What do I do? I don't have a spiritual home anymore.

[catharina]

I apologize if I haven’t made it clear…It seems as though some have lost what I am trying to say. It is quite simple actually.

In Mathew 18, the apostles are given infallibility. The Church agrees with this statement. They have added, however, that the apostles ONLY have infallibility if they are in communion with Peter. I disagree with this because I don’t see it anywhere in Mathew 18. I think it is an error on their part.

As you know, the Church also teaches that papal infallibility is transmitted from pope to pope through apostolic succession. The Church has also applied this same doctrine to all of the Eastern Rite churches, which are the churches founded by the other apostles (not Peter). So, if the original 12 apostles were given infallibility as a protection in certain situations then all of their churches have that same power through apostolic succession. This is what the Catholic Church teaches, EXCEPT they add that they must be in communion with Peter’s seat (Rome). My point is, that added caveat does not appear anywhere in Mathew 18 and is an error.

Because all of the apostles were given infallibility and then transmitted it through apostolic succession, all 12 of the original churches (including Rome) have infallibility. This means they cannot disagree with eachother on any issue Rome determines to be infallible. Why? Because if they did, it would prove none of them are infallible. They don’t agree on everything Rome says is infallible, proving none are infallible. Because if they were all infallible, this disagreement could never occur.

You are resting your argument on
your own misunderstanding. Very sad.

BTW, what “other churches” were you seeing, instituted by the apostles?
The apostles “instituted churches” based on the teachings of Jesus Christ,
each one of them under the authority of Peter in Rome.

So again, I don’t understand.
What “other” churches?

 

[jinc1019]

Obviously you are refusing to really read what I am saying. It is a very straightforward argument, even if you don’t agree with it. You keep speaking in generalities about not following the Church but you fail to point to the specific part of my argument that is wrong and why it is wrong. It seems clear to me that Mathew 18 gives infallibility to the other 11 apostles as well as Peter and the Church agrees. So, explain WHERE in Mathew 18 it says that they must be in communion with Peter. If you can’t explain that, then you really need to examine your beliefs on this issue.

 

[jinc1019]

You are resting your argument on
your own misunderstanding. Very sad.

BTW, what “other churches” were you seeing, instituted by the apostles?
The apostles “instituted churches” based on the teachings of Jesus Christ,
each one of them under the authority of Peter in Rome.

So again, I don’t understand.
What “other” churches?

Eastern Rite churches all have bishops that have seats that can be traced back to the other 11 apostles. They do not believe in papal infallibility.

 

[davidv]

Obviously you are refusing to really read what I am saying. It is a very straightforward argument, even if you don’t agree with it. You keep speaking in generalities about not following the Church but you fail to point to the specific part of my argument that is wrong and why it is wrong. It seems clear to me that Mathew 18 gives infallibility to the other 11 apostles as well as Peter and the Church agrees. So, explain WHERE in Mathew 18 it says that they must be in communion with Peter. If you can’t explain that, then you really need to examine your beliefs on this issue.

Your argument may be straight forward, but it is wrong. Why does the absense of the specific words in Mathew 18 mean that what the Church teaches is wrong. This an argument from silence and is a logically invalid argument.

 

[tarboy]

jinc1019
Nobody can stop you from arguing your way out of faith.
There are a million and one logical reasons you can create to convince yourself that there is no God and the church is a sham.

Your other alternative is to study scripture and pray, in time you may realize that you were wasting your time, attempting to logically prove the magisterium is perfect/imperfect.

 

[davidv]

Eastern Rite churches all have bishops that have seats that can be traced back to the other 11 apostles. They do not believe in papal infallibility.

Since the Eastern Rite churches are in union with the Pope, are you confusing them with the Eastern Orthodox, who are not?

Truth is true whether anyone knows it, likes it, or believe it. So you post is not relevant.

 

[jinc1019]

Since the Eastern Rite churches are in union with the Pope, are you confusing them with the Eastern Orthodox, who are not?

Truth is true whether anyone knows it, likes it, or believe it. So you post is not relevant.

Yes. I mean Eastern Orthodox…sorry about that. NOT Eastern rite…I am not sure what they believe on papal infallibility, although I am guessing since they are in communion with Rome, they accept it. I have heard stories of bishops in Eastern Rite churches rejecting papal infallibility however.

 

[jinc1019]

The Russian Orthodox Church, for instance, rejects papal infallibility…and yet they trace their history back to St. Andrew, an apostle who was given infallibility in Mathew 18.

 

[davidv]

Yes. I mean Eastern Orthodox…sorry about that. NOT Eastern rite…I am not sure what they believe on papal infallibility, although I am guessing since they are in communion with Rome, they accept it. I have heard stories of bishops in Eastern Rite churches rejecting papal infallibility however.

If a bishop goes off on his own and teaches something different than the Church, they are not protected from error.

 

[AnneElliot]

Do you reject the Ecumenical Councils as well? … this is the impression I got from a few of your replies to others.

It seems, from your replies, that the only ‘infallible’ source you are willing to accept is the Bible. Is this correct? Then, you have already admitted that you are fallible in your interpretation of the Bible (i.e., you could be wrong)… and you also believe the Magisterium to be fallible in her interpretation through the Pope and Conciliar texts. Thus, it seems as though you are saying you have this infallible source (the Bible) but no infallible way of understanding it since you are not infallible and neither is the Church (i.e., Ecumenical Councils) or the Holy Father. You DO have a bit of a problem! Why would God grant us an infallible source, but no infallible way to understand it?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Okay, just a few quick, easy questions. I’m sorry if this seems off-topic and annoying, but I don’t want to put words into your mouth.

