Question for all protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter rinnie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course not!! I believe that he and you and your communion truly and honestly believe he has the authority to speak infallibly ex cathedra on faith and morals. I also believe that most of the time the Bishop of Rome represents the Universal Church well by his words and actions. Simply because I don’t believe he has this authority doesn’t make him, or me, a liar. I consider Pope John Paul II to be the greatest Christian of my lifetime, and Benedict the XVI my favorite pope. They are not liars at all. Mistaken at times? Yes.

True, but a lie involves intent to deceive. That’s what Merriam-Webster says: * to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive *. There are no attempts to deceive among these popes, these good holy men. A mistake is not a lie. A misunderstanding is not an intentional misrepresentation.
Earlier, you said that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. You weren’t telling a lie. You were mistaken.

Jon
Sorry Jon if I came on strong. I could not think of another way of asking.

But here is where I am having a problem. Jesus promised us hades would never take over the RCC.

With that said him claiming to be the Vicar of Christ, and Claiming this power, would he not be trumping God if he was not telling the truth.

That is just the only way I can see it in my mind.

I can’t see anyway the Pope could be mistaken when he speaks alone in the name of God. God promised us when it comes to that we will not be deceived.

Hey gotta run, but will check in later. You know my love for you Jon, Hope I didn;t in anyway insult you It was never my intention.
 
I could very well be missing something, but where did Jesus give all the Apostles the keys?

I understand that he gave them authority, but I don’t believe he gave them the keys of the kingdom as was given to the Chief Steward of the House of David, and to Peter as the Chief Steward of the “House of God on Earth”.

I know Matt 18:18

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

(No Keys)

John 20:21-23

21 Then Jesus said again, “Peace be with you. It was the Father who sent me, and I am now sending you in the same way.” 22 Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of anyone, their sins are forgiven. If there is anyone whose sins you don’t forgive, their sins are not forgiven.”

(no keys)

So, am I missing a verse?

Or if not, why give the keys to Peter if everyone has the same authority? Shouldn’t the keys have been given to the others as well. It seems like a detail that should be there.
You said, Jon, that John 20:21-23 is no keys. Of course it is.
An excellent, brief statement of the Lutheran view:
gnesiolutheran.com/the-power-of-the-keys-2/

Jon
 
You said, Jon, that John 20:21-23 is no keys. Of course it is.
An excellent, brief statement of the Lutheran view:
gnesiolutheran.com/the-power-of-the-keys-2/

Jon
Why would the keys be mentioned with significance in Matt 16,but completely ignored in the other two passages.

Yes there is authority given all the apostles in John 20, this corresponds to the power of the bishops.

Peter, unobjectionably, received the power first so at least he would be "first among equals"but I also see a very significant thing in the keys that does not exist in the other scriptures cited.

I am confident you are aware if the Isaiah 22 (I think) reference of the keys, correct?

With that in mind it seems significant that Christ gives authority without the keys to the others.
 
It seems we have talked about quite a few thing’s here.

But not one person has showed me where any Protestant Preacher has ever claimed authority to speak in the name of the Holy Spirit, and proclaim the power to teach the word of God over another.
Nor should we. Paul says “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:8). Catholics tend to focus too much on who is talking rather than on what is being said. Let’s not be too willing to have someone assert authority in spiritual matters over us. That’s not Christianity. We Protestants are frankly just as bad. I know I’ve been guilty of it. It’s human nature. We find a preacher we like, who speaks eloquently and assertively and carries himself well, and soon enough we take whatever he says. But that’s wrong. If an angel from heaven came to preach, we should *still *test what it says.
Now here is what really seems funny to me, For all the years I have been on this site Protestants themselves claim to have the power to understand scripture. And have had no problem telling us what they think it says.
But yet cannot stand up for one Protestant Preacher. Whats wrong with this picture?:eek:
To some extent you’re projecting Catholic authority structures and expectations on to us, and having done so, you find that Protestantism is not Catholicism.
As I stated previously I stand by the Power of my Pope and Bishops to teach and preach, can show the word of God, and have a Pope who is the Vicar of Christ.
Isn’t it funny how only the RCC has ever claimed this.:confused:
That’s not quite true. Yes, Rome claims it has a divine mandate, but so do others. Are you familiar with the claims the JWs make? The Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as “God’s organization”. You too have a magisterium that requires the same obedience and private thought is strongly discouraged, and the infallible magisterium also claims to rule on God’s behalf. The Watch Tower Society warns members to “avoid independent thinking”, claiming such thinking “was introduced by Satan the Devil” and would “cause division”. That must sound familiar to Roman Catholics, but that it comes from another religion that you reject as heretical ought to be unnerving. The submission of intellect means that being objective is inherently difficult for both the devout RC and devout JW. Who is correct? Or more crucially, how can you know?
 
