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

[Jimmy_B]

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.

Peter himself warned:2 Pet 2:1 "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies,"Can false teachers in the church be challenged at all if men blindly accept them as infallible? A very dangerous and potentially destructive doctrine, indeed.

Hello moondweller,

Only the Pope is infallible and this is limited to “faith and morals”. There is actually a detailed and sometimes lengthy process involved in an Infallible “statement” by the Pope. Not everything the Pope says is Infallible. Moreover, Infallible “statements” or definitions of Catholic doctrine by the Pope are much more rare than they are common occurrences, they don’t happen very often.

I hope this helps.

 

[ABp_Dr_Anderson]

Not all Catholics recognize the Roman Catholic Pope, or Bishop of Rome, as their leader either. This is why there are so many Catholic Churches. Just because a person is Catholic, does NOT mean they are Roman Catholic.

One of the largest problems that other Catholic Churches have with the Roman Catholic Church is changes that were made to their teachings in Vatican I and Vatican II among others, including “Papal Infallibility”. This teaching was not a part of the Church that Jesus Christ installed in Peter, and was not introduced until 1870, just a little over 200 years ago.

This teaching, among others, has caused many Roman Catholics to break away from the church of Rome, but still cling to their Catholic traditions and teachings, without the newly introduced parts of it.

Issues like this is why the Old Catholic Church, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Eastern Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, and many, many others have departed from full communion with Rome.

Jesus Christ was the only person who never made a mistake, and the teaching that once a person is elected into a certain office, he magically transforms into someone who can never, ever make a mistake with regards to faith and morals is unbiblical. No where in God’s holy Word does it say that once Jesus installed the Church in Peter, that he would forever from that point on be infallible, and not able to make mistakes.

Our Church would love to reunite with Rome, and I would subject myself under the Bishop of Rome’s authority, and we believe this IS what God wants, to have all of the body of Christ reunited in an Undivided Church once again, but it will not happen unless the Roman Catholic Church goes back to its founding teachings which Christ gave them, and get rid of the new teachings that man has introduced in recent years.

These introductions of new teachings is what lead to the Orthodox and Anglican Churches in leaving the Roman Catholic Church and ultimately lead to the Protestant Reformation where all non-catholic Churches come from.

If we want to reunite the Church, we must go back to the teachings that were in place before the break-offs and resolve the issues which first lead to them.

I pray that one day this may happen, and that the entire body of Christ is once again united under one undivided church.

 

[Atreyu]

It tries to talk about matter as if it was a container for something called its essence, and another lot of things called accidents. It may have been possible to posulate such a distinction once upon a time, but it is no longer. Something is blood if and only if it has the mokecular structure of blood; those molecules are made up of atoms, and those atoms are made up of sub-atomic particles. There is no room in there for a distinction between what something appears to be and what it actually is.

Does this post deny the Incarnation?

 

[Atreyu]

Not all Catholics recognize the Roman Catholic Pope, or Bishop of Rome, as their leader either. This is why there are so many Catholic Churches. Just because a person is Catholic, does NOT mean they are Roman Catholic.

In what way is your Church catholic? Just because you call yourself catholic, does not make you catholic. Just because you follow the Catholic traditions, does not make you catholic. What would happen if Augustine of Hippo came up to you in your town and asked to be directed to the nearest Catholic Church - would you direct him to your own basilica or house?

One of the largest problems that other Catholic Churches have with the Roman Catholic Church is changes that were made to their teachings in Vatican I and Vatican II among others, including “Papal Infallibility”. This teaching was not a part of the Church that Jesus Christ installed in Peter, and was not introduced until 1870, just a little over 200 years ago.

These “changes” are no more changes than anything that happened at any other Ecumenical Council. Just as there were people or groups of people who couldn’t accept the teaching of each and every other Ecumenical Council, so too there are groups of people who couldn’t accept the teachings of the 1st and 2nd Vatican Councils.

Issues like this is why the Old Catholic Church, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Eastern Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, and many, many others have departed from full communion with Rome.

