JMAN05:


Gregory I (785-90) calls anyone Antichrist who takes the name of universal bishop, and contrariwise Boniface III (607- made the parricide Emperor Phocas confer that title upon him. Paschal II (1088-99) and Eugenius III (1145-53) authorized duelling; Julius II (1509) and Pius IV (1560) forbade it. Eugenius IV (1431-39) approved of the Council of Basle and the restitution of the chalice to the church of Bohemia; Pius II (1458) revoked the concession. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII (1800-23) condemned them. To mention but a few.

So, which of the Popes had the true spirit, and which has the false?

2. When Protestant, who you interfaith with come, they will answer you. What is the difference between Catholic and protestants? Do they not interfaith? What then is the point of shouting protestants?

1. UNIVERSAL BISHOP?

DURING THE REIGN OF GREGORY THE FIRST, THE BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE TAUGHT THAT THE WAS THE UNIVERSAL BISHOP which means that all other bishops are bishops in name only and only Him had the authority over all the Church.
Pope Gregory I excommunicated him and stated that all bishops were truly bishops and had authority and that the pope was the head of all bishops. So Gregory I said in response to That bishop (Bishop John the faster), "Anyone who claims to be UNIVERSAL BISHOP is a precursor to the AntiChrist."

Pope Boniface III due to claims being made by another bishop (patriarch Cyracius) of Constantinople got a decree that "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches".

The decree never made mention of Boniface III being universal bishop. People just assume that that's what it said.

2.DUELING? Seriously, DUELING?
A)
That's more political than anything else. If one pope forbade billiards, and another did not, I'll bet these people would say the same thing!
Two popes can reform the rules on any type of recreation they want, if they have the political sway to do so; it has nothing to do with defining doctrines.
If one Pope says people should not play football and years later another Pope says people can if they want, does that mean they contradict each other? Sport and faith are not the same thing o. Neither are discipline and doctrine the same thing.
When Jesus fasted, does it mean he declared food to be evil?
When he ate, does it mean he declared fasting to be evil?

"Whatever you bind and whatever you lose". Bound things can be loosed and loosed things can be bound. There is no contradiction here.

B) A is not really relevant here. In a letter to Charles the
Bald, Nicolas I (858-67) condemned duelling (monomachia) as a tempting of God. In the same century his example was followed by Stephen VI, later by Alexander II and Alexander III, Celestine III, Innocent III and Innocent IV, Julius II, and many others.

Show a document from any pope authorizing Duels.


3. Pope Martin V called the council and put Caesarini in charge and died the same year. Eugenius IV became the pope in that same year and confirmed Caesarini as the Person in charge.
The Council had a lot of arguments but what concerns your accusation is the fact that in 1436, people from Bohemia were given permission to allow both lay and clergy drink from the Chalice at Mass.
Due to excesses and the heresy that arose from Bohemia where people were teaching that The Bread does not contain Jesus fully and The Chalice(Blood) does not contain when the Church has always taught that
the Bread or Blood,whichever is received, contains Jesus fully.
Pope Pius II in 1458 cancelled the permission and stopped the lay people from drinking from the cup.

4. All marriages are valid in the eyes of the Church until proven otherwise. Civil marriage at a time when Church and State were fully together(when Civil law was Church law) was permitted. Catholic Weddings are valid because a Priest is there as a witness representing Christ. "What God has joined ....."

Now that The Church is fully seperated from the State, the Courts do not have priests working in them. So any marriage in Court (due to the absence of the Priests) is invalid.

How is that a contradiction?

Whoever came up with this list clearly does not understand what we even MEAN when we say the pope is infallible; so why would we trust that he has proven a contradiction?

The worst part is that he can not provide any document to prove all his claims. And yes, I have read the full list of arguments from the original source and there is no proof or document for any of them.

semasir:
Please read Colossians 2.8-10. The OP isn't immature to discern this. In the meantime, baptism is for remission of sins and never applicable to infants anywhere; please learn how to apply a Biblical passage with the previous chapter/verses/content to get the message and not lift a passage to suit your claims. Thanks

Please sir, when the Jews circumcised their infants at 8 days old...

