Hello mathematician,
Here let’s try this again without all the typos…
It bothers me insofar as it warns me to steer well clear of the Roman Catholic Church. What you are describing is called idolatry; in this case it is the Church which is being seated upon God’s throne.
The World Council of Churches’ definition of a Christian is that it is somebody who professes belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. So I guess Roman Catholics would qualify.
I admit to being fallible; not an admission you are likely to hear from the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Anglicanism is not nearly so prescriptive as Roman Catholicism.
If you think that somebody has got to believe exactly what you believe before they can belong to the same church as you, it sounds to me as if you are well on the way to becoming a one member Church. With such a narrow conception of orthodoxy, no wonder the word heresy is so freely thrown around on this site.
That is what the Pharisees thought religion consisted of. Turn to any page of the NT, where they are putting their spoke in, and you will find them complaining because somebody isn’t sticking to the rules.
Read the Acts and Pauls letters and you will find the the early Church was correcting their owm people from the very beginning.
**It bothers me insofar as it warns me to steer well clear of the Roman Catholic Church. What you are describing is called idolatry; in this case it is the Church which is being seated upon God’s throne. *
It means worshipping something other than God. Simple as that.
Catholics treat anything which emerges from the mouth of the Roman magesterium as if it emerged directly from the mouth of God. Therefore for all practical purposes God and Magesterium are synonyms so far as they are concerned.
Is it? How come we in Britain have heard of it then?
I don’t accept it uncritically and, more to the point, I don’t think they are possessed of a Godlike infallibility.
Infallible means that you can’t be mistaken, even if that is limited to a particular area (such as faith and morals). I make no such claim, and if I did I would rightly be ridiculed. “Once saved always saved” is a Calvinist slogan; I am not a Calvinist.
I don’t believe it, says who, show me where it says that Anglicans can do or think as they please within the context of their faith.
See above.
Quite right, they were talking about the Pharisees, who thought that holiness could be achieved by following a religion based upon rules, and who earned themselves the sharp edge of Jesus’ tongue.
Rome’s self-proclaimed infallibility is the very thing that prohibits the Roman church from comprehending any of its errors and allowing the Holy Spirit to correct them. That which is infallible is, by definition, never in need of correction.Read the Acts and Pauls letters and you will find the the early Church was correcting their owm people from the very beginning.
If that is addressed to me, no you are not correct. I accept the Real Presence; what I reject is a metaphysical theory called transubstantiation.
Quite right, you can make an idol out of anything if you forget that, as helpful as it may be, it isn’t God…
There you go again. Looking for a certitude which isn’t there to be had. I believe that God exists. Can I prove it? No - I might be wrong in believing him to exist. It is called fallibility, and it is called (the risk of) faith.
**Your comment is totally out of context of what was being described, you have just put your own words in my comments. I forgive you, this mistake is common among those who take things out of context.
Man himself was created both spiritual and physical. It didn’t take the incarnation for this phenomenon to occur. What occurred in the incarnation was the “connecting” (to use your word) of divinity and humanity.
**Please moondweller keep it simple, you are mingeling terms that do not describe Catholic teaching, and making them to appear to ancient heretical explanations, your definitions are walking a very thin line of Gnostic Docestism, Nestroian and Monophysites heresies that the Catholic church has already defeated. Now dont miss quote me, I state your definition walks a very thin line between these heresies. Please dont state what the Catholic church teaches unless you are absolutely sure, maybe quote from the CCC so as not to misinterpret her definitions.
Peace be with youWhat’s your point, Gab? I don’t understand what you’re driving at. I never said you didn’t believe in all of the above. However, none of it has any relevance to the content of my post regarding your doctrine of transubstantiation.
There is the possibility that the Peter/Rock statement referred to Peter’s faith being like a rock and had nothing to do with the founding of a church, and it applied only to Peter - no successor was ever mentioned. Indeed, Jesus says nothing at all (unless you count Peter/Rock) about founding a Church. And even if he had, churhces at that time were very small, self-contained groups of believers, no megalithick, monarchial, institutions (I just don’t think that’s what he had in mind). And while it is true that Peter was in Rome and probably martyred there, there is nothing to back up the claim that he was head of the church there, or even a “bishop” at all. I have also read that the earliestlist of bishops, in Irenaeus of Lyons, according to which “Linus” was selected as leader by Peter and Paul has been proved to be a 2nd century forgery.Jesus said his church would not err, however, 2,000 year have passed and the original church has been divided many, many times. The assertion that today’s Catholic church is the same church founded by Jesus is simply that, an assertion. Without Jesus here to confirm that this is the case it is simply a claim that can not be substantiated. It is indeed possible that one of the churches that separated from Rome hundreds of years ago is the true chruch. Apostolic succession proves nothing other than a continuing priesthood in the same institution - continued by man, it says nothing about that insitution’s continued teaching of, or possession of, truth. Further, anyone can claim to be infallible when it comes to issues such as religion since there is no “proof” that can be offerred other than opinion. To state that one is infallible is, indeed, a perfect way to stifle inquiry and discussion. The church is the body of Christ, made up of all believers and God works within us all.
The freedom to inquire and discuss was the vehicle by which the early church quenched heresy. Self-proclaimed infallibility is very dangerous by the fact that heretical teachings can no longer be challenged by that means.