M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
This belongs on another thread
- Status
M
mercygate
Guest
Go for it, Edwin. As a former Episcopalian, I read in you (at a much higher level) someone much like I used to be.Lots of things, such as the Petrine passages in the NT, the frequent identification of Rome with Peter and Paul in early patristic literature (Irenaeus being the best example), the development of lists of successors to Peter, and perhaps most tellingly in the admission of the Orthodox (the only people with much standing to contest the matter) that Rome has always exercised some kind of primacy.
BTW, I was dubious about making the statement “I have no doubt,” since I’m the sort of person who doubts everything. But I do not seriously question it.
Every time Rome is mentioned, it’s mentioned in a way that is consonant with some kind of primacy being exercised, though not with the absolute monarchy later claimed. The Quartodeciman controversy is a wonderful example–it shows both that the Pope was the one responsible for cutting local churches off from the communion of the Universal Church, *and *that he could be challenged if he made a mistake. [Yes, I know that there are alternate interpretations of what happened both from those who grant more to the Papacy than I do and those who grant less.]
Sure, just as it’s the scholarly consensus that David was nothing more than a tribal chieftain and that Solomon’s Temple never existed. Why trust the scholarly consensus implicitly in one case and not in another? I think there are sound arguments to indicate that Rome did not have a monarchical bishop in the Ignatian sense until late in the 2nd century. But these arguments are not foolproof–one archaeological discovery could unsettle them easily. And they don’t affect the essentials of the RC argument. Even if Clement functioned as the leading presbyter, he could still be the primary successor of Peter and Paul. Or perhaps all the presbyters at Rome fulfilled this role until late in the 2nd century. What we do know is that Peter and Paul were widely held to have passed on their authority to the leaders of the Church at Rome. All the evidence we have supports this idea, and none of it contradicts it.
Probably because you’ve seen me arguing against over-enthusiastic RC apologists who try to prove too much, just as you and martin and mozart are doing now. I tend to attack whoever seems to be using history incautiously, both because of my training as a church historian and because of my indecisive and contrarian temperament
In Christ,
Edwin
Michael Ramsay, beloved Archbishop of Canterbury, candidly confided to an acquaintance of mine that it was irrational to doubt that the Bishop of Rome was the head of the Church. Dr. Ramsay never crossed the Tiber, however.
P
ProdigalSonOfOz
Guest
here, here.
P
ProdigalSonOfOz
Guest
hear, hear!
S
SoonerServant
Guest
The reason I can say this, is because, true, they were the Apostles of Christ, but they were also men. Men capable of lieing. Paul said in his second letter to the Galations(8-9) You’ll notice that he says,“But even if we or an angel…” They could give a different gospel, but were compelled by their own knowledge of the truth to tell the truth.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Point? Who were the compelled by? The Holy Spirit! Thus, if God promised He would guide His Church into “all truth,” then what is it for Him to overcome the sinful nature of man? He is God! Thus, call me crazy, but if God makes a promise, I tend to believe Him.
S
SoonerServant
Guest
Yes, He’s doing it right now as I speak to you. Different ppl have different gifts. Mine, I feel, happens to be intereptation of the scriptures. Truth be told, I have barely read the Bible, and yet, I can hold a strong stance against your case. By the way, being compelled and being unable (infallible) are to very different things
R
Redbandito
Guest
Admitting you have “barely read the Bible” absolutely weakens your case. And you misunderstood what I was saying. I agree that man is “free” to err. Yet, when inspired by the HS, man cannot err. It is a mysterious unity that we cannot completely explain. The perfect example that we both accept is that of the Scriptures. We affirm that the authors were inspired by God, and thus did not teach error. These were “men” who were “capable of lying.” Yet, through their inspiration, they did not. God prevented it. So too, He does with the Church.
S
SoonerServant
Guest
Are you being moved by the Holy Spirit right now? Can you deny Jesus is the savior of our sins. The one and true son of the living God?
R
Redbandito
Guest
BTW, unless you are infallible you have the ability to be wrong. In this case, you even add to skepticism by basing your point on how you “feel.” Feelings are neither rational nor irrational in themselves. They have no value. And since we are discussing gifts, how can one argue he has a gift for interpreting Scripture when he doesn’t even read it? That is quite an odd position to take. How in the world do you know this is a gift if you don’t exercise it? And if it is indeed a gift, are you not guilty of hiding your talent, as in the parable of the talents (Mt 25)? What happened to that guy?
