Thursday, May 14, 2009

Deacon Alex Jones in Belmont

If you didn't know, Deacon Alex Jones was one of the most influential people in my journey to the Catholic Faith. I was just told that he will be speaking, this weekend, in the Greater Grand Rapids Area. I am forwarding this information to you all.

God bless.


In 1993, Alex Jones was the pastor of a primarily African-American Pentecostal church in Detroit. His decision to research the beliefs and practices of the early Church began an eight-year spiritual journey that would lead him, his wife, and over half of his flock to conversion into the Catholic Church.
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Parish in Belmont is happy to present An Afternoon With Deacon Alex Jones, author of No Price Too High, on Sunday, May 17th at 2:00. Deacon Jones will passionately preach about The Treasures of the Church. There is no charge to attend, but a free will offering will be taken.

42 comments:

born4battle said...

"Jones said the four biggest problems Protestants have with Catholicism are teachings about Mary, purgatory, papal authority, and praying to saints. He resolved three of the four long ago, but struggled the most with Mary, finally accepting the teaching on her just because the church taught it."

""How can you say no to truth? I knew that I would lose everything and that in those circles I would never be accepted again, but I had no choice," he said.

"It would be mortal sin for me to know what I know and not act on it. If I returned to my former life, I would be dishonest, untrustworthy, a man who saw truth, knew truth, and turned away from it, and I could just not do that."

These quotes indicate that Mr. Jones now accepts as truth whatever the RC says is truth, the same way you do Carlus.

1 John 2:19?

Carlus Henry said...

born4battle,

These quotes indicate that Mr. Jones now accepts as truth whatever the RC says is truth, the same way you do Carlus. Short answer:

Yes.

Long answer:

We all put our faith into something. Some put their faith in the Holy Scriptures and themselves to accurately interpret what the Holy Scriptures say. Whether they are led by the Holy Spirit or not, is not completely discernable.

Others put their faith into their pastor / preacher to tell them the truth.

I, along with my Catholic brothers and sisters, put our faith in the authority invested into the Church by Christ. Since it is led by the Holy Spirit, my answer is a resounding yes, I accept as truth those things that the RC says infallibly is truth.

God bless...

P.S. Not sure how you are trying to use 1 John 2:19 within the context of this.

born4battle said...

there you go talking in circles again. Do you realize how silly you sound? I am being kind here.

"Some put their faith in the Holy Scriptures and themselves to accurately interpret what the Holy Scriptures say. Whether they are led by the Holy Spirit or not, is not completely discernable."

Some put there immediate trust in what scriptures says on its pages- visible to the naked eye and understandable by any measure of average reading skills. Some of those same people intentionally DO NOT trust themselves, but also trust the Holy Spirit and sound interpretative skills, like letting what is clear interpret what is unclear, since scripture is the inspired word God, after all.

Did I miss something here about the Holy Spirit? He is only available to the Pope & company? We mere mortals get HS Lite?

You have a sole arbiter of truth, the RC, who has built most of their 'doctrine' from what is read INTO scripture, NOT what can be taken FROM it. therefore you are still in sever bondage, UNABLE to even attempt to take scripture on it's own merits.

Some might smell the stink of idolatry here.......

born4battle said...

Oh, and 1 John 2:19. Think about it. tell me what you think it means in the surroundig context. That is, if you won't break some 'Catholic' rule or something.

born4battle said...

One more thing, we are to olve God with all our heart, soul AND MIND. too bad you surrendered yours to Rome.

Carlus Henry said...

Everyone (including you born4battle),

I want you all to take the time to read the response that I made to born4battle and his follow up comments. These are the type of comments that I don't find constructive to discussion. These are the types of comments that I find not welcome here on this blog, and in the past, I would have considered rejecting them, more for born4battle's sake than my own. However, in the interest of letting people see the whole conversation, even if his comments shame him and his effort of charity, I will allow them....

Carlus Henry said...

born4battle,

Did I miss something here about the Holy Spirit? He is only available to the Pope & company? We mere mortals get HS Lite?
Not at all. However, what you seem to ignore is that this is not a Protestant vs. Catholic issue. It is also a Protestant vs. Protestant issue as well. Not all Protestants agree on everything. They even directly oppose each other on matters of divine revelation - however most seem to agree that the Holy Spirit is guiding them to an accurate interpretation of Scripture. So either one of two things must be true, either the Holy Spirit is guiding them to contradictary truth, or the Holy Spirit is not guiding them accurately into all areas of truth.

