OP sounds like bustup.

I think someone above talked about Ex-Cathedra and that is when he speaks infallibly on matter of Faith and Morals, BUT there a huge caveat:

If the Pontiff speaks in that manner and from that disposition AND defies or contradicts the Magisterium of the Church or Holy Tradition, then the Holy Ghost will strike him dead - bank on it.

And, OP, you are damn dead-on with the issue of Praxis...in fact it has been the Modernist M.O. since Vatican 2 that allowed for the destruction that has been seen. It is the problem with this current Pontiff's Exhortation that if binding (which it is not) would be call for forcible abdication.

However, it is defacto binding because of Praxis.... it is an ugly and deceitful way to "change" Church Teaching, in effect, the the Masons taught the Modernist long ago.

See the AL discussion thread:

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2817516


Stay within Rome, east or west.

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus!!

Drum5343 said:

---

Also, to the question "Can the Pope be fallible and still the Vicar of Christ?":

The answer is a resounding YES. The pope, or any pope, is a fallible man who, in very limited circumstances when there is doubt about a doctrine, can infallibly define doctrine by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

---

That's my question; where do we understand that he can infallibly define doctrine by the grace of the Holy Spirit? That's one of the keys to this whole conundrum I'm in. Typically in the past; when there was a doubt about doctrine; they held a council and the Church and the bishops discussed and affirmed what was true doctrine.

The problem comes in when the Pope actually declares himself infallible under certain circumstances; and the issues that come from such a declaration. Today is a wonderful example; I just got back in from attending Mass for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, which was dogmatized via ex cathedra statement in the mid 19th century by Pope Pius IX. This dogma essentially declared the Eastern Church (and many of the Church Fathers we share)'s ideas behind the virgin birth and sinlessnes of Mary as anathema; since they hold that no one inherited original sin's stain when born; but rather experience the punishments of a world where our forefathers sinned and sin is in the world.

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

Drum5343 said:

---

Also, to the question "Can the Pope be fallible and still the Vicar of Christ?":

The answer is a resounding YES. The pope, or any pope, is a fallible man who, in very limited circumstances when there is doubt about a doctrine, can infallibly define doctrine by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

---

That's my question; where do we understand that he can infallibly define doctrine by the grace of the Holy Spirit? That's one of the keys to this whole conundrum I'm in. Typically in the past; when there was a doubt about doctrine; they held a council and the Church and the bishops discussed and affirmed what was true doctrine.

The problem comes in when the Pope actually declares himself infallible under certain circumstances; and the issues that come from such a declaration. Today is a wonderful example; I just got back in from attending Mass for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, which was dogmatized via ex cathedra statement in the mid 19th century by Pope Pius IX. This dogma essentially declared the Eastern Church (and many of the Church Fathers we share)'s ideas behind the virgin birth and sinlessnes of Mary as anathema; since they hold that no one inherited original sin's stain when born; but rather experience the punishments of a world where our forefathers sinned and sin is in the world.

---

Sorry, not charitable of me - I am deleting my statement.

_89

Like, I said, I don't have the education necessary to discuss this. Probably a seminary professor would be best to talk to. I've never found that the Church has doctrines "just because". They are deeply rooted in Scripture and Tradition.

As far as I know, there are only 2 dogmas that were defined "ex-cathedra". The Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of Mary. All other infallible teachings by pope's could be said to be in agreement with the Magisterium.

And the East does not hold to either of those. Funny eh?

texag_89 said:

---

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

Drum5343 said:

---

Also, to the question "Can the Pope be fallible and still the Vicar of Christ?":

The answer is a resounding YES. The pope, or any pope, is a fallible man who, in very limited circumstances when there is doubt about a doctrine, can infallibly define doctrine by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

---

That's my question; where do we understand that he can infallibly define doctrine by the grace of the Holy Spirit? That's one of the keys to this whole conundrum I'm in. Typically in the past; when there was a doubt about doctrine; they held a council and the Church and the bishops discussed and affirmed what was true doctrine.

The problem comes in when the Pope actually declares himself infallible under certain circumstances; and the issues that come from such a declaration. Today is a wonderful example; I just got back in from attending Mass for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, which was dogmatized via ex cathedra statement in the mid 19th century by Pope Pius IX. This dogma essentially declared the Eastern Church (and many of the Church Fathers we share)'s ideas behind the virgin birth and sinlessnes of Mary as anathema; since they hold that no one inherited original sin's stain when born; but rather experience the punishments of a world where our forefathers sinned and sin is in the world.

