Why won’t all other Christians recognize the Roman Catholic Pope as their leader?

[Mickey]

I say “Supereme Magesterium”, you liken it to “Supreme Papal infallibility” these are not the same thing.

The word “Magisterium” has only come into prominence over approximately the last century and a half.

It appears you are taking a topic and misunderstanding it to your bias opinions

I believe that you carry the bias.

I say “reveal a doctrine”, you say “Development of doctrine”.

The Roman Catholic Church often uses the term “development of doctrine”.

Could it be your orthodoxy has gotten fixed so as not to understand the same teachings

Orthodoxy means correct or true faith.

Orthodoxy has always been what the Roman Catholic church is

The Roman Catholic Church must return to Holy Orthodoxy.

Mickey, you can have your disagreement with the infallibility, but it wont change the Orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church teachings.

It is not an Orthodox teaching. But you are correct in the sense that nothing I say is going to change Rome’s way of thinking.

Even Peter had to submit to Jesus.

I submit to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

and if the bishops are in disagreement The Pope can excercise infallibility on faith and morals.

That is alien to the early Church. That is my point.

The Trinity, got revealed why?

Because it is spelled out very clearly in Sacred Scripture and reaffirmed by the great Councils.

Infallibility Mickey, because this doctrine is without error, and its definition can not be exhausted only revealed, to a time when the belief or doctrine needs to be clarified so as not to enter into heresy.

Supeme papal infallibility, Gabriel, is an innovation of post-schism Rome.

I also used the example of the bible being cannonized by the Catholic church’s “Supreme Magesterium” infallibly.

There was no such thing as papal infallibility or “supreme magisterium” at that time.

Ps–Magisterium is spelled with an “i”

 

[po18guy]

T’ion is unaffected by scientific progress, because it is not about the data of science as considered under their scientific aspects, but about certain data under the aspect of being. The being of a cat is unaffected by the manifestations of its cathood - it is a cat whether it be a tabby, a Siamese, lame, old, asleep, drinking milk. Its being is inaccessible to science, because science is not equipped to perceive metaphysical realities: it does an excellent job of studying the **phenomena **of (many of) those realities. The being of things is manifested by their phenomena - the sciences can perceive them provided they are among the proper objects of the sciences. T’ion is not among these, so it’s not accessible to scientific study; only the phenomena of the material objects involved are.​

T’ion is about a conversion of being, & the concomitant cessation of the connection between being bread & manifesting breadhood. What was bread, has been converted to Something Else. The sciences have no way of perceiving this conversion of substance; so what is not bread, appears to be bread even after it has ceased to be.

T’ion is not an explanation - it’s more like a formula: that is what dogmas are. Water is the is the reality - H20 is the formula for it. So with dogmas.

Amen! Extremely well stated.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Mickey]

but it was already believed and excercised before this date of definition to clarify its meaning.

Yes. The concept of supreme papal infallibility was mulled over many times within the hierarchy of post-schism Rome. Then the Ultramontanists tried to force it through at the Roman Catholic Councils of Basel and Constance but to no avail. Finally Pope Pius IX was successful in championing the Ultramontanist cause by forcing it thru amidst much controversy and dissention in the year 1870.

This widened the schism between East and West considerably.

 

[po18guy]

No. You show us where the pope was ever considered as the supreme infallible pontiff before the Church was divided. There was even one Pope (Honorius) who was condemned as a heretic.

It is a post-schism Roman Catholic innovation.
If the subject of contraception interests you, then start a thread–or do a search–its been covered many times.

The questions remain.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well it might have been exercised, but, with all that heresy about, it clearly wasn’t believed.

To clarify this, it is was believed, because from then, the doctrine is believed unchanged to this date. And you cant change what has been infallibly declared. But your right, heretics did not sucumb to this belief, others recanted their heresies, and believed.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The word “Magisterium” has only come into prominence over approximately the last century and a half.

Exactly my point, “Magisterium” (thanks for that spelling correction, I looked over some posts I spelled it 3 different ways lol.) is just like infallibility, it is something that is already believed and in existance, but gets revealed by a name or doctrine when contested. At least that has been the historical path.

I dont know of a supreme infallible pontiff or pope. I know of a “Supreme Majesterium” when all the bishops council together in agreement with the Pope on a revelation of a doctrine is infallible, like the cannon of the bible.

 

[guanophore]

Note: I have for some time had the same questions on the Eucharist as is being posed here. I hope that what you are not saying is that the molecular structure of bread and wine changes to the molecular structure of the human body and the human blood. That would seem to be easily proven false.

There are some miracles documented where this has happened, but most of the time it does not appear to be the case.

If that is not the case, then in what sense is the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ?

In the sense that Jesus meant it when he said “this is my body” etc.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes. The concept of supreme papal infallibility was mulled over many times within the hierarchy of post-schism Rome. Then the Ultramontanists tried to force it through at the Roman Catholic Councils of Basel and Constance but to no avail. Finally Pope Pius IX was successful in championing the Ultramontanist cause by forcing it thru amidst much controversy and dissention in the year 1870.

This widened the schism between East and West considerably.

I dont know Mickey, God works in mysterious ways, inorder that his will be done. I believe this infallibility, we have not heard the last of it, I believe their will be a time that all of Christianity will be happy to know it exists one day, and will need to be excercised again.

