D
davidv
Guest
Why are you ignoring the scriptural references given in post #79.
What you believe, does not make the Church wrong?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
What you believe, does not make the Church wrong?
D
davidv
Guest
I will explain it after you explain why Mathew 18 has to state what you demand. Scripture records that not all that Jesus taught was written.Please explain to me where in Mathew 18 it says that the apostles must be in communion with Peter to be infallible. Please show that to me. Because the Church has already stated that this passage is about infallibility; they just argue that the apostles have to be in communion with Peter to have it…something which I cannot find anywhere in those verses.
J
jinc1019
Guest
I am not. I don’t deny the apostles had infallibility. My point is that the infallibility is not passed on!Why are you ignoring the scriptural references given in post #79.
What you believe, does not make the Church wron?
The following link is a video, at the 3:00 mark, they explain that Mathew 18 is about infallibility of the Church. So you are clearly wrong on that point.
catholic.com/video/infallibility-of-the-pope
J
jinc1019
Guest
Mathew 18 is about infallibility, even Catholic sources say so. The only question is whether, as the Church says, the apostles in Mathew 18 are required to be in communion with the Pope or not…and unless you can show that to be the case, there is NO reason to believe it.
C
catharina
Guest
Since you left the Church, left the faith, for a number of years,I agree to some extent. I don’t understand many of the things I believe about God…but that doesn’t mean I should blindly accept things which appear to be clear contradictions either. You are essentially ignoring the evidence before you completely because of a belief you already have. That, in my humble opinion, is not healthy faith.
you might want to acknowledge that your opinion on what
constitutes a “healthy faith” is not of any great importance
in this or any matter regarding faith.
P
Phillip31
Guest
I don’t view it as so because in the following quote just prior Peter is commendedPosted by jinc1019 - Mathew 18:15, I believe. If you read that entire section, it is clear that infallibility is given to all of the apostles in this passage.
Matthew 16:13-19
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
But then right after Peter is rebuked**17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. **19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 16:21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
With 18:15 I think it’s more about trying to appeal to a fellow Christian who is obviously sinning in an outward manner and obviously needs help, but may not accept it.**23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” **
.
Matthew 18:15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Also, in the video cited above, at the 3:30 minute mark, they go on to explain how “binding and loosing” is actually related to infallibility, which is something you expressly denied earlier.
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
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.I am obviously uncertain yes.
- Is God omniscient? That is, does He know everything, past, present, and future?
- Is God all-loving?
- 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?
D
davidv
Guest
Your point has not been supported. You have presented no evidence the apostalic succession is false.I am not. I don’t deny the apostles had infallibility. My point is that the infallibility is not passed on!
The following link is a video, at the 3:00 mark, they explain that Mathew 18 is about infallibility of the Church. So you are clearly wrong on that point.
catholic.com/video/infallibility-of-the-pope
J
jinc1019
Guest
I appreciate your contribution, but with all my heart, that passage appears to be about infallibility. How do you explain “binding and loosing” then? Jesus is giving authority in those passages; it seems undeniable that is going on.I don’t view it as so because in the following quote just prior Peter is commended
But then right after Peter is rebuked
With 18:15 I think it’s more about trying to appeal to a fellow Christian who is obviously sinning in an outward manner and obviously needs help, but may not accept it.
.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Is your difficulty with Papal infallibility alone, or do you have a problem with Church infallibility too?Mathew 18 is about infallibility, even Catholic sources say so. The only question is whether, as the Church says, the apostles in Mathew 18 are required to be in communion with the Pope or not…and unless you can show that to be the case, there is NO reason to believe it.
J
jinc1019
Guest
I am not saying apostolic succession is false! I am saying the passing of infallibility through apostolic succession is false. Why? Because if all the apostles were given infallibility, as Mathew 18 proclaims, then all of the churches founded by those apostles would have it as well according to the Church’s teachings on apostolic succession, which would mean that none of those churches could ever disagree with the Roman Catholic Church on an issue it declares infallible. But they do! That is the proof.Your point has not been supported. You have presented no evidence the apostalic succession is false.
