Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello.I believe we agree on half your analysis of this scripture .Basically there is a right interpretation and a wrong interpretation. We would agree a “private interpretation” is generally considered wrong .Where we differ is who can be wrong ,or who can privately interpret ? I would say it is just not an individual who can be wrong , but a church -and yes ,sometimes even The church (Peter and the Judaizers had to be corrected). 2nd Peter 's only correct interpreter is God Himself ,for he alone “speaks” and certainly He knows what he means .The good news is He shares that with us ,and therefore no private interpretation is needed. Where you get “tradition” as the interpreter is , in my opinion, faulty. Of course passing on truth can become a sort of tradition, but is not the interpreter itself. Every generation (and individual) must come to faith for themselves , and by the hearing of His Word, the preaching of the Gospel. God then afresh bestows “His” interpretation, His discernment on ALL things. I believes this trumps “Church” and “Tradition”,(not discard ,simply trump) for as some have pointed out, these can not even agree on say “infallibility”.

Hello David Ruiz; The Apostles and the Early church Fathers warned us of your coming. I like the way St. Iraneus speaks of independent thinkers and Gnostics outside of Apostolic Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Sacred Tradition. He labeled these “psuedo spirits”. In fact St.Iraneus “as you know” lists all the “Popes” ( Successors) from Peter up to his time for this reason to argue against those with a “psuedo spirit” who teach another gospel outside of this line of Christian faith from Jesus and His apostles starting with Peter and the unbroken line of Popes.

The dates you provide predate your new protestant man made theology of personal opinions and thinking. The reason this is stated is because it is easier for an Orthodox and a Catholic to discuss these apostolic issues because we are of one faith, one baptism and one lord. We can draw understandings and conclusions from each other on these apostolic issues, when protestants do not have a clue of the internal faith being expressed without words between Catholics, leaving your protestant view to draw awkward and much misunderstood conclusions, as you have displayed here.

I say this in charity, because a learned Orthodox and or a learned Catholic reading your posts here are either licking their chops, or tisking how you draw your conclusions in an foriegn mindset to these Apostolic Traditions and teachings.

Stick to the facts, and historical records without reading into them a foreign “psuedo spirit” that does not exist among these Apostolic understandings of what the Church teaches and how Jesus structured His Catholic Church “infallibly” beginning with Peter and His apostles.

If your going to speak of a Catholic Saint “Catholic faith” do it with the spirit and the faith the Saint believed not your “new psuedo” spirit. It really discredits the discussion into foreign territory that the Catholic Saint may have objected too, or never heard of your “new psuedo” spirit of understanding.

If I may? I would like to inform you of why every Catholic Council counciled. It was never to invent any dogma or new teaching this is a lie from the evil one himself. The Catholic Church always counciled to “CLARIFY” define what was already handed down from Jesus and His apostles inorder to defeat heresy and or heretics.

The Immaculate Conception was made doctrine among all Christendom, because the world denied God existed among humanity for example “communism” and the theory that man came from the apes not created by God. In fact it was the “Immaculate conception” herself who smashed and defeated (communism) the serprents head with her seed (Jesus). The Immaculate conception dogma protected the faithful against all evil that denied God “dwells with the human race” (Rev. 21).

Or did your protestant mindset forget that it was the Marian Pope which removed the corner stone of communism which began it’s crumbling dominoe affect and fell? This came from the Immaculate conception.

This dogma of the Immaculate conception was followed by signs and wonders which confirmed it. Yet you as a protestant tend to neglect this part of recorded historical facts and realities of Catholic doctrines when they become defended and defined against Her enemies.

Othorodox who refuse communion with the Pope and other Eastern Rite Orthodox Church’s, cannot nor can define any doctrine among itself without Peter (the popes). For an Orthodox outside of unity with the Rock Jesus built His Church upon, can only cry wolf when they can neither confirm nor deny that a wolf exists.

Again sometimes it is better for Catholics among Catholic Orthodox deal with these internal issues. These apostolic arguments Coming from a new (kid on the block) protestant view stems from a pseudo spirit, never an Apostolic Catholic biblical spirit that has “no opinions as you do” only revelations from God handed down to the Catholic Church from Jesus and the Apostles followed by the Popes and their successors to the apostles in the Catholic Bishops both in the Eastern and Western Church.

Peace be with you

 

[schaick]

Not sure why you ask this but I will go ahead and say this: both the East and West have had heretics. Nestorius and Arius were heretics that came out of the Eastern side of the universal Church of the day. Donatus and Pelagius were Western heretics of the same universal Church pre 1054. There have been heretics all over the place in all times, unfortunately.

