Debating Catholicism

[Pound Foolish]

And now you are insulting my faith. And Eleventh Doctor corrected me about the Donatists. I know my Baptist history, and since he thinks Baptists had their origin in 1609, he doesn't seem to know as much as you think he does.

Whoa. This was unintentional. I was careless, and I apologize, but please don't think I was insulting your faith. I would never do that to you or anyone.
Please realize that all I said was that you have had to correct yourself a number of times, which is true:

You're correct, Eleventh Doctor. I apologize. It's been a while since I've read the Trail of Blood, and when I did, apparently some of the context was not clear to me.

In a letter of St. Augustin to Boniface we learn that the Donatists believe that the church is made manifest only in Africa, do you hold to this belief? In his letter, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, St. Augustin looks at the belief of the Donatist about baptism. He notes that there is no disagreement about the grace given by baptism, meaning they still see baptism as being more than a symbol and indeed as a sacrament of the church by which one washes away sin. Is this something that Eastern Orthodox and Baptist still agree on? In fact what you believe about baptism would seem to be central to being a Baptist, so if you do not see baptism as being a sacrament and responsible for washing away sin then I would really question the connection of Donatists to Baptists.

And I would like to see that Cardinal Hosius is fake.

So, there you are. Please realize, the debate was not as one-sided as I'm pretending. When I wrote that, I was very untactful and well, rude. You did a marvelous job, Old Judge. You came across as very intelligent, as always. I mean that.
Now, please ignore me, Old Judge and Eleventh, and continue.

Random Question: Shouldn't Jesus be the leader of your faith? >.>

That made me laugh so hard Froggy, because it's so you. So concise, so intelligent, so challenging. Yes, definitely, God is the Heavenly leader of the Catholic church as well as Protestants. The Pope is the Catholic's earthly leader, giving us spiritual direction.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Old Judge, let me just say that this debate is one of the most honest and informative debates I have had in quite awhile. I respect your integrity in searching for the truth.

@PF As an Orthodox priest, this is from a friend so I have no idea which priest, once said “But what does ‘vicar of Christ’ even mean? ‘Vicar’ means ‘representative in the absence of.’ Our Christ is not absent.”

[Pound Foolish]

He is not absent spiritually, but physically, Christ is only present during Catholic services. So, he leads us on earth, discovering new truths through divine revelation and reinforcing those we know. The Pope is a light to the world, through God. Popular Protestant and Catholic leaders come and go, but there's been a Pope since the beginning of Christianity to keep things straight. Like now, when the Pope always has to reaffirm the Church's ancient teachings against gay marriage, extramarital sex, and abortion. There are plenty of smaller theologians saying it, but when the Pope says it, it gets attention and press around the world. It's authoritative. It's the final word to over a billion people.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Could you expand on this idea of Christ being only present during Catholic services? Also are you saying that the truth given to us by Christ through the Apostles was not complete there need to be new spiritual truths?

I agree with you that the Pope is a very important figure but I see him as the first amongst equals of the Apostolic thrones. I don't see him having universal authority to keep things straight, I think that is the responsibility of all the bishops and the Church as a whole.

[Pound Foolish]

By only physically present during Catholic services, I naturally mean the Eucharist.
I should say, new doctrine. There's no such thing as a new truth (or if there is, that's highly speculative.) For instance, the Immaculate Conception wasn't always a doctrine.
The Bishops are an essential guide and their councils have helped determine many things. However, you will acknowledge that all the press given Bishops together doesn't necessarily match that of the Pope. The point is, again, the Pope has the ability to get people talking, and his word is final. It's important to have a single person in the spotlight reaffirming the Church's beliefs to the world.
Some bishops, for example, say abortion is allowable. Pope Francis, Benedict XV1 and their predecessors speak out against it.
In other words, the Pope has a significant advantage in spiritual matters: he's always right. God grants him and him alone the power to speak infallibly.

[Eleventh Doctor]

So the Apostolic Tradition was incomplete? And if the Pope's word is final then why have Popes had to overrule previous Popes?

