Why do Protestants reject the Pope's authority?

[JonNC]

=joe370;9741663]Well, maybe Jesus continues to guide His one church into all truth in spite of the 11th century east-west schism, the break between the Catholic church and the Anglican church, and the eventual 16th century protestant reformation. Seems rather plausible and biblical. Of course it is up to each and every Christian to identify said church, if, in the end, that is what they believe.

I agree, actually, since guides (guiding) is a verb that implies ongoing. And therefore, all of the above are being guided.

The alternative seems to be:

Doctrinal truth regarding those disparate teachings, such as the Eucharist and Baptism, just to name a few, are no longer knowable.

What did the early Church say about these?

Jon

 

[Erich]

Not at all. Decisions about doctrine are made by the synod, via the confessions. The synod would be involved. Removal from the roster is a synod decision, not a local congregation. Additionally, all clergy come from the synod. My parish, for exampe could not choose a pastor not ordained by within the synod. All pastors are trained and approved by the synod.

Can your parish choose a pastor ordained by one of the LCMS partner churches around the world? Can the synod (theoretically) make a decision about doctrine that does not agree 100% with what a partner church may decide?

What if, instead of an LCMS pastor found to be teaching falsehood (as defined by LCMS), it is the congregation (or the district, or perhaps even the synod) which is promulgating the falsehood and the LCMS pastor is the one teaching truth (as defined by LCMS). If the congregation in this case were to try to remove the pastor, it really would be like the sheep choosing their shepherd.

It was always my understanding that the LCMS practices closed/close communion… which is why a paragraph from steadfastlutherans.org/?p=12405 sticks out (emphasis mine)

The California-Nevada-Hawaii District removed Rev. Richmond, a 1985 St. Louis Seminary graduate, from the LCMS clergy roster 14 years ago because Richmond refused to practice Open Communion.
Admittedly, there’s a lot about this story I don’t quite follow, but it seems to me that there is more to this than meets the eye.

 

[joe370]

JonNC;9741688]I agree, actually, since guides (guiding) is a verb that implies ongoing. And therefore, all of the above are being guided.

It doesn’t seem plausible to believe that God guides one church to embrace one teaching and another church the complete opposite regarding the same teaching, but that’s just me.

What did the early Church say about these?

Baptism via water, regarding Baptism. Regarding the Eucharist: it was truly the Body and Blood of our Savior, as well as a genuine Sacrifice.

 

[JonNC]

Somewhat off topic, Erich, but I’ll abide.

=Erich;9741745]Can your parish choose a pastor ordained by one of the LCMS partner churches around the world?

I don’t knoe for sure, but I would assume so.

Can the synod (theoretically) make a decision about doctrine that does not agree 100% with what a partner church may decide?

I suspect so, but we might lose their fellowship.

What if, instead of an LCMS pastor found to be teaching falsehood (as defined by LCMS), it is the congregation (or the district, or perhaps even the synod) which is promulgating the falsehood and the LCMS pastor is the one teaching truth (as defined by LCMS). If the congregation in this case were to try to remove the pastor, it really would be like the sheep choosing their shepherd.

A big “what if”.

It was always my understanding that the LCMS practices closed/close communion… which is why a paragraph from steadfastlutherans.org/?p=12405 sticks out (emphasis mine)

The California-Nevada-Hawaii District removed Rev. Richmond, a 1985 St. Louis Seminary graduate, from the LCMS clergy roster 14 years ago because Richmond refused to practice Open Communion.
Admittedly, there’s a lot about this story I don’t quite follow, but it seems to me that there is more to this than meets the eye.

I’m with you. I have no idea what this is/was about. the pracice of the LCMs is close communion (a bit different than closed communion, as it leaves some wiggle room for the individual parish). As an example, I was ELCA when we first visited our current parish, and after a brief chat with the pastor, he allowed us to receive.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Doctrinal innovations that appeared later only within the Roman Catholic Church, those not held by the Orthodox, Anglicans, and other Christian bodies, seem far less credible to me: priestly celibacy, various beliefs about the pope and Mary, purgatory, indulgences, etc. I have no authority to refer you to to convince you that the Roman Catholic teachings are in error; I can only say that I don’t believe them, and that’s a reason I reject the Pope’s authority.