Catholics act as though no one questioned any of the developments occurring in the Catholic Church through the years- they point to Luther as the one that changed everything - the only one to question/disagreewith the Catholic Church.

I say there were heretics/people in the Catholic Church that questioned developements but because of peer pressure, lack of power remained in the Catholic Church.

A reason why Popes had to come up with the infallibility idea. I guess I am surprised it took them so long.

 

[schaick]

I posted this earlier but was the statement that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ supposed to be an infallible statement?

I am thinking the statement that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ is one of those fallible infallible statements.

I understand that Catholics have to believe a rotten Pope can be infallible, but must they also consider him to be the Vicar of Christ?

There are 2 different things going on here with 2 different responsibilities/functions - infallible teaching statements and saying you are the “Vicar of Christ”.

It is the stand in for Christ - the Holy Spirit that leads one to infallible truths.

Peter never said he was a “Vicar of Christ” it used for the first time in the 5th century with Pope Gelasius I, as opposed to Vicar for Peter.

**Which makes more sense because isn’t the Holy Spirit the “Vicar of Christ” and the current Pope the stand in for Peter? **

Christ tells us who the “Vicar of Christ” is:
John 16
7But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment:
…
13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you

no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God:
1 Corinthians 2
11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

We know who is the head of the Church Jesus built:
Ephesians 5
23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

Colossians 1
18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

?“The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.”? Does the Pope transform us or is that the action of the Holy Spirit?

2 Corinthians 3
17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I posted this earlier but was the statement that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ supposed to be an infallible statement?

I am thinking the statement that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ is one of those fallible infallible statements.

 

[david_ruiz]

Or did your protestant mindset forget that it was the Marian Pope which removed the corner stone of communism which began it’s crumbling dominoe affect and fell? This came from the Immaculate conception.This dogma of the Immaculate conception was followed by signs and wonders which confirmed it. Yet you as a protestant tend to neglect this part of recorded historical facts and realities of Catholic doctrines when they become defended and defined against Her enemies.

Now who is reading into history there viewpoint .I must stick to the facts without viewpoint but you can ? Why is it that millions prayed the rosary to prevent such a thing that happened anyways in Russia .Did not the praying begin in the late 1800’s ,for peace as instructed by Mary ? This is not a good sign .(I am not denying other signs and wonders-another issue). Indeed ,the pope had apart in Soviet downfall, not too mention prayers from all sides of the aisle ,and blood of many ,and a world powers dead set against her .I am willing to hear how this would not have happened if it were not for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Othorodox who refuse communion with the Pope and other Eastern Rite Orthodox Church’s, cannot nor can define any doctrine among itself without Peter (the popes). For an

What is communion ? You mean declaring Rome’s pope supremacy over all eastern popes or just over Catholics ? And what happened to that bond you stated earlier between the two ?

Again sometimes it is better for Catholics among Catholic Orthodox deal with these internal issues. These apostolic arguments Coming from a new (kid on the block)

Well, that is what the pharisees said about Jesus .He did not play within “their” rules .They thought He was a pseudo spirit , even from the devil himself . Indeed, Jesus showed them fruits with which to help believe .Maybe we should be sharing our individual fruits to help, although I am lacking in much. He has worked wonders in my life , as well as many other new kids on the block , coming out of mainline denominations, including Catholicism. For sure their are problems , appearing as bad fruit, but it also appeared bad for Jesus to hang out with wrong people ,and work on the sabbath etc.
Apostolic is as apostolic does,and I dare say some churches are more apostolic than much of -not all -Catholicism…It is your opinion that "reform " is “new”.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=Gabriel of 12;7201828]

Hello David Ruiz; The Apostles and the Early church Fathers warned us of your coming. I like the way St. Iraneus speaks of independent thinkers and Gnostics outside of Apostolic Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Sacred Tradition. He labeled these “psuedo spirits”. In fact St.Iraneus “as you know” lists all the “Popes” ( Successors) from Peter up to his time for this reason to argue against those with a “psuedo spirit” who teach another gospel outside of this line of Christian faith from Jesus and His apostles starting with Peter and the unbroken line of Popes.

Hello Gabriel. Iraneus lists successive bishops for 3 cities ,none having supremacy over the other .He also lists Peter and Paul as the first In Rome . Did he not know Paul was not a pope ? His succession was to show the seriousness with which we biblically appoint deacons / elders-that they must be upright and strong in the faith and husband to one wife etc.This is something we all do today ,as you say to give no foothold to pseudo spirits…I am afraid there might be another gospel out there , and one can not deny the bad fruit (division), but the good fruit also -new spiritual birth for many.

