Sunday Mass Requirement

[Lek]

You still haven’t said how you discerned the Bible was the Holy word of God.

How have you come to this same conclusion the Catholic Curch did in 350AD?

I know where you’re leading with this question. My honest answer is that I accept the scriptures because they have been handed down by the church since the day of their writing.
I believe that the Holy Spirit worked through the church to identify the books and letters included in the new testament. I believe that the Spirit works through the church to this day–that church being the universal body of Christ.

 

[Bannan]

I’ll get another question in before work

What about Paul’s ability to declare doctrine? He wasn’t one of the original 12 apostles, Jesus didn’t directly give him any of these gifts in person. You know that I believe he was given this ability by God through the apostles during the laying of hands, and I suspect you feel he was given this gift by God through the Holy spirit outside of any apostolic influence.

But this still leaves something unresolved! If God were willing to give this gift to more people beyond the original individuals he communicated with while Jesus was on the earth, the Bible did leave us an instruction manual on how to recognize these individuals.

It was if they taught the same things that the Apostles did, aka, the same things that Jesus himself taught. By word of mouth or by letter.

If the Apostles then established someone to take over for them when they went away, those people they established had that same authority. If not, what could possibly have even been their purpose other than to govern the Church? Why even elect someone to take over but not give them that same authority? I can guarantee that local interpretations of scripture would be asked of Linus, and he was to arbitrate the Heresies of his day, which were many.

If Peter and Paul both decided, together, that Linus was a good enough man to take over for the Church when they went away to be martyred, wouldn’t you follow their instruction here too? Why does it have to be a letter in the Bible?

I like saying things like “This is the most likely conclusion” because God is not deceitful with his people. It’s a stretch to see this transmission of authority as anything else, and if everyone in the early Church gave Linus benefit of the doubt when it came to questions of authority, then were all the first followers of Christ deceived? Including Peter and Paul themselves?

Food for thought anyway. Have a good week and God bless!

 

[Church_Militant]

There is way too much in the preceding posts for me to answer all points individually, so I’ll try to summarize my thoughts. I believe that the original apostles were given authority to speak infallibility on matters of christian doctrine and were instructed to set up Christ’s church on earth. There is nothing in scripture to say that they were able to pass on that infallibility to successors, but their teachings were preserved in the new testament scriptures, which were passed along by the church and eventually were put together into the canon.

Lek, that’s not true. Matthew 28 says,*** " [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. "***

As far as the powers to bind and loose and to forgive sins; Jesus was referring to their authority to declare what has been bound, loosed or forgiven. Do you really believe that a man has the power to decide whether or not you go to hell for eternity, by deciding not to forgive you for a mortal sin or to create a law, by which you can go to hell if you break it? Jesus did not say to the apostles “you have the power to forgive sins against the Father”, but rather whoever’s sins you forgive they are forgiven. In other words they are announcing that God’s forgiveness has been given because they have met the requirements of forgiveness.

Really? Where exactly do your see anything that allows for that weak interpretation? We see that same disbelief voiced by the Jews of Jesus day when they said to themselves,
***[2] And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”
[3] And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.”
[4] But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?
[5] For which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, Rise and walk’?
[6] But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – he then said to the paralytic – “Rise, take up your bed and go home.”
[7] And he rose and went home.
[8] When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men. ***

Again and again we see the New Testament tell us to confess our sins to one another. (See James 5:16, 1st John 1:9,) Your interpretation makes no sense in that it ignores the fact that this is something that Christ Himself commanded and the apostles handed down in practice and doctrine. If he gives His church the power to bind and loose sins then it very logically follows that He intends that the priests of His church hear those sins in order to discern whether to forgive them or not.