11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. Genesis 17:11

... What did the infant know about any covenant?

Jolliano:

1. UNIVERSAL BISHOP?

DURING THE REIGN OF GREGORY THE FIRST, THE BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE TAUGHT THAT THE WAS THE UNIVERSAL BISHOP which means that all other bishops are bishops in name only and only Him had the authority over all the Church.
Pope Gregory I excommunicated him and stated that all bishops were truly bishops and had authority and that the pope was the head of all bishops. So Gregory I said in response to That bishop (Bishop John the faster), "Anyone who claims to be UNIVERSAL BISHOP is a precursor to the AntiChrist."

Pope Boniface III due to claims being made by another bishop (patriarch Cyracius) of Constantinople got a decree that "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches".

The decree never made mention of Boniface III being universal bishop. People just assume that that's what it said.

2.DUELING? Seriously, DUELING?
A)
That's more political than anything else. If one pope forbade billiards, and another did not, I'll bet these people would say the same thing!
Two popes can reform the rules on any type of recreation they want, if they have the political sway to do so; it has nothing to do with defining doctrines.
If one Pope says people should not play football and years later another Pope says people can if they want, does that mean they contradict each other? Sport and faith are not the same thing o. Neither are discipline and doctrine the same thing.
When Jesus fasted, does it mean he declared food to be evil?
When he ate, does it mean he declared fasting to be evil?

"Whatever you bind and whatever you lose". Bound things can be loosed and loosed things can be bound. There is no contradiction here.

B) A is not really relevant here. In a letter to Charles the
Bald, Nicolas I (858-67) condemned duelling (monomachia) as a tempting of God. In the same century his example was followed by Stephen VI, later by Alexander II and Alexander III, Celestine III, Innocent III and Innocent IV, Julius II, and many others.

Show a document from any pope authorizing Duels.


3. Pope Martin V called the council and put Caesarini in charge and died the same year. Eugenius IV became the pope in that same year and confirmed Caesarini as the Person in charge.
The Council had a lot of arguments but what concerns your accusation is the fact that in 1436, people from Bohemia were given permission to allow both lay and clergy drink from the Chalice at Mass.
Due to excesses and the heresy that arose from Bohemia where people were teaching that The Bread does not contain Jesus fully and The Chalice(Blood) does not contain when the Church has always taught that
the Bread or Blood,whichever is received, contains Jesus fully.
Pope Pius II in 1458 cancelled the permission and stopped the lay people from drinking from the cup.

4. All marriages are valid in the eyes of the Church until proven otherwise. Civil marriage at a time when Church and State were fully together(when Civil law was Church law) was permitted. Catholic Weddings are valid because a Priest is there as a witness representing Christ. "What God has joined ....."

Now that The Church is fully seperated from the State, the Courts do not have priests working in them. So any marriage in Court (due to the absence of the Priests) is invalid.

How is that a contradiction?

Whoever came up with this list clearly does not understand what we even MEAN when we say the pope is infallible; so why would we trust that he has proven a contradiction?

The worst part is that he can not provide any document to prove all his claims. And yes, I have read the full list of arguments from the original source and there is no proof or document for any of them.

Jehovah's Witnesses like JMAN05 scour the internet looking for any allegation against the Catholic Church. When they find them, they just swallow them without even using their brains to analyze them.

Surprisingly, he doesn't see all the lies, false doctrines and failed prophecies that the Jehovah's Witnesses have made.

italo:


Jehovah's Witnesses like JMAN05 scour the internet looking for any allegation against the Catholic Church. When they find them, they just swallow them without even using their brains to analyze them.

Surprisingly, he doesn't see all the lies, false doctrines and failed prophecies that the Jehovah's Witnesses have made.

All that is not half as interesting as considering what the psychological motivations for such behaviour would be.