Some might smell the stink of idolatry here.......
Give me a break.

Carlus Henry said...

born4battle,

One more thing, we are to olve God with all our heart, soul AND MIND. too bad you surrendered yours to Rome.
Not even worth commenting on.

Carlus Henry said...

born4battle,

Questions for you:

1.) Do all Non-Catholics agree with your fallible interpretation of Scripture?
2.) If they do not agree with your fallible interpretation of Scripture why is that if the Holy Spirit is leading you and everyone else to interpret scripture infallibly?
3.) Are you the only one that can interpret Scripture infallibly? And so long as other theologians of the past agree with you, then they are right as well?
4.) Is it possible, that you are interpreting scripture in error? After all, you are only human....right?

God bless...

Willison said...

Do you realize how silly you sound? I am being kind here. Doesn't sound kind to me.

Some . . . trust the Holy Spirit and sound interpretative skills, like letting what is clear interpret what is unclear Isn't that Carlus' whole point? No matter where you come from there is some interpretation going on.
Some say they should rely on their own personal "sound interpretative skills", which would mean that the Holy Spirit allowed the whole world to wander in darkness for 2000 years until the light bulb turned on for you - now you know the truth, because its clear.
Others say that they should rely on some denomination's "sound interpretative skills" that popped up 100 years ago or even 500 years ago because the teachings of their founder were so "biblically sound", which has all the problems of recency PLUS when you dig into those denominations you learn that the current theology is in fact different than what their founder used to teach.
Or you can rely on the teachings of a Church that can trace its roots person by person, year by year, back to Jesus himself. Those teachings have been challenged and stretched and debated by the greatest Christian teachers - and on matters of doctrine CAN'T evolve but still hold up.

So Carlus picked his. You have picked yours. Everyone should justify their choice. But you can't say the scriptures are so obvious that they can be fully understood with "average reading skills" - and go so far as to mock anyone who doesn't accept that as obvious - when you live in a world that currently has over 38,000 denominations - all claiming to follow the Bible.

Identify the source of the "sound interpretative skills" you rely upon and explain why the Holy Spirit chose that one over the 37,999 others. OR admit you can't.

born4battle said...

I am not ashamed of the Gospel. . .Rome has twisted it.

"1.) Do all Non-Catholics agree with your fallible interpretation of Scripture?"


ALL true Christians believe the Gospel as revealed in the pages of inspired Scripture, not the multitude of "another gospels" the Apostle Paul warned about..

"2.) If they do not agree with your fallible interpretation of Scripture why is that if the Holy Spirit is leading you and everyone else to interpret scripture infallibly?"

I do not know a true Christian who does NOT believe in justification by grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone. The second part of your question is therefore moot.

3.) Are you the only one that can interpret Scripture infallibly? And so long as other theologians of the past agree with you, then they are right as well?

I never even came close to claiming to be the infallible interpreter of scripture andd anyone who CAN read and HAS READ this blog with an ounce of intelligence can pick up on that. I have only appealed over and over and over again for you to consider scripture for shat is written on it's pages. You know that and I know that. Ditto on the "mootness" of the second part of that one.

"4.) Is it possible, that you are interpreting scripture in error? After all, you are only human....right?

Likewise the Church Fathers, the Pope and the Priests. We can all be in error.

I say again. . .watch my lips. . .you seem totally INCAPABLE of reading the Bible for yourself and letting it say what it says. Ditto for the historical record. Must be a Catholic thing.

You didn't surrender your mind to Rome? Prove me wrong, PLEASE! Read and interpret scripture with scripture! If you refuse, you HAVE surrendered your mind to Rome in spiritual matters.

Carlus Henry said...

born4battle,

I am not ashamed of the Gospel...
It is not the Gospel that you should be ashamed of. It is the insults and the way that you present it. If you cannot discuss God in a civil manner, then you not only embarrass yourself, but the community of Christians that you represent.

On to your responses:

I asked you if all Non-Catholics agree with your interpretation of Scripture, and you responded with some vague answer. I was looking for a simple yes or no. Either they all hold the same view as you do, or they do not.