Nor should we. Paul says “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:8). Catholics tend to focus too much on who is talking rather than on what is being said. Let’s not be too willing to have someone assert authority in spiritual matters over us. That’s not Christianity. We Protestants are frankly just as bad. I know I’ve been guilty of it. It’s human nature. We find a preacher we like, who speaks eloquently and assertively and carries himself well, and soon enough we take whatever he says. But that’s wrong. If an angel from heaven came to preach, we should *still *test what it says.
Yes if even an angel should preach a gospel OTHER THAN the one we PREACHED (wrote ? nope definitely says preached)

So how do we know what was preached?
How did the Galatians know?
That’s not quite true. Yes, Rome claims it has a divine mandate, but so do others. Are you familiar with the claims the JWs make? The Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as “God’s organization”. You too have a magisterium that requires the same obedience and private thought is strongly discouraged, and the infallible magisterium also claims to rule on God’s behalf. The Watch Tower Society warns members to “avoid independent thinking”, claiming such thinking “was introduced by Satan the Devil” and would “cause division”. That must sound familiar to Roman Catholics, but that it comes from another religion that you reject as heretical ought to be unnerving. The submission of intellect means that being objective is inherently difficult for both the devout RC and devout JW. Who is correct? Or more crucially, how can you know?
The Mormons and JW are correct in understanding there must be authority in the church. That is why they invented divine revelation to give them authority. Especially with Mormonism. Mormonism was founded out of Smiths search for the truth and seeing pastor after pastor after pastor claim different things (to bad he never studied Catholicism, I am confident it would have settled him)

It’s not correct or fair to say the CatholicChurch requires a blind submission. It doesn’t. It encouraged study and questioning. It is a very logical systemic theology that has been debated and discussed for 2000 years.
 
Why would the keys be mentioned with significance in Matt 16,but completely ignored in the other two passages.

Yes there is authority given all the apostles in John 20, this corresponds to the power of the bishops.

Peter, unobjectionably, received the power first so at least he would be "first among equals"but I also see a very significant thing in the keys that does not exist in the other scriptures cited.

I am confident you are aware if the Isaiah 22 (I think) reference of the keys, correct?

With that in mind it seems significant that Christ gives authority without the keys to the others.
Yes, aware of Isaiah. From my perspective, you nail the distinction in terms of “first among equals”. There is clearly a reason why Peter receives the keys first, most significantly his statement of faith, but he also exercises a leadership role in the Church during the Apostolic era. What John 20 and Matthew 18 show, however, is that he is not alone in exercising the power of the keys, that it belongs to all the apostles and the Church.

Jon
 
That’s not quite true. Yes, Rome claims it has a divine mandate, but so do others. Are you familiar with the claims the JWs make? The Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as “God’s organization”.
The difference is that they expect blind trust for an organization that has been in existence for less than 150 years.
You too have a magisterium that requires the same obedience and private thought is strongly discouraged,
If so, then Catholic Answers would not exist. Nor would we bother to put people through RCIA for a year or longer; we would just say, come and be a Catholic, and just obey everything without question.

