Roman Catholic and The Bible.

[Homer]

Dear Popeman (AKA "The Evader"),

You seem to want to teach English to us, although you seem to have something of a reading problem. Perhaps I can be of some assistance. Read slowly now, and think: when you see a question mark (looks like this: ?), it might only be a rhetorical device, but it also might be something someone is challenging you to respond to. Now if you will go back and read my posts and look for the question marks, perhaps you will notice, as others have, that you have studiously evaded some pertinent questions about your Roman church.

When you do not respond to straightforward questions, particularly regarding certain facts, it makes you look very weak and unable to answer. You are not looking good!

Again, I await your response.

Blessings, Homer

[RND]

Name calling is never cool Homer.

[steve]

RND,

Some name-calling is insulting and wrong. Not all names are insulting, nor unloving. To refer to someone as an "evader" is hardly abusive. It is considerably more tame (and even more respectful) than much of the jargon popeman regularly uses, whether it includes name-calling or not. Jesus referred to Herod Antipas as "that Fox" ("Vixen," actually), but I still think Jesus was cool. He and John the Baptist both called certain hypocrites "Brood of Vipers." I am not sure you are on solid ground in objecting to all nicknames. However, I don't think Homer intended that "Evader" is to become a nickname that will pass into general usage.

[darinhouston]

one thing I always appreciated about tom's calls was the freedom he felt to honestly say he didn't know something or to say "you got me there." he would say he was going to study more and call back. I admired that even if he did so frequently just call back with repeat arguments at times.

Where is that spirit in this discussion.?

[Michelle]

Popeman,

You said:

4. Tom. Are there any other Catholic Christians with you when you go to Steve’s bible studies or do you wear body armor? Semper Fi. Popeman

I find this ironic since you said this:

1. Michelle. Well, at least you are honest enough to say that your church does not have the scriptural authority of MATT18. Even though scripture teaches us aspects of faith, you have the right/opinion to believe only what you wish. It is indicative of the general Christian/Protestant steam of thought…they say they believe in Sola Scriptura, but unfortunately it is more like Sola Christian (Michelle, Homer, Steve, mike…etc).

and this:

Michelle has now simply denied MATT18/ACTS15 in that a CHURCH can not have this authority over another Christian even though it says it right in front of her.

...about me.

You have accused me of tossing aside scripture to maintain my own personal beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I'm frankly a little miffed that you said that. You specifically required a one-word, yes-or-no answer. I complied, although I modified the text format of your question in an attempt to highlight the part of the question which I found objectionable. Darin understood; why couldn't you? You took my one-word answer and used it as evidence to accuse me denying what is written in the Bible. I do no such thing.


Michelle

[Homer]

Hi Popeman,

My apologies if you took offense at my referring to you as "The Evader", although it is an accurate description of what you have been doing to me since my first post (P. 13, Saturday, 2/28, 11:38pm, in case you might wish to consider replying to it). My addressing you as I did was a rhetorical device intended to goad you into a response.

Perhaps some of my questions were a bit unfair; they relate to certain facts which I do not believe you can deny or answer to. However, my initial query, since reiterated, regarding how your Roman church might handle a simple local disciplinary matter, as compared to what would be done in an assembly of ordinary Christians, should be rather easy for you to answer. You seem to be confident that your church is far superior in its operations and organization, and infallibly so. Show us.

[tom]

Hi Tom,

You wrote:

If the Holy Spirit is in the head of all true Christians then the Holy Spirit must be schizophrenic. How come you and Martin Luther don't agree on many of the doctrines of Christianity? We are all lead by the same Holy Spirit right?

Is it your intention to cast doubt on what Jesus and the apostles promised about the Holy Spirit's teaching the believers? I am interested in knowing what you believe the passages I have quoted about this actually mean (e.g. Matt.23:8/ John 16:13/ Eph.1:17-18/ 1 John 2:27).

