Pope Says There is Only One True Church

[RevDrNorth]

well thanks for not saying we deserve hell. papal infallibility means only that the pope is preserved from teaching error regarding faith and morals. just thought i’d clarify that for you. it’s biblical as is purgatory and both are pretty good ideas for us all, don’t you think?
papal infallibility and impeccability are not the same, as you attribute the first as meaning the second. “and on and on”, you say, about all these inventions, list them and tell everyone the horrible nature of them as to how they are bad for us.

peace:thumbsup:

First of all I am WELL aware of what Papal infallability is and is not. I in NO way shape or form believe that Roman Catholics believe that everything the Pope says is infallible. Have not thought that since my first religion course taught by a Catholic Priest in college. Heck I graduated through an RCC college. I still believe that the Pope does NOT have infallibility. Any doctrines (dogma) that are at variance with the 7 Ecumenical Councils cannot be infallible statements. If the Pope says they are then he is wrong.

Second, I am not saying these innovations are horrible and so on. In many cases they are no different than the many doctrines formulated by Protestant Theologians. It is simply that the fullness of faith (the apostolic faith) is maintained in the Orthodox Church from which the Latin church went into schism. It is sad and we need to pray for unity again.

Lastly, since you bring up the issue of being “biblical”, Purgatory is NOT biblical. Don’t quote from 1 Corinthians because that verse has absolutely nothing to do with Purgatory.

I respect your right to believe the Pope can make infallible declarations and to believe the evolving and innovative doctrines as the Latin Rite creates them. It would be expected for you to have fidelity to your church. That is OKAY. We live in a pluralistic society and a pluralistic world. I would no more tell you that you cannot hold these beliefs than I would a 7th Day Adventist or Baptist their doctrines.

Rev North

 

[mtr01]

No…it is the Orthodox Church.

No…it is the Catholic Church (we can do that too). By removing themselves from the source of sacerdotal unity, they have removed themselves from Christ’s Church.

 

[Steve40]

I wish people would quit telling me what I believe as a Protestant.

One of the complaints that hear Catholic raise about Protestantism is that different churches can each believe different things because there is no a single source for teaching like Catholics have. And then someone will turn right around after that and dare to tell me what I believe rather than actually listening to what I say I believe.
QUOTE]

Good point I should not assume that I know how you interpret Scripture. You also had some other good points that I shall give some thought. My attitude could always use some adjustment. I don’t regret anything I said or ever regret making a “big deal” out of the Eucharist, but the reality is that I should desire to share His Body and His Blood with you more than I should want to say I’m right and your wrong. Maybe if the desire to share His Body and His Blood with you is more of my attitude and in my heart it would be easier to communicate what I believe.

Thanks

Steve

 

[East_Anglican]

But the RCC has not maintained the apostolic faith because of innovative doctrines developed every few centuries such as Immaculate conception, Papal infallability, etc. You are simply one schismatic group that gave birth to our schismatic group.

There is certainly more to the founding of the Anglican Church than Henry and his wife. A lot had to do with political issues of control. Don’t forget tht the RCC has been more than a church it was an entity very much into political power and control. Did they not lose the Papal States just in the last century. Also, attacking 6 ft 2 in, artistic, physcially combatative, testy, philandering (not to mention gluttonous) Harry as indicative of Anglicanism would be like me nailing RCCism because of the many Popes whose behavior was less than holy and downright scandalous. Not to mention the indulgences SALE…SALE…SALE…and other sinful acts of the RCC.

From what research I have done there seems to be only one Church who can make the claim of continuous apostolic faith and that is the Orthodox Church. You schismed from it…we schismed from you…Methodism…from us…and like the Breck commercial…so…on and so on. So you probably ought not to get to mad at the parent you left behind and the children you gave birth to.

Maybe Orthodoxy will welcome the RCC home like the prodigal child.

Rev North {trying to decide whether to swim toward Constantinople…but tough to leave my culturally ingrained faith behind}

Also Thomas Cranmer had more of an influence on Anglicanism than Henry VIII. Henry VII just made himself pope in England, Anglican doctrine came from Cranmer, who got burnt at the stake by Henry’s daughter. (Religeous politics is evil!)

