Orthodoxy makes the most sence. protestantism is just man made division. the question is latin or eastern Church?

[excaliber]

The Orthodox church makes the most sence to me for several reasons.

1. The latin church easily wins a debate against any protestant, because the protestant movment was such a major failure that the only reason to remain protestant is because YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF ORTHODOXY…and you don’t agree with Roman catholosism.

2)The idea of one bishop above all others is not logical…OR directly proclaimed in the bible…or Tradishion with a capitol “T”. If the Church needed ONE bishop to govern a global church, then Christ choosing 12 apostles makes no sence…he would have only needed ONE APOSTLE which would have been peter, the rest would have been diciples under peter.
Not 12 men with the same title…for example you don’t have 12 kings with one king over other kings…no you have one king…then all others have a completely different title and job function.

1. what one man has the wisdom to govern a global Church, or the moral conduct?
   Before the answer that God would give ONE man this wisdom…first find it in the bible where God states this…HE DOSENT…its just asumed that if something was told to one person to feed his sheep for example, that it wasent ment for all sheapherds…or a key to the kingdom was givin to one apostle…that it didn’t mean all apostles had this athority.
2. Peter had the same title…writings in the same bible with no more weight then any other apostle…peter was not in one city ruling over the lands converted by other apostles…he traveled just like all other apostles and died in rome…but had he not, he probably would have traveled somewhere else to spread the gospel…the whole idea is simply foreign to scripture unless certain scriptures are added to in order to get the papal idea from them.
3. The Church is divine, and dosent need a human head like man made companies.
   Again one man dose not even have the ability to sheapherd a global church…but one man can sheapherd his jurisdiction as a bishop. Just look at the latin Church today…there are liberal bishops, parishes becoming more protestant, huge problems in america as so many latin Catholics don’t know anything about there church because of a blatant problem with schools and RCIA…one man is not close to fixing half these problems.
4. haven’t we already proved that it dosent work anyway, which was the whole reason for the protestant revolt. If it wasent broke martin luther would have had no real valid issues…these were not issues of human imperfection, but actual wrong practises going on in a church that one man is supposed to stop from happening to begin with.
5. simply no point in having other bishops if one is needed,

 

[josie_L]

1. The latin church easily wins a debate against any protestant, because the protestant movment was such a major failure that the only reason to remain protestant is because YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF ORTHODOXY…and you don’t agree with Roman catholosism.

And since your post reveals how muddled you are in your understanding of Catholic doctrines, it’s no wonder you would feel this way.

2)The idea of one bishop above all others is not logical…OR directly proclaimed in the bible…or Tradishion with a capitol “T”. If the Church needed ONE bishop to govern a global church, then Christ choosing 12 apostles makes no sence…he would have only needed ONE APOSTLE which would have been peter, the rest would have been diciples under peter.

Case in point, the Catholic Church does not preach or proclaim that only ONE bishop is needed to govern the global Church, i.e., you are confusing leadership with dictatorship.

Not 12 men with the same title…for example you don’t have 12 kings with one king over other kings…no you have one king…then all others have a completely different title and job function.

One only has to read the Old Testament to see that the Catholic Church is structured along the same lines as the Kingdom of David (Israel/Judah). Here is the structure by which the Catholic Church is modeled after: there was/is the King, (David/Jesus), then there was/is the PRIME minister/steward (Shebna/Peter) who was appointed by the King to be second in command and thus received the keys of the kingdom (read Isaiah 22;22 and Matthew 16:18). There were, of course, other ministers but they did not have full jurisdiction, i.e., they were not the bearers of the keys. And then, lastly (but just as important) there was the queen mother who interceded on behalf of the people, i.e., Blessed Mother Mary.

1. what one man has the wisdom to govern a global Church, or the moral conduct? Before the answer that God would give ONE man this wisdom…first find it in the bible where God states this…HE DOSENT…its just asumed that if something was told to one person to feed his sheep for example, that it wasent ment for all sheapherds…or a key to the kingdom was givin to one apostle…that it didn’t mean all apostles had this athority.