I'm pretty sure the reason for the Pope is not press related, I think having the focus be on any one person, besides Christ, is not a good thing. Also so the Protestants don't misunderstand, can you please clarify your point about the Pope being infallible? It is not Roman Catholic doctrine that every word the Pope speaks is infallible, which I know you're not saying but the way you said it could be confusing.

[jehoshaphat]

The Catholic belief for clarification for anyone who is wondering, is that when speaking about matters of faith, morals, and doctrine the popes word is inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore never wrong on those subjects.

[Pound Foolish]

True they might, Eleventh. Right, as Eleventh and Jehosophat said, the Pope is only infallible when speaking on spiritual matters. That's his purpose.
Forgive the miscommunication on my part, I certainly didn't mean to imply we need a Pope to get the media's attention. We have too much of that.
However, my example of the media is simply making a point. As I said, people pay attention to the Pope. They don't necessarily pay attention to bishops. The Pope is a big shot. The leader of 1.1 billion. Bishops aren't.
God gave us someone at our helm. A president who makes all the final decisions. Who reinforces our teachings. There is nothing impractical about that. God can use that, and has. After all, God gave it the go ahead. "On this rock, I build my church."
And yes, Apostolic tradition only includes so many facts. There are more facts in the spiritual world. Thus, Catholic teaching has to be constantly cleared up. Ambiguities have to be fleshed out. Heresies and terrible new ideas have to be repressed.
Incidentally, the Bible does acknowledge that the masses sometimes are wrong in spiritual matters, that even Scripture can lead to confusion:
"There are some things in them [Paul’s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16).
The world gets confused. The Pope isn't.
For instance, the Bible clearly teaches the value of children and of life. But they don't have anything specifically against the ideas of abortion. Because, by golly, somehow they never figured that future geniuses would decide babies in the womb aren't children. Their teaching applies to the unborn, but people say it doesn't. Thankfully, the Pope is here to maintain the Catholic stance on life, say that in fact the fetus is a child, and to talk about it in writings and speeches.
He is our loving Holy Father. He shows us the way. He condemns heresies, he develops and clarifies Christianity, he reinforces Catholic teaching when it is most needed.
And a billion people are bound by their religion to believe him. That can't hurt.

[Samantha14]

Random Question: Shouldn't Jesus be the leader of your faith? >.>

That made me laugh so hard Froggy, because it's so you. So concise, so intelligent, so challenging. Yes, definitely, God is the Heavenly leader of the Catholic church as well as Protestants. The Pope is the Catholic's earthly leader, giving us spiritual direction.

Hmm. I guess that makes sense. Though, what if a pope can't tell the difference between a he thought (referring to himself) and a God thought? I know they are different than, say, bishops. Or pastors. But, we're all human. I've known quite a lot of pastors, and pastoral stories, that what they think God is telling them is different than someone else. And sometimes, maybe even a lot of the time, things are wrong. Again, we're all human. We all make mistakes and misinterpret things. Do you believe it isn't possible for the pope to be wrong in a spiritual matter of that sort? But, what if he is? Or, what if one pope thought he knew and knew to teach one thing, and then a later pope thought God was telling him differently? Then, wouldn't one be wrong? (Doesn't he have to be wrong at some point or another? Not being perfect, unlike Christ? ) And God never changes, so why would one word change against another when two different popes earthly lead Catholics? Or, would that not happen? Has that not happened before? What if it does?
And if all the leaders of all the branches of Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, whatever.) came together all on one thought, and they felt God telling them something different on each thought, who would you believe? Are some of the people saying they felt God leading them to believe one thing, while another feels another, relying more on self thoughts? Or do you believe God actually tells people different ways to believe something? If they don't believe one thing, or have a different view of that thing, or whatever, do you think they aren't truly saved? Do you think Catholics are the only ones truly saved? Even if all the different leaders did come together, would you only believe the pope's word? Do you even believe the others are actually men of God? Hypothetically, if only one person could be right about said thing (if they ever did come together), would you automatically take the pope's belief that he felt God telling him to believe over the others? If you do think he is the only one that can be right? Or do you not believe that? Wouldn't it be contradictory? Even if you didn't, and it ended up being one of the other church leaders right and not the pope, wouldn't that mean the pope was wrong about something in a spiritual matter of that sort? And if God really did tell these people these things, how can they even be different? Do you think the pope/catholics are more religious, or have more right ideas, or whatever, because they are a larger and older branch of Christianity than most others? If the leaders of all the branches were to come together, and the pope did happen to be wrong and say, a Baptist pastor, right about whatever hypothetical topic they were talking about, would you still stand by your earthly leader? Do you think he's more likely to be right than a pastor or a bishop because popes/catholics have been around longer? Or because they have millions of members, verses thousands that protestants have? Wouldn't that mean comparing yourself to others and seeing yourself better than someone else? Isn't that practically condemning someone?