We expect people to have questions and we expect to have difficult conversations, which is why we allow a period of Inquiry before being brought into the Church.
and the infallible magisterium also claims to rule on God’s behalf.
Jesus gave it authority to do so.
The Watch Tower Society warns members to “avoid independent thinking”, claiming such thinking “was introduced by Satan the Devil” and would “cause division”. That must sound familiar to Roman Catholics, but that it comes from another religion that you reject as heretical ought to be unnerving.
I have never been told such a thing. In fact, quite the opposite - we are encouraged to think independently, and to ask questions about what the Church teaches. I actually have to admit that I didn’t really know how to think before becoming a Catholic - before, I used to base my ideas on my feelings. Now, I base them on facts.
The submission of intellect means that being objective is inherently difficult for both the devout RC and devout JW. Who is correct? Or more crucially, how can you know?
By an objective look at the facts.

**The Catholic Church: **First Pope was Peter, ruled from 33 until 67 AD, was appointed Chief Shepherd of the Church (aka Pope) by Jesus Christ, as we see recorded in John 21:15-19. The teachings and rituals are essentially the same today as they were given by Christ in 33 AD.

**The Jehovah’s Witnesses: **First leader was Charies Taze Russell, a leader in the Bible Student Movement. His group separated from the Bible Student Movement in 1881 and began to call themselves the International Bible Students Association. At around the same time, he established a publishing house called the Watchtower Society for the purpose of printing Bible tracts. Over a period of about 50 years until the mid-1930s, the group voted on and changes several doctrines based on their unique method of Bible interpretation. In 1946, they changed the name of the organization to “Jehovah’s Witnesses” after voting among the membership showed them that God’s name is Jehovah.

This isn’t “the argument from antiquity” by the way - this is the argument from looking at the Church that was started at the time when Jesus was starting a Church, and looking at what Church the Apostles belonged to (Catholic) and what church they could not possibly have belonged to (Jehovah’s Witnesses) owing to the fact that it didn’t even exist at the time.
 
Especially with Mormonism. Mormonism was founded out of Smiths search for the truth and seeing pastor after pastor after pastor claim different things (to bad he never studied Catholicism, I am confident it would have settled him)
Mr. Smith’s views on the Roman Catholic Church are as bad as any Jack Chick tract. Joe had no quarrels pointing out the the Roman Church was the great and abominable church that removed many plain and precious things from Sacred Scripture.
 
Mr. Smith’s views on the Roman Catholic Church are as bad as any Jack Chick tract. Joe had no quarrels pointing out the the Roman Church was the great and abominable church that removed many plain and precious things from Sacred Scripture.
Did he study Catholicism? Or was he just influenced by the Very widespread Catholic Prejudice? I know he was very influenced by tent revival pastors who I can only imagine spike horribly of the church, but I honestly am not familiar with him considering Catholicism like he did the other Protestant churches. Time to do some more reading on it I guess!
 
Nor should we. Paul says “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:8). Catholics tend to focus too much on who is talking rather than on what is being said.
Do you not see the irony in this statement, given the fact that you believe this because of *who *said it?
 
. You too have a magisterium that requires the same obedience and private thought is strongly discouraged, and the infallible magisterium also claims to rule on God’s behalf. The Watch Tower Society warns members to “avoid independent thinking”, claiming such thinking “was introduced by Satan the Devil” and would “cause division”
And I hope that the irony in this statement, too, is noted.

In the same statement you are recusing yourself from the JWs “private thought”, while you accuse Catholicism of discouraging “private thought”.

You cannot discourage the Catholic paradigm without also encouraging the JW paradigm.

You must choose one or the other: either private judgment is an essential component of theological inquiry…which means that you must judge the JW doctrine as true, as it was apprehended by none other than…private judgment…

OR!!

Profess that private judgments must always be consonant with the Truth of the Faith, given once for all, to the saints…in which you become quite…CATHOLIC when you say this. 😉
 
Time for coffee.
I think it was very nice of you to say that. One of the many blessings the new Pope has brought to the world is the message of compassion, and that almost everyone is still within site of the Kingdom.

For years I carried around “religious baggage” and it took over a decade to work through that. Somehow, I was finally able to work all of it out and here I am again. I now can say that I am glad that all are welcome to share on CAC. I feel this policy reflects the real intentions of Christ. He would not want anyone excluded from the discussion at the table of faith.