Doctrinal innovations, regarding the following - yes, no maybe?

The term low church was used in the early part of the 18th century as the equivalent of the term Latitudinarian in that it was used to refer to values that provided much latitude in matters of discipline and faith. The term was in contradistinction to the term high church which applied to those who valued the exclusive authority of the Established Church, the episcopacy and the sacramental system.

 

[october_baby]

in my experience, as an ex-protestant, most protestants believe in sola scriptures. which they believe means each person interprates the bible by their own understanding. (which i find there are doctrines that ARE NOT biblical,the ordination of gay people being one example.)
they usually.follow the opinions of their pastors and bishops as being the final authority.
this leads me to say, at the heart of the matter, sola scriptures means every man is his own
pope. this makes low church protestants hostile toward authority. the more decentralized
the church authority is the more hostility toward the pope. and the problem with bible only
is that it rejects tradition and authority and reduces church questions to brother jerry says
so and so, well brother clem says this. which was one of the reasons I became a roman catholic.:tiphat:

 

[joe370]

in my experience, as an ex-protestant, most protestants believe in sola scriptures. which they believe means each person interprates the bible by their own understanding. (which i find there are doctrines that ARE NOT biblical,the ordination of gay people being one example.)
they usually.follow the opinions of their pastors and bishops as being the final authority.
this leads me to say, at the heart of the matter, sola scriptures means every man is his own
pope. this makes low church protestants hostile toward authority. the more decentralized
the church authority is the more hostility toward the pope. and the problem with bible only
is that it rejects tradition and authority and reduces church questions to brother jerry says
so and so, well brother clem says this. which was one of the reasons I became a roman catholic.:tiphat:

I think the big question that each and every Christian (especially folks who start their own churches) should ask themselves is:

Was I given any kind of authority, by Jesus, to define doctrines and resolve doctrinal differences when they occur? When I asked myself that very question the answer was a resounding NO! :dts:

 

[kbwall]

in my experience, as an ex-protestant, most protestants believe in sola scriptures. which they believe means each person interprates the bible by their own understanding. (which i find there are doctrines that ARE NOT biblical,the ordination of gay people being one example.)
they usually.follow the opinions of their pastors and bishops as being the final authority.
this leads me to say, at the heart of the matter, sola scriptures means every man is his own
pope. this makes low church protestants hostile toward authority. the more decentralized
the church authority is the more hostility toward the pope. and the problem with bible only
is that it rejects tradition and authority and reduces church questions to brother jerry says
so and so, well brother clem says this. which was one of the reasons I became a roman catholic.:tiphat:

How does every man interpretting the Bible on his own even work? There’s nobody to say the more heretical interpretations are wrong. From “crazy” sects that use the Bible to justify racism and other forms of hatred to the people who oppose science to rejection of core doctrines like the Trinity. If there is no Pope or definitive authority, there is nobody to say those interpretations are wrong or anti-Christian.

 

[joe370]

How does every man interpretting the Bible on his own even work? There’s nobody to say the more heretical interpretations are wrong. From “crazy” sects that use the Bible to justify racism and other forms of hatred to the people who oppose science to rejection of core doctrines like the Trinity. If there is no Pope or definitive authority, there is nobody to say those interpretations are wrong or anti-Christian.

:sad_yes:

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325, you seem to be highly defensive and antagonistic in your responses. I’ve tried to answer the OP’s question as to why Protestants reject the Pope’s authority, but am only able to answer from my own background and perspective. I don’t expect you or anyone else to care about what I do or don’t believe, nor am I trying to proselytize others to Anglicanism; I’m simply trying to answer a question on a public forum for non-Catholic religions.

As Itwin mentioned, the schism between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches makes anyone’s claim to be the one, true church founded by Jesus Christ a little hard to swallow. I hitched my horse to the Anglican post after extended attendance, reading, and church instruction at all three. I respect your decision to be Roman Catholic, but it’s not a decision that I could make in good conscience for myself.