---

Holy Tradition and Authority.

That is where it is derived. Vat 1 as well.

So in essence, you are questioning Apostolic Tradition - which came before Scripture and via Scripture itself is Lauded and and held in and as Authority - and Her Authority as Christ Church on earth. Is that right?

That really is what you are saying, is it not?

---

I would never question Apostolic authority; in my first paragraph I reference the councils that the Bishops (descendants of the Apostles) met in to affirm true teaching. Since you mentioned the Scripture; just look at the mechanism for determining which writings were canon; and which weren't. It wasn't a unilateral decision by the Pope; they held a council and discussed which were to be considered "inspired" and which writings didn't rise to that level. The Pope didn't just send them to the Pope and say "here pick some".

Drum5343 said:

---

Like, I said, I don't have the education necessary to discuss this. Probably a seminary professor would be best to talk to. I've never found that the Church has doctrines "just because". They are deeply rooted in Scripture and Tradition.

As far as I know, there are only 2 dogmas that were defined "ex-cathedra". The Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of Mary. All other infallible teachings by pope's could be said to be in agreement with the Magisterium.

---

I appreciate your honesty; I'm lucky that my father teaches at St.Mary's Seminary (he's a Roman Catholic Deacon) and I'm able to bounce these off of him as well as a very knowledgeable Byzantine Catholic Priest). To be very honest; my father was a bit troubled when I mentioned these to him; and said he didn't have an answer for me; he promised to do some research and let me know; but he hasn't brought it up again and neither have I.

I would never accuse the Roman Catholic Church of doing things "just because" however, I think if you look through history; they seem motivated to confirm teachings where there is a hint of ambiguity. On the counterpoint; take evolution for example; I love the Roman Catholic Church's teaching here where they're not cementing an authoritative opinion on evolution or creationism; but leaving it up to the individual. There is nothing wrong with this ambiguity. I feel the same about the two Ex-Cathedra statements; there had existed different points of view throughout Christianity regarding the individual economy of original sin; and the actual circumstances surrounding Mary's "falling asleep". However, the respective Pontiffs issued an infallbile ex-cathedra teachings; which anathematized centuries of teachings of Apostolic Churches, Bishops, and Church fathers.

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

texag_89 said:

---

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

Drum5343 said:

---

Also, to the question "Can the Pope be fallible and still the Vicar of Christ?":

The answer is a resounding YES. The pope, or any pope, is a fallible man who, in very limited circumstances when there is doubt about a doctrine, can infallibly define doctrine by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

---

That's my question; where do we understand that he can infallibly define doctrine by the grace of the Holy Spirit? That's one of the keys to this whole conundrum I'm in. Typically in the past; when there was a doubt about doctrine; they held a council and the Church and the bishops discussed and affirmed what was true doctrine.

The problem comes in when the Pope actually declares himself infallible under certain circumstances; and the issues that come from such a declaration. Today is a wonderful example; I just got back in from attending Mass for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, which was dogmatized via ex cathedra statement in the mid 19th century by Pope Pius IX. This dogma essentially declared the Eastern Church (and many of the Church Fathers we share)'s ideas behind the virgin birth and sinlessnes of Mary as anathema; since they hold that no one inherited original sin's stain when born; but rather experience the punishments of a world where our forefathers sinned and sin is in the world.

---

Holy Tradition and Authority.

That is where it is derived. Vat 1 as well.

So in essence, you are questioning Apostolic Tradition - which came before Scripture and via Scripture itself is Lauded and and held in and as Authority - and Her Authority as Christ Church on earth. Is that right?

That really is what you are saying, is it not?

---

I would never question Apostolic authority; in my first paragraph I reference the councils that the Bishops (descendants of the Apostles) met in to affirm true teaching. Since you mentioned the Scripture; just look at the mechanism for determining which writings were canon; and which weren't. It wasn't a unilateral decision by the Pope; they held a council and discussed which were to be considered "inspired" and which writings didn't rise to that level. The Pope didn't just send them to the Pope and say "here pick some".

---

Sq16

I actually went back and deleted my post out of a lack of some charity on my part I believe, but it seems too late as you replied to it - if I offended you, I am sorry.

Give me a little time and maybe I can add to what some have posted here.

No offense at all; don't worry about it; Apostolic Authority is nothing to be trifled with.

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

No offense at all; don't worry about it; Apostolic Authority is nothing to be trifled with.

