Electing New Pope

[BreadOfLife]

If it is not from scripture it is not to be adhered to. It is simple as that.

Another idiotic claim.

Tell me, Einstein – WHERE does the Bible list the Books that belong in it?
OR, didn’t you know that this list was declared by the Catholic Church?

Oh, and while you‘re looking for that list – show me the verse that says ANYTHING close to:
“If it’s not from Scripture it is not to be adhered to.”

Happy hunting . . .

 

[BeyondET]

You addressed absolutely NOTHING.

YOU said that Catholic doctrine had “change considerably”. When I asked you for an example – you FAILED to to give me one. All you said was “Vatrican 2”. What does that mean?? Give me a specific example of a SINGLE doctrine that has “change considerably”.

You ALSO claimed that we pray to Mary depending on the “severity” of sin.
This is a CROCK. ALL prayers to saints are simply petitions for them to pray FOR us – as the Scripture prescribe (James 5:16, Rev. 5:8).
YOU made the asinine claim that Mary was NOT concerned for the hosts at the Wedding at Cana – so she asked Jesus to make more wine simply because she wanted to “Party”.
These are idiotic statements that YOU have made without ANY Scriptural, historical or linguistic support, whatsoever.

So, don’t act surprised when I expose your lies.
I gave you PLENTY of chances to recant.

O ok it's a petition now that's a Crock

 

[BeyondET]

Only STUPID people think that Catholics worship statues, because they are brainwashed and refuse to see Who statues RERESENTS. You have to DERAIL the discussion with an emotionally charged insult because you are unable to discuss anything in a civilized manner.

But Catholics don’t worship statues. We do, however, venerate them. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that, in the Old Testament, God allowed the Israelites to make certain images to use as symbols to help them point their minds towards heaven (CCC 2130). The Catechism also explains that we can venerate statues and images (CCC 2132). However, to venerate is not the same as to worship. To venerate means to pay respect, while worshiping is adoration that belongs to God alone.

View attachment 24860

The Reformation Wall, worshipped by Protestants since 1903!

I can be just as stupid as you.

​

That's pope Francis in photo yea quite stupid no doubt kissing a baby statue

 

[BreadOfLife]

O ok it's a petition now that's a Crock

Thanks again for making my job so easy.

ANYBODY reading this exchange can see at least THREE glaring facts:
1. You’ve once again FAILED to list even a single Catholic doctrine that has “changed considerably”, as you claimed.

2. I’ve shown you the error of our moronic, anti-Biblical objections to intercessory prayer – and you’ve been UNABLE to address that.

3. Your idiotic claims about Mary being nothing more than a “party animal” at the Wedding at Cana were as stupid and unfounded s we thought when you FIRST mentioned it.

Good job . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Let’s also not forget that not ONLY did you NOT know the difference between Catholicism and Protestants, - you don’t even know where you got your OT Canon of Scripture that has 7 less Books than the Catholic Canon.

You’re really batting a thousand here . . .

 

[BeyondET]

Thanks again for making my job so easy.

ANYBODY reading this exchange can see at least THREE glaring facts:
1. You’ve once again FAILED to list even a single Catholic doctrine that has “changed considerably”, as you claimed.

2. I’ve shown you the error of our moronic, anti-Biblical objections to intercessory prayer – and you’ve been UNABLE to address that.

3. Your idiotic claims about Mary being nothing more than a “party animal” at the Wedding at Cana were as stupid and unfounded s we thought when you FIRST mentioned it.

Good job . . .

False again you make up lies, I never said she was a party animal. she wanted everyone to have a good at the reception period

I can feel your hatred it is loud and clear,

 

[BeyondET]

Let’s also not forget that not ONLY did you NOT know the difference between Catholicism and Protestants, - you don’t even know where you got your OT Canon of Scripture that has 7 less Books than the Catholic Canon.

You’re really batting a thousand here . . .

Just because I didn't find a interest in knowing the difference between cath o holics and pro test ant means nothing lol.
All your doing is showing your bread of hatred

 

[BreadOfLife]

False again you make up lies, I never said she was a party animal. she wanted everyone to have a good at the reception period

I can feel your hatred it is loud and clear,

You’re evading the issues again.

