Were all christians once catholic?
-
Actually there wasn't any formal declaration of the canon until the council of Trent. Ahem. The Council of Hippo was only a synod.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Are u Christian?
He chose the 4 INSPIRED gospel. The ones written by people under inspiration form the Holy Spirit. The book of Revelations want widely accepted either till the bible canon was declared in 390AD in the Council of Hippo.
In fact, in case some of you are still kept in the dark by Christian authors, early biblical manuscripts contain extra-canonical books not found in our bible today. And no, I'm not even talking about the apocrypha.
-
so the question is .. when did his apostasy happen.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:2) I have no idea on that point. But why would he donate to his arch-enemy. Would we accept the donations of a heretic?
But he did donate money to the church in Rome. Since we have no surviving writings from Marcion, this piece of information came from your church fathers. -
1. Protestants here buay gan one. The ones who aei gan in theology their church history buay gan. So don't place your hopes too high.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Well, then quote from those who aint excommunciated LOL.
1) We quote from them to show what the early christians thought and thier doctrines. Naturally, after reading many esepcially Augustine of Hippo (im a bored 17yr old who loves debating wif protestants.. .)I came to the conclusion that the early Church is the Catholic Church todae.
2) Church Fathers are not infallible. If i want infallible decrees, i can quote Council Documents or from Popes.
(laoda is the exception .. he is more well-read than me in church history)
2. Popes are infalliable? Then can they excommunicate each other? -
The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D....Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually there wasn't any formal declaration of the canon until the council of Trent. Ahem. The Council of Hippo was only a synod.
In fact, in case some of you are still kept in the dark by Christian authors, early biblical manuscripts contain extra-canonical books not found in our bible today. And no, I'm not even talking about the apocrypha.
ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I...
AD 393:
Council of Hippo. "It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon (included Wisdom and Ecclesiastes (Sirach)), the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books."
The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I...
AD 397:
Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees."
(canon 47 A.D. 397).
The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 again reaffirmed the Canons as defined in previous councils...
CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)
"That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: * Genesis * Exodus * Leviticus * Numbers * Deuteronomy * Joshua the Son of Nun * The Judges * Ruth * The Kings (4 books) * The Chronicles (2 books) * Job * The Psalter * The Five books of Solomon (includes Wisdom and Sirach) * The Twelve Books of the Prophets * Isaiah * Jeremiah * Ezechiel * Daniel * Tobit * Judith * Esther * Ezra (2 books) * Maccabees (2books).
The New Testament: * The Gospels (4 books) * The Acts of the Apostles (1 book) * The Epistles of Paul (14) * The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2) * The Epistles of John the Apostle (3) * The Epistles of James the Apostle (1) * The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1) * The Revelation of John (1 book).
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church."
[This is Canon xxxvj. of Hippo., 393. The last phrase allowing the reading of the "passions of the Martyrs" on their Anniversaries is omitted from the African code.]
The Council of Florence, also called Basel, 1431-1445, was yet another Council which confirmed the Canons of both testaments of the Bible...
SESSION 11 4 February 1442:
"We, therefore, to whom the Lord gave the task of feeding Christ's sheep', had abbot Andrew carefully examined by some outstanding men of this sacred council on the articles of the faith, the sacraments of the church and certain other matters pertaining to salvation. At length, after an exposition of the catholic faith to the abbot, as far as this seemed to be necessary, and his humble acceptance of it, we have delivered in the name of the Lord in this solemn session, with the approval of this sacred ecumenical council of Florence, the following true and necessary doctrine. Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good. It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament -- that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel -- since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit.
It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John."
The Council of Florence was held over 100 years before the Council of Trent, and about 80 years before the start of the reformation.
The Catholic Council of Trent, called to counter changes made by Martin Luther, again reaffirmed the canonicity of all 46 books of the Old Testament. Some Protestant reformers who attended, tried to get the Church to accept the list of books which the Jewish rabbis had chosen at Jamnia.
This shows clearly the Bible canon was pretty standardised since each council or synod throughtout the ages reaffirmed it. The Pope Damacus document is not proven yet. It came from a non-papal source. The rest are rite. The Canon was onli dogmatised since Luther challenged it.
Are u a protestant? -
No I am not.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Are u Christian?
Hope this doesn't make you lose interest in me.
