Wilshire Boulevard Temple and the late Rabbi Alfred Wolf that everyone serves the "same God...no matter what their religion.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 18:23:34
That still doesn't explain how my explanation of the quotes are incorrect...we can shout "It is not!!" "It is so!!" at each other all we want, but that doesn't do much to foster understanding.

    There you go, Stephanie, taking the quotations (evidence) out of context by your "explanations."  I believe this is called, "The pot is calling the kittle black." 

     It might be of help that you connect to the URL I gave in my last post.  I am not it's author.  Here it is again:  www.mindspring.com/~renewal/Pope.html .

—Buff.

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 16:56:37

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 15:27:40

This analogy is pretty worthless when you take into consideration that we are not children, we have bibles, and He (Jesus) sent the Holy Spirit to ALL OF US when He left the room. Thus, we don't need a monitor. We all stand on our own before the LORD.

Considering that there are thousands of protestant denominations, I would venture to guess that this system hasn't worked all that well.  I would say that a "monitor" is certainly in need, and Jesus made sure that such a "monitor" would be present.

You are saying that Jesus leaving the Holy Spirit with us is not good enough?  As though your Pope is omnipresent, omnipotent and knows all of you by name. Does He really know where you are, when you are, and what you are? I doubt it. To imply that ANYTHING Jesus did was not good enough, is arrogant.

A man made office of "Pope" is more in line with what God had planned for us that what He said He was doing Himself when He sent the Holy Spirit?  Surely you jest. 

There may be many protestant denoms... but they are no more jacked up than the Roman system you all believe.  So, that being said.. it's evident that "having one man" in charge doesn't seem to be working either. Or the molestations would NEVER have happened. Peddle that somewhere else.

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 16:56:37

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 15:27:40

This analogy is pretty worthless when you take into consideration that we are not children, we have bibles, and He (Jesus) sent the Holy Spirit to ALL OF US when He left the room. Thus, we don't need a monitor. We all stand on our own before the LORD.

Considering that there are thousands of protestant denominations, I would venture to guess that this system hasn't worked all that well.  I would say that a "monitor" is certainly in need, and Jesus made sure that such a "monitor" would be present.

I'd really like a show of hands as to how many Catholics truely believe what broach has implied here... That you don't need the Holy Spirit that Jesus sent to you to guide you in your walk, because you have the Pope? 

Anyone?   Really... having a flesh and blood man in an obscure office, in a Vatican, in another country is what keeps you from sin and guides your daily life, rather than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ himself?  Anyone? 

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 18:11:20
Quite a change of subject there, but ok I'll bite...

Right now I'm unaware of any mortal sin I've committed, so at the moment yes, I have everlasting life, also known as supernatural life residing in my soul, also known as sanctifying grace.

I'm off to orchestra rehearsal so I may not be back soon. Have a nice evening!

You do realize that one of the qualities of everlasting life is that it is EVERLASTING. One of the qualities of EVERLASTING is that it cannot end, even by a mortal sin. Is that what you have?


BTW:
There is no such thing as a mortal sin otherwise King David is in hell. If he is in hell it means that the Bible was written by an unbeliever, and from there the whole religion collapses under its own weight. Be sure that King David committed what the Catholic Church considers a mortal sin, yet you can also be sure that he also has everlasting life.

CRP

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 17:52:32
It's funny how Catholics are accused, in the same breath, of being "too ecumenical" (or thinking that whatever religion you are doesn't matter) and then of being "too restrictive" with quotes thrown around about how there's no salvation outside the Church. So...which is it? (I know what it is, because I understand Church teaching and what it says rather than the misconceptions others have of it.)

I'm reminded of a quote from G.K. Chesterton...

If you hear a thing being accused of being too tall and too short, too red and too green, too bad in one way and too bad also in the opposite way, then you may be sure that it is very good.

