J
justasking4
Guest
Why are they not protected?
Where do we find the “Chair of Peter” in Scripture?
If i understand you, then neither was Mary.
- Status
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
- Ask Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is a mystery beyond my office.
- This a term to describe all the Scripture references to Peter’s special place among the Apostles. This includes not only the Rock but also Peter being at the Transformation and offer to build a tent, walking on water, command to feed His Sheep, etc. It is illuminating that Christ chose such a person to be the head. He didn’t chose the most articulate, most capable, or most faithful. He chose the most broken to be the servant of the servants of God. Praise be to God.
- I apologize as I meant to say all except for Mary who is “full of grace” or “most favored”. Just4asking, with God it is the exception that proves the rule.
P
protestantman
Guest
There is NO scripture that uses the world infallible. Scripture does not prove any of your claims of papal infallibility. Papal infallibility is not supported by scripture. Unless you can shed light on a verse where either Peter or Christ specifically makes this claim clear. Papal infallibility is an institution of man, to serve man. It serves no purpouse for Christ. The only infallable man to walk this earth was Christ. Infallibility can only come from the righteous. Who on this earth is righteous? According to scripture that is no one. Therefore, to claim papal infallibility is a perversion of scripture. It does not coincide with the nature of Christ, who presented himself as a servant. It does not coincide with scripture, that states that Christ is our mediator to the Father. With Christ at the head of the church, there is no need for any other authority. All Christ wanted of the Apostles, were servants and teachers.
Some of you say that your understanding of Papal infallibility has evolved. When has Christ ever imparted truth in such a manner? If you trully have faith in Christ, then why do you look to the Pope for answers. This is evidence that your faith lies in the churches teachings, and not with the personal guidence of the Holy Spirit. This also directly conflicts with scripture.
Any man who can prove that the scripture specifically states otherwise, please do so now to clear all doubt.
I pray that one day the Catholic Church would stop persecuting those who do not believe in the supremecy of the Pope. If Luther was really deserving of excommunication, then he was a man who was living in sin. If this is true than nothing could ever come from that man of any value. For it is impossible for a bad tree to bear good fruit. Yet the protestant churches continue to have spiritual growth and evidence of the fruits of the spirit. So if you truly believe in the doctrine of the Catholic church, you must also believe that all protestants are false prophets, living in sin, and spend an eternity in hell, unless we recant and join the Catholic faith. Are you so convinced that you could say that this is true? I say that I believe in the son of God, who is the word of God, the Lamb of God, the One true God. But if I dont believe in the apostolic succesion, then I must be a heretic, right?
The very fact that the Catholic Church seats themselves at the head of the table is enough evidence for me, that it is not modeled in the image of Christ. I directly rebuke the teaching of Papal infallibility.
In reality protestants and catholics are on the same side. We all believe in Jesus Christ. Worldy arguments keep us severed from one another. How is this biblicle? How is this Christ like?
Some of you say that your understanding of Papal infallibility has evolved. When has Christ ever imparted truth in such a manner? If you trully have faith in Christ, then why do you look to the Pope for answers. This is evidence that your faith lies in the churches teachings, and not with the personal guidence of the Holy Spirit. This also directly conflicts with scripture.
Any man who can prove that the scripture specifically states otherwise, please do so now to clear all doubt.
I pray that one day the Catholic Church would stop persecuting those who do not believe in the supremecy of the Pope. If Luther was really deserving of excommunication, then he was a man who was living in sin. If this is true than nothing could ever come from that man of any value. For it is impossible for a bad tree to bear good fruit. Yet the protestant churches continue to have spiritual growth and evidence of the fruits of the spirit. So if you truly believe in the doctrine of the Catholic church, you must also believe that all protestants are false prophets, living in sin, and spend an eternity in hell, unless we recant and join the Catholic faith. Are you so convinced that you could say that this is true? I say that I believe in the son of God, who is the word of God, the Lamb of God, the One true God. But if I dont believe in the apostolic succesion, then I must be a heretic, right?
The very fact that the Catholic Church seats themselves at the head of the table is enough evidence for me, that it is not modeled in the image of Christ. I directly rebuke the teaching of Papal infallibility.
In reality protestants and catholics are on the same side. We all believe in Jesus Christ. Worldy arguments keep us severed from one another. How is this biblicle? How is this Christ like?
W
wanner47
Guest
There’s no Scripture that uses the word “trinity” either. Do you believe in the Trinity?
For that matter, Scripture does not mention the word “automobile.” From this, I assume that you do not drive a car, since it’d be unbiblical to do so.
J
justasking4
Guest
i think what he is saying is that the concept of papal infalliblity is not in Scripture. I think even catholics would agree that Peter was not looked upon as being infallible. God did use him mightly but even that does not translate into infallibly for him or later popes.
No protestant is claiming this that i know of.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Protestantman, your prayer doesn’t seem very sincere. I expected you’d at least apologize for your prior posts when confronted with the nature of its base author (Peter de Rosa) but you seem willing to use any source that supports your world view.
