Evidence for God from Science

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:Eventually I have to get back to work but I would like to address some points in the hopes of clarifing our position (as Catholics) with respect to the Pope.

Your position one way or another is not going to change the history.

Can you ellaborate on that?

Yes:

* Irenaeus and Hippolytus predicted accurately the disintegration of the Roman empire into the iron and clay fragments almost 300 years before the destruction of 476 AD concluded that fragmentation

* Irenaeus and Hippolytus predicted accurately that the AntiChrist would emerge from within the Roman system as an apostate individual promoting an apostate religious system

* Hippolytus predicted accurately that imperial Rome would suffer a 'deadly wound', from which it would then recover, after which the man of sin would come to power

* Severus supported the same interpretation some 200 years afterwards, and Jerome insisted that it was coming to pass at the time of his writing, shortly after Severus

I could add:

* 300 Victorinus
* 306-373 Ephraem
* 315-386 Cyril
* 389 Chrysotom
* 340-397 Ambrose
* 354-430 Augustine
* 393-457 Theodoretus
* 520 Andreas
* c. 550 Primasius
* 604 Gregory I

All of them believed the same (with little variation). I believe that this occurred as they said it would.

I believe this happened:

'What the Apostle calls the Temple of God are the churches in which this impious wretch will occupy the first rank, the first place, striving to get himself accepted as God.'

Theodoretus, note on 2 Thessalonians 2, chapter 2, 393-457

I believe it happened when Greogry I said it was happening:

'The king of pride is near, and (awful to be said!) there is an army of priests in course of preparation for him, inasmuch as they who had been appointed to be leaders in humility enlist themselves under the neck of pride.'

What then, dearest brother, wilt thou say in that terrible scrutiny of the coming judgment, if thou covetest to be called in the world not only father, but even general father?'

For to assent to that atrocious title is nothing else than to lose the faith.'

Gregory I, Epistle XVIII, to John, Bishop of Constantinople, 540-604

'Is it not the case that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly pernicious?

If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster.

Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.'

Gregory I, Epistle XXXIII, to Mauricius Augustus, 540-604

'But in this pride of his [John, the Bishop of Constantinople] what else is denoted than that the times of Antichrist are already near at hand?'

Gregory I, Epistle XXI, to Constantina Augusta, 540-604

When we add Daniel 7 to this (and the Early Fathers tied it in nicely), it's case closed.

The popes do not replace Jesus, they replace Peter. They are (along with Peter) the representatives of Jesus on earth, much the same way the owner of a company sends representatives to promote the company products, negotiate deals and sign contracts on his or her behalf.

If the pope is the replacement of Peter, why is he called the Vicar of Christ, not the Vicar of Peter? If the pope is the replacement of Peter, why is he called the Vice Regent of Christ, not the Vice Regent of Peter?

Popes are not worshiped in any way, shape or form. When members of my family and many of my friends met Pope John Paul II, they kissed his hand out of respect, they did not neal before him and professed their worship as if her were God.

I believe that the papacy has historically represented itself in a less than humble manner, and has created a very powerful impression in people's minds, quite deliberately.

This kind of thing:

'Glossa of Canon Law Extr. John 22 expressly calls the Pope our Lord God.

Pope Nicholas, as cited by Gratian (Dist. 69, chapter 7) says, “It is manifestly and satisfactorily shown that the Pope can neither be bound by the secular power nor loosed by it, since it is self-evident that God cannot be judged by men.”

'Stapleton (in Preface to Gregory, chap. 16, Princip. Doctrin.), names the Pope “the best, the greatest, and most supreme Spirit on earth.”

P. Blond. (1.3., To a Restored Rome) said, “All leaders of the world honor and worship the Pope as the highest God.”'

Francis Turretin, 'The 7th Disputation - Whether It Can Be Proven The Pope of Rome is AntiChrist', chapter 26, 1664

'(Augustin. Triump. question 6, 1; Tiber. Deci., vol.3, respon.14, numer.57; Menoch. cons.51, numer.13), “The Pope has divine status. Whatever he approves or disapproves, all must approve or disapprove.”

(Gloss. Dist.19), “No one should question the Pope, even if he should lead innumerable people headlong into hell with him.”

(Dist.40), “The Pope holds all mortals subject to himself. Every human creature is under obedience to him.

Extra. De Major. C. Unam sanctam, and innumerable similar statements which would be too tedious to mention.'

Francis Turretin, 'The 7th Disputation - Whether It Can Be Proven The Pope of Rome is AntiChrist', chapter 26, 1664

'Sitting in the Temple of God, that is, speaking ex cathedra as Vice-Christ, the Pope has, in the most unequivocal manner, claimed to be god.

To this daring pitch of ambition and blasphemy has he carried the parallelism or imitation. The true Christ is god, therefore the Vice-Christ must claim to be God also. In the canon law the pope is called God. (Decretum Gregorii XIII. Destinc 96, Can 7.)

Again he is called "Lord and God" (Decretales Gregorii IX., Tit. 7.) And again Innocent says in the decretals, speaking of the Pope, “God because he is God's vicar.“'

J A Wylie, 'The Papacy is the AntiChrist', chapter 15, page 45, 1888

'We hold the place of Almighty God on earth.'