R
Redbandito
Guest
Are you? What in the world does this have to do with anything? I didn’t claim to be infallible. And why would I deny something I believe? Stay on topic dude.
S
SoonerServant
Guest
I bet you “can’t”. Perhaps, anyone who believes these things and the scriptures is compelled to speak the truth.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Any of us ‘can’ deny truth (and most of us do at one point or another; hopefully we will repent of our errors, do penance, and strive to sin no more).
You do accept free will, right?
You do accept free will, right?
R
Redbandito
Guest
Actually, this contradicts your whole point previously made. You originally argued that we are men capable of lying. Now you are arguing that I “can’t” deny the Gospel. In fact, I could deny. I choose not to. But again, this has nothing to do with the topic of infallibility. You obviously have come here with some preconceived notions of what the term means as applied to Catholics. Yet, they are clearly incorrect. For a better understanding, PLEASE read the link provided.
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
S
SoonerServant
Guest
It’s not a fact of infallability, because it doesn’t exsist. It’s a fact of whether you truly believe. I can’t deny Jesus Christ because I know all these things to be true. The Spirit is in me, and entered me when I first believed. Anyone can claim to be a christian and turn around and do what ever they want. The fact is, they don’t truly believe. I didn’t truly believe either because I was one of thoughs hypocrites. “When I was a child, I thougt like a child. I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.”
Right, and if you’ll notice I put the word "can’t " in quotations. It’s like I was mocking your point of view about infallability. Look, if you didn’t believe the Word of God was true, then you could deny Jesus Christ, but you truly beleive it to be right, so due to your knowledge, not an outside force or supernatural ability, you “can’t” or won’t deny Him.
Right, and if you’ll notice I put the word "can’t " in quotations. It’s like I was mocking your point of view about infallability. Look, if you didn’t believe the Word of God was true, then you could deny Jesus Christ, but you truly beleive it to be right, so due to your knowledge, not an outside force or supernatural ability, you “can’t” or won’t deny Him.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Sooner, please read the link I provided. Your post, in fact, has nothing at all to do with infallibility. Infallibility is the charism by which God preserves His Church from ALL doctrinal error. Whether or not we CAN deny Christ is completely irrelevant. That is choice all must make for themselves. Yet, for the Church to teach error of Christ’s nature is a completely different question. This has played out over two millenia. There have been multiple heresies amongst well-meaning “Christians” that brought questions to either Christ’s divinity, humanity, or the unity between the two. What the latter half of your post deals with is something that no Catholic in here would deny. Of course we are enlightened by the HS. Yet, God cannot take away our free will. God is love. Love if free. Therefore, God cannot take away our free will without contradicting His very nature. And AGAIN, what in the world does this have to do with infallibility anyway?
R
Redbandito
Guest
So you come to a Catholic website and “mock” Catholics? How wonderfully Christian of you! And I want you to notice something. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between “can’t” and “won’t.” Must I pull out the dictionary, really?
Furthermore, whether I deny Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the charism of infallibility. Your line of reasoning makes absolutely no sense. What are you arguing exactly?
P
PauloFreire2
Guest
he doesn’t have much impact on my daily life. JP2 did. I read all his books and really loved them. His personality also come through in the CCC, IMO. He was one-of-a-kind. 
P
ProdigalSonOfOz
Guest
SoonerServant,
This tit for tat has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. If you have opinions on another mater start your own thread.
This tit for tat has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. If you have opinions on another mater start your own thread.
S
SoonerServant
Guest
I’m showing that the Pope is not the only one who can speak infallibly when it comes to the scriptures. I litereally can’t lie about the bible, beacuse I know it to be true. I know that if I lie about it I’m denying my Savior, Jesus Christ and condemning myself to an eternity of torment. If you think you can speak against the scriptures, then try. You know it’s true because the Holy Spirit has revealed it to you in your heart. You have opened up and let it in. However, somewhere along the line of Catholicism, someone didn’t believe and let some heresies sink in.
- Status