Stephanie,

I think you need to exercise some discernment here and admit you can't as a true Christian pray with voodoo priests, Buddhists, Native American witchdoctors, etc. and claim you are all praying to the same God. You cannot enter into whorship ceremonies with pagans and say it is Godly (cf. 1Cr 10:21). John Paul had no intention in converting these religious leaders to Christ, but to the contrary was making an public declaration of religious tolerance and acceptance of religious diversity. This is against everything Christianity stands for (cf. John 14:6) and is a open display of heresy yoking in fellowship with darkness. (cf. 2Cr 6:15-15)

I am shocked you would actually raise your voice in defense of such a reprehensible display.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 19:14:49

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 16:56:37

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 15:27:40

This analogy is pretty worthless when you take into consideration that we are not children, we have bibles, and He (Jesus) sent the Holy Spirit to ALL OF US when He left the room. Thus, we don't need a monitor. We all stand on our own before the LORD.

Considering that there are thousands of protestant denominations, I would venture to guess that this system hasn't worked all that well.  I would say that a "monitor" is certainly in need, and Jesus made sure that such a "monitor" would be present.

I'd really like a show of hands as to how many Catholics truely believe what broach has implied here... That you don't need the Holy Spirit that Jesus sent to you to guide you in your walk, because you have the Pope? 

Anyone?   Really... having a flesh and blood man in an obscure office, in a Vatican, in another country is what keeps you from sin and guides your daily life, rather than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ himself?  Anyone? 

The dichotomy you've set up here is one that shows a misunderstanding of what we're saying. It's not "Holy Spirit" vs "Pope."

We believe the Holy Spirit works through the Church, through the Pope, to keep His Church from falling into teaching error. That doesn't mean individuals (including popes) won't do erronious things, it means they won't officially teach erronious things. (Remember that whole, "they sit on Moses' seat, therefore do what they say, but don't copy them for they preach correctly but don't practice" verse.) We believe Jesus himself gave us the Church to safeguard the deposit of faith and the teachings. Their role is not to micromanage everyone's lives, so them living near or far doesn't really have anything to do with it. Their role is to teach the faith correctly, and we believe it's (one of) the Holy Spirit's jobs to ensure that this happens. (That's why we believe when people protest against the Church and start making up their own interpretations of scripture rather than trusting the Church's, they start to split into little pieces. It's that whole "private interpretation" thing that was warned against.)

Now, the Holy Spirit also works in our daily lives, of course. He works through us to sanctify us, he works through the sacraments to give us more and more grace, to become holier, to become more Christ like.

They're not competing ideas...they are different and complementary ones, in our understanding. The Holy Spirit both guides the Church in her teaching and keeps her from teaching error, and guides individuals on their journey of faith. Obviously the Holy Spirit can't contradict himself, so we don't believe He would guide one person to believe on interpretation, and another person to believe a contradictory one. That's why we believe in a visible Church, the shining city upon the hill, through which the Holy Spirit works to guide people.

Quote from: Reformer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 18:38:14

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 18:23:34
That still doesn't explain how my explanation of the quotes are incorrect...we can shout "It is not!!" "It is so!!" at each other all we want, but that doesn't do much to foster understanding.

    There you go, Stephanie, taking the quotations (evidence) out of context by your "explanations."  I believe this is called, "The pot is calling the kittle black." 

     It might be of help that you connect to the URL I gave in my last post.  I am not it's author.  Here it is again:  www.mindspring.com/~renewal/Pope.html .

—Buff.

Ok...you provided some quotes. I provided the Catholic understanding of those quotes. Now we're into what I predicted, you telling me, a Catholic, my understanding of the Catholic quotes are wrong and yours is right, but without explaining why. When I ask you to explain how my explanation of the Catholic understanding contradicts the words used (as you imply it does), all I get is "No, you're twisting things around, you're wrong!" without explanation as to how and why. If it's so obvious it shouldn't be that hard to explain.  But to be honest, I'm not sure you're "hearing" what I'm saying to begin with.

I'm honestly not out to convince you one way or the other. For those who are interested in listening to a Catholic actually explain the Catholic viewpoint and understanding, there it is. For those not interested in listening but only interested in baiting and fighting to be right, there's not much I can do. 