 

[estesbob]

. Don’t quote from 1 Corinthians because that verse has absolutely nothing to do with Purgatory.

I

Per your*** personal ***interperation of Scripture. Fortunatley in our Church we dont have to depend on trying to reconsile individual interperations of Scripture-we have The Church to guide us.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Good point I should not assume that I know how you interpret Scripture. You also had some other good points that I shall give some thought. My attitude could always use some adjustment. I don’t regret anything I said or ever regret making a “big deal” out of the Eucharist, but the reality is that I should desire to share His Body and His Blood with you more than I should want to say I’m right and your wrong. Maybe if the desire to share His Body and His Blood with you is more of my attitude and in my heart it would be easier to communicate what I believe.

Thanks

Steve

Thank-you. I appreciate that you listened.

To the others who want to challenge what I said. Again, I am not trying to say that my understanding of the sacrament is superior to yours. It is different, and I think that I have scripture behind me just as you think you have it behind you. I’m not “watering” anything down just to please myself, but because I truly believe what I believe to be the truth.

But let us say that all of Christendom believed in the REAL PRESENCE in the same way that you do, and even that all were once again Catholic. I still submit to you that the most important thing we could do during the week is NOT attending Mass and receiving the sacrament together. Not that doing so would not be important, but it wouldn’t be the most important. More important than that would be learning to live in love and charity toward one another, treating our neighbors with kindness and compassion, fulfilling the obligation of love that we (as Christians) have toward one another. And I think these things are also the most important today in a world where not everyone is Catholic. Love is more than asking someone to swim the Tiber with you. Love is actually expressing kindness, compassion, patience, hospitality, and showing mercy. Love is welcoming people in the name of Christ, and not turning them away.

And for those who are instructed to love others as God loved us, let us remember that God demonstrated his love for us while we were still sinners, in other words when we didn’t have it right didn’t know the truth, he didn’t just wait for us to come to him, he actually came to us. Is the Catholc church up to being what it claims to be, is it up to the challenge of showing love to sinning, incorrect thinking Protestants? Or will it continue just nagging people to swim the Tiber?

I suggest that more important than holding the real presence of Jesus in your hands is being the real hands of Jesus holding others.

 

[estesbob]

I suggest that more important than holding the real presence of Jesus in your hands is being the real hands of Jesus holding others.

How do you reconcile this with John: 6?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

How do you reconcile this with John: 6?

Feeding people without regard to whether they fully understand all of your theology (vs. 1-15) is in fact exactly part of what I am talking about. And when Jesus says, “this bread is my flesh that I shall give for the life of the world” (vs 51) does that not also call those who represent the body of Christ in the world today to be willing to give themselves for the life of the world?

Seriously, if you want to reach the world for Christ, which do you think is going to be more effective: Calling people to join you by swimming the Tiber? Or crossing it yourself to join them? I’m not saying to change your essential beliefs, but we might be more likely to believe that you cared about us rather than yourselves if you were willing to meet us on our own turf. Now, many real life Catholics are doing this everyday. But, I don’t actually see much of that in this forum community. So, is this a unique group of Catholics that simply don’t really want to relate to non-Catholics except to tell us how wrong we are and right they are, or is it just a function of being on the internet where we are responding to words and not human beings?

And as far as importance, Jesus gave us only one command, to love one another as he loved us. In another thread, many Catholics have defended the importance of linking faith and works, well, I want to see that on this thread. Believing that rightly about the nature of the bread and wine used in the sacrament, but not reaching out to accept as one’s brothers in Christ others who also believe in him seems to me to be tanamount to having faith without deeds. Of what value is that?

 

[estesbob]

And as far as importance, Jesus gave us only one command, to love one another as he loved us. In another thread, many Catholics have defended the importance of linking faith and works, well, I want to see that on this thread. Believing that rightly about the nature of the bread and wine used in the sacrament, but not reaching out to accept as one’s brothers in Christ others who also believe in him seems to me to be tanamount to having faith without deeds. Of what value is that?

