No, Baptism is how the Bible tells us to enter into the life of God. You’ll note Jesus was Baptized at the beginning of his ministry, and taught Baptism during his ministry, not after his resurrection.
The Sabbath is still on Saturday. The celebration of the ressurection is on Sunday.Funny how you did not reply to my comment about baptism and how that is what God told us to do to celebrate His resurrection. He never once said to change the seventh day Sabbath to Sunday, the first day of the week “in honor of the resurrection.” This is another VERY FALLIBLE TEACHING.
Verse?
…first time for that one here. I’m just saying that usually we befriend those we agree with at least some of the time 
I wasn’t trying to be rude. I appreciate the request.To the Discoverer of the Canon… is not the Apostles members of Christ’s Bride and did they not themselves leave documents explaining how to celebrate a Mass? The Church had more letters of the Apostles and their 1st generation disciples (like St. Mark and St. Ignatious and St. Luke and St. Polycarp ALL EQUALS as canon worthy)… Yes the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church (as St. Ignatious called it) to openly understand which were for the salvation of souls and which where for pastoral care. The Gnostics tried to sneak in Matthew II and the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Jude but the Holy Spirit knocked them on their butts… soo they caused schism and where numbed heretics. So I agree the Holy Spirit used the Catholic Church to defend God’s Holy Canon for Salvation, more so God defended than man gathered what was there. It was less a discovery than a discernment of what is for salvation or pastoral care, from my understanding.
A Breviary is a prayer-book. It doesn’t “uphold” anything. And it certainly doesn’t come within a thousand miles of being infallible!
No, I guess I was thrown off by the many times you have assigned beliefs and postitions to me that I do not hold, then critique them.
Well, especially when you are telling me what my personal beliefs are.
Maybe you should encourage them to PM me.
I look forward to following your example.
Perhaps you can demonstrate by refraining from assigning beliefs to me that you have imagined?Perhaps not, but I notice that you have not responded to my analogy, or any of my questions regarding this exercise of authority. Does an obedient soldier “surrender to the braintrust”? Does he lose his own ability to think or respond?
I can certainly confirm that my comments about your vocation as a teacher were intended to be personal and direct.
Ok. Perhaps it is a semantics problem again. You have a very different understanding of what it means to submit one’s will and intellect than I do.
A great deal can be learned about ourselves when we give attention to the people, places, and things that trigger such reactions.
Perhaps you are assuming that I have not had this experience? Freud was right about some things, and the notion of projection has some merit.
I agree, and this is also the Teaching of the Church. This is why it is possible to obey, and still have disagreement and divergence. It is also why obedience (submission of the will and intellect) does not include “blindness”.
This is a good example of you telling me what I think, or what I mean. It may come across wrong to you, or maybe I have not expressed myself well. Your ideas about what I think and believe are sometimes quite “divergent” from the truth.
On the contrary, I not it well. This is one of the things that makes it clear you are sincerely searching. I wonder why you would think I do not take note?
Not sure what “these kinds of posts” means. It is not my goal to “turn off” people, but at the same time, I am not interested in avoiding the truth to placate people.
It may well be the primary element of the separation right now. It really won’t do any ultimate good to pretend that it isn’t there, as it will rear it’s head later. If it throws you into an emotional reaction to be told that you should submit your will and intellect to the Pope, that is an important reaction to observe.
No, I guess I was thrown off by the many times you have assigned beliefs and postitions to me that I do not hold, then critique them.
Well, especially when you are telling me what my personal beliefs are.
Maybe you should encourage them to PM me.
I look forward to following your example.
Perhaps not, but I notice that you have not responded to my analogy, or any of my questions regarding this exercise of authority. Does an obedient soldier “surrender to the braintrust”? Does he lose his own ability to think or respond?
I can certainly confirm that my comments about your vocation as a teacher were intended to be personal and direct.
Ok. Perhaps it is a semantics problem again. You have a very different understanding of what it means to submit one’s will and intellect than I do.
In your mind, it appears to mean “blindness”, where in mine, it means meekness and obedience.
A great deal can be learned about ourselves when we give attention to the people, places, and things that trigger such reactions.
Perhaps you are assuming that I have not had this experience? Freud was right about some things, and the notion of projection has some merit.
I agree, and this is also the Teaching of the Church. This is why it is possible to obey, and still have disagreement and divergence. It is also why obedience (submission of the will and intellect) does not include “blindness”.
This is a good example of you telling me what I think, or what I mean. It may come across wrong to you, or maybe I have not expressed myself well. Your ideas about what I think and believe are sometimes quite “divergent” from the truth.
On the contrary, I not it well. This is one of the things that makes it clear you are sincerely searching. I wonder why you would think I do not take note?
Not sure what “these kinds of posts” means. It is not my goal to “turn off” people, but at the same time, I am not interested in avoiding the truth to placate people.
It may well be the primary element of the separation right now. It really won’t do any ultimate good to pretend that it isn’t there, as it will rear it’s head later. If it throws you into an emotional reaction to be told that you should submit your will and intellect to the Pope, that is an important reaction to observe.
And I do mean that “generally”. This is the case for everyone grappling with spiritual dichotomies. Most of us reverts on here have had many of them.
I am curious how you come to such a judgement. Since you are outside of it, how do you determine, not having any access to the process, what the state of it is?
This is not what was handed down to us from the Apostles. The Church established by Christ is not a human institution, but a divine one.