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 19:28:52

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 18:11:20
Quite a change of subject there, but ok I'll bite...

Right now I'm unaware of any mortal sin I've committed, so at the moment yes, I have everlasting life, also known as supernatural life residing in my soul, also known as sanctifying grace.

I'm off to orchestra rehearsal so I may not be back soon. Have a nice evening!

You do realize that one of the qualities of everlasting life is that it is EVERLASTING. One of the qualities of EVERLASTING is that it cannot end, even by a mortal sin. Is that what you have?

It's not the everlasting life that ends, it's my participation in it if I choose to sin mortally. It exists outside of me, regardless, forever. It is my choice to accept it or reject it. So yes, that it what I have, I believe, for the moment, unless and until I reject it through mortal sin, "sin that leads to death" (1 Jn 5:16-17).

QuoteBTW:
There is no such thing as a mortal sin otherwise King David is in hell. If he is in hell it means that the Bible was written by an unbeliever, and from there the whole religion collapses under its own weight. Be sure that King David committed what the Catholic Church considers a mortal sin, yet you can also be sure that he also has everlasting life.

CRP

Um...you do know you can be forgiven for mortal sin, right? All one needs to do is ask for forgiveness.  Obviously David did that...

I don't think this is the thread to debate once saved always saved doctrine, though, so forgive me if I refrain from going in this direction further! 

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 20:50:06

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 17:52:32
It's funny how Catholics are accused, in the same breath, of being "too ecumenical" (or thinking that whatever religion you are doesn't matter) and then of being "too restrictive" with quotes thrown around about how there's no salvation outside the Church. So...which is it? (I know what it is, because I understand Church teaching and what it says rather than the misconceptions others have of it.)

I'm reminded of a quote from G.K. Chesterton...

If you hear a thing being accused of being too tall and too short, too red and too green, too bad in one way and too bad also in the opposite way, then you may be sure that it is very good.

Stephanie,

I think you need to exercise some discernment here and admit you can't as a true Christian pray with voodoo priests, Buddhists, Native American witchdoctors, etc. and claim you are all praying to the same God. You cannot enter into whorship ceremonies with pagans and say it is Godly (cf. 1Cr 10:21). John Paul had no intention in converting these religious leaders to Christ, but to the contrary was making an public declaration of religious tolerance and acceptance of religious diversity. This is against everything Christianity stands for (cf. John 14:6) and is a open display of heresy yoking in fellowship with darkness. (cf. 2Cr 6:15-15)

I am shocked you would actually raise your voice in defense of such a reprehensible display.

I don't think he actually said we should enter into their worship ceremonies and participate...he is simply acknowledging their good intentions. It often fosters dialogue to begin with what you agree on, it helps you start on out on a friendly foot, so to speak. That doesn't mean he agrees with their actions or all of their beliefs or endorses them. "Tolerence" for JPII, when you read his writings, does not mean acknowledgement that every religion is as good as the next. It's giving the same respect to others that God gives to us...we each have the choice to worship Him or not, it is up to others to worship Him or not, it's not our job to force their hand. We can acknowledge what we have in common while working towards more unity in discussing our differences and discerning why they exist and examining arguments for and against them. This is what JPII was attempting to do, which is clear from his extensive writing on the subject, and in his successor's recent speech.

Stephanie,

I believe you are clearly in denial of the meaning of "interfaith" and the purpose of these meetings. You can point to what a man says or writes, but his actions speak louder than his words. And claiming that Hindu, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Taoist, Jain, Muslim, Sikh, Baha'i and Christians all pray and worship the same God is rank heresy and spiritual fornication {cf. Rev 17:4}.

I would again advise you to use some discernment.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 22:25:37

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 19:28:52

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 18:11:20
Quite a change of subject there, but ok I'll bite...

Right now I'm unaware of any mortal sin I've committed, so at the moment yes, I have everlasting life, also known as supernatural life residing in my soul, also known as sanctifying grace.