1. Is God omniscient? That is, does He know everything, past, present, and future?
2. Is God all-loving?
3. Is there anything more important to an individual than salvation? That is, is there anything more important to a person than getting to Heaven and avoiding Hell?

Just a few yes/no questions that I’m sure you’ll find easy to answer.

jinc1019, please answer my questions. I’m not trying to be silly nor am I playing games.

You see, your position has led me to a conundrum which I hope you can clear up for me. I promise I will get to the heart of the matter as soon as you answer the above questions.

 

[jinc1019]

Do you reject the Ecumenical Councils as well? … this is the impression I got from a few of your replies to others.

It seems, from your replies, that the only ‘infallible’ source you are willing to accept is the Bible. Is this correct? Then, you have already admitted that you are fallible in your interpretation of the Bible (i.e., you could be wrong)… and you also believe the Magisterium to be fallible in her interpretation through the Pope and Conciliar texts. Thus, it seems as though you are saying you have this infallible source (the Bible) but no infallible way of understanding it since you are not infallible and neither is the Church (i.e., Ecumenical Councils) or the Holy Father. You DO have a bit of a problem! Why would God grant us an infallible source, but no infallible way to understand it?

You are wrong. Actually, as I stated before, I believe the Bible could have errors in it. I do believe, however, it is historically very sound and that God certainly intervened to ensure it would be. However, I do believe there are some errors in the Bible. I reject the concept of infallibility being passed down through apostolic succession, I have said nothing at all about the councils or anything else.

As for your rhetorical question…God has given us everything we need. We dont need papal infallibility; that’s YOUR opinion of what we need. Further, as I stated before, I believe the Church has the authority to teach and that we should listen, but they should NOT declare a teaching to be infallible. Authority and infallibility are two different things. I believe in Church authority, not Church infallibility.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If a bishop goes off on his own and teaches something different than the Church, they are not protected from error.

Really good point.

And how do you discern which apostolic authority is without error?

Which begs more questions:

What exactly is considered without error in the Roman Rite?
Only what is included in the Catechism 2nd edition?

The biggest argument for Catholicism is Reason. Faith without reason is credulity.
Do we act credulously when we are given yet another law to abide to? Instead of reasoning it. And while we reason it, are we banned from partaking in the Lord’s Supper?

Sounds like being “forced” into a dogma/doctrine if you want to partake in the Lord. All the while installing mortal fear in the heart of the follower.

 

[jinc1019]

jinc1019, please answer my questions. I’m not trying to be silly nor am I playing games.

You see, your position has led me to a conundrum which I hope you can clear up for me. I promise I will get to the heart of the matter as soon as you answer the above questions.

I didn’t see these questions before! Sorry. My answer is yes to all of them.

 

[jinc1019]

Really good point.

And how do you discern which apostolic authority is without error?

Which begs more questions:

What exactly is considered without error in the Roman Rite?
Only what is included in the Catechism 2nd edition?

The biggest argument for Catholicism is Reason. Faith without reason is credulity.
Do we act credulously when we are given yet another law to abide to? Instead of reasoning it. And while we reason it, are we banned from partaking in the Lord’s Supper?

Sounds like being “forced” into a dogma/doctrine if you want to partake in the Lord. All the while installing mortal fear in the heart of the follower.

This is an excellent point.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I didn’t see these questions before! Sorry. My answer is yes to all of them.

Uh, are you sure you answered all the questions right? I just want to be sure “yes” is your answer to #3. If yes is the right answer, what is more important?

 

[AnneElliot]

You are wrong. Actually, as I stated before, I believe the Bible could have errors in it. I do believe, however, it is historically very sound and that God certainly intervened to ensure it would be. However, I do believe there are some errors in the Bible. I reject the concept of infallibility being passed down through apostolic succession, I have said nothing at all about the councils or anything else.

So then why not answer my question about your acceptance of the Councils? I made it clear that I was giving you my impressions from your posts. You are free to correct whatever I may have misunderstood…

As for your rhetorical question…God has given us everything we need. We dont need papal infallibility; that’s YOUR opinion of what we need. Further, as I stated before, I believe the Church has the authority to teach and that we should listen, but they should NOT declare a teaching to be infallible. Authority and infallibility are two different things. I believe in Church authority, not Church infallibility.

You say that “God has given us everything we need”, yet this is not what you project… all I get from your posts is that you think God has given us a book about Him and our life with Him that contains errors, and that the people entrusted to teach the faithful about Him are capable of teaching errors.

I don’t understand what you mean by believing in Church authority, but not Church infallibility?

 

[jinc1019]

So then why not answer my question about your acceptance of the Councils? I made it clear that I was giving you my impressions from your posts. You are free to correct whatever I may have misunderstood…

You say that “God has given us everything we need”, yet this is not what you project… all I get from your posts is that you think God has given us a book about Him and our life with Him that contains errors, and that the people entrusted to teach the faithful about Him are capable of teaching errors.

I don’t understand what you mean by believing in Church authority, but not Church infallibility?

I think you should go back and read everything I have written thus far before asking these questions because I have answered nearly all of them…and to answer your question on the councils: I do believe in much of what is in them but not all.

 

[jinc1019]

Uh, are you sure you answered all the questions right? I just want to be sure “yes” is your answer to #3. If yes is the right answer, what is more important?

Sorry, I meant no for the last one.

 

[jinc1019]

I don’t understand what you mean by believing in Church authority, but not Church infallibility?

The President of the United States has the authority and power to do many things, but that doesn’t mean he or she will always make the right decision. This is how I see the Pope.