reunification questions for my protestant brothers and sisters

  • Thread starter Thread starter bengal_fan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This confession came from the Father–an infallible confession if you will. 🙂
It is an infallible statement. That is exactly the Papal Infallibility is. It is not the Pope who speaks through moral and faith, but Jesus Christ who speaks. I should say, “This teaching is not mine, but the one who sent me.”
 
But Manny a Priest cannot marry therefore they have to be celibant as the church does not allow sex outside of a marriage. They can’t change the celibacy discipline without changing the poilcy of marriage. That makes no sense. By your implication the magisterium can change just the stance on celibacy. OK so then what? Priests can have sex without being married?? Thats a complete contradiction of RCC policy.
I think you are misunderstanding what the Catholic Church believes. Sex outside of marriage is always forbidden by the Catholic Church, in ALL circumstances. Celibacy, in the way it is used here, refers to the fact that priests must be celibate because they do not have the option of being married (the ONLY permitted way that one can engage in sex). If the celibacy requirement was lifted, it would simply mean that married men would have the option of becoming Catholic priests, nothing more. In any case, every branch of the Catholic Church already DOES allow for married priests, albeit some only in very limited circumstances.
 
It is an infallible statement.
I agree.

But it is surely not saying that all successors of St Peter will become known as supreme infallible pontiffs.
Holy Spirit inspired Councils fought the heresies.
All bishops were equal.

Supreme infallibility was invented in post-schism Rome by the ultra-montanists and defined in 1870. 🤷
 
I agree.

But it is surely not saying that all successors of St Peter will become known as supreme infallible pontiffs. Holy Spirit inspired Councils fought the heresies. All bishops were equal.

Supreme infallibility was invented in post-schism Rome by the ultra-montanists and defined in 1870. 🤷
It was not invented. It was defined. It was already believed in the first place much like the Trinity. Infallibility is the Pope in union with the all the bishops.

The 1st Vatican Council did defined in 1870.

Here are some Scriptural verse to support Papal Infallibility:

John 1:42, Mark 3:16 ("And to Simon he gave the name “Peter”, “Cephas”, or “Rock”)
Matthew 16:18 (“thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church”; cf. Matthew 7:24-28, (the house built on rock)
John 21:15-17 (“Feed my lambs.”/“Feed my sheep.”) (stated three times)
Luke 10:16 (“He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.”)
Luke 22:31-32 (“confirm thy brethren”)
Acts 15:28 (“For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, …”) (“the Apostles speak with voice of Holy Ghost”)
Matthew 10:2 (“And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,…”) (Peter is first.)
Matthew 16:19 (“whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”) (Also used to defend the sacrament of Confession)
Ludwig Ott points out the many indications in Scripture that Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke 22:32, Luke 24:34, and 1 Corinthians 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5).
 
Before 1st Vatican Council, the Church’s Pope have always practice infallibility.

“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

“Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate…” Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).

“Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.” Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

“I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.” Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius’ Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345).

“Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons.” Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], To the Eastern Bishops, fragment in Theodoret’s EH, 5:10 (c. A.D. 372).

“We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather, the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us and protects and watches over us, his heirs, as we trust, in all the care of his ministry…Now let all your priests observe the rule here given, unless they wish to be plucked from the solid, apostolic rock upon which Christ built the universal Church…I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which were contained in your letter of inquiry and have, I believe, returned adequate answers to each of the cases you reported by our son, the priest Basianus, to the Roman Church as to the head of your body…And whereas no priest of the Lord is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons.” Pope Sircius [regn. c A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, bishop of Tarragona (Spain), 1,3,20 (c. A.D. 392).

“Care shall not be lacking on my part to guard the faith of the Gospel as regards my peoples, and to visit by letter, as far as I am able, the parts of my body throughout the divers regions of the earth.” Pope Anastasius [regn. A.D. 399-401], Epistle 1 (c. A.D. 400).

“In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated … by bishops … as you have done, the example of ancient tradition … For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow that Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this named derived … that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head)…you also show your solicitude for the well being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once.” Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, 1,2 (A.D. 417).

“It is therefore with due care and propriety that you consult the secrets of the Apostolic office that office, I mean, to which belongs, besides the things which are without, the care of all the Churches…Especially as often as a question of faith is discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to none other than to Peter, the author of their name and office.” Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Mileve, 2 (A.D. 417).

“Although the tradition of the fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter…For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat…Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time…and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision.” Pope Zosimus [regn. A.D. 417-418], To the Council of Carthage (c. A.D. 418).
 
It was not invented. It was defined. It was already believed in the first place much like the Trinity. Infallibility is the Pope in union with the all the bishops.

The 1st Vatican Council did defined in 1870.

Here are some Scriptural verse to support Papal Infallibility:
The Scriptures you quote do not support the odd doctrine of infallibility. Because you have been taught this strange doctrine by your Church, does not make it legitimate. Unlike the Trinity, infallibility is not apparent in the Bible. You must squeeze infallibility out by twisting, so that it meshes with the post-schism invention which was eventually defined in 1870.