The Catholic Church does not state that ONE man would have this wisdom, i.e., the magisterium (brother bishops in communion with Rome) is infallible, but it must be headed by the Pope (i.e. “the rock”) who was put in charge to tend, feed and strengthen the brethren (and if you recollect Luke 22:32 Jesus prayed for Peter so that his faith may not fail him, i.e. this would include his successors as well).

1. Peter had the same title…writings in the same bible with no more weight then any other apostle…peter was not in one city ruling over the lands converted by other apostles…he traveled just like all other apostles and died in rome…but had he not, he probably would have traveled somewhere else to spread the gospel…the whole idea is simply foreign to scripture unless certain scriptures are added to in order to get the papal idea from them

.
Peter, according to tradition, was bishop of Rome for the last 25 years of his life and also as we know it, died there. So as per apostolic succession his office passed down to the person whom he chose to succeed him in his sacred ministry, that person was the next bishop of Rome, i.e., Linus.

1. The Church is divine, and dosent need a human head like man made companies. Again one man dose not even have the ability to sheapherd a global church…but one man can sheapherd his jurisdiction as a bishop. Just look at the latin Church today…there are liberal bishops, parishes becoming more protestant, huge problems in america as so many latin Catholics don’t know anything about there church because of a blatant problem with schools and RCIA…one man is not close to fixing half these problems.

Actually, the Church does need a visible head in order that it arbitrate on matters of faith and/or morals, especially when conciliar decisions made by bishops contradict the deposit of faith. Think, for example, of the Arian heresy that almost inundated the East, and how the pope stood firm against it and refused to ratify decisions made by these heretical bishops. In plain words, the bishop of Rome was/is the supreme guardian of Christian tradition. Moreover, patriarchs and such do have jurisdictional rule over other bishops, i.e., there are other examples of bishops, besides the bishops of Rome, who had extradiocesan authority/rule over other bishops.

1. haven’t we already proved that it dosent work anyway, which was the whole reason for the protestant revolt. If it wasent broke martin luther would have had no real valid issues…these were not issues of human imperfection, but actual wrong practises going on in a church that one man is supposed to stop from happening to begin with.

Martin Luther was a heretic more than he was reformer, he introduced such things as “sola scriptura” and “sola fide” and denied five of the seven sacraments (and did not have a similar understanding of the eucharist that the Church had). He even questioned the infallibility of ecumenical councils in his debate with Johann Eck and therefore repudiated truth as understood in the 15 centuries preceding him.

1. simply no point in having other bishops if one is needed,

The Catholic Church does not believe that only one bishop is needed, just read Pope St. Gregory the Great who repudiated such an idea while upholding his primacy as head bishop.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=excaliber;6341108].
7) simply no point in having other bishops if one is needed,

]

I don’t view what Jesus built upon Peter as you do here; Jesus built his Church upon Rock. Peter or the Popes have survived 2000 years of persecution because the Church of Jesus Christ in his Catholic Church is fully divine and fully human.

Every valid Bishop is successor to the apostles with the authority of binding, loosing, forgiving sins, and is responsible for adminstering the sacraments (Jesus gave them) to every one in their provinces, including the Bishop of Rome. Now where the Pope comes in? because Jesus built his Church upon Rock, the Pope gaurantee’s that the Apostolic Faith remains (Rock unchanged) true to the teachings of Jesus Christ handed down by the Apostles.

If you check the reality of history, you will find that western protestants because they have no one “Rock foundation” united in one faith, have splintered and continue to fall further away from the apostolic teachings and Apostolic Traditions. Orthodox in schism with the Pope have seen this same fate between their own Orthodox communities, not in a faith way, but from an authoritative perspective.

The Eastern Orothodox Church’s in communion with Peter and his successor’s in the Popes continue to operate independently in their own Catholic Rites and remain Orthodox to their culture’s and languages. These remain in unbroken unity.

Now those Orthodoxy Church’s who have seperated themselves from the Rock (Peter) of whom Jesus built his Church, have fallen into turmoil and division among themselves. But you only hear what unites them “protesting the authority Jesus built upon Rock” in Peter and his unbroken line of successor’s in the Popes.

You see, without the Rock (Peter), one falls into disorder and disunity when all claim to one’s own authority and protest the 2000 year old Rock Jesus placed here on earth.

