JFJ Forums

Full Version: Papal Ex Cathedra Errors and False Doctrines.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
david Wrote:
..... none of papal edicts spoken from this seat have been proven to be errors of the papacy. NOT ONE!! .... u have proof.....LETS SEE IT!


Quote:
DavidJ Wrote:  I do have proof and yes, I will open a separate thread on this specific topic.

I will commence with just one ex cathedra so called 'infallible' papal edict which has been proved beyond all doubt to be in grave error, contrary to The Word of God, scripturally heretical and blasphemous; even considered to be the most extreem even by many papist scholars, to wit;

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary  for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff"  (Pope Boniface VIII. Bull Unam Sanctam 1302)

I have opted to expose these erroneous papal 'infallibilites' as/if we proceed one at a time so as not to overlap or create tangets. I will attempt to expose other ex cathedra so-called infallible papal edicts in orderly fashion so each can be hopefully discussed individually.  

DavidJ

DavidJ Wrote:

I will commence with just one ex cathedra so called 'infallible' papal edict which has been proved beyond all doubt to be in grave error, contrary to The Word of God, scripturally heretical and blasphemous; even considered to be the most extreem even by many papist scholars, to wit;

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary  for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff"  (Pope Boniface VIII. Bull Unam Sanctam 1302)

I have opted to expose these erroneous papal 'infallibilites' as/if we proceed one at a time so as not to overlap or create tangets. I will attempt to expose other ex cathedra so-called infallible papal edicts in orderly fashion so each can be hopefully discussed individually.  

DavidJ


Ah, David....I don't think anyone has the scholarship to answer you on this one.

However, it is literally blasphemous to place oneself in the place of being the Messiah, or the bringer of Salvation to anyone unless, of course you are the Messiah, and thus the bringer of Salvation, which office is already held by Jesus.

Once upon a time, Jesus was killed for saying so, but being the Messiah, He was ressurected to prove it.

I note that the RCC constantly 'bows down' to those in 'authority' over them, and makes graven images of Jesus and Mary, and the Apostles to reverence, value, and worship, both of which are, forbidden or were, the last time I looked at the 10 commandments.

My mother and maternal grandparents were raised RCC...I only pray that God will have mercy on them, and all the rest of those that were given a Bible at their First Communion, but never read it, nor knew how badly they were being led astray, but believed whole hearted in the cult beliefs in which they were indoctrinated.  

I pray also that among the believers in Christ in the Roman Catholic Church will be the works in which they may be saved, as if by fire, as is stated by Jesus, in Rev. 20.

And knowing more than our RCC bretheren, the rest of us need to pray that Jesus will not look at us, and say, "I never knew you either."

Blessings,

Des

DavidJ Wrote:

david Wrote:
..... none of papal edicts spoken from this seat have been proven to be errors of the papacy. NOT ONE!! .... u have proof.....LETS SEE IT!


Quote:
DavidJ Wrote:  I do have proof and yes, I will open a separate thread on this specific topic.

I will commence with just one ex cathedra so called 'infallible' papal edict which has been proved beyond all doubt to be in grave error, contrary to The Word of God, scripturally heretical and blasphemous; even considered to be the most extreem even by many papist scholars, to wit;

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary  for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff"  (Pope Boniface VIII. Bull Unam Sanctam 1302)

Someone is unclear on the concept of "papal bull" versus "ex cathedra".   Only the latter seems to be infallible.  
CustomDesigned Wrote:

Someone is unclear on the concept of "papal bull" versus "ex cathedra".   Only the latter seems to be infallible.  
The authority Bible Believing Christians look to concerning the infallibility/falllibility of both papal bulls and ex-cathedra is The Bible not Wikipedia.  According to scripture both are fallible!

DavidJ
DavidJ Wrote:

CustomDesigned Wrote:

Someone is unclear on the concept of "papal bull" versus "ex cathedra".   Only the latter seems to be infallible.  
The authority Bible Believing Christians look to concerning the infallibility/falllibility of both papal bulls and ex-cathedra is The Bible not Wikipedia.  According to scripture both are fallible!
DavidJ

Is logic in the Bible? Isaiah 1:18

If you wish to show that the doctine of papal infallibility is invalid, you need to show that something the doctrine actually claims to be infallible is in fact invalid.  While finding lists of outrageous bulls might make you feel better, it doesn't show anything and doesn't enlighten anyone.  Logic...what do they teach in schools these days?

Elsewhere I suggested you might want to tackle Immaculate Conception, as it actually is claimed to be infallible and is certainly extra-biblical and possibly unbiblical.   I don't suggest the Assumption of Mary because it is a (supposed) historical event, and it is hard to prove a negative (and the historical evidence is decent).

Next, you need to learn basic logic.  Do a google search on "logic tutorial" and pick one that suits you.
CustomDesigned Wrote:

Is logic in the Bible? Isaiah 1:18


This passage of scripture has nothing whatsoever to do with human logic! Let us examine what this passage of scripture is teaching us .....[/b]

Isaiah 1:18 44 Come, let’s consider your options,” 45  says the Lord.
“Though your sins have stained you like the color red,
you can become 46  white like snow;
though they are as easy to see as the color scarlet,
you can become 47  white like wool. 48

44 sn The Lord concludes his case against Israel by offering them the opportunity to be forgiven and by setting before them the alternatives of renewed blessing (as a reward for repentance) and final judgment (as punishment for persistence in sin).

45 tn Traditionally, “let us reason together,” but the context suggests a judicial nuance. The Lord is giving the nation its options for the future.

46 tn The imperfects must be translated as modal (indicating capability or possibility) to bring out the conditional nature of the offer. This purification will only occur if the people repent and change their ways.

47 tn The imperfects must be translated as modal (indicating capability or possibility) to bring out the conditional nature of the offer. This purification will only occur if the people repent and change their ways.

48 tn Heb “though your sins are like red, they will become white like snow; though they are red like scarlet, they will be like wool.” The point is not that the sins will be covered up, though still retained. The metaphorical language must be allowed some flexibility and should not be pressed into a rigid literalistic mold. The people’s sins will be removed and replaced by ethical purity. The sins that are now as obvious as the color red will be washed away and the ones who are sinful will be transformed.

© 2005-2008 bible.org


DavidJ





Reference URL's