For me, following the example of Christ means setting aside any negative feelings or opinions I may have about any Christians, or even that of my “enemies.” I don’t have to be a spiritual rug for anyone who wants to wipe their feet, but it is not in keeping with the will of God to sit in judgment of others, let alone to stoop to their level hostility for example.

I chose Catholicism and my new Church due to the message all are welcome here.
PS: “All are welcome” seems to be a “hot button” phrase these days. For me this does not imply exemption from any church doctrine or dogma. It does imply forgiveness, love and hope, that I can live up to the expectations and examples of Christ and his church. It does imply effort and work on my part.
 
Of course not!! I believe that he and you and your communion truly and honestly believe he has the authority to speak infallibly ex cathedra on faith and morals. I also believe that most of the time the Bishop of Rome represents the Universal Church well by his words and actions. Simply because I don’t believe he has this authority doesn’t make him, or me, a liar. I consider Pope John Paul II to be the greatest Christian of my lifetime, and Benedict the XVI my favorite pope. They are not liars at all. Mistaken at times? Yes.

True, but a lie involves intent to deceive. That’s what Merriam-Webster says: * to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive *. There are no attempts to deceive among these popes, these good holy men. A mistake is not a lie. A misunderstanding is not an intentional misrepresentation.
Earlier, you said that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. You weren’t telling a lie. You were mistaken.

Jon
Okay then the Pope makes mistakes when he speaks in the name of Christ. How can this be?

Jesus told all of his Apostles that whenever you speak I will give you the words.

Now IF these Pope’s made mistakes by misrepresenting God when they spoke in his name alone, what makes him and the others together not making mistakes also? And how are any different then the protestants then?

And John 20 is not saying what you are trying to make it say. There are no keys to the kingdom to bind and loose whatever here. What is said here is quite clear. They have the power of the Holy Spirit to bind and loose SIN, Its quite clear what they can bind and loose…

When Jesus spoke to Peter alone he was told You are Peter and to YOU I give the power to bind and loose. WHATEVER you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and WHAT you loose on earth is loosed in heaven. He never mentioned only sin, as he mentioned to the others. It is just not there. There are no keys to the kingdom mentioned there at all.

Jesus did not say whatever you bind and loose, he said whatever SIN you bind and loose.

If this were true, then even our Church Priests would all be equal. Because they have the same power as the Bishops, Cardinals etc if what you are saying is true. Because they have the gift of the Holy Spirit to bind and loose sin. What makes a Bishop or Cardinal or Pope have any authority over a Priest if what you claim is true?
 
Nor should we. Paul says “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:8). Catholics tend to focus too much on who is talking rather than on what is being said. Let’s not be too willing to have someone assert authority in spiritual matters over us. That’s not Christianity. We Protestants are frankly just as bad. I know I’ve been guilty of it. It’s human nature. We find a preacher we like, who speaks eloquently and assertively and carries himself well, and soon enough we take whatever he says. But that’s wrong. If an angel from heaven came to preach, we should *still *test what it says.

To some extent you’re projecting Catholic authority structures and expectations on to us, and having done so, you find that Protestantism is not Catholicism.

That’s not quite true. Yes, Rome claims it has a divine mandate, but so do others. Are you familiar with the claims the JWs make? The Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as “God’s organization”. You too have a magisterium that requires the same obedience and private thought is strongly discouraged, and the infallible magisterium also claims to rule on God’s behalf. The Watch Tower Society warns members to “avoid independent thinking”, claiming such thinking “was introduced by Satan the Devil” and would “cause division”. That must sound familiar to Roman Catholics, but that it comes from another religion that you reject as heretical ought to be unnerving. The submission of intellect means that being objective is inherently difficult for both the devout RC and devout JW. Who is correct? Or more crucially, how can you know?
Authority. The RCC is traced back to Jesus and the 12 Apostles. The scripture you yourself was stated by teachers of the RCC itself.

Paul was one of the 12 Apostles whos teaching is exactly the same today in the RCC as it was the day he taught it.

And you are not correct, RC do not focus on who is teaching. It does not matter, sure they can prefer one Priest over another but the Priest is giving the same EXACT teaching.