And your responses with all due respect in regards to Catholicism are in error. I asked you to tell me what year and the name(s) of the clergy who invented Purgatory? You have yet to answer me.

 

[hn160]

Another way to ask this question is why do certain Catholics question the Pope and the Catholic Church teachings and get away with it? I just seen Caroline Kennedy speak at the Democratic Convention and she is very pro-abortion on demand.

 

[JonNC]

=october baby;9741905]in my experience, as an ex-protestant, most protestants believe in sola scriptures. which they believe means each person interprates the bible by their own understanding. (which i find there are doctrines that ARE NOT biblical,the ordination of gay people being one example.)

The problem is that is precisely not what sola scriptura is. In all of my readings of the Lutheran confessions, no where have I found this notion. Sola scriptura is the practice of using scripture to hold all teachers, teachings, and doctrines accountable to scripture, and the is not an individual’s practice.

they usually.follow the opinions of their pastors and bishops as being the final authority. this leads me to say, at the heart of the matter, sola scriptures means every man is his own pope.

Not if they are Lutheran, unless that pastor or bishop is faithful to the confessions.

this makes low church protestants hostile toward authority. the more decentralized the church authority is the more hostility toward the pope. and the problem with bible only is that it rejects tradition and authority and reduces church questions to brother jerry says so and so, well brother clem says this. which was one of the reasons I became a roman catholic.:tiphat:

I would contend that, instead of hostile to the pope, most simply are ambivalent about him.

Jon

 

[Anna_Scott]

Sure Jon.

Pride…refusal to let go because of the possible consequences…fear (maybe the right word).

Fear of accepting the authority of the bishop of Rome?

Fear of losing one’s own authority?

Refusal to let go of the present situation?

pablope,
I know this response was directed to Jon, but I think these assumptions cannot be generally applied to those who do not accept the authority of the Roman Pontiff. There are people here, JonNC included, who truly seek the truth.

I’ve been discussing these issues with Catholics for 3 three years. Trust me, my life would be so much easier, if I just swam the Tiber–especially with all that is going on in TEC. But I can’t force myself to believe something that doesn’t add up–not that I want to have the discussion all over again. I really don’t. I’m just saying, it’s not always fear, pride, etc. that keeps people from entering the Catholic Church. The Orthodox don’t accept Papal authority. So, it doesn’t add up for them either.

As an Anglo Catholic, I hold many common beliefs with Catholics in Communion with Rome. In fact, I get pounded on a regular basis, over these common beliefs, on an Anglican Forum (go figure) that has a number of " more reformed" Anglican members.

I understand that this is a Catholic Forum and Catholics will passionately defend their faith. I expect and respect that.

However, the sledgehammer approach uch: rarely accomplishes anything good, and there are examples of that on both sides posting on this thread.

For many, it is all about truth. Just say’n.

Anna

 

[joe370]

pablope,
I know this response was directed to Jon, but I think these assumptions cannot be generally applied to those who do not accept the authority of the Roman Pontiff. There are people here, JonNC included, who truly seek the truth.

I’ve been discussing these issues with Catholics for 3 three years. Trust me, my life would be so much easier, if I just swam the Tiber–especially with all that is going on in TEC. But I can’t force myself to believe something that doesn’t add up–not that I want to have the discussion all over again. I really don’t. I’m just saying, it’s not always fear, pride, etc. that keeps people from entering the Catholic Church. The Orthodox don’t accept Papal authority. So, it doesn’t add up for them either.

As an Anglo Catholic, I hold many common beliefs with Catholics in Communion with Rome. In fact, I get pounded on a regular basis, over these common beliefs, on an Anglican Forum (go figure) that has a number of " more reformed" Anglican members.

I understand that this is a Catholic Forum and Catholics will passionately defend their faith. I expect and respect that.

However, the sledgehammer approach uch: rarely accomplishes anything good, and there are examples of that on both sides posting on this thread.

