If you stopped being catholic....

[Mickey]

People have been having trouble with this dogma of the Church for a lot longer than that - pretty strange, if it didn’t begin to exist until then?

Correct.
It was post schism that Rome wanted to solidify her power. The ultra montanists began a push to declare this dogma. It was discussed in the Council of Constance and the Council Basel but the ultra montanists could not prevail–a schism began to happen within the Church of Rome. It was not until Pius IX that the strange dogma was forced through. Many objected to it but were stifled and silenced by the pope and his supporters.

Do an unbiased study of the Councils of Constance, Basel and Vatican I. It is a real eye opener.

 

[jmcrae]

Correct.
It was post schism that Rome wanted to solidify her power.

Didn’t the schism come about in the first place because they didn’t want to follow the Pope, and didn’t want to believe that he is infallible?

Obviously, it was the official teaching of the Church even before the schism, or else there would never have been any schism, to begin with. This teaching didn’t just appear out of nowhere.

 

[Mickey]

Didn’t the schism come about in the first place because they didn’t want to follow the Pope, and didn’t want to believe that he is infallible?

Nope.

Obviously, it was the official teaching of the Church even before the schism.

Nope.

or else there would never have been any schism, to begin with. This teaching didn’t just appear out of nowhere.

You must go back and re-read your Church history.

 

[jmcrae]

Nope.
Nope.You must go back and re-read your Church history.

What the heck did they schismate from, if there was no recognized Pope and (therefore) no Catholic Church?

 

[ChristianRoots]

No one disputes this. But he surely was not a supreme infallible entity.

How can one truly exhibit leadership and still be theoretically among equals? That’s oxymoronic.

If Peter was the “leader” of the Apostles, then he had some authoritative leadership over them as well. The two go hand in hand.

The notion of the Bishop of Rome’s primacy should be proof therefore of the Bishop of Rome’s supremacy over other Bishoprics.

 

[Mickey]

How can one truly exhibit leadership and still be theoretically among equals? That’s oxymoronic.

Oh please! Look at the captain of a hockey team. He is chosen as captain for his motivational talks or inspiring play or leadership. But he is a player–equal to every other player on that team. He cannot win games solo.

 

[Mickey]

The notion of the Bishop of Rome’s primacy should be proof therefore of the Bishop of Rome’s supremacy over other Bishoprics.

 

[steve_b]

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. **

Those verses don’t say the apostles received the keys. OTOH,

Mt 18:

15"If your brother sins against you go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

• No mention of keys here.
• Bind and loose, in this context pertains to the steps taken by 2 or 3 of the apostles handling an individual who causes a problem.
  Here are the steps.
• talk to the offender personally
• if he doesn’t agree call in 1 or 2 others as witnesses
• if still no resolution take it to the Church
• If STILL no resolution avoid this person
• if 2 or 3 of you agree on what you ask for, it will be done in heaven by my Father
• where 2 or 3 gather in my name there I am with you
  Now look at Mt 16: (emphasis mine)

15"But what about you?(plural)" he asked. “Who do you (plural) say I am?”

16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you(2nd pers singular), Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you (2nd pers singular) that you (2nd pers singular) are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you (2nd pers singular not plural) the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you (2nd pers singular)bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (singular) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

See the difference Mickey? Jesus says the keys come from Him through Peter. Peter singularly has authority that the others don’t have.

 

[Mickey]

See the difference Mickey?

No.
I have seen the RC spin for a long time and it does not wash with Scripture or Church history. I already explained it to you.
St Peter had a primacy of honor.
All Apostles were equal.
There is no such thing as the invention of papal supremacy or infallibility.

Scripture agrees.
Tradition agrees.

You care to believe otherwise, you are free to choose that path.

 

[Mickey]

**Matt **16:19 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.

**Matt **18:18 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.

Notice what Christ says after talking about the keys in Matt16:19.

Almost word for word what he tells the Apostles in Matt 18:18.

Surely thay all carry the keys. It is quite evident to the plain reading of Scripture.