I find it so fascinating. Is it compensation for a deep inner feelings of inadequacy? Feelings of inadequacy assuaged by pointing out someone else that can be seen to be even less adequate.

Is it a deep inner feeling of (self) hatred and (self) revulsion that needs to be projected outwards? And when he reads some tracts that offer the Roman Catholic Church as an hate object he jumps at the opportunity and is grateful from the relief he feels from finding something to hate.

PastorAIO:


All that is not half as interesting as considering what the psychological motivations for such behaviour would be.

I find it so fascinating. Is it compensation for a deep inner feelings of inadequacy? Feelings of inadequacy assuaged by pointing out someone else that can be seen to be even less adequate.

Is it a deep inner feeling of (self) hatred and (self) revulsion that needs to be projected outwards? And when he reads some tracts that offer the Roman Catholic Church as an hate object he jumps at the opportunity and is grateful from the relief he feels from finding something to hate.

A combination of both and more, I think.

PastorAIO:


All that is not half as interesting as considering what the psychological motivations for such behaviour would be.

I find it so fascinating. Is it compensation for a deep inner feelings of inadequacy? Feelings of inadequacy assuaged by pointing out someone else that can be seen to be even less adequate.

Is it a deep inner feeling of (self) hatred and (self) revulsion that needs to be projected outwards? And when he reads some tracts that offer the Roman Catholic Church as an hate object he jumps at the opportunity and is grateful from the relief he feels from finding something to hate.

Exactly. My advice to him is this.

Pour out all hatred and anger at the Catholic Church. The Mystical Body of Christ can take it. Then allow that vacuum be filled with the Eucharist, the Bread of Life. Allow him come and dwell in you in the way HE wants to and not the way you want him to.

I can proudly say that all the doctrines of the Catholic Church are correct. If you think otherwise, you are obviously misinformed.
The Catholic Church has three sources of faith:
1.The sacred scriptures (bible)
2.The sacred tradition (the traditions of the apostles handed down generations )
3.The magisterium(the teaching authority of the church )
However, all our teachings have biblical backups, for those who say we don't study the Bible. Ask your questions without being sentimental and you will come to appreciate the Catholic church

Jolliano:

1. UNIVERSAL BISHOP?

DURING THE REIGN OF GREGORY THE FIRST, THE BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE TAUGHT THAT THE WAS THE UNIVERSAL BISHOP which means that all other bishops are bishops in name only and only Him had the authority over all the Church.
Pope Gregory I excommunicated him and stated that all bishops were truly bishops and had authority and that the pope was the head of all bishops. So Gregory I said in response to That bishop (Bishop John the faster), "Anyone who claims to be UNIVERSAL BISHOP is a precursor to the AntiChrist."

Pope Boniface III due to claims being made by another bishop (patriarch Cyracius) of Constantinople got a decree that "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches".

The decree never made mention of Boniface III being universal bishop. People just assume that that's what it said.

2.DUELING? Seriously, DUELING?
A)
That's more political than anything else. If one pope forbade billiards, and another did not, I'll bet these people would say the same thing!
Two popes can reform the rules on any type of recreation they want, if they have the political sway to do so; it has nothing to do with defining doctrines.
If one Pope says people should not play football and years later another Pope says people can if they want, does that mean they contradict each other? Sport and faith are not the same thing o. Neither are discipline and doctrine the same thing.
When Jesus fasted, does it mean he declared food to be evil?
When he ate, does it mean he declared fasting to be evil?

"Whatever you bind and whatever you lose". Bound things can be loosed and loosed things can be bound. There is no contradiction here.

B) A is not really relevant here. In a letter to Charles the
Bald, Nicolas I (858-67) condemned duelling (monomachia) as a tempting of God. In the same century his example was followed by Stephen VI, later by Alexander II and Alexander III, Celestine III, Innocent III and Innocent IV, Julius II, and many others.

Show a document from any pope authorizing Duels.