Totally not trying to shove a knife down your throat right now. I really am not accusing anything, though it may seem/sound like it. I really am just totally confused and lost and I need answers. Also, none of my questions made sense. Sigh. -_- Take what you will from them. I'm going to bed. =P

[NateVONgreat]

"I disagree, those denying things like communion and baptism are not Christians. "
Well, like I said, those who say they are, and who DO what Jesus commands, if some denies communion AND baptism, I agree, he probably wouldn't agree with lots of other things, but if its just 1 of those, and he agrees with everything else, I think you need to get to know him better, Jesus did command those, but like I said earlier, All of us have a fault somewhere.

"But let's get back to Israel, they as a country are doing horrible things and should not be supported in those actions" Israel is doing horrible things, but is that a reason not to support it? should we not support the USA just because they legalized Gay marriages? God doesn't want us to love with a condition.
God chose Israel as his chosen people, and if you don't like that, tough.

"can you give me an example of a Christian community in Syria or Egypt that supports Israel?" yes, One of my best friends is Arab, his mother was born in Israel, and his father was a christian Arab in Egypt (they are all messianic now, his dad is pretty awesome, he was in the Egyptian Special Forces, He is a arab version of Jason Bourne) His Dad's family still lives in Egypt , as christian arabs, and they do support Israel, because they know that Israel is God's chosen people, and that they should love everyone, they come up to visit once in a while.

"Random Question: Shouldn't Jesus be the leader of your faith? >.>" Amen Brotha!
" I think there's a lot of wisdom in what Nate just said." Aw, thanks, that's the nicest thing someone has told me in this forum today

" but I think there is WAAAAAY too much conflict between different christian "sects", on who's right and who's wrong." + " People like conversations"
What you said Pound is correct, I like conversation, but some people have developed this way too far, reading this makes me feel as though if you guys were in a room talking, you would be at each other's throats.
"Like now, when the Pope always has to reaffirm the Church's ancient teachings against gay marriage, extramarital sex, and abortion. There are plenty of smaller theologians saying it, but when the Pope says it, it gets attention and press around the world. It's authoritative. It's the final word to over a billion people" are you saying you AGREE with that, shouldn't we listen to God's word instead of the pope? I might just be me, but the pope is full of baloney, and the catholics got their heads wrong in lots of areas. Same thing happened with Judaism, the people started forgetting God's word because they were so busy obeying the rabbi's, Isaiah 29;13 "And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men" We need to listen to our elders including the pope, take it into account, and do what God says.

"The world gets confused. The Pope isn't." The pope isn't a human? prone to human weakness? with our sinful nature?
"He is our loving Holy Father. He shows us the way. He condemns heresies" Only God, Only God, the pope is none of those. "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." The pope doesn't get us to the Father, he is not the way. God's holy word is his gift to us to understand and learn and grow, the pope cannot, I believe that one day, a long time ago, that was his purpose, but now he is an icon for those who do not truly believe.

Sorry if I offended anyone, I just had to say what I thought.