Are the words above your own or did you pull it from another web site?
Rational and Christian dialogue is impossible w/ one who so tenaciously clings to views formed and justified by hate, lies and calumny. I must shake my dust from you until I see a heart more Christ-like.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Matthew 16:18-19.
What we say is that our understanding has developed over time. I don’t like the term “evolved” since it sounds like the teaching has become something different, over time.
Uh - when has He not imparted Truth in this way? The Old Testament is a record of the development of doctrine. He begins with a family - Adam and Eve with their children.
Next, a clan - Noah, his wife, their children, and their children’s children.
Next, a tribe - Abraham and Sarah with their children, their servants, and their relatives. The covenant becomes specific to that tribe - a covenant of circumcision.
Next, a nation - Israel. Moses leads the nation out of slavery, and a new covenant comes about - a covenant of law.
And finally, with the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, the whole world.
Because I have faith in Christ that He keeps His promises to the Church.
Newsflash for you: The Inquisition has been over now for several centuries.
P
protestantman
Guest
I do not harbour anger or resentment toward my catholic brothers. Despite all persecution I will continue to pray for all of you. It does not seem that the hostility will fade away until Christ returns and reveals all. Christ alone is the importance of the New Testament. Everything else is between the Holy Spirit and the Individual.
Why has the Catholic church condemned so many to torture and death? When did scripture make torture a tool to make people conform?
Why has the Catholic church condemned so many to torture and death? When did scripture make torture a tool to make people conform?
S
SCALCO
Guest
On the concept of infallible authority:
Mt 23:1-3
“The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.”
We know that all authority comes from God. (John19:11). Jesus tells us that the scribes and Pharisees have legitimate authority, and so the people must obey them in all things, but not their personal example. Jesus recognizes the legitimacy of this authority and this teaching authority also had a chair–the chair of Moses.
J
justasking4
Guest
Where is the “chair of Moses” used in the writings of the apostles (NT) as a basis for infalliblity?
If you look at Paul’s description of church structure in Ephesians and I Timothy for example he never appeals to a chair of Moses or of Peter.
It is one thing to have an authority in the church (protestants would agree with this) but it is another to claim this authority is also infallible.
P
protestantman
Guest
The scripture you use is not without question and is therefore inadmissable as inarguable evidence. Dont you think that, concidering its importants, Christ would have been more clear? Why did Peter never make this claim in scripture?Matthew 16:18-19.
What we say is that our understanding has developed over time. I don’t like the term “evolved” since it sounds like the teaching has become something different, over time.
Uh - when has He not imparted Truth in this way? The Old Testament is a record of the development of doctrine. He begins with a family - Adam and Eve with their children.
Next, a clan - Noah, his wife, their children, and their children’s children.
Next, a tribe - Abraham and Sarah with their children, their servants, and their relatives. The covenant becomes specific to that tribe - a covenant of circumcision.
Next, a nation - Israel. Moses leads the nation out of slavery, and a new covenant comes about - a covenant of law.
And finally, with the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, the whole world.
Because I have faith in Christ that He keeps His promises to the Church.
Newsflash for you: The Inquisition has been over now for several centuries.
How was truth imparted to Adam? It was imparted in full. It only changed, because of the fall of man.
How was truth imparted to Moses? It was impated in full in the Commandments and was fully established with sacrificial blood.
Truth was imparted to Noah in full as well, as with Abraham.
None of these instances point to a gradual understanding. They do point however to the imperfection that was without Christ’s Sacrifice. God made covenant after covenant with his people. It was the people who failed to uphold the covenant, thus the need for Christ.
Yes the inquisition is over, but the church continues to persecute anyone who challenges their authority. Are you proud of the history of the inquisition? This is an indisputable fact of the Catholic Churches history. How could such bad fruit come from something that is supposed to be protected from Satan?
P
protestantman
Guest
Does authority mean infallibility? You said youself that the Pharisees had authority from God, right? Yet Christ accused them of being spiritually blind and sons of Satan. When Christ set up the Pharisees with authority, they were often in the wrong. Is the Catholic church any different?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Scripture is inadmissable as evidence, in this case. REALLY.
What, then, would be “admissable,” in your estimation? I can also cite history, and tradition, if you like.
Or is it simply that you disagree with that particular Scripture, that you deem it “inadmissable.”
How much more clear does He have to be than in John 21:15-19?
Probably for the same reason that Pope Benedict XVI never goes on and on about his own authority when writing his Encyclicals - it’s an obvious fact that everyone already knows.
So, Adam knew about Jesus and the Church?
Which causes me to wonder, if Christ is not the Truth (since obviously they didn’t know everything about Christ, yet) then what is?
Christ is the Covenant, and always was. It is Christ who was being gradually revealed to them.
In what way? I am genuinely curious. Who in modern times has been “persecuted” by the Church, and what, exactly, was done to him or her?