3. Pope Martin V called the council and put Caesarini in charge and died the same year. Eugenius IV became the pope in that same year and confirmed Caesarini as the Person in charge.
The Council had a lot of arguments but what concerns your accusation is the fact that in 1436, people from Bohemia were given permission to allow both lay and clergy drink from the Chalice at Mass.
Due to excesses and the heresy that arose from Bohemia where people were teaching that The Bread does not contain Jesus fully and The Chalice(Blood) does not contain when the Church has always taught that
the Bread or Blood,whichever is received, contains Jesus fully.
Pope Pius II in 1458 cancelled the permission and stopped the lay people from drinking from the cup.

4. All marriages are valid in the eyes of the Church until proven otherwise. Civil marriage at a time when Church and State were fully together(when Civil law was Church law) was permitted. Catholic Weddings are valid because a Priest is there as a witness representing Christ. "What God has joined ....."

Now that The Church is fully seperated from the State, the Courts do not have priests working in them. So any marriage in Court (due to the absence of the Priests) is invalid.

How is that a contradiction?

Whoever came up with this list clearly does not understand what we even MEAN when we say the pope is infallible; so why would we trust that he has proven a contradiction?

The worst part is that he can not provide any document to prove all his claims. And yes, I have read the full list of arguments from the original source and there is no proof or document for any of them.

Just seeing this. I ll respond latter, then we shall know whether the one who said it lacks knowledge of the infallibility teaching.

italo:


Jehovah's Witnesses like JMAN05 scour the internet looking for any allegation against the Catholic Church. When they find them, they just swallow them without even using their brains to analyze them.

Surprisingly, he doesn't see all the lies, false doctrines and failed prophecies that the Jehovah's Witnesses have made.

I don't scour the internet to criticise ur church. I was just showing ur brother how wrong he was. The info was not frm the internet. I didn't see u talk when ur brother was harping on the protestant contradictions, but u flared when it is about ur church. Well, thats understandable. But it pays to change when one has discovered a mistake, than react emotionally cos it is ur church. We witnesses do make mistakes. We are not ignorant of them, we admit it.

I believe when Jesus pointed out the error of the pharisees he wanted them to change. It was not hatred for them. Dont u think u and i shud have the same humble attitude? To accept and change?

PastorAIO:


All that is not half as interesting as considering what the psychological motivations for such behaviour would be.

I find it so fascinating. Is it compensation for a deep inner feelings of inadequacy? Feelings of inadequacy assuaged by pointing out someone else that can be seen to be even less adequate.

Is it a deep inner feeling of (self) hatred and (self) revulsion that needs to be projected outwards? And when he reads some tracts that offer the Roman Catholic Church as an hate object he jumps at the opportunity and is grateful from the relief he feels from finding something to hate.

Just wanted someone to see the rafter in his eyes, while he is busy pointing out d straw in his nabors eye.

JMAN05:


I don't scour the internet to criticise ur church. I was just showing ur brother how wrong he was.

He totally debunked you and showed how you don't even understand what you were talking about.

JMAN05:


The info was not frm the internet. I didn't see u talk when ur brother was harping on the protestant contradictions, but u flared when it is about ur church. Well, thats understandable.

Because the Protestants' doctrinal contradictions are obvious.

But your attempt to manufacture Catholic doctrinal contradictions are weak and futile.

JMAN05:



But it pays to change when one has discovered a mistake, than react emotionally cos it is ur church. We witnesses do make mistakes. We are not ignorant of them, we admit it.

Typical dubious 'Jehovah's Witness.'

They aren't "mistakes." they're outright evil lies, heresies, false prophecies from your organization.

And you don't admit your error when you're busted, you try to circumvent the truth by claim that your "light is getting brighter."

JMAN05:



I believe when Jesus pointed out the error of the pharisees he wanted them to change. It was not hatred for them. Dont u think u and i shud have the same humble attitude? To accept and change?

I believe we should have a humble attitude in believing God who said "The Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth."--1Tim3:15.

It cannot teach error like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Pharisees.