---

Amen to that!

church fathers...some of the most anti-semitic people who ever lived. They would fit right in with Hitler and Martin Luther. It is amazing to me how much people adore the so called church fathers when they spewed so much hate.

agie95 said:

---

church fathers...some of the most anti-semitic people who ever lived. They would fit right in with Hitler and Martin Luther. It is amazing to me how much people adore the so called church fathers when they spewed so much hate.

---

To be fair; the jews had just killed Christ.

I am sure I will have more for you as I have sent your inquiry to a much greater Catholic thinker than I, however at the end of the day if you are not satisfied, then you will have to humble yourself and submit to the Authority of the Church and let the Holy Ghost hold accountable those that perpetrated these misdeeds (if they are and I do not believe they are) and cloak yourself in submission and humility, and alas it will be credited unto you in favor just like with Abraham.

In fact if you are somehow right, those Churchmen are already burning in the fires of Gehenna.

If they are right and you persist in your disbelief, then you could be in jeopardy of excommunicating yourself........

Excommunication, Lat and Ferend Sententi

Excommunication, especially a jure, is either lat or ferend sententi. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]". The second is indeed foreseen by the law as a penalty, but is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law. It is recognized when the law contains these or similar words: "under pain of excommunication"; "the culprit will be excommunicated".


At the end of the day.

Pray for understanding and I will pray for you as well.

thank you sir.

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

agie95 said:

---

church fathers...some of the most anti-semitic people who ever lived. They would fit right in with Hitler and Martin Luther. It is amazing to me how much people adore the so called church fathers when they spewed so much hate.

---

To be fair; the jews had just killed Christ.

---

Thus, the Good Friday prayer in the Old Rite Mass where we used to pray for the Conversions of all Jews.

Now, Francis says "leave 'em to their 'Jewdom'... can't proselytize anyone anymore according to our current Pontiff!!

Not Ex-cathedra I might add.

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

agie95 said:

---

church fathers...some of the most anti-semitic people who ever lived. They would fit right in with Hitler and Martin Luther. It is amazing to me how much people adore the so called church fathers when they spewed so much hate.

---

To be fair; the jews had just killed Christ.

---

One, the Jews did not kill Christ.

Two, He laid down His life...everyone killed Him.

Three, how do you define just? For many of these church fathers lived 100 to 400 years later.

Something that is really funny is they hated Jews, yet their Messiah.....was a Jew. I don't get it.

Jews persecuted Christians for a good while after Christ's death

Seven generations later we have people who claim to still feel the affects of slavery in our own time. You don't think that one or two generations would still feel certain ways about Jews who denied Christ and persecuted their families?

edit: said birth on accident, I meant death.

agie95 said:

---

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

agie95 said:

---

church fathers...some of the most anti-semitic people who ever lived. They would fit right in with Hitler and Martin Luther. It is amazing to me how much people adore the so called church fathers when they spewed so much hate.

---

To be fair; the jews had just killed Christ.

---

One, the Jews did not kill Christ.

Two, He laid down His life...everyone killed Him.

Three, how do you define just? For many of these church fathers lived 100 to 400 years later.

Something that is really funny is they hated Jews, yet their Messiah.....was a Jew. I don't get it.

---

The Jews killed Christ; the Romans gave the Jews about 3 or 4 outs; and the Jews demanded he be put to death each time. Yes he laid his life down; but someone still had to put him to death.

Time moved slower back in those days; slower communication, slower travel, many of these people would have been persecuted by Jews; which would give added weight to the stories passed down about the crucifixion of Christ.

I don't think it's tough to understand why they hated the Jews; and not Christ. The stories they would have heard of the Jews insistence on murdering God in human form would have been upsetting.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Jews persecuted Christians for a good while after Christ's birth.

Seven generations later we have people who claim to still feel the affects of slavery in our own time. You don't think that one or two generations would still feel certain ways about Jews who denied Christ and persecuted their families?

---

Jews persecuted Christians for a good while after Christ's birth? Seriously? He didn't start His ministry for another 30 years.

1. "they claim". First clue.

2. I can possibly see where the slavery of an ancestor would personally affect you. Millions of people who were slaves have been able to move on though. Sounds like there is more of a personal situation and someone who is focusing on the past verses the future.

