If you stopped being catholic....

[Mannyfit75]

No. That is what happened when the Old Catholics broke from Rome.

When Rome broke from Holy Orthodoxy, She began a process of doctrinal innovations spurred on by the ultra-montanists which led to the reformation and the Old Catholics.

There have always been heresies. Even before the Schism, we have the Arianists, and Nestorianism. I know see how you can make such a case for Old Catholic is being the result of doctrinal innovation. Doctrinal innovation has nothing to do with divisions or schism. It is man’s nature to be rebellious; in fact it is his sinful nature that leads him to revolt from conservative Christian beliefs. In fact, we can go as far as the Book of Acts, where Judiazers insist that Gentile be circumcised and adhere to the Mosaic Law.

 

[Mickey]

In fact, we can go as far as the Book of Acts, where Judiazers insist that Gentile be circumcised and adhere to the Mosaic Law.

Didn’t St Paul correct St Peter on that one?

 

[Mickey]

Doctrinal innovation has nothing to do with divisions or schism.

Serious differences were splitting the Church apart well before 1054 (Filioque comes to mind). As Rome continued doctrinal innovations, the gap widened.

Papal supremacy/infallibility blew it wide open.

 

[jmcrae]

Didn’t St Paul correct St Peter on that one?

No; what happened was, St.Peter made the original ruling, and then failed to follow it. St. Paul just reminded him of the ruling that he himself had made, previously, because even the Pope has to follow the Pope’s own rules.

 

[ChristianRoots]

LOL. That is not a promise for supreme infallibility. That was Jesus Christ affirming that St Peter’s confession was revealed to him by the Father. If you confess that “Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God”, then you too will be like St Peter.

Gee, you’ve only done exegesis on Mt. 16-17. **What about verse 18? **

If your response above dealt with 18 as well, my apologies, but that would make your intrepretating schema very odd.

By the way, I really like to hear your intrepreation of verse 19 as well. And, please, everything in context.

 

[steve_b]

Yeah, I know the answer is “I’ll never stop being catholic” or “the catholic church is the one true church founded on Peter” etc, etc.

But I’m just curious as to where you think the other religions stand as far as “runner up” in Truth. So loosen up. You won’t have to go to confession for voting who takes 2nd place.

In fairness, I’ll divulge that I am a catholic converting to Orthodoxy.

Your last statement explains your thinking that preceeds it.

St Paul in speaking to the Church of Rome, (which apparantly you’re leaving or have already left) says the following about division/schism

Rm 16:

17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.
20The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

This is why I will never leave the Church of Rome.

 

[VARC]

Your last statement explains your thinking that preceeds it.

St Paul in speaking to the Church of Rome, (which apparantly you’re leaving or have already left) says the following about division/schism

Rm 16:

17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.
20The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

This is why I will never leave the Church of Rome.

So I’m Satan for asking which other religion catholics believe is closest to the truth? Lighten up. This is the one thread that I’m not being combative but just polling what catholics believe and you hit me with the Satan card. Gee thanks.

 

[steve_b]

I do not get some of you people for the life of me. If you had reason to believe that Catholicism was not true, you would be atheist??
Atheism is a broken system that leads to despair, immorality, pessimism, and can never lift man above themselves to a greater good.
Most every religion is preferable to the emotional bankruptness of atheism…
I do not get some of you people at all…
former atheist talking here…

Good for you for being open to the grace of faith.

 

[steve_b]

So I’m Satan for asking which other religion catholics believe is closest to the truth?

huh?

How did you get that interpretation from

Rm 16:

17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.
20The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Paul is speaking about division/schism being evil and don’t do it. Then he says Satan will be crushed under the Church of Rome’s feet. :extrahappy:

I’d have to be a real nut to leave or wonder what might be 2nd best with a promise like that.

VARC:

Lighten up. This is the one thread that I’m not being combative but just polling what catholics believe and you hit me with the Satan card. Gee thanks.

VARC,

Assuming you were at least half way serious, I answered your question and told you why. :tiphat:

: question from VARC
Yeah, I know the answer is “I’ll never stop being catholic” or “the catholic church is the one true church founded on Peter” etc, etc.

But I’m just curious as to where you think the other religions stand as far as “runner up” in Truth. So loosen up. You won’t have to go to confession for voting who takes 2nd place.

In fairness, I’ll divulge that I am a catholic converting to Orthodoxy.

 

[ChristianRoots]

Didn’t St Paul correct St Peter on that one?

Yes, you are absolutely right. But, the doctrine of infallibility justs prevents Peter (and subsequent Popes) from officially teaching error when it comes to pronouncing doctrine and morals to all the faithful. In the instance cited above, Peter was not saying all the faithful should follow his lead on this one. He just made a bad judgement call. He’s human. He’s made mistakes before. Subsequent Popes made plenty of mistakes, too and some have been very bad people.

The doctrine of infallibiity, as promised in Mt. 16:18, will prevent the current Pope from **officially teaching error concerning doctrine and morals only, to all the faithful. ** It will not prevent him from teaching error to his local congregation in Rome, from being silent on an issue that later will be believed by all the faithful, or from making blunders and mistakes concerning discipline issues in the Church, etc.