That is not true. He very specifically ordered us to eat his body and drink his blood. This is nothing new. In fact it was believed by all Christians for the first 1500 years Christ’s church existed. You want to replace this with some sort of feel good invisible Church where love is all the matters.

I do want to reach out for our separated brethren but not by rejecting the truths revealed to us by Christ through his church. It simply is not possible to paper over the huge gap that exists between Catholics and those who have rejected the Church.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

That is not true. He very specifically ordered us to eat his body and drink his blood. This is nothing new. In fact it was believed by all Christians for the first 1500 years Christ’s church existed. You want to replace this with some sort of feel good invisible Church where love is all the matters.

Well that is not true either. I didn’t say that love is all that matters. I said it is the most important thing. And if we are talking about faith, hope, and love, you tell me which is the most important?

I do want to reach out for our separated brethren but not by rejecting the truths revealed to us by Christ through his church. It simply is not possible to paper over the huge gap that exists between Catholics and those who have rejected the Church.

Rejecting those who don’t recognize the authority of your church’s leadership is not the same thing as reaching out.

 

[Mannyfit75]

No…it is the Orthodox Church. You developed many new doctrines such as purgatory, Papal infallibility and on and on. The “schismatic” Protestants are thanks to the Latin Rite Schism. In fact as you criticize Protestants you too have a number of schisms within the Latin Rite Church.

Purgatory is not a new doctrine. It is defined like all other basic Catholic beliefs like Transtantiation, Immaculate Conception, etc. It’s a part of the deposit of faith. Tell me then Rev, if the Orthodox do not acknowledge of purgatory, then why bother pray to the dead.

We Catholics pray for the remission of souls who died in venial sin. That is of course is another topic.

Check out the 7 Ecumenical Councils and see how many of the Latin Rite doctrines are innovations from the apostolic church. Only Orthodoxy has maintained fidelity to the apostolic faith.

Not so, the Orthodoxy lacks the Papacy, or Primacy of Peter. It does indeed have apostolic faith but the Orthodox rejection of the Papacy only make it 99% Truth.

The problem with the E. Orthodox is that its Patriarchs in most cases do not recognized the authority of other E. Orthodox authority. Before the Eastern Orthodox itself split into nation or regional authority of the local Patriarchs. There was a time when all Eastern Orthodoxy was united by the Patriarch of Constantinope. Today, E. Orthodoxy doesn’t have that. Indeed, you have Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.

Only the Catholic Church have it all. I’m being honest here. I do admit that in due time like Eastern Orthodox Churches will be united with Rome like the other 22 Eastern Byzantine Churches. It will happen.

Please note that I am not condenming you or saying you are going to hell, etc but you do not have too much room to criticize what could be considered your fellow Protestants. Maybe you could drop Purgatory, Papal infallibility and so on and return to the fullness of the faith in Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Orthodoxy has preserved this through the centuries (Thanks Be to God)
Rev North

Dropping purgatory, Papal Infallibility and other doctrines cannot be drop. They are part of the Deposit of faith. Those doctrines cannot be compromise or taken out. Indeed, Eastern Orthodoxy maintains Apostolic and valid ordination, but it lacks the authority of the Pope.

Believe me, before the East-West Schism, we have Pope dating to Peter himself as well as the Apostles. I don’t think E. Orthodox has preserve this through the centuries, if it did, she would recognize the Pope’s authority.

 

[estesbob]

Well that is not true either. I didn’t say that love is all that matters. I said it is the most important thing. And if we are talking about faith, hope, and love, you tell me which is the most important?

Rejecting those who don’t recognize the authority of your church’s leadership is not the same thing as reaching out.

Again that you can not reach out when you reject basic tenets of the Catholic Church. You seem to believe that other than the primacy of the Pope there are no other major differences to contend with. It simply is not true.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Again that you can not reach out when you reject basic tenets of the Catholic Church. You seem to believe that other than the primacy of the Pope there are no other major differences to contend with. It simply is not true.

