Contemporary Evidence For Papal Infallibility

[PaulAckermann]

On a particular moral issue, the pope :liturgy: has proven to be right and all the other denominations have been wrong. For all these years, we Catholics have been mocked and criticized for the harsh stand the Catholic Church has been on birth control. We, now the evidence is in!

See http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html (http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html)

Because of the Catholic Church’s strong view against birth control, it has always warned its flock not to take the pill, as well as other birth control devices. Although there are many denomination that are pro-life, I do not know any Protestant that is against birth control.

So that means that there are thousands of Protestant pro-life wives, who rightly oppose RU-486 (the morning-after pill), and yet may have inadvertently had caused an abortion themselves because they took the birth control, with the approval of their ministers :preach: .

If my wife and I had been Protestant, and my wife was taking the pill, without my minister warning me that I could be killing an unborn child, I would be total scandalized.

I hear often “What makes you think your church is the only true church?” or “What makes you think that only the pope is right and no other denomination has it right”.

Well, here you have proof!

If the tables were turned, if the pope had approved the use of birth control, and when it came out that all this time the pill caused abortions, we Catholics would never hear the end of it! “How can the pope be infallible and allow his flock to practice something that kills unborn children?”

But that is not what happened. The popes have always warned the flock not to take the pill, even before it was not know that the pill could cause abortions. The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

On this moral this moral issue, the pope has proven to be right, and all the other churches are wrong. The odds for one person to get it right and everyone getting it is wrong is highly unlikely. But that is exactly what happened.

Of course, if you are not pro-life, this is not impressive. But if you are pro-life, how can this be explained except it be by the hand of God?:clap:

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Paul

The argugment is not very coherant IMHO...:yawn:

As far as the comparision between "the Pill" and the "morning after pill" there is none, there are many medical professionals on this forum to correct your incorrect assement.


As I am not one of those nor do I play one on T.V. I will not attempt to cover such fallacy.

As to the "one True church" when did they pass medical school? Unless they play one one TV then..... I assume you get the point.

In Him,

Bill

Peace to u,

Bill

[IamAdopted]

LOL I am sorry but the Pope infallable..

[Macrina]

I do not know any Protestant that is against birth control.

I could introduce you to several.


Once again, Paul, you are extrapolating from your experience to generalize for all protestants. Please don't do that.


And the argument that since the Pope was right on this then he's infallible? I'm afraid that wouldn't hold up in court.

An example:
For years, PETA told me not to eat cheese; it was wrong.
I recently learned that I have a medical condition worsened by cheese consumption.
Therefore, PETA was right.
Therefore, PETA is infallible.

[leothelioness]

Sorry, but birth control pills do not abort unborn children. They keep the egg from being fertilised in the first place.

Besides, the MA pill is not a birth control pill. It is an abortion pill and I am against it's use.

There is a big difference between these two pills and their functions.

[Macrina]

Sorry, but birth control pills do not abort unborn children. They keep the egg from being fertilised in the first place.

Besides, the MA pill is not a birth control pill. It is an abortion pill and I am against it's use.

There is a big difference between these two pills and their functions.

Actually, if one believes that life begins when the egg is fertilized, then one should be concerned about the ordinary birth-control pill, which can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterine lining. That is why some people (including a number of my married protestant friends) choose not to use hormonal birth control; should an egg become fertilized, they do not want to do anything to harm it.

Still, though, it's not evidence for papal infallibility.

[PaulAckermann]

I could introduce you to several.
You say that you know of several denominations that are against birth control. But then you did not even give one example.





And the argument that since the Pope was right on this then he's infallible? I'm afraid that wouldn't hold up in court.



It is not just that he was right. He was the ONLY one who was right. With all the Protestant denomination out there, what are the odd that the pope would be right and all the other denominations are wrong.




An example:
For years, PETA told me not to eat cheese; it was wrong.
I recently learned that I have a medical condition worsened by cheese consumption.
Therefore, PETA was right.
Therefore, PETA is infallible.



This is a bad example. PETA is not the only ones who would say not to eat cheese. My own doctor would say I should not eat cheese – too much fat.

But in this case, the pope was right and all the other churches were wrong. Huge difference.

[PaulAckermann]

Sorry, but birth control pills do not abort unborn children. They keep the egg from being fertilised in the first place.

Besides, the MA pill is not a birth control pill. It is an abortion pill and I am against it's use.

There is a big difference between these two pills and their functions.


Read the bottle of the birth control pill, one way it prevents birth is by being an abortificient.


The morning-after pill dislodges the fertilized egg from the uterine and comes out when the woman urinates. The birth control pill, if conception has already occurred, prevents the fertilized egg from ever attaching itself to the uterine wal and comes out when the woman urinates.

In both cases, conception has started, and so life has begun. In both cases, it is an abortion.

[Macrina]

You say that you know of several denominations that are against birth control. But then you did not even give one example.


Don't put words in my mouth. You said: "I don't know any Protestant that is against birth control." I said I could introduce you to several [protestants] who are against birth control. Don't twist my words just so you can belittle my statement.


It is not just that he was right. He was the ONLY one who was right. With all the Protestant denomination out there, what are the odd that the pope would be right and all the other denominations are wrong.

This is a bad example. PETA is not the only ones who would say not to eat cheese. My own doctor would say I should not eat cheese – too much fat.

But in this case, the pope was right and all the other churches were wrong. Huge difference.

I'm afraid your logic still doesn't hold up. My deliberately silly PETA example was meant to illustrate that just because someone's position is proven true does not mean that he or she is infallible. What if PETA had been the only ones to say "don't eat cheese?" Would they then be infallible? What if other denominations also said "don't use birth control?" Would that render the Pope fallible? It's not some tally-it-up contest to see who wins the most "we were right" points, although that's what this thread seems to imply. That would be a very petty approach to theology.