[Eleventh Doctor]

PF: What do you say to the fact though that Pope's have had to overrule past Pope's on spiritual matters? Also where in the Early Church Fathers do you see this idea that one man is infallible versus the church as a whole, led by the bishops?

Nate: So if you knew someone who said that they believed baptism was wrong but took communion you would consider them Christian? Is there anything you have to believe to be a Christian or is it just about identifying yourself as a Christian?

Yes, Israel doing horrible things is reason to not support it, if the USA did the things Israel is doing I would not support it either. I love the people of Israel unconditionally, that is not the same as supporting them politically. God did not choose the political system of Israel as His chosen government.

That is one family, I asked for a community. Do any of the Christian communities as a whole in Egypt support Israel? Give me an example of one Christian leader in Egypt who has spoken out publicly in support of Israel. The Christian in the Middle East I know do not support Israel.

[jehoshaphat]

Can you give an example of when a pope has had to overrule a previous pope? @Sammy we believe that the pope is infallible because Jesus started the church with the pope at its head. Also infallibility applies to when the bishops are speaking out as a whole. "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16) Jesus speaking to the apostles.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Let me ask you this to set up my point; did Christ die for the elect only?

But another example I can think of would be the Filoque, the Eccumenical Councils did not include the Filoque and the Eccumenical Councils included Popes. So which Pope was right?

[NateVONgreat]

"So if you knew someone who said that they believed baptism was wrong but took communion you would consider them Christian? Is there anything you have to believe to be a Christian or is it just about identifying yourself as a Christian? " If it was just that, and called himself a christian, and followed Jesus' other commandments perfectly, then Yes, I believe he would be saved, as in his name is in the book of life. sure, he is mistaken in that subject, but I think only God knows the heart.

"Yes, Israel doing horrible things is reason to not support it, if the USA did the things Israel is doing I would not support it either. I love the people of Israel unconditionally, that is not the same as supporting them politically. God did not choose the political system of Israel as His chosen government. "
Well, that's what I meant, I didn't mean the political system, and I didn't mean support them politically,
But to understand any political system you need to be very active in keeping up to date and study it. So I can only speak for Israel, and not the USA, and I assume same deal with you (11th) about the US of A.

"Do any of the Christian communities as a whole in Egypt support Israel? Give me an example of one Christian leader in Egypt who has spoken out publicly in support of Israel" Well, to be honest, I don't know any names. But my pastor has met a lot with pastors from around the middle east a lot, like this one yearly conference at Petra, and apparently there are big names that attend, and they love and support Israel, and believe that Israel has the right to be a nation in the land of Israel, against the major belief of the arabs.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I do keep up to date and study the Middle East and what is happening in Israel. Since you are so up to date on Israel though, can you give me one example of how the country of Israel benefits Christians in the Middle East?

Okay, if that's what your pastor's experience has been. My experience has been the opposite. Also does your pastor support Israel's policy toward the West Bank? A policy that is hurting many of the Palestinian Christians in the West Bank.

[Pound Foolish]

And if the Pope's word is final then why have Popes had to overrule previous Popes?

Good question with a good answer: they haven't. Not once. In all of history.

But another example I can think of would be the Filoque, the Eccumenical Councils did not include the Filoque and the Eccumenical Councils included Popes. So which Pope was right?

A good example. Like all of the ones you will be able to think of, it is unfounded.
Do you know how exactly infallibility works? The Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. That is, on strictly spiritual, theological, moral matters. Anything that doesn't fit that definition perfectly is up for debate. (As you yourself pointed out ,the Pope isn't always infallible. If he became a TV critic and said Dr. Who stinks, I'm sure you'll agree it would still be good.
The Ecumincal councils also qualify as ex cathedra, but decisions reached in them are subject to change by following ecumenical councils if they are not on a matter of faith or morals but what's known as a discipline. A discipline is on a technical matter.
In the case you spoke of, it was originally decided that the Nicene Creed wouldn't include the phrase, "and the Son." You will agree this is clearly not a matter of spirituality. Instead, it was a dispute about adding a phrase to an existing document. Not a matter of belief in the phrase itself (the Trinity of course was already a doctrine.) The Catholic Church is a stable faith, slow to make changes large even though they are never more than technicalities. It was given the go ahead, as you know, at the Council of Florence (1438-45).
Sorry, that was complicated. Not exactly as concise as your answers, I have to admit. One last thing: feel free to come up with further examples of Papal "contradictions", but just remember something. The Church has been around 2000 years. Suppose I didn't have the theological or historical knowledge to refute the example you gave. Would it prove anything? What good are handful of examples? If the Catholic church wasn't infallible, after TWO THOUSAND YEARS, it should be rife with contradictions in its centuries worth of Papal writings and records.