If they do not hold the same view as you do, and come to the same conclusions that you have come to in your interpretation of scripture, what does that mean?

I think we should stick with this before moving on to your other responses.

So first, please answer the question again in a Yes or No fashion.

1.) Do all Non-Catholics come to the same conclusion based on their interpretation of Scripture?

I am just going to take a wild guess and say that they don't, and therefore assuming that they don't...

2.) What does that mean? Does that mean that the Holy Spirit is incapable of leading all men to non-contradictory truth? Or does it mean that some people who claim to be following the Holy Spirit, are really decieving themselves?

Thanks and God bless....

born4battle said...

"I asked you if all Non-Catholics agree with your interpretation of Scripture, and you responded with some vague answer."

My answer wasn't vague at all, we both know that. Since you asked me about ALL non-catholics, you are fortunate I answered you at all, since I don't know all non-catholics. I could have been snarky about such a ridiculous question.

You are quite literate since after all, you author a blog (your statement).

I shall therefore refrain from answering the question, lest you jump up and say something like "You know all non-catholics, do you? How arrogant!"

I suggest you think your questions through before you ask them. I have a tendency to be a bit literal.

"ALL non-catholics either hold to the same interpretation of things scriptural or they don't."

Is that you assertion? YDid you seriously say that? YOU know something about ALL non-catholics? WOW!!!! I am impressed!

Do you need to think a bit before asserting such nonesensical things, as well as before questioning others?

If that's the quality of your reasoning powers, please don't waste time and keyboard strokes commenting to my other replies......

born4battle said...

Now I get it! It was a LEADING question, designed to solicit a planned response, to which you reply with something else designed to lead me to Rome.I am sure your indoctrinators did the same and you ahve learned well. Can you have a conversation without Rome in it?

born4battle said...

"W" and "C"

You both keep leading to Rome. You cannot seem to do otherwise. Heavy sigh.

Sound interpretative skills:

The words on the page. Using what is clear from the words on the page to interpret what is not as clear.

Read all that the context of scripture says on a subject before consulting other sources.

Certain elementary doctrines of our faith seem to be very clear in scripture.

Much RC doctrine, while not explicitly denied with crystal clear wording, seems to contradict what is clear in the words of scripture, or what becomes clear when considering the entire context of scripture.

In other words, certain RC doctrines are 'proof texted' into scripture rather than taken from scripture.

Study from multiple historical resources seems to indicate very strongly that those suspect doctrines were gradually added to Church doctrine, blessed by whatever Pope was on the throne at the time.

Most of what I believe and hold dear concernng my faith I discovered in the pages of scripture BEFORE I found out that others, much more learned than I am in matters spiritual, told me the same thing. Is that something you can understand?

I also can understand your reed to continually appeal to the RC because so much of RC doctrine is NOT clear in scripture but has been read into scripture.

For me this is about scripture. That is my passion here and It really hurts this old heart to see anyone, especially grown folks, semingly unable to take scripture just for what it says.

I don't care if that means blindly appealing to Rome, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, or anyone else. RC adherents seem to have only one appeal - Rome.

You both have stated that Rome has the final say concerning truth, that what is true is what the RC says is true. It doesn't matter if it is in harmony with the context of scripture. The RC said it and that settles it.

I have used 'shock tactics' to try and get you to dialogue straight from scripture. Apparently you can't because you have been taught we need the 'infallible' RC to intrpret it for us. If that is not surrendering the intellect to Rome, I am at a loss as to what it is.That is not meant as a personal jab. You could rightly say the same of me if all I did was quote Luther and Calvin.

Carlus Henry said...

born4battle,

Let me try to ask the question differently....

1.) Do you believe that you are infallibly interpreting Scripture?

Carlus Henry said...

born4battle,

Most of what I believe and hold dear concernng my faith I discovered in the pages of scripture BEFORE I found out that others, much more learned than I am in matters spiritual, told me the same thing. Is that something you can understand?
This doesn't mean anything. I can read scripture and discover for myself that Jesus is the ArchAngel Michael. Then I can find sources (Jehova's Witnesses), who are much more learned, that would say the same thing. That doesn't mean that I am right. Instead it means that me and my sources are wrong.