Look – I realize it’s probably NOT fun being exposed like this , but –
- You have YET to address one single Catholic doctrine that had “changed considerable”.
- You have YET to address the Scriptural evidence that I presented for intercessory prayer.
- You have YET to address where your shortened OT Canon of Scripture came from.

And make NO mistake – I don’t hate YOU or anybody else here.
I hate LIES – and that’s why I’m here.

 

[BeyondET]

You’re evading the issues again.

Look – I realize it’s probably NOT fun being exposed like this , but –
- You have YET to address one single Catholic doctrine that had “changed considerable”.
- You have YET to address the Scriptural evidence that I presented for intercessory prayer.
- You have YET to address where your shortened OT Canon of Scripture came from.

And make NO mistake – I don’t hate YOU or anybody else here.
I hate LIES – and that’s why I’m here.

You hate lies yet you made up one in saying that I called Mary a party animal. I'm done with the conversation, later.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You hate lies yet you made up one in saying that I called Mary a party animal. I'm done with the conversation, later.

Ahhhh, yes - the icing on the cake.
Another cowardly anti-Catholic turns tail and runs when he can’t defend his asinine claims.

Thanks again for making my job SO easy . . .

 

[BeyondET]

Ahhhh, yes - the icing on the cake.
Another cowardly anti-Catholic turns tail and runs when he can’t defend his asinine claims.

Thanks again for making my job SO easy . . .

Thanks for letting me know about you.
I never said I'm anti catholic I don't like what they do I was baptized a catholic when I was born. My sign is chi rho and it's not a X but a T tilted pt

 

[Illuminator]

Since four rounds of balloting are taken every day until a candidate receives two-thirds of the vote. In the past, 15 to 20 days after a papal vacancy, the cardinals gathered in St. Peter's Basilica for a Mass invoking the guidance of the Holy Spirit in electing a new Pope. Only cardinals under the age of 80 are eligible to vote in a conclave.

So far, so good.

Question: What makes a "cardinal" incorruptible?

Answer: No Catholic ever claimed any cardinal to be impeccable or incorruptible. They are sinners like everybody else.

For example, a Pope is voted in by cardinals, what makes a cardinal worthy?

A cardinal is worthy by virtue of his office, an office he knows he is not worthy to have in the first place.

is it an exam or test he must pass?

A cardinal is the same as a bishop but with extra duties.

And, if so, then couldn't anyone pass that same exam and then be worthy to vote in a Pope.

The "exam" has developed from the criteria set forth by St. Paul for those in formation to be ordained. The essence of Paul's criteria has never changed. Disunity is strongly condemned, it's one of St. Paul's tests. If there is an ordination in your town, I suggested you attend.

Haven't some early Popes bought their way into the papacy?

The 'bad pope argument' fails because it doesn't disprove the doctrine of the papacy, contrary to what you may have been taught.

Is not the Pope voted into an incorruptible office by corruptible man?

Jesus promised He would never leave us, you either believe that, and other promises in the Bible, or you don't. The Pope is not infallible by himself. He admits to being a sinner. His opinions, sermons and interviews are not infallible. The Church has no authority on anything outside of faith and morals. In order for a declaration to be infallible, it must be rooted in the Deposit of Faith.

And, once in power, have not a few proceeded to become drunken with power, deeming heresies?

The basic assumptions the typical Evangelical has about the papacy are part of the wallpaper in the Evangelical world. Being brought up in an independent Bible Church, I was taught that our little fellowship of Christians meeting to study the Bible, pray and sing gospel songs was like the ‘early Christians’ meeting in their house churches. I had a mental picture of ‘Catholic Pope’ which I had pieced together from a whole range of biased sources. When I heard the word ‘pope’ I pictured a corpulent Italian with the juicy name “Borgia” who drank a lot of wine, was supposed to be celibate, but who not only had mistresses, but sons who he called ‘nephews’. This ‘pope’ had big banquets in one of his many palaces, was very rich, rode out to war when he felt like it and liked to tell Michelangelo how to paint. That this ‘pope’ was a later invention of the corrupt Catholic Church was simply part of the whole colorful story.