 

[steve_b]

All were leaders. All were evangelists. All were teachers. No one denies St Peter’s primacy.

Good

Mickey:

But he most certainly was not a supreme infallible Apostle.

Wait a minute.

• God The Father made Peter the head apostle over His Church. You said Peter has primacy and no one denies that
• Peter NEVER taught error. Otherwise scripture is full of error.
  Therefore Peter was the supreme infallible apostle

 

[steve_b]

**Matt **16:19 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.

**Matt **18:18 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.

Notice what Christ says after talking about the keys in Matt16:19.

Almost word for word what he tells the Apostles in Matt 18:18.

Surely thay all carry the keys. It is quite evident to the plain reading of Scripture.

You ignore the context which was very different for the two cases.

 

[steve_b]

No.
I have seen the RC spin for a long time and it does not wash with Scripture

I have only quoted scripture. The only one spinning here is you.

Mickey:

I already explained it to you.
St Peter had a primacy of honor.
All Apostles were equal.
There is no such thing as the invention of papal supremacy or infallibility.

Scripture agrees.
Tradition agrees.

This is what is called spin.

 

[Mickey]

Peter NEVER taught error. Otherwise scripture is full of error.

Oops! I meant to say that St Peter’s successors were not supreme infallible pontiffs. It gets tough when you are the only Orthodox getting bombarded by many at once.

I suppose you could say that none of the Apostles ever taught error.

I’ve enjoyed our discussion. Perhaps others can pick it up for me. I must be gone for a few days. Please forgive me if I have offended you in any way. God be with you.

Slava Isusu Christu!

 

[Mickey]

This is what is called spin.

It’s called interpretation from the early Church Fathers of early Church history. It is not dependent on the relatively modern innovation of the 1870 infallibility dogma.

Ta Ta!

 

[steve_b]

It’s called interpretation from the early Church Fathers of early Church history.

Which you have not quoted.
Mckey:

It is not dependent on the relatively modern innovation of the 1870 infallibility dogma.

Teaching infallibly has always been with the Catholic Church. For US it’s not an innovation.

 

[steve_b]

Oops! I meant to say that St Peter’s successors were not supreme infallible pontiffs. It gets tough when you are the only Orthodox getting bombarded by many at once.

I suppose you could say that none of the Apostles ever taught error.

I’ve enjoyed our discussion. Perhaps others can pick it up for me. I must be gone for a few days. Please forgive me if I have offended you in any way. God be with you.

Slava Isusu Christu!

:tiphat: Blessings are always welcome and appreciated. Same back to you.

 

[steve_b]

The Pope of Rome is like St Peter.

And alone, the popes of Rome, physically hold his office

Mickey:

All the Apostles started Churches.

All? possibly true

Mickey:

Rome was not the only Church.

True, but Rome was the one who held the presidency (Ignatius of Antioch, letter to the Romans)

Mickey:

There were five Patriarchates. In fact, St Peter was in Antioch first. Perhaps Antioch is the true see of St Peter?

• Even though there were 5 patriarchates, Rome was still the head
• Peter didn’t stay in Antioch long. And Antioch never held higher than 4th place among the patriarchates. So Antioch being the “true see” of Peter is not warranted.

 

[fbl9]

Well, in order for me to stop being Catholic, you’d have to definitively prove to me that it was incorrect, and in order to do that, you’d probably have to completely disprove God to me. I could envision a scenario where I would become Orthodox (for other reasons), but if you could actually disprove Catholicism, I would almost certainly be atheist. In my mind, if Catholicism isn’t correct, than there isn’t a God. No other denomination seems plausible to me.

my postion exactly.

 

[Claudius]

Why would I commit spiritual suicide by converting to another religion? The Eastern Orthodox, only in that they have a valid priesthood, would be an option if the Catholic Church just stopped existing but that will never happen as GOD himself is protecting us. After all the difficulties and study, of every religion on the planet to evenutally come to the truth of the Catholic Church, How could I ever turn my back on it? What you are asking is IMPOSSIBLE.