[PaulAckermann]

Good Day, Paul

The argugment is not very coherant IMHO...

As far as the comparision between "the Pill" and the "morning after pill" there is none, there are many medical professionals on this forum to correct your incorrect assement.



The are many medical professionals who also say that a a fetus is not a human being.

As I mentioned above, the birth control pill, if conception has already occurred, prevent the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine wal, and so comes out when the woman urinates. Since the egg is already fertiilized, that mean life has begun, and so this would be an abortion.



As to the "one True church" when did they pass medical school? Unless they play one one TV then..... I assume you get the point.




I think you are missing my point.

The Catholic Church teaches that the pope is infallible in matters of teaching in faith and morals. Since the birth control pill can lead to abortion, the birth control pill is morally evil. If the pope had said the birth control pill was OK, which is way all Protestant leaders say, he was have been a false prophet. But that is not what happened. The pope, and the pope alone, has stood against the pill. And he jas been vindicated. This is exactly what we expect from a true prophet.

[Macrina]

The are many medical professionals who also say that a a fetus is not a human being.

As I mentioned above, the birth control pill, if conception has already occurred, prevent the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine wal, and so comes out when the woman urinates. Since the egg is already fertiilized, that mean life has begun, and so this would be an abortion.




I think you are missing my point.

The Catholic Church teaches that the pope is infallible in matters of teaching in faith and morals. Since the birth control pill can lead to abortion, the birth control pill is morally evil. If the pope had said the birth control pill was OK, which is way all Protestant leaders say, he was have been a false prophet. But that is not what happened. The pope, and the pope alone, has stood against the pill. And he jas been vindicated. This is exactly what we expect from a true prophet.


Not true. Many others have stood against the pill; are they also true prophets? If not, why not? If so, why the special status for the Pope?


I don't know how you intended this thread to come across, but the way it seems is that you just want to thumb your nose at those outside your tradition. I know that you blame the protestant tradition for your heartbreak, but that is no reason to go on a vendetta against protestants.

[PaulAckermann]

Don't put words in my mouth. You said: "I don't know any Protestant that is against birth control." I said I could introduce you to several [protestants] who are against birth control. Don't twist my words just so you can belittle my statement.


With all due respect, you are the one who has twisted my words.

I never wrote that there are no Protestants against birth control, I wrote that there are no Protestant denominations that are against birth control.




I'm afraid your logic still doesn't hold up. My deliberately silly PETA example was meant to illustrate that just because someone's position is proven true does not mean that he or she is infallible. What if PETA had been the only ones to say "don't eat cheese?" Would they then be infallible? What if other denominations also said "don't use birth control?" Would that render the Pope fallible? It's not some tally-it-up contest to see who wins the most "we were right" points, although that's what this thread seems to imply. That would be a very petty approach to theology.


Oh I am not saying that this is the ONLY reason why the Pope is infallible. I just said that this is contempary evidence that he is.

The main reason why we Catholics believe that the pope is infallible, is because Jesus Christ said this in so many words (see Matthew 16).

As far as I could remember, PETA has never claimed for itself papal infallibility and tried to in any way claim that Christ bestowed infallibilty on PETA.

Let's put it this way. In itself, I agree that in itself, this would not prove the pope to be infallible. But it does prove that anyone who taught that the pill was OK was a false teacher. This is not just a little sin. This is abortion! This is murder! Anyone who advocates murder who be a false prophet. And any church that adovates murder cannot be the church founded by Christ.

So let's see who that would disqualify. Well, it would disqualify the Lutheran Church. It would disqualify the Persbyterian Church. It would disqualify the Baptist Church. In fact, it would disqualify all Protestant churches. I do believe that this would also disqualitfy the Orthodox Church. So who is left?

The Catholic Church! The Catholic Church wins by default. All other churches are disqualified because they have advocated murder.

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit will guide the church into all truth. Evidently, the Holy Spirit did not guide the Anglican church, or the Lutheran church, or the Baptist church. The Holy Spirit only guide the Catholic Church into this truth about birth control.

[Macrina]

I do not know any Protestant that is against birth control.

With all due respect, you are the one who has twisted my words.

I never wrote that there are no Protestants against birth control, I wrote that there are no Protestant denominations that are against birth control.


If you phrased it wrong, I will accept that. But I was not twisting your words.

[Macrina]

The Catholic Church! The Catholic Church wins by default.

Congratulations. What's your prize? The right to come online and act superior to other Christians?




Seriously, Paul -- what do you hope to gain from this thread? To convert protestants to your church? To make us feel bad or angry? To give voice to some inner venom? What?

[leothelioness]

Read the bottle of the birth control pill, one way it prevents birth is by being an abortificient.


The morning-after pill dislodges the fertilized egg from the uterine and comes out when the woman urinates. The birth control pill, if conception has already occurred, prevents the fertilized egg from ever attaching itself to the uterine wal and comes out when the woman urinates.

In both cases, conception has started, and so life has begun. In both cases, it is an abortion.
I though birth control pills kept the egg from being released in the first place.

At any rate, it doesn't matter if I'm for or against it because I won't be able to take it anyway as I have a history of breast cancer in my family.

So that's one less Protestant to demonise.

[Oblio]

The Orthodox Church does not permit BC that is an abortifacient either primarily OR as a side effect.

[Macrina]

I though birth control pills kept the egg from being released in the first place.

Although that is the purpose of the pill, there is a slight chance that it will not be effective in preventing ovulation (no birth control, save abstinence, is 100% effective, after all). In the event that an egg is released, and subsequently fertilized, the hormones in the pill may prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. It is a slight chance, but one that many women are not willing to take.


So that's one less Protestant to demonise.

:thumbsup:

[BBAS 64]

The are many medical professionals who also say that a a fetus is not a human being.