So, can you personally, interpret scriptures infallibly? Were all Christians promised / guaranteed to interpret scriptures infallibly?

Willison said...

B4B,

I sense a slight effort to have a new tone, so I will also try to help in that process. Let me make a couple points:

1) This is a blog about the Catholic faith. You are commenting that you disagree with that doctrine. So we HAVE to refer to what the Church teaches - it is the whole point. You really can't fault us for saying, "the Church says" in this context anymore than you could go to a cooking blog and say "there you go bringing up ingredients again" Right? Help me if I am missing something.

2. I understand that you believe that the only proper thing for Christians to rely upon is the Bible. I understand that is why you always make your points in reference to that. But you need to understand that we don't agree with that point. We believe that in addition to scripture the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church in forming its doctrine - that is called Tradition (not tradition like we always have turkey on Thanksgiving, but Tradition just like the Jewish faith has always practiced.) That Tradition is an important part of understanding what Catholics believe - you can't ask us what we think and not expect us to refer to it. That is not a cop out or inability, it just is what it is. You can't expect us to limit our arguments to half of the avilable resources (scripture only) and expect them to make sense - so we don't. Now that having been said, Tradition should never conflict with scripture. So if you ever think it does, you are free to jump all over that.

3. When you discovered there are more learned people who read it the same way you do, please understand that we did too. So I think the point of this string is let's compare those learned sources and see if one may be more reliable than the other.

4. No one is trying to convert you. You don't see it the way the Church does so for you to just join up would be dishonest. But please don't think we are dishonest because we joined up. We get it. We see that the Church is right. It would be dishonest for us to be anything else. It's highly insulting when you imply otherwise.

5. Here's the deal about trusting the Church. Few people have the time to research everything. The Church teaches some stuff I don't understand. But every time I dig into one of those issues, I see where the Church got that idea, the justification for it and I conclude they are right. (For example I thought they were crazy on birthcontrol until I studied what they were saying). So with that experience in mind, and judging the tree by its other fruit, when I don't understand a teaching of the Church, and don't have time to dig in right then, I make the assumption they have thought it through and are correct, once again - because between me and them I have been wrong a lot more. That's not intentional ignorance, that's trust.

born4battle said...

Willison,

“So we HAVE to refer to what the Church teaches - it is the whole point.”

Well, there you go. One might also add justifiably that you HAVE to refer to ONLY what your Church teaches. You and Carlus have demonstrated that.

“I understand that you believe that the only proper thing for Christians to rely upon is the Bible.”

And that is wrong how? I have always maintained that Scripture is the final authority. And yu have agreed, with the caveat that Scripture is only as true as the RC confirms it is.

“. . . that is called Tradition (not tradition like we always have turkey on Thanksgiving,. . .
Come on, Willison, you know that was a cheap shot . . . I have clearly demonstrated in this dialogue that I know exactly want ‘Tradition’ means. My point again, if you missed it the first time, is that you appeal to nothing outside of your Tradition (not like turkey).

“Tradition should never conflict with scripture. So if you ever think it does, you are free to jump all over that.”
What a generous invitation! That’s been done from CONFLICTING Scripture as well as conflicting historical records, multiple times. Perhaps you really aren’t paying attention?

“So I think the point of this string is let's compare those learned sources and see if one may be more reliable than the other.”
Based on what standard? The words and context of Scripture, or RC Tradition (not like turkey). My choice would be scripture and yours would be Tradition since only your Church can interpret Scripture infallible, because Peter was the First Pope in a long line of Popes. And why, because your Church SAYS SO, never mind that the context of scripture and multiple historical records including some of your own state otherwise.

“But please don't think we are dishonest because we joined up.”
I don’t think you are dishonest. I think you are honestly deceived dishonestly.

born4battle said...

"But every time I dig into one of those issues, I see where the Church got that idea, the justification for it and I conclude they are right."

What if, what if, their justification is faulty? What if the context of scripture says otherwise? What if the only historical justification is RC tradition passed on and on and on, but other historically reliable resources say otherwise? Over and over and over again I see multiple historically reliable resources agreeing on one thing, while 'Catholic tradition' is the sole source of Catholic tradition. and Of course they are going to 'justify' their point, Of course they are going to present plausible justification
(For example I thought they were crazy on birthcontrol until I studied what they were saying). So with that experience in mind, and judging the tree by its other fruit, when I don't understand a teaching of the Church, and don't have time to dig in right then, I make the assumption they have thought it through and are correct, once again - because between me and them I have been wrong a lot more. That's not intentional ignorance, that's trust."

