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

[DJK100]

I am not sure why you think it is more practical for one person to make every important decision rather than all the bishops together? If you are going to just talk about what makes sense, your system makes no sense. If it did, why don’t we just apply it to our government and go back to having monarchs? Why not have Emperor Obama instead of a democratically elected president? Your argument that one person in charge makes more sense than many people working together is a failed concept of governance in all areas of life.

Your premise incorrect because you are talking about God’s Truth not man’s opinion. So it actually makes more sense to have a mechanism in place that allows you to recognize that truth. We don’t apply it to our government because by the very fact that we cannot ensure that our leader is infallible like God can. So your premise is faulty. Besides you are misinterpetring what I am saying. You think I am underestimating the rest of the bishops which I am not.

Again I am not arguing against working together, in fact I am all for it but it makes sense to have someone able to definatively be able to break a tie so that you can continue to work together and not get bogged down. Right?

Also, Considering Jesus describes his Church as his Kingdom it does seem to make more sense to have a monarchy does it not?

Thanks.
Can you answer me one more question? Why did Jesus give the first apostles infallbility?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Have they? Or did they never have it, which is why they left! They don’t claim to have infallibility and they say the Pope never had it either. And they have been around since the beginning of Christianity, as long as Rome! They were considered apart of Church tradition for the first 1000 years, and they disagree with papal infallibility! So for all of you who claim this is an issue of Church tradition, you should preface your argument with “Roman tradition,” because the Orthodox churches disagree and they have the same ancient tradition as Rome.

It’s more than who’s been around the longest. It’s who hasn’t messed with the ancient beliefs. Orthodox and Catholics split. At most one of them held the Ancient Tradition. The other one made something up (probably by accident). If you truly want to know which one made something up, read the Early Church Fathers. An excellent source is The Father’s Know Best by Jimmy Akin.

And I still don’t understand why you think that Mathew 18 implies that all the Apostles were given infallibility. Clearly it doesn’t because, as you’ve said, none of the other Apostolic Churches even think they have infallibility. So either that passage means something else, or the bible is wrong.

If it’s the second case, we’re in a lot of trouble. If it’s the first case, then either that passage isn’t referencing infallibility at all (my reading is that it is simply talking about other authority which all bishops do actually have), or it is referencing infallibility but it is not saying that all of the Apostles have it.

So it must be one of these three:

1. Passage references infallibility, but does not say all Apostles had it.
2. Passage does not reference infallibility.
3. Passage says that all Apostles had infallibility and disproves itself.

In case 1, we’re done. In case 2, we must look elsewhere to answer questions about infallibility. In case 3, we’ve got bigger issues.

It can be nothing else. Which do you think it is?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Ok…I understand what you are saying (I think), and I appreciate you adjusting the way in which you explain it, because it has definitely helped…So let me try to explain it to ensure I have it right.

You are saying the entire Church is protected with infallibility…meaning everyone in the Church…and the infallibility protection comes from the Holy Spirit, right? But, the only single person who can teach with this infallibility is the Pope and everyone else (the college of bisops, the magesterium, etc.) must be in communion with the Pope, right? So if the college of bishops get together and discuss something, the Pope can still come in and make an infallible pronouncement that trumps everyone else…right? S

Yes, I think you are on the right track. I can see that you are honestly trying to understand.

As far as your “what if” question: Try and bear in mind, always, that this is the Church of Jesus Christ, who is its head. Have Faith. This Church is the oracle of Divine Revelation. So I wouldn’t worry about a hypothetical problem that may never come to pass.

But lets look at a worst case scenario anyway. In the 4th Century, bishops all over the world were teaching heresy in the form of Arianism and Semi-Arianism. Did that derail the Church of Jesus Christ? Nope. First of all the Pope (trumped them all) in union with the Listening Church (the Faithful) and gradually eradicated the error. Remember also that the Faithful is made up of laymen, religious, priests and bishops as individuals. IOW, everyone that is Faithful to the Church.

Jesus, through the Holy Spirit is with His Church ALWAYS, until the end of time. Matt 16:18, Matt 28:20 Therefore no matter what dreadful scenario comes along, the Church will remain and stand strong, even if extraordinary measures are necessary.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Well, I’m trying not to feel left out, but jinc1019 still hasn’t responded to my post (#147). Here it is again.

Okay, here’s where I run smack into a dilemma. (I’ve shown this dilemma to Protestants before, and none had an answer for me. Perhaps you will.)