As I mentioned above, the birth control pill, if conception has already occurred, prevent the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine wal, and so comes out when the woman urinates. Since the egg is already fertiilized, that mean life has begun, and so this would be an abortion.




I think you are missing my point.

The Catholic Church teaches that the pope is infallible in matters of teaching in faith and morals. Since the birth control pill can lead to abortion, the birth control pill is morally evil. If the pope had said the birth control pill was OK, which is way all Protestant leaders say, he was have been a false prophet. But that is not what happened. The pope, and the pope alone, has stood against the pill. And he jas been vindicated. This is exactly what we expect from a true prophet.



Good Day, PaulA

I get the point the RCC teaches that it's pope is infallible.

Such logic is a big circle... Name it claim it reasoning is not very usefull IMHO. YHO is in fact differnet then mine, your assumption of that teaching to be true skews the agument as it begs the question for it's basis in fact...

I know it is true for you because the church says so from you point of view. It is a subjective assumption that you have accepted, you could be wrong.

I on the other hand have not.

It is clearly a medical issue, the Pill in and of it's self in morally neutral, it is a chemical compound.

Peace to u,

Bill

[PaulAckermann]

Good Day, PaulA

I know it is true for you because the church says so from you point of view.


No. I believe in papal infallibility because Christ said it, not just the CC. Since it originates with Christ, it is not circular.


It is a subjective assumption that you have accepted, you could be wrong.


That is the Protestantism, it has watered down "Thus saith the Lord" to its just your subjective assumption, you could be wrong.

This can be said about anything believed in Protestantism, even the doctrine of salvation. Even the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy! You can reduce everything to subjective doubt, which is why Protestantism has opened the doors to liberalism.



I on the other hand have not.


So you then say that Christ may not have been God? That maybe you are wrong in believing that there is even a God? That you may not be saved? That maybe the Bible is not the Word of God? That maybe the Koran is the Word of God?

Somehow, I doubt you are as open to the possibility of being wrong as you say. Or maybe you are. Are you an agnostic?

You are you using the typical argument that a pro-abortion rights person would use. When in doubt, it’s OK to kill it. “You have your have your experts and I have mine”. One set of experts say that the fetus is a human being. Another set says its not. The pro-abort person takes comfort in the ambiguity of the experts and goes ahead and say it is OK to abort. And he accuses us pro-life people of not accepting the possibility that we pro-life people are wrong – that maybe the fetus is not a human being after all.

But this is like shooting a gun in a rustling bush without caring what is behind the bush – a rabbit or a child. Since we are not sure, we should err of the side that there just may be a child behind that bush. But the pro-abort is saying it is OK to shoot at the bush because a child may not be there. But what if there is a child behind the bush? It is reckless to shoot at a bush without knowing for sure that there is no one behind the bush.
In the same way, your position is totally reckless. You are saying that I have my experts and you have yours. You argue that I should admit the possibility that I could be wrong, and assert that you admit that you could be wrong. But then you do the reckless thing of assuming that it is OK to continue to take the pill, even though you admit that it is possible that this could be killing a human life! This is totally reckless! Once you admit that this could be killing a human life, you are being totally reckless and irresponsible to continue with it. It is like shooting at a bush after admitting that there may be a child in that bush.





It is clearly a medical issue, the Pill in and of it's self in morally neutral, it is a chemical compound.

Peace to u,

Bill


The same can be said for RU-486. It is just a chemical compound.


And others would argue that abortion is just a medical procedure.

[PaulAckermann]

If you phrased it wrong, I will accept that. But I was not twisting your words.

In my opening of this thread, this is what I wrote:

On a particular moral issue, the pope has proven to be right and all the other denominations have been wrong.

On this moral this moral issue, the pope has proven to be right, and all the other churches are wrong.


In writing this, I tried to very careful to compare the pope to other denominations and churches, not to individuals.

You twisted it to have me generalizing all Protestant individuals, which I never wrote at all. Now you blame me for not being clear enough! Which part of the word denominations or churches do you not understand?

[Macrina]

Paul, why do you keep posting these antagonistic threads? What do you hope to gain?

[Macrina]

You twisted it to have me generalizing all Protestant individuals, which I never wrote at all. Now you blame me for not being clear enough! Which part of the word denominations or churches do you not understand?

Dude, it was a misunderstanding. Chill.

[Cribstyl]

In my opening of this thread, this is what I wrote:

On a particular moral issue, the pope has proven to be right and all the other denominations have been wrong.

On this moral this moral issue, the pope has proven to be right, and all the other churches are wrong.
In writing this, I tried to very careful to compare the pope to other denominations and churches, not to individuals........

......I never wrote that there are no Protestants against birth control, I wrote that there are no Protestant denominations that are against birth control.


In my opinion the leadership of most Protestant denominations also have professional researchers that gives counsel on family life and various issues concerning our modern times. In most Protestant denominations the local pastors use the scripture as authority to teach families what God say about the marriage and fornication. The epidemic that results mostly from sin (unwanted children) should not cause the church to have an officail possition on birth control.

If the church perform it's primary commission of teaching the Gospel and the commandments of Christ, families would not need to wonder what God want us to do next. If we love God and our neighbors as ourselves, then the people will know that life is a gift and a blessing. Sin creates generational curses that only the blood of Jesus can reverse. We need to look at the root of the problem rather that creating an official statement outside of Godly counsel.

Is that your evidence of Pope infallability? The good news is that bible teaches us how to live Godly lives?

In Love
CRIBSTYL

[PaulAckermann]

Although that is the purpose of the pill, there is a slight chance that it will not be effective in preventing ovulation (no birth control, save abstinence, is 100% effective, after all). In the event that an egg is released, and subsequently fertilized, the hormones in the pill may prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. It is a slight chance, but one that many women are not willing to take.



If a pro-life woman is willing to take a chance that her birth control pill may cause an abortion, then she has no right in calling herself pro-life.