You remove the Pope, you no longer have the Church Jesus built upon Peter, you are left with a man made authoritative religion that will divide itself and disappear, because it is built upon sand and cannot withstand the storms that beat against it.

History records that the Popes residing in Peter’s Chair have survived governments, kingdoms, peoples, countries, religions since the resurrection of our dear Lord Jesus Christ. This Rock Jesus built upon his Church in the Popes has and will survive the test of time until Jesus returns.

Orthodoxy Protesting the authority of the Pope, are new infants in the body of Jesus Christ. What is in its infancy stage is the Protest agains the Pope. This was never taught or believed in by the Early Church Fathers and Apostles. Every new child demanded change or protest against the Popes and the Apostolic Teachings. The Popes have maintained the “Rock” Jesus built, even at the cost of their lives, in every age since the resurrection.

Now the “Authority” you are challenging deals with the political arena, not the Rock of which Jesus built. Although schimatic Orthodox Church’s protests- appeal to this notion or like to draw the confusion of mixing secular politics with God’s Kingdom on earth. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, she is the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven. Jesus is our (Head) King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Pope is his Vicar (servant of servants), the Apostolic successors in the Bishops are also servants to the King, ruling as Kings in their kingdoms, which brings to light that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

The Pope has not changed what Jesus has built, nor can a Pope ever change what Jesus has built. Man has come against this Rock and Orthodoxy today is witness to this fact. But these gates from hell will never prevail, this is a promise from Jesus Christ himself.

So no matter how much you deface, defame, or profane the Rock of Peter in the Popes today, this Rock will never submit to secular, liberal, self ruling freedom thinkers of the world, because She (the Catholic Church) is not of the world.

Peace be with you

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think it’s often tempting for anti-Catholics, Orthodox, and some Protestants to think the Pope unilaterally does everything in a vacuum. Pope John Paul II consulted with cardinals and great minds like Joseph Ratzinger, theologians, his staff, and history, Scriptures, commissions, lay folks, etc. to arrive at decisions of great magnitude just like a president consults with his cabinet, listens to hearings, and takes in the whole experience, not just one initial opinion or thought in isolation.

Think from 2000 to 2010 how many times a pope has made a decree or statement that stepped on the toes of any bishop across the world. Bishops actually enjoy a great deal of autonomy in Catholicism, actually too much at times in my opinion! Look at the Catholic universities and how they’ve fallen apart…strong testimony to the fact that the Pope isn’t hands-on enough! I wish Benedict would make some heads roll at Georgetown and Notre Dame! Many bishops in Latin America have had liberation theology mindsets and have done whatever they want. American bishops often make questionable choices and decisions. The Pope is not a dictator with his hands around the necks of every bishop and their every move is not monitored and controlled.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Orthodox church makes the most sence to me for several reasons.

1. The latin church easily wins a debate against any protestant, because the protestant movment was such a major failure that the only reason to remain protestant is because YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF ORTHODOXY…and you don’t agree with Roman catholosism.
   Let’s watch our spelling: “sence” in the title of the thread should be “sense” and “catholosism” should be Catholicism. As Obama would say, “come on now!”

