True2Ourselves
Already a member? login
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
  
+
Register FAQ A-Z directory Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

True2Ourselves Forums   > Community Topics > Theology  > Papal Infallibility

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-22-2018, 08:12 AM
CatholicCrusader's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,208
Arrow Papal Infallibility

Papal Infallibility
Source: https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility

QUOTE:
The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

Vatican II’s Explanation

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

Based on Christ’s Mandate

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

Some Clarifications

An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.

Peter Not Infallible?

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.

Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain "errors of the popes." Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).

Their "Favorite Case"

According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine."

Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith—their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): "Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!" While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.

The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.

This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.

One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.

All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).

It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.

Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.

But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
__________________

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love"
- Saint Pope John Paul II
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-16-2018, 07:18 AM
pryz's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,268
Default Re: Papal Infallibility

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
Papal Infallibility
Source: https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility

QUOTE:
Vatican II’s Explanation

“, , while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church.”

“As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

“The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church.”
“, ,let the others pass judgment.”

(1 Corinthians 14:29)
If it is the same as was assigned to the NT Church, then these councilmen were considered Prophets?

If it is the same as was assigned to the NT Church, then as successors of “You are Peter, , “, then as Peter, his successors alike can also experience the same reality-check upon themselves as Peter’s fallibility did?
“, , because he was to be blamed.”

(Galatians 2:11)
So then, does not the element of fallibility the successor hold also need to acquire the same response of mutual submission to the fold like everyone else? This isn't so if they "are justly held irreformable".

Even if we ascribe infallibility to the office, the fallible representative who fills would have to rise to the infallible reputation laid out by scripture itself, and not the reputation of the office itself. For if there is blame, the will of God declares blame is to be given and not a vapor to dismiss it.

.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-16-2018, 02:48 PM
CatholicCrusader's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,208
Default Re: Papal Infallibility

Quote:
Originally Posted by pryz View Post
“, ,let the others pass judgment.”

(1 Corinthians 14:29)
If it is the same as was assigned to the NT Church, then these councilmen were considered Prophets?

If it is the same as was assigned to the NT Church, then as successors of “You are Peter, , “, then as Peter, his successors alike can also experience the same reality-check upon themselves as Peter’s fallibility did?
“, , because he was to be blamed.”

(Galatians 2:11)
So then, does not the element of fallibility the successor hold also need to acquire the same response of mutual submission to the fold like everyone else? This isn't so if they "are justly held irreformable".

Even if we ascribe infallibility to the office, the fallible representative who fills would have to rise to the infallible reputation laid out by scripture itself, and not the reputation of the office itself. For if there is blame, the will of God declares blame is to be given and not a vapor to dismiss it.
Once again, your style of writing is difficult to follow. I'm just an old country boy and I likes plain talk. But be that as it may, let me address these:

1) "does not the element of fallibility the successor hold also need to acquire the same response of mutual submission to the fold like everyone else?"

Yes, and the pope does. My understanding is that the pope goes to confession twice a week, so surely he has sins to confess. And to the best of my knowledge there is not anything that I must submit to as a Catholic that he does not.

2) "Even if we ascribe infallibility to the office, the fallible representative who fills would have to rise to the infallible reputation laid out by scripture itself, and not the reputation of the office itself. For if there is blame, the will of God declares blame is to be given and not a vapor to dismiss it."

Perhaps you are confusing Infallibility and Impeccability, and I do not think that you would appreciate what Hilaire Belloc said on the subject in his book Essays of a Catholic. To some folks, the horrendous sins of some popes invalidate their teachings, and thus the infallibility of the office. I might refer to Matt. 23:1-4 which I think makes a clear distinction, by Jesus Himself, between one’s teaching authority and his personal behavior. I might also refer to Peter made by not wanting to eat with certain people. Did that make his inspired writing wrong? No, because God’s grace had the power of preventing mistakes in Scripture, and the same goes for preventing mistakes in statements made ex-cathedra.

We know that we are all sinners, even popes. To that end, Christ had to insure that the Church would be preserved from sinful teachings. Even those popes who set forth a truly holy example of how to live are still human and still fall short. Also, plenty of popes were clearly a lot less holy than your average Joe. Not the majority, but enough of them. If Infallibility depended on Impeccability then there would not even be a Bible.