-
1) Never met a well-versed Protestants before. Most of em are hippie style in my opinion. Some already beleived they are saved.....Originally posted by Icemoon:1. Protestants here buay gan one. The ones who aei gan in theology their church history buay gan. So don't place your hopes too high. (laoda is the exception .. he is more well-read than me in church history)
2. Popes are infalliable? Then can they excommunicate each other?
2) Onli when they claim ex-cathedra. It is very rare. I think i canc ount the number of infallible documents a popehas ver produced in the 2000yrs of history.
3) No i am not. I was surprised to see a 'protestant' being well-versed in history instead of scripture. Well since u are not, than darn...no big shock haha. U know more abt christianity than most ppl haha...even me LOL. -
1. Protestants are the most well-versed people about bible and theology on this planet. Their exegesis are way deeper than the Catholic fathers. If you seen the development since the Reformation, you get what I mean. The exegesis is the weapon of the protestant and a rock solid exegesis can beat the hell out of any Catholic.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:1) Never met a well-versed Protestants before. Most of em are hippie style in my opinion. Some already beleived they are saved.....
2) Onli when they claim ex-cathedra. It is very rare. I think i canc ount the number of infallible documents a popehas ver produced in the 2000yrs of history.
3) No i am not. I was surprised to see a 'protestant' being well-versed in history instead of scripture. Well since u are not, than darn...no big shock haha. U know more abt christianity than most ppl haha...even me LOL.
Most protestants in this forum their church history CMI. Most probably cannot quote anything from Protestant fathers. Seriously I would have said all if not for people like laoda and maybe that mushroom from oxford.
2. Popes have dirty history. It is good to start a topic detailing their dirty history like popes excommunicating each another .. lol.
3. wait a minute .. are you saying I am not versed in scripture?
-
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
decree is one thing, but does everyone follow like today?
[b]The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D....
ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.[/b]
the fact that even Jerome disputed the canon show that the power of the decree is suspected.
Not until the Council of Trent was the canon truly fixed and sealed. -
1) I disagree. I have seen numerous Catholics apologst win debates. Its difficult debating as a protestant as many of the doctrines are relatively new. Furthermore, the Catholic Church has many theologicans and bishops...they know more haha.Originally posted by Icemoon:1. Protestants are the most well-versed people about bible and theology on this planet. Their exegesis are way deeper than the Catholic fathers. If you seen the development since the Reformation, you get what I mean. The exegesis is the weapon of the protestant and a rock solid exegesis can beat the hell out of any Catholic.
Most protestants in this forum their church history CMI. Most probably cannot quote anything from Protestant fathers. Seriously I would have said all if not for people like laoda and maybe that mushroom from oxford.
2. Popes have dirty history. It is good to start a topic detailing their dirty history like popes excommunicating each another .. lol.
3. wait a minute .. are you saying I am not versed in scripture?
2) A typical Conduct vs Teaching debate.
3) I neva said that. I complimented u. -
1. You read biased articles .. zai1 zai1 one. Actually you must see the background of the debator. Those from charismatic churches cannot withstand too many hits. IMHO, only evangelicals (particularly those from the reformed tradition) have a chance.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:1) I disagree. I have seen numerous Catholics apologst win debates. Its difficult debating as a protestant as many of the doctrines are relatively new. Furthermore, the Catholic Church has many theologicans and bishops...they know more haha.
2) A typical Conduct vs Teaching debate.
3) I neva said that. I complimented u.
2. if they don't match, then the pope is a xiao ren 'cos yan xing bu yi. will you look up to a xiao ren?
3. thank you. I guess I should compliment you also. No, I should compliment the Catholic Church for producing young talents.
-
1) I researched both sides when i was in Sec 3. John Salza Scripture Catholic and Catholic Answers both deal with issues commonly raised by evangelicals.Originally posted by Icemoon:1. You read biased articles .. zai1 zai1 one. Actually you must see the background of the debator. Those from charismatic churches cannot withstand too many hits. IMHO, only evangelicals (particularly those from the reformed tradition) have a chance.
2. if they don't match, then the pope is a xiao ren 'cos yan xing bu yi. will you look up to a xiao ren?
3. thank you. I guess I should compliment you also. No, I should compliment the Catholic Church for producing young talents.
Aniwaes have u read my long post on The Bible Canon. Bascially shows u the documents from the councils. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
No servant is above the master. Even the Simon Peter you claim as your master betrayed Jesus three times. How can his great-great-great... grand-disciple claim to be infalliable? This is because the first Pope was Simon Magus who was hailed in Rome as a God and claimed to be one. Btw Pope is just a rank up from cardinal, nothing special.
