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

[Mickey]

Of course it took the authority of Rome to settle the waves.

It took the authority of post-schism Rome to invent the innovative doctrines that have painted the Church into a rather small corner ie: papal infallibility.

But I do not think you want to start this ball rolling again, do you?

 

[Mickey]

Transubstantiated.The bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, in the consecrcated species of bread and wine. To our natural senses it is bread and wine, The Blessed sacrament or consecrated Host becomes the true bread from heaven to our souls.

The undivided Church alway knew this great Mystery as the Real Presence. It was never defined–it was always a Mystery.

Transubstantiation is another innovation.

 

[mozart-250]

No, I dont recognize the head of the Presbyterian church USA for the reasons I stated above. If he or she was given the keys to the kingdom of God, and the authority to bind and loose, I would recognize him. This has nothing to do with me being Catholic.

And the reason why you believe that the head of your denomination was given the keys to the kingdom of God and the authority to bind and loose as opposed to the head of the Presbyterian denomination is because that is what your denomination teaches.

In other words, the theology that you espouse in this reasoning is distinctly Catholic theology,

What was the very reason that Presebyterians do not recognize the Pope of the one Holy Catholic Apostlic church? I missed that somewhere, can you clarify this for me as I answered your questions?

By virtue of being Presbyterian. A Presbyterian goes to a Presbyterian church with a pastor that is a part of the Presbyterian hierarchy. The top chain in this hierarchy is not the Roman catholic pope.

No I did not speak of molecular bodies only cause and effect, what you stated above does not define Transubstantiation.

I’ll let you speak with “Mathematician” on this one. He is asking the right questions.

BTW, I would like to believe in some type of real presence. I just don’t want to believe in a type that denies chemical and physical reality.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It took the authority of post-schism Rome to invent the innovative doctrines that have painted the Church into a rather small corner ie: papal infallibility.

But I do not think you want to start this ball rolling again, do you?

I like to stay on course on each thread, but I can be happy to entertain your invitation.

Authority, do we need it yes. With out it, we would have over 30,000 different Catholic denominations by now.

Infallibility is what sustains the Christian teachings brought down to us from our apostles and their successors. It was necessary that the Pope excercise this Papal authority given to him by Jesus christ through Peter. In order to keep the Apostolic teachings from changing to our times. Mr. Post man.

I dont get it why is every body afraid of infallibility? The Pope has rarely even used it. The church is more wise not to succumb to the changes of the world. The Roman Catholic church is Rock and cannot change or be moved to changing ideologies, does Jesus christ change? I believe he is the same yesterday today and forever more, and the church is his body, this appears to be the strife with infallibility.

 

[thedavidwilson]

I think its the exact opposite. Science disproves substantiation by the absence of extraordinary effects on the recipient of the host. At best it only serves as an opiate. A placebo. A psycho-somatic feel good effect that lasts only about an hour. Nothing special.

Science cannot detect your soul/spirit. Can I sell you on ebay since you are just property? Can I end your existence just as I would throw out an old couch. Since science cannot detect a spririt, by your reasoning, you and the old couch are equivalent in dignity.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

**Then mozart you have answered the OP then, you hold to the authority of the Pastor of the Presbyterian church.

So is he infallible?**

I’ll let you speak with “Mathematician” on this one. He is asking the right questions.

BTW, I would like to believe in some type of real presence. I just don’t want to believe in a type that denies chemical and physical reality.

What is of the flesh is flesh, what is of the Spirit is Spirit, if you want to taste the blood and body of christ litterally in your flesh, and not believe in Gods word, and his Graces to communion with his body on earth. Good luck, I trust in Gods word, not mans flesh to which is of no avail, but the Spirit availeth much.

 

[Mickey]

Infallibility is what sustains the Christian teachings brought down to us from our apostles and their successors.

No it is not. It is an innovation by post-schism Rome and defined by Pius IX in 1870.