I'm off to orchestra rehearsal so I may not be back soon. Have a nice evening!

You do realize that one of the qualities of everlasting life is that it is EVERLASTING. One of the qualities of EVERLASTING is that it cannot end, even by a mortal sin. Is that what you have?

It's not the everlasting life that ends, it's my participation in it if I choose to sin mortally. It exists outside of me, regardless, forever. It is my choice to accept it or reject it. So yes, that it what I have, I believe, for the moment, unless and until I reject it through mortal sin, "sin that leads to death" (1 Jn 5:16-17).

QuoteBTW:
There is no such thing as a mortal sin otherwise King David is in hell. If he is in hell it means that the Bible was written by an unbeliever, and from there the whole religion collapses under its own weight. Be sure that King David committed what the Catholic Church considers a mortal sin, yet you can also be sure that he also has everlasting life.

CRP

Um...you do know you can be forgiven for mortal sin, right? All one needs to do is ask for forgiveness.  Obviously David did that...

I don't think this is the thread to debate once saved always saved doctrine, though, so forgive me if I refrain from going in this direction further! 

Indeed I do know that the Catholic church teaches you can have forgiveness for a mortal sin through none but a Catholic priest, yet David had no Catholic priest to do this for him so how was his "mortal" sin forgiven him?

http://www.whateverycatholicshouldknow.com/wecsk/sin_mortal.htm

Either a person has a life in Christ that is everlasting, or the wrath of God is abiding on them, there is no middle ground.

CRP

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 22:18:01
Ok...you provided some quotes. I provided the Catholic understanding of those quotes. Now we're into what I predicted, you telling me, a Catholic, my understanding of the Catholic quotes are wrong and yours is right, but without explaining why. When I ask you to explain how my explanation of the Catholic understanding contradicts the words used (as you imply it does), all I get is "No, you're twisting things around, you're wrong!" without explanation as to how and why. If it's so obvious it shouldn't be that hard to explain.  But to be honest, I'm not sure you're "hearing" what I'm saying to begin with.

     Stephanie, most of us here probably know more about Catholic teachings than you.  I have on my desk as I write this a book of Catholic teachings, and I assure you that popes claim to be God on earth.  But when you read those remarks from your popes, you take them out of context, the very thing you accuse us of doing.
 
     Please understand that if your other Catholic writings teach differently from the evidence we have presented, evidence that cannot be disputed, you have a case of Catholicism against itself.

     What I think you really need to do is to settle in to accepting evidence for what it is—evidence.  And until you do, you will continue on an illogical path, because your mind is locked in to a particular set of dogmas and nothing is going to sway you.  And so I say Goodnight.

—Buff.

The dichotomy you've set up here is one that shows a misunderstanding of what we're saying. It's not "Holy Spirit" vs "Pope."


I think you need to read what broach said again...  I didn't set it up, he did. I said that I believed that God did not set up a monitor, because that was what He sent the Holy Spirit for, and He said, evidently that system wasn't working. 

So then, I asked a question based on what he said. 

Quote from: kensington on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 01:45:09


The dichotomy you've set up here is one that shows a misunderstanding of what we're saying. It's not "Holy Spirit" vs "Pope."


I think you need to read what broach said again...  I didn't set it up, he did. I said that I believed that God did not set up a monitor, because that was what He sent the Holy Spirit for, and He said, evidently that system wasn't working. 

So then, I asked a question based on what he said. 

This is not what I said or implied.  I simply said that an authority was needed.  In the absence of an authority, you have chaos...i.e. Protestantism.  It isn't a "versus" situation.  I never said that the "monitor" wasn't guided by the Holy Spirit.

I just couldn't let this one go.

Quote from: constantine on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 10:27:32
1.  The people who are challenging acapella worship in church believe the issue to be an in-house discussion between two churches that are part of the body of Christ.  The people that are challenging Catholic doctrine believe it is false doctrine.