JMAN05:


Just wanted someone to see the rafter in his eyes, while he is busy pointing out d straw in his nabors eye.

Only, you failed to point out any rafter.

JMAN05:


Just wanted someone to see the rafter in his eyes, while he is busy pointing out d straw in his nabors eye.

Only, you failed to point out any rafter.

There is can be no rafter in God's doctrine.

italo:



He totally debunked you and showed how you don't even understand what you were talking about.



Because the Protestants' doctrinal contradictions are obvious.

But your attempt to manufacture Catholic doctrinal contradictions are weak and futile.



Typical dubious 'Jehovah's Witness.'

They aren't "mistakes." they're outright evil lies, heresies, false prophecies from your organization.

And you don't admit your error when you're busted, you try to circumvent the truth by claim that your "light is getting brighter."



I believe we should have a humble attitude in believing God who said "The Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth."--1Tim3:15.

It cannot teach error like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Pharisees.

Let's end it till u grow up.

Jolliano:

1. UNIVERSAL BISHOP?

DURING THE REIGN OF GREGORY THE FIRST, THE BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE TAUGHT THAT THE WAS THE UNIVERSAL BISHOP which means that all other bishops are bishops in name only and only Him had the authority over all the Church.
Pope Gregory I excommunicated him and stated that all bishops were truly bishops and had authority and that the pope was the head of all bishops. So Gregory I said in response to That bishop (Bishop John the faster), "Anyone who claims to be UNIVERSAL BISHOP is a precursor to the AntiChrist."

Pope Boniface III due to claims being made by another bishop (patriarch Cyracius) of Constantinople got a decree that "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches".

The decree never made mention of Boniface III being universal bishop. People just assume that that's what it said.

"After his elevation to the See of Rome, Boniface obtained a decree from Phocas, against Cyriacus, Bishop of Constantinople, by which it was ordained, that "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches", and that the title of "Universal Bishop" belonged exclusively to the Bishop of Rome" from Catholic encyclopedia

It was in Boniface favor that the decree was made. However, the main issue is that he had a title declared by Gregory as antichrist. Those were the unity of infallibles.

2.DUELING? Seriously, DUELING?
A)
That's more political than anything else. If one pope forbade billiards, and another did not, I'll bet these people would say the same thing!
Two popes can reform the rules on any type of recreation they want, if they have the political sway to do so; it has nothing to do with defining doctrines.
If one Pope says people should not play football and years later another Pope says people can if they want, does that mean they contradict each other? Sport and faith are not the same thing o. Neither are discipline and doctrine the same thing.
When Jesus fasted, does it mean he declared food to be evil?
When he ate, does it mean he declared fasting to be evil?

"Whatever you bind and whatever you lose". Bound things can be loosed and loosed things can be bound. There is no contradiction here.

B) A is not really relevant here. In a letter to Charles the
Bald, Nicolas I (858-67) condemned duelling (monomachia) as a tempting of God. In the same century his example was followed by Stephen VI, later by Alexander II and Alexander III, Celestine III, Innocent III and Innocent IV, Julius II, and many others.

Show a document from any pope authorizing Duels.

Ask your scholar, Strossmayer for a document of what he said. I believe he doesnt know ur church more than you do.

3. Pope Martin V called the council and put Caesarini in charge and died the same year. Eugenius IV became the pope in that same year and confirmed Caesarini as the Person in charge.
The Council had a lot of arguments but what concerns your accusation is the fact that in 1436, people from Bohemia were given permission to allow both lay and clergy drink from the Chalice at Mass.
Due to excesses and the heresy that arose from Bohemia where people were teaching that The Bread does not contain Jesus fully and The Chalice(Blood) does not contain when the Church has always taught that
the Bread or Blood,whichever is received, contains Jesus fully.
Pope Pius II in 1458 cancelled the permission and stopped the lay people from drinking from the cup.

Whats it about the sermon? Pius II revoked what another infallible accepted. Both of the positions cannot be right at the same time no matter the reason for the decision. No reason should such position be changed cos Eugenius made his decision by the spirit of your god.