2)The idea of one bishop above all others is not logical…OR directly proclaimed in the bible…or Tradishion with a capitol “T”. If the Church needed ONE bishop to govern a global church, then Christ choosing 12 apostles makes no sence…he would have only needed ONE APOSTLE which would have been peter, the rest would have been diciples under peter.
Why did Christ only give the keys to Peter in Matthew 16 in that special context and call him The Rock, changing his name, and not include the others at that time? Could it be he had a special commission slightly different than the others? Why does Our Lord tell Peter alone to “feed my sheep” and it is Peter given the blessing of seeing the Risen Christ first. It is Peter who speaks on behalf of the apostles, Peter to whom all the others “fall silent” when he makes a statement/decree. It is Peter leading the way in Acts. It is Peter of whom the Early Fathers speak most reverently and highly. The context of Matthew 18:18 where the other apostles are given the ‘keys’ it is more in a context of excommunication according to some and the context of Peter’s commission involved a name change, giving of the keys with the word “keys” explicit, mention of the gates of hell and a context of leadership and defense. It also explicitely mentions the Church’s formation within Peter’s context. One wonders why Christ didn’t give the keys to everyone at that moment? Is it so wild to imagine that all the apostles had the power of the keys but Peter was meant to lead over the others and keep order? Don’t all units of authority we can think of have a commanding officer amidst others with great authority? I’m a teacher but I guarantee you if the principal didn’t exist over the 33 at my school, chaos would ensue. If all the colonels and single-star generals didn’t have a commanding general in charge of major operations, nothing would get done. If we didn’t have a president to make the final decisions of war, signing bills, executive orders, and other mammoth decisions and just left it up to the senate, the country would collapse. Ask any good marine what the importance is of leadership in the field.
Not 12 men with the same title…for example you don’t have 12 kings with one king over other kings…no you have one king…then all others have a completely different title and job function.
Funny, though, how the sinful pride of not wanting to be led in a group of twelve prompted Joseph’s brothers to throw him into a cistern and sold into slavery. Sometimes out of 12 there is one sitting above the others
3) what one man has the wisdom to govern a global Church, or the moral conduct?
Before the answer that God would give ONE man this wisdom…first find it in the bible where God states this…HE DOSENT…its just asumed that if something was told to one person to feed his sheep for example, that it wasent ment for all sheapherds…or a key to the kingdom was givin to one apostle…that it didn’t mean all apostles had this athority.
The term “Holy Trinity” isn’t explicit to Scripture nor is the word Eucharist in the Bible or explicit use of the term sacrament or seven sacraments or “chrismation” or use of icons, Lent, gay marriage, infant stem cell research and a host of other things. This sounds like sola scriptura to me?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Great comments-more meat than in some entire Threads.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

continued…

1. Peter had the same title…writings in the same bible with no more weight then any other apostle…peter was not in one city ruling over the lands converted by other apostles…he traveled just like all other apostles and died in rome…but had he not, he probably would have traveled somewhere else to spread the gospel…the whole idea is simply foreign to scripture unless certain scriptures are added to in order to get the papal idea from them.
2. The Church is divine, and dosent need a human head like man made companies.
   Again one man dose not even have the ability to sheapherd a global church…but one man can sheapherd his jurisdiction as a bishop. Just look at the latin Church today…there are liberal bishops, **and you know with 100% metaphysical certitude that there are no liberal Orthodox bishops?**parishes becoming more protestant, huge problems in america as so many latin Catholics don’t know anything about there church because of a blatant problem with schools and RCIA…one man is not close to fixing half these problems.
   The Catholic Church never claimed to be perfect in all logistics and individual executions of everything. The Church is comprised of sinners so at a local level you’ll see blunders. Expect them. Always. Obviously the Orthodox allowing birth control in some dioceses/areas shows they aren’t all on the same sheet of music either? And who ever compared Catholicism to a company? Doesn’t Christ use “men” constantly to do His work? Why is it so insane to imagine a man at the helm guided by the Holy Spirit? You’d be right, if the pope were just some shlameel off the street, no he couldn’t guide the Church. It is the Holy Spirit doing the guiding, the Holy Father doing the listening and obeying and executing…
3. haven’t we already proved that it dosent work anyway, which was the whole reason for the protestant revolt. If it wasent broke martin luther would have had no real valid issues…these were not issues of human imperfection, but actual wrong practises going on in a church that one man is supposed to stop from happening to begin with.
   So you’re saying that Protestantism’s existence proves the Catholic Church is false and a joke? What about the Orthodox? Their own iconoclasm internal meltdowns were actually a result of ineptitude from their bishops in the East? Funny how it was the Pope who came to their side and staved off the foolishness of iconoclasm. You’re saying that Martin Luther’s existence proves the Catholic Church was “broke,” which I take to mean “broken?” There was corruption in the Church. That’s a given. No one disputes that. Any institution, holy or unholy, has sinful men within. If you take a look at Martin Luther’s agenda, it was not Catholic from the git-go. He was reading the works of Hus, the nominalist William of Occam, who believed faith and reason were totally mutually exclusive, and men like John Gersen who taught conciliarism. He was a man with deep psychological problems, an exceptionally overactive and overly-scrupulous conscience, and a sense of guilt that was off the hook. He was a deep anti-semite and had a ranging temper. He was at times vulgar and impossible to deal with. You’re going to tell me this man’s agenda is all the fault of Catholicism? Much of what Luther loathed about Catholicism also applies to Orthodoxy! Confession, seven sacraments, faith and works relationships, saintly intercession, imputation vs. infusion, etc. And I needn’t remind you that the Orthodox did their own brand of indulgences in those certificates of forgiveness for hundreds of years by men like the Bishop of Constantinople himself. If Luther hadn’t been German and had been raised in the East, he probably would’ve exploded on the Orthodox as well. But that’s mere speculation.
4. simply no point in having other bishops if one is needed,