I know there are many issues to contend with. But, I am not talking about saying that we are all in one accord or one ecclesiatical institution. But I think that there could be more recognition that we are all one in Christ.

Check this out from a thread asking the question, “Do you admire Martin Luther?”

As a Catholic I would have to obviously say no. Outside of the Arian heresy, not one single person has done more to destroy Christ’s prayer that we may all be as one. If it weren’t for Luther(and others following him) CAF would not be necessary. We would all still be as one in our faith.

OK. So flyersfan doesn’t admire Martin Luther. I can understand that. What I don’t understand is the statement that “if it were not for Luther CAF would not be necessary”. Such a view to me implies that the purpose of CAF is to counteract the consequences of Luther, either by trying to fight or win back non-Catholic Christians. Surely there is more to Catholic life than such an attitude. Things like growing in one’s own faith, sharing the good news of Christ with the non-Christian world (not just Protestant Christians), reaching out the hands of fellowship and brotherhood to all Christians of every background (even those of differing theological persuasions would seem to be good reasons for CAF.

One does not have to be in 100% agreement about all things to be of the same Church. Even within Catholicism there have been and continue to be differences on many things, some of them even important things. I think that we believe in the same Lord and share the same baptism ought to be enough to see our oneness as greater than our differences. It is for me.

 

[MariaG]

Wrong. Often times, it is not necessary for the Church to make a dogmatic statement on Church doctrine until they are challenged. The primacy of the Pope is just another example of this. It is clear from early writing from the Church fathers that the Bishop of Rome had primacy. It became necessary to further define this dogma later. The Church didn’t invent it, just more clearly defined it.

And the orthodox will admit this also.

But they say the primacy and SUpremacy are different. “First among equals”.

Another thread though

 

[estesbob]

I know there are many issues to contend with. But, I am not talking about saying that we are all in one accord or one ecclesiatical institution. But I think that there could be more recognition that we are all one in Christ.

.

But we are not. One cannot be in full union with Christ if they reject his Church.

 

[MariaG]

My point still stands. There has been for millenia dissension over this theory (among others), and it has occurred within the Catholic church. Thus, those who assert that the church has always accepted the primacy of the papacy are incorrect by your very own recounting of history. It hasn’t. There have been debates, disageements, schisms, and even little revolts on this and other points that are considered the historic tradition and teachings of the church from its inception to the present. Luther wasn’t even the biggest of them, just the one so many western Catholics seem to get so easily distrubed by.

Respectfully, you are mistaken.

Again, the primacy of the bishop of Rome has always been accepted. First among equals. Primacy is admitted by the Othodox. Supremacy is not.

The difference is that I do not believe that Catholics claim a supremacy either, just a different definition of what “first among equals” and “leader of the Choir of apostles” actually means for practical purposes.

 

[MariaG]

The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth.

With respect…this is utter nonesense and blasphemus.
Rev North

I find I am agreeing here with Rev North.

Vicar of Christ does not mean the pope and God are the same nor is it a teaching of the Catholic Church that the pope is the same as God.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

But we are not. One cannot be in full union with Christ if they reject his Church.

Therein lies the rub. You think that in rejecting Catholic authority that we are rejecting Christ’s Church. I think differently, obviously. I believe that all Christians are indeed a part of Christ’s Church, without having to be a part of the Catholic church. And that takes us full-circle back to our concept of who or what the Church is again.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

The difference is that I do not believe that Catholics claim a supremacy either, just a different definition of what “first among equals” and “leader of the Choir of apostles” actually means for practical purposes.

I’ll bite. What is your “different definition”?

 

[MariaG]

I’ll bite. What is your “different definition”?

There are quotes among the ECF which say things like

“Leader of the choir of apostles”.

Orthodox claim that Peter may have been first, but it is first among equals. Catholics believe that it is first, they are equals, but in the case of disagreement, the “first among equals” is the one who must be obeyed. Lots of threads on this, along with the quotes from the ECF in the Eastern forum