I never thought I’d see the day when Gabriel doesn’t have the energy to write a twelve-page post all night long. You’re losing it, Gabe! 
I didn’t take it out of context. I gave several other scriptures to show that Jesus never expected the plan to go beyond the lifetime of those He was speaking to. When Jesus says “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word", that means all who hear the message from the apostles at that time. There was no written gospel. Let’s be careful not to put a Catholic interpretation on everything. Remember: Augustine pushed limbo on the Church and now it’s a theological hypothesis. That’s how this ties into infallibility.Ok, let’s try this again; I quoted John17 as to when Jesus prayed for the apostles, this has nothing to do with infallibility. I was speaking to another poster in regards to Jesus praying for Peter, and also for the other apostles in John 17.
What you are not sure of Jesus not speaking for the college of Bishops is because you have taken one single scripture and ripped out of context from the whole of John 17. I did not give a single quote from John 17, I gave John 17 meaning the whole context deals with the college of bishops in unity… never mind.
For a detail description of the Church teachings regarding what I quoted here see Vatican II, Lumen gentium, 19, find St. Augustines teaching on John 17 “all”, He also teaches thus. Better yet, read a biblical commentary to John 17 “all” from the latest translation in the Navarre bible. Instead of taking scriptures individually out of context from the whole prayer of Jesus to arrive at a conclusion of uncertainty, take in the whole of scripture dealing with the subject.
Lord have Mercy, Christ have Mercy, Lord have Mercy
Peace be with you
So as a Catholic you believe that the Holy Spirit is insufficient and a man is needed to fufill what HE was sent to do?From a secular point of view, you are right that a stand in does not negate being co-equal. If I go to the clinic and my regular doc is not there, I can be seen by another doc.
But a this is a vicar according to that of the Davidic Kingdom, upon whose throne the Eternal Son sits. The vicar of the David Kingdom is not equal to the King. He has only what authority he is given by the King.
You clearly have a misunderstanding about dogma. The Church is not at liberty to “create” doctrines. She can only proclaim and clarify what was given to her by Christ. Nothing can be “added” to the divine deposit of faith that was once for all given to the Church. These things already exist in God’s Word. It may seem to you as if they are “added” because you received an abbreviated version of the gospel in the first place. Your spiritual ancestors cut themselves off from the part of God’s Word that was living in the Church. They did this to separate themselves from the corruption they observed in the leadership…
Yes, but Peter was given the responsibility to teach the WHOLE gospel. This responsibility to feed the sheep was passed on to his successor, and he to his up until the present day. The Gospel is “all that Jesus began to do and to teach”, some of which was not written down. For many modern American Evangelicals “the Gospel” is reduced to a very abbreviated version of how to get “saved”. But for Peter and the other Apostles, it meant teaching people how to live in this world, and how to be prepared to join Christ in the next.
The diet for the sheep changes across times and cultures. The Apostles were given the authority to manage that diet. This is why Tetzel and other wolves among the sheep are so dangerous. They feed the flock a poisonous diet.
Part of tending the sheep is protecting them from harm. Harm comes in the form of heresies and other sins. I can’t understand who you think is “lording” anything over the flock.
The application of rules is part of tending the flock. Not all the rules have been the best ones, and sometimes they have needed change. The rules are not part of the infallible deposit, that is why they change. If you don’t believe that God gave His Apostels the authority to do this, I don’t know what to tell you. There are so many rules of this kind in scripture it would be hard to count them all, like haircuts, headcoverings, not eating meat sacrificed to idols, etc.
Yes, of course! But what you are saying is that the shepherd Jesus appointed does not have the authority to carry out the task God gave him
The 2 natures of Christ is in Scripture you don’t need Mary being proclaimed mother of GOD to see the Scripture proof.
Your joy in your Giants is a pleasnt resting spot amidst all the flurry of challenging words.But those Giants ,wow! They are gonna do it ! The Giants win the series! The Giants win the series!When my Giants win another World Series game and are up 2-0 after spanking the heck out of Texas, I am in such a good mood that even I can sit here and watch this mind-numbing papacy debate go on and on into oblivion with resolute patience!
Hi guanophore
. So the catholic church has always taught Jesus is the Rock and Peter is the Rock ?
St. Paul never mentions Peter as authenticating Paul’s teachings .Paul says no man , not even Peter taught him but Christ. Iraneus also mentions Paul as an equal to Peter in authenticating the Gospel.
Circular.
My way or the highway , top down worldly style style of governance. I do not think Paul and Iraneus and Ignatius had the same dogma on Peter . Popery evolved at best. Show me a text from Ignatius that said Peter is universal bishop, or above all the other apostles . I am not sure Iraneus even says this.
Do not follow your logic and what proof ?
I believe it was a full church council ,and the Popes delegates were their ,and indeed had some of its business “passed” .It is pertinent that the council said the Pope did not have primacy in the east.
Perhaps ,but they were only doing what Rome was doing .I think they never had Rome’s interpretation of Matt 16.Never.Which makes me think it was not a universal teaching ever .That Constantinople was power hungry may be true ,but if Matt 16 is not your way ,then it is hypocritical for Rome to cry foul.I might say Constantinople learned from Rome .This was the new Game ,the church hooked up with politics .Why else would the church give a hoot where the Empire had it’s capital .Was not the Empires’ move to Constantinople not liked by the pope ? Why ? Who cares.Patriarch may not be a God office , but there ended up being five -which sounds more democratic and logistical .Remember , to the East , there was no such thing as head pope either.
