Pope Urges Better Ties with Muslims

The0ph1lus »

Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

peace be with you Prophet, what scripture has the church officially, infallibly interpreted?

Pope Urges Better Ties with Muslims

The0ph1lus »

Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

peace be with you believer, this is just a little something that the Church states in regards to sacred scripture in the life of the church (<a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#V"> http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#V</a>)

anyways, I definitely agree with you that the church's infallibility must never violate, contradict, or supersede the Word of God. I am assuming you mean the church's infallibility, since my understanding of the word infallibility can only be applied to an entity, church in this case, or to a person. hope that makes sense.

since there many teachings of the Catholic church you disagree with. can you just give me one? and if you wish we can discuss this. if not that is fine also. if you do not wish to i just ask you still give me one disagreement so that i may research for my own sake. what I am looking for is a truth the church claims in regards to faith and morals, especially from someone who was once receiving the Eucharist. and yes I am open to the leading and correction of the Holy Spirit. Jn. 9:38-40. can I say I'm not against another church when they do mighty works in His name?

Pope Urges Better Ties with Muslims

The0ph1lus »

Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

peace be with you believer,

i'm assuming your post was directed to me. if not just ignore the rest of this.

as you know we all make mistakes. sometimes we hear/read information that is not true. i know i've make mistakes and have been corrected or even stood up and claimed that was my mistake, it can be a humbling experience. my question, are you open to the Holy Spirit?

Pope Urges Better Ties with Muslims

The0ph1lus »

Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

peace be with you Online4Him,

so just so I understand you. a church can teach a truth and be wrong on other matters? when I use the word truth, this only applies in regards to faith and morals. would you agree to that, truth in this sense only applies to faith and morals?

yes "infallibility belongs to God alone", but God can extend that infallibility to us at times. how does one reconcile that humans, at times, can speak/write without error about our Lord? do we not say that the human writers of the Bible penned the inerrant, inspired Word of God? would we not say at those times the Holy Spirit is working through that person? also what we understand the Blessed Trinity is, reading through the Bible how does one come to the conclusion that God is three persons but one God, unless someone explains it. Would not, at times humans be infallible while the Holy Spirit is with them, while God uses their hand, voice, tongue, etc?

Regarding the Catholic Church, in all her teachings, writings (official writings, not what some priest has said) I've only known that she claims infallibility when teaching on matters of faith and morals.

Pope Urges Better Ties with Muslims

The0ph1lus »

Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

peace be with you Online4Him,

my question to you is not referring to the broken line of successors specifically. my question is dealing with the overall implications the post suggest. so my question in general is...are you saying that the true church that Christ established would never allow any of its members to never make any kind of mistake?

Pope Urges Better Ties with Muslims

The0ph1lus »

Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

peace be with you Online4Him,

reading your post on friday november 7th, at 6:38pm....are you saying that the true church that Christ established would never allow any of its members to never make a any kind of mistake?

Pope Apologizes for Clergy Sex Abuse in Australia

The0ph1lus »

Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

hello matthewr1,

for a better understanding what catholics believe see http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp


...The first and most basic confusion is thinking of priestly celibacy as a dogma or doctrine—a central and irreformable part of the faith, believed by Catholics to come from Jesus and the apostles. Thus some Fundamentalists make a great deal of a biblical reference to Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30), apparently supposing that, if Catholics only knew that Peter had been married, they would be unable to regard him as the first pope. Again, Fundamentalist time lines of "Catholic inventions" (a popular literary form) assign "mandatory priestly celibacy" to this or that year in Church history, as if prior to this requirement the Church could not have been Catholic.

These Fundamentalists are often surprised to learn that even today celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests. In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.

Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried.

The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.

As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite Catholic church is married...."

Peace

100,000 Catholics Gather for Youth Event in Sydney

The0ph1lus »

Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

Hello everyone,

..."It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Peace

Archaeologists Unearth 'World's First Church'

The0ph1lus »

Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

hello, question for Star2..what verse does it say in the Bible "The prayers that are offered up to God in these verses are the prayers that the saints prayed while they were here on the earth not while they are in Heaven."

Archaeologists Unearth 'World's First Church'

The0ph1lus »

Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

In reply to jester_in_the_Kings_court

"And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8).

"‘And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"? He is not God of the dead, but of the living . . .’" (Mark 12:26-27)

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely . . ." (Heb. 12:1).

I also have a question ...here does it say in the Bible not to pray to Saints?

Keller Dismantles Biggest Doubts about Christianity

The0ph1lus »

Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"there can't just be one true religion." - for me there is only one truth, which means there can only one God. I guess before the discussion could go on or deeper on this point, God would have to be defined. Such as His characteristics, what is God, etc.

• A kind God could not allow suffering – some mystery here, but also a...sure He does, same way a loving parent permits their child to suffer the consequences of their actions.

• Christianity is a straightjacket – my first thought, the church at times is called the "mother church" and just like any good mother she lays downs rules, no playing on the highway, no playing with matches, etc.

• The Church is responsible for so much injustice – the church is made up of humans who sin

• A loving God would not send people to hell-right, we choose to go there

• Science has disproved Christianity-a simply search of the internet would reveal evidence to the contrary

• You can’t take the Bible literally-of course, it was written over a period of approximately 1700 years. their style of writing is not the same as ours. some parts of course are literal, some poetic, some with parables, etc.

My Answer: Nothing Can Take Away Your Salvation

The0ph1lus »

Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. <i>[Jas. 5:19-20]</i>