73 years old na Lolo, walking possessed !!!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ม.ค. 2024
- spiritual warfare,
spiritual warfare prayer,
spiritual warfare music,
spiritual warfare sermons,
spiritual warfare deliverance prayers,
spiritual warfare instrumental music,
spiritual warfare scriptures,
spiritual warfare prayers while sleeping,
a spiritual warfare prayer,
spiritual warfare bible verses,
spiritual warfare bible,
spiritual warfare bible study,
spiritual warfare bible review,
spiritual warfare catholic,
spiritual warfare channel,
spiritual warfare catholic priest, - บันเทิง
Good morning father Darwin...good day for all of us
good morning Fr.Darwin.
Goodmorning,fr.Darwin pls.pray for my own family salamat Po.
Good morning father Darwin, watching from Ibajay, Aklan. God bless and guide you always.
God Bless you always Fr Darwin. Happy watching from UK🙏
Goodmorning fr.Darwin Godbless
Father?
Kangilngig sa mga pari mga obispo nga gipangbuntisan ang mga mother....
Iingatan ka palagi ni Lord father Darwin at gagabayan ka nya sa lahat ng mission mo... GOD BLESS YOU
God bless....
Ako din po Fr. Kulang na kulang sa kaalaman. Kaya muntik na rin tuluyan manghina. Ngunit nasumpungan at nahanap ko po ang totoo. Sinagot po ni Lord Jesus christ na masumpungan ko ang katotohanan. Godbless
❤❤❤
History speaks for itself
God bless you Fr Darwin🙏😇
Grabe na jud moral corruption sa simbahan
Magandang umaga po father Darwen,Tanong ko lang po kung anong prayer of the church Ang gagamitin ko.kasi po naalayan ko ng dugo pato Ang Bago kung tayo na bahay.sana po matulungan nyot po ako.god bless po at salamat
Good morning Fr. Darwin. Itanong ko lang po kung my bisa ba yong salt, water and olive oil na napabless namin na sa isa sa mga videos mo nong nag bless kayo ng mga sacramentals. Hindi live online yong pinanood namin. Salamat po.🙏
maayong odto dri
Infallibility and the Early Christians
THE doctrine of infallibility is closely linked to that of the “primacy,” or supreme power, of the pope. According to the Enciclopedia Cattolica, “the Bible texts that establish the primacy bear witness to pontifical i[nfallibility].” In support of this doctrine, the same work cites the following verses in which Christ is speaking to Peter.
Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.”
Luke 22:32: “But I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
John 21:15-17: “Feed my lambs.” “Tend my sheep.” “Feed my sheep.”-Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition.
According to the Catholic Church, the above-mentioned verses should demonstrate: first, that Peter was the “prince of the apostles,” that is, that he held the primacy among them; second, that he was infallible; and third, that he would have “successors” sharing his prerogatives, the primacy and the infallibility.
In this regard, however, Giuseppe Alberigo, lecturer in church history, makes these significant comments: “As is known, in the NT [New Testament] the word ‘pope,’ or the relative substantivization ‘papacy,’ never occurs. The only dominant figure is Jesus of Nazareth; among the disciples, and particularly among the apostles, it is very problematic to recognize, on the basis of the texts, a figure that emerges above all others. Peter, John, James, Paul, constitute figures just as characteristic and significant, different from one another and complementary. Without a doubt, Peter is presented as one of the apostles Christ spoke to more frequently, even though not the only one nor the most significant one.”
What did the early Christians believe? Professor Alberigo answers: “In the early centuries, no doctrinal elaboration or pragmatism exists for the figure and the functions of the pope. . . . The possibility of an ‘episcopus episcoporum’ [bishop of bishops] was an aberration for Cyprian [a third-century writer], as he affirmed at the synod of Carthage.”
When did the doctrine of the papacy take root? Professor Alberigo says: “Toward the end of the fourth century, the Roman church’s claim to an apostolic function, that is, of coordination for the western churches, becomes more insistent.” It was “during the episcopate of Leo I [fifth century],” adds Alberigo, that “the concept of Peter’s ‘princedom’ among the apostles, founded on Mt 16:18,” was developed. “One finds in the NT no indications by Jesus concerning the successors of Peter or of the other apostles.”
But do verses such as Matthew 16:18, the one most often used by Catholic theologians, support the papacy doctrine?
Who Is the Precious Foundation “Stone”?
“You are Peter [Greek, Peʹtros], and on this rock [Greek, peʹtrai] I will build my church.” As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the close similarity between the two terms shows that Peter is the foundation stone of the true church, or Christian congregation. But since the Bible has much to say about the symbolic stone, it is necessary to examine other verses in order to gain a correct understanding.-Matthew 16:18, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition.
Important prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures had already announced the coming of a symbolic foundation stone and the double role it would play. It was to be an instrument of salvation for those who exercised faith: “Here I am laying as a foundation in Zion a stone, a tried stone, the precious corner of a sure foundation. No one exercising faith will get panicky.” (Isaiah 28:16) Paradoxically, it was to be a rock over which the unbelieving Israelites would have stumbled: “The stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.” (Psalm 118:22) “As a stone to strike against and as a rock over which to stumble to both the houses of Israel.”-Isaiah 8:14.
