JFJ Forums

That is simply NOT TRUE. The case of Galileo was without doubt a science issue and the evidence for papal infallibility in the Galileo case rested upon the subsequent justification of papal infallibilty in the Galilleo Inquisition by the Bull of Pope Alexander VII in 1664. In 1664 the Church went to great lengths extirpate papal error by declaring the Inquisition was based on  Pope Alexanders Bull of the 'truth' of the Roman Church's tradition, especially as the Galileo case rested upon the unanimity of the Church Fathers and the constant position of the Church; and the infallibility of the Pope speaking in his own official capacity as Head of the Church and therefore ex cathedra, even though not defining any new dogma but simply affirming tradition.

In 1664 Alexander VII  added the books of Galilleo to those prohibited to be read by condemning the works of Galileo and "...all books which affirm the motion of the earth...'' The papal Bull signed by the pope himself specifically declared the "binding the contents of the Index upon the consciences of the faithful."  This bull confirmed and approved in express terms, finally, decisively, and infallibly, the condemnation of "all books teaching the movement of the earth and the stability of the sun.''

DavidJ

Please ignore my post number 129 - I pressed the send button in error.

DavidJ

im just glad that this is all your doctrine and not the faith of someone who had a little bit of sense!

btw: nathanial declared jesus' the son of god' and 'the king of the jews' the very first time he met jesus (long before he met cephas/peter), and jesus didnt call him a rock and give him the keys to the kingdom? whats up with that ?

jesus gave clean instruction regarding the church, he said in so many words: "do as they say and not as they do!" keep hating church but, u have to do what they say.

what are u going to say on the day of the lord? "look lord! everybody hates them, it not just me!  

keep campaigning and u gona find out that god is not political and this is not a democratic process.

As promised in my post which at the time of writing this is still awaiting Moderation, I have now submitted a new thread (if moderator allows it) to present the proof of papal ex catherdra error.

The thread will be located under the topic,  'Papal Ex Cathedra Errors and False Doctrines'.

DavidJ

this isnt true.

A politically motivated trial convicted her of heresy. The English regent John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford had her burnt at the stake in Rouen.


OIC... this is some kind of beat the catholic game? if the catholics dont respond u win?

[/quote]

Thank you for that. It is interesting to note that in this same passage of scripture, John chapter 1,  that both Nathaniel and Peter were told by other apostles that Jesus was the Messiah (verses 42 & 45); they knew this because they believed what Moses in the Law and also the Old Testament prophets wrote, viz.,  "We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote...." (verse 45) not because, as Jesus told Peter later on, "...flesh and blood has not revealed this to you" i.e. that I, Jesus, am the Son of God (Matthew 16;16) That is the difference - THAT IS THE ROCK - that "flesh and blood" does not reveal who Jesus is - that is what Jesus builds his Church on - WHO HE IS - THE CHIEF CORNERSONE - REVEALED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT (as with Peter) to each and every individual believer.

That is how Jesus revealed who He was to me personally  by His Blessed Holy Spirit just like he did with Peter;  even though, unlike Peter,  I did not see him, I love Him, I beleive in Him and rejoice with unspeakable and exalted joy. (1 Peter 1:8) That is the 'Rock' upon which Jesus made me part of His Living Church. The Pope had no say in the matter David.

DavidJ

Of course it was politically motivated the whole papist system is politically motivated that is why sincere bible believing Christians who accept the Word of God recognise the prophesies of Daniel and Revelation as revealing Papism as part of the anti-Christ.  John of Lancaster was a senior papist who acted with the full knowledge of Pope Eugene! That is why Pope Alexander found it necessary to justifty (as outline in my previous post)  papal infallibility in the papal sanction for Joan of Arc's execution.



No, David, it sincerely is nothing of the kind. It is about a love for the poor deceived papists enough to show them the truth of real salvation through Jesus Christ and to do what is possible to prevent papism from seducing others into counterfiet Christianity and a lost eternity, also to show the Muslims and Jews that it was papism, not Biblical Christianity, that conducted the satanic evils of the Inquistions and Crusades.

DavidJ

On another thread concerning the error of papal succession from Peter it has been posted......
To suggest there were no New Testament writings is a further grave error of the Roman Church. Paul read the gospel of JESUS IN THE WRITTEN WORD! Viz: 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES."

We know Timothy had the WRITTEN word of the gospel as a child: viz "...from a child thou hast known the holy SCRIPTURES, which ARE ABLE TO MAKE THEE WISE UNTO SALVATION THROUGH FAITH WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS." (2 Timothy 3:15)

Nowhere, in the writtten New Testament writings mentioned above which were available to the earliest Christians is Peter mentioned as the Pope or Bishop of Rome. So much for the error of the traditions of the Roman Church.

David

DavidJ – you are simply wrong and your post shows that your animosity towards the Catholic Church is far greater than any thought or reason you put into your posts.

Where did I ever state “there were no New Testament writings”?  What I stated was that when Jesus handed over the keys of the Kingdom to Peter, no N.T. scriptures had yet been written. It would still be some 20 years before the H.S. would inspire the experiences of the Apostles and the early church to be written down.  The office of Apostolic Succession (a.k.a bishops) and the recognition of Peter as the leader of the Apostles was in practice before the N.T. scriptures were written.  Do you see the importance of the timing of all of this?  Scripture records what was already in practice!!!  The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tm 3:15).  The Holy Spirit worked through the Church by inspiring her members to record the eyewitness accounts of the Apostles and the experiences of the early Church.  

You claim that the office of the Bishop of Rome was invented by the RCC based on an erroneous interpretation of Mathew 16.  Jesus handed the keys to Peter well before Mt. 16 was written.  The notion of an earthly leader of the Kingdom Jesus established was accepted by the Apostles, and THEN recorded in scripture.  You can even see this in the writings of the early church.

The Messianic Jews knew exactly what Jesus was talking about in Mt. 16 when he referenced Is 22:22.  The Messianic Jews knew all about the office of “Al-bayit”.  The Messianic Jews knew all about the significance of a change in name.  The Messianic Jewish Apostles knew exactly why it was only the leader of the Apostles whose name was changed. It is through the Protestant tradition that, despite all the proof from scripture, the fact of Peter being the leader of the Apostles is rejected.  It is through Protestant tradition that, despite the evidence from scripture, the notion of an earthly leader of the Church is rejected.  It is through Protestant tradition that Mt 16 gets so twisted beyond it’s plain and simple meaning and clear reference to Is 22:22.  It is through Protestant tradition that the Jewish notion of an “Al-bayit” for God’s Kingdom is rejected.

DavidJ – I can tell you are a Christian of the American Protestant Fundamentalist type.  Somewhere along the way, you were taught that the “papists” are pagan, that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and so on.  Afte rall, where did you ever come up with the term “papists”?  Did you come up with this on your own or is it something you were taught?  Every topic you bring up in this forum is something against the Catholic Church.  Every time someone makes a post that uses scripture to back up Catholic doctrine you reject it.  Well several in this thread have given you scriptural proof to support the Papacy.  You reject it because it does not fit into your Americanized Protestant Fundamentalist theology.

David