SQ16,

I realized I'd never actually read the document "Ineffabilis Deus" by which Pope Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception. It's not that long. I read through most of it, and this caught my eye:

Quote:

---

Although we knew the mind of the bishops from the petitions which we had received from them, namely, that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin be finally defined, nevertheless, on February 2, 1849,[27] we sent an Encyclical Letter from Gaeta to all our venerable brethren, the bishops of the Catholic world, that they should offer prayers to God and then tell us in writing what the piety an devotion of their faithful was in regard to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. We likewise inquired what the bishops themselves thought about defining this doctrine and what their wishes were in regard to making known with all possible solemnity our supreme judgment.
We were certainly filled with the greatest consolation when the replies of our venerable brethren came to us. For, replying to us with a most enthusiastic joy, exultation and zeal, they not only again confirmed their own singular piety toward the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, and that of the secular and religious clergy and of the faithful, but with one voice they even entreated us to define our supreme judgment and authority the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. In the meantime we were indeed filled with no less joy when, after a diligent examination, our venerable brethren, the cardinals of the special congregation and the theologians chosen by us as counselors (whom we mentioned above), asked with the same enthusiasm and fervor for the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God.
Consequently, following the examples of our predecessors, and desiring to proceed in the traditional manner, we announced and held a consistory, in which we addressed our brethren, the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. It was the greatest spiritual joy for us when we heard them ask us to promulgate the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God.[28]
Therefore, having full trust in the Lord that the opportune time had come for defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, which Holy Scripture, venerable Tradition, the constant mind of the Church, the desire of Catholic bishops and the faithful, and the memorable Acts and Constitutions of our predecessors, wonderfully illustrate and proclaim, and having most diligently considered all things, as we poured forth to God ceaseless and fervent prayers, we concluded that we should no longer delay in decreeing and defining by our supreme authority the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. And thus, we can satisfy the most holy desire of the Catholic world as well as our own devotion toward the most holy Virgin, and at the same time honor more and more the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord through his holy Mother -- since whatever honor and praise are bestowed on the Mother redound to the Son.

---

It seems pretty clear from that that he did not act unilaterally to define this dogma and that he, and his brother bishops, felt that it was clearly part of the faith.

From my reading, people had been celebrating the Immaculate Conception since maybe the fifth century.

So, all Jews are to blame for a crowd, probably somewhat small crowd...at most a few thousand people, demanded He be put to death. 3 or 4 outs? I don't remember 3 or 4 outs, but it doesn't really matter.

So would you rather Him not have died? Do you know what that would mean?

Slower communication? Christ died before these people even heard of Him, so they knew He was already dead. Paul spoke to them about Him having to die. So I am confused by your statement about slow communication. I am amazed that these people would have such a strong reaction to something that happened 100 to several hundred years earlier. That doesn't make sense. How many people in America today get upset with the Japanese over Pearl Harbor? Unless you were alive then, it probably doesn't affect you at all. Or how about President Kennedy? How many people get upset about this? I just don't see these people getting that upset about this specially after reading the Gospels and the Epistles. There has to be something else.

Persecution? There was far more persecution going against Jews than the other way around. The Romans and Greeks despised the Jews for the most part. Any book I have ever read about during that time period had it the other way around. Yes, in some of the synagogues it was different, but out in the diaspara, the Jews were being persecuted for the most part.

Yes, I can see why Hitler, Martin Luther, the crusades and on and on were so furious with those Jews for killing Christ....or it could be something else.

There has been and always will be a disdain for the Jewish people....There is a reason for this. Satan has tried to get rid of that line of people since the beginning. At the end....he will go after those who have the faith of Yeshua and keep the commandments.

Thanks for finding that; a couple of points:

People had been celebrating the conception of Mary since the 5th century; but it wasn't the "immaculate" nature of the conception but the miracle that Anne; after having been barren; was able to conceive the child who would bear Jesus.

I also need to apologize because I'm using unilaterally differently than I think you're perhaps understanding it. What I'm saying is that when the Pope made his ex-cathedra statement; the Catholic Church unilaterally anathematized every other Christian who had a different understanding of original sin; and the individual culpability therein. St.Thomas Aquinas would have been anathematized; St.John Chrysostom in addition to St.Bernard of Clairvaux would have been as well had they been alive. The West believed in Augustinian original sin; where everyone at birth was indeed marred by Original Sin; to reconcile Mary's sinlessness with the fact that everyone human was born with sin, they necessitated the idea of the Immaculate Conception; which really started after the Schism, and took hold in the 13th century. The East, believing that humanity was born into a sinless world with the penalties of sin inherent due to their forefathers actions; were themselves sinless; which did not necessitate an immaculate conception. There is a reason why it wasn't dogmatized until the 19th century; as it was a fairly recent and not universally held belief.