"I make the assumption they have thought it through and are correct,...."

"They" wanted primacy over all of Christianity, and their "leader" infallible, so "they" thought it through to the "desired outcome", over time. Their "thinking through" apparently took time because all of the "official pronouncements", from the First "official" declarations of a univrsal papacy a few hundred years after Chrit's death and resurrection, to his "officially" declared infallibility (1870), came later than that short conversion between Jesus and his disciples.

Tell us, Willison, WHY, if the RC is the only true church and it's Pope the infallible source of all truth for Christians, did it have to be read into scripture, rather than having been 'declared' in scripture? Why did God leave such an important part of Christianity, that Christ's church was an ORGBANIZATION, not the called out PEOPLE of God?

That's a question that has been asked and ignored previously.

Willison said...

B4B,

Never mind what I said about the new tone, but I'll happily answer your question. You ask, "WHY, if the RC is the only true church and it's Pope the infallible source of all truth for Christians, did it have to be read into scripture, rather than having been 'declared' in scripture?"

First, the pope is NOT the infallible source of all truth. Only God is the source of truth. Popes themselves are NOT infallible but they have been given an office which CAN teach infallibly when it declares that it is doing so - and that is very rarely done.

I'm not sure what you are looking for in the form of a declaration in scripture, but Paul wrote in Eph 3:10 "so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens" And of course later he told Timothy that the church was "the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Tim 3:15.

And of course, with regard to the statement "the only true church" a lot can be read into that which I probably wouldn't agree with. I can say this, however, as a simple historical fact: Of the 38,000 Christian denominations around today, every one of them can trace it's history back to the day when it broke off from some other christian denomination - except one. I also know that Christ said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church, so when people say there were 100's of years when no one was teaching the gospel correctly, they are wrong. I also know that that one church has more people following it than all 37,999 of the others combined. While numbers certainly don't mean you are correct, it certainly seems that all kinds of attacks have not prevailed against it.

I note on your website a speach about a Christian movement / denomination about 100 years old that has already changed so much the speaker thinks it has lost its way. Certainly that must not be the church Christ was refering to.

So in summary: The authority of the Church is declared, frequently. And there are some heresies, so silly, that no one in the early church would have thought it necessary to address. Then one day, 1500 years later, a French man living in Switzerland said . . . yada, yada, yada . . .and suddenly no one needs the church.

born4battle said...

Ah Willison,

Pope Innocent III: “We may, according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them, but God. For the Pope holdeth place on Earth not simply of a man, but of the true God.”

Pope Nicholas:” I am all in all, and above all, so that God Himself and I, Vicar of God, have one consistory, and I am able to almost all that God can do. Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of not of man, but of God, what can you make me, but God.”

At the Lateran Council in an address to Pope Julius II Marcellus said: “Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath that thou hast given us. For thou art our shepherd, thou art our physican, thou art governor, thou art husbandman, thou finally art another God on Earth.”

Pope Pius IX: “I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the Apostles, the Vicar of Jesus Christ. I alone have the mission to guide and direct the “barque” of Peter. I am the way, the truth and the life.”

9 Jan 1870, proceedings of the First Vatican Council: The Pope is Christ in office, Christ in jurisdiction and power, We bow down, O Pius (IX), at to the voice of Christ, the god of truth, In clinging to thee, we cling to Christ.”

Cardinal Sarto 1893 in St. Mark’s Cathedral in Venice "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh."-Before he was actually Pope Pius X. Catholic National, July 1895,

Pope Pius X made the blasphemous claim that he was "Jesus Christ hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks."

Pope Leo XIII: "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty"-Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894

Paul and Christy said...

B4B,

Nice try. Most of those quotes are taken out of context, or just plain wrong (mistranslations, etc.) Your Cardinal Sarto quote comes from a publication that may not have even existed (National Catholic):

"A Protestant paper, the "Church Review," in England, October 3, 1895, charges Cardinal Sarto, Archbishop of Venice, with having uttered those words at Venice. Cardinal Sarto was elected Pope in 1903. But as soon as the charge was made in 1895 that Cardinal Sarto had said those words, inquiries were sent from England to Venice, and Cardinal Sarto produced the manuscript of his discourse. And this is what he actually did say:"The Pope REPRESENTS Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving father. The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love, his flag, that is, the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on Earth and in Heaven."