J
jinc1019
Guest
I do not believe infallibility has been transmitted through apostolic succession period, so that would include Church infallibility as well I suppose. That does not mean they can’t teach infallibly, only that their infallibility is limited to those things given to them by the apostles and Jesus, both of whom are infallible sources.Is your difficulty with Papal infallibility alone, or do you have a problem with Church infallibility too?
D
davidv
Guest
It is proof, but not of what you claim. It is proof the free-will allows us to deny the truth.I am not saying apostolic succession is false! I am saying the passing of infallibility through apostolic succession is false. Why? Because if all the apostles were given infallibility, as Mathew 18 proclaims, then all of the churches founded by those apostles would have it as well according to the Church’s teachings on apostolic succession, which would mean that none of those churches could ever disagree with the Roman Catholic Church on an issue it declares infallible. But they do! That is the proof.
C
catharina
Guest
Yet your opinion is simply your opinion.I appreciate your contribution, but with all my heart, that passage appears to be about infallibility. How do you explain “binding and loosing” then? Jesus is giving authority in those passages; it seems undeniable that is going on.
It is of no relevance in the Catholic Church.
Many Protestant sects allow for individual interpretation.
The Catholic Church does NOT do so. Catholics are
to rely on Church teaching. That enormous grace is given to us!
C
catharina
Guest
Sorry. I can’t comprehend what you mean.I am not saying apostolic succession is false! I am saying the passing of infallibility through apostolic succession is false. Why? Because if all the apostles were given infallibility, as Mathew 18 proclaims, then all of the churches founded by those apostles would have it as well according to the Church’s teachings on apostolic succession, which would mean that none of those churches could ever disagree with the Roman Catholic Church on an issue it declares infallible. But they do! That is the proof.
J
jinc1019
Guest
With all due respect, that is a really weak and poorly crafted answer. The truth is, you cannot come up with a reasonable explanation for the contradiction I have pointed out. I asked you and ask you again to show me where in Mathew 18 it says the apostles have to be in communion with Peter to have infallibility. You respond by saying there is no infallibility, but the Church teaches that this passage is actually about infallibility…and instead of responding to this contradiction, you say I am denying the truth. But you are the one denying what is plainly in front of you. Just tell me where I am wrong, specifically.It is proof, but not of what you claim. It is proof the free-will allows us to deny the truth.
J
jinc1019
Guest
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.Sorry. I can’t comprehend what you mean.
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.
C
catharina
Guest
You seem to have built a very fine mousetrap for your own faith and conscience.With all due respect, that is a really weak and poorly crafted answer. The truth is, you cannot come up with a reasonable explanation for the contradiction I have pointed out. I asked you and ask you again to show me where in Mathew 18 it says the apostles have to be in communion with Peter to have infallibility. You respond by saying there is no infallibility, but the Church teaches that this passage is actually about infallibility…and instead of responding to this contradiction, you say I am denying the truth. But you are the one denying what is plainly in front of you. Just tell me where I am wrong, specifically.
Being away from the Church for many years can easily lead to such behavior.
D
davidv
Guest
I cannot explain a contradiction that does not exist. Jesus, as God, is infallible, yet people who saw him face-to-face and heard his words, yet they denied what he taught. Teaching the truth (infallibility) does not compel agreement.With all due respect, that is a really weak and poorly crafted answer. The truth is, you cannot come up with a reasonable explanation for the contradiction I have pointed out.
Please explain where you think I said there was no infallibility. I wrote no such words.I asked you and ask you again to show me where in Mathew 18 it says the apostles have to be in communion with Peter to have infallibility. You respond by saying there is no infallibility, but the Church teaches that this passage is actually about infallibility…and instead of responding to this contradiction, you say I am denying the truth. But you are the one denying what is plainly in front of you. Just tell me where I am wrong, specifically.
Your are wrong to accept apostolic succession and at same time deny that infallability is part of it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.