Having said all that I'd like to go back to Infallibility 101. Infallibility in the context of this discussion is an act of God, not an attribute of any man. Infallible teaching is not what the pope wakes up and decides to impose on Catholics that day. It is a long process that involves careful study, prayer, many great minds, and often centuries of contemplation of a subject in all its subtle nuances, and ultimately an act of the Holy Spirit.

Now here is my question to you: How is it possible that fallible men wrote Holy Scripture? What do you think?
__________________

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love"
- Saint Pope John Paul II
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-17-2018, 07:24 AM
pryz's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,268
Default Re: Papal Infallibility

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
Now here is my question to you: How is it possible that fallible men wrote Holy Scripture? What do you think?
Undoubtedly asked because of the known element of error from the text. Okay, My thoughts on man’s nature influencing the integrity of the scriptures?, better off to reason with the Lord over this, no?

Fallible man? How should I treat such a question? For I am confident you are well aware of 2 Peter 1:21, saying, they wrote by the Holy Spirit who chose “holy men of God” where the overshadowing presence of God bore them onward. All the while they shared the same nature you and I and everyone has.

But like us, our nature is susceptible to being impacted too. Just because we are as the same “wretched man that I am” shape, walking examples of corruption, doesn’t mean the nurturing of our faith has forever been interrupted. Just because we have surrendered to God doesn’t mean we (they) revoke the struggle. Some chose to nurture the nature which is not to be confused with the enjoyment of things we have, but the abuse and excesses we grant. And then also does our personal pattern?

Did that presence come to them from a pattern of a little dabbling here a little folly there?
My son, do not lose sight of this: Preserve sound judgment and discernment.

(Proverbs 3:21)
As far as God’s purposes extend, so many purposes, what did He say?, they (the word of God) will not fail but will prosper in the thing He sends it to. They are in this sense – infallible. I am confident this is the Authentic Reception of the Word, providing the fundamentals of receiving Christ have been attained so the Spirit can enlighten our journey of growth in the word. Since He wrote it, He wields it, quickly, powerfully, piercingly.

This I know is where you and I likely part on as fallible man handling the word of God, especially newer converts are carnal thinkers and may or may not be able to handle milk, perilous ramifications there. Personally, I think God is able to bring about maturity in either context, 1. Under the guidance of oversight or, 2. Without conferring “with flesh and blood” (Galatians 1:16).

But now we come to what many contend over daily, the infallibility of words, , we have both freedom and direction here with much assurance. Here we have both directions to search matters out for purity as well as liberty not to be encumbered. As with that “piercing” quality of the word, this can be quite detailed and this involves specific words. And while I admit there are occasions such as the double-axioms surrounding Philippians 4:6 found in different translations of “care” for the actual “anxious” is one which should have found its way to the recycle bin long ago.

But then there are other reports of translations such as the NIV which omits certain whole verses. I went through one night and found a total of eight for the NIV decided against the vast sum of other translations. Should these bad reports be allowed to fester for purities sake? In the Philippians 6-V, the impact is substantial enough. Still, the Spirit of that word tells us some things very significant to this. If we go about this in such a way not to suspend the following, and I think these are quite specific to this topic,
"Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen."

“whatever is true, ,
whatever is pure,
whatever is acceptable,
whatever is commendable,
if there is anything of excellence and if there is anything praiseworthy—keep thinking about these things"


(2 Timothy 2:14, Philippians 4:8)
If these two are maintained, the element to effectively cloud understanding can be reduced to perfection whether they are administered through oversight or maturity.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-17-2018, 12:07 PM
CatholicCrusader's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,208
Arrow Re: Papal Infallibility

Quote:
Originally Posted by pryz View Post
Undoubtedly asked because of the known element of error from the text........
No, it was asked because it is proof that in a given moment of time, God can use a fallible man to say or write what HE wants written or said.

I personally do not think there are any errors in the scriptures. They convey exactly those truth that God wants them to convey.

The point of my question is: Every man who had a hand in writing the Bible was a sinner and fallible, and yet at a time of God's choosing, by the power of the Holy Spirit, those men wrote God's Word and were necessarily prevented from writing an error. Thus, the principle is established that men have been held infallible by God at certain points in time.