On the contrary, the Eastern Catholic Churches very much are in Communion with Rome. I am surprised that a Patriarch could make such an elementary error.

Jesus Christ was the only person who never made a mistake, and the teaching that once a person is elected into a certain office, he magically transforms into someone who can never, ever make a mistake with regards to faith and morals is unbiblical. No where in God’s holy Word does it say that once Jesus installed the Church in Peter, that he would forever from that point on be infallible, and not able to make mistakes.

And so you believe that Jesus was the author of confusion, do you? And in your own infallibility. Or perhaps you are wrong here…?

Our Church would love to reunite with Rome, and I would subject myself under the Bishop of Rome’s authority, and we believe this IS what God wants, to have all of the body of Christ reunited in an Undivided Church once again, but it will not happen unless the Roman Catholic Church goes back to its founding teachings which Christ gave them, and get rid of the new teachings that man has introduced in recent years.

If you cannot subject yourself to the authority of those who have been placed in authority over you on Earth, then you will not accept the authority of God the Father in Heaven. Well, hopefully you will, but who knows?

These introductions of new teachings is what lead to the Orthodox and Anglican Churches in leaving the Roman Catholic Church and ultimately lead to the Protestant Reformation where all non-catholic Churches come from.

The Anglicans left so that Henry the VIIIth could get an annulment, on the grounds that Catherine his wife had slept with Henry’s brother (which she denied). Henry wanted to marry the sister of his own concubine. Now there’s a leader of a Church who had good reason to leave the Catholic Church! Then Elizabeth (among others) proceeded to change the Anglican Church so much that Henry himself would be turning in his grave - exactly what one would expect when one’s Church loses apostolic succession.

If we want to reunite the Church, we must go back to the teachings that were in place before the break-offs and resolve the issues which first lead to them.

I pray that one day this may happen, and that the entire body of Christ is once again united under one undivided church.

Or you could believe that the Holy Spirit actually stayed with the Church, instead of thinking it stayed with the Church for 1900 years before leaving.

Welcome to the forums.

 

[Pong]

Not all Catholics recognize the Roman Catholic Pope, or Bishop of Rome, as their leader either. This is why there are so many Catholic Churches. Just because a person is Catholic, does NOT mean they are Roman Catholic.

Er… no. Not even close. Catholics, meaning Eastern and Latin Rite, all recognize the authority of the Pope. There is only ONE Holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. But there are two rites and many churhces therein.

“Papal Infallibility”. This teaching was not a part of the Church that Jesus Christ installed in Peter, and was not introduced until 1870, just a little over 200 years ago.

Study history, it’s a beautiful thing.

Issues like this is why the Old Catholic Church, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Eastern Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, and many, many others have departed from full communion with Rome.

Hence they are no longer Catholic and have given up the right to call themselves that. They are schismatics.

 

[mathematician]

Does this post deny the Incarnation?

So far as I know even the Roman church has managed to refrain from setting forth a falsifiable metsphysical theory about how Jesus could be both human and divine.

 

[moondweller]

Hello moondweller,

Only the Pope is infallible and this is limited to “faith and morals”. There is actually a detailed and sometimes lengthy process involved in an Infallible “statement” by the Pope. Not everything the Pope says is Infallible. Moreover, Infallible “statements” or definitions of Catholic doctrine by the Pope are much more rare than they are common occurrences, they don’t happen very often.

I hope this helps.

Nevertheless, when he does speak, excathedra, it’s binding. And RC’ism presents its Magisterium (teaching authority) as infallible. It doesn’t concern you even a little bit that men assign to themselves a divine attribute?

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Moonwalker

Originally Posted by onenow1
God did a fine job of conneting the spiritual with the physical when God became man.> [Jesus ].

Quote= Moonwalker. 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.

Quote= OneNow1. Let me clarify my above statement; in its relevance to John 6. 63-64. Quote =OneNow1. In verse 64 Jesus very clearly states there are some of you who do not believe.