Murder is not acceptable just because there is a small chance that this will happen.

[Macrina]

If a pro-life woman is willing to take a chance that her birth control pill may cause an abortion, then she has no right in calling herself pro-life.

Murder is not acceptable just because there is a small chance that this will happen.



Uh, that has no relevance whatsover to my post. Leothelioness seemed unaware of certain effects of the bc pill, so I was explaining them to her. I said nothing about whether it was acceptable or not.

As a matter of fact, if I were married, I would NOT take the bc pill for precisely the reasons I described in my post (there are others, but that is the key deciding factor).

[PaulAckermann]

Paul, why do you keep posting these antagonistic threads? What do you hope to gain?




I also go on the section where we can interact with non-Christian. I will discuss with an atheist how I know that there is a God and why I know that Christ is God and is the only way to heaven. I am sure that many times these non-Christians think I am being antagonistic. But I am not. I do it because I care for souls. I want to see everyone make it to heaven. I have such a great joy in my relationship with Christ that I want to share it with others.

This is the same attitude I have with non-Catholics. Just as I desire non-Christians to become Christians, I desire all non-Catholics to become Catholic. The Apostle Paul once said that he desired all people to be as he was, expect for the chains he had to bear. In the same way, I desire all to me like me, except for all my bad stuff. And that includes being Catholic.

Without my Catholic faith, I would have rejected Christ. I could not go any further as a Protestant. I need the Eucharist. I need the Rosary. I need the Blessed Virgin Mary. I need the conviction of knowing the truth. I was tired of so many different interpretations from different Protestants. I was tired of the relativism inherent with Protestantism. I need to know the truth.

Since I felt that way as a Protestant, I know there are other Protestants who also feel that way. They feel that there is something missing. But they are afraid. They have been told by so many Protestants that we Catholics are legalists and idolators, that they are afraid to look into Catholicsm. These are the people I am trying to reach.

Maybe that is not you. Or maybe that is just not you now, but will be you in the future. Maybe you will find something is missing in Protestantism, as I did. I remember when I was in seminary, my roommate converted to the Catholic faith. I, too, felt that he was antagonistic. He just would not leave me alone. And I could not refute him. I remember that I could not stand him at one time. But all his arguments stuck with me. And when I could not go any further, I remembered his arguments. And I turned to the Catholic faith.

As a Protestant, there were many times I “went forward” after an altar call. I prayed. I had hands laid on me. But nothing helped. I started to question whether God was out there. But I remember taking the Eucharist for the first time. WHAM! Something happened to my heart. As a Protestant it for me was hard to obey God. From taking the Eucharist, I am amazed how much I am able to obey God. I am not saying that I am perfect. Far from it. But the difference is between night and day.

[PaulAckermann]

Uh, that has no relevance whatsover to my post. Leothelioness seemed unaware of certain effects of the bc pill, so I was explaining them to her. I said nothing about whether it was acceptable or not.

As a matter of fact, if I were married, I would NOT take the bc pill for precisely the reasons I described in my post (there are others, but that is the key deciding factor).


Teacher, chill thyself.

You wrote "It is a slight chance, but one that many women are not willing to take.". I just replied that any woman who is willing to take that chance is not a pro-life person. I did not accuse you being that kind of woman, so why are you on the defensive?

[PaulAckermann]

In my opinion the leadership of most Protestant denominations also have professional researchers that gives counsel on family life and various issues concerning our modern times. In most Protestant denominations the local pastors use the scripture as authority to teach families what God say about the marriage and fornication. The epidemic that results mostly from sin (unwanted children) should not cause the church to have an officail possition on birth control.

If the church perform it's primary commission of teaching the Gospel and the commandments of Christ, families would not need to wonder what God want us to do next. If we love God and our neighbors as ourselves, then the people will know that life is a gift and a blessing. Sin creates generational curses that only the blood of Jesus can reverse. We need to look at the root of the problem rather that creating an official statement outside of Godly counsel.

Is that your evidence of Pope infallability? The good news is that bible teaches us how to live Godly lives?

In Love
CRIBSTYL


Although the Bible is God's inerrant Word, it is not exhaustive on all issue.

150 years ago, many Bible-believing Christians in the sourth of the US had slaves. Those Southern "professional reseachers" back then would argue that there is nothing in the Bible against slavery. At the time that Bible-only Christians in the South were having slaves, the pope was condemning slavery.

It is not outside of God's counsel. God's counsel is through His Church, through his pope. Read Matthew 16. Christ built His Church on Peter, which means Rock. Jesus gave Peter, the Rock, the keys to the kingdom. He told Peter that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. The Bible itself says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. To believe in the Bible means to believe in God's Church, and on the successor of Peter.

To believe in the Bible and yet to believe that the Church is not God's counsel is contradictory, because the Bible was preserved by God through the Catholic Church. We do not have the original copies of the Bible. We have copies that were made from one generation to the next from the first 1,500 years of the Catholic Church. Until the printing press was created in the 1500's, we relied totally on monks writing copies from other copies. If you cannot trust God to work through the Catholic Church, then you cannot trust God to give you the Bible as it was originally written.

And how do you know that all the books in the Bible should be in there? On what basis do you have the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke in the Bible? They were not even apostles! And what about the book of Hebrews? We do not even know who wrote it. All Protestant scholars today say that it was not written by Paul. But they cannot agree who wrote it. So if we do not even know who wrote it, why is it still in your Bible. It is in my Bible because the Pope canonized the Bible, back in AD 405. But since you do not believe in the Pope, or any Magisterium, what rationale you have for leave the Book of Hebrews in your Bible? Is it because the Bible publisher put it in? But why should you trust the publisher? Do you believe the one who published the Bible in infallible. Or maybe you believe that the Book of Hebrews should stay in the Bible because it gives your a certain feeling of being close to God when you read it, so it must be part of the Word of God. But are your feelings are infallible? Could your feelings be wrong?