 

[excaliber]

Gabriel of 12
I come from a religious cult, that cult used good sounding ideas that seemed to come from the bible if they just added to scripture a little bit. That is why I am carefull when I am faced with a good sounding idea = Pope infalible…but scripture dose not = infalible pope.
Without much elaboration…for example davidic kingdom comparison…however I have not read in the bible where the church would be modeled after a government. Or Christ praying for Peters faith, some how meaning pope benedict is infalible. Basicly Christ nor any apostle ever flat out said anything about papal infalability, which is strange if it is a major doctrine all must believe. And both east and west can quote people saying the exact oposite from eachother.

As far as unity, my personal experience is that the Roman Catholic Church is far from in unity. There are bishops supporting gays, some bishops for Obama some where against.
Some have protestant looking services and some don’t. And RCIA is a mess, and you know you have a problem when people come out of RCIA not knowing anything…and it dosent suprise anyone. So how can you fault the Orthodox for being not in unity?

Also the scripture used to say peter is the rock…I thought Christ was the rock?

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Orthodox church makes the most sence to me for several reasons.

1. The latin church easily wins a debate against any protestant, because the protestant movment was such a major failure that the only reason to remain protestant is because YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF ORTHODOXY…and you don’t agree with Roman catholosism.

2)The idea of one bishop above all others is not logical…OR directly proclaimed in the bible…or Tradishion with a capitol “T”. If the Church needed ONE bishop to govern a global church, then Christ choosing 12 apostles makes no sence…he would have only needed ONE APOSTLE which would have been peter, the rest would have been diciples under peter.
Not 12 men with the same title…for example you don’t have 12 kings with one king over other kings…no you have one king…then all others have a completely different title and job function.

1. what one man has the wisdom to govern a global Church, or the moral conduct?
   Before the answer that God would give ONE man this wisdom…first find it in the bible where God states this…HE DOSENT…its just asumed that if something was told to one person to feed his sheep for example, that it wasent ment for all sheapherds…or a key to the kingdom was givin to one apostle…that it didn’t mean all apostles had this athority.
2. Peter had the same title…writings in the same bible with no more weight then any other apostle…peter was not in one city ruling over the lands converted by other apostles…he traveled just like all other apostles and died in rome…but had he not, he probably would have traveled somewhere else to spread the gospel…the whole idea is simply foreign to scripture unless certain scriptures are added to in order to get the papal idea from them.
3. The Church is divine, and dosent need a human head like man made companies.
   Again one man dose not even have the ability to sheapherd a global church…but one man can sheapherd his jurisdiction as a bishop. Just look at the latin Church today…there are liberal bishops, parishes becoming more protestant, huge problems in america as so many latin Catholics don’t know anything about there church because of a blatant problem with schools and RCIA…one man is not close to fixing half these problems.
4. haven’t we already proved that it dosent work anyway, which was the whole reason for the protestant revolt. If it wasent broke martin luther would have had no real valid issues…these were not issues of human imperfection, but actual wrong practises going on in a church that one man is supposed to stop from happening to begin with.
5. simply no point in having other bishops if one is needed,

this kind of idea comes from someone who leans on their own understanding of things.
Acceptance of God’s plan makes one wise.

If all the bishops have the same authority like you say they have who will settle the issue? do you want to make the Church of God a democracy?

**
St. Paul called the Church the “body” of Christ, not the “soul” of Christ. Bodies are visible and souls are invisible. John Salza**

 

[excaliber]

excaliber;6341108:

The Orthodox church makes the most sence to me for several reasons.