For many, it is all about truth. Just say’n.

Anna

All valid points. You’ve got to follow your heart and truly believe that the catholic church is the church founded by Jesus circa AD 33, on Pentecost, otherwise you will never be at peace with your choice. Good luck Anna on your journey wherever that may lead you.

 

[ltwin]

And the verse you cited is a mandate for deacons and elders to be married. Seriously?

Uhm no. I never mentioned there was a mandate for clergy to be married. I simply cited that there is scripture which assumes that they can be married.

And yet you still have not answered: Where did God authorize thousands of denominations?

Where did God say that you had to be under the ecclesiastical authority of the Bishop of Rome? Where did the belief that Peter is the Vicar of Christ come from?

Denial is a hard habit to break-eh? And do you honestly believe Protestants have unified Christ Body? Time to wake up to reality.

How am I in denial when you are blaming Protestants for breaking Christ’s body? I simply pointed out that the Catholic Church has been involved in its own church splits. That’s not denial, that’s pointing out a credibility problem.

Ahhhh…there is more involved. And yet Protestanism claims they are share in the same doctrines: Trinity,Incarnation and yrt cannot stop dividing. What is up with that?

And yet Protestants aren’t the ones demanding that all Christians be apart of their denomination. The Catholic Church is.

Which evidently means thousands of denominations are in error too-eh?

We’re all human. We all make mistakes. That is one reason why Protestants cannot accept papal infallibility.

 

[joe370]

ltwin;9742491]Uhm no. I never mentioned there was a mandate for clergy to be married. I simply cited that there is scripture which assumes that they can be married.

Absolutely. Priestly celibacy is not a dogma or doctrine, and therefore could be reversed. To me priestly celibacy just makes more sense from many fronts. Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (7:8-9).

The following passage, by Jesus expresses the notion that some men and women, who are perfectly capable of sexual union are actually encouraged to abstain for the whole duration of their lives specifically for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Talk about picking up your cross and following Jesus, who was the celibate High Priest, to the letter.

“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this let him receive it” (Mt 19:12).

Where did God say that you had to be under the ecclesiastical authority of the Bishop of Rome? Where did the belief that Peter is the Vicar of Christ come from?

Ecclesiastical authority is clearly biblical, but you don’t believe that it has roots in Rome. OK, then where could ecclesiastical authority be found in the 4th century, the 10th century, and in the world today? It certainly seems reasonable to conclude that all churches (not just the CC) possess ecclesiastical authority to govern the flock.

How am I in denial when you are blaming Protestants for breaking Christ’s body?

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, **men of both sides were to blame.”**269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin…

I simply pointed out that the Catholic Church has been involved in its own church splits. That’s not denial, that’s pointing out a credibility problem.

Are you talking about the 11th century east-west split?

And yet Protestants aren’t the ones demanding that all Christians be apart of their denomination. The Catholic Church is.

That’s not true. What is true, is the fact that I am not welcomed in my former protestant church, if I should choose to share my new catholic beliefs. They expect me to embrace their beliefs or leave…

We’re all human. We all make mistakes. That is one reason why Protestants cannot accept papal infallibility.

Do protestant Pastors claim to teach fallibly, or do they claim to teach truth? Teaching infallibly simply means that someone is teaching truth, like the apostles and their successors did.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And the verse you cited is a mandate for deacons and elders to be married. Seriously?

Uhm no. I never mentioned there was a mandate for clergy to be married. I simply cited that there is scripture which assumes that they can be married.

Then what is the problem with celibacy? The same argument is being made celibacy, which clearly states one made choose if one can accept it. So what is the problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And yet you still have not answered: Where did God authorize thousands of denominations?

Where did God say that you had to be under the ecclesiastical authority of the Bishop of Rome? Where did the belief that Peter is the Vicar of Christ come from?

That is not what I asked you. Does the name Peter ring a bell? Plenty of scriptural verses supporting Peter as the Head Apostle and plenty of historical writings supporting it. Can you make the same argument for thousands of denominations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Denial is a hard habit to break-eh? And do you honestly believe Protestants have unified Christ Body? Time to wake up to reality.