Was it possible for a mere man, especially impulsive Peter, to play out the double role of the symbolic stone? (Matthew 26:33-35, 69-75; Mark 14:34-42) In whom should we exercise faith in order to obtain salvation, in Peter or in someone greater? Over whom did the Israelites stumble, over Peter or over Jesus? The Scriptures clearly indicate that the prophecies concerning the precious stone were fulfilled, not in Peter, but in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. It was Jesus who applied the prophecies of Isaiah and Psalm 118 to himself, as Matthew 21:42-45 shows.
Peter himself, as we read at 1 Peter 2:4-8, considered Jesus, and not himself, to be the foundation stone. On a previous occasion, when speaking to the Jewish religious leaders, he confirmed that “Jesus Christ the Nazarene” was “the stone that was treated by you builders as of no account that has become the head of the corner.”-Acts 4:10, 11.
The apostle Paul was of like mind, as can be seen from scriptures such as Romans 9:31-33,; 1 Corinthians 10:4, and Ephesians 2:20, this last verse confirming the fact that the members of the Christian congregation are “built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone.” He is also ‘the head of the congregation,’ which he guides from the heavens. “I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things,” said Jesus.-Ephesians 1:22; 5:23; Matthew 28:20; Colossians 1:18.
Peter-Pope or One Among Equals?
What instrument did Jesus use in directing the work of his faithful followers after his ascension to heaven? Did he nominate one of them as his “vicar” with supreme powers, like the pope? No, he did not establish a monarchical form of government over the congregation. Rather, he committed the care of the flock to a body, or group, of faithful servants. At its beginning, the Christian congregation was guided by the entire body of the 12 apostles, along with elders in the Jerusalem congregation.
It was the 12 apostles, collectively, who decided how to provide for the material necessities of needy ones. (Acts 6:1-6) The body of 12 also decided who should be sent to the Samaritans after they had accepted the good news, and Peter and John were chosen. On this occasion, it would appear that Peter, far from making decisions on his own, was simply one of those “dispatched” by the apostles.-Acts 8:14.
Finally, it was during the assembly held in Jerusalem circa 49 C.E. that “the apostles and the older men” decided on the basis of the Scriptures that it was not necessary to circumcise the Gentiles who had been converted to Christianity. (Acts 15:1-29) From the historical account, it is clear that it was not Peter but James, the half brother of Jesus, who presided at that assembly. In fact, he concluded the proceedings by saying: “My decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God.” (Acts 15:19) Would James have been able to speak of ‘his decision’ if Peter, who was present, held the primacy among the apostles?
The apostle Paul, speaking of the various ministries that contributed to the upbuilding of the congregation, did not mention the so-called magisterium of the pope but rather the collective service of all the apostles.-1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11, 12.
Because of his zeal and initiative, Peter doubtless played a “considerable” role, as Alberigo writes. Jesus gave him “the keys of the kingdom of the heavens.” (Matthew 16:19) He used these symbolic keys to open up to Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles the opportunity to enter into the Kingdom of the heavens. (Acts 2:14-40; 8:14-17; 10:24-48) He was also given the responsibility of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing,’ a task he shared with the other apostles. (Matthew 16:19; 18:18, 19) He was to shepherd the Christian congregation, something that all Christian overseers must do.-Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2.
However, because of their Christian qualities, apostles other than Peter were also “outstanding.” Paul spoke of “the ones who seemed to be pillars” of the congregation, referring to “James and Cephas [Peter] and John.” (Galatians 2:2, 9) Jesus’ half brother James played a particularly important part. As mentioned previously, he presided at the Jerusalem assembly, and there are various accounts that confirm his notable role.-Acts 12:17; 21:18-25; Galatians 2:12.
God bestowed great power on Jesus’ faithful disciples, including the ability to perform miracles. But nowhere do we read that he empowered them to make infallible utterances. As faithful as he was, Peter committed errors. He was reproved by Jesus, and on one occasion the apostle Paul corrected him in public.-Matthew 16:21-23; 26:31-34; Galatians 2:11-14.
Only the Scriptures are infallible, being the Word of God. Peter spoke of “the prophetic word” to which to pay attention as to a shining lamp. (2 Peter 1:19-21) If we are to know God’s will, then we must entrust ourselves to his ‘living’ Word. (Hebrews 4:12) Only God’s Word, and not an ambiguous definition by religious leaders, offers the certainties that mankind so badly needs. In our time also, Christ Jesus is using a group of his servants, fallible but faithful, collectively called “the faithful and discreet slave.”-Matthew 24:45-47.
Who represent this symbolic slave on the earth today? An accurate study of the Bible can help you with the identification. Jehovah’s Witnesses will be glad to assist you.
[Pictures on page 9]
Who was the foundation stone-the faithful Christ? Or Peter, who denied him three times?