Either way, none of this is to take any sort of pride or reverence away from the Virgin Mary; none at all. She was just as special for giving birth to the Savior and living a sinless life regardless of the way in which her purity was accomplished.

agie95 said:

---

So, all Jews are to blame for a crowd, probably somewhat small crowd...at most a few thousand people, demanded He be put to death. 3 or 4 outs? I don't remember 3 or 4 outs, but it doesn't really matter.

So would you rather Him not have died? Do you know what that would mean?

Slower communication? Christ died before these people even heard of Him, so they knew He was already dead. Paul spoke to them about Him having to die. So I am confused by your statement about slow communication. I am amazed that these people would have such a strong reaction to something that happened 100 to several hundred years earlier. That doesn't make sense. How many people in America today get upset with the Japanese over Pearl Harbor? Unless you were alive then, it probably doesn't affect you at all. Or how about President Kennedy? How many people get upset about this? I just don't see these people getting that upset about this specially after reading the Gospels and the Epistles. There has to be something else.

Persecution? There was far more persecution going against Jews than the other way around. The Romans and Greeks despised the Jews for the most part. Any book I have ever read about during that time period had it the other way around. Yes, in some of the synagogues it was different, but out in the diaspara, the Jews were being persecuted for the most part.

Yes, I can see why Hitler, Martin Luther, the crusades and on and on were so furious with those Jews for killing Christ....or it could be something else.

There has been and always will be a disdain for the Jewish people....There is a reason for this. Satan has tried to get rid of that line of people since the beginning. At the end....he will go after those who have the faith of Yeshua and keep the commandments.

---

No, not all Jews, although the crowd certainly didn't help themselves according to the Gospel of Matthew; but it's inaccurate to suggest that Jews didn't kill Jesus; the Jewish people in total didn't kill Jesus; but Jews did kill Jesus.

Your line of questioning on whether or not Jesus had to die is moot; Jesus may have had to die; but that doesn't absolve the jewish people who put him to death; nor Judas' actions.

We're a different society than it was then; but there are still plenty of people upset at the Vietnamese; or the Japanese about bombing Pearl Harbor; my grandfather was a WWII vet and wouldn't ever buy a Japanese car, and never did until the day he died; and this is in modern times. Picture living in a close knit settlement who teaches you that the people who are castigating you for your beliefs killed the Living God; is it any wonder these people grew up with Anti-semitic tendencies? These people didn't have access to mass media or communications; they interacted with their families and their tight knit societies. Take the people in rural Afghanistan caves who have been told that the Americans who are flying in on remarkable sky machines and look like creatures from Mars, who don't have access to the internet or television and have been told that Americans only kill people and are all Satan; is it a wonder that they hate Americans? They have nothing to temper their knowledge other than what they're being told; it's not a hard concept.

I don't think you'll take my commentary on why some people don't like the Jews well so I'll suffice it to say that it doesn't make any sense that Satan would single the jews out for punishment when the vast majority of Jews don't acknowledge Christ as the messiah; why on Earth would Satan want to mess with that?

agie95 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Jews persecuted Christians for a good while after Christ's birth.

Seven generations later we have people who claim to still feel the affects of slavery in our own time. You don't think that one or two generations would still feel certain ways about Jews who denied Christ and persecuted their families?

---

Jews persecuted Christians for a good while after Christ's birth? Seriously? He didn't start His ministry for another 30 years.

1. "they claim". First clue.

2. I can possibly see where the slavery of an ancestor would personally affect you. Millions of people who were slaves have been able to move on though. Sounds like there is more of a personal situation and someone who is focusing on the past verses the future.

---

**I'm sorry, I meant Death. typo.

The rest of your point is silly. The world has held on to spite for much longer and for worse reasons. 100 years is nothing...and persecution was still happening at that point.

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

Thanks for finding that; a couple of points:

People had been celebrating the conception of Mary since the 5th century; but it wasn't the "immaculate" nature of the conception but the miracle that Anne; after having been barren; was able to conceive the child who would bear Jesus.