This what I realized. Without the Catholic Church, I had no reason to believe in the Bible. I had no way to know for sure that what I was reading accurately reflected what the original writers wrote. And I had no way of knowing what book should be in the Bible.

[leothelioness]

Although that is the purpose of the pill, there is a slight chance that it will not be effective in preventing ovulation (no birth control, save abstinence, is 100% effective, after all). In the event that an egg is released, and subsequently fertilized, the hormones in the pill may prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. It is a slight chance, but one that many women are not willing to take.
Thanks for taking the time to explain. :)

If there is even the slightest chance of a fertilised egg being expelled from the body then I am against the use of such a pill. I'm kinda glad I won't be able to take the pill. :)

BTW, I love your avatar. ^_^ So cute.

[Macrina]

Thanks for taking the time to explain. :)

If there is even the slightest chance of a fertilised egg being expelled from the body then I am against the use of such a pill. I'm kinda glad I won't be able to take the pill. :)

BTW, I love your avatar. ^_^ So cute.




You're welcome, and thanks. :)

I wasn't aware of the pill potentially being an abortifactant, either, until some years ago when my roommate was engaged and considering options -- I learned a little through what she had to say. :D Then I learned that several of my married friends chose not to use the pill for this reason, and that some pro-life groups were trying to raise awareness of this issue.

I believe the same problem goes for other hormonal methods, too, so it's wise for a couple to become well-informed on the issue before making any decisions.

[Macrina]

Paul, the reason why I'm on the defensive is because in several threads now, it has felt like you were attacking protestants rather than reaching out to us. I can accept that you have discovered something wonderful that you want to share -- but I'd like to offer the possibility that the tone you've been adopting isn't necessarily the most effective one. You may have been reached through tactics which offended you, but there may be others who would respond better if you were a bit less abrasive in presenting your case. Perhaps some of this has to do with the medium, and the fact that "tone" doesn't come through as easily on message boards as it would in person. But you need to know that you have come across not as someone reaching out in love, but as someone out to prove that he is right. There are times for overturning tables, yes... but there are also times to sit on a hill and teach. If you try a different technique, you might find us more willing to listen. I'm not saying I'd join your church, but right now you're driving me away from it more than anything. I always had a positive view of Catholics until I came on CF and started getting bashed by them.

[Splayd]

You can reduce everything to subjective doubt, which is why Protestantism has opened the doors to liberalism.
Protestants opened the doors to liberalism?

Hmmm... I don't doubt the protestant world is rife with "liberalism" but as an interesting observation - Of the thousands of protestants I personally know, there's maybe a couple dozen that I'd call liberal. Of the thousands of Catholics I know, there's probably a couple dozen I wouldn't. Maybe we have different meanings for the word.

Mind you - you seem to imply that it's a bad thing, while the Catholics here readily acknowledge their liberal leanings with pride, so maybe it's also a cultural thing.

Peace

[BBAS 64]

No. I believe in papal infallibility because Christ said it, not just the CC. Since it originates with Christ, it is not circular.



That is the Protestantism, it has watered down "Thus saith the Lord" to its just your subjective assumption, you could be wrong.

This can be said about anything believed in Protestantism, even the doctrine of salvation. Even the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy! You can reduce everything to subjective doubt, which is why Protestantism has opened the doors to liberalism.




So you then say that Christ may not have been God? That maybe you are wrong in believing that there is even a God? That you may not be saved? That maybe the Bible is not the Word of God? That maybe the Koran is the Word of God?

Somehow, I doubt you are as open to the possibility of being wrong as you say. Or maybe you are. Are you an agnostic?

You are you using the typical argument that a pro-abortion rights person would use. When in doubt, it’s OK to kill it. “You have your have your experts and I have mine”. One set of experts say that the fetus is a human being. Another set says its not. The pro-abort person takes comfort in the ambiguity of the experts and goes ahead and say it is OK to abort. And he accuses us pro-life people of not accepting the possibility that we pro-life people are wrong – that maybe the fetus is not a human being after all.

But this is like shooting a gun in a rustling bush without caring what is behind the bush – a rabbit or a child. Since we are not sure, we should err of the side that there just may be a child behind that bush. But the pro-abort is saying it is OK to shoot at the bush because a child may not be there. But what if there is a child behind the bush? It is reckless to shoot at a bush without knowing for sure that there is no one behind the bush.
In the same way, your position is totally reckless. You are saying that I have my experts and you have yours. You argue that I should admit the possibility that I could be wrong, and assert that you admit that you could be wrong. But then you do the reckless thing of assuming that it is OK to continue to take the pill, even though you admit that it is possible that this could be killing a human life! This is totally reckless! Once you admit that this could be killing a human life, you are being totally reckless and irresponsible to continue with it. It is like shooting at a bush after admitting that there may be a child in that bush.






The same can be said for RU-486. It is just a chemical compound.


And others would argue that abortion is just a medical procedure.

Good Day, PaulA

http://blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=papal+infallibility

Word search for papal infallibility no matches.


Still a big circle.... Christ never said it, the church tells you he did still.... O circle.

Way to many red hearings/ strawmen here too chase.

In Him,

Bill

[PaulAckermann]

Paul, the reason why I'm on the defensive is because in several threads now, it has felt like you were attacking protestants rather than reaching out to us. I can accept that you have discovered something wonderful that you want to share -- but I'd like to offer the possibility that the tone you've been adopting isn't necessarily the most effective one. You may have been reached through tactics which offended you, but there may be others who would respond better if you were a bit less abrasive in presenting your case. Perhaps some of this has to do with the medium, and the fact that "tone" doesn't come through as easily on message boards as it would in person. But you need to know that you have come across not as someone reaching out in love, but as someone out to prove that he is right. There are times for overturning tables, yes... but there are also times to sit on a hill and teach. If you try a different technique, you might find us more willing to listen. I'm not saying I'd join your church, but right now you're driving me away from it more than anything. I always had a positive view of Catholics until I came on CF and started getting bashed by them.