The only question for you now is, has God done the same for a small number of popes at certain times in history. The question is not "can" he, but "did" he. I say, he did.
__________________

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love"
- Saint Pope John Paul II
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-17-2018, 03:12 PM
pryz's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,268
Default Re: Papal Infallibility

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
The only question for you now is, has God done the same for a small number of popes at certain times in history. The question is not "can" he, but "did" he. I say, he did.
Not unless such a pope or popes were known for being broken for everything surrounding the carnal disembodiment of the cherished flock.
.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-17-2018, 04:06 PM
CatholicCrusader's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,208
Default Re: Papal Infallibility

Quote:
Originally Posted by pryz View Post
Not unless such a pope or popes were known for being broken for everything surrounding the carnal disembodiment of the cherished flock.
I am afraid there is no Biblical basis for the burden you place on the Pope. There is no evidence that Peter or Paul, Matthew or Mark or John, were impeccable men at the time they wrote their scriptures. They were sinners and continued to be sinners.

Why do you even think Jesus chose sinful men as the new twelve leaders of the new spiritual Israel? He did not choose the righteous to teach or to write scriptures!! He choose the exact opposite. Frankly, the burden you place on the popes is in fact ANTI Christ, the exact opposite of what Christ looked for. He wanted all men to know that the worst of sinners could be first in his Church.

St. John Paul II and Blessed Pius IX are the two popes I know of who taught Ex Cathedra. They were sinners but they were also damm good men.
__________________

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love"
- Saint Pope John Paul II
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-18-2018, 05:05 AM
pryz's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,268
Default Re: Papal Infallibility

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
I am afraid there is no Biblical basis for the burden you place on the Pope. There is no evidence that Peter or Paul, Matthew or Mark or John, , ,
Your missing one. Such a pope could have easily supplanted 1 Corinthians 1 as a splendid and direct appeal for just such an effort.
10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11For it has been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them who are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
Yes, there is much cause for brokenness!

.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-18-2018, 12:53 PM
CatholicCrusader's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,208
Default Re: Papal Infallibility

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying then.
__________________

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love"
- Saint Pope John Paul II
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-19-2018, 04:39 AM
pryz's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,268
Default Re: Papal Infallibility

May the Spirit of unity also grant liberty to find resolve above all the derogatory remarks over flawlessness a person could anticipate hearing, restrained because of one heart and one mind, the heart and mind of Christ, allow us to gather reason Father.

All of us are subjected to a certain amount of indoctrination. Just when we think we have brought them under subjection, another one is seemingly ready to take its place more formidable than the former. Where does that leave the Christian after two-millennia?

The furthest reaches of indoctrination I perceive we as Christians willingly ingest is the idea that the Lord is content with our house of 40-thousand flavors. Yes, man is prepared to proceed with embarking upon another thousand years content with a divisional abuse. For there is logical division from the text (Jew, Gentile).

But didn’t God say there would be growth? Didn’t He say in the book of Revelation point A and a point B where the Church who was once not white, finally “made herself White”? The guessing mind would easily choose that after enduring two-millennia; ‘That body would surely have reached fundamental corrections’.

Has it now? Man is ready to drag us into another millennium with the same carnal tools. Has the cares Jesus promised to take relieved us of this responsibility? Only if a body can convince itself; ‘We have passed through and brought ourselves to point B. By these righteous acts we have made the bride white.’ Oh, really? If you are able to sit up and say all is well before God concerning this matter, then you’re still indoctrinated. Take any unity-denying pick, most everyone can be found there.

I am of”, ,

Paul – insightful
Apollos – disciplined
Cephas - factual

And then fill in the appropriate blank,

I have become all [sect] things to all men, so that I may by all [sect] means save some.

(1 Corinthians 9:22)

If that sectarian-lens has been so enmeshed within your thinking to respond to every soul you encounter in like manner, then you are not seeing Jesus any clearer than they were in the Apostle’s day when he had to point it out. That, dearest friend is the carnal expression so many are willing to show the world. That, rather is the cause that should create brokenness within. That, rather is peace. That, is in my thinking the will of the Lord Jesus.

.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Infallibility ? twinc General Discussions 17 07-07-2018 12:06 PM
Scott Hahn explains Papal Infallibility CatholicCrusader Theology 13 04-12-2014 06:27 AM
Infallibility of the Pope CatholicCrusader General Discussions 35 05-09-2012 11:47 AM
How many infallible papal pronouncements? Linsinbigler Theology 31 06-07-2011 07:35 PM
Vatican unveils restored papal chapel featuring Michelangelo murals CatholicCrusader General Discussions 45 06-17-2010 09:01 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:25 AM.


true2ourselves
 
 
 

Flashcoms

You need to upgrade your Flash Player.

Version 8 or higher is required.

download from http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29