He is not equating our flesh with his, Jesus is making the point that His flesh is superior[Divine ]and we need his fllesh to gain our life, through Him just as Jesus draws his life from the Father, so to we will gain our eternal life, form the bread of life.

John 6: 35, Jesus answered them I AM the bread of life

He again clearily states in in John 6: 57 This: As the living father sent me and I draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will also draw life from me.

This has been explained to you with different expressions from many respones, from folks who believe Jesus meant exactly what he said !

The only connection with science and faith is, God supplies knowledge in both faith and science.

In faith and morals he does this through the One Holy Catholic And Apostolic church !

You said it yourself connecting divinity with humanity !

Peace, OneNow1

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

Peter himself warned:2 Pet 2:1 "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies,"Can false teachers in the church be challenged at all if men blindly accept them as infallible? A very dangerous and potentially destructive doctrine, indeed.

This is why infallibility is needed and this is why Jesus gave his Catholic church the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. To teach on faith and morals infallibly against Heretics and Heretical teachings that come against the Apostolic teachings.

Your assumption of infallibility does not fit the criteria when it has to be excercised. All the councils that ever were made infallible decisions on teachings of faith and morals by hearing out all heretical teachings that came about throughout the years. How else do you think they got labeled as heretical if they were not heard out in council.

Infallibility is the Guarantee or promise from Jesus that the Holy Spirit will teach you all things. Most of all that through this infallibility protects the Catholic church from teaching in error. Not what you assume as being a one man army by the Pope.

Infallibility has been excercised by the Catholic church throughout the ages. The date you mention only deals with the revelation or defining the already believed infallibility teaching.

Infallibility is an act of war that takes place by the Pope him self or the “Supreme Magisterium” through the Holy Spirit protecting the Teachings of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, whenever these already believed doctrines and teachings are threatened by the world or secularism.

Infallibility does not authorize the Pope or the Magisterium to invent new doctrines or teachings. Infallibility is excercised to protect the teachings of Jesus from man and his free will to change things. Infallibility states these teachings of Jesus Christ will not change to the changing times and man.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What’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.

My posts #154 and #155 are for clarification. #155 is a continuation of #154, that deals with your topic of Transubstantiation.

omnipresence is not the same as Transubstantiation as you have compared. You through out terms such as consubstantiation, omnipresence, Transubstantiation, in your previous posts, these all have distinct definitions in Catholic theology.

quote by moondweller:
And for this reason the divine attribute of omnipresence cannot be applied to the humanity of Christ, to which His body and blood belong. The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation requires that the humanity of Christ be omnipresent - a doctrine which, by its definition, must deny that Christ was truly human - became one of us. Hence, He was not truly our “Kinsman Redeemer,” as prefigured in the O.T.

response:
Before I challenge your definition of "Transubstantiation requires that the humanity of Christ be omnipresent- a doctrine which, by its definition, must deny that Christ was truly human-became one of us, Hence, Hes was not truly our “Kinsman Redeemer” Please clarify what you are defining transubstantiation or omnipresence? and why “the divine attribute of omnipresence cannot be applied to the humanity of Christ?” Is this your definition of transubstantiation, and omnipresence or are you claiming them to be Catholic definitions? Because from your posts these definitions conflict with Catholic Teaching.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I would like to just add one thing about this infallibility that keeps unbelievers from adhearing to the Apostolic authority placed here on earth by Jesus Christ himself.

All Christians owe a great deal of their faith to the Papacy of the Catholic faith. For one the first 30? Catholic Popes spilled their blood in their Martyrdom to protect the teachings of Jesus Christ. Their Martyrdom is a testament to beliefs of Christianity you believe in today. The little christianity you took with you from the Roman Cathollic church, was survived because these Popes and other Saintly Catholic martyrs went to their deaths, because they refused to subject their infallible teachings to world secularism, and Pagan emperor worship.