You are preaching to me about straying from the teachings and obey the teachings of Paul, and you are going by the teachings of Joseph Smith?:confused:

I could sit here for hours and show you where JS and St Paul are teaching completely different things.

You need to show me where the Pope and St Paul are doing it.
 
=rinnie;11365582]Okay then the Pope makes mistakes when he speaks in the name of Christ. How can this be?
Jesus told all of his Apostles that whenever you speak I will give you the words.
Now IF these Pope’s made mistakes by misrepresenting God when they spoke in his name alone, what makes him and the others together not making mistakes also? And how are any different then the protestants then?
And the Apostles had the words. They circulated those words first orally, then by writing them down. It can be, rinnie, that the pope makes mistakes because he is human. There is a better chance that all the patriarchs together have a better chance of getting it right than one patriarch alone. And it isn’t any different for Lutherans, for Reformed, for any other communion. We confessional Lutherans take the position that our confessions are right, not that they are infallible, and there’s a difference. I believe the early councils are right, and authoritative. They do not necessarily have to be infallible for that to be the case.
And John 20 is not saying what you are trying to make it say. There are no keys to the kingdom to bind and loose whatever here. What is said here is quite clear. They have the power of the Holy Spirit to bind and loose SIN, Its quite clear what they can bind and loose…
He says much more than that.
**Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.” **
He sends them - as equals! Sends them to do what? To preach and teach, to baptize, bind and loose.

22After he had said this, he breathed on the disciples and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
Receive the Holy Spirit. To do what? Only to bind and loose sin? Was that their only role? Of course not.

**23Whenever you forgive sins, they are forgiven. Whenever you don’t forgive them, they are not forgiven." **
This is only one part of what he sends them all, equally, to do.
When Jesus spoke to Peter alone he was told You are Peter and to YOU I give the power to bind and loose. WHATEVER you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and WHAT you loose on earth is loosed in heaven. He never mentioned only sin, as he mentioned to the others. It is just not there. There are no keys to the kingdom mentioned there at all.
The language is the same. The sending that Peter is given earlier is then given to the rest of the disciples.
Jesus did not say whatever you bind and loose, he said whatever SIN you bind and loose.
If this were true, then even our Church Priests would all be equal. Because they have the same power as the Bishops, Cardinals etc if what you are saying is true. Because they have the gift of the Holy Spirit to bind and loose sin. What makes a Bishop or Cardinal or Pope have any authority over a Priest if what you claim is true?
They are equals! They were equals in the early Church. They grades of orders all started as presbyter. Bishops, of course, have greater responsibilities. The authority if grades is a human tradition - a good one, mind you, but a human one.

Jon
 
And the Apostles had the words. They circulated those words first orally, then by writing them down. It can be, rinnie, that the pope makes mistakes because he is human. There is a better chance that all the patriarchs together have a better chance of getting it right than one patriarch alone. And it isn’t any different for Lutherans, for Reformed, for any other communion. We confessional Lutherans take the position that our confessions are right, not that they are infallible, and there’s a difference. I believe the early councils are right, and authoritative. They do not necessarily have to be infallible for that to be the case.

He says much more than that.
**Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.” **
He sends them - as equals! Sends them to do what? To preach and teach, to baptize, bind and loose.

22After he had said this, he breathed on the disciples and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
Receive the Holy Spirit. To do what? Only to bind and loose sin? Was that their only role? Of course not.

**23Whenever you forgive sins, they are forgiven. Whenever you don’t forgive them, they are not forgiven." **
This is only one part of what he sends them all, equally, to do.

The language is the same. The sending that Peter is given earlier is then given to the rest of the disciples.

They are equals! They were equals in the early Church. They grades of orders all started as presbyter. Bishops, of course, have greater responsibilities. The authority if grades is a human tradition - a good one, mind you, but a human one.

Jon
How can the Pope make mistakes when he claims to speak in the name of Christ. Of course I agree he can make mistakes when speaking in his own name, and his own opinion he tells you that himself. He never claimed to be without sin.

And Jon I am sorry the language is not the same he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom to bind and loose anything, He never mentioned only sin. Jesus said WHATEVER you bind or loose.’