You mean it is too bad I accept infallible teachings because the person teaching them does not have the authority to do so?
Yes, it is the duty of the bishops to teach that which was entrusted to them. Catholicism, however, is not a denomination. To “denominate” is to take one’s name from something. In this case, all denominations identify themselves by which parts of the Catholic faith they reject.
But this really is the crux of the matter, Gurney. Your are equating these two things in your mind, and you assume them to be equated for those of us that accept the encyclical. This is why you told me in another post that I was practicing “blind obedience”.
This is an example of that defensiveness I was talking about.
How do you determine this? Have you considered that maybe this is exactly what you need? Have you considered that you prayed to have your issues resolved, and that God has answered your prayers by putting certain persons in your path? What if you are kicking against the goads?
These are judgements that you have made. What if you are wrong? what if people putting forward an alternative poitn of view is, in fact, productive to your walk? what if dealing with your anger and being offended by people is a necessary development of your charity?
I don’t think it was sarcastic at all, Gurney, and I think it really hits the nail on the head. It think it is an observation made in charity, for your benefit.
Gracious, you certainly are sensitive.
Exactly, Leo said that Honorius failed to do his duty to teach the truth clearly and effectively to contradict the heretics. He did not say that Honorius taught heresy. He did not anathematise Honorius. Nor could he have, even if he had wanted to; A pope can only anathematise Christians living in this life. Nor did he “condemn and trash” Honorius. As I’m sure you’re aware, infallibility only protecxts a pope from teaching error. It does not guarantee that he will teach a particular truth at any time, even when the situation is crying out for him to do so.
Which was also not endorsed by any pope
Exactly. By his sins of omission in failing to speak and act effectively and in a timely manner, Honorius added fuel to the heretics assertions,. He did not endorse their assertions, much less declare them to be true.
Exactly, that is why I am not defending him, I have strongly criticised him. I am merely pointing out the factual error of your claim that he taught heresy, much less that he did so in a purportedly “infallible” statement, and of your claim that the Church ever called him a heretic.
I assure you I am not trying to “take a tone” or an “attitude”, or be sarcastic, much less uncharitable. If I have misunderstood exactly what your position is on the matter I apologise.I also never said a breviary was “infallible” and thanks for the information about it being a thousand miles away.
I won’t end my post with any bold print sarcasm.
Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church, His Kingdom comprises of all of creation visible and invisible. Jesus confered a Kingdom upon Peter and the Apostles on earth. Peter is never a King, Jesus is our King, Peter is our Kings Vicar on earth binding and loosing as Jesus binds and loose in heaven whatever Peter and the Popes bind and loose on earth, this is infallibility when ever this occurs. Jesus will return finding His Vicar Peter and his successors in the Popes in every age feeding, tending and teaching His flock all Jesus commanded of him.
Are you saying the Greek Orthodox Church was full of heretics?Sure, plenty of folks questioned its teachings…ARIUS, NESTORIUS, DONATUS, PELAGIUS…they’re called…(drumroll)…heretics!
I am thinking the statement that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ is one of those fallible infallible statements.
Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church, His Kingdom comprises of all of creation visible and invisible. Jesus confered a Kingdom upon Peter and the Apostles on earth. Peter is never a King, Jesus is our King, Peter is our Kings Vicar on earth binding and loosing as Jesus binds and loose in heaven whatever Peter and the Popes bind and loose on earth, this is infallibility when ever this occurs. Jesus will return finding His Vicar Peter and his successors in the Popes in every age feeding, tending and teaching His flock all Jesus commanded of him.
“attend Church councils on new dogmas”? sounds like you got a onesided bias view of Catholic history. Better to get both sides of the story before drawing any conclusions.I can understand the Eastern Emperors did not want there bishops or Patriarchs to attend
Church councils on new dogmas that came in after the initial split in 1054.
But I am haveing difficulty understanding that the bishops and patriarchs did not or were prevented to attened church councils before 1054
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”.
May I give you an interpretation of 1st Peter 5? Peter is NOT “the” shepherd guiding others .He is an elder among elders .He is careful to say no more or elevate his position ,and affirms the “chief Shepherd (Jesus)” Why would the chief Shepherd need a chief shepherd ? Jesus had the 12 apostles ,empowered by the Holy Spirit, giving us a sure foundation.
am not sure. I thought it gave bishops full jurisdiction over their own province,with no special inference to Romes’ superiority. Perhaps you are thinking of the Council at Sardica (343),not ecumenical ,with western bishops only, recognizing authority of the bishop of Rome…Your other Old testament stuff ,sounds like a stretch or like old testament .Jesus said he would do a new thing , a new dispensation of Himself and a new believer ,and a new structure .I do not believe Ignatius speaks on Peter as "pope’. First appearance of "infallibility"was in false decretals (800),and began to be declared by popes .Councils at Pisa, Constance and Basil (1431) said pope was subject to Councils. According to protestants , it was Pius in 1854 that declared The Immaculate Conception on his own .He then called for a vatican council to declare him "infallible ".Othodoxy said this was blasphemous… This came at a time when the papacy was at it’s lowest (lost papal states and army).So in my opinion ,the pope flexed his muscle the only place he could, within his church, with these two dogmas. A little like liberals finally winning in the U.S. with health care -Obama -because our nation is in total disarray .All previous attempts were promptly quenched.(all previous attempts to “dogmatize” Mary’s Immaculateness, and papal infallibility were quenched).