(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)
Welcome
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
True for the Apostles but different for the Popes ... 
Reconciliation, Towards Unity: JOINT STATEMENT BY POPE, ORTHODOX PRELATE (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
PAPAL APOLOGY TO GREEK ORTHODOX (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
"Enemy" Churches Praying Together: Pope and Orthodox Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Read What Christodoulos Says to John Paul II (Christopher Yip)
Ecumenical Impetus from Papal Apology (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Another Evidence for the Corruptible and Fallible Church of Rome. (Christopher Yip)
The sins of the apostles do not invalidate the infallibility of their message (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
|
Anti-Protestant Mr Tan: The sins of Peter and the Apostles do not invalidate the infallibility of their teachings. Similarly, the sins of the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church do not invalidate the doctrine of infallibility.
Anti-Catholic Mr. Yip looking for yet another straw man to hack. ME: Am I? Of course Papal Infallibility is different from papal impeccability. No one says that the pope is sinless because of his claim to be infallible. These are certainly two different things. Also, even if a murderer or thief says that the sun rises from the East and sets in the West, he speaks the truth even though he is a murderer or thief. The case with the Crusades and the sack of Constantinople is different. The Apostles did not use their authority to sanction any such atrocities. They did not say that it was alright to slaughter women and children in the name of God. In other words, the Apostles did not sin in the name of their authority. Is that the case with the crusades? Nope. Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church tells us how the popes used their "infallible" authority to forgive sins and grant indulgences to "fund" their pet hobby crusades: "Those who fell under Eastern skies or on their way to the East received the benefits of special indulgence for sins committed and were esteemed in the popular judgment as martyrs. John VIII., 872–882, pressed by the Saracens who were devastating Italy, had promised to soldiers fighting bravely against the pagans the rest of eternal life and, as far as it belonged to him to give it, absolution from sins.302 This precedent was followed by Urban II., who promised the first Crusaders marching to Jerusalem that the journey should be counted as a substitute for penance.303 Eugenius, 1146, went farther, in distinctly promising the reward of eternal life. The virtue of the reward was extended to the parents of those taking part in Crusades. Innocent III. included in the plenary indulgence those who built ships and contributed in any way, and promised to them "increase of eternal life." God, said the abbot Guibert, chronicler of the First Crusade, invented the Crusades as a new way for the laity to atone for their sins, and to merit salvation.304 The rewards were not confined to spiritual privileges. Eugenius III., in his exhortations to the Second Crusade, placed the Crusaders in the same category with clerics before the courts in the case of most offences.305 The kings of France, from 1188 to 1270 joined with the Holy See in granting to them temporal advantages, exemption from debt, freedom from taxation and the payment of interest." Now, that is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING from the Apostles and their sins! The Apostles did no such thing, not even close! The supposedly INFALLIBLE Church of Rome used such tactics to con the believers into war. It was Rome who led thousands to their deaths. Christopher
|
to:
Back to Antioch's Home Page