How am I in denial when you are blaming Protestants for breaking Christ’s body?

Well Protestants certainly did not unite it,no matter how much you wish to deny it.

I simply pointed out that the Catholic Church has been involved in its own church splits. That’s not denial, that’s pointing out a credibility problem.

Sorry,but you are simply adding the CC to the mix and array of splits within Protestant circles. Christ founded His church and if one decides to leave His church,does not negate or lessen the fact Christ still left ONE Church. Either one is in or out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Ahhhh…there is more involved. And yet Protestanism claims they are share in the same doctrines: Trinity,Incarnation and yrt cannot stop dividing. What is up with that?

And yet Protestants aren’t the ones demanding that all Christians be apart of their denomination. The Catholic Church is.

First of all, I want you to present me one official CC document stating the CC is DEMANDING ALL Christians to be Catholic? Second, the CC is NOT a denomination. Denominations is a terminology applicable to Protestants,since divisions cannot stop. Protestants simply want to add the CC to their world of “denominations” and label it one as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Which evidently means thousands of denominations are in error too-eh?

We’re all human. We all make mistakes. That is one reason why Protestants cannot accept papal infallibility.

Well if we are human and we all make mistakes,then why continue to make more mistakes by spliting and dividing more and more? Yet Protestants cannot accept papal infallibility? Due to the fact most Protestants do not comprehend it,plain and simple.

---

My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness; I dare not trust the sweetest frame but wholly trust in Jesus’ name.

 

[joe370]

Nicea325;9742644]Then what is the problem with celibacy? The same argument is being made celibacy, which clearly states one made choose if one can accept it. So what is the problem?

That is not what I asked you. Does the name Peter ring a bell? Plenty of scriptural verses supporting Peter as the Head Apostle and plenty of historical writings supporting it. Can you make the same argument for thousands of denominations?

I could not as a former protestant.

Sorry,but you are simply adding the CC to the mix and array of splits within Protestant circles. Christ founded His church and if one decides to leave His church,does not negate or lessen the fact Christ still left ONE Church. Either one is in or out.

Makes sense.

First of all, I want you to present me one official CC document stating the CC is DEMANDING ALL Christians to be Catholic?

Very good point:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, **many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "**the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Second, the CC is NOT a denomination. Denominations is a terminology applicable to Protestants,since divisions cannot stop. Protestants simply want to add the CC to their world of “denominations” and label it one as well.

There were no denominations until the 16th century reformation…

Well if we are human and we all make mistakes,then why continue to make more mistakes by spliting and dividing more and more? Yet Protestants cannot accept papal infallibility? Due to the fact most Protestants do not comprehend it,plain and simple.

That is true. Most of my protestant friends don’t realize that infallibility simply means to teach the truth regarding doctrines, via the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[ltwin]

Ecclesiastical authority is clearly biblical, but you don’t believe that it has roots in Rome. OK, then where could ecclesiastical authority be found in the 4th century, the 10th century, and in the world today? It certainly seems reasonable to conclude that all churches (not just the CC) possess ecclesiastical authority to govern the flock.

Yes, I believe in ecclesiastical authority. However, there are certain doctrines that the Catholic hierarchy will require me to embrace that I think are wrong. Therefore, I cannot accept their ecclesiastical authority.

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, **men of both sides were to blame.”**269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin…

I appreciate that the Catholic Church acknowledges that it has played a role in the disunity within the Christian world. However, that still does not absolve them of responsibility for those splits; just as Protestants recognizing their role in the splits does not absolve them of responsibility for them. All sides are guilty, and I don’t think that Catholics have any reason to be smug towards Protestants.

Are you talking about the 11th century east-west split?

I’m not sure if I would confine it to that. Weren’t the differences by then already pretty entrenched? Anyway the split between the Church in the East and the West is what I’m referring to. But there are other examples. The Great Western Schism is another example in history where the credibility of the Catholic Church and the credibility of the papal office itself takes a big hit. I mean the Pope is claiming to be Christ’s Vicar, but you have all this ecclesiastical infighting and political involvement. It’s a mess.