In answer to your question: not all students under the same teacher learn the same amount or at the same speed. There is one teacher of all Christians, but not all Christians are equally teachable or conscientious in their studies.

Steve,

Luther and Gregg have the "spirit of wisdom and revelation" it's just a matter of the Holy Spirit giving only so much wisdom and revelation to only certain Christians? If you're saying that Luther didn't come to the Truth because he didn't learn as well as you, (because you must think you're right and have come to the Truth), or didn't meditate long enough on doctrine that you and he disagree. I would have to say maybe you haven't meditated long enough on doctrine as the Catholic Church has for 2000 years. As far as I know the RCC has never changed a Doctrine in all that time.

As I have said on "The Narrow Path" you will never know if you have the Truth. And even if you do come to the Truth you may not even know it! Everyone did what was right in their own eyes and you will never know if you have the Truth.

Tom

[tom]

Popeman & Tom,

I noticed this thread a few days ago and have finally read the posts up to this point. You make an interesting point with your argument regarding church discipline when a brother (or sister) sins against another. You have brought up an example of someone being accused of telling a lie. I am curious how this works in practical terms in your church. Assuming the first two steps have failed to bring it to a satisfatory resolution and Tom goes to your church and says "Popeman has lied about me", who is it Tom actually goes to? Is it your local priest? Is he then infallible in determining whether Popeman has told a lie? Or does he need to go all the way to the Pope for an infallible decision? Is there some other infallible process for resolution of the matter?

Also, how does your Pope become infallible? Does a majority vote by a group of fallibles (say, 25 yes and 23 no) result in one becoming infallible, or does it happen by some mysterious process not revealed in scripture? Is the doctrine of Papal infallibility established in scripture? If we are to believe in the authority of the Pope, the Roman Church, and its dogma, because of what the scriptures say, and believe what the scriptures say based on what the Pope and the Roman Church says, isn't this the sort of circular argument you accuse others of?

If the Pope is infallible, then why did Pope Adrian VI deny that this was so? If he was correct in his denial, then the Pope is not infallible, and if he erred in this crucial point of dogma, then his error proves the Pope is not infallible. This ought to be obvious when one considers that Popes have annulled decrees of other Popes. And Pope Martin V confirmed the decree of the council of Constance, which placed a general council above the Pope, and then this same Pope subsequently issued a decree forbidding all appeals from the Pope to a general council. Was the pope infallible in both of these decisions, one contradicting the other?

Just wondering.

God bless, Homer

Homer,

In response to you wanting an answer to how the RCC would handle a Matt 18 situation. Most can be resolved between a group of RCC Christians and it would have to be more than a lie. I think popeman brought up the lie thing to put it into perspective. If someone where to question something that is not already defined by Church doctrine then it would have to go up the ladder, so to speak. This is how all Doctrine is defined. Someone has an objection or question, ( is Jesus God for example), it would be debated among RCC Christians, deacons, priests, bishops and then finally to the Magisterium, (Pope/Cardinals/Bishops). This is not an over night answer. It often takes decades and even centuries! Some, I'm sure, are still being worked out. Just a note; whether there is a God has never been debated and is not a Doctrine. I guess that's a given!

As far as your question about the Popes differing on what you say is doctrine. I need your source. I am very poor at memory and I can't give an answer without looking at what they actually said in context.


Thanks,

Tom

[darinhouston]

As far as I know the RCC has never changed a Doctrine in all that time.

Just for one pretty close to home --- has the RCC had a consistent message on the eternal state of those of us "outside the Roman church?"

[tom]

As far as I know the RCC has never changed a Doctrine in all that time.

Just for one pretty close to home --- has the RCC had a consistent message on the eternal state of those of us "outside the Roman church?"

Darin,

As defined by the doctrine, they are still outside the Church! Think of it as an umbrella. The Church is the center rod the farther we get away from the center,the closer we get to the edge and the protection of the umbrella/Church.


Tom