So just being submissive is more salient than the truth on the matter ?
Hi Ben,
But Jesus said whatever the Church binds is bound in Heaven. So we
are being submissive to the truth.
That was my point. That I would fit in on this point for almost anytime in 2000 years.
Exteriorly you may have fit in, but the part that counts, interiorly, you would not,
and your own words have proven this time and again.
The bigger question is would those of first church fit in our churches of today ?
They would in mine. The ones that would fit in yours are the ones that rejected the Council of Jerusalem.
Correct, in that I would not have today’s mindset that the church/bishop in Rome has infallible divine authority over all the other churches. Incorrect in that I would not fit in, for the church at the beginning did not say St. Peter was infallible, and the "head’ of the church (leader yes), over the other apostles, the other churches , even over all councils.
Can you show me where the Church at the beginning said Peter was not infallible? For Jesus did say whatever Peter binds is bound in Heaven. You cannot get around those words Ben. Your real problem is not with the CC, it is with Jesus.
I would add that two leading Orthodox theologians of the past century contradict what you say. Meyendorff says there is nothing in the writings of the early Church
that can refute the Bishop of Rome’s claims. Afanasiev went even further, he said there is no doubt that if something were to be taught in the early Church, it had to have Rome’s approval, and that the Bishop of Rome was exercising universal jurisdiction from the earliest times.
As one Protestant theologian said, it is obvious from the epistle of first Clement, that you can see papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction in it.
Because the apostles laid the foundation, left us with a body of faith, and were contemporaries of Mary and her "end’, and make no historical mention of it.
I don’t feel they felt the need to write something that was common knowledge.
You really think that 2000 years later we have a better handle on the matter than those who were contemporary to her , and responsible for such binding ?
No, you obviously do not.
But the CC has the same knowledge. It was common knowledge, that the Prots have lost.
Error wants the truth to have an expiration date. Error would like people to believe error forever.
Yes, for they would have had same criteria on Mary as the other decrees, statements of faith, but they didn’t.
And this shows you do not know what was the deciding factor on the Trinity at Nicaea.
St. Athanasius stated that the Arians were able to quote more verses in their favor than the Trinitarians. He stated they had to go outside of Scripture and appeal to the
tradition of the fathers. Both the IC and the Assumption were defined because the CC had always believed it, from Apostolic times. It was common knowledge.
As I said before, “just following orders” goes just so far, and then it becomes a sin in itself, as much of a sin as disobedience to an apostolic teaching.
So what criteria does Jesus give for when His Apostles are teaching truth and when they are teaching sin? What about their successors? See Ben, your only criteria is
submission to yourself, but submission to yourself is the road to Hell.
Well, why should early Christians have believed in a Jewish Messiah, and their Writ, when they crucified whom was prophesied ?
This in no way addresses my question.
Yes…it fits somewhat. Look, any mathematician knows the probability for error increases on eyewitness observation and conclusions the further away you get from the “incident”.
Actually, scientists tell us that the possibility of error is great from the very start. So how reliable are those Scriptures that were written decades after Jesus ascended? How reliable are the copies? I have heard it said that God protects the Scriptures, if I believe that, why wouldn’t I believe He protects His Church in the same manner?
Don’t think it is coincidence that these two doctrines came on the heels when the church dogmatized the pope’s infallibility.
One was before infallibility, and one was some seventy years after. So not even close to on the heels. Both popes took council with the many bishops, and their response was unanimous in favor of the dogmas, as they were already believed by the whole CC from time immemorial.
Perfect. Then one can see that they are not orphaned, and have an unction from the Holy One, that even Christ in you illumines every matter. You will be like Peter when every authority seemingly challenged where he needed to go, and only divine revelation led him properly to his thoughts on the matter, sifting the good ,bad , and ugly of all the (name removed by moderator)ut.
Hmmm. What Church authority was over Peter, challenging him on where to go? To my knowledge the only authority over Peter was the Trinity.
Well, she dealt with them with different criteria.
The criteria was
exactly the same. I suggest you read
Where We Got the Bible From by Graham, and you will see that the criteria is the same. In fact, those two dogmas that you cannot accept were more accepted in the early Church
than some of the books that made it into the Bible!!