To the others he said bind and loose sin, its clear.

To teach in his name, to forgive sins in his name, and to baptise yes it is clear he said these things also. He stated all of them. But when he said to bind and loose it stated sin.

If they felt they could all bind and loose anything on their own, why was it never done. Why had the Pope been the only ONE to do it. Surely if this authority was given to all, another besides the Pope would have used that authority in the RCC all these years.

Also I have another problem with what you are saying. You say that when a Priest binds or looses my sin he has the power of the HS to do so.

But if you claim the Pope can be mistaken when he binds and looses something, how can I be sure the Priest is not mistaken?

You can’t have it both ways. Either the when the Pope speaks in the name of the H.S. alone or with the others its the truth, or its not.

How can he claim to speak in the name of God and be mistaken? How can you be so sure he is mistaken?

I am sure he is not mistaken, because as I stated I either believe he has the power to speak in the name of God every single time he says or I can accept none.

What do I do, claim to have the mind of God myself and decide? Flip a coin? Jesus said he would not leave us orphans. If we have a pope who is mistaken when he speaks in the name of God, we are all orphans.

Jesus said you can’t be lukewarm. Its hot or cold.

Now didn’t Jesus say when they speak in his name it was indeed from the Holy Spirit? Where did he say only when the 12 speak in his name as a Group?

Our faith is that when they speak in the name of the HS it comes from God. History shows that only one has made this claim on his own, and made this claim with others. Never has any other done this on their own.

And had Apostolic succession straight down to Jesus to do so.

Again if the Pope is mistaken as you state, how did Jesus keep his promise to me in his word?
 
And the Apostles had the words. They circulated those words first orally, then by writing them down. It can be, rinnie, that the pope makes mistakes because he is human. There is a better chance that all the patriarchs together have a better chance of getting it right than one patriarch alone. And it isn’t any different for Lutherans, for Reformed, for any other communion. We confessional Lutherans take the position that our confessions are right, not that they are infallible, and there’s a difference. I believe the early councils are right, and authoritative. They do not necessarily have to be infallible for that to be the case.

He says much more than that.
**Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.” **
He sends them - as equals! Sends them to do what? To preach and teach, to baptize, bind and loose.

22After he had said this, he breathed on the disciples and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
Receive the Holy Spirit. To do what? Only to bind and loose sin? Was that their only role? Of course not.

**23Whenever you forgive sins, they are forgiven. Whenever you don’t forgive them, they are not forgiven." **
This is only one part of what he sends them all, equally, to do.

The language is the same. The sending that Peter is given earlier is then given to the rest of the disciples.

They are equals! They were equals in the early Church. They grades of orders all started as presbyter. Bishops, of course, have greater responsibilities. The authority if grades is a human tradition - a good one, mind you, but a human one.

Jon
If they were all equals why was Peter told to feed the sheep? Why only Peter.
If they were all equals why when they needed a decision to be made Peter stood up and made itl ON his own?

Why did the others not object and say you cannot make that decision on your own, you do not have that power? You have to admit he made it on his own without the others.

Where did any of the others ever do that? Scripture shows Peter doing it on his own.
 