Of course you and I know the controversy that came from the council of Basle. I believe that was an example of unity of belief, hilarious.

4. All marriages are valid in the eyes of the Church until proven otherwise. Civil marriage at a time when Church and State were fully together(when Civil law was Church law) was permitted. Catholic Weddings are valid because a Priest is there as a witness representing Christ. "What God has joined ....."

Now that The Church is fully seperated from the State, the Courts do not have priests working in them. So any marriage in Court (due to the absence of the Priests) is invalid.

How is that a contradiction?

Whoever came up with this list clearly does not understand what we even MEAN when we say the pope is infallible; so why would we trust that he has proven a contradiction?

The worst part is that he can not provide any document to prove all his claims. And yes, I have read the full list of arguments from the original source and there is no proof or document for any of them.

Of course, your catholic trained scholar Strossmayer know nothing about your church. You know it more than he does. Never knew that a person of that caliber was an empty head in the famous council of vatican, yet known as learned.

You dont get the point do you? The issue is that the pope is infallible, the dogma he enacted cant be changed on the guise of ignorance. Or was the popes that were part of the State inspired by the demons, before another popes inspired by your god came and separated the church from the state? That must be one thought among the infallibles. (I dont even belief that your church is separated from the state)

So circumstances is the exception to the infallibility doctrine, is that how you understood it?

JMAN05:


"After his elevation to the See of Rome, Boniface obtained a decree from Phocas, against Cyriacus, Bishop of Constantinople, by which it was ordained, that "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches", and that the title of "Universal Bishop" belonged exclusively to the Bishop of Rome" from Catholic encyclopedia

It was in Boniface favor that the decree was made. However, the main issue is that he had a title declared by Gregory as antichrist. Those were the unity of infallibles.



Ask your scholar, Strossmayer for a document of what he said. I believe he doesnt know ur church more than you do.



Whats it about the sermon? Pius II revoked what another infallible accepted. Both of the positions cannot be right at the same time no matter the reason for the decision. No reason should such position be changed cos Eugenius made his decision by the spirit of your god.

Of course you and I know the controversy that came from the council of Basle. I believe that was an example of unity of belief, hilarious.



Of course, your catholic trained scholar Strossmayer know nothing about your church. You know it more than he does. Never knew that a person of that caliber was an empty head in the famous council of vatican, yet known as learned.

You dont get the point do you? The issue is that the pope is infallible, the dogma he enacted cant be changed on the guise of ignorance. Or was the popes that were part of the State inspired by the demons, before another popes inspired by your god came and separated the church from the state? That must be one thought among the infallibles. (I dont even belief that your church is separated from the state)

So circumstances is the exception to the infallibility doctrine, is that how you understood it?

1. Universal Bishop as head of all bishops or universal Bishop as the only bishop in the World?
Because Pope Gregory condemned the latter and Pope Boniface obviously accepted the former.

Same title: Different meaning and Jurisdiction.

2. All your arguments come from a speech that people claimed was made by Bishop Strossmayer at Vatican I.
Suprisingly (to you,that is), he never made that speech. He was not against the dogma of infallibility but against the timing just like Cardinal Newman was.

The problem with the speech is a forgery. Karl Keating, in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, points this out (on page 34), referencing the Catholic Encyclopedia.
You can see that article in the Encyclopedia here.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14316a.htm

Believe it or not, there is an entire book written about the man, by Ivo Sivric, which also confirms that the speech is a forgery, perpetrated by a man named Jose Agustin de Escudero.

So if you want to prove anything provide documents for your accusation and stop making reference to Bishop Strossmayer.

Show me a document by these popes.

3. Permissions are not DOGMAs. Study what s DOGMA is,bros.

Jolliano:


1. Universal Bishop as head of all bishops or universal Bishop as the only bishop in the World?
Because Pope Gregory condemned the latter and Pope Boniface obviously accepted the former.

Same title: Different meaning and Jurisdiction.