What Catholics Say About Infallibility
HOW do many Catholics themselves view the doctrine of papal infallibility? Note the following comments made to Awake! correspondent in Italy:
A. M., a Catholic lawyer from Bergamo, said: “If a person professes Catholicism, then he must believe in its dogmas. That the problem of papal infallibility cannot be explained in a rational way is obvious-it’s a question of faith. One either believes or one doesn’t.”
P. S., a Catholic from Palermo, affirms: “What is important in my opinion is, not so much whether the Bible supports the dogma or not, but whether its function within the church can be verified, and its specific utility today. We live in a confused world, a real Babylon of ideas. People no longer have certainties, and there is this great necessity for an absolutely sure source they can relate to.”
Other Catholics are critical. It would seem that their skepticism is based upon the papacy’s historical precedents. “Even though I am a practicing Catholic, it’s difficult for me to believe in this doctrine [of papal infallibility],” said L. J., a Rome journalist. “The history of the popes shows the exact opposite.”
A. P., a Rome doctor, says: “I don’t believe it at all. He is a man like all the others and makes mistakes. For example, he’s wrong when he gets involved in politics. Only God doesn’t make mistakes.”
This doctrine has divided people. In 1982, in the city of Rome, the home of the Vatican, 57 percent of Catholics considered papal infallibility one of the most questionable of dogmas. In Portugal, only 54.6 percent of Catholics believe in it, and in Spain, only 37 percent.
Could it be that this dogma, instead of contributing to the unity of the Catholic Church, has actually given birth to divisions and disputes? Historical evidence shows it has been at the root of controversies since its beginning, even during the council that promulgated it in the 19th century.
Divisions and Browbeating
It is undeniable that there were some very heated arguments between bishops and cardinals during the Vatican Council of 1870. La Civiltà Cattolica of that year spoke of “fiery agitation,” pointing out that not even the Jesuits anticipated that “such contrasts would have arisen in the face of such a sacred truth.”
German historian Ferdinand Gregorovius wrote that there were “tempestuous sessions” at the council. The one held on March 22, 1870, was particularly unruly. Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmajer, one of the many bishops present at the council who were against the infallibility dogma, was silenced by the howls of the bishops who favored it. The records of the council relate that while Strossmajer was speaking, these bishops “loudly” protested and ‘yelled’: “Kick him out!” and, “Get down! Get down!”
Other historians have shown that the pope and the Roman Curia exerted strong pressures on council members in order to get the dogma approved. Concerning this, Catholic historian Roger Aubert speaks of the “row” that Pius IX had with Cardinal Guidi of Bologna, whose address to the council was not to the pope’s liking. In a fit of anger, Pius IX reportedly said to the cardinal, who had made reference to tradition in his discourse: “I am the tradition!”
The pope wanted the doctrine approved at all costs: “I am so determined to go ahead,” he said, “that if I thought the Council wanted silence, I would dismiss it, and I would make the definition by myself.” La Civiltà Cattolica admitted: “The maneuvers of the council’s majority and also of Pope Pius IX, and the limitations and difficulties imposed on the minority, are no longer to be minimized or justified apologetically.”
One history book sums up the events, saying: “Papal nuncios [ambassadors] intimidate the bishops into favoring a decree of papal infallibility.” However, such “maneuvers” did not succeed in calming the waters of dissent-they only served to agitate them even more. After the council, part of the dissident clergy broke off from the Catholic Church. The “Old Catholics” movement was formed from the schism, and it is still active in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland.
Modern Doubters
The controversies over this dogma have never really quieted down. In 1970, with the approach of the 100th anniversary of its approval, they flared up with particular vehemence.
At the end of the 1960’s, Dutch bishop Francis Simons wrote the book Infallibility and the Evidence, in which he clearly expressed his doubts as to the infallibility of the Catholic Church and of the pope. Simons said that because of the dogma, “instead of being a force promoting progress and healthy changes, the Church has become an institution fearing that which is new and preoccupied with safeguarding its own position.”
Soon after came the seasoned attack of Hans Küng, the noted Swiss theologian, who, with his book Infallible? An Enquiry and other writings, drew stern reactions from the Catholic hierarchy. Then, at the end of the 1970’s, August Hasler wrote: “It is becoming increasingly evident that there is no basis for the dogma of papal infallibility, either in the Bible or in the history of the church during the first millennium.”
Theologians loyal to the church doctrine have reacted in various ways. La Civiltà Cattolica mentions the “formidable mass of difficulties, intolerance, and trouble” generated by “the reaffirmation of the doctrine of the Petrine-Roman primacy decreed by Vatican II.” Karl Rahner stressed that “the dogmas remain in their historical setting and permanently open to future interpretation.”
If the definitions of dogmas are subject to new interpretations, how can they be infallible? How can they offer the certainties people are seeking? However, it is even more important to know whether the early Christians followed an infallible pope.
[Blurb on page 6]
“He’s wrong when he gets involved in politics.”-A Rome doctor
[Picture Credit Line on page 7]
Miami Herald Publishing Co.