I think you are absolutely right that fallibility leads to uncertainty. When you think about it, where else could it lead? Fallibility means a person could be wrong. He may think he’s right, but there is always a chance he could be wrong. And that means he is left with uncertainty.

If all of us are fallible, we are all in this same boat of uncertainty. And that means all doctrines are uncertain. We cannot be certain we have the right interpretations of scripture or even that we have the right books in the Bible. Since all of us are fallible, we could be wrong!

But nothing is more important than our salvation. Certainly God sees it as important, important enough that He came down from Heaven, was scourged, crowned with thorns, and hammered to a cross. What great love our all-loving God has!

Yet . . . yet . . . God elected to leave us in uncertainty? He left us not knowing what true doctrine is, left us with no way of possibly finding out what it is? He left us a Bible but left us uncertain what that Bible means? Hey, salvation is at stake! What kind of God loves us enough to suffer and die for us but not enough to give us some method of determining true doctrine? If He truly is all-loving, and salvation is the most important issue, why couldn’t He love us enough to bother ensuring we can find out for certain what we need to do to be saved?

Do you see my dilemma? If all of us are fallible, we might be wrong on what we need to do to be saved! And we have no way of determining for certain what the right way is!

Surely salvation is far too important for us to give it our best guess.

So, can you solve this for me?

 

[jinc1019]

Jinc also ignores the fact that the Pope could never issue a teaching infallibly by himself that contradicted something a council of bishops taught infallibly. He could also never issue an infallible teaching that contradicted something that is part of the ordinary Magesterium that is infallible.

Actually I never said that! Once again I am being misquoted. However, what I did say was that bishops could not issue an infallible doctrine without being in communion with the Pope and if the Pope felt what the bishops believed was incorrect, he could step in prior to their being an infallible declaration, and make a declaration of his own. In the Catechism it is clear the bishops cannot issue any infallible statements without the Pope. Read Catechism 891, where it says, “The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium…” So you are wrong. The bishops cannot issue anything to be infallible without the Pope’s agreement.

 

[jinc1019]

I am not saying Peter was the only one given infallibility. What I am saying is that Peter was given the it alone by Jesus and then Jeus turned and gave it to the Bishops as a whole/group. It seems significant that this event occured otherwise what is your explaination for it. Why even include the event in the bible. Why did he single Peter out first when he could have just told him along with the rest of the Apostles?

I don’t deny that Peter was given it separately and then the other apostles were given it at a different time. I feel like I have addressed your issue about Peter being told first many times and have made my position clear on this whole thing.

 

[jinc1019]

Your premise incorrect because you are talking about God’s Truth not man’s opinion. So it actually makes more sense to have a mechanism in place that allows you to recognize that truth. We don’t apply it to our government because by the very fact that we cannot ensure that our leader is infallible like God can. So your premise is faulty. Besides you are misinterpetring what I am saying. You think I am underestimating the rest of the bishops which I am not.

Again I am not arguing against working together, in fact I am all for it but it makes sense to have someone able to definatively be able to break a tie so that you can continue to work together and not get bogged down. Right?

Also, Considering Jesus describes his Church as his Kingdom it does seem to make more sense to have a monarchy does it not?

Thanks.
Can you answer me one more question? Why did Jesus give the first apostles infallbility?

You make a good point about God’s truth and man’s opinion and there isn’t much I can say against it!

Second, your characterization of the Pope as a “tie-breaker” is not really historically accurate, as I am sure you already know. The Pope can make infallible doctrine on his own, without the bishops, because according to Catholic teaching, the Holy Spirit is protecting him specifically from teachign error as well as the bishops as a whole.

 

[jinc1019]

It’s more than who’s been around the longest. It’s who hasn’t messed with the ancient beliefs. Orthodox and Catholics split. At most one of them held the Ancient Tradition. The other one made something up (probably by accident). If you truly want to know which one made something up, read the Early Church Fathers. An excellent source is The Father’s Know Best by Jimmy Akin.

And I still don’t understand why you think that Mathew 18 implies that all the Apostles were given infallibility. Clearly it doesn’t because, as you’ve said, none of the other Apostolic Churches even think they have infallibility. So either that passage means something else, or the bible is wrong.

If it’s the second case, we’re in a lot of trouble. If it’s the first case, then either that passage isn’t referencing infallibility at all (my reading is that it is simply talking about other authority which all bishops do actually have), or it is referencing infallibility but it is not saying that all of the Apostles have it.

