Who Has Authority?

[artist3189]

Could **you **be wrong in your interpretation of the Catechism or your rule of faith? Would this mean that you are confused? Or is the Holy Spirit is confused?

Neither

 

[SolaScriptura]

Neither

Would this therefore mean that you are infallible in your interpretation of your rule of faith?

 

[Spirithound]

Popes have officially endorsed heresy

Totally false.

 

[shawn34_a]

In Matthew 16:18, as you’ve already been told at least a hundred times. “I give you the keys” is the signal that this is a mayoralty or a prime ministership; it’s not just “Hey Simon, I’m renaming you Peter (which means “rock”) just for the kicks of it; it doesn’t really mean anything very important since I’m really “the rock;” not you, and by the way, I’m giving you a set of keys for no specific reason.” No, Jesus is making him the leader of the whole Church and giving him the authority (“keys”) to set policy for that Church (which is why in Acts 15 he could get rid of the kosher law, even though there was nothing in Scripture giving any precedent for that, and admit gentiles into the fellowship of the Church despite there being no precedent for that either) and pass it down through the generations until the end of time.

Most of the NT was written in Greek. Church comes from the Greek word Ekklesia (sp?) which means “an assembly.” Christ said, where two are more are gathered in my name, there He is in the midst of them. So a church doesn’t even need a physical structure, only a spiritual one. A church can be in a park, your house, or on a boat. [/quopte]

 

[shawn34_a]

You can’t possibly believe that if your Catholic. I thought the Muslims, because they share in the same faith of Abraham, were included in God’s plan of salvation.

That can’t be the case according to the Catholic Church or else they wouldn’t go out of the way to include the Muslims.

 

[VWcrazy]

Popes have officially endorsed heresy

Please list names of popes and the heresies which they have endorsed; otherwise, this statement is false.

 

[mrs_abbott]

So you do have the HS then? Why don’t you start your own church then and teach all those Protestant ministers who get it wrong in your eyes? Why don’t you open up your own church and teach the Pope, our Vicar of Christ? After all, he’s wrong about the bible isn’t he?.. according to you?

Mellow out . . . it’s ok.

 

[artist3189]

Would this therefore mean that you are infallible in your interpretation of your rule of faith?

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘rule of faith’, but it is not up to ‘us’, meaning the laity, to determine whether the ‘catechism’ is infallible, nor our ‘rule of faith’. No one is infallible,not even the Pope, EXCEPT when ‘declaring’ binding Doctrines of the Church. The Magisterium is the theological ‘teacher’ of the Church, where interpretation is understood, with the aid of the Holy Spirit. 1 Billion Catholics with 1 Billion different ideas of interpretation would accomplish little and corrupt the Scriptures as has been done in the 30,000 Protestant denominations. It’s very hard for non-Catholics to understand, but much of the ‘core beliefs’ found in the New Testament ARE Doctrinal in nature and are unchangeable. Any understanding of Scripture, not clearly defined, MUST be read and understood in the light of the *WHOLE *context of Scripture, not just one part, it must be understood in the light of Holy Tradition and the teachings of the Church, not just read to fit what one person wants, at that time, to prove a point, argument or to fit a belief system.

 

[artist3189]

Yes, but as I understand it, the early Church demanded agreement on the essentials, but allowed a great deal of variation on smaller issues ‘fly below the radar’ - so, for example, issues of the order of communion, or questions of what happened to those who’d denied their faith. I guess they were much less willing to shout ‘heretic’ than we are today. Someone like Marcion, for example, was tolerated for quite a while, until his ‘two gods’ theory became a step too far. When the early creeds were written, that seemed to be the essentials. My difficulty now is that the faithful are expected, not to take something like the Apostles Creed and say ‘this is my faith, these are my essentials’, but that they are expected to take a document with thousands of points, not to mention how many encyclicals and statements, and say ‘I accept all of it’.