2. Popes are infalliable? Then can they excommunicate each other?Luke 22:61-62 NIV
The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: "Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times." And he went outside and wept bitterly. -
skibi reminded me of skippyOriginally posted by Skibi: -
Skibi, ur allegation of Simon magus is the most hilarious one..s.ince Jack Chick. Show me historical evidence and i might hear it.Originally posted by Skibi:
Papal INfalibility
In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the Infallibility of the Church. Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin
In Roman Catholic theology, only the actual act of teaching is properly called "infallible". For example, according to Roman Catholic dogma, Pope Pius IX's teaching regarding the Immaculate Conception was infallible; it is grammatically incorrect to say "the pope is [sometimes] infallible" or to say "the Immaculate Conception is infallible". Nonetheless, these phrases are frequently used in conversations or Catholic writings
Statements by a pope that exercise papal infallibility are referred to as solemn papal definitions or ex cathedra teachings. These should not be confused with teachings that are infallible because of a solemn definition by an ecumenical council, or with teachings that are infallible in virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium
According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:
1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authorityÂ….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)
List of instances.
Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.
To appeal to his mind, here is Bible support:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Mat 16:18-19
Jesus says the powers of death will never prevail against the Church. So even though Jesus appoints sinful human beings such as Peter to lead the Church, Jesus promises that hell will not prevail against her. Because the powers of hell refer to the supernatural, this must mean that the Church, although lead by sinful people, is divinely protected. Because she is so protected, the Church cannot lead the faithful into supernatural error. That is, she is unable to teach error on matters of faith and morals. This inability to teach error on faith and morals is called "infallibility" (it has nothing to do with the sinfulness of the Church's leaders, which deals with "impeccability"). If the Church were not infallible, the powers of death would indeed prevail over her sinful members. The consistent, 2,000 years of the ChurchÂ’s teaching on faith and morals proves that Jesus has kept His promise.
Jesus declares to Peter that whatever he binds and looses on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus, therefore, gives Peter the authority to make decisions that will be ratified in eternity. In order for sinful Peter (and his successors through the passing on of the "keys") to make such decisions, he must be divinely protected. Once again, this evidences Jesus' gift of infallibility to the Church. Only the Catholic Church claims and has proven that her 2,000 year-old teachings on faith and morals, which have never changed, are infallibly proclaimed. -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
Already proved it in another thread. Btw if the Popes were infalliable why have a great number of the Popes been murdered. Shouldn't God protect the Popes or even bring them directly to heaven since they are infalliable.
Skibi, ur allegation of Simon magus is the most hilarious one..s.ince Jack Chick. Show me historical evidence and i might hear it. -
Some instances of Catholic dirty laundry(many more where they came from...)
Source Wikipedia -
Saint Peter, traditionally the first Pope, was married (Jesus cured his mother-in-law), known to have taken his wife along on his apostolic/mission journeys (1 Cor. 9:5).
Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before ordination. He was the father of Pope Silverius. [1]
Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married before taking orders and had a daughter.
Pope Sergius III (904–911) was supposedly the father of Pope John XI by Marozia (Source: Liber Pontificalis, Liutprand of Cremona).
Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).[2]
Pope Clement IV (1265–126
was married before taking holy orders, and had several children.
Pope Pius II (1458–1464) had several illegitimate children.[citation needed]
Pope Innocent VIII (1484–1492) had several illegitimate children.
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a notably long affair with Vannozza dei Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his famous illegitimate children Cesare and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Rumors of Alexander's sexual activity were even more wild — see Banquet of Chestnuts. He fathered a total of seven children.
Pope Julius II (1503–1513) had three illegitimate daughters.
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) was probably the father of Alessandro de' Medici, whom he made Duke of Florence.
Pope Paul III (1534–1549) held off ordination in order to continue his promiscuous lifestyle, fathering four illegitimate children by his mistress. His nickname was "Cardinal Petticoat" because his sister Giulia had been Alexander VI's mistress. He made his illegitimate son Pier Luigi Farnese the first Duke of Parma.
Pope Pius IV (1559–1565) had several illegitimate children.
Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy orders.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045–1046, 1047–104 Accused by Bishop Benno of Placenta of "many vile adulteries and murders."
Pope Victor III referred to "his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it."