So it must be one of these three:

1. Passage references infallibility, but does not say all Apostles had it.
2. Passage does not reference infallibility.
3. Passage says that all Apostles had infallibility and disproves itself.

In case 1, we’re done. In case 2, we must look elsewhere to answer questions about infallibility. In case 3, we’ve got bigger issues.

It can be nothing else. Which do you think it is?

If you read the Catechism, in section 891, it is clear that all the bishops together have infallibility according to the Church, and that is based largely on Mathew 18. I also posted a link earlier on where a Catholic Answers radio host specifically cited Mathew 18 as providing infallibility to the other apostles. You are completely wrong on that. The Church teaches the other apostles were given infallibility…THE CHURCH teaches that. This is the basis for the Church’s belief on the Magesterium, which is really the bishops together teaching infallibly. The Church teaches that the bishops have this collective power because of Mathew18.

 

[jinc1019]

Yes, I think you are on the right track. I can see that you are honestly trying to understand.

As far as your “what if” question: Try and bear in mind, always, that this is the Church of Jesus Christ, who is its head. Have Faith. This Church is the oracle of Divine Revelation. So I wouldn’t worry about a hypothetical problem that may never come to pass.

But lets look at a worst case scenario anyway. In the 4th Century, bishops all over the world were teaching heresy in the form of Arianism and Semi-Arianism. Did that derail the Church of Jesus Christ? Nope. First of all the Pope (trumped them all) in union with the Listening Church (the Faithful) and gradually eradicated the error. Remember also that the Faithful is made up of laymen, religious, priests and bishops as individuals. IOW, everyone that is Faithful to the Church.

Jesus, through the Holy Spirit is with His Church ALWAYS, until the end of time. Matt 16:18, Matt 28:20 Therefore no matter what dreadful scenario comes along, the Church will remain and stand strong, even if extraordinary measures are necessary.

Ambrose…Since you are really the only one directly answering these specific questions, I am addressing this specifically to you (but of course if anyone else understands what I am saying, they can respond).

I think you were right when you suggested earlier I was characterizing infallibility and apostolic succession incorrectly. In a way I believe I was and in a way I believe I wasn’t. I was saying that Jesus told Peter he would always be protected with infallibility. I believe that to be true, BUT, the Church doesn’t teach this. The Church teaches Jesus gave infallibility to Peter’s chair…and through apostolic succession, anyone who attains that seat as the Bishop of Rome.

So Ambrose, I understand your argument on that piece of it now…It is Peter’s Chair, Peter’s office, that is infallible, not Peter. So in that context, this is where I have trouble (I am going to try and explain it differently than I did before so we can move past the whole apostolic succession issue we had previously). In Mathew 16, the Church interprets Jesus to mean that Peter gets the keys to the kingdom, meaning the authority set out in Isiah 22 and in other places as well, that Peter is to be the head of all the apostles (and by extension any other bishops and everyone else in the Church), and that this power belongs to the Chair of Peter, not Peter. I think you will agree with all of this.

Here’s where my problem comes in. In Mathew 18, when Jesus uses very similar language to show that the other apostles also will be protected by the Holy Spirirt from teaching erroneous teachings, the Church interprets this to mean NOT that Jesus was only talking to those 12 apostles, NOT that Jesus was talking to only those 12 apostolic seats (meaning only the individual churches founded by those 12 apostles) as the Church claims was the case in Mathew 16, he was saying that ALL bishops, including every single seat of a bishop that had not been created yet (because basically none had) would also have this power. Can you see the trouble in this? In Mathew 16, the Church says Jesus was only giving those special powers and authority to Peter’s seat and Peter’s seat alone, because only Peter was being spoken to and was present. But in Mathew 18, when Jesus is ONLY talking to the 12 apostles, the Church does NOT interpret this to mean that only those 12 apostolic seats will be protected by the Holy Spirit; all bishops will be protected and the whole Church by extension. A different standard is being applied in Mathew 16, when the Church says only Peter’s seat gets this protection and authority than in Mathew 18, when the Church expands Jesus’ statement to all the bishops in the world, even though Jesus is only speaking to a specific group of 12 specific apostles.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

jinc1019:

Second, your characterization of the Pope as a “tie-breaker” is not really historically accurate, as I am sure you already know. The Pope can make infallible doctrine on his own, without the bishops, because according to Catholic teaching, the Holy Spirit is protecting him specifically from teachign error as well as the bishops as a whole.
Reply With Quote

The important thing to remember about Catholic Doctrine, is that it is all a part of the Deposit of Faith. That Deposit of Faith (or Revelation) was complete at the death of the last apostle. Therefore, everything the Church teaches since then (all of her Doctrine) MUST be included in the original Deposit of Faith handed down by the Apostles.