I also need to apologize because I'm using unilaterally differently than I think you're perhaps understanding it. What I'm saying is that when the Pope made his ex-cathedra statement; the Catholic Church unilaterally anathematized every other Christian who had a different understanding of original sin; and the individual culpability therein. St.Thomas Aquinas would have been anathematized; St.John Chrysostom in addition to St.Bernard of Clairvaux would have been as well had they been alive. The West believed in Augustinian original sin; where everyone at birth was indeed marred by Original Sin; to reconcile Mary's sinlessness with the fact that everyone human was born with sin, they necessitated the idea of the Immaculate Conception; which really started after the Schism, and took hold in the 13th century. The East, believing that humanity was born into a sinless world with the penalties of sin inherent due to their forefathers actions; were themselves sinless; which did not necessitate an immaculate conception. There is a reason why it wasn't dogmatized until the 19th century; as it was a fairly recent and not universally held belief.

Either way, none of this is to take any sort of pride or reverence away from the Virgin Mary; none at all. She was just as special for giving birth to the Savior and living a sinless life regardless of the way in which her purity was accomplished.

---

SQ16 -

It seems like St. Thomas Aquinas may have arrived at the Immaculate Conception later in life. Aquinas on Immaculate Conception. Also, in regards to the issue of Church Fathers being anathematized after the fact, you are allowed to have opinions on theological questions until it is settled.

You mentioned your grandfather and WWII and I had said unless there was personal experience. Personal experience is different. The church fathers lived 100's of years later. Huge difference.

Regarding why Satan would go after Jews, b/c the Messiah came through the Jews.
And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. Revelation 12:13

Therefore, He wanted to get rid of them. Notice the Scripture is faith in Messiah AND keep the commandments:

So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Yeshua Rev 12:17

Also Rev 14:12 says this:

Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Yeshua.

I will say, even though you and the church fathers may believe the Jews killed Yeshua, this does not condone their hatred, their hateful tone towards the Jews. This men are supposed to be "Christians"? Seriously. Again, they were no different than Hitler. It is b/c of these so called church fathers that hatred towards the Jews was continued and ending up leading to the crusades.....killing in the name of Christ....all approved by the Pope.

agie95 said:

---

You mentioned your grandfather and WWII and I had said unless there was personal experience. Personal experience is different. The church fathers lived 100's of years later. Huge difference.

Regarding why Satan would go after Jews, b/c the Messiah came through the Jews.
And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. Revelation 12:13

Therefore, He wanted to get rid of them. Notice the Scripture is faith in Messiah AND keep the commandments:

So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Yeshua Rev 12:17

Also Rev 14:12 says this:

Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Yeshua.

---

It does not make any sense that Satan would go after the Jews after the birth of Christ; think about it. Both Satan and the orthodox Jews have the same archenemy; Jesus Christ- the arch-false messiah to the Jews; and the human who became more powerful than all the angels- Satan.

The children of the women are Christians; not Christ-denying Jews; why on earth would Satan want to wipe Christ-denying Jews off of the earth? Because they might keep spreading the word that Jesus is a false messiah?

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

agie95 said:

---

It does not make any sense that Satan would go after the Jews after the birth of Christ; think about it. Both Satan and the orthodox Jews have the same archenemy; Jesus Christ- the arch-false messiah to the Jews; and the human who became more powerful than all the angels- Satan.

---

The children of the women are Christians; not Christ-denying Jews; why on earth would Satan want to wipe Christ-denying Jews off of the earth? Because they might keep spreading the word that Jesus is a false messiah?

---

It does not make any sense to you b/c you think Christians replaced the Jews. That is replacement theology and Paul warned about such thinking in Romans 11. Just note, in the MK, those who join Israel will be put with a tribe, some will even get to be Levites and serve in the Temple.

Jesus is an enemy to Jews and to God. God said that if anyone comes and leads you away from Me, My ways, My commandments then you should not follow this person...it is a test. In light of Deut 12:32-13-4 what would you do? Would you accept this Jesus if you were a Jew and you knew what God said?

Orthodox Jews while do not agree that He is the Messiah, they do show respect towards those of us who actually follow the commandments and have the faith of Yeshua. You want to make a Jew jealous? Start following the commandments and then they become jealous.

So when did Jews (like Saul of Tarsus) stop persecuting Christians?

It was a decent thread when people are adoring over church fathers and the likes...people who had hate in their heart...people who despised other groups of people just b/c of race. Yea....good thread.

We all sin and fall short of the glory of God in many ways.
Does that negate any good theology they espoused?


**note, I am not admitting that the church fathers were anti-semites...I'm not well read enough to mount a defense either way. However, I am well read in Luther. The things he said near the end of his life in response to events that occurred do no negate his work..they remind us that he is but a man.