1. The latin church easily wins a debate against any protestant, because the protestant movment was such a major failure that the only reason to remain protestant is because YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF ORTHODOXY…and you don’t agree with Roman catholosism.
   Let’s watch our spelling: “sence” in the title of the thread should be “sense” and “catholosism” should be Catholicism. As Obama would say, "come on now!"

2)The idea of one bishop above all others is not logical…OR directly proclaimed in the bible…or Tradishion with a capitol “T”. If the Church needed ONE bishop to govern a global church, then Christ choosing 12 apostles makes no sence…he would have only needed ONE APOSTLE which would have been peter, the rest would have been diciples under peter.
Why did Christ only give the keys to Peter in Matthew 16 in that special context and call him The Rock, changing his name, and not include the others at that time? Could it be he had a special commission slightly different than the others? Why does Our Lord tell Peter alone to “feed my sheep” and it is Peter given the blessing of seeing the Risen Christ first. It is Peter who speaks on behalf of the apostles, Peter to whom all the others “fall silent” when he makes a statement/decree. It is Peter leading the way in Acts. It is Peter of whom the Early Fathers speak most reverently and highly. The context of Matthew 18:18 where the other apostles are given the ‘keys’ it is more in a context of excommunication according to some and the context of Peter’s commission involved a name change, giving of the keys with the word “keys” explicit, mention of the gates of hell and a context of leadership and defense. It also explicitely mentions the Church’s formation within Peter’s context. One wonders why Christ didn’t give the keys to everyone at that moment? Is it so wild to imagine that all the apostles had the power of the keys but Peter was meant to lead over the others and keep order? Don’t all units of authority we can think of have a commanding officer amidst others with great authority? I’m a teacher but I guarantee you if the principal didn’t exist over the 33 at my school, chaos would ensue. If all the colonels and single-star generals didn’t have a commanding general in charge of major operations, nothing would get done. If we didn’t have a president to make the final decisions of war, signing bills, executive orders, and other mammoth decisions and just left it up to the senate, the country would collapse. Ask any good marine what the importance is of leadership in the field.
Not 12 men with the same title…for example you don’t have 12 kings with one king over other kings…no you have one king…then all others have a completely different title and job function.
Funny, though, how the sinful pride of not wanting to be led in a group of twelve prompted Joseph’s brothers to throw him into a cistern and sold into slavery. Sometimes out of 12 there is one sitting above the others
3) what one man has the wisdom to govern a global Church, or the moral conduct?
Before the answer that God would give ONE man this wisdom…first find it in the bible where God states this…HE DOSENT…its just asumed that if something was told to one person to feed his sheep for example, that it wasent ment for all sheapherds…or a key to the kingdom was givin to one apostle…that it didn’t mean all apostles had this athority.
The term “Holy Trinity” isn’t explicit to Scripture nor is the word Eucharist in the Bible or explicit use of the term sacrament or seven sacraments or “chrismation” or use of icons, Lent, gay marriage, infant stem cell research and a host of other things. This sounds like sola scriptura to me?

Again I’m an ex jehovahs witness and as you see did not pay attention in spelling class because we thought the end of the world was coming lol

Anyway none of your refrences say anything about infalability.

Sure Peter could have had a special ministry, but to say it absolutely was infalability and all must believe it is to make a statement with out SOLID proof.

No the bible dosent say the word Trinity, but it solidly and directly points to it…not so with infalability.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Gabriel of 12
I come from a religious cult, that cult used good sounding ideas that seemed to come from the bible if they just added to scripture a little bit. That is why I am carefull when I am faced with a good sounding idea = Pope infalible…but scripture dose not = infalible pope.
Without much elaboration…for example davidic kingdom comparison…however I have not read in the bible where the church would be modeled after a government. Or Christ praying for Peters faith, some how meaning pope benedict is infalible. Basicly Christ nor any apostle ever flat out said anything about papal infalability, which is strange if it is a major doctrine all must believe. And both east and west can quote people saying the exact oposite from eachother.