The early church worked extremely hard to codify and was not less, *but more *willing to shout, ‘heretic’ than today, much more. Marcion himself was not tolerated for quite a while, in fact, he was vilified from the first, categorically denied and written against in volumes. His sect lived on for 300 years, but in the ancient world, isolated sects were the rule of the day. The Church proper continued to grow and teach through the primacy of the Roman church. The notion that the Church was some how ‘dormant’ for the first 100, 200,300 years and then later all this STUFF sprang out is erroneous. St Paul starting laying down the law from the very beginning, was one of the first true theologian of Christian teaching and thought, within a few years of Christs death. Understanding this, it is NOT unexpected that over time, with all the problematic wandering and straying, that the Church would need to define elements. But this is PRECISELY why Christ commissioned Apostolic succession, to teach, spread the faith, protect the orthodoxy of the core beliefs, AND to continue to grow in the understanding of the faith. It did not end with his resurrection and it did not end when the last word was gathered up for the last book of the New Testament.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

One thing I can say for Blue Serenity is this, I don’t always agree with her, but ‘Serenity’ certainly fits, I don’t anyone here has such a beautiful way of expressing their ideas.

Thanks! I try and practice what I say and remain charitable myself. Some days it’s easier than others.

 

[RNRobert]

The early church worked extremely hard to codify and was not less, *but more *willing to shout, ‘heretic’ than today, much more. Marcion himself was not tolerated for quite a while, in fact, he was vilified from the first, categorically denied and written against in volumes. His sect lived on for 300 years, but in the ancient world, isolated sects were the rule of the day.

I believe St Polycarp called Marcion “the firstborn of Satan,” and i recall reading somewhere that St Jerome referred to a lapsed heretic as “that viper.”

 

[AlegreFe]

There is nothing wrong with what AllForHim said.

That’s only the case because she doesn’t know any better, but ignorance is not always bliss.
"SolaScriptura:

She is right. No she’s not. Just because a person holds a particular office does not guarantee that they have the Holy Spirit.

You are totally wrong. The Pope does have the guarentee of the Holy Spirit when it comes to teaching the faith. When the Pope speaks from Cathedra Petri, he cannot teach heresy. Jesus made sure of that. The Pope is infallible when it comes to teaching Faith & Morals. The Pope is not impeccable, that is different. None of us are impeccable as we are all sinners.

SolaScriptura:

As a matter of fact of I have heard Catholics themselves say the same thing about some of the Popes throughout history. Popes have officially endorsed heresy so her statement is correct and there is nothing disrespectful about it.

Her statement and yours are NOT correct. They are totally false and you owe Jesus an apology. The Pope cannot teach heresy because of the guarentee of the Holy Spirit when it comes to faith and morals.

SolaScriptura:

Read the Gospel of Saint Matthew; link in my previous post. Our Pope has the guarentee of the Holy Spirit. So do all the Bishops in union with the Pope when they teach through the heart of the Church in the way that the Pope teaches.

Just because believe it doesn’t mean it is true and it is not disrespectful if someone disagrees with your belief. This is a discussion board and this specific one is for non-Catholic religions.

It’s not that it’s disrespectful or not disrespectful to disagree with my beliefs. It is not just my belief that the Pope is infallible. The Pope being infallible is a FACT. So the person who she is disrespecting is not me, it’s Peter, therefore the Church and therefore the Body of Christ and therefore ultimately she is disrespecting Jesus. He made sure that Peter and his successors were going to be infallible by the Power of the Holy Spirit, when it comes to the teaching of Faith & Morals.

So that is why I was concerned with AFH’s statements. She, along with you, just have to be careful and think twice when it comes to speaking about the Pope. So speaking against our Pope Benedict XVI is very disrespectful.

 

[AlegreFe]

Here’s a little something for all to read.
One of the ECF said this about Peter and the "Chair of Peter."
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you
are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and
the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18].
On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives
the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although
he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded
a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own
authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . .
If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter,
can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should]
desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built,
can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

From CALibrary
Origins of Peter as Pope
The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the
foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20,
1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been
disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle
Peter “rock”: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”
(Matt.16:18).

You can take it or leave it but these are facts;
Proof of the Church’s Infallibility

Ex cathedra

Papal Infallibility
The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is
one which is generally misunderstood by those outside
the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other
“Bible Christians” often confuse the charism of papal
“infallibility” with “impeccability.” They imagine Catholics
believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this
elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort
of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible
definition is due.

Infallible Teaching and the Gift of Divine Truth

The Primacy of Peter (from Scripture Catholic website)

 

[AlegreFe]

Could you be wrong in your interpretation of the Catechism or your rule of faith? Would this mean that you are confused? Or is the Holy Spirit is confused?

The Catechism is the interpretation of the Bible plus all of Church’s teachings. So how can I be wrong about the Catechism? The Catechism comes from the Church and she has the Holy Spirit on her side with the Pope being the earthly leader who teaches infallibly when it comes to faith and morals. I am definitely not confused and most certainly neither is the Holy Spirit.