Also where in the Early Church Fathers do you see this idea that one man is infallible versus the church as a whole, led by the bishops?

For example, in 199 AD, St. Ireneaus wrote in his book, Against Heresies:
The Blessed Apostles (Peter and Paul) having and built up the Church of Rome, They handed over the office of Episcopatet to Linus. To him succeeded Analectus, and after him, in third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the Epicopate." Peter was infallible. After all God handed to him the duty of passing on Christianity. Therefor, his successors must have been as well. After all, Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep. But this role would extend way beyond Peter's time, so how could he fulfill this role without a successor?

Do you believe it isn't possible for the pope to be wrong in a spiritual matter of that sort?

Only when he speaks on such matters. As you say, the Pope is human. Many Popes'actions have been wrong.

And God never changes, so why would one word change against another when two different popes earthly lead Catholics?

As stated above, technicalities change. All that never changes is doctrine. God reveals knowledge to the Catholic Church, as in the Bible, in His own ways and time.

Hypothetically, if only one person could be right about said thing (if they ever did come together), would you automatically take the pope's belief that he felt God telling him to believe over the others? If you do think he is the only one that can be right? Or do you not believe that? Wouldn't it be contradictory?

Clever, but wrong. This is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle. You try to make out that right and wrong can somehow shift. In reality, one is always right, one party is always wrong. It's like the old, "If God is can do anything, can he make a rock so big he can't lift it?" The idea contradicts itself.

I might just be me, but the pope is full of baloney, and the catholics got their heads wrong in lots of areas.

It's not just you. We Catholics are wrong all the time. The Pope gives us direction, but it's up to us to obey him, understand the direction, learn it, and apply it in real life. As for the Pope being full of baloney, you're in good company. Five billion people aren't Catholic, after all. The people of Israel didn't exactly follow Moses with enthusiasm. (This is not a personal swing. It's just that the point is, even leaders with direct info from God don't necessarily have everyone enthusiastically concurring. In fact, they're generally ignored a lot of the time.)

[Eleventh Doctor]

So the nature of the Trinity is not a matter of faith? You can argue for this idea of a discipline but I don't see it in the Fathers. I'm also curious as to the origin of the ex cathedra, when was it first used?

Didn't Jesus tell all the Apostles to feed His sheep?

But let's go back to the Fathers and see what they thought of Rome and St. Peter. St. John Chrysostom in a Homily referred to St. Ignatius as a teacher equal to Peter. "when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter." St. Ignatius is the bishop who succeeded St. Peter at Antioch, so why isn't Antioch the Holy See? St. Ignatius speaks to the authority of bishops: “Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9) Where is the pope? Why would the bishop who succeeded St. Peter not recognize the pope?

St. Augustine talks of multiple Apostolic thrones not just one. "You cannot deny that you see what we call heresies and schisms, that is, many cut off from the root of the Christian society, which by means of the Apostolic Sees, and the successions of bishops, is spread abroad in an indisputably world-wide diffusion."

And I think that if papal infallibility didn't work we would see a great schism that would result in much of the Western church falling away from the Roman Catholic church, say around the 1500s.

[Pound Foolish]

So the nature of the Trinity is not a matter of faith? You can argue for this idea of a discipline but I don't see it in the Fathers. I'm also curious as to the origin of the ex cathedra, when was it first used?