As far as unity, my personal experience is that the Roman Catholic Church is far from in unity. There are bishops supporting gays, some bishops for Obama some where against.
Some have protestant looking services and some don’t. And RCIA is a mess, and you know you have a problem when people come out of RCIA not knowing anything…and it dosent suprise anyone. So how can you fault the Orthodox for being not in unity?

Also the scripture used to say peter is the rock…I thought Christ was the rock?

perhaps this will help you:

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/4mrkc.html

 

[wisdomseeker]

gurneyhalleck1;6341654:

Again I’m an ex jehovahs witness and as you see did not pay attention in spelling class because we thought the end of the world was coming lol

Anyway none of your refrences say anything about infalability.

Sure Peter could have had a special ministry, but to say it absolutely was infalability and all must believe it is to make a statement with out SOLID proof.

No the bible dosent say the word Trinity, but it solidly and directly points to it…not so with infalability.

do you believe the Apostles tought the Truth? were they infallible?

 

[excaliber]

continued…

1. Peter had the same title…writings in the same bible with no more weight then any other apostle…peter was not in one city ruling over the lands converted by other apostles…he traveled just like all other apostles and died in rome…but had he not, he probably would have traveled somewhere else to spread the gospel…the whole idea is simply foreign to scripture unless certain scriptures are added to in order to get the papal idea from them.
2. The Church is divine, and dosent need a human head like man made companies.
   Again one man dose not even have the ability to sheapherd a global church…but one man can sheapherd his jurisdiction as a bishop. Just look at the latin Church today…there are liberal bishops, **and you know with 100% metaphysical certitude that there are no liberal Orthodox bishops?**parishes becoming more protestant, huge problems in america as so many latin Catholics don’t know anything about there church because of a blatant problem with schools and RCIA…one man is not close to fixing half these problems.
   The Catholic Church never claimed to be perfect in all logistics and individual executions of everything. The Church is comprised of sinners so at a local level you’ll see blunders. Expect them. Always. Obviously the Orthodox allowing birth control in some dioceses/areas shows they aren’t all on the same sheet of music either? And who ever compared Catholicism to a company? Doesn’t Christ use “men” constantly to do His work? Why is it so insane to imagine a man at the helm guided by the Holy Spirit? You’d be right, if the pope were just some shlameel off the street, no he couldn’t guide the Church. It is the Holy Spirit doing the guiding, the Holy Father doing the listening and obeying and executing…
3. haven’t we already proved that it dosent work anyway, which was the whole reason for the protestant revolt. If it wasent broke martin luther would have had no real valid issues…these were not issues of human imperfection, but actual wrong practises going on in a church that one man is supposed to stop from happening to begin with.
   So you’re saying that Protestantism’s existence proves the Catholic Church is false and a joke? What about the Orthodox? Their own iconoclasm internal meltdowns were actually a result of ineptitude from their bishops in the East? Funny how it was the Pope who came to their side and staved off the foolishness of iconoclasm. You’re saying that Martin Luther’s existence proves the Catholic Church was “broke,” which I take to mean “broken?” There was corruption in the Church. That’s a given. No one disputes that. Any institution, holy or unholy, has sinful men within. If you take a look at Martin Luther’s agenda, it was not Catholic from the git-go. He was reading the works of Hus, the nominalist William of Occam, who believed faith and reason were totally mutually exclusive, and men like John Gersen who taught conciliarism. He was a man with deep psychological problems, an exceptionally overactive and overly-scrupulous conscience, and a sense of guilt that was off the hook. He was a deep anti-semite and had a ranging temper. He was at times vulgar and impossible to deal with. You’re going to tell me this man’s agenda is all the fault of Catholicism? Much of what Luther loathed about Catholicism also applies to Orthodoxy! Confession, seven sacraments, faith and works relationships, saintly intercession, imputation vs. infusion, etc. And I needn’t remind you that the Orthodox did their own brand of indulgences in those certificates of forgiveness for hundreds of years by men like the Bishop of Constantinople himself. If Luther hadn’t been German and had been raised in the East, he probably would’ve exploded on the Orthodox as well. But that’s mere speculation.
4. simply no point in having other bishops if one is needed,

I wrote about problems in the Roman Catholic Church because problems were mentioned about Orthodoxy. You said Orthodox have letters of forgiveness as a teaching? Do you have evidence? I thought this was a problem in the west.