But of course, the idea that the florid Renaissance pope is typical of all popes is not a Catholic invention, but a Protestant one. Protestantism has been compelled to rewrite all history according to it’s own necessities. As French historian Augustin Thierry has written, “To live, Protestantism found itself forced to build up a history of its own.”

The five basic assumptions of non-Catholic Christians can be corrected by looking at the history of the early church. Did Jesus envision and plan a monarchical papacy? Was the early church de-centralized? Was the early church essentially local and congregational? Did the early church only become hierarchical after the emperor was converted? Did Leo the Great invent the papacy in the fifth century? To examine this we’ll have to put on one side the preconceptions and mental images of Borgia popes and get down to ‘just the facts ma’am.’

Did Jesus Plan a Monarchical Papacy?

Jesus certainly did not plan for the inflated and corrupt popes of the popular imagination. He intended to found a church, but the church was not democratic in structure. It was established with clear individual leadership. In Matthew 16.18-19 Jesus says to Simon Peter, “You are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it.” So, Jesus established his church not on a congregational model, but on the model of personal leadership.

Was this a monarchical papacy? In a way it was. In Matthew 16 Jesus goes on to say to Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” This is a direct reference back to Isaiah 22.22, where the prophet recognizes Eliakim as the steward of the royal House of David. The steward was the Prime Minister of the Kingdom. The keys of the kingdom were the sign of his personal authority delegated by the king himself.

Jesus never intended a monarchical papacy in the corrupt sense of the Pope being an absolute worldly monarch, but the church leadership Jesus intended was ‘monarchical’ in the sense that it was based on his authority as King of Kings. Read More.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thanks for letting me know about you.
I never said I'm anti catholic I don't like what they do I was baptized a catholic when I was born. My sign is chi rho and it's not a X but a T tilted pt

Bottome line:
If you don't know anything about the Catholic Church - and it's obvious that you don't - then you shouldn't go around making up false claims about it.

You shouldn't make false claims about ANYBODY or ANY group.

 

[Truther]

Another idiotic claim.

Tell me, Einstein – WHERE does the Bible list the Books that belong in it?
OR, didn’t you know that this list was declared by the Catholic Church?

Oh, and while you‘re looking for that list – show me the verse that says ANYTHING close to:
“If it’s not from Scripture it is not to be adhered to.”

Happy hunting . . .

Scripture is our only source of truth.

We must always compare our ideas with scripture alone.

It is idiotic and suicidal to run to extra Biblical literature to seek another kind of "truth" to add to scripture, as the RCC and yourself does so eloquently.

The Bible is my roadmap to heaven.

Commentary is your(and the RCC's) roadmap to the lake of fire.

 

[Illuminator]

I will demonstrate in this article how Matthew 16 teaches an explicit notion of the papacy. insofar as it is the office of the headship / leadership of the Church, including an extraordinary amount of singular ecclesiastical authority. And I shall do this by citing only Protestant scholars, and presenting their learned opinions about the exegesis of the passage. If it then comes down to Jason’s own opinion vs. some two dozen or so eminent Protestant scholars, I think readers know, as I do, whose opinions are more worthy of allegiance.
No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer)

 

[amigo de christo]

So what would you do with people who eat shrimp? Or Catfish? Or the delicious lobster? Pork, ham and bacon? What a wonderful animal the pig is!

What would you do with people who wear polyester? Or enjoy tangerines? Will you also stone someone to death for adultery or breaking the sabbath? Would you stone me for not stoning one who breaks the sabbath? Was Jesus wrong when he showed mercy and wrote in the sand and said, "woman, where are you accusers?"

You say everyone will be one your side when you condemn murder, and you are right! They will be on your side when you condemn lying, and again you are right (but they would all be hypocrites, wouldn't they?). But where will they be when you try to enforce the WHOLE Law? Or would you enforce it all?

Or would you state that we are not under the law when it comes to eating forbidden food and wearing mixed cloth?

After all, ALL SIN must be corrected, and we can't pick and choose what sin to correct.

Your words!

Meats drinks and days are up the conscious of each individual .
As far as correction goes , cast them out of the church till they repent . Simple enough .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Scripture is our only source of truth.
We must always compare our ideas with scripture alone.
It is idiotic and suicidal to run to extra Biblical literature to seek another kind of "truth" to add to scripture, as the RCC and yourself does so eloquently.