Therefore, anything the Pope (or the Magisterium) teaches, is nothing new EVER. What might be new, is the light in which it is understood anew (because of changing times and circumstances.) So much of the Deposit of Faith (because it is Divine Revelation) was not exhaustively and explicitly taught from the beginning, but the Truth of the teaching was always there in a latent form.

The Trinity is a case in point. The Trinity (as we understand it today) was never taught explicitly in the Bible, nor perhaps in Apostolic times, in the way we have come to understand it. It was always understood, and was a foundation to their belief in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. But there was no need (at that time) to spell out every nuance of the subject then, because the primitive Christian knew that the One True God was a trinity of persons; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is how they were baptized, and it was a foundation of their Christian Faith.

Centuries later, error sprang up, and was taught as truth, that Jesus was not “one in being with the Father.” The Church had to come together and consider WHAT was the original Truth as taught by the Apostles. See? That is why the Pope (or the Magisterium) can never just spring some new Doctrine on the Church because they are “infallible.” Whatever doctrine is taught, must have ALWAYS existed from Apostolic time, but perhaps in a latent form. So the Pope can NEVER just make doctrine on his own. If he did, it would be an error. That is why the WHOLE Church is, AND MUST BE, a part of Church infallibility.

 

[jinc1019]

So Ambrose, my conclusion based on this is the same. I believe the same standard the Church applies in Mathew 16 to Peter’s chair should apply to Mathew 18, when Jesus grants authority to the other apostolic chairs. The Church seems to be picking and choosing when to apply their chosen standard for Mathew 16 to situations where it grants Rome authority and protection by the Holy Spirit and then extends and expands their analysis in Mathew 18, so that those other 11 apostolic seats do not get the promises made to them by Jesus alone.

And to add to all of this…even if the Church’s interpretation of Mathew 18 is correct in that Jesus was promising protection of the Holy Spirit to ALL bishops and not to specific apostolic seats, then it still doesn’t answer the question of where does it say that all the bishops can only use their infallible authority when the seat of Peter agrees and ONLY when the seat of Peter agrees? I know it says this in theCatechism in 891, but where in the New Testament is this supported?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

jinc1019:

Here’s where my problem comes in. In Mathew 18, when Jesus uses very similar language to show that the other apostles also will be protected by the Holy Spirirt from teaching erroneous teachings, the Church interprets this to mean NOT that Jesus was only talking to those 12 apostles, NOT that Jesus was talking to only those 12 apostolic seats (meaning only the individual churches founded by those 12 apostles) as the Church claims was the case in Mathew 16, he was saying that ALL bishops, including every single seat of a bishop that had not been created yet (because basically none had) would also have this power.

I suppose this is the basis for this whole thread! But to answer in a simple way, I would think that when Jesus breathed on the Apostles after His Resurrection, and told them to receive the Holy Spirit, and further saying that as he was sent by the Father, now He is sending them-- John 20: 21-23, a precedent was set. A succession was established by Jesus Christ Himself. By being given the Holy Spirit directly by Jesus Christ himself, I think they understood this was a precedent, and a command to continue the succession until He returns.

There are many things that were understood and taught by the Apostles, but that were not necessarily written down, or didn’t survive the ages. But the Church’s understanding of Apostolic succession is ancient, and originates with the Apostles themselves, I am sure.

I hope that helps.

 

[jinc1019]

Kay-Cee, please know I apologize for not directly answering your question that was posted previously. I honestly did not see it. As you can see from this thread’s history, I have been sent hundreds of posts and have responded to nearly every single one. It is difficult keeping up with all of that! I am, after all, only one person!

With that said, to answer your question…Truthfully, I don’t know. But that’s sort of like asking why would a loving God put suffering in the world? There are certain mysteries of faith that can’t be answered. Just because it would be better for there to be a Church with all the answers doesn’t mean there is one. It would be better to have a world without suffering but we don’t have that. Neither to me is a reflection of God’s love for us.

 

[jinc1019]

I suppose this is the basis for this whole thread! But to answer in a simple way, I would think that when Jesus breathed on the Apostles after His Resurrection, and told them to receive the Holy Spirit, and further saying that as he was sent by the Father, now He is sending them-- John 20: 21-23, a precedent was set. A succession was established by Jesus Christ Himself. By being given the Holy Spirit directly by Jesus Christ himself, I think they understood this was a precedent, and a command to continue the succession until He returns.