=rinnie;11365760]How can the Pope make mistakes when he claims to speak in the name of Christ. Of course I agree he can make mistakes when speaking in his own name, and his own opinion he tells you that himself. He never claimed to be without sin.
Rinnie, how, then, can anyone make a mistake when claiming to speak in the name of Christ?
And Jon I am sorry the language is not the same he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom to bind and loose anything, He never mentioned only sin. Jesus said WHATEVER you bind or loose.’
To the others he said bind and loose sin, its clear.
To teach in his name, to forgive sins in his name, and to baptise yes it is clear he said these things also. He stated all of them. But when he said to bind and loose it stated sin.
What do you think He intended by “bind and loose”?
If they felt they could all bind and loose anything on their own, why was it never done. Why had the Pope been the only ONE to do it. Surely if this authority was given to all, another besides the Pope would have used that authority in the RCC all these years.
I suspect they did it all the time.
Also I have another problem with what you are saying. You say that when a Priest binds or looses my sin he has the power of the HS to do so.
But if you claim the Pope can be mistaken when he binds and looses something, how can I be sure the Priest is not mistaken?
My pastor makes mistakes all the time. But when he says, “as a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by His authority, I therefore forgive you all of your sins…” he is acting as Christ intended him to act. When the pope hears confession and grants Absolution, same thing.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the when the Pope speaks in the name of the H.S. alone or with the others its the truth, or its not.
Why?
How can he claim to speak in the name of God and be mistaken? How can you be so sure he is mistaken?
He’s a human being. We make mistakes all the time. The fact that he claims to speak in God’s name doesn’t change that.
I am sure he is not mistaken, because as I stated I either believe he has the power to speak in the name of God every single time he says or I can accept none.
Well, there you are. I said earlier that you and he and all Catholics believe he has a charism of infallibility ex cathedra. I don’t believe any one bishop has that, not from scripture, not from the early Church.
What do I do, claim to have the mind of God myself and decide? Flip a coin? Jesus said he would not leave us orphans. If we have a pope who is mistaken when he speaks in the name of God, we are all orphans.
Jesus said you can’t be lukewarm. Its hot or cold.
No. You have to believe what all of your heart. I with all my heart believe that where we as humans err, “He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Now didn’t Jesus say when they speak in his name it was indeed from the Holy Spirit? Where did he say only when the 12 speak in his name as a Group?
Our faith is that when they speak in the name of the HS it comes from God. History shows that only one has made this claim on his own, and made this claim with others. Never has any other done this on their own.
I agree, but humans sometimes misunderstand, sometimes make mistakes.
And had Apostolic succession straight down to Jesus to do so.
Again if the Pope is mistaken as you state, how did Jesus keep his promise to me in his word?
In word and sacrament. The pope is a single bishop, in a city in Italy. He has a level of primacy among his peers, the other bishops, but he is still a human that can make mistakes.

Jon
 
Rinnie, how, then, can anyone make a mistake when claiming to speak in the name of Christ?

What do you think He intended by “bind and loose”?

I suspect they did it all the time.

My pastor makes mistakes all the time. But when he says, “as a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by His authority, I therefore forgive you all of your sins…” he is acting as Christ intended him to act. When the pope hears confession and grants Absolution, same thing.

Why?

He’s a human being. We make mistakes all the time. The fact that he claims to speak in God’s name doesn’t change that.

Well, there you are. I said earlier that you and he and all Catholics believe he has a charism of infallibility ex cathedra. I don’t believe any one bishop has that, not from scripture, not from the early Church.

No. You have to believe what all of your heart. I with all my heart believe that where we as humans err, “He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

I agree, but humans sometimes misunderstand, sometimes make mistakes.

In word and sacrament. The pope is a single bishop, in a city in Italy. He has a level of primacy among his peers, the other bishops, but he is still a human that can make mistakes.

Jon
If the bishops and priests can bind and loose your sin without error, noting that they can tell you your not forgiven yet, then why can the bishop of Rome, as successor of Peter and at least “first among equals” like you said, not bind and loose when appealed to by the Bishops and the Church to settle a matter of faith and morals that has fallen into dispute amongst the bishops church.

Should he not have the same protection in accurately settle the matter asked of him as a priest is protected from error when one asks for absolution?
 
If the bishops and priests can bind and loose your sin without error, noting that they can tell you your not forgiven yet, then why can the bishop of Rome, as successor of Peter and at least “first among equals” like you said, not bind and loose when appealed to by the Bishops and the Church to settle a matter of faith and morals that has fallen into dispute amongst the bishops church.

Should he not have the same protection in accurately settle the matter asked of him as a priest is protected from error when one asks for absolution?
Then you would have to give that power to all bishops individually, and not just the Bishop of Rome. As I recall, the other bishops did go to the pope to help settle matters, but there was no claim of infallibility to that. There is a difference between saying one is right, and saying one is infallible, even ex cathedra.

Jon

EDIT: I might add that when we say we trust the Absolution from our priest/pastor/confessor, we are actually trusting “He who is faithful and just.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top