The reason this is stated is because it is easier for an Orthodox and a Catholic to discuss these apostolic issues because we are of one faith, one baptism and one lord.

Just correct me if I am wrong ,but did not Your eastern bretheren reject infallibility ,and some called it blasphemous ? You also forget,I was an active catholic and ,can read also.I respect all backgrounds and they have there merit and insight.Even if someone is from without though ,they can still understand.

I

f your going to speak of a Catholic Saint “Catholic faith” do it with the spirit and the faith the Saint believed not your “new psuedo” spirit. It really discredits the discussion into foreign territory that the Catholic Saint may have objected too, or never heard of your “new psuedo” spirit of understanding.

Instruct me please, but I understood this Saint did not speak of popes or infallibilty and other Catholic things . Indeed, I feel like a foriegner on some of these topics ,but that is because I have been to the “promised land” , flowing with milk and honey.

If I may? I would like to inform you of why every Catholic Council counciled.

Agreed for most but not all councils. Correct me again , but was it not “counciled” that the pope was subject to the councils ?

The Immaculate Conception was made doctrine among all Christendom,

What council declared this ? Was there a council in 1854 ? It certainly needed clarifying ,for many rejected this dogma ,even fought over it (monks-to the death).

 

[david_ruiz]

You might want to reconsider your statement here regarding the Holy Spirit as being Vicar to Christ? You have just entered into heresy, or blasephemy against the Holy Trinity?

 

[guanophore]

I have given up on protestant beliefs There is to many to try and get my head round. Now faced with Just 2 catholic Churches I am Just trying to work out which way to go as a Catholic. I understand what you are saying here. It is far different to what the Eastern church is Saying.

I am glad to year that you have abandoned the garden of diversity.

It was in 1054 when the bishops in Rome decided by there understanding of Scripture
That there head bishop>Patriarch>Pope Should be Supreme over the other 4 because he comes from peters chair. without there agreement. Also since then other new church teachings came into the church.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. I think you are recounting what some hostile Orthodox are saying, but it is not true.

The schism that happened in 1054 started many centuries earlier, when the Bishop of Rome was left with secular control when the empire fell. He was given the Roman title of “Pontiff”. The secular supremacy became conflated with spiritual. The greatest part of the schism did not have to do with the role of the Bishop of Rome as much as misunderstandings of language and culture.

So they are being blamed as heretics for not agreeing with the bishops in Rome.
What makes the bishops in Rome Supreme over all the Other Bishops outside of Rome

No one is blaming anyone for being heretics, on either side. You have been given misinformation.

The Petrine gifts were given only to Peter, and he passed them to his successor. The duty to feed and care for the flock was specifically charged to him, and to him were given teh Keys, and the power to bind and loose. The successor of Peter has always been considered “first among equals” by all the Patriarchs (until 1054)

 

[schaick]

That is never a Catholic teaching, but your own opinion respected.

You might want to reconsider your statement here regarding the Holy Spirit as being Vicar to Christ? You have just entered into heresy, or blasephemy against the Holy Trinity? Unless your not a Christian? Then maybe out of ignorance of the revealed Trinity you have mispoken? Think about it

OK so now I am a heretic because I believe Christ tells us who is authorized to act for HIM, who He is sending to be the safekeeper of our souls - the Holy Spirit.
John 16
7But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment:
…
13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you

no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God:
1 Corinthians 2
11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

 

[guanophore]

 Catholics act as though no one questioned any of the developments occurring in the Catholic Church through the years- they point to Luther as the one that changed everything - the only one to question/disagreewith the Catholic Church.

To be fair, Luther did not question or disagree with Catholic Teaching, for the most part, but to the abusive and erroneous teaching and behavior of European clerics of the Latin Rite in his day. The issues that He grievanced were not present in any of the 22 non-Latin Rites of the CC. He complained that the faith was being misrepresented, which it was.

It is true that there were other “disagreements”, but they were clearly observed and responded to for the heresies and schisms they were. What was different about the Reformation is that the political and economic factors helped to widen the divide and split the Church, so that massive numbers fell into the heresy and schism on an unprecedented scale.

Now we have decendents of the Reformers who don’t even know that their spiritual forefathers separated from the Apostolic faith.

 I say there were heretics/people in the Catholic Church that questioned developements but because of peer pressure, lack of power remained in the Catholic Church.

Technically speaking, a person who has embraced heresy has fallen from the faith. But yes, there have always been improperly catechized, heretics, schismatics, etc. Jesus promised that this would be the case. We were also warned about the wolves that preciptated the Reformation.