The Pope has rarely even used it. The church is more wise not to succumb to the changes of the world. The Roman Catholic church is Rock and cannot change or be moved to changing ideologies, does Jesus christ change? I believe he is the same yesterday today and forever more, and the church is his body, this appears to be the strife with infallibility.

Becuase infallibility is an innovation.

 

[Jimmy_B]

This question can also be flipped.

Why won’t all other Christians recognize the head of the Southern Baptist denomination as their leader?

Or the head of the Presbyterian Church USA as their leader?

Or the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church as their leader?

Hello mozart-250,

Because we are Roman Catholic, :extrahappy: dumb question:

LOL…LOL…

Read post number 15…



God Bless…

 

[mozart-250]

Hello mozart-250,

because we are Roman Catholic, :extrahappy: dumb question:

Read post number 15…



God Bless…

Good answer.

 

[mozart-250]

What is of the flesh is flesh, what is of the Spirit is Spirit, if you want to taste the blood and body of christ litterally in your flesh, and not believe in Gods word, and his Graces to communion with his body on earth. Good luck, I trust in Gods word, not mans flesh to which is of no avail, but the Spirit availeth much.

I know.

I have heard similar answers from a name-it claim-it friend of mine who denied he was sick when he was coughing up a storm.

It still is a good question…that I have not yet received a good answer for.

 

[mozart-250]

**
Then mozart you have answered the OP then, you hold to the authority of the Pastor of the Presbyterian church.

So is he infallible?
**

Actually I used Presbyterian only as an example (I am not Presbyterian)…however continuing on in the same vein…

Nope…he is just like my doctor in that regards…an authority in his subject area…but capable of being incorrect just as any human authority is.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Becausde infallibility sounds like a good way of talking yourself into a corner out of which you cannot subsequently get. I suppose a good example of that is the doctrine of transubstantiation, which relies upon a theory of matter which simply is not tenable any more.

Great!..So if I can “explain” or define “Infallibility” and “transubstantiation” within the Roman Catholic Church’s definition, then you’re OK with the Roman Catholic Pope as the Christian leader for All Christians?

“Transubstantiation” Is the fancy word for the process in which the bread and wine is transformed into the Real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, or the “Real Presense”.

There are other non-Catholic Christians who believe in the “Real Presense”. And all early “Protestant” denominations accepted “transubstantiation".

I’m guessing that you reject this and accept communion as merely symbolizing the Body and Blood of Christ. Am I correct.

Stand by for some more detailed posts on this topic.
.
BTW, I’m sure that these are not your only Catholic “stumbling blocks”.

Be back to you soon with the answers.

Jimmy B. –

“I am a Roman Catholic, so I am not afraid of the Truth nor am I afraid of any Bible verse.”

“The Bible is a “Catholic Book” and the Truth can be found in Catholicism”

God Bless

 

[lurdes]

Actually I used Presbyterian only as an example (I am not Presbyterian)…however continuing on in the same vein…

Nope…he is just like my doctor in that regards…an authority in his subject area…but capable of being incorrect just as any human authority is.

right just like Bush was wrong about the war in Iraq

 

[lurdes]

**Transubstantiated.The bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, in the consecrcated species of bread and wine. To our natural senses it is bread and wine, The Blessed sacrament or consecrated Host becomes the true bread from heaven to our souls.

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.
2 Because of it the ancients were well attested.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, 3 so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.

1 Cor.2:12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. **
13 And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms. 7
14 Now the natural person 8 does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually.
15 The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment 9 by anyone.
16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Cor.3:16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
17
If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for the temple of God, which you are, is holy. 9
18
Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you considers himself wise in this age, let him become a fool so as to become wise.
19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the eyes of God, for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own ruses,” 20
and again: “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.”

hi Gabriel of 12 did you notice how no one quoted you on this verses? you give them proof and they skip over it.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Actually I used Presbyterian only as an example (I am not Presbyterian)…however continuing on in the same vein…

Nope…he is just like my doctor in that regards…an authority in his subject area…but capable of being incorrect just as any human authority is.

**I agree totally with you in that regards. No man can be infallible. So I take it that you either do not have any one who can authoritatively teach you Sacred Scripture without error? Or am I to assume differently?

Let me ask you this, What ever your faith is, if your doctrine was going to be changed, who authorizes your changes in your belief system?**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

hi Gabriel of 12 did you notice how no one quoted you on this verses? you give them proof and they skip over it.

**Its hard to deny truth, if it can change a sinner like me, I have no doubt in the Holy Spirit. I pray that the holy spirit helps all of us to grow in Jesus Christ as we share with one another. So that our Father in heaven can be glorified.

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,

Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. amen**

 

[dprewett]

If a none catholic were to go to a doctor prior to being saved and had a full examination, would an examination after being saved show them to be any different. It seems that the holy spirit could change bread and wine into the body and blood of christ without changing it’s composition.

 

[Jimmy_B]

If a none catholic were to go to a doctor prior to being saved and had a full examination, would an examination after being saved show them to be any different. It seems that the holy spirit could change bread and wine into the body and blood of christ without changing it’s composition.

Hello dprewett, great analogy!

Many “Protestants” and non-Catholic Christians who reject the Eucharist as the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ, don’t have a problem with the Christian concept that God is both omnipresent and omnipotent, except that is when it comes to the Eucharist.

Many will accept for example, the belief that God can manifest himself as a “burning bush”, or that the Resurrection occurred, but they do not believe that Jesus can be present in the Eucharist.

This seems to be a contradiction in beliefs.

God Bless You!

 

[guanophore]

The idea of one leader is, I think, good.

Jesus was clear that He is the Head of the Church, but He appointed a college of Apostles, and instructed them to choose faithful men, who were able to teach others also, to take their place. He prayed for unity, and insisted upon it.

The difficulty is in putting it into practice. Our human condition is one that resists authority. That can be seen in our resistance to almost any authority, not just an ecclesiastical one.

I agree with you about human nature, but has not God delivered us from the slavery to the carnal nature? If we are walking in the Spirit, are we not capable of the unity that is commanded?

Certainly, for those of us who are not Catholic, the phrase “Rome has spoken: the case is closed” represents a claim to authority that we don’t believe exists.

I am curious. At what point did the Church “go off the rails” so that this was the common perception for the first thousand years?

In the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) it is hard to find anyone who will give such deference to “Chicago,” the site of our headquarters.

I don’t think that anyone in Chicago ever was given Keys to the Kingdom, either. They were not entrusted with the duty to “strengthen the brethren” and “feed my sheep”. These are commissions given only to Peter, and these duties have been passed on to his successors.

I will say that I have great respect for the papacy as the pre-eminent voice of Christianity in the world. That doesn’t mean that I agree with every pronouncement that come from Rome, but much that is good is made known to the world through the pope. Pope John Paul II was an excellent voice for Christ; I have great expectations for Benedict XVI as well.

As do I. We have been blessed with holy individuals in this office. I am curious why non-Catholics reject the “office”, if not the individual within it.

I’m afraid I don’t have any suggestions because I can’t foresee a time when all Christians will agree on a structure for the earthly leadership of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. I pray for that to change but our fallible human nature mitigates against that sort of unity. Perhaps, one day, the Holy Spirit will work a wondrous change in human hearts.

I think that this “change” has already taken place. If we have received the Spirit, then we are to walk according to the Spirit, and not the flesh. If we really have been transferred out of the kingdom of darkness, into the kingdom of light, then the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the HS, and we are already capable of this change. However, God will not work in us against our will. He waits for us to cooperate, and to choose His way.

 

[mikey_b]

I agree that the Holy Spirit was sent to guide us into all truth and one great resource is the Bible. What I don’t understand from people that believe the Bible will guide to the truth is why they don’t follow where the Bible leads them too. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Offices were already present in the times of the writitng of the Bible. Peter was clearly singled out. The church had visible ministerial authority as well as the general aspect of "church’. So why say one thing and not follow through?