The Bible is my roadmap to heaven.

Commentary is your(and the RCC's) roadmap to the lake of fire.

Then you"re completely clueless about Christ's Church and the Gospe;l.
Jesus didn't leave us with a Book as our earthly Authority - He left us with a Church.
- The Church is the Body of Christ and He is the Head (1 Cor. 12:12-31, Eph. 4:3-6, Col. 1:8).

- Jesus said that HE is the Light of the World (John 8:12).
Jesus also said that His Church is the Light of the world (Matt. 5:14).

- Jesus is Truth itself (John 14:6).

- The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of that Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

- Jesus promised His Church that the Holy Spirit would guide her to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).

- Jesus told the leaders of His Church that WHATEVER they bound or loosed on earth would ALSO be bound and loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 20:21-23).

- The Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

- Jesus identifies His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).

- Jesus gave His Church Supreme earthly Authority, that WHATEVER His Church declared on earth will also be declared in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18).

- Jesus said about his Church: “Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME" (Luke 10:16).

We should always chedk our beliefs with Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. That's what Scripture says.
It NEVER says, "Scripture ALONE" . . .

 

[Brakelite]

It’s ALWAYS the same argument with you – and you NEVER get it.

This isn’t about an “Apostolic Mandate” to “change” the Sabbath – so, not only are all of the quotes above correct – they are irrelevant.

There was never an Apostolic mandate or an order. What there WAS, however, was the acknowledgement that the Sabbath was a SHADOW of Christ – and NOT a necessity for Gentile Christians (Acts 15:24-29, Col. 2:14-17).

The problem with radical Sabbatarians is that you can’t let go of the SHADOW and embrace the FULFILLMENT, which is Christ. I think this is at the root of why you’re so willing to cling to the bizarre teachings of Ellen White.

I'm not talking about an apostolic mandate. Where did that come from? I'm talking about an institution that literally altered the ten commandments to suit it's own agenda, and to harmonize with the popular traditions of pagan Rome. And that change had zilch to do with any perceived fulfillment of Christ and the Sabbath. Any tangible justification for that particular theory vanishes into vapor the moment you write it down. And no-one in catholicism attempts to justify Sunday on account of any biblical reasoning. As those quotes above testify. You need to read a little history from your church's own councils to discover it's attitude to Sabbath keeping. It encompasses the same belligerence and hatred for the Sabbath as you do..

 

[Truther]

I will demonstrate in this article how Matthew 16 teaches an explicit notion of the papacy. insofar as it is the office of the headship / leadership of the Church, including an extraordinary amount of singular ecclesiastical authority. And I shall do this by citing only Protestant scholars, and presenting their learned opinions about the exegesis of the passage. If it then comes down to Jason’s own opinion vs. some two dozen or so eminent Protestant scholars, I think readers know, as I do, whose opinions are more worthy of allegiance.
No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer)

Buncha commentary garbage.

Quote the scripture.

 

[Truther]

Then you"re completely clueless about Christ's Church and the Gospe;l.
Jesus didn't leave us with a Book as our earthly Authority - He left us with a Church.
- The Church is the Body of Christ and He is the Head (1 Cor. 12:12-31, Eph. 4:3-6, Col. 1:8).

- Jesus said that HE is the Light of the World (John 8:12).
Jesus also said that His Church is the Light of the world (Matt. 5:14).

- Jesus is Truth itself (John 14:6).

- The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of that Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

- Jesus promised His Church that the Holy Spirit would guide her to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).

- Jesus told the leaders of His Church that WHATEVER they bound or loosed on earth would ALSO be bound and loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 20:21-23).

- The Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

- Jesus identifies His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).

- Jesus gave His Church Supreme earthly Authority, that WHATEVER His Church declared on earth will also be declared in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18).

- Jesus said about his Church: “Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME" (Luke 10:16).

We should always chedk our beliefs with Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. That's what Scripture says.
It NEVER says, "Scripture ALONE" . . .

No, Jesus would NEVER have been quoted but for books.

Moronic, to say the least.