You're right about the medium. You can cannot see into a person's eyes when he writes. You cannot hear the tone in his voice.

I do not want to come off as abrasive. Maybe you can give me some exact quotes I made so that I can work on it. Please keep me in your prayers. I really want to change if I am abrasive, but I need specific examples.

[PaulAckermann]

Good Day, PaulA

http://blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=papal+infallibility

Word search for papal infallibility no matches.


Still a big circle.... Christ never said it, the church tells you he did still.... O circle.

Way to many red hearings/ strawmen here too chase.

In Him,

Bill


Try a word search on the "Trinity". You won't find it in there, either. Does that mean we should not believe in the Trinity? Is the Trinity just a big O circle? Is the Trinity just a red herring/straw man to chase just becaues the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible?

[PaulAckermann]

Protestants opened the doors to liberalism?

Study Church History, and you will find that liberal infitrated Protestantism in the mid-1800's. This is when Protestant believed the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, that the Gospel of John was written by an unknow author in the mid-second century, that half of the letters of Paul were writtn by an unknow in the second century, that the Gospel of Matthew was written by an unknown, etc. Later on, the majority of the Protestant churches were into the social gospel. A minority of Protestant churches did not follow them - they were called Fundementalist. But most of the mainline denomination followed liberal. They formed organizations such as the Word Council of Christian Churches and the National Council of Christian Churches. These were so liberal that Fundementalists thought these organizations would be used by the anti-Christ. Most mainline Protestant churches today are members of these organizations. The Protestant scholars brought their liberalism into theology. Luther scholar Rudolf Bultman taught that the Bible was filled with myths, such as Christ's resurrection. Lutheran scholar Karl Barth taught that everyone would get to heaven. In the 1900's, some Christians came out of the liberalism and out of the stringent Fundementalism, and called themselves Evangelicals. But still, Fundementalist and Evangelical churche are in the minority. Most of Protestantism has fallen into liberalism.

Through all the this, the pope condemned liberal modernism. The Church has been good up until the 1960's of keeping the wolves in sheep's clothing out. But in the 60's many Catholics were tired of being viewed as so different as the Protestant neighbors. As a result, the wolves used "the spirit of Vatican II" as an excuse to Protestantized the Catholic Church. Anything that made us uniquely Catholic went out in many Catholic Churches. Many Catholic theologians were more interested in reading Protestant scholars like Bultman and Barth than reading Aquinas.

True, many Catholics have followed Protestants into liberalism, but liberalism originated withing Protestantism. Actually, the first liberal was Martin Luther. He was the first Christian who question whether certain books in the Bible should be in there. He called the Book of James an "epistle of straw". He also said that the Book of Hebrews and the Book of Revelation shopuld not be in the Bible. The Reformers actually did take 7 books out of the Bible, even though these books were always in the Bible before then. Liberal Protestants just following the Reformers in this attitude. If they Reformers could take the deutero-canonicals out of the Bible, why can't the modern liberals question the authenticity of some books in the Bible? Since we no longer have a Magisterium to tell us what should be left in the Bible, why not leave it to the modern "professional researchers" (as one Protestant in this thread had put it) to determine which books should be in the Bible?


Hmmm... I don't doubt the protestant world is rife with "liberalism" but as an interesting observation - Of the thousands of protestants I personally know, there's maybe a couple dozen that I'd call liberal. Of the thousands of Catholics I know, there's probably a couple dozen I wouldn't. Maybe we have different meanings for the word.
Mind you - you seem to imply that it's a bad thing, while the Catholics here readily acknowledge their liberal leanings with pride, so maybe it's also a cultural thing.
Peace


Currently there are as many liberal Catholics as there are liberal Protestants, in both they are the majority. That is not the issue. The issue is where did it start from. History show that liberalism started in Protestantism 100 years before it did in Catholicism. And it started in Catholicsm because many Catholics wanted to be like their Protestant neighbors. Maybe that is why your Catholic friends showe their liberal leanings with pride. They have more of a need to blend in with their neighbors.

[Splayd]

Thanks Paul. That was an interesting post.

There's a recurring theme I find in your posts that strikes me as inconsistent though. It seems that everything the Catholic church do right is confirmation that the Catholic church is the one true church, protected from error by God etc... etc... BUT every thing that the Catholic church get wrong is dismissed as a consequence of Protestantism. That's a beautiful paradigm to live in. You can never be wrong.

Although, it begs the question: How is it possible that the "one true church" could be so infected (on a practical, personable level) by Protestantism if God's protecting her from error?

[a_ntv]

Study Church History, and you will find that liberal infitrated Protestantism in the mid-1800's. This is when Protestant believed the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, that the Gospel of John was written by an unknow author in the mid-second century, that half of the letters of Paul were writtn by an unknow in the second century, that the Gospel of Matthew was written by an unknown, etc. Later on, the majority of the Protestant churches were into the social gospel. A minority of Protestant churches did not follow them - they were called Fundementalist. But most of the mainline denomination followed liberal. They formed organizations such as the Word Council of Christian Churches and the National Council of Christian Churches. These were so liberal that Fundementalists thought these organizations would be used by the anti-Christ. Most mainline Protestant churches today are members of these organizations. The Protestant scholars brought their liberalism into theology. Luther scholar Rudolf Bultman taught that the Bible was filled with myths, such as Christ's resurrection. Lutheran scholar Karl Barth taught that everyone would get to heaven. In the 1900's, some Christians came out of the liberalism and out of the stringent Fundementalism, and called themselves Evangelicals. But still, Fundementalist and Evangelical churche are in the minority. Most of Protestantism has fallen into liberalism.