Perhaps I was unclear. The Trinity is a matter of faith. Whether or not it is clearly indicated in the Nicene Creed isn't. The Creed is just words. Not belief. As I said, writings show the Catholic teaching of the Trinity had already been around a long time. The change to the Creed had nothing to do with the teaching. There are all kinds of major parts of Catholic faith that aren't stuffed into the the Creed. The Eucharist, for instance, isn't specifically mentioned, even though it's been one of the hugest centers of the faith since its creation by Jesus.
quote="Eleventh Doctor"]Didn't Jesus tell all the Apostles to feed His sheep? [/quote]
John 21:17


17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.

Where is the pope? Why would the bishop who succeeded St. Peter not recognize the pope?

On a side note, the above post has an example of an early Christian historian (St. Ignatius)recording the succession of Peter's authority. Did you read it? In the face of something that specifically mentions the succession of Peter's authority, a writing which happens not to mention the word Pope is a rather shaky proof. After all, the example of St. Ignatius specifically mentions the Papal line. The quote you site to disprove the entire papacy merely omits it. How does that prove anything?
But to answer the question, the nonmention of the Pope might have something to do with the fact the word Pope didn't exist yet. (Hah, forgive the sarcasm. I realize there's no reason you should know that.) The early Popes were referred to as Bishops. They had Peter's authority above other bishops and religious. The terminology wouldn't come for a time yet.

St. Augustine talks of multiple Apostolic thrones not just one. "You cannot deny that you see what we call heresies and schisms, that is, many cut off from the root of the Christian society, which by means of the Apostolic Sees, and the successions of bishops, is spread abroad in an indisputably world-wide diffusion."

Again, this doesn't attack the existence of Popes. You provide to quotes, and neither directly challenges papal authority. This merely talks about bishops. Its subject isn't the Pope. So?
Anyhoo, here's what St. Agustine has to say about the opinion you have tried to thrust upon him:

"And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rock, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rock, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer." (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

And I think that if papal infallibility didn't work we would see a great schism that would result in much of the Western church falling away from the Roman Catholic church, say around the 1500s.

Your argument points out its own flaws. The masses are not always correct. Unless of course, the general opinion that gay marriage, euthanasia and abortion are acceptable is correct.

[Eleventh Doctor]

If this quote proves the succession of Peter's authority then why didn't St. Ignatius inherit Papal authority? Since he was the successor to St. Peter. Also even if the term Pope didn't exist why didn't this line of authority mention a specific bishop being over other bishops? Or mention St. Peter at all? Since he was still alive? It proves that the Early Church Fathers did not see one bishop above the others, all bishops are accountable directly to God. The reason the non-mention is important is that if this was a very important thing from the very beginning then why wouldn't the successor of the first Pope write about it? Where as if, as I am claiming, this is a more recent development then of course St. Ignatius wouldn't mention this concept by name or even allude to it, if the name came about later, since it didn't exist, so how would he know to right against it? Instead he wrote what the Early Church believed about bishops, mainly that they are each accountable to God not to one bishop.

The Matthew 16 reference is the Great Commission to all the Apostles.

I'm not saying the masses are always correct. In any case I will drop this argument. I would instead like to focus on the Western Schism of 1378 to 1418 and hear your thoughts on it.

I would also be interested in hearing your thoughts on Pope Honorius I.

And lastly your thought on this passage from St. Cyprian of Carthage.
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there."

[NateVONgreat]

"The people of Israel didn't exactly follow Moses with enthusiasm."
yeah well, the Israelites didn't exactly want what God wanted for them, many christians do want to follow God, and they can do it without the pope.
11th, how long have you been swallowing the lies from the media? Israel helps the west bank AND the gaza strip so much, of course not as much as some would like, but you can't say that Israel (or their policy) is hurting them.
" the Western Schism of 1378 to 1418" hmmmm, never heard of it. Just a sec. oh wow, where did you learn all that? I hate history, and I can't imagine something like that being taught in schools, or are you homeschooled? looks like too much information for me, I think I will be on the sidelines this time.