Pope Leo XIII, 'Apostolic Letter', June 20th, 1894

'The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under veil of flesh.'

The Catholic National, July 1895

There's a pretty clear message there.

The pope worships the trinity like any other Christian. He knows he is NOT infallible as he goes to confession on a regular basis.

I've addressed infallibility already (se above).

As for the Catholic church and the pope's role, think of it like the United States Govenment. The Pope is the president but he is not a dictator. He has a cabinet and trusted advisors. There's also a Vatican council (a congress if you wish) the Pope relies on it for advice and scripture interpretations. It is a hierarchical organization (the priests come from the people, they become local bishops, some are appointed cardinals and, in turn the cardinals elect one of their own to be pope). Well, it is rather like a parlimentary goverment, if you wish, as the president is not elected directly by the people, but by their representatives.

The pope is actually the head of the Catholic Church, and all are subject to his decrees. He has the authority to speak ex cathedra and infallibly pronounce dogma without the involvement of the Collegiate, and without the consent of the Church.

I think you'll find that Vatican I (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, July 18, 1870), is pretty clear on the role of the papacy.

Let's not even get started on the Decretals of Gratian, and the 'Donation of Constantine'.

Byblos wrote: We preach compassion and tolerance (even when we disagree) and you prepetuate hatred and division. What's worse is that you try to justify it as 'history' when your intentions are clear. There's no question who is doing the work of the antichrist.

Byblos wrote:Old, tiring and malicious catholic-bashing that doesn't even require a response.

This is the typical and longstanding tradition in Protestant teachings, from Martin Luther to the Westminster Confession (please forgive me if I offended anyone but that is just how it appears).

You are so threatenned by the church that you feel the need to attack it in order to justify your beliefs.

We preach compassion and tolerance (even when we disagree) and you prepetuate hatred and division.

What's worse is that you try to justify it as 'history' when your intentions are clear. There's no question who is doing the work of the antichrist.

I'm sorry, but that's a laughable judgment of my motives. I don't feel threatened by the Catholic Church at all. A couple of centuries ago I would have, because you would have killed me for my beliefs.

Veronica wrote:

I'm sorry, but that's a laughable judgment of my motives. I don't feel threatened by the Catholic Church at all. A couple of centuries ago I would have, because you would have killed me for my beliefs.

As you would have killed me for mine

Though that justifies nothing. However, the Church is sorry from the bottom of her heart, for the wrong that has happened.

No I wouldn't. Not only has my denomination absolutely no history of conflict (on the contrary, we have always been conscientious objectors, for our entire history), it is also an interesting fact that those who have shared the beliefs on my denomination through the ages have also been conscientious objectors.

How can you expect me to trust the leadership and guidance of a church which commands such evil in the name of Christ, for so many centuries, and doesn't apologise until about 100 years after it has lost the last of its temporal power?

Veronica wrote:

No I wouldn't. Not only has my denomination absolutely no history of conflict (on the contrary, we have always been conscientious objectors, for our entire history), it is also an interesting fact that those who have shared the beliefs on my denomination through the ages have also been conscientious objectors.

Just so as I make no future mistakes, what denomination are you a part of?

How can you expect me to trust the leadership and guidance of a church which commands such evil in the name of Christ, for so many centuries, and doesn't apologise until about 100 years after it has lost the last of its temporal power?

That is for you to decide. Trust is not easy to obtain. No one can make you trust anything or anyone if it is against your will. I don't expect you to, however I do pray that you will. However, when I come on tonight and have more time, and if I remember, I will follow up on your comment.

Blessings and Prayers,
Veronica

bizzt wrote:Why Such Hostility over Denominations?

Are we not all partakers of Eternal Life?

Jbuza wrote:

bizzt wrote:Why Such Hostility over Denominations?

Are we not all partakers of Eternal Life?

Thank You, we prob. needed that. Romans 14 clearly says to not be, but other places in the Bible tell us to test teachings, and it is good to discuss beleifs to test them.

I agree we should have a most kindly attitude with our brothers and sisters of any denomination.

However if one is convinced that there is some evil brining false teachings and prophets claiming to speak as God, than one most be hostile toward that teaching, and suspect those bringing such teachings to be outside of the elect, or at least misguided and wrong.

Jbuza wrote:Whaat would trust in the RCC give us that we don't already have in our trust in Jesus?

bizzt wrote:Why Such Hostility over Denominations?

Veronica wrote:

No I wouldn't. Not only has my denomination absolutely no history of conflict (on the contrary, we have always been conscientious objectors, for our entire history), it is also an interesting fact that those who have shared the beliefs on my denomination through the ages have also been conscientious objectors.

Just so as I make no future mistakes, what denomination are you a part of?

How can you expect me to trust the leadership and guidance of a church which commands such evil in the name of Christ, for so many centuries, and doesn't apologise until about 100 years after it has lost the last of its temporal power?

That is for you to decide.

Veronica wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Whaat would trust in the RCC give us that we don't already have in our trust in Jesus?

I do not mean in any way to criticize non-catholic denominations by saying this, but the Catholic Church has much that helps one to grow closer to Jesus. For example, the Eucharist, which is Jesus himself. Non-catholic denominations do not have the Eucharist. Or the Rosary, which is a truly beautiful prayer.

Jbuza wrote:Jesus is all I need. And I will see him.