There are many things that were understood and taught by the Apostles, but that were not necessarily written down, or didn’t survive the ages. But the Church’s understanding of Apostolic succession is ancient, and originates with the Apostles themselves, I am sure.

I hope that helps.

I really do appreciate your answers Ambrose, and you are right to say this one issue is really the basis for this whole thread.

I agree with your assertion about apostolic succession, but the question is: In what form? With how much authority do the successors have? The Church has a specific answer to that and my view is obviously different from the Church, which does not mean I am right.

So I want to make it clear just one last time, to be sure I understand this correctly, is there no place in the gospels or in the New Testament where it is stated that the infallibility granted to all bishops as a whole in Mathew 18 is qualified by them being in communion with Peter? Basically what you said was that this is a tradition handed down throughout the Church, and I can respect that answer, although Eastern Orthodox churches would disagree with you, but I would like to know if the Bible ever does addres this issue of the bishops being granted infallibility but only if Peter agrees. I think it is an essential component to all of this, and if a passage does exist I am not aware of, it really could go a long way in resolving this internal schism I have.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Then your original question is nonsensical. Let me get this straight:

Your asking if its permissible for you to receive communion because of a teaching that it would be wrong for you to do so from Vatican I. You however do not recognize the authority of Vatican I to make said pronouncement infallibly. So to sum it up your asking if its ok for you to receive communion and disobey and authority you do not recognize…

That question would seem to answer itself would it not?

I think the problem your having is that your starting point in all of this is you don’t believe contracepting is immoral. You are prepared to reject any authority that tells you otherwise and jump through any intellectual hoops to get there.

:newidea:

That is the direction I was (feebly) trying to go in. The starting point is not papal infallibility, the starting point is contraception. The rest is twisting around that one point.

If GOD says that we are not to contracept, then if I am going to argue with that, I am going against GOD Himself. (lots of people do that, not sure they realize what they are doing.)

But if THE POPE says we are not to contracept, then if I prove the Pope not to be infallible, I can contracept with a clear conscience, because The Pope could be wrong.

I have seen many arguments in favor of artificial birth control, and the twists and mental calisthenics the posters do…well I’d say it is entertaining but it really isn’t.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

If you read the Catechism, in section 891, it is clear that all the bishops together have infallibility according to the Church, and that is based largely on Mathew 18. I also posted a link earlier on where a Catholic Answers radio host specifically cited Mathew 18 as providing infallibility to the other apostles. You are completely wrong on that. The Church teaches the other apostles were given infallibility…THE CHURCH teaches that. This is the basis for the Church’s belief on the Magesterium, which is really the bishops together teaching infallibly. The Church teaches that the bishops have this collective power because of Mathew18.

Fair enough. Take then that Matt 18 references infallibility. Still doesn’t answer my question. CCC891 says the bishops in communion with the Pope as a body have infallibility. It does not say they have infallibility individually. It does not say they have infallibility as a group when not in communion with Rome. I must have missed your link to the radio thing, but it doesn’t make much difference - all of these people say the bishops have this power collectively, in communion with Rome.

So that rules out the “that passage says nothing about infallibility choice.”

That leaves us with 2 choices:

1. The passage references infallibility but does not say all of the Apostles have it INDIVIDUALLY (I might not have said this in my last post, I thought it was understood) and also does not imply that any (“small” or otherwise) group of bishops not in communion with Peter has infallibility.
2. The passage says all Apostles have infallibility individually, or says that any (“small” or otherwise) group (in communion with Rome or not) has infallibility. This is obviously not the case, since the Catholics and Orthodox disagree, so the Bible is wrong.

Same question: which one?

Note that the choice "It doesn’t imply that anyone has infallibility"is exactly the choice you just eliminated from my original post. But if you decide that is the answer (or if you decide you cannot decipher what it says about infallibility), then you simply look elsewhere to answer the question.

 

[jinc1019]

:newidea:

That is the direction I was (feebly) trying to go in. The starting point is not papal infallibility, the starting point is contraception. The rest is twisting around that one point.

If GOD says that we are not to contracept, then if I am going to argue with that, I am going against GOD Himself. (lots of people do that, not sure they realize what they are doing.)

But if THE POPE says we are not to contracept, then if I prove the Pope not to be infallible, I can contracept with a clear conscience, because The Pope could be wrong.