Lol ? Yes. It was the Catholic church that preserved this bit of history . Google has plenty of sources on this ,including Catholic. I believe most of our new testament was cannonized in blood for the Empereor before outlawed Christianity’s books , went around confiscating them and burning them,and it’s posessers .Yes, new testament bibles were being burned after the turn of the century- 303A.D…How about the Muratorian Cannon ,which according to Catholic ency. had 22-23 of 27 N.T. books listed , around 170-180 A.D… Why not ,scripture was finished before 100A.D…Rome had fantastic roads too,and peace in the lands of the Empire (news and books could travel fast)
Not sure you are right.He did not consult the bishop of Rome before calling the council of Nicea, except perhaps to give him an invitation as all the other bishops of the Empire.That an emperor would consult any leader of any institution is to be expected ,but that Rome had primacy in 4th century , I do not think so .
[/QUOTE]
Interesting issue to ponder, study, and pray about in any case…
No. As a Catholic I believe that the HS desires to fulfill His plan in, with, and through humans.
This promise was only made to the Church, Schaick. Those who depart from her are no longer able to inherit the promise.
You are confused, Schaick. Dogma is, in fact, what the Church creates. This is done to clarify and define what the doctrine of the Aposltes is, and how it is applied. for instance, the Church created the Dogma of the hypostatic union, and the Trinity. Like the Marian doctrines, these were not created, but handed down. I understand that you do not accept any of the evidnece that they existed, and that you are trying to apply human scientific methods to the revelation of God, which is a losing battle, God’s ways being so far above our ways.
What we see in the NT is infallibility. the NT itself is entirely an infallible act. When God works through humans to produce inspired and inerrant results, these are infallible acts. When humans meet in a council, and emerge from it able to say “it seemed right to the HS and to us”, an infallible decision has been reached. I agree that the record of the NT does not lend itself to parsing through the scientifc method. We accept the contents of it by faith, because we know the Source, and He is reliable.
He instructed Peter to feed and care for the flock. He instructed the Apostles to teach all that He commanded. He authorized the Church to bind and to loose (legislate).
There are no secrets in the Teaching of the Apostles (Sacred Tradition), but yes this teaching is handed down though, not extracted from the pages of the book 2000 years after the fact.
The fact that you believe this has occurred is the evidence that the gospel of salvation you received is deficient.
It is my observation that most of my separated brethren do the best they can with what they have. Some have very little, comparatively.
Yes. I think if you are honest with yourself, you will agree that the Bible alone has produced thousands of sects, many of them with contradictory doctrines. This is not how Jesus established His Church.
What is in Scripture is not the problem, but rather, how the reader understands it. The heretics the term Theotokos was chosen to combat read the same scripture you do, but understand it differently. The same think happens today, with the Mormons reading scripture and not understanding it according to the faith of those who wrote it.
It is not an addition, Schaick. The Word of God was committed entirely to the Church. It did not cease to be the Word of God because some of it was written down.
Only God can determine if you are a goat or a sheep. All I can tell you is that you are a rebellious subject of the Roman Pontiff.
I am sorry, Shaky. You question is based upon a false premise. Unless and until you understand your error, there is no answer that will help you.
Yes. Jesus is the Rock, Peter was grafted into the Cornerstone, and was made into a Rock (that is why Jesus changed his name to Cephas), and Peter’s statement is also solid Rock.
Paul received the paradosis from the Church, and direct revelation from God. Why would Paul not be equal to all the other Aposltes and bishops in authenticating the gospel?
If you don’t like the way God set up His kingdom, then you will have to take it up with Him. The Kingdom of God is not a democracy. It is a theocracy.
The role and Petrine gifts are quite broad. It would not be surprising if differnt people had different perspectives on them. What is “popery”?
I guess I don’t understand about the “above” part. I think that Jesus was very clear that they were not to “lord it over” others. Peter’s letters indicate he is a very humble man. The Bishop of Rome signs his encyclicals “servant of the servants of God”. He does this because he is the custodian of the Petrine gifts (to feed and care for the flock). Jesus has only One Flock, therefore, the one who is responsible for their care and feeding cannot ignore any part of the One Flock.
I think this contamination from political involvement was a set back for the Church both East and West, but much more damaging in the West. It is the reason that clergy are now forbidden to hold any political office.
When the Western Empire fell, there was no structure left to adminstrate the affairs of the people. The Emperor gave the authority to govern what was left to the Bishop of Rome, along with the title of Pontiff.
Not sure what this means. Patriarch is a Jewish custom that refers to the head and authority of a household/family.
Irenaeus was writing about the primacy of Rome this in the 2nd cent.
The pagan Emperors ruled over the Eastern Churches during final decisions in the East, when it came to matters of the whole of Christendom, the pagan Emperors sought the approval of every Pope, while the Patriarchs of Constantinople remained secondary to the ultimate outcome of Church matters over the whole of Christendom. Who said anything about invitations? Keep in mind there has only been one single time in all of 2000 years of history that a Pope attended a council. That was Peter recorded in Acts, who heard from heaven to allow the Gentiles into the Church and spoke infallibly when all fell silent to this first Popes words from heaven’s revelation.