Indeed, no different than I have heard you or your predecessors call Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide false doctrine, or other Protestant beliefs and practices false. So this is just the pot calling the kettle black and crying foul when you are doing the same thing.

Quote from: constantine on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 10:27:32
2.  People who are challenging Catholic doctrine do so in a global way - believing in the truth of Catholicism is not possible if you want to follow Christ.  Unlike holding certain beliefs about worship style, a true acceptance of Catholic doctrine separates you from the body of Christ.

This is a straw man, and no one of the board is making this conclusion except you in order to deamonize the opposition. I have never talked about the Salvation of Catholics or that strict adherence to Catholic doctrine would make one unsaved. If these are someones beliefs however and not openly discussed, it has no place in this discussion either.

Although, upon examination of said doctrines if a Catholic would submit in strict adherence to the doctrines of the Catholic Church (such as the canons of the Council of Trent) they would be forced to declare that those who do not truly accept the doctrines of Catholic Church would in fact be cut of (anathema) from the body of Christ.

Quote from: constantine on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 10:27:32
3.  Your discussions with people about music actually present all sides of the issues in a factual way.  One side believes music with instraments should be allowed the other side disagrees and you both argue from scripture.  In many cases, people who have been challenging Catholic doctrine lately, do not actually challenge what the RCC teaches, like Don pointed out, they attack strawmen - the RCC teaches Catholics to worship the Pope or statues is not an honest statement.

Quote from: constantine on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 10:27:32
4.  You are given the benefit of the doubt in your arguments and position.  People believe you are coming from the point of view of a Christian who believes differently from the majority on this board.  Catholics are given the benefit of the doubt that they worship the Pope, statues, and are simply misinformed about what they believe (why else would someone be Catholic?)

I can't image why people would be under the impression Catholics worship the Pope and statues, and are either disingenuous when confronted on it or misinformed... (See above.)

Quote from: constantine on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 10:27:32
I think you are right that people on both sides are angry.  People challenging Catholic doctrine are angry that Catholic ideas are allowed to be posted here.  Catholics are angry because of the constant and inaccurate opposition to their POV, especially because the rules of the forum allow for the Catholic POV and do not exclude it from the body of Christ.

This is what really got my attention. People challenging Catholic doctrine are not angry that Catholic ideas are allowed to be posted here, if we are angry about anything it would be because some would labor to completely squelch and silence the opposition. If anyones angry about ideas that are allowed to be posted here why not look at the entire threads that have been started to target specific people and their ideas.

You make statements like this to charge people with intolerance when you are more guilty of the charges then those you make them against.

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 23:31:31

Indeed I do know that the Catholic church teaches you can have forgiveness for a mortal sin through none but a Catholic priest, yet David had no Catholic priest to do this for him so how was his "mortal" sin forgiven him?

Actually, to be forgiven mortal sin, one need only have perfect contrition...that is, be sorry for having hurt God, and not just out of fear of hell or because you know you "should" be sorry. It's hard for us humans to have perfect contrition, so we have confession as the normative means for cleansing grace...but that doesn't mean we believe God is tied to the sacraments. Certainly, someone without access to the sacraments would not be held to that requirement! 

QuoteEither a person has a life in Christ that is everlasting, or the wrath of God is abiding on them, there is no middle ground.

CRP

Oh I agree with that, someone is either in Christ or out of Christ. I think our disagreement is more about whether once in Christ, one can choose to be out of Christ again. I say yes, you say no. We can agree to disagree. 

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 23:01:38
Stephanie,

I believe you are clearly in denial of the meaning of "interfaith" and the purpose of these meetings. You can point to what a man says or writes, but his actions speak louder than his words. And claiming that Hindu, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Taoist, Jain, Muslim, Sikh, Baha'i and Christians all pray and worship the same God is rank heresy and spiritual fornication {cf. Rev 17:4}.

I would again advise you to use some discernment.

Well, I'm just going by what the pope himself said. I tend to take people at their word, myself. If you don't want to believe what he wrote, there's not much I can do about it. 

Have a nice day!