The infallable pope

[churchcamefirst]

What in pratel are you talking about? Roman Catholic isn’t found anywhere in Scripture either but yet you claim to be the one true Church that Christ founded upon Peter. Now isn’t your whole statement really boiling in the pot that is calling the kettle black?

Sia, are you in denial of Peter starting and continuing the Catholic church in Rome? (You will probably deny he was even there), St. Ignatius used the word Catholic as early as 107 A.D. if this was not the church founded by Christ, we’d have historical and archaelogical findings that are being challenged. But since it is the church founded by Christ, we have proof today even in the Catacombs in Rome (which I’ve been), and to see it is to believe it. Our church has been around since the beginning. Yours hasn’t. period. Get a clue.

 

[nonjuror]

[Q. Why did he ask Peter 3 Times feed my sheep, who feeds the sheep, the leader, Why did God say to Peter Feed my Sheep. He knew Peter loved him the most. St John:21:15 When therefore, they had breadfasted Jesus said to Simon Peter Simon Son of John dost thou love me more than these do? he said to him YES LORD THOU KNOWEST THAT I LOVE THEE HE SAID TO HIM FEED MY LAMBS.
[/QUOTE]

**Was it not because Peter had denied Christ three times?

**
These are games you are playing with us! In fact in neither Scripture or Holy Tradition are the claims of the papacy even mentioned positively.
The power and position of the Papacy rest upon the Emperors and the Church. At the behest of the Emperor, the Church gave to the pope the power, at the defendant’s request , to judge cases where the involved bishops still couldn’t achieve agreement. Sardis. British Bishops were amongst the Council there. At another, Ecumenical, Council. The Pope was given the title of Primate of the Western Church. (First amongst equals.) IT IS THE GIFT OF THE COUNCIL.) The Bishop of Constantinople was also given the title as Bishop of New Rome! It is well to remember that the Councils are the workshops of the Holy Ghost.

 

[rinnie]

[Q. Why did he ask Peter 3 Times feed my sheep, who feeds the sheep, the leader, Why did God say to Peter Feed my Sheep. He knew Peter loved him the most. St John:21:15 When therefore, they had breadfasted Jesus said to Simon Peter Simon Son of John dost thou love me more than these do? he said to him YES LORD THOU KNOWEST THAT I LOVE THEE HE SAID TO HIM FEED MY LAMBS.

**Was it not because Peter had denied Christ three times?

**
These are games you are playing with us! In fact in neither Scripture or Holy Tradition are the claims of the papacy even mentioned positively.
The power and position of the Papacy rest upon the Emperors and the Church. At the behest of the Emperor, the Church gave to the pope the power, at the defendant’s request , to judge cases where the involved bishops still couldn’t achieve agreement. Sardis. British Bishops were amongst the Council there. At another, Ecumenical, Council. The Pope was given the title of Primate of the Western Church. (First amongst equals.) IT IS THE GIFT OF THE COUNCIL.) The Bishop of Constantinople was also given the title as Bishop of New Rome! It is well to remember that the Councils are the workshops of the Holy Ghost.
[/quote]

Actually Why is because Peter betrayed Jesus 3 times, It was proof that Jesus has forgiven Peter that is why he said it 3 times, It was also Jesus way to say Peter you are still the leader. I am not playing games with you, if you think that, I believe this with all my heart.

The Key which properly belong to our Lord for it was he who merited them for us. I am the first and the last alive and was dead: behold I am living for ever and ever and have the keys of death and Hell (Apoc.1:17-18) further These things saith the Holy One and the true One who hath the keys of David. He that openeth and no man shutteth shutteth and no man openeth (apoc 3:7) Yet who will deny the obvious words of scripture wherein our Lord Passed these keys onto Peter. Whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. thus we see our Lord delegating the power which is properly his to St Peter at the same time that he gave Peter the name which properly belongs to himself… Thou are Peter (rock) and upon this rock i shall build my church… upon you he says I will build my Church (rock) then I have given you (PETER) the keys…

 

[SIA]

Our church has been around since the beginning. Yours hasn’t. period. Get a clue.

Now talk about being childish.

 

[Alina]

Hi SIA !

I think you missed the point when you quoted swariffin :

Because we see that you miss all the point that we answered. Your name not even mentioned in the bible, and yet you are still exist. No Protestant, Episcopalian, whatever denomination mentioned in the bible, and yet there are exist. You cannot explain this fact, but rather avoiding the issue. The same thing also about Trinity which was not mentioned in the bible, and yet all (except Mormon and JW) Christians accept it. You can not take the development of faith but rather make a self conclusion. Come on, that kind of thinking and logic can come only from the follower of Mr. M.