Check out this blog for more
http://sacrificiumlaudis.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-lord-god-popenot-part-1.html

An easy web search was all that was needed.

But even if even one of these quotes were true, why doesn't the Catechism of the Catholic church, which is what the Catholic Church actually believes, state that the pope is God?

Because we don't believe that. We believe that he is the Servant of the Servants of God.

CCC paragraph 2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice." The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

Carlus Henry said...

Paul / Born4Battle,

A quick correction on the link:

http://sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-lord-god-popenot-part-1.html

Good read!!!!

Thanks

born4battle said...

"why doesn't the Catechism of the Catholic church, which is what the Catholic Church actually believes, state that the pope is God?"

Are you indicating that blasphemy uttered by 'infallibie' Popes would somehow be 'taught' in the Catechism? I wasn't 'trying' anything, merely relaying what I found were alleged quotes from 'infallible' Popes. I didn't even claim they were all fact, although I seriously doubt they are all spurious and some sort of "Protestant' conspiracy.

Carlus Henry said...

born4battle,

Are you indicating that blasphemy uttered by 'infallibie' Popes would somehow be 'taught' in the Catechism?
Obviously you do not understand the doctrine of Papal Infallability.

I didn't even claim they were all fact, although I seriously doubt they are all spurious and some sort of "Protestant' conspiracy.
Please make sure things that you post are actually grounded in fact and not fiction....

God bless...

Paul and Christy said...

b4b,

It was a try, a try a discrediting Willison by presenting quotes that you admit may or may not have basis in fact and trying to use them to prove that the Catholic Church believes the Pope is God.

I am indicating that what Catholics believe is taught in the Catechism. Papal infallibility is rarely exercised by popes and when it is it is usually used to clearly define a topic that the Church has always believed.

Pope Leo I, for instance, defined the two natures of Christ in 449. There were those who were trying to teach that Christ was only divine. Christ being both fully God and fully man had been taught and believed since the time of Christ, but the heresy necessitated an infallible statement by the Pope to define what was true.

Popes have said and written a lot, and I don't consider all or even most infallible. But when there has been a debate or argument in the history of Christianity, someone had to have the final say. The most logical choice is the Catholic Church.

If you think the teaching of the Church is against Scripture, you need to sit down with the Catechism, find out what the Church actually teaches instead of bringing up old arguments and quotes that have been answered ages ago and have no basis in truth.

href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm"

born4battle said...

So this is the 'lets throw the quote we think is spurious back at him and forget about the rest and hope he gets all defensive and we won't have to address the apparent blasphemy in all of them' ploy.

I thought it significant that there were so many quotes from different sources that all claimed the Pope is well, God on earth, to ignore.

If even one is true, there is surely a fallible Pope, by any thoughtful standard.

Paul and Christy said...

I'm not trying to make you defensive and I'm not forgetting the other quotes, but getting to the basis of your assertion. I chose one quote as an example. All of your quotes are invalid if they teach that the pope is God because the Catechism does not teach that the pope is God. If a pope thought he was God, he was wrong.

Infallibility and thinking a pope is God are two different things. Infallibility is a protection of the HS on the teachings of the Church which is necessary in order to combat heresy. Someone has to be right or we would devolve into a divided body, which has happened to churches that have decided to interpret Scripture on their own.

Carlus Henry said...

born4battle,

Please make sure that you understand what the doctrine of Papal Infallability really means before discussing or attacking it.

For instance, it does not mean that the Pope is incapable of sinning. That would be Papal Impeccability, which is something that the Catholic Church does not believe in.

Attempting to show that Pope is the past have sinned, is in no way a opposed to the Papal Infallability doctrine.

To learn more, please read here:

Papal Infallability

born4battle said...

Carlus,

I know exactly what Papal infallibility and speaking ex-cathedra mean. I have done a lot of homework. You would be amazed. You would like to think that I'm just some ignorant Protestant Catholic bashing, but I am not.