 

[Mickey]

I dont know Mickey, God works in mysterious ways, inorder that his will be done. I believe this infallibility, we have not heard the last of it, I believe their will be a time that all of Christianity will be happy to know it exists one day, and will need to be excercised again.

God truly does work in mysterious ways. And I look forward to a day, perhaps in my lifetime when Rome abandons this strange doctrine-- paving the way for a reunion of East and West. Pope Benedict has already given us some hope:

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
Joseph Ratzinger

 

[Mickey]

“Magisterium” is just like infallibility, it is something that is already believed and in existance

It did not exist in the undivided Church. It was invented by post-schism Rome.

"I know of a “Supreme Majesterium”

You spelled it wrong again!!!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It did not exist in the undivided Church. It was invented by post-schism Rome.
You spelled it wrong again!!!

LoL,LoL quit picking on my spelling, I’ll try and get it right sooner or later.

So your saying that the councils never existed? The Magisterium is the council of Bishops and the Pope.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

God truly does work in mysterious ways. And I look forward to a day, perhaps in my lifetime when Rome abandons this strange doctrine-- paving the way for a reunion of East and West. Pope Benedict has already given us some hope:

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
Joseph Ratzinger

I have no quarrums with this explanation, you find me in agreement with you. Other than the elimination of infallibility. For one the Patriarch and the Magisterium are infallible to define the teachings of Jesus Christ. It’s just how it is understood and defined.

 

[mozart-250]

There are some miracles documented where this has happened, but most of the time it does not appear to be the case.

In the sense that Jesus meant it when he said “this is my body” etc.

OK.



The communion elements bread and wine do not magically transform their molecular structure into that of human blood and human flesh. Good. At least you are not asking me to believe something that is obviously false.

So then don’t understand the “is”.

Disclaimer: I believe that in some sense anyway the “is” is correct (that it is more than symbolic). But I am not sure what the sense is. Maybe I am not meant to know.

 

[lurdes]

I don’t understand why people still stuck in the infabillity of the church
do you think Jesus will leave the church to be corrupted? Why do think he send the Holy Spirit to protect the church and his leaders? that way they would not teach error.

 

[Cathy]

The communion elements bread and wine do not magically transform their molecular structure into that of human blood and human flesh.

At least not very often (see the list of Church-approved Eucharistic miracles at www.therealpresence.org).

The teaching on the real presence is nothing new, though.
The web page below gives quotes from early Church fathers regarding the Eucharist. St. Ignatius of Antioch heard St. John the evengelist when he (St. Ignatious) was a child.
See therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html#bible

Blessings,
Cathy

 

[mathematician]

I believe that in some sense anyway the “is” is correct (that it is more than symbolic). But I am not sure what the sense is. Maybe I am not meant to know.

Maybe we can’t know. Our concepts and our language arise from our experience of the world around us, and from our own subjective consciousness. We then try to turn them upon God as if such a proceeding was completely unproblematic.

 

[Cathy]

Oops, I should have given the url for the web page on Eucharistic miracles instead of making you navigate to it from the home page. Here’s the url I should have given:
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

 

[Jimmy_B]

It’s not a contradiction of beliefs, Jimmy…

God Bless You!

It is a contradiction!

Unless you, in fact believe that Jesus Christ is not God, in the second person of the Holy Trinity, it is absolutely a contradiction!

I refuse to get lost in the confusion, which is your post, so I will not address your entire post (#93), which I think serves as a distraction at best.

Instead, I will ask you a few simple questions:

1. Is Jesus Christ, God?
2. Is there anything that God is unable to do?
3. What are your definitions of "omnipotent” and “omnipresent”
4. Is God capable of transforming bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?
5. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus did not or cannot institute the Eucharist?
6. Why did all the early “Protestants” accept the “Real Presence” as a Christian Truth? Were they wrong too?
7. How do you respond to the many “Catholic Verses” which are used to support an argument for the “Real Presence”?
8. Does there exist a conflict in the Bible?

This should keep you busy for I while and I’m guessing, create even more “contradictions”, if they don’t lead you to the Truth.

I believe that some modern non-Catholic “Protestant” Christians reject the “Real Presence” for reasons other than Biblical ones. In the Bible, Jesus is clearly and definitively stating that it will be, Truly His Body and Truly His Blood.

Here are some possible reasons why some non-Catholic “Protestant” Christians (in general) might reject the “Real Presence”:

• Because, they don’t know better.
• Because, someone else gave them bad information.
• Because, they don’t actually read the Bible; they read only the verses “pointed-out” to them or a “handful of verses”, which supports their particular belief or denomination.
• Because, they misinterpret the Bible, themselves.
• Because, they do not have access to the Eucharist (the “Real Presence”).
• Because, this belief; “Is way too Catholic for them.”
  And so on…

What is your real reason for rejecting the “Real Presence”, in the Eucharist?

I look forward to your response. God Bless You!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t understand why people still stuck in the infabillity of the church
do you think Jesus will leave the church to be corrupted? Why do think he send the Holy Spirit to protect the church and his leaders? that way they would not teach error.

Unbelievable, you just stated in a few sentences, what I have been trying to say for many posts. Thanks lurdes

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Maybe we can’t know. Our concepts and our language arise from our experience of the world around us, and from our own subjective consciousness. We then try to turn them upon God as if such a proceeding was completely unproblematic.

I like that explanation mathematician, you are not far from the kingdom. In my opinion your statement reflects the meaning of faith.