I have seen many arguments in favor of artificial birth control, and the twists and mental calisthenics the posters do…well I’d say it is entertaining but it really isn’t.

You couldn’t be more wrong than you are here. This not about contraception at all. It really isn’t. I can’t make it any more clear than hat.

 

[englishredrose]

I do appreciate the advice, but honestly, as an Anglican, you more than anyone must be able to sympathize.

I do sympathise but I’ve been jumped on too many times on these boards for openly doing so for being anglican. The first line of attack I get is that I am Anglican so can’t say anything in this discussion xyz so kept my response in sympathy of what I would really like you to do. I didn’t want to get caught up in how people operate on these boards as you can understand from the feedback you are getting.

Also I have learned through my own struggle that the priest is the very best person you can turn to right now and that is why I supported the orginal suggestion. You will get mixed replies as you have seen. A priest will let you talk and guide you.

I didn’t attempt any of the actual questions because I do not know enough about RC to know how to answer them. If I had answered them in the way I would have done then I would definately got the old ‘you’re an anglican’ response from everyone regardless to how it may be helping you so I am sorry that I didn’t seem like I have sympathy with you. But I do get jumped on in such posts and didn’t want it to be hyjacked from you

 

[jinc1019]

Fair enough. Take then that Matt 18 references infallibility. Still doesn’t answer my question. CCC891 says the bishops in communion with the Pope as a body have infallibility. It does not say they have infallibility individually. It does not say they have infallibility as a group when not in communion with Rome. I must have missed your link to the radio thing, but it doesn’t make much difference - all of these people say the bishops have this power collectively, in communion with Rome.

So that rules out the “that passage says nothing about infallibility choice.”

That leaves us with 2 choices:

1. The passage references infallibility but does not say all of the Apostles have it INDIVIDUALLY (I might not have said this in my last post, I thought it was understood) and also does not imply that any (“small” or otherwise) group of bishops not in communion with Peter has infallibility.
2. The passage says all Apostles have infallibility individually, or says that any (“small” or otherwise) group (in communion with Rome or not) has infallibility. This is obviously not the case, since the Catholics and Orthodox disagree, so the Bible is wrong.

Same question: which one?

Note that the choice "It doesn’t imply that anyone has infallibility"is exactly the choice you just eliminated from my original post. But if you decide that is the answer (or if you decide you cannot decipher what it says about infallibility), then you simply look elsewhere to answer the question.

I never said that Mathew 18 gives those apostolic seats infallibility INDIVIDUALLY, I acknowledge that in the Bible itself it says 2 or 3 must agree. So 2 or 3 is the answer to that portion of the question.

And, I can’t answer your question because your second choice is ALSO mischaracterized. According to the Bible, 2 or 3 of the apostolic seats must agree for their to be infallibility, or of course, Peter’s seat alone. So, if 2 or 3 of those apostolic seats agree on something and Peter’s seat disagrees (which is exactly what exists today) than it shows infallibility does not exist and was ONLY meant or those people Jesus was talking to, not their apostolic seats. That is the premise for my entire argument. So, is the Bible wrong? No. My argument is that Church interpretation of that Biblical passage is wrong because they add the idea that those 2 or 3 bishops only are protected infallibly when Peter’s seat agrees when that doesn’t appear in the Bible. Or maybe it does, but I can’t find it anywhere! Can someone point to a spot where it says the protection of the Holy Spirit granting infallibility to the bishops only applies when Peter agrees? I can find it in the Catechism but nowhere in the Bible.

 

[jinc1019]

I do sympathise but I’ve been jumped on too many times on these boards for openly doing so for being anglican. The first line of attack I get is that I am Anglican so can’t say anything in this discussion xyz so kept my response in sympathy of what I would really like you to do. I didn’t want to get caught up in how people operate on these boards as you can understand from the feedback you are getting.

Also I have learned through my own struggle that the priest is the very best person you can turn to right now and that is why I supported the orginal suggestion. You will get mixed replies as you have seen. A priest will let you talk and guide you.

I didn’t attempt any of the actual questions because I do not know enough about RC to know how to answer them. If I had answered them in the way I would have done then I would definately got the old ‘you’re an anglican’ response from everyone regardless to how it may be helping you so I am sorry that I didn’t seem like I have sympathy with you. But I do get jumped on in such posts and didn’t want it to be hyjacked from you

I appreciate your honesty and can sympathize, obviously! Thank you for your thoughts and I will speak to a priest on this matter.