Arguments against the Papacy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mr.fidelium
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I tend to think you are the one trolling, and the strutting peacock who blathers on about the lack of evidence for his position proving his position most certainly IS trolling. Talking to him goes nowhere. So I am done talking to him.

But perhaps it is a communication problem, and you are here to do something besides bash Protestants with your own spiritual superiority. Some are here, clearly, only to sneer. Perhaps you are not, but some of your posts…

I don’t understand Catholicism. That is an understatement. This stuff going on with the pope being called a heretic underscores that whatever ‘Catholic submission’ and ‘religious assent’ mean, I don’t get it. You don’t have to submit unless it’s been infallibly declared? Is that what you are saying? But that is off topic.
 
SojournerOnEarth said:
…and the strutting peacock who blathers on about the lack of evidence for his position proving his position most certainly IS trolling.
Click to expand...
No he’s not. He’s asserting that folks have viewed the scripture, tradition and history and respond by affirming the papacy. He also asserts that the bible on-the-whole is not written as systematic theology.

And most of all, he’s informing you that arguments from absence/silence are trash arguments - objectively so.
Talking to him goes nowhere. So I am done talking to him. But perhaps it is a communication problem…
Click to expand...
Do you see the irony here? Serious question.
This stuff going on with the pope being called a heretic underscores that whatever ‘Catholic submission’ and ‘religious assent’ mean, I don’t get it.
Click to expand...
You don’t get that Catholics have disagreements?

Respectfully, the thousands of conflicting sects and doctrines within wider Protestantism would suggest that a learned reformer such as yourself should have no issue at all understanding the concept.
 
Last edited:
Just FYI, nobody is calling the Pope a heretic. Not even those who issued the filial correction. They are accusing him of propagating heresy which, in Catholic theology, is very different from being accused as a heretic.
 
It seems to me that accepting the authority of Sacred Scripture and then standing on that authority to accuse the men who authorized it doesn’t make sense.

Authority handed down from Jesus Himself doesn’t become an ambiguous reality in the passing of time.Surely not. Authority from Jesus is like Him, it was, is, and always will be until He returns.

Authority disappears if it doesn’t rest in a human agent so it can remain visible and be exercised.

Spiritual realities require visible signs so we can confidently know that what is signified is a work of God.
 
i believe that if Jesus wanted us to be dependent on a book to be the authority for knowing Him and His teachings, He would have written it Himself. He did not. so, it makes total sense that instead of writing a book He set up an hierarchical Church. just because the Church wrote a book does not make that book the be all and end all of the Lord’s life and Gospel.
 
Last edited:
Entwhistler said:
Just FYI, nobody is calling the Pope a heretic. Not even those who issued the filial correction. They are accusing him of propagating heresy which, in Catholic theology, is very different from being accused as a heretic.
Click to expand...
Propagating heresy can have disastrous consequences?
 
Allowing heresy to remain un-rebuked is not of the same caliber as teaching heresy.
 
Entwhistler said:
Allowing heresy to remain un-rebuked is not of the same caliber as teaching heresy.
Click to expand...
Would they both constitute grave matter as required for a mortal sin? Or would they be venial sins (assuming full knowledge and consent).
 
I’m not sure to be honest. Teaching heresy is obviously pretty big but not rebuking it…?
 
This is not accurate. After the time of debate at the Council of Jerusalem, Peter is the one who stood up and decided the issue. See Acts 15 7-11.
 
Vonsalza said:
A pretty convincing argument can be made for universal jurisdiction
Click to expand...
This is one reason perhaps why Orthodox would fear a reunion with the Roman Catholic church. Doesn’t universal jurisdiction mean that the Pope has jurisdiction over the entire Church? And that if he required the Eastern Orthodox to change their liturgy, then because of his universal jurisdiction they would be obligated to do so?
 
AlNg said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
A pretty convincing argument can be made for universal jurisdiction
Click to expand...
This is one reason perhaps why Orthodox would fear a reunion with the Roman Catholic church. Doesn’t universal jurisdiction mean that the Pope has jurisdiction over the entire Church? And that if he required the Eastern Orthodox to change their liturgy, then because of his universal jurisdiction they would be obligated to do so?
Click to expand...
Given the wide range of liturgies we presently find in the Catholic Church, this doesn’t appear to be a very realistic objection. Byz-Caths are just as “Catholic” as Roman Catholics. 😃
 
It is irrelevant how history has panned out over the issue of infallibility. Even Rome disagreed within itself until 1870. What matters most is how, or if, the founders to Christianity believed in it, taught it, trained in it and promoted it. The New Testament answer to that is a huge NO WAY!
 
Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence for Petrine headship present in the NT.

As to infallibility, the existence of Peter’s books would lend some support. But I’d also caution that “papal infallibility” as defined by non-Catholics usually differs quite sharply from a Catholic definition of the concept.

I certainly understood it differently (and incorrectly) when I was a Baptist.
 
Vonsalza said:
this doesn’t appear to be a very realistic objection.
Click to expand...
Realistic? Would someone in the 50’s have seen that the OF would be the New Mass, or might they have guessed that it would be more realistic to assume that the Tridentine Mass would remain as the OF?
What is thought at a certain point in time to be realistic and what is possible may not be the same?
 
AlNg said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
this doesn’t appear to be a very realistic objection.
Click to expand...
Realistic? Would someone in the 50’s have seen that the OF would be the New Mass, or might they have guessed that it would be more realistic to assume that the Tridentine Mass would remain as the OF?
What is thought at a certain point in time to be realistic and what is possible may not be the same?
Click to expand...
I’m sure that you’d agree that there would be Orthodox people in history who loved the 7th century (just as an example) divine liturgy that would be appalled by the accumulated changes present today.

As such, it’s really a non-argument. The liturgy does appear to be a living thing as living things do change.

As to your last question here, it’s fairly analogous to “which presentation of vanilla tastes the best?”. There isn’t an objective answer.
 
😀 this is too funny!
Before we have “bible only” truths to contend with, then it was hollywood truths (The Da Vinci Code), now we contend with youtube truths.

Peace!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top