 

[AlegreFe]

Would this therefore mean that you are infallible in your interpretation of your rule of faith?

Only the Pope is infallible. But don’t confuse that with impeccable. I don’t think you are though.

We just read the bible and we Catholics should also be reading from the Catechism so we don’t make any mistakes. But that doesn’t make us infallible.

 

[Petergee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petergee View Post
But you say that your and my beliefs are BOTH the Truth. So how can it be that the Truth that you have disagrees with some parts of the Truth that I have? Can’t you see this is impossible?
My head is officially spinning now. :whacky:

I’m sorry you feel confused. I’m trying to explain this as simply and straightforwardly as I can. I realise it’s hard for you to accept that ideas you have held sacred for a long time are wrong, but as you see that they are contrary to logic.

Sure, we can have the same Truths. You believe more to be True than we do. That’s fine also. We are all on a quest to constantly seek the fullness of that Truth. Where that will take us is up to us and how much of ourselves we devote to it.

Yes, part of the Truth is obscured from you. But it’s a much bigger difference than that. Some things which you believe to be true, Catholics believe to be false. Some things which Catholics believe to be true, you apparently believe to be false. So obviously you do not believe “the same truth” which Catholics do.

Ultimately, I’m trying to get to Heaven by living my life the best I can as Jesus instructed us to in the Bible. How about you?

That’s a great start. But the Bible is only one of the things which the Catholic Church has given us to help us live our lives the best we can. To reach our best potential we need to use all of what the Church gives us. Especially the Sacraments which Christ gave the Church, and the teaching of those who Christ appoints to lead and guide His Church as His representatives on Earth. I sin very often. Sometimes I believe things which are contrary to the Truth which Christ gave the Church. But as a member of Christ’s Church, it is much easier for me to find my way back to the Truth.

 

[Eddy]

I didn’t expect to mind myself quote away over here!

I believe St Polycarp called Marcion “the firstborn of Satan,”

He did indeed. But Marcion was not rejected from the first - he moved between churches and was kicked out by his own bishop - but he’d been teaching for a period of time before that, and a new church was willing to give him a new chance (in exchange for money, quite possibly!).

The early church, in once sense, was more inclined to shout ‘heretic’ because there was no release valve (other denominations), and so those who disagreed were a higher %, and more prominent. However, the breadth of disagreement on some issues - such as how to celebrate communion, or the treatment of the Montanists, was remarkable. So I stand by my belief that there sense of what was ‘essential’ was more liveable.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

That’s a great start. But the Bible is only one of the things which the Catholic Church has given us to help us live our lives the best we can. To reach our best potential we need to use all of what the Church gives us. Especially the Sacraments which Christ gave the Church, and the teaching of those who Christ appoints to lead and guide His Church as His representatives on Earth. I sin very often. Sometimes I believe things which are contrary to the Truth which Christ gave the Church. But as a member of Christ’s Church, it is much easier for me to find my way back to the Truth.

But I’m not Catholic so the Bible is the most reliable source I have since it’s God’s infallible Word. The Bible reigns true even when men don’t.

 

[jmcrae]

But I’m not Catholic so the Bible is the most reliable source I have since it’s God’s infallible Word. The Bible reigns true even when men don’t.

But you are also a human being, and your interpretation also can be just as wrong.

Nobody has their own personal “Holy Spirit” guiding them into all truth.

The Holy Spirit guides the Church, and we gain access to His wisdom by following the Church - not by following our own independent little “burning of the bosom,” which is a lot more likely to be our personal, very fallible opinion, rather than being anything from the Holy Spirit - especially if it is leading us away from the traditional teachings of Christianity from the time of the Apostles until now.

 

[artist3189]

But I’m not Catholic so the Bible is the most reliable source I have since it’s God’s infallible Word. The Bible reigns true even when men don’t.

Just keep in mind, men spoke it, men re-told it, men eventually wrote SOME of if down, and men decided which of all this was or wasn’t the INFALLIBLE WORD. The Church did that, and it continues too. The Bible reigns true because men, with the grace of the Holy Spirit, said it to be so. Look into the history of the Bible and decide if you trusted the decision of those ‘men’ and who they where and why you put so much faith into what they deemed, Canonical. Interesting to read about either way. BTW, what is you affiliation, if that’s not to private to ask? Just curious.