A reason why Popes had to come up with the infallibility idea.  I guess I am surprised it took them so long.

That is just the point though, Schaick. The Church has considered herself infallible from the beginning. This is like saying “I see why the Church had to come up with a table of contents for the NT. I am surprised it took three centuries”. The books were inspired as soon as they were written, and were used as such by the Church since that time. When the Church makes a dogma, it is something that has always been believed.

 

[guanophore]

I posted this earlier but was the statement that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ supposed to be an infallible statement?

I am thinking the statement that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ is one of those fallible infallible statements.

All of Jesus’ teachings are considered infallible, yes. Catholics have always believed that Jesus entrusted the care and feeding of His flock to Peter.

 I understand that Catholics have to believe a rotten Pope can be infallible, but must they also consider him to be the Vicar of Christ?

We are to embraced everything Jesus did and taught. We do not have the liberty to pick and choose elements of the faith, redefine what is needed for ours salvation, or throw out parts we don’t like. The faith is one, whole, seamless garment.

As far as ''rotton Pope", some of Peter’s behavior is as bad as it gets. He tried to dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem, then when He got there, abandoned Him.

There are 2 different things going on here with 2 different responsibilities/functions - infallible teaching statements and saying you are the “Vicar of Christ”.

No, they are inseparabely connected. The reason that infallible statements can be made is by the grace of God. When Peter declared Jesus the Christ, it was revealed to him by the HS. As a result of this revelation, he is installed as vicar.

**It is the stand in for Christ - the Holy Spirit that leads one to infallible truths.**

Peter never said he was a “Vicar of Christ” it used for the first time in the 5th century with Pope Gelasius I, as opposed to Vicar for Peter.

Perhaps the term. But this is like saying “the Apostles never taught the Trinity, this wasn’t used until a later century.”

The Apostles understood that Jesus established HIs Kingdom, and that the OT prophesies about that Davidic Kingdom and the Keys applied to themselves. The Davidic Kingdom had a vicar, and a keeper of the keys. This position is also called the Chief Steward in the NT.

 .

13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you

no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God:
1 Corinthians 2
13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

Indeed, the HS does reveal to us that which is from Jesus. But a vicar is a servant who stands in the place of the Head, and the HS is equal to the Head, not lesser. This is why such a formulation reveals an heretical view of teh HS, who is God. The vicar only holds this position by authority of the King, not by nature or his personal status. The vicar has no authority in himself. Jesus set up His Church on the model of His own Body. It has a divine nature, and a human nature in hypostatic union. The HS is what makes the Church infallible. Though the human natures attached to the Church can fall from grace, the HS makes the Church inviolable. God chose to work through fallible humans to reveal himself to the world.

We know who is the head of the Church Jesus built:
Ephesians 5
23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

Colossians 1
18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Any and all authority comes from God. The Church has authority only because He has given it to her.

  **?“The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.”?**

I guess I wonder what you think He meant when He commissioned Peter to feed and care for His flock. Does not a shepherd have supreme, full, immediate and universal power over the sheep that are placed in his care? Is there any circumstance where such a shepherd can throw up his hands and deny responsibility?
schaick;7202514:

Does the Pope transform us or is that the action of the Holy Spirit?

The HS works through the Church to transform the believers. When the scriptures say “we have the mind of Christ” the “we” refers to the Apostles and those who are in union with them. Those who depart from the Apostolic unity separate themselves also from the “mind of Christ”, who established only one Church.

2 Corinthians 3
17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit

Do you imagine that the Spirit does not accomplish this transformation through the Church? Why do you think Jesus established the Church?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Does one need a human vicar when in reality He has never left ?

Your new logic conflicts with sacred scripture; Allow me to help you understand a 2000 year old biblical Catholic Christian understanding of who and why the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth;

The Pope (Peter) was made Vicar of Christ, by Christ himself, so that all that Jesus revealed and taught Peter and the apostles are commanded and sent by Christ to baptise, forgive sins, and teach all that Jesus revealed to Peter and the apostles. This is what the role of Vicar of Christ is for the Popes office. The Holy Spirit is sent to remind Peter and the apostles in every age what Jesus reavealed and taught, He is also going to reveal all things from the Father and the Son to His Church those things revealed by Jesus that never got recorded in scripture thus Oral sacred Apostolic Tradition which the Catholic Church reveals and teaches.

If you are using Vicar outside of this Apostolic Tradition then you have been misled and misinformed.