Arianism was a problem, but it dosent proove papal infalability.

You see I have Orthodox telling me that papal infalability developed later in the west… And here I have no solid biblical evidence that showes anything other then what they are saying.

 

[excaliber]

excaliber;6341711:

do you believe the Apostles tought the Truth? were they infallible?

I don’t have scriptural evidence that any MAN is infallible. However The Holy Spirit who guides the church is infallible.

In scripture the conclusions of councils were seen as infallible because of Gods guidance…
However no refrence to a man with that ability. Do you have biblical proof?

 

[wisdomseeker]

excaliber:
I wrote about problems in the Roman Catholic Church because problems were mentioned about Orthodoxy. You said Orthodox have letters of forgiveness as a teaching? Do you have evidence? I thought this was a problem in the west.

Arianism was a problem, but it dosent proove papal infalability.

You see I have Orthodox telling me that papal infalability developed later in the west… And here I have no solid biblical evidence that showes anything other then what they are saying.

and what kind of evidence will do it for you?

 

[wisdomseeker]

wisdomseeker;6341721:

I don’t have scriptural evidence that any MAN is infallible. However The Holy Spirit who guides the church is infallible.

In scripture the conclusions of councils were seen as infallible because of Gods guidance…
However no refrence to a man with that ability. Do you have biblical proof?

I think you just answered your own question. the guidance of the HS.

what kind of Biblical proof do you want?

 

[excaliber]

this kind of idea comes from someone who leans on their own understanding of things.
Acceptance of God’s plan makes one wise.

If all the bishops have the same authority like you say they have who will settle the issue? do you want to make the Church of God a democracy?

**
St. Paul called the Church the “body” of Christ, not the “soul” of Christ. Bodies are visible and souls are invisible. John Salza**

No I simply think the bishops were not to change anything Christ taught them.
However as far as man made rules, I do think a bishop can change them in his jurisdiction.

I don’t think the early church was a democracy…the apostles wrote to the churches to instruct them, but I see no evidence of any talk or belief that ONE of them was infalible.

 

[excaliber]

excaliber;6341781:

I think you just answered your own question. the guidance of the HS.

what kind of Biblical proof do you want?

Proof peter was infalible.
Or that the council in acts was infalible only because peter said it was.

Infalability is an idea…I have seen no scripture to prove it without adding to it.

 

[excaliber]

I wrote about problems in the Roman Catholic Church because problems were mentioned about Orthodoxy. You said Orthodox have letters of forgiveness as a teaching? Do you have evidence? I thought this was a problem in the west.

Arianism was a problem, but it dosent proove papal infalability.

You see I have Orthodox telling me that papal infalability developed later in the west… And here I have no solid biblical evidence that showes anything other then what they are saying.

and what kind of evidence will do it for you?

Just like you would ask a protestant to provide evidence of sola scriptura. We both know the idea is there with a little imagination. But they can’t directly provide scripture for it because it dosent exist…its just an idea that sounds good.

So I am forced to treat infalability the same as the idea of sola scriptura. Unless there is evidence to show that infalability was taught from peters time till today.

 

[wisdomseeker]

No I simply think the bishops were not to change anything Christ taught them.
However as far as man made rules, I do think a bishop can change them in his jurisdiction.

I don’t think the early church was a democracy…the apostles wrote to the churches to instruct them, but I see no evidence of any talk or belief that ONE of them was infalible.

do you feel you have authority to declare what is a man made rules or God’s made rules?

they didnt have to. all have accepted that they spoke the Truth. Jesus never said He was infallible yet those who accept Him also accept all His teachings are True. plus you have to go back in time and learn about the Jews and God to understand the Church.

there is a reason why the infallibility came into play. just like many other doctrines had to be declared. as people begin to question the Truth, then the Church has to decide the issue.

as you can see now and days we have so many Bible believers preaching Chrisitanity and each preaching something different. to the point that no one knows for sure what the Truth is anymore. God’s plan is One Church under the authority sent by Him. but with time many begin to follow their own desires and left the Church and has assumed something that was not given to them, the Word of God. it is God’s plan that all come to the knowledge of God through One Church and not many.