2. All your arguments come from a speech that people claimed was made by Bishop Strossmayer at Vatican I.
Suprisingly (to you,that is), he never made that speech. He was not against the dogma of infallibility but against the timing just like Cardinal Newman was.

The problem with the speech is a forgery. Karl Keating, in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, points this out (on page 34), referencing the Catholic Encyclopedia.
You can see that article in the Encyclopedia here.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14316a.htm

Believe it or not, there is an entire book written about the man, by Ivo Sivric, which also confirms that the speech is a forgery, perpetrated by a man named Jose Agustin de Escudero.

So if you want to prove anything provide documents for your accusation and stop making reference to Bishop Strossmayer.

Show me a document by these popes.

3. Permissions are not DOGMAs. Study what s DOGMA is,bros.

he is confusing discipline with dogma. He still need to study.

The Bible is the written down Instructions of God to us. The Church is the Sunday School of Lessons from above and guidance on the use of the Bible. The Church's authority is given in St. John17.

If protestalism and penticostalism are right, proliferation of churches would have stopped since the days of Martin Luther himself. The fact that these churches cannot agree within themselves and continue to proliferate shows their existence is false and invalid. Does Jesus not pray for unity among his followers? Martin Luther by his rebellion has only brought chaos into the church. Does rebellion not breed rebellion and rebellion and more rebellion? The spirit of lucifer. Chris Okotie is not Redeemed, Deeper Life doesn't agree and don't see themselves coming together to fuse themselves with TREM and so on, yet these all antagonise the one holy and apostolic church. Na wa o. Confusion reigns.

You can't understand the Bible well until someone explains it. That someone is your church and in your case, it's a Roman Catholic Church. So it's very important that you understand the Bible very well from the explanation given you by your Church.

Jolliano:


1. Universal Bishop as head of all bishops or universal Bishop as the only bishop in the World?
Because Pope Gregory condemned the latter and Pope Boniface obviously accepted the former.

Same title: Different meaning and Jurisdiction.

2. All your arguments come from a speech that people claimed was made by Bishop Strossmayer at Vatican I.
Suprisingly (to you,that is), he never made that speech. He was not against the dogma of infallibility but against the timing just like Cardinal Newman was.

The problem with the speech is a forgery. Karl Keating, in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, points this out (on page 34), referencing the Catholic Encyclopedia.
You can see that article in the Encyclopedia here.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14316a.htm

Believe it or not, there is an entire book written about the man, by Ivo Sivric, which also confirms that the speech is a forgery, perpetrated by a man named Jose Agustin de Escudero.

So if you want to prove anything provide documents for your accusation and stop making reference to Bishop Strossmayer.

Show me a document by these popes.

3. Permissions are not DOGMAs. Study what s DOGMA is,bros.

Pls quote my post one by one let me know the one your replied to and the one you did not reply so as to re-post them for ur attention.

waiting..

JMAN05:


Pls quote my post one by one let me know the one your replied to and the one you did not reply so as to re-post them for ur attention.

waiting..

All of them come from the same Forgery. So either you find a new base for those arguments or you find a new argument.

Why do I need to quote individual points from a single forgery?
You're the one making accusations. The onus is on you to prove your accusation. Just remember, that the speech by Strossmayer you are using as your basis for argument is a forgery and so cannot be used as a basis.

Give us proof of your arguments first.

Jolliano:


All of them come from the same Forgery. So either you find a new base for those arguments or you find a new argument.

Why do I need to quote individual points from a single forgery?
You're the one making accusations. The onus is on you to prove your accusation. Just remember, that the speech by Strossmayer you are using as your basis for argument is a forgery and so cannot be used as a basis.

Give us proof of your arguments first.

Habah, what's the big bros? Quote the comments you respond to one by one let me attain to them. That way the discussion will have shape. Am not in a hurry.

JMAN05:


Habah, what's the big bros? Quote the comments you respond to one by one let me attain to them. That way the discussion will have shape. Am not in a hurry.