What in pratel are you talking about? Roman Catholic isn’t found anywhere in Scripture either but yet you claim to be the one true Church that Christ founded upon Peter. Now isn’t your whole statement really boiling in the pot that is calling the kettle black?

Actually, the thing is that those (for example the Protestants or the Episcopalians) who say that we should believe only what is written in the Bible and that we should not pay any attention to the Tradition cannot be right since the Bible does not even say that (actually, Saint Paul says the contrary).

However we, Catholics, believe that the Tradition is as important as the Bible. Which is why the fact that ‘Roman Catholic’ is not found anywhere in the Scripture in not a problem at all, whereas the fact that ‘Protestant’ or ‘Episcopalian’ is not found in the Scripture should be troublesome for those denominations : it is not written in the Bible, therefore it cannot be true.

God bless !

 

[nonjuror]

Hi SIA !

However we, Catholics, believe that the Tradition is as important as the Bible. Which is why the fact that ‘Roman Catholic’ is not found anywhere in the Scripture in not a problem at all, whereas the fact that ‘Protestant’ or ‘Episcopalian’ is not found in the Scripture should be troublesome for those denominations : it is not written in the Bible, therefore it cannot be true.

We believe that Holy Scriptures are completed, explained and interpreted by Holy Tradition and that is found in the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Consensus of the Greek fathers.
The Catholic Magisterium is found within the tradition of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and was articulated by S.Vincent of Lerins.
No matter how much you usurp the term Catholic the name of your Church is and I quote, “The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Romaine Church”. In modern terms Roman Catholic! Now the question really must be asked, Why are you ashamed of your name? “It is not written in the Bible, therefore it cannot be true!”

**Your words! ** Show us then where the scriptural warranty comes from for the Papacy! If it please you?

 

[Alina]

Hi Nonjuror !

I am sorry, I haven’t understood your post : did you quote 2 posts in it or is the middle part coming from you ?
(By the way, I was just trying to explain swariffin’s post to SIA)

Could you please make your post a little clearer ? I will reply as soon as possible.

God bless !

 

[churchcamefirst]

Now talk about being childish.

Childish?? How about correct.

 

[nonjuror]

Hi Nonjuror !

I am sorry, I haven’t understood your post : did you quote 2 posts in it or is the middle part coming from you ?
(By the way, I was just trying to explain swariffin’s post to SIA)

Could you please make your post a little clearer ? I will reply as soon as possible.

God bless !

**]We believe that Holy Scriptures are completed ,explained and interpreted by Holy Tradition and that is found in the Seven Ecumenical councils

My post starts at We Believe and continues down to the end of the block.**

I look forward to your reply!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually we are the “Catholic Church”. Even our Catechism calls it that, the Catholic Church.

And we’re not ‘romaine’ (like the lettuce).

Here is a link to where the “Roman” epithet got put onto us, from New Advent. newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

From that article:

A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled “Roman Catholics” as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species.

In

the “Oxford English Dictionary”, the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is given under the heading “Roman Catholic”.The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)
Of the illustrative quotations which follow, the earliest in date is one of 1605 from the “Europae Speculum” of Edwin Sandys: “Some Roman Catholiques will not say grace when a Protestant is present”; while a passage from Day’s “Festivals” of 1615, contrasts “Roman Catholiques” with “good, true Catholiques indeed”. Although the account thus given in the Oxford Dictionary is in substance correct, it cannot be considered satisfactory. To begin with the word is distinctly older than is here suggested. When about the year 1580 certain English Catholics, under stress of grievous persecution, defended the lawfulness of attending Protestant services to escape the fines imposed on recusants, the Jesuit Father Persons published, under the pseudonym of Howlet, a clear exposition of the “Reasons why Catholiques refuse to goe to Church”. This was answered in 1801 by a writer of Puritan sympathies, Percival Wiburn, who in his “Checke or Reproofe of M. Howlet” uses the term “Roman Catholic” repeatedly. For example he speaks of “you Romane Catholickes that sue for tolleration” (p. 140) and of the “parlous dilemma or streight which you Romane Catholickes are brought into” (p. 44).