Pope Clement II (1046–1047) died from consuming too much lead sugar, which was used at the time as a cure for venereal diseases. It is unknown whether Clement took the lead sugar to treat a sexually transmitted disease or if he was poisoned by a third party. -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
Same response....READ IT
Skibi, ur allegation of Simon magus is the most hilarious one..s.ince Jack Chick. Show me historical evidence and i might hear it.
[b]Papal INfalibility
In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the Infallibility of the Church. Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin
In Roman Catholic theology, only the actual act of teaching is properly called "infallible". For example, according to Roman Catholic dogma, Pope Pius IX's teaching regarding the Immaculate Conception was infallible; it is grammatically incorrect to say "the pope is [sometimes] infallible" or to say "the Immaculate Conception is infallible". Nonetheless, these phrases are frequently used in conversations or Catholic writings
Statements by a pope that exercise papal infallibility are referred to as solemn papal definitions or ex cathedra teachings. These should not be confused with teachings that are infallible because of a solemn definition by an ecumenical council, or with teachings that are infallible in virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium
According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:
1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authorityÂ….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)
List of instances.
Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.
To appeal to his mind, here is Bible support:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Mat 16:18-19
Jesus says the powers of death will never prevail against the Church. So even though Jesus appoints sinful human beings such as Peter to lead the Church, Jesus promises that hell will not prevail against her. Because the powers of hell refer to the supernatural, this must mean that the Church, although lead by sinful people, is divinely protected. Because she is so protected, the Church cannot lead the faithful into supernatural error. That is, she is unable to teach error on matters of faith and morals. This inability to teach error on faith and morals is called "infallibility" (it has nothing to do with the sinfulness of the Church's leaders, which deals with "impeccability"). If the Church were not infallible, the powers of death would indeed prevail over her sinful members. The consistent, 2,000 years of the ChurchÂ’s teaching on faith and morals proves that Jesus has kept His promise.
Jesus declares to Peter that whatever he binds and looses on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus, therefore, gives Peter the authority to make decisions that will be ratified in eternity. In order for sinful Peter (and his successors through the passing on of the "keys") to make such decisions, he must be divinely protected. Once again, this evidences Jesus' gift of infallibility to the Church. Only the Catholic Church claims and has proven that her 2,000 year-old teachings on faith and morals, which have never changed, are infallibly proclaimed. [/b]
And u got that list from List of Sexually Active Pope.
Read the Post -
Sec 3 only mah. When I was in sec 3 I was still very naive (hmm .. was I?)Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:1) I researched both sides when i was in Sec 3. John Salza Scripture Catholic and Catholic Answers both deal with issues commonly raised by evangelicals.
Aniwaes have u read my long post on The Bible Canon. Bascially shows u the documents from the councils.
I researched 4 sides (Catholic, Protestant, Judaism, academica) .. and guess what was my conclusion?
I have read your long post and I made a short reply on that one. Actually have you researched academica? -
What is ur conclusion?Originally posted by Icemoon:Sec 3 only mah. When I was in sec 3 I was still very naive (hmm .. was I?)
I researched 4 sides (Catholic, Protestant, Judaism, academica) .. and guess what was my conclusion?
I have read your long post and I made a short reply on that one. Actually have you researched academica?
What is academica? -
Academica means the academic world. Secular scholarship on textual criticism, ancient manuscripts, search for historical Jesus etc.
-
So what was ur conclusionOriginally posted by Icemoon:Academica means the academic world. Secular scholarship on textual criticism, ancient manuscripts, search for historical Jesus etc. -
The Church has corrupted the Jewish teachings and is the source of anti-semite feelings.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:So what was ur conclusion
The Protestants just follow suit.
For the classical work of anti-semitism, read the Epistle of Barnabas - recognized by the early church as authoritative and found in the earliest bibles, e.g. Codex Sinaiticus. -
How have we corrupted Jewish teachings? We are 2 totally different religion.Originally posted by Icemoon:The Church has corrupted the Jewish teachings and is the source of anti-semite feelings.
The Protestants just follow suit.
For the classical work of anti-semitism, read the Epistle of Barnabas - recognized by the early church as authoritative and found in the earliest bibles, e.g. Codex Sinaiticus. -
If you are 2 totally different religion, why are you using their Scripture?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:How have we corrupted Jewish teachings? We are 2 totally different religion.
edit: to put it bluntly, why are you using their Scripture and calling it the Old Testament? -
Our OT differ from them....Originally posted by Icemoon:If you are 2 totally different religion, why are you using their Scripture?
edit: to put it bluntly, why are you using their Scripture and calling it the Old Testament?