You made accusations against the Popes and Papal infallibility. I replied your aCcusation.

Your response was all about Bishop Strossmayer's speech. I have shown you now that the speech is a forgery and so there is no point in replying accusations presented from forged documents.

Present accusations from actual sources and I'll reply.

Jolliano:


You made accusations against the Popes and Papal infallibility. I replied your aCcusation.

Your response was all about Bishop Strossmayer's speech. I have shown you now that the speech is a forgery and so there is no point in replying accusations presented from forged documents.

Present accusations from actual sources and I'll reply.

No, you hv not shown me that what i said about strossmayer is wrong. No document, no evidence. Just a claim by you. Take note of that

However this willnot make u to runaway from the other things I said in reply to ur previous comment. If u are tired you admit, not this excuses. Didnt u quote my comments one by one previously? Follow d same method.

JMAN05:


No, you hv not shown me that what i said about strossmayer is wrong. No document, no evidence. Just a claim by you. Take note of that

However this willnot make u to runaway from the other things I said in reply to ur previous comment. If u are tired you admit, not this excuses. Didnt u quote my comments one by one previously? Follow d same method.

Lol. Run away. Lol. Very funny.

Can you show me an official document proving that Bishop Strosmayer said those things in Vatican I?

Because I have told you of the book written abot him which clearly states that he did not make those statements.

You say he spoke against the Papacy. Yet he received a Pallium from the Pope before he died.

Why would he say all those things and still remain a Catholic Bishop? That would be very unresonable and Hypocritical.


Simple Logical Debate.
Make your arguments with proof. If you give proofless arguments, then nobody has to reply them because they would be pointless.

Good start.

Now now it's Catholicism vs the Bible.

If you make it, soon, it'll be The Bible vs Reason.

Mental autonomy calls.

BuddhaPalm:
Good start.

Now now it's Catholicism vs the Bible.

If you make it, soon, it'll be The Bible vs Reason.

Mental autonomy calls.

Na undergrad be that. When we get to Holy spirit vs Jesus na dat time we go know say we don enter Phd.

Jolliano:


Lol. Run away. Lol. Very funny.

Can you show me an official document proving that Bishop Strosmayer said those things in Vatican I?

Because I have told you of the book written abot him which clearly states that he did not make those statements.

You say he spoke against the Papacy. Yet he received a Pallium from the Pope before he died.

Why would he say all those things and still remain a Catholic Bishop? That would be very unresonable and Hypocritical.


Simple Logical Debate.
Make your arguments with proof. If you give proofless arguments, then nobody has to reply them because they would be pointless.

If u trust and belief I hv no document to back up my claim. Just quote my comment as I said. Jst do it. Leave d rest for me.

JMAN05:


If u trust and belief I hv no document to back up my claim. Just quote my comment as I said. Jst do it. Leave d rest for me.

You can't stand something on nothing and expect it to stand.
The documents of bishops have official signature. Pick any and support yourself .

Kamxin:

You can't stand something on nothing and expect it to stand.
The documents of bishops have official signature. Pick any and support yourself .

When he is serious I will know. For now, he likes dancing. I know when people are serious and when they are not. I have a proof for what I said, but he cant have it until I sense his seriousness. That is if you have been acquainted with my kind of person in this forum.

JMAN05:


Let's end it till u grow up.

It doesn't end here!
Jehovah witness attack on the Catholic church have being ruthless and relentless.
I have enough AWAKE magazines from 1980's to this day. You spread your fallacies in the Catholic homes with a reckless abandon through the instrumentality of this greek gift, poisoning their minds and destabilizing their homes with this your 100 year old doctrines invented by a questionable character.

Instead of educating your members on your new innovation, you chose to attack the Catholic church who have no business with your innovation.

Today, chickens have come home to roost as the wind of change called internet have unravelled the the extent of darkness Christians before us have passed through.

It is obvious that in few years to come that that evill bulletin that have vilified the holy mother church with so much venom would reap all it have sown.

This is part of growing up, from Jehovah witness.