Today generations raised in Protestant countries like the U.S., Canada (overall) and England have become accustomed to using “Roman Catholic” and even Catholics, in the sense of recognizing “Roman” as pertaining to the see of Rome, will use the term (usually with ‘quotation’ marks or inversions to show that Catholic is ‘modified’ by the term “Roman”.)
But those of us who have studied the history of the term are more likely to try to educate the rest of our fellow Catholics to see why this term, as used by most (not all) Protestants is used in a denigrating manner as shown by the history of how the term came about. . .and why we need to ‘take back’ the true usage of “Catholic”. . .as we have always been.

 

[rinnie]

Here is the reason i said Holy Orders was where infallable came in. The reason I said Holy Orders would be the sacrament, we must go back to understand what a sacrament is.

Sacrament: An outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace,(will never forget it as long as I live, had to wrote in hundreds of time in grade school for not knowing it).

Now the outward sign was the power of the Holy spirit, yes all of the apostles received it BUT. Now by receiving Holy Orders they received the POWER to forgive sin, give the sacraments. That was the first step, and the only name I could have given as proof that they have the Power of the Holy Spirit, I think we can all agree on that.

Now I am one step ahead of you (what makes Peter any special then the others)

They keys to the kingdom. Now what are the keys in this world (knowledge) to have the knowledge to teach the others. Peter has that knowledge, again How through the keys, does he share this knowledge of course to all the Bishop, Priests, etc to tell us.

Now the kingdom. What is the kingdom here on Earth. The Church. That is why we believe that the Pope is the one who rules the Church.

Now how can we as Roman Catholics say that the Pope has the Power to rule the whole Catholic Church.

THOU ARE PETER AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT. AND I WILL GIVE UNTO YOU (WHO IS HE TALKING TO, YOU MUST AGREE WITH ME HERE HE IS TALKING TO PETER) THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN WHICH PROPERLY BELONG TO ME AND WHATEVER YOU SHALL BIND ON EARTH SHALL BE BOUND IN HEAVEN WHATEVER YOU LOOSE ON EARTH SHALL BE LOSSED IN HEAVEN.

Now rather you agree with me or not, you must ask yourself this, Could this possible be true, And rather you want to agree with me or not, you have to say YES I can see where she is SEEING THIS.

Now Through my eyes i can not see how you can miss it. How could I be wrong. Where can you tell me that Jesus didnt give Peter and only Peter the keys. Where did Jesus say i give you all the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM. He didnt. Yes he did give them all the Power of the Holy Spirit, but that was not to understand scripture, it was to forgive sins, it was to give Sacraments. the keys were the keys to the church to understand how to run the church, to make the final call. The Church is The Pope’s (Peter’s) Untill Jesus comes back like he said he will, and take back the keys.

But there was no Sacrament for the outward sign of him giving Peter the Keys, So Holy Orders is just the closest we can come. And the gift of the Holy Spirt can only come through that. At least as far as to my knowledge.

If i come on strong, please forgive me. I dont want to argue or cause tension Im just trying for a day to let you see what I see. Please take these words as kindness from the heart, they are meant that way. So I ask you for a day to just see through my eyes, You do not have to agree, just as long as you can understand why i believe what i believe, and why i see what i see. If I could have one wish today would have you say I do see Now what you see, Even if you say i dont agree thats okay, but can you see it?

 

[nonjuror]

Actually we are the “Catholic Church”. Even our Catechism calls it that, the Catholic Church.

And we’re not ‘romaine’ (like the lettuce).

Here is a link to where the “Roman” epithet got put onto us, from New Advent. newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

From that article:

In

Today generations raised in Protestant countries like the U.S., Canada (overall) and England have become accustomed to using “Roman Catholic” and even Catholics, in the sense of recognizing “Roman” as pertaining to the see of Rome, will use the term (usually with ‘quotation’ marks or inversions to show that Catholic is ‘modified’ by the term “Roman”.)
But those of us who have studied the history of the term are more likely to try to educate the rest of our fellow Catholics to see why this term, as used by most (not all) Protestants is used in a denigrating manner as shown by the history of how the term came about. . .and why we need to ‘take back’ the true usage of “Catholic”. . .as we have always been.

==============================================
The term Roman Catholic, I was taught, stems from the defection of the Bishop of Rome from the Catholic Church at Trent. At this false Council the Bishops of Northern Europe abandoned their responsibilities on to the shoulders of the papacy at the behest of their political masters . It wasn’t that they abandoned the medievalist accretions that had entered the Church during the preceding ages or their Catholic Orders. It was that they had set up a new organisation at the top of the pyramid. In fact, the Romans and their followers had simply ignored the Holy Tradition of some 800[1000 yrs. For this reason many simple souls recoiled with horror and it was the Bishops of England who impressed on everyone that though Rome was schismatic it was still,( just,) within the Catholic Church. (Laud and Dean Thorndyke,).