I am sorry manny. But I will never be able to accept this recent innovation of doctrine.
 
I think you are misunderstanding what the Catholic Church believes. Sex outside of marriage is always forbidden by the Catholic Church, in ALL circumstances. Celibacy, in the way it is used here, refers to the fact that priests must be celibate because they do not have the option of being married (the ONLY permitted way that one can engage in sex). If the celibacy requirement was lifted, it would simply mean that married men would have the option of becoming Catholic priests, nothing more. In any case, every branch of the Catholic Church already DOES allow for married priests, albeit some only in very limited circumstances.
I wasn’t misunderstanding what the church believes. I know what it believes. I was making the point that Roman Catholic Priests cannot get married which means the celibacy discipline would not apply to them. If it’s lifted it would apply to only those who are already married which was my point all along. So then if this discipline was lifted and married men could become Roman Catholic Priests, that would encourage Roman Catholic Priests who may wish to marry to leave and then come back. You would also then not have as many new Priests going to Seminary unmarried. I don’t know if the RCC is ready for this swing.
 
I wasn’t misunderstanding what the church believes. I know what it believes. I was making the point that Roman Catholic Priests cannot get married which means the celibacy discipline would not apply to them.
Read the document of Pastoral Provision it covers there is there is exception to the policy regarding married men former Protestant ministers allowed to become priest.
If it’s lifted it would apply to only those who are already married which was my point all along. So then if this discipline was lifted and married men could become Roman Catholic Priests, that would encourage Roman Catholic Priests who may wish to marry to leave and then come back. You would also then not have as many new Priests going to Seminary unmarried. I don’t know if the RCC is ready for this swing.
The Catholic Church in the past had already ordained married priests. She could go back into that much like she did by bringing back the Deacons back into the Church after Second Vatican Council.

You have to know that this discipline can change. I don’t know why you bother insisting that the Catholic Catholic cannot change the discipline of priestly celibacy. She can. You have proven any CC to make your case that she can’t make the change.
 
The Scriptures you quote do not support the odd doctrine of infallibility. Because you have been taught this strange doctrine by your Church, does not make it legitimate. Unlike the Trinity, infallibility is not apparent in the Bible. You must squeeze infallibility out by twisting, so that it meshes with the post-schism invention which was eventually defined in 1870.

I am sorry manny. But I will never be able to accept this recent innovation of doctrine.
Yes it does. You just turn a blind eye. I have a question, what if your EO accept this doctrine. Would you refuse to submit to your Church authority?
 
Before 1st Vatican Council, the Church’s Pope have always practice infallibility.
Wrong.
Twisting the Church Fathers, and applying the 1870 dogma to their words, will not justify this strange doctrine.

The bishop of Rome was the bishop of the captial of Christianity–the pre-eminent Church. There was a primacy of honor and an appelate capacity. But the bishop of Rome was never, ever, considered to be the Supreme, infallible, pontiff and prince of the Apostles of the universal Church. :nope:
 
Wrong.
Twisting the Church Fathers, and applying the 1870 dogma to their words, will not justify this strange doctrine.

The bishop of Rome was the bishop of the captial of Christianity–the pre-eminent Church. There was a primacy of honor and an appelate capacity. But the bishop of Rome was never, ever, considered to be the Supreme, infallible, pontiff and prince of the Apostles of the universal Church. :nope:
Your wrong. I’m right.
 
Wrong.
Twisting the Church Fathers, and applying the 1870 dogma to their words, will not justify this strange doctrine.

The bishop of Rome was the bishop of the captial of Christianity–the pre-eminent Church. There was a primacy of honor and an appelate capacity. But the bishop of Rome was never, ever, considered to be the Supreme, infallible, pontiff and prince of the Apostles of the universal Church. :nope:
No. I have not twisted this belief. The problem I see is that your bishops were not granted the keys of the kingdom.

Peter in Matthew 16:18 is the only Apostle granted this key. Second, Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep and tend his lambs.
Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus’ curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.”

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-Ă -vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Peter had primacy. Peter is charge, and his successor also have this primacy.

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#scripture_I Source
 
No, my brother. My eyes are wide open.
Your eyes are closed shut.
I do not play “if” games. I know for certain that the Holy Orthodox Church will not compromise the true faith. Are you familiar with St Mark of Ephesus?

St Mark pray for us!!!
The Eastern Orthodox Church did not exist. The EC was only Catholic Church. You guys didn’t exist until 1054. You need to go back pre-Schism.
 
No. I have not twisted this belief. The problem I see is that your bishops were not granted the keys of the kingdom.
Oh brother. This has been debated endlessly. All the Apostles had the keys and you know it. Your apologetics copy and pasting is a bit tedious. Your Scripture quotes do not show a supreme infallible universal pontiff.

Sorry.
 
Oh brother. This has been debated endlessly. All the Apostles had the keys and you know it. Your apologetics copy and pasting is a bit tedious. Your Scripture quotes do not show a supreme infallible universal pontiff.

Sorry.
It is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top