Through all the this, the pope condemned liberal modernism. The Church has been good up until the 1960's of keeping the wolves in sheep's clothing out. But in the 60's many Catholics were tired of being viewed as so different as the Protestant neighbors. As a result, the wolves used "the spirit of Vatican II" as an excuse to Protestantized the Catholic Church. Anything that made us uniquely Catholic went out in many Catholic Churches. Many Catholic theologians were more interested in reading Protestant scholars like Bultman and Barth than reading Aquinas.

True, many Catholics have followed Protestants into liberalism, but liberalism originated withing Protestantism. Actually, the first liberal was Martin Luther. He was the first Christian who question whether certain books in the Bible should be in there. He called the Book of James an "epistle of straw". He also said that the Book of Hebrews and the Book of Revelation shopuld not be in the Bible. The Reformers actually did take 7 books out of the Bible, even though these books were always in the Bible before then. Liberal Protestants just following the Reformers in this attitude. If they Reformers could take the deutero-canonicals out of the Bible, why can't the modern liberals question the authenticity of some books in the Bible? Since we no longer have a Magisterium to tell us what should be left in the Bible, why not leave it to the modern "professional researchers" (as one Protestant in this thread had put it) to determine which books should be in the Bible?


Well, I agree with the first part of your post, not with the second.

The liberalism/modernism/positivism has his origins in the illuministic philosohpy of the XVIII century.
It touched in the same time both the Catholic Church and the Protestant world.

The reactions was very diferent due to the different types of churches: the Catholic Church closed in itself (see the Vatican I), and stayed closed in such a way for a very long time.

Do you know which are the only two reasons because most of the scolars of the XIX century stated that the Gospels were written after the 70 ?
a) because the Gospel predict the fall of Jerusalem, and the prophecy do not exist, so the Gospel are written after the fact
b) to let a quite long time to have created the mith of ressurection
I disagree with both these two reasons

Although, it begs the question: How is it possible that the "one true church" could be so infected (on a practical, personable level) by Protestantism if God's protecting her from error?
Well, Jesus simply promised that the powers of death shall not prevail against it. Not that everything would go plain

[PaulAckermann]

Thanks Paul. That was an interesting post.
There's a recurring theme I find in your posts that strikes me as inconsistent though. It seems that everything the Catholic church do right is confirmation that the Catholic church is the one true church, protected from error by God etc... etc... BUT every thing that the Catholic church get wrong is dismissed as a consequence of Protestantism. That's a beautiful paradigm to live in. You can never be wrong.



I can see how someone can think this way. But that is not what I think I am doing. I admit that there were things that the Church did that was wrong on its own. I think that the Church was very, very corrupt at the time of Luther. It was even more corrupt than many Protestants would think.

But in the area of liberalism, it is a historical fact that it infiltrated the Protestant churches in the 1850's, but it did not infiltrate the Catholic Church until the mid-1900's. So liberalism did come far later in the Catholic Church. And when liberalism did come, the Catholic theologians were studying the writings of liberal Protestant theologians.


Although, it begs the question: How is it possible that the "one true church" could be so infected (on a practical, personable level) by Protestantism if God's protecting her from error?


There is a Catholic saying: Don't blame Peter for Judas.

Even the original apostles who were personally selected by Jesus Christ were infected by evil, the Devil entered Judas. And yet Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to these apostles to lead them into all truth. This the great paradox throughout these centuries. God sovreignly protects. But God stills honors man's free will Man is free to rebel against Christ and His Church if he so chooses. Man is free to leave Christ and start in his own cult, such as David Koresh. And man is free to leave the Church and start his own denomination.

Anyway, I do not consider Protestantism "infecting" the Catholic Church. Luther and the Reformers left the church, so they did not infect it. But that does not mean that there is no infection in the Church. There are many priests, theologians, bishops, and laymen who have remained in the church but are not faithful to the Church's teachings. I have little patience for these kind of Catholics. At least the Reformers had the integrity to admit honestly that they disagree with the teachings of the Church and left it. But there are many leaders in the church who are unfaithful to the pope and the Church's teaching, but only behind the pope's back when he is not looking. They should be honest and leave the Church. But since they don't they are infecting the Church. They are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Why does God allow these people to stay in the Church to infect it? The same reason that He allowed Adam and Eve to fall. The same reason He allow serial killers to cause unspeakable acts.He created us with a free will. Free will means we are free to infect our world and our church. Christ promised that this infection will not come from Peter. But it can come from Judas.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

On a particular moral issue, the pope :liturgy: has proven to be right and all the other denominations have been wrong. For all these years, we Catholics have been mocked and criticized for the harsh stand the Catholic Church has been on birth control. We, now the evidence is in!

See http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html (http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html)

Because of the Catholic Church’s strong view against birth control, it has always warned its flock not to take the pill, as well as other birth control devices. Although there are many denomination that are pro-life, I do not know any Protestant that is against birth control.

So that means that there are thousands of Protestant pro-life wives, who rightly oppose RU-486 (the morning-after pill), and yet may have inadvertently had caused an abortion themselves because they took the birth control, with the approval of their ministers :preach: .

If my wife and I had been Protestant, and my wife was taking the pill, without my minister warning me that I could be killing an unborn child, I would be total scandalized.

I hear often “What makes you think your church is the only true church?” or “What makes you think that only the pope is right and no other denomination has it right”.

Well, here you have proof!

If the tables were turned, if the pope had approved the use of birth control, and when it came out that all this time the pill caused abortions, we Catholics would never hear the end of it! “How can the pope be infallible and allow his flock to practice something that kills unborn children?”

But that is not what happened. The popes have always warned the flock not to take the pill, even before it was not know that the pill could cause abortions. The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

On this moral this moral issue, the pope has proven to be right, and all the other churches are wrong. The odds for one person to get it right and everyone getting it is wrong is highly unlikely. But that is exactly what happened.