This my brothers and sisters is why infallibility is necessary, The Pope would rather die first, than to subject the teachings of Jesus Christ to change for world leaders or worldly secularism.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Nevertheless, when he does speak, excathedra, it’s binding. And RC’ism presents its Magisterium (teaching authority) as infallible. It doesn’t concern you even a little bit that men assign to themselves a divine attribute?

Jesus founded His Church here on earth on 'men" and there is and has always been a hierarchy in Christ’s Church here on earth. The authority and the infallible “attributes” of the Roman Catholic Church come directly from God. Jesus Christ, Himself said that the Church was infallible, not the Church.

Matthew 16:17-19
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
1 Peter 5:2
2 Tend the flock of God in your midst, (overseeing) not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly.
John 21:17
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.
Mark 5:37
He did not allow anyone to accompany him inside except Peter, James, and John, the brother of James.
Luke 8:51
When he arrived at the house he allowed no one to enter with him except Peter and John and James, and the child’s father and mother.
Matthew 17:1
1 1 2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.
Mark 9:1
1 1 He also said to them, “Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power.”
Luke 9:28
28 12 13 About eight days after he said this, he took Peter, John, and James and went up the mountain to pray.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Continued from my last post -

Matthew 26:37
37 He took along Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, 23 and began to feel sorrow and distress.
Luke 5:3
3 Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat.
Matthew 14:28
28 Peter said to him in reply, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.”
29 He said, “Come.” Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus.
Matthew 16:17
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
Acts of the Apostles 5:1-11
11 A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property.
2 He retained for himself, with his wife’s knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles.
3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land?
4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it.
6 The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him.
7 After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened.
8 Peter said to her, “Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?” She answered, “Yes, for that amount.”
9 Then Peter said to her, “Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”
10 At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

More about Saint Peter here.

 

[moondweller]

Please clarify what you are defining transubstantiation or omnipresence?

Well, Gab, the word omnipresence means everywhere present (not to be confused with pantheism). Now here’s what your catechism states:"The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner…this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

1376 "The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the Holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.IOW, the bread and wine become the ACTUAL (substance) body and blood of Christ. Of course Jesus never mentioned “soul” and “divinity,” but RC’ism threw those in as well.

and why “the divine attribute of omnipresence cannot be applied to the humanity of Christ?”

Well, it’s actually explained right there in your question in two words: “divine” and “humanity.” These are two distinct substances. Christ was both fully human and fully divine, but He was not a mixture of both. Christ had/has a true body. By true body is meant a material body composed of flesh and blood, and in everything essential like the bodies of ordinary men. It wasn’t a phantasm, nor was it fashioned out of any heavenly or ethereal substance. He was “born of a woman.” His body increased in stature and developed from infancy to manhood. It was subject to pain, pleasure, hunger, thirst, fatigue, suffering and death. It could bee seen, felt and handled. It was, as the Scriptures reveal, true flesh and blood as ours (Heb. 2:14).

All of Christianity accepts the doctrine of the hypostatic union. That is, in the Person of Jesus are united both humanity and divinity. That He has in His constitution the same essence, or substance, which constitutes us men (true humanity), and the same substance which makes God infinite, eternal and immutable in all His perfections (true divinity). But this union in the Person of Christ is not by mixture, that is, the blending of the two “substances,” or, “natures,” thereby producing a third, or, new substance which is neither truly human nor truly divine, but possessing properties of both. Which is an impossibility because the two properties (substances, natures) are totally incompatible. Just as you cannot mingle mind and matter so as to make a substance which is neither mind nor matter, but “spiritual matter,” for that would be a contradiction. Like unextended extension; tangible intangibility, or visible invisibility.

Is the Person of Jesus Christ theanthopic, yes! But not his nature. He is both fully human and fully divine, but His humanity did not become divinity and His divinity did not become human. In His Person the two natures remain pure and distinct. In Him the finite did not become infinite and the infinite did not become finite.

For this reason you cannot assign a divine attribute like omnipresence to the human body and blood of Christ. They’re material. Jesus, in His humanity can be in only one place at one time. Even in His now glorified body. Even that’s fully human - not divine. That’s why we must wait for His bodily return to this earth. Bodily He can only be in one place at a time. That rule of course does not apply to His divine nature because divinity is omnipresent, and it is not material.