I think that many people confuse the Inquisition with the Tower of London. The Inquisition was just what it sounds like - the asking of questions in order to determine a verdict. It was the forerunner of our modern day trial system. Yes, it was difficult, but ask anyone who has had to be a defendant at a modern day trial and ask them how easy it was - I’m sure they would tell you that they never want to go through it again.
P
protestantman
Guest
I did not use any of those writings to establish my own belief on the matter. I do not hold Hate, Lies, or Calumny, as a basis for my arguments. As for the above, these are from my own belief. Despite that, there is still left a bleak history of the Catholic Church. Why did some popes recant in fear of Death? Stephen chose death over recanting, as did Peter, John, Paul, and many many others. Can you explain how Pope Liberius was just in his actions? He only recanted after the Emperor died. This seems like his faith was weaker than his fear.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Liberius
S
SCALCO
Guest
It was said that the word “infallible” was not in scripture. I’m only saying the concept is there.
The Pharisee’s had legitimate teaching authority otherwise it would not have been said to “do and observe all things whatsover they tell you”. The people would not be told to do and observe error. The teaching authority was infallible.
S
Subrosa
Guest
Hi P-Man -
One thing that was lost in the reformation was the mystical or spiritual understanding of how exactly the Holy Spirit does His work in the Church. I believe that this may be where you are confused.
The Holy Spirit works within the framework of the sacraments. The action seen by the eyes and felt by the skin has a reciprocal spiritual event occuring. The Spirit makes use of the priest and the objects used in ceremonies in order to deliver graces from God. These events are actually two sides of the same coin, so to speak, the coin being God’s grace.
Again, the Reformers mostly said no to what I just said.
But look at the dual nature of what I just said and consider this: the Church is the Body of Christ.
Christ Himself, while He was here on earth, was both human and divine, flesh and spirit, physical and metaphysical simultaniously. The sacraments are understood to be exactly the same in every sense for they are “drawn” in the likeness of Christ, established by Christ in order to continue His ministries here on earth after His Assention. What else is the church for, really?
Start thinking in these terms and you will find yourself understanding quite a bit more.
Subrosa
P
protestantman
Guest
Scripture is inadmissable as evidence, in this case. REALLY.
What, then, would be “admissable,” in your estimation? I can also cite history, and tradition, if you like.
This scripture does not use the words infallible, teaching, or doctrine.
That scripture also does not use the word infallible. It is merely a command to teach the good news.How much more clear does He have to be than in John 21:15-19?
Aparently not everyone agrees. Luther did not, and neither did Hans Kung.
No. There was no need for Christ until sin had entered in.
The law of Moses was truth, until Christs blood was shed. This is specifically acknowledged in scripture. Christ was never revealed before his birth. Many prophesied of his coming, but none claimed that he could save before he was crucified. If not, then why did he need to die?
Through words. Through the inability to partake in communion unless one is in unison with the church. We are unaccepted as being a part of the Church. Luther was excommunicated for disagreeing with the Church, based on scripture. In his 95 thesis, he wanted answers to his questions, not scizm.
I
What was the purpouse of the Inquisition? What was done when a person asnwered in an unsatisfactory way? Like Joan of Arc for instance. When did scripture give the church this authority?
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
I think you are missing something profound about authority. Authority is God given and God taken. Where in scripture can you point to show us cases where God through the prophets taught to rebel authority? I don’t think you will find even one case.
Do you not think that God could not have slayed Pharaoh and all the Egyptians to force them to release the Jews from bondage? Of course He could have. God instead sent his progressive messages to compel them to release His people. He worked through the leadership of the existing Egyptian nation first with messages from Moses. Then warnings and then plagues. Eventually Pharaoh through His authority cooperated and released the Jews (then tried to change his mind and suffered a heavy consequence).
God even had Jesus submit himself to the Jewish leadership and the Roman authorities when He was called Jesus to do His will.
Where in scripture did Luther find ANY justification for rebelling against authority - especially religious Church Authority?!! The answer is NO WHERE. He was a common rebel.
Secular authority need not be infallible in order to obey it. But we have explicit assurances that the gates of hell would not prevail against The Church. If The Church starts teaching false doctrine then that means evil had corrupted that which we are told by God can’t be corrupted. Ergo, Church Teaching is incorruptible and hence infallible. This does not mean that individuals are impeccable. Peter himself a man with human weakness just like the other apostles sinned. Yet this same man was used by God to write infallible scripture.
By what scriptural authority do Protestants protest and seperate themselves from The Church and teach their own human doctrine?
Jim
P
protestantman
Guest
How does the Holy Spirit work in someone who is living in Sin? Many here say that the Pope can turn from God and choose to live in sin. Yet they say that the Spirit continues to work through them. The Bible says that this is impossible. “A bad tree CANNOT bear good fruit”
P
protestantman
Guest
Why did God not use the same persusasive and submissive tactics with the Cananites? They had authority, yet they were driven out by Isreals armies.
- Status