 

[catholiclaws]

– well rules are rules-- so if you are led by the Holy Spirit – with personal revelation-- that is not in conflict – with scripture-- then it is nott problem,-- now personally–

i only give consideration to people who function in the 9 + Gifts of the Holy Spirit-- becasue every religious church – has its rules— just like the SDA believe they get “special” blessings by going to a church service – on saturady-- and they used scripture to validate this application of scripture commentary-

i have 50 years – of catholic mass attendence-- and the best is the charasmetic – church-- because they believe in the anointing of the Holy Spirit that in fills a believer–

Bible Study Versions

1 Corinthians 6:12

American Standard Version

All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient.

All things are lawful for me; but I will not be brought under the power of any

Read 1 Corinthians 6

I am free to do all things; but not all things are wise. I am free to do all things; but I will not let myself come under the power of any.

I have the freedom to do anything, but not everything is helpful. I have the freedom to do anything, but I won’t be controlled by anything.

You say, “For me, everything is permitted”?

Maybe, but not everything is helpful. “For me, everything is permitted”?

Maybe, but as far as I am concerned, I am not going to let anything gain control over me.

 

[Lek]

I’ll get another question in before work

What about Paul’s ability to declare doctrine? He wasn’t one of the original 12 apostles, Jesus didn’t directly give him any of these gifts in person. You know that I believe he was given this ability by God through the apostles during the laying of hands, and I suspect you feel he was given this gift by God through the Holy spirit outside of any apostolic influence.

But this still leaves something unresolved! If God were willing to give this gift to more people beyond the original individuals he communicated with while Jesus was on the earth, the Bible did leave us an instruction manual on how to recognize these individuals.

It was if they taught the same things that the Apostles did, aka, the same things that Jesus himself taught. By word of mouth or by letter.

If the Apostles then established someone to take over for them when they went away, those people they established had that same authority. If not, what could possibly have even been their purpose other than to govern the Church? Why even elect someone to take over but not give them that same authority? I can guarantee that local interpretations of scripture would be asked of Linus, and he was to arbitrate the Heresies of his day, which were many.

If Peter and Paul both decided, together, that Linus was a good enough man to take over for the Church when they went away to be martyred, wouldn’t you follow their instruction here too? Why does it have to be a letter in the Bible?

I like saying things like “This is the most likely conclusion” because God is not deceitful with his people. It’s a stretch to see this transmission of authority as anything else, and if everyone in the early Church gave Linus benefit of the doubt when it came to questions of authority, then were all the first followers of Christ deceived? Including Peter and Paul themselves?

Food for thought anyway. Have a good week and God bless!

Because the apostles appointed overseers doesn’t mean that these men had the same authority as the original apostles. They received the authority to pass on the truth as taught by the original apostles. The teachings of the apostles are preserved for us in the scriptures. We don’t know if the apostles taught papal infallibility, or if “everyone” accepted Linus as being the infallible head of the church. We have nothing written by Peter or Paul indicating such. If it was universally accepted in the church, there would have been no need to officially define the doctrine of infallibility later on.

 

[Vico]

Because the apostles appointed overseers doesn’t mean that these men had the same authority as the original apostles. They received the authority to pass on the truth as taught by the original apostles. The teachings of the apostles are preserved for us in the scriptures. We don’t know if the apostles taught papal infallibility, or if “everyone” accepted Linus as being the infallible head of the church. We have nothing written by Peter or Paul indicating such. If it was universally accepted in the church, there would have been no need to officially define the doctrine of infallibility later on.

If it was universally accepted in the church, and never rejected, there would have been no need to officially define the doctrine of infallibility later on.

 

[Duane1966]

One thing I have never understood is why people have a problem with the doctrine of infallibility. “The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth” ( I think Jesus meant to add some of the time ). "And I will be with you to the end of the age (unless I can get some chaos with people claiming the Church apostated in the year 100, or 200, or 300…and on and on).

No no, I think I would rather belong to a denomination that claims to teach error (if you’re not claiming infallibility then you must be claiming fallibility, ergo the Holy Spirit not guiding into all truth), better for my soul that way.

 

[clem456]

clarkest;12299350:

…
The catholic church did not create the bible. The bible was created by God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the writers selected by God. The letters you speak of that were circulated among the churches were the writings that were later included into the formal canon of scripture. I agree that the church met and decided on what was to be included and excluded, but the decisions were based on whether they were written by an apostle or a close contemporary and whether or not they had already been in use in he various local churches over the years. The Protestant churches today could get together and do the same thing. They were just verifying that they met those criteria.

So you do admit that inspired human beings wrote the bible, correct? And that human beings compiled the bible, promulgated it, interpreted and taught it, correct?

Do you believe that those who compiled the bible had authority to do so? (You do believe in the sacredness of scripture, correct?) So those who compiled it were human beings with the authority to do so, right? (if those who first knew the Word, then spoke the word, then compiled the word, didn’t have authority, then our scripture would just be another book, right?).

Or do you believe the Joseph Smith theory of scripture, that it pops up out of the ground intact devoid of human interaction? Serious questions here, I am curious what you really believe.

Do you believe that those same human beings carried tape recorders or notepads, following Jesus around? Or was there a Tradition in place prior to the written word?

What do you say? Is Jesus (aka The Word) a book? Or is He a divine Person who took on human nature and entrusted human beings with authority?

Who is this Jesus (aka The Word) for you, and what was it he started 2000 years ago?

 

[Bannan]

Because the apostles appointed overseers doesn’t mean that these men had the same authority as the original apostles. They received the authority to pass on the truth as taught by the original apostles. The teachings of the apostles are preserved for us in the scriptures. We don’t know if the apostles taught papal infallibility, or if “everyone” accepted Linus as being the infallible head of the church. We have nothing written by Peter or Paul indicating such.

So Judas replacement didn’t have the same authority that Judas had? Remember that those apostles were to sit on thrones, in heaven, for all time, over the 12 tribes of Israel. Who’s on Judas throne, or was Jesus lying when he said there were 12 thrones? The original apostles didn’t clarify every heresy for all time.

If you believe your pastor when he says that the Catholic Church today has it wrong, then you are assenting to his authority in such matters. If you lived during Linus time, and Linus said that gnosticism was wrong, your telling me that you would have questioned his authority?

There are an uncountable number of ways to get the faith wrong. There is only one way to get it right. Because of the uncountable ways to get it wrong, and because it’s clear that the Holy Spirit doesn’t lead most people into “all truth” while your yet still on this side of heaven, the average person needs some help. The uncountable number of denominations is proof of this, because you all attest your filled with the Holy Spirit and yet you have so many differences of opinion that you’ve fractured in an uncountable number of ways. You even say that us Catholics have the Holy Spirit and yet you still disagree with us!

Put your trust in Jesus instead of in yourself. If you trusted Jesus when he gave the keys to Peter, why would you not trust Paul and Peter when they gave those keys to Linus?

My challenge still stands unanswered. If you feel they didn’t hand over their authority, you have the responsibility to provide the evidence for your cause. I’ve already provided you 600 years worth of evidence that suggests otherwise. Who on earth believed what you are advocating? Where is your proof? Not only is your answer the “least likely” assumption to make, but we have, over and over again, writings that show that even by the year 350AD, the Church universally assented to Peter’s office as authoritative on maters of Church doctrine.

The very same people whom you say were “infused with the holy spirit” to be able to infallibly define your Bible in the year 350AD believed in the infallibly in the Chair of Peter. We even have texts from some of the councils attendees that prove it. Where is any evidence supporting your theory, because from our point of view, you only believe what you are saying because to believe otherwise is to accept fault.

If your conclusion is the most likely, you haven’t provided any evidence for it. So far, I feel you’ve provided only evidence that undermines your case.

If it was universally accepted in the church, there would have been no need to officially define the doctrine of infallibility later on.

Actually the reverse is true. Why take the time to clarify something that everyone is already clear on?

They received the authority to pass on the truth as taught by the original apostles.

This is exactly what we mean when we say Papal infallibility. Nothing new has been or will be taught other than what has been handed down by faith, not through the apostles, but through Jesus himself! All that is needed is an authoritative jury, much like the supreme court in the USA, to arbitrate and interpret the real meaning of that faith as it applies to each day and age that believers find themselves.

So there you go, now you have admitted that you believe in papal infallibility, again…

 

[ignatius777]

Why is it a mortal sin to intentionally miss mass on Sunday? I can’t find anything in the bible that states that it is a requirement to go to mass every Sunday in order to be saved. The commandment to “keep holy the sabbath” referred to the practice of following all the requirements of the law pertaining to the period of time between nightfall on Friday until nightfall on Saturday, and ended with the establishment of the new covenant. Another way to look at my original question is: what if someone decides he will go to mass on Wednesdays, instead of Sundays, because this better fits his schedule. Or maybe he will be travelling on Sunday, so he goes to mass on Saturday that one week. Why does it matter which day he goes? Reference Romans 14:5-- “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.” (NIV)

The catechism is pretty clear.

The Sunday Eucharist

2177 The Sunday celebration of the Lord’s Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church’s life. "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."110

"Also to be observed are the day of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension of Christ, the feast of the Body and Blood of Christi, the feast of Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, the feast of Saint Joseph, the feast of the Apostles Saints Peter and Paul, and the feast of All Saints."111

2178 This practice of the Christian assembly dates from the beginnings of the apostolic age.112 The Letter to the Hebrews reminds the faithful "not to neglect to meet together, as is the habit of some, but to encourage one another."113

Tradition preserves the memory of an ever-timely exhortation: Come to Church early, approach the Lord, and confess your sins, repent in prayer. . . . Be present at the sacred and divine liturgy, conclude its prayer and do not leave before the dismissal. . . . We have often said: "This day is given to you for prayer and rest. This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it."114

It goes on to say:

The Sunday obligation

2180 The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."117 "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day."118

2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.119 Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

2182 Participation in the communal celebration of the Sunday Eucharist is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church. The faithful give witness by this to their communion in faith and charity. Together they testify to God’s holiness and their hope of salvation. They strengthen one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

2183 "If because of lack of a sacred minister or for other grave cause participation in the celebration of the Eucharist is impossible, it is specially recommended that the faithful take part in the Liturgy of the Word if it is celebrated in the parish church or in another sacred place according to the prescriptions of the diocesan bishop, or engage in prayer for an appropriate amount of time personally or in a family or, as occasion offers, in groups of families."120

 

[Bannan]

Quote:
If it was universally accepted in the church, there would have been no need to officially define the doctrine of infallibility later on.

Actually the reverse is true. Why take the time to clarify something that everyone is already clear on?

I was confused here, I see you agree with me. Now that I understand what you meant, your post doesn’t make sense to me.

Papal infallibility wasn’t formally made doctrine until 1870. While I could see a case being made to declare this earlier, you seem to be saying that Papal infallibility wasn’t in contention until 1870. If that is the case, you’re really undermining your stance here…

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Seems like the Church has already allowed for Saturday late afternoon/evening Masses to count. And they could expand this window even more if the need arises. But you knew that.

This is why I am personally looking at this thread…

would Saturday mass be the same as Sunday?

Or no?
Some of the churches have many masses because of all the people cannot fit in one time frame or they have it on Saturday in case they cannot make it Sunday.
I usually have the worse luck making work let me have Sundays off for religious reasons. (I know illegal)
it would help if the church had more than one service on Sundays… I think alot of Catholic churches do though…

 

[Lek]

I was confused here, I see you agree with me. Now that I understand what you meant, your post doesn’t make sense to me.

Papal infallibility wasn’t formally made doctrine until 1870. While I could see a case being made to declare this earlier, you seem to be saying that Papal infallibility wasn’t in contention until 1870. If that is the case, you’re really undermining your stance here…

What I was saying was that there was disagreement over papal infallibility. Prior to the 6th century there was already disagreements over that issue and other doctrines between the eastern and the western church. Equal authority was claimed between the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople. This disagreement, as well as disagreements over the nature of the Eucharist and purgatory eventually culminated in the great schism in 1054. Both sides traced their history through apostolic succession and still do. Both sides accuse each of false doctrine based on tradition. Interestingly, here is something St Basil had to say in 370 AD: “What then? After all these efforts were they tired? Did they leave off? Not at all. They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” (Basil, Letter 189, 3) Basil is saying that when disagreements in traditions arise, that we should go to scripture as the final arbitrator.

Let me ask another question since you believe that the only way to be led into “all” truth is through the catholic church. Has the catholic church defined the meaning of every scripture verse, or have many been left open to multiple interpretations? Are all catholics required to agree on the meaning every verse in the bible? Has “all” of God’s truth been revealed to the catholic church?

 

[clem456]

What I was saying was that there was disagreement over papal infallibility. Prior to the 6th century there was already disagreements over that issue and other doctrines between the eastern and the western church. Equal authority was claimed between the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople. This disagreement, as well as disagreements over the nature of the Eucharist and purgatory eventually culminated in the great schism in 1054. Both sides traced their history through apostolic succession and still do. Both sides accuse each of false doctrine based on tradition. Interestingly, here is something St Basil had to say in 370 AD: “What then? After all these efforts were they tired? Did they leave off? Not at all. They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” (Basil, Letter 189, 3) Basil is saying that when disagreements in traditions arise, that we should go to scripture as the final arbitrator.

Let me ask another question since you believe that the only way to be led into “all” truth is through the catholic church. Has the catholic church defined the meaning of every scripture verse, or have many been left open to multiple interpretations? Are all catholics required to agree on the meaning every verse in the bible? Has “all” of God’s truth been revealed to the catholic church?

No. A Catholic assents to the authority of the Church, because Christ is the Word Made Flesh, and he handed his mission on to human beings.

He did not hang around to rule the world with a sword and a book. He accepted crucifixion, thank you, and asked his followers to be his Church. He touched them, breathed on them, commanded them, all of which are very human signs that are to be repeated, as he commanded.

He did not turn the apostles into books.

 

[simpleas]

I very rarely go to Sunday Mass, mostly attend saturday vigil. I remember hearing a priest say it was a mortal sin to miss Sunday mass, even if you had been to saturday vigil. I was alittle worried, so I asked my PP and he said it was (can’t remember the actual word) but basicly attending saturday vigil was fine.

 

[Duane1966]

What I was saying was thant there was disagreement over papal infallibility. Prior to the 6th century there was already disagreements over that issue and other doctrines between the eastern and the western church. Equal authority was claimed between the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople. This disagreement, as well as disagreements over the nature of the Eucharist and purgatory eventually culminated in the great schism in 1054. Both sides traced their history through apostolic succession and still do. Both sides accuse each of false doctrine based on tradition. Interestingly, here is something St Basil had to say in 370 AD: “What then? After all these efforts were they tired? Did they leave off? Not at all. They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” (Basil, Letter 189, 3) Basil is saying that when disagreements in traditions arise, that we should go to scripture as the final arbitrator.

Let me ask another question since you believe that the only way to be led into “all” truth is through the catholic church. Has the catholic church defined the meaning of every scripture verse, or have many been left open to multiple interpretations? Are all catholics required to agree on the meaning every verse in the bible? Has “all” of God’s truth been revealed to the catholic church?

A few points and a question for you Lek?

1.) The schism had NOTHING to do with purgatory or the Eucharist, nor papal infallibility. The Orthodox don’t believe in a purging through fire after death. They do believe in a holding or waiting place. They do believe prayers for the dead are beneficial.
The Orthodox BELIEVE the exact same thing as Catholics do about the Eucharist. They just do not see a reason to define it. We call in “transubstantiation,” they call it a “mystery.”

2.) The schism was and remains really about two issues. The filioque in the creed. And the primacy of the pope. You could throw In resentment over the last crusade, but that is a separate issue.

I am glad that you are quoting St. Basil, but if you read MORE of his letters you will see how much emphasis he put’s on UNWRITTEN tradition.

Now my question for you. Who did Jesus say to take disagreements to?

 

[Lek]

Now my question for you. Who did Jesus say to take disagreements to?

He told them to go to the person who who offended them and try to reconcile the disagreement. If that didn’t work to try again, but take one or two other believers with them. If that didn’t work, then to take it to the church. In 1 Corinthians, Chapter 6 Paul chides them for taking matters before civil courts and having disputes settled by unbelievers. He’s telling them that christians should be able to settle matters between themselves or within the christian community. He’s not even referring specifically to disputes over doctrine, but any kind of disagreement. If I had a disagreement with my christian neighbor over him putting his fence on my property, I should try to resolve it with him directly. If that doesn’t work, then we should take it to the local church and present our cases before a group of church members, who could act to determine who is right and what should be done to resolve the matter.

 

[Bannan]

Equal authority was claimed between the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople.

A closer examination will reveal the truth here, as even after the 6th century the bishops of Constantinople deferred to Rome on several occasions, leading up to your 1054 date. I think the date was really in 1204, but that’s a different matter. I believe in the links I posted to you earlier even includes some of those very “bishops of constantinople” you purport didn’t acknowledge Rome.

See:
Ignatius of Antioch
Pope Julius I - responding to eastern people questioning Athanasius
Council of Constantinople I - (Meletius was in attendance, accepted and contributed)
Council of Chalcedeon - (Maximus accepted this council)

They wouldn’t ask permission of Rome if they perceived themselves equal. Even before the 6th century that was the case. You have to remember, Constantinople was the christian resistance against muslim influence in the east, and often the bishop of Constantinople wasn’t even a valid bishop because he was appointed by muslim owners of statehood everytime they got mad at the previous “bishop” and deposed them.

That doesn’t mean that priests within that diocese were invalid, so yes, they maintain apostolic succession.

This still doesn’t help your case, because its in support of apostolic succession. Bear in mind, the eastern church believes in the validity of some of the ecumenical councils presided over by the popes. I don’t know how many, but it’s more than one.

If they
A. Gave authority to the first few ecumenical councils.
B. Haven’t had any councils since the denial of Rome’s authority.

That should indicate to me that they are denying Rome for other reasons, which makes the year 1204 stand out in my mind pretty clearly. Once you find yourself excommunicated from the Church and unable to return, you can come up with all kinds of lies to keep the boat rowing.

That doesn’t mean your ancestors are going to be smiling down on you after you refute their teaching, whether that be by word or by letter.

 

[Bannan]

Let me ask another question since you believe that the only way to be led into “all” truth is through the catholic church.

I don’t think the Catholic church leads people into “all” truth this side of Heaven. I do think that the Catholic Church is really the Kingdom of God. Everyone judged by God as worthy of salvation is Catholic, whether they know it or not. I even have a hunch that you are Catholic, or at least soon will be.

Has the catholic church defined the meaning of every scripture verse, or have many been left open to multiple interpretations?

I’d say there is an awful lot left to be up for interpretation. The bible is recognized as the living word of God, since its alive, it speaks different things at different times.

Are all catholics required to agree on the meaning every verse in the bible?

If this were a requirement, nobody would make it to Heaven!

Has “all” of God’s truth been revealed to the catholic church?

I’m certain this isn’t the case. God is infinite. People all around the world experience personal revelation that speaks of an awful lot of awesomeness that we just miss out while here on earth. I think that the Catholic Church has received the fullness of truth, what that means is a little complicated. Basically I would summarize this as everything God wants his people to know while on earth, the Catholic Church has and is ready to share it.

 

[Lek]

I don’t think the Catholic church leads people into “all” truth this side of Heaven. I do think that the Catholic Church is really the Kingdom of God. Everyone judged by God as worthy of salvation is Catholic, whether they know it or not. I even have a hunch that you are Catholic, or at least soon will be.