That’s not true.

It’s not true that the Catholic Church claims to be the only Church that teaches the fullness of the truth and that if any Christian wants the fullness of the truth he/she must leave his current denomination and join the Catholic Church?

What is true, is the fact that I am not welcomed in my former protestant church, if I should choose to share my new catholic beliefs. They expect me to embrace their beliefs or leave…

Well, if I were a Catholic who converted to the Pentecostal Church and I came back to my Catholic parish and began sharing my new Pentecostal beliefs would I be given a microphone and the pulpit?

Do protestant Pastors claim to teach fallibly, or do they claim to teach truth? Teaching infallibly simply means that someone is teaching truth, like the apostles and their successors did.

I’ll speak for Pentecostals. We believe that anyone is capable of teaching falsehood. That is why it is important to know the Bible for yourself so that if a pastor teaches something that is clearly contrary to the Word of God then you know that that pastor is a false prophet and you can find a church where the Word of God is rightly taught.

Every Christian, every minister, every bishop, every elder, every denominational proclamation or action is judged in the light of Scripture and held to the standard that Scripture sets. If they go against Scripture then you have to stand up and say this is wrong and if you insist on continuing to walk contrary to Scripture then I cannot go with you.

 

[ltwin]

Then what is the problem with celibacy? The same argument is being made celibacy, which clearly states one made choose if one can accept it. So what is the problem?

The problem is obviously that the Pope/Catholic Church has mandated that priest be celibate. To put it more specifically, does the Bishop of Rome (does any bishop?) have the authority to require clergy (to require anyone?) to be celibate? That is the question. Then there is the further question of, If the Pope has such authority where did he get it from? For Protestants, we don’t see where in Scripture the Pope or anyone else has been empowered to require clergy to remain celibate.

That is not what I asked you. Does the name Peter ring a bell? Plenty of scriptural verses supporting Peter as the Head Apostle and plenty of historical writings supporting it. Can you make the same argument for thousands of denominations?

You’re assuming that Peter and his successors early on were able to assert control over every single Christian community in the world. I don’t think that is a realistic historical model, and the history of Christianity shows there was a lot of diversity. So, you could say that early on there were many if not thousands of denominations of Christians. I think its pretty easy to recognize that there has always been diversity among Christians.

Well Protestants certainly did not unite it,no matter how much you wish to deny it.

Again I’m not denying anything. I’m pointing out that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox split. Both claim to be the True church. Both have impressive pedigrees. Which should I believe? Should I embrace papal infallibiltiy? Or should I follow the Orthodox hierarchy?

Sorry,but you are simply adding the CC to the mix and array of splits within Protestant circles. Christ founded His church and if one decides to leave His church,does not negate or lessen the fact Christ still left ONE Church. Either one is in or out.

As I said above, why should I assign “true church” status to the Catholic Church. Seems to me the Orthodox Church has at least as good a claim on that status as the Catholic Church does.

First of all, I want you to present me one official CC document stating the CC is DEMANDING ALL Christians to be Catholic?

You claim to be the only Church that has the fullness of truth. Logically, that demands that any Christian and non-Christian that wants the fullness of truth must join the Catholic Church.

Second, the CC is NOT a denomination. Denominations is a terminology applicable to Protestants,since divisions cannot stop. Protestants simply want to add the CC to their world of “denominations” and label it one as well.

Unlike you, I don’t see the Catholic Church as particularly special among the various Christian groups. So yes I do use the word “denomination” to refer to the Catholic Church, just like I refer to any other Christian group. If that offends Catholics, then I apologize and will refrain from using the offending word on this forum.

Well if we are human and we all make mistakes,then why continue to make more mistakes by spliting and dividing more and more? Yet Protestants cannot accept papal infallibility? Due to the fact most Protestants do not comprehend it,plain and simple.

Oh, we comprehend it. We know exactly where it can lead and that is why we don’t accept it.