Here are some scriptures that support the Catholic Church’s position on the Vicar of Christ;

Mt. 16:17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
**I will give you **the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Mt. 28:18
11 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19
**Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” **

John 20:21
14 (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
22
15 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
23
16** Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” **

John 21:15
8 9 10 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, **“Feed my lambs.” 16
He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep. **

One should recall what scripture teaches is the protector (bulwark) and administrator of all Truth revealed; “It is the Church” not scripture, nor a protestant man made theology that comes along 1600 years later after Jesus revealed Truth to His Catholic Church.

Here is a scripture;

1Timothy 3:15 … you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

I hope Truth has revealed herself to you here in regards to the Vicar of Christ on earth. The Church needs a teacher to interpret what Jesus revealed both what is written and what was handed down by Oral Tradition from the apostles. These two pillars revealed by Jesus Christ from the foundation of TRUTH was placed upon Rock = Peter himself with the command to feed, teach and tend Jesus’ flock until He returns which can only be found in the 2000 year old Catholic Church which has unbroken succession to Peter and the apostles. Anything else outside of this revealed Pillar of Truth comes from men, not God.

Peace be with you

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Would you say the Orthodox have not had the truth revealed to them?

I hope Truth has revealed herself to you here in regards to the Vicar of Christ on earth. The Church needs a teacher to interpret what Jesus revealed both what is written and what was handed down by Oral Tradition from the apostles. These two pillars revealed by Jesus Christ from the foundation of TRUTH was placed upon Rock = Peter himself with the command to feed, teach and tend Jesus’ flock until He returns which can only be found in the 2000 year old Catholic Church which has unbroken succession to Peter and the apostles. Anything else outside of this revealed Pillar of Truth comes from men, not God.

 

[Louie1983]

Would you say the Orthodox have not had the truth revealed to them?
Gabriel of 12;7207815:
Personally, I would say that if they deny papal infallibility etc.

 

[ron77nyc]

If you are using Vicar outside of this Apostolic Tradition then you have been misled and misinformed.

Would you say the Orthodox have not had the truth revealed to them?

Personally, I would say that if they deny papal infallibility etc.

Let me put it this way: If an Eastern Orthodox or a Protestant missionary preaches the gospel to a group of people who have never heard the gospel and they repent, get baptized and live their life according to the teachings of the apostles as explained in the bible, without knowing anything at all about papal supremacy or any other teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, do they inherit eternal life?

 

[Louie1983]

Let me put it this way: If an Eastern Orthodox or a Protestant missionary preaches the gospel to a group of people who have never heard the gospel and they repent, get baptized and live their life according to the teachings of the apostles as explained in the bible, without knowing anything at all about papal supremacy or any other teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, do they inherit eternal life?

Don’t know.

The only who can answer that is God.

However we need to remember that not all truths are contained in the bible, there is oral tradition/truths that need to be considered as well.

 

[ron77nyc]

Don’t know.

The only who can answer that is God.

However we need to remember that not all truths are contained in the bible, there is oral tradition/truths that need to be considered as well.

If a Catholic missionary preaches the gospel to a group of people who have never heard the gospel and they repent, get baptized and live their life according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, do they inherit eternal life?

 

[Louie1983]

If a Catholic missionary preaches the gospel to a group of people who have never heard the gospel and they repent, get baptized and live their life according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, do they inherit eternal life?

Don’t know only God can answer that - you should know this.

But I will say that I believe they will be receiving the full truth as being catholic I believe the catholic church is the true church of god.

As the orthodox believe they are, as the protestants believe they are, same with anglicans.

Whoever inherits eternal life and who doesn’t no matter what the situation is a judegment reserved for God alone to make!

 

[ron77nyc]

Don’t know only God can answer that - you should know this.

But I will say that I believe they will be receiving the full truth as being catholic I believe the catholic church is the true church of god.

As the orthodox believe they are, as the protestants believe they are, same with anglicans.

Whoever inherits eternal life and who doesn’t no matter what the situation is a judegment reserved for God alone to make!

That seems to be what most Catholics today agree on because that is what the Catholic Church teaches now.

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

But if you go back, the Catholic Church offered no possibility of salvation for a non-Catholic. For that reason alone I find it difficult to defend the concept of papal infallibility.

 

[Louie1983]

That seems to be what most Catholics today agree on because that is what the Catholic Church teaches now.

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

But if you go back, the Catholic Church offered no possibility of salvation for a non-Catholic. For that reason alone I find it difficult to defend the concept of papal infallibility.

I know the church taught this but I don’t think this was an infallible teaching/statement. Did the church ever declare this as an infallible teaching?