Of course, if you are not pro-life, this is not impressive. But if you are pro-life, how can this be explained except it be by the hand of God?:clap:



What this opening post has to do with the topic of the thread is completely unknown to me.



My $0.01


Pax!



- Josiah

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I believe in papal infallibility because Christ said it, not just the CC. Since it originates with Christ, it is not circular.



I've read the entire Bible - the NT several times.
It's not there.
Everyone knows that.
Most admit that.




My $0.02


Pax!


- Josiah

[PaulAckermann]

[/color]



I've read the entire Bible - the NT several times.
It's not there.
Everyone knows that.
Most admit that.




My $0.02


Pax!


- Josiah


All Protestant scholars in the 20th century have admitted that Matthew 16 is about Peter being the Rock.


But putting that aside, Christ said to Peter that whatever Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven. This does not make much sense if Peter was not infallible. Also, Jesus gave the keys to the kingdomof heaven to Peter. Since you have read the Bible all the way through, you would be aware that the royal steward, something like a prime minister, received the keys to the kingdom from the king, symbolizing the fact that the royal steward was second in command behind the king, and would have full authority when the king was in a distant land.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

All Protestant scholars in the 20th century have admitted that Matthew 16 is about Peter being the Rock.


I didn't know that.

It must have been very difficult to get a dogmatic opinion from every Protestant scholar during those 100 years. I have seen one of my Catholic friends repeatedly post from 3 or 4 persons whom we are told were/are Protestants (although I had never heard of any of them) and noted that they are Protestants - so they must not reach the same conclusion that Protestants do. But 3-4 is hardly all.


Thank you.


But putting that aside, Christ said to Peter that whatever Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven. This does not make much sense if Peter was not infallible.

1. I hope it wasn't limited to Peter. If it was, then no one past 67 AD has the authority to announce absolution.


2. No, proclaiming absolution does not suggest infallibility in teaching, interpretation or the arbitration of dogma. There's no connection there.



Also, Jesus gave the keys to the kingdomof heaven to Peter.

I respectfully disagree. And I rejoice, because otherwise the church died in 67 AD.

And isn't it interesting, in all those many issues addressed in Acts and in the 22 NT epistles, NOT ONCE is there a single mention of those keys. Nope. Not once. No mention of the Catholic denomination, Bishop of Rome or Infallible Pope either. Nope. Not there.



Thank you!


My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah



.

[BBAS 64]

All Protestant scholars in the 20th century have admitted that Matthew 16 is about Peter being the Rock.


But putting that aside, Christ said to Peter that whatever Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven. This does not make much sense if Peter was not infallible. Also, Jesus gave the keys to the kingdomof heaven to Peter. Since you have read the Bible all the way through, you would be aware that the royal steward, something like a prime minister, received the keys to the kingdom from the king, symbolizing the fact that the royal steward was second in command behind the king, and would have full authority when the king was in a distant land.


Good Day, PA

^_^ Kind of funny you speak for "all Prot" scholars of the 20th century....

When you run into problems with some with in your own denomanation...

The Roman Catholic historian Klaus Schatz comments:

"There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.'…If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer....Rome did not succeed in maintaining its position against the contrary opinion and praxis of a significant portion of the Church. The two most important controversies of this type were the disputes over the feast of Easter and heretical baptism. Each marks a stage in Rome’s sense of authority and at the same time reveals the initial resistance of other churches to the Roman claim." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2, 11)

You may wish to update your knowledge as it refers to this issue and people who are not of your denomination.

In Him,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

Try a word search on the "Trinity". You won't find it in there, either. Does that mean we should not believe in the Trinity? Is the Trinity just a big O circle? Is the Trinity just a red herring/straw man to chase just becaues the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible?


Good Day, PaulA

Classic bait and switch......:doh:

Are you going to address the issue or not??

If you would like to discuss the Trinity, may be an other thread would be usefull....

The pope is infallible, cause the church says he is... and you believe them and you can not be wrong, because they told you...

Still a Circle ...O

In Him,

Bill

[Splayd]

^_^ Kind of funny you speak for "all Prot" scholars of the 20th century....

When you run into problems with some with in your own denomanation...True - one of Australia's most prominant Catholic theologians doesn't even think Jesus necessarily spoke the words at all. His suggestion is that they were only really included in scripture to try to assert authority over the rest of the church.

Maybe those Catholic scholars were just looking for ways to dispute the views of "all Protestant scholars in the 20th century" ;)

[PaulAckermann]

I didn't know that.
It must have been very difficult to get a dogmatic opinion from every Protestant scholar during those 100 years. I have seen one of my Catholic friends repeatedly post from 3 or 4 persons whom we are told were/are Protestants (although I had never heard of any of them) and noted that they are Protestants - so they must not reach the same conclusion that Protestants do. But 3-4 is hardly all.


I confess that I am not aware of every single Protestant scholar. But I have read from more from one source that this this the case. Be that as it may, even you you concede that there are 3 or 4 Protestant scholars in the last century that support the Catholic interpretation of this verse. Can you cite any 20th century Protestant that disagrees with the Protestant interpretation.

1. I hope it wasn't limited to Peter. If it was, then no one past 67 AD has the authority to announce absolution.

I hope so, too. But do not worry. It's not.

2. No, proclaiming absolution does not suggest infallibility in teaching, interpretation or the arbitration of dogma. There's no connection there.

Mattew 16 is not about absolution. John 20 is. I agree that John 20 has nothing to do with infallibilty. But Mathew 16 is not about absolving somebody, but binding or loosening a rule.

This is what Christ said:
Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. And whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven."

Notice that Jesus did not say "whoever". Instead he said "whatever". So it is obviously not about absