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

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I won’t bother to plough through all those many quotes. The Roman Catholic problem is that it can’t distinguish between a dogma called the Real Presence and one called Transubstantiation. You can arguably derive the former from scripture, but you cannot derive the latter from scripture. the RC Church talks much about mystery, but in practice it is unable to live with it; it must have an explanation. The attempted explanation of how Christ comes to be present in the elements is transubstantiation. Unfortunately transubstantiation is a theory based upon an obsolete conception of matter.

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.

 

[lurdes]

**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**

Amen

 

[Cathy]

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?

I Timothy 3:15. Good quote, Mikey, and good questions.
Once I read in the Bible that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, I had to find out what the “church” is, and my quest led me to the Catholic Church.
Cathy

 

[mozart-250]

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?

Not totally sure what you mean.

The pastor of my church, by virtue of the calling of God in His position and by virtue of his experience and knowledge is in a position to teach with authority the Word of God to me.

My pastor, just like my doctor, is not incapable of being incorrect.

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?

Not sure what you mean here.

My church has a statement of faith. Implicit in me being a member of my church is a submission to the statement of faith that my church has.

And btw I do not change churches at the whim of a hat. I have been in my present church since we moved to the backwoods of Vermont (14 years or so).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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

Mickey, I can understand you bringing in dates and names and accusing the infallible teaching to be innovated by such as you named, because you protest its authority.

Let me put it to you in a different way, The infallibility you speak of is not invented here, It may have been defined and stated as such for its necessity to preserve the teachings of Jesus Christ, in a given time, but this endowment of authority was give to the apostles themselves by Jesus Christ, and Peter disitinctly.

Now it is easy to disagree with dates, persons and opinions, but it does not change the fact of what it is, and that this infallibility, Is necessary for the Magesterium. Yes it does not apply to the Pope alone.

The Roman Pontiff and the Bishops are authentic teachers of Jesus Christ in the world. The Pope the successor of Peter and the college of Bishops excercise this infallibility promised to the church is also present in the Supreme Magisterium, in an Ecumemical council. That defines doctrine for belief as being divinely revealed and this doctrine comes from Jesus himself, and must be adhered to with the obedience of faith. What one must understand here is that this Infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

It is not an innovation as you state in your opinion, it is not invented post anything as you believe , on a date, or by a Pope or council. The dates and or Pope or council that define, reveal an already believed doctrine to an age so as to understand it, infallibility was not invented or innovated by no pope or council, Infallibility was given to the church to assist her from teaching error, through the Holy Spirit.

One example of this is the bible that you read today, comes from such an act of infallibility in the 3rd century, not by Pope Pius XI in 1870. What about the doctrine of Trinity, not mentioned explecitely in Sacred Scripture, This doctrine was defined infallibly. These and other doctrines get defined infallibly by the Catholic Church (supreme Magesterium) as time and peoples need already believed doctrine revealed and or explained in different ages.

Where you get a time slot for infallibility defined, is because the already excercised belief was challenged and or threatened its authority, thus a revealtion or definition gets clarified in time. This will happen again if the teachings of Jesus Christ get attacked or threatened to be changed by man.

So dates and peoples are irrelevant as far as Infallibility is concerned. For the fact that infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained or observed.

Good history you mentioned but does not hold up to your opinion of the defined doctrine of Infallibility, other than it is recorded to have made revelation to a time period.

Source CCC pages234-236,492

 

[po18guy]

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.

O, you of little faith! Has He been with you this long, and still you do not believe?

Matthew 16:23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.”

-or- “You think as man does, and not as God does”

This is a great way to insult the Twelve, Paul, the early church fathers and 1,975 years of Christians ever since. For, to believe your assertion, you make yourself superior to each of them, and all of them collectively, do you not?

???

 

[po18guy]

I don’t. Like I said, there is nothing wrong with mystery, but there is something wrong with trying to hang on to physical theories which are no longer viable.

OK. So, you logically do not believe that God created the universe out of pure will? In your view, did He have to have raw materials to begin with? If not, then which is easier: to make something from nothing, or to make the body, blood, soul and divinity of a Son from bread and wine, which already exist? Why did Christ hand his Apostles what appeared to be bread and wine, but then told them it was something entirely different?

Which is easier: to say “your sins are forgiven” or “pick up your mat and walk”?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

Yes the Roman Catholic church always has believed in the true presence of the Eucharist, to be the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Since the first century it was conveyed as a mystery to catechumens and unbelievers, even till today.

Transubstantiation comes in the picture as man developes in his higher learning from life’s experiences. This term is applied to the Eucharist to grasp a natural understanding of the true presence of Jesus Christ, to help natural man grow from his lack of faith into a spiritual faith were God calls each and every one of us. Transubstantiation does that, it is a help to lead us to faith in the true presence. This is nothing new the Catholic church is inventing, This is revealing an already believed doctrine taught to us by Jesus Christ himself. See all the Gospels last supper accounts, including John 6.

 

[po18guy]

Hello allischalmers,

LOL, maybe so, I do sometimes ask dumb questions.

I guess my point here is, if there is a common Christian belief that there exists “one body In Christ”, or “one Church” then what’s wrong with “one leader” (here on earth)? Catholics are Christian too.

I’m Catholic, so obviously my choice for the position would be the Roman Catholic Pope.

Doesn’t your Church or Christian denomination have a leader or leaders (here on earth)?

Who would you vote for, if you could?

God Bless You

My question to all Christians is this: At your workplace, there is likely a mission statement posted on the wall. Now, does every employee read it and then do whatever they think is best? -or- is there a supervisor to ensure that everyone stays focused on the goal?

Which plan is more likely to succeed?

 

[po18guy]

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!

FAITH! FAITH! FAITH! is all we ever hear is necessary for salvation. Yet, the minute

we have FAITH! that the bread and wine actually become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity

of our Lord, WE are the ones that are all messed up! Please pardon my incredulity!

 

[Mickey]

Transubstantiation comes in the picture as man developes in his higher learning from life’s experiences.

Yeah. I’ve heard that apologetic before.

This term is applied to the Eucharist to grasp a natural understanding of the true presence of Jesus Christ, to help natural man grow from his lack of faith into a spiritual faith were God calls each and every one of us. Transubstantiation does that, it is a help to lead us to faith in the true presence.

I’m sorry, but that word does nothing except confuse people and put Catholics more on the defensive. It is a great Mystery and it cannot be defined or explained. When you try to define things, you find yourself needing to defend your definition. This is a dilemma of the Catholic Church in many of her post-schism dogmas.

This is revealing an already believed doctrine taught to us by Jesus Christ himself.

“Development of doctrine” is another term that the Roman Catholic Church had to come up with to defend her innovations.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, I can understand you bringing in dates and names and accusing the infallible teaching to be innovated by such as you named, because you protest its authority.

I am protesting nothing. Supreme infallibility was coined and dogmatized in 1870. I see no such thing in the undivided Church.

but this endowment of authority was give to the apostles themselves by Jesus Christ, and Peter disitinctly.

There is nothing in Sacred Scripture (or Tradition) that states that St Peter will have successors who will be supreme and infallible pontiffs.

and that this infallibility, Is necessary for the Magesterium.

The Pope was never a supreme infallible pontiff in the undivided Church.

The Pope the successor of Peter and the college of Bishops excercise this infallibility promised to the church is also present in the Supreme Magisterium, in an Ecumemical council.

There are seven valid Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, and the Pope was not a supreme infallible pontiff in any of them.

What one must understand here is that this Infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

Papal infallibility is an invention of post-schism Rome. I really do not mean to offend you, but this is what Holy Orthodoxy truly believes.

It is not an innovation as you state in your opinion

Holy Orthodoxy believes that it is.

The dates and or Pope or council that define, reveal an already believed doctrine

Holy Orthodoxy never beleived such an innovation and there were many dissenting voices in Rome that were stifled as this strange dogma was forced through in 1870.

It What about the doctrine of Trinity, not mentioned explecitely in Sacred Scripture, This doctrine was defined infallibly.

By a Council. Not an supreme infallibile Pope. The Trinity is very evident throughout Scripture–would you like some quick examples?
Hospitality of Abraham, Christ’s baptism, the Transfiguration…

Where you get a time slot for infallibility defined, is because the already excercised belief was challenged and or threatened its authority, thus a revealtion or definition gets clarified in time. This will happen again if the teachings of Jesus Christ get attacked or threatened to be changed by man.

Supreme papal infallibility was never a teaching or belief of the undivided Church.

So dates and peoples are irrelevant as far as Infallibility is concerned.

You may want to read up on the First Vatican Council and Pope Pius IX before you make that statement.

Good history you mentioned but does not hold up to your opinion of the defined doctrine of Infallibility

A doctrine which was never held by the undivided Church, invented by post-schism Rome, and defined in 1870.

 

[mathematician]

Transubstantiation comes in the picture as man developes in his higher learning from life’s experiences. This term is applied to the Eucharist to grasp a natural understanding of the true presence of Jesus Christ, to help natural man grow from his lack of faith into a spiritual faith were God calls each and every one of us.

It may have done that during the middle ages, when the Aristotlean metaphysic was tenable, but, in case you hadn’t noticed, it has precisely the opposite effect today.

(Before somebody tells me that transubstantiation has biblical support, can they please tell me where in the NT Jesus (or anybody else) talks about the essence, or the accidents of the bread?)

 

[moondweller]

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.

So it’s a miracle that cannot be perceived either by any of the senses or any of the sciences. Very unlike the miracle of Jesus turning real water into real wine.

Yet Jesus never told His Apostles, or us, to “believe” that the bread would, miraculously, become His body, blood, soul and divinity. The dogmas of “Real Presence” and “Transubstantiation” introduced into Christianity an aspect of “faith” that neither Jesus, or His Apostles, ever required.

 

[moondweller]

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.

It’s not a contradiction of beliefs, Jimmy. God is both omnipresent and omnipotent. And both these attributes relate to His divinity, i.e., they’re divine attributes. But the Son, through the incarnation, took on humanity. And omnipresence and omnipotence are not human attributes. Never were, never will be. Not even in the humanity of Christ. Jesus was fully God and fully man. Through the incarnation divinity did not take on humanity, nor did humanity take on divinity. THAT’S the mystery of the incarnation. To assert that they did is a form of monophysitism which taught that the human and divine natures of Christ were fused together.

The body and blood of Christ belong to His human nature, not His divine. His body and blood can no more be omnipresent than yours or mine. Even in our future, resurrected, glorified state. The dogma of “transubstantiation” actually militates against the reality and mystery of the incarnation, when the Son assumed true humanity.

To your second point, God did not manifest Himself “as” a burning bush.Ex 3:2-4 "The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed. Moses said, "I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up. When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, "Here I am."The bush and the angel of the Lord did not become one entity. The burning bush was not God, hence, God did not manifest Himself as a burning bush.

God Bless You!

 

[po18guy]

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?

Show us where the Pope has taught error regarding faith or morals. Whatever tradition you are from condemned contraception until about 1930. Sometime after that, it became OK. Did truth change?

Christ’s peace.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yeah. I’ve heard that apologetic before.
I’m sorry, but that word does nothing except confuse people and put Catholics more on the defensive. It is a great Mystery and it cannot be defined or explained. When you try to define things, you find yourself needing to defend your definition. This is a dilemma of the Catholic Church in many of her post-schism dogmas.

“Development of doctrine” is another term that the Roman Catholic Church had to come up with to defend her innovations.

Mickey you are using terms that are not relevant to the explanation I am trying to give you. I say “Supereme Magesterium”, you liken it to “Supreme Papal infallibility” these are not the same thing. It appears you are taking a topic and misunderstanding it to your bias opinions, I say “reveal a doctrine”, you say “Development of doctrine”. Could it be your orthodoxy has gotten fixed so as not to understand the same teachings of Jesus Christ get revealed to different peoples at different time periods. Orthodoxy is what you claim yourself to be. Orthodoxy has always been what the Roman Catholic church is, unchanging.

Mickey, you can have your disagreement with the infallibility, but it wont change the Orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church teachings. Even Peter had to submit to Jesus when he stated to Peter, “Get behind me Satan”, When Peter refused to let his savior be taken to death.

To understand these mysteries are not what is labeled as definitively defined by the Catholic church, they are revealed in a language so that each age can come to understand the unchanged doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, in different ages of understanding, not to mention when ever these teachings of Jesus get attacked,or are sucumbed by heretics, The Roman Catholic church councils to define an already believed doctrine, and if the bishops are in disagreement The Pope can excercise infallibility on faith and morals. If the “Supreme Magesterium” cannot resolve the attacked doctrines or heretical teachings…

The Trinity, got revealed why? because it was already believed, No to defend against hertics and heretical teachings. This Trinity doctrine came to light and revealed in a time after the Apostles.

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. I also used the example of the bible being cannonized by the Catholic church’s “Supreme Magesterium” infallibly. These examples I give you predate your council date of defined infallibility.

 

[Mickey]

Show us where the Pope has taught error regarding faith or morals

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.

Whatever tradition you are from condemned contraception until about 1930. Sometime after that, it became OK.

If the subject of contraception interests you, then start a thread–or do a search–its been covered many times.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

I thought you had the monopoly on this supreme infallible pontiff, it doesnt exist in the Roman Catholicl church.

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.

Infallibility was defined to an age when people were in division, heresy, revealing a doctrine in 1870, but it was already believed and excercised before this date of definition to clarify its meaning.

P.S please read post #95

 

[mathematician]

**Infallibility was defined to an age when people were in division, heresy… it was already believed and excercised **

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