The doctrine of transubstantiation demands the impossible: Tthat the body of Jesus be omnipresent. Something totally incompatible to its very nature. After all, there’s Mass being celebrated wherever there’s a Catholic church and according to the doctrine, hosts are being transformed into the actual body and blood (spirit & divinity) of Jesus millions of times a day. Not the body in which He ascended into heaven (glorified), but the body of His humiliation (crucified, pre-resurrection). Hence, the doctrine demands (1) that the crucified body and shed blood of Jesus be in many, many places at one time and (2) Jesus must simultaneously be in two kinds of bodies at one time (crucified & glorified - dead & alive - destructible & indestructible - subject to death & eternal).

So it begs the question, how can all this be?

One proposed solution is that God is cloning Jesus millions of times a day. But then it would not be Jesus but millions of copies of Him.

The most reasonable solution is that you simply have a wrong interpretation of His words in Jn. 6 and in the upper room when He instituted Communion.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well,

****You mean to tell me after all that you concluded again a wrong interpretation of Transubstantiation, and you mean to tell me Jesus got it wrong, the apostles got it wrong, and the successors of the Apostles got it wrong about the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and 2000 years later moondweller got it right!

Come on I was expecting much more from you than a 20th century interpretation of the Eucharist. I tell you what, tell me what you think Jesus means when he says “This is my body, take and eat”, “This is my blood, take and drink” of the new and everlasting covenant.

You are trying to defend a symbolic Jesus against the greatest minds that ever lived who went to their deaths believing in the true presence of the Eucharist.

Maybe you shouldn’t use Transubstantiation to defend your argument, because the CCC got it right, but your definition confuses your argument.

I have to go now to a funeral, talk to you later. Peace be with you****

 

[panoikei]

Because there is only one Church that Jesus founded on the day of Pentecost in 33 A.D. That is the Church of Christ and it subsists is best described by Ignatius of Antioch in Greek as “Katholikos” or universal. Thus the church is a catholic and refered to as the one holy catholic and apostolic church. St. Ambrose says that “where the throne of Peter is there is the Church” [paraphrased]. So in summary there is only one Church and it is the Catholic Church. What is the body you describe as Roman. For there are Ruthinian, Antiochian, Marinite, Latin and many other rites that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. They are Catholic.

 

[lurdes]

You have no questions, Jimmy. Questions require the freedom to question.Gal 5:1 "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."This is one of the reasons this Christian doesn’t recognize the RCP as my leader.

we are surrender our being to the Holy Trinity and to his Church and his teachings that why we are Catholics!!!

 

[lurdes]

quote “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.”

If the Church is the body of Christ and hi is the head so everything the Church teaches come from GOD

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Because there is only one Church that Jesus founded on the day of Pentecost in 33 A.D. That is the Church of Christ and it subsists is best described by Ignatius of Antioch in Greek as “Katholikos” or universal. Thus the church is a catholic and refered to as the one holy catholic and apostolic church. St. Ambrose says that “where the throne of Peter is there is the Church” [paraphrased]. So in summary there is only one Church and it is the Catholic Church. What is the body you describe as Roman. For there are Ruthinian, Antiochian, Marinite, Latin and many other rites that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. They are Catholic.

thank you for clearing that up panoikei, oh and amen to that

 

[Mickey]

Because there is only one Church that Jesus founded on the day of Pentecost in 33 A.D.

The Holy Orthodox Church.

St. Ambrose says that “where the throne of Peter is there is the Church” [paraphrased].

You will see many Church Fathers write about Old Rome as the capital of Christianity. You will see many Church Fathers write about St Peter as having a primacy of honor yet equal to all Apostles. But you will never read the Church Fathers talking about the Pope of Rome as a supreme universal infallible pontiff as was dogmatized by the ultramontanists of post-schism Rome and defined in 1870.