Many things have been spoken as dogma "ex-cathedra" that were made up from whole cloth, that the Patristic Fathers even termed heresy and is now earns "anathemas" for Catholics who do not accept them.

Carlus Henry said...

born4battle,

I was not trying to insult you. It just seems that trying to show that Papal Infallability is a false doctrine by means of trying to show how Pope's may have sinned in the past, is a bad tactic. That is why I assumed you didn't understand Papal Infallability.

born4battle said...

I can understand that. . .

Willison said...

B4B,
You wrote, "I know exactly what Papal infallibility and speaking ex-cathedra mean." Then you wrote, "Many things have been spoken as dogma "ex-cathedra"

Let me once again pop your bubble with facts: While the pope has always held the power to exercise the Extraordinary Magisterium by speaking ex cathedra, the actual occurrence of an ex cathedra statement is quite rare. In fact, in the 2000 year history of the Church it has been used exactly . . . twice.

Aubry said...

Carlus,

I'm so happy to have found your blog! No Price Too High has been the most influential book I have read so far, as well! Although I had already made my decision, I wanted to really hear about another "spirit-filled" person's (especially a pastor's) story. I found you looking for sites to help someone on another website that has a non-Catholic friend asking questions. I'm directing him to Deacon Jones' and yours! Blessings!

Carlus Henry said...

Aubry,

Thanks for commenting. The presentation that Deacon Jones gave was amazing, as I am sure you can imagine. At the same time, I think that the best part of the event was the opportunity that I had to give him a big hug and thank him for sharing his story and bringing another Pentecostal into the Catholic fold.

God bless...

Our Catholic Family said...

As a former Pentecostal myself, I`d rather surrender myself to the Pope`s will than to the will of a Pentecostal preacher man. The Pentecostal preacher man is held only to his own standards. While the Pope answers to God directly, St. Peter and of course the *whole* of the Catholic church. The Pentecostal preacher man is not even accountable to his own church...let alone the *whole* organization.

Our Catholic Family said...

As a former Pentecostal myself, I`d rather surrender myself to the Pope`s will than to the will of a Pentecostal preacher man. The Pentecostal preacher man is held only to his own standards. While the Pope answers to God directly, St. Peter and of course the *whole* of the Catholic church. The Pentecostal preacher man is not even accountable to his own church...let alone the *whole* organization.

Angela said...

I just finished watching Deacon Jones on TV the other day...My goodness, what a powerful testimony of God's leading.

As one that walked away from the Catholic Church for many years, than through the Lord's leading, came back 12 years ago..I am still in AWE of God's leading His children, guiding them and revealing His truths.

Carlus Henry said...

Angela,

Praise God that He brought you back!!!

God bless...

annbow said...

Bottom line....
It grieves the Holy Spirit to see such division amongst believers. What happened to keeping the bond of UNITY through PEACE (Eph 4)?
We are ALL going to have some explaining to do when we see Jesus face to face. We are ALL doing some incorrect interpreting. There are corrupt men/women in non catholic churches. There are corrupt men/women in the catholic church. God knows who they are. I put my trust in JESUS CHRIST. Period. I earnestly seek Him and His will for me. Period. None of us, the Pope included (I mean no disrespect) can fully understand God. God is God and I am not. He did leave us His word. Man continues to taint it, doesn't he? BUT.....God knows who is earnestly seeking Him. He loves us all as if we were the only one to love. For that I am eternally grateful!
LOVE in Christ,
Annette

Carlus Henry said...

annbow,

Overall, I completely agree with your statement. The divisions that you see among us is not part of God's Will. It is the result of the sin of man.

It grieves the Holy Spirit to see such division amongst believers...
We are ALL going to have some explaining to do...


Amen!!!!

There are corrupt men/women in non catholic churches. There are corrupt men/women in the catholic church.

Amen!!!!

None of us, the Pope included (I mean no disrespect) can fully understand God. God is God and I am not.

Amen!!!!

He did leave us His word.

Ame.....whoops...you almost got me there. :)

I don't believe He left us His word. I don't recall Jesus ever writing anything down...besides something in the sand and that wasn't even recorded. He never told anyone to write anything down.

What He did leave us with is a Church formed on common men. That Church, through the authority of Christ (Luke 10:16), gave us and identified the Holy Scriptures. Without the Church, there is no Bible.

God bless...