Its probably not worth pointing out yet again that “Church teaching will be infallible under certain conditions” is in no way explicitly stated in the phrase, “the gates of hell shall not prevail,” and that even finding it in there implicitly is a pretty tortured but highly convenient reading.
It relates to Peter being the rock on which the Church is built, which is typically associated with Papal Infallibility and it is this proclamation in which Christ uses the expression about the Gates of Hell. Hence if Peter (and therefore the Papacy), is not the Rock then Christ’s claims are false.
If we now start doubting teachings taught by the church councils, why again are protestants wrong? The creed, including the Trinity and the two natures of Jesus, the canon of scriptures, they all come from councils. Why is Vatican I wrong? And why is ANY part of Christianity true?
:clapping::clapping::clapping:
I would ask instead why; hypothetically, anyone would need to throw out 1830 years of tradition simply because an innovation from 1869 proved untenable.
Papal infallibility goes back to the very beginning:
That something was formalized in 1869 does not at all mean that it was invented then. There are any number of doctrines that the church teaches infallibly that have never been declared infallible, but were the church to do so it would not mean the infallibility stems from the proclamation, only that it was being formally recognized.
Yes, option 4 seems to be the most applicable of the six.
If you go with #4 then the church is neither universal nor “catholic” (small “c”)
Seems like a good deal. Move to a 100% Catholic island to be able to receive communion. Now if you go back home to visit relatives in Peoria, you are barred.
Receiving or not depending on where one happens to be standing is tacit admission that the choice doesn’t really matter. If you choose one approach or the other you can at least convince yourself that your choice is the right one, but oscillating between both choices implies that there is no question of right or wrong involved, all there is is personal preference.
Well I suppose it depends on whether one sees the Church as an army or a family.
And whether a flock should be driven by fear from behind or exhorted to follow by relationship from the front.
It seems there is room for an “I” in “family”, but not in “army”.
http://www.parroquiadesanbenito.com...-Buen-Pastor-con-la-oveja-en-los-hombros1.jpg
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
When in Malta
.a. What happened to those Catholic bishops and communities who didn’t see things quite the way Irenaeus opined? Oh yes, they aren’t in Communion and don’t count.
Since the bishops involved have contrary positions on the matter it ought to be apparent that at least one of them is wrong. If your “certain” conscience justifies the reception of communion in Malta it would equally justify it in England since the appropriateness of receiving is determined by the state of one’s marriage, not simply by the decrees of bishops. It cannot be right in the Mediterranean and wrong in the North Sea: it is right or wrong everywhere. Again, that determination is not made by the bishops.
Not at all: if one has a certain conscience he may do as he pleases. That at least has been your position in the past. Why should an individual be required to assent to a bishop’s opinion when you have asserted he has no obligation to assent to the doctrines of the church?