The doctrine of infallibility was promised so it can prevent the gates of Hades from ever prevailing against the Church. If the Church can officially teach error concerning doctrine and morals, then the gates of Hades has overcome it. But Jesus said that would never happen.

 

[LutheranDK]

I didn’t say that there was no such thing as the pope. Obviously there has been a bishop of Rome who is called pope for a long time. But you’re saying that if that bishop’s role was exagerated then you will repudiate Christ. Again, I respect your opinion but I think that’s a pretty weak foundation for faith in Jesus Christ. No offence.

The church in Rome did not have a bishop until sometime after 140 AD

 

[LutheranDK]

Gee, you’ve only done exegesis on Mt. 16-17. **What about verse 18? **

If your response above dealt with 18 as well, my apologies, but that would make your intrepretating schema very odd.

By the way, I really like to hear your intrepreation of verse 19 as well. And, please, everything in context.

A Danish proverb goes “One should not toss stones, if one resides in a house of glass”.

What about verse 23?
“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

I complete agree with your statement about interpreting in context. And that is the reason I cannot accept the “authority” of the Bishop of Rome from this part of Matthew. And since no other part of Scripture even comes close to justifying it, I have to reject the notion as unbiblical.

 

[ChristianRoots]

The church in Rome did not have a bishop until sometime after 140 AD

How would you classify Peter’s role in that city then?

 

[LutheranDK]

How would you classify Peter’s role in that city then?

The church in Rome was led by a council of elders - from the midst of which one was chosen to speak on behalf of the church to the outside world. Peter might well have been one of these chosen. But this is NOT just another way of saying “monarchical episcopate”. The “chosen” was ONLY prima inter pares.

 

[ChristianRoots]

The church in Rome was led by a council of elders - from the midst of which one was chosen to speak on behalf of the church to the outside world. Peter might well have been one of these chosen. But this is NOT just another way of saying “monarchical episcopate”. The “chosen” was ONLY prima inter pares.

Do you have any references?

St. Ignatius contradicts your broad intrepretation. In A.D. 107, he penned a letter to the Romans in which he mentioned how Peter “commanded” the Romans becuase he was an Apostle, not because he was democratically chosen to speak on their behalf.

 

[Mickey]

But, the doctrine of infallibility justs prevents Peter (and subsequent Popes) from officially teaching error when it comes to pronouncing doctrine and morals to all the faithful…

Infallibility was invented by post schism Rome.

He’s human. He’s made mistakes before. Subsequent Popes made plenty of mistakes, too and some have been very bad people.

I love St Peter–as I do all the Apostles. He would have been the first one to reject the doctrine of supreme authority and infallibilty.

The doctrine of infallibiity, as promised in Mt. 16:18, will prevent the current Pope from officially teaching error concerning doctrine and morals only, to all the faithful.

The undivided Church never knew this strange doctrine. Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic.

The doctrine of infallibility was promised so it can prevent the gates of Hades from ever prevailing against the Church.

The gates will not prevail. And She does not need the strange doctrine of infallibility to conquer the evil one. Jesus Christ already did that.

 

[ChristianRoots]

A Danish proverb goes “One should not toss stones, if one resides in a house of glass”.

What about verse 23?
“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

I complete agree with your statement about interpreting in context. And that is the reason I cannot accept the “authority” of the Bishop of Rome from this part of Matthew. And since no other part of Scripture even comes close to justifying it, I have to reject the notion as unbiblical.

Verse 23 occurs at a different time, not during the exchange in 16-19. How is that in context? Do you really need verse 23 to help intrepret verses 16-19?

So by your reasoning verse 23 should also wipe out Peter’s confession of faith in verse 16?

Also, things need to be mentioned multiple times in Scripture for you to believe it? Once is not enough?

 

[Mickey]

Gee, you’ve only done exegesis on Mt. 16-17. **What about verse 18? **
If your response above dealt with 18 as well, my apologies,.

Yes. My response dealt with v18. The Church was built on St Peter’s confession with Jesus Christ as the foundation or cornerstone.

By the way, I really like to hear your intrepreation of verse 19 as well…

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

All the Apostles received the keys as we read later in chapter 18v18

**Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. **

 

[ChristianRoots]

QUOTE=Mickey;3345180]Infallibility was invented by post schism Rome.

There are strong references to it before any schism took place:

St. Ireneaus’ Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 4
Tertullian - The Prescription of Heretics, Chpt. 28
St. Augustine - Against the Epistle of the Manicheans Called Fundamental, Chpt. 5

How do you explain people talking about this doctrine in a pre-schism world?

 

[ChristianRoots]

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

All the Apostles received the keys as we read later in chapter 18v18

Jesus was talking to just Peter here, following his confession of faith. Only Peter is given the keys to heaven. Keys signifed authority. And yes, they were all given the power to bind and loose, but Peter was especially singled out as receiving the keys to heaven.