In England, the term came in to being, again, from the injunction from the New Church of Trent, (John Evelyns Diary,) where the author refers to this new participant on the stage. The injunction was that supporters of the papacy refrain from receiving at English Altars. Hither to there had only been one Church in England,the One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Donatists disliked being refered to as a sect or papists so the name Roman or Romanist was given them. Later their very negligble numbers were increased after a plea from the pope to join him. This was in the Bull, where the pope gave permission for dissenters to kill Eliza. In 1791 the Roman leadership in Britain refered to themselves as, **‘Protestant Catholic Dissenters,’ in a letter to the House of Lords? The question has to be asked were they telling the truth and what did they mean?

Refering to the, ‘Catholic Romaine,’ this was the term used by a Roman Priest in a letter in the 16th, Cent. For spelling mistakes blame him.

 

[SIA]

Childish?? How about correct.

It’s not correct.

 

[SIA]

Is your pope today anything at all like St. Peter was?? Puulease!

 

[Alina]

To Nonjuror :
First of all, sorry for replying so late, but I was quite busy today with my family, so it’s been quite impossible to reply earlier.

First of all, I am not at all ashamed of my name ! I am Catholic and proud of it. I think you did not fully understand my first post - or perhaps have I badly expressed myself, which is quite possible since I am not a native English speaker, so I apologise if my posts are a bit hard to understand.

Secondly, as I am not an apologist at all, I cannot answer the first part of your post, since I do not know what was the result of the “Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Consensus of the Greek fathers”, nor do I know Saint Vincent of Lerins’s works.

Anyway, I would like to discuss the last part of your post :

Your words! Show us then where the scriptural warranty comes from for the Papacy! If it please you ?

As far as I understand, from the informations I saw on your profile, you are an Anglican.
Now, correct me if I am wrong - which indeed is very possible, since, as I have told you, I am not an apologist at all - but as far as I know, the Church of England was founded by Henry VIII who, by the way, was a great defensor of the Catholic Church at the beginning of his reign. So he actually even admitted the Papal infallability when he was young.
And, from what I have learnt in History, he decided to leave the Church because the Pope would not grant him the annulement he was seeking. And his hatred towards the Catholic Church eventually grew to the point where he killed his friend Saint Thomas More, who had remained Catholic.

Anyway, if this is really true - and I repeat again, it might not be, since I just recall that from History lessons - this would lead us to the conclusion that the Anglican believe that till the 17th century, the Pope was indeed Peter’s successor and, as such, infallable.
Why did they then change their mind ?

To conclude, I would like to point out once again that I am not sure at all of what I have just written here, so please don’t feel hurt even if this post sounds like ‘I am right and you are wrong’ : it is what I have learnt at school so it is not necessarily true, and I will really be delighted if you correct that (I am not naive enough to believe everything I was taught at school, especially given the fact that many times I had to correct the teachers when they were talking about the Catholic Church).

God bless you !

 

[SIA]

To Nonjuror :
First of all, sorry for replying so late, but I was quite busy today with my family, so it’s been quite impossible to reply earlier.

First of all, I am not at all ashamed of my name ! I am Catholic and proud of it. I think you did not fully understand my first post - or perhaps have I badly expressed myself, which is quite possible since I am not a native English speaker, so I apologise if my posts are a bit hard to understand.

Secondly, as I am not an apologist at all, I cannot answer the first part of your post, since I do not know what was the result of the “Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Consensus of the Greek fathers”, nor do I know Saint Vincent of Lerins’s works.

Anyway, I would like to discuss the last part of your post :

As far as I understand, from the informations I saw on your profile, you are an Anglican.
Now, correct me if I am wrong - which indeed is very possible, since, as I have told you, I am not an apologist at all - but as far as I know, the Church of England was founded by Henry VIII who, by the way, was a great defensor of the Catholic Church at the beginning of his reign. So he actually even admitted the Papal infallability when he was young.
And, from what I have learnt in History, he decided to leave the Church because the Pope would not grant him the annulement he was seeking. And his hatred towards the Catholic Church eventually grew to the point where he killed his friend Saint Thomas More, who had remained Catholic.

Anyway, if this is really true - and I repeat again, it might not be, since I just recall that from History lessons - this would lead us to the conclusion that the Anglican believe that till the 17th century, the Pope was indeed Peter’s successor and, as such, infallable.
Why did they then change their mind ?

To conclude, I would like to point out once again that I am not sure at all of what I have just written here, so please don’t feel hurt even if this post sounds like ‘I am right and you are wrong’ : it is what I have learnt at school so it is not necessarily true, and I will really be delighted if you correct that (I am not naive enough to believe everything I was taught at school, especially given the fact that many times I had to correct the teachers when they were talking about the Catholic Church).

God bless you !

If I may, I don’t get your point here. The Immaculate Conception belief would have been considered heresy before it was declared to be dogma, so obviously the Catholic church has changed its positions on truth as well. Quite unfair to try and pin King Henry VIII for it without accepting any responsibility.

 

[Alina]

Hi SIA !

If I may, I don’t get your point here. The Immaculate Conception belief would have been considered heresy before it was declared to be dogma, so obviously the Catholic church has changed its positions on truth as well.

I am not sure you’re right about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. I mean, it was a really popular belief (it was even one of the reason of the great schism which led to the formation of the Orthodox Church), and was even many times represented in paintings or sculptures.
And last but not least, in 1830, during the apparitions to Saint Catherine Labouré in Paris, Our Lady said presented herself as ‘concieved without sin’ (conçue sans péché), which did not cause too great a shock, as Our Lady was already considered as concieved without the original sin.

So we can see that the Immaculate Conception belief was never considered as a heresy, even before it was declared to be a dogma (in 1854 I think).

I don’t think the Catholic Church has ever changed its position on truth.

God bless !

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually, SIA, the Immaculate Conception belief was ‘there’ from the beginning, just not as fully ‘understood’ as it later came to be.

The doctrine of the Trinity likewise was ‘there’ from the beginning, but not fully understood in the first centuries. Certainly the doctrine of three Divine Persons in One God, while it is implicit in Scripture, is not ‘explicit’. . .one does not see the explicit “Father and Son and Holy Spirit are all three, in One God”. Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the Holy Spirit has clarified this.

What happened with the Immaculate Conception wasn’t that it was a ‘heresy’ at one point and then was made up out of whole cloth.

What happened was that some Protestants (not YOU, actually) began to further ‘splinter’ in their continuing ‘interpretations’ of Scripture. These were the Protestants who not only questioned Mary’s role as Mother of God (they exist today, I know you’ve seen them on other threads --and they are ‘spiritual descendents’ of those heretics who questioned this back in the 3rd and 4th century such that the Christian Church–all ‘unified’ back then as you’ll remember’–came out and told the heretics, “YES SHE IS the Mother of God”. )

Thus, just as ‘before’, in order to protect the Catholics who were being ‘bombarded’ in some heavily Protestant countries with all this ‘false information’, and in order to protect Protestants being taught these falsehoods about Mary and make it clear to those Protestant splinter groups that they were indeed defying Christian teaching, the Pope issued that dogmatic statement.

Catholics had ALWAYS believed it in the many centuries of Christendom but some Protestants were making mistakes and were confusing themselves and even trying to confuse the Catholics. . .so the Pope made it quite clear that the teaching on the Immaculate Conception was not what the Protestants were teaching, and reaffirmed the solid, apostolic and Spirit-assured teaching regarding Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

So “dogmatic statements” are never to ‘introduce NEW teachings’ but always and only to REINFORCE what has always been taught but for some reason has come UNDER ATTACK.

God bless.

Even when we disagree.

 

[SIA]

Hi SIA !

I am not sure you’re right about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. I mean, it was a really popular belief (it was even one of the reason of the great schism which led to the formation of the Orthodox Church), and was even many times represented in paintings or sculptures.
And last but not least, in 1830, during the apparitions to Saint Catherine Labouré in Paris, Our Lady said presented herself as ‘concieved without sin’ (conçue sans péché), which did not cause too great a shock, as Our Lady was already considered as concieved without the original sin.

So we can see that the Immaculate Conception belief was never considered as a heresy, even before it was declared to be a dogma (in 1854 I think).

I don’t think the Catholic Church has ever changed its position on truth.

God bless !

It was either truth or it wasn’t truth before 1854 and after, correct? Either something is true or it’s not.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It was either truth or it wasn’t truth before 1854 and after, correct? Either something is true or it’s not.

It was ‘truth’ from the beginning. It had to be dogmatically stated in 1854 because so many people were attacking it as false. . .it did not ‘become’ true in 1854, it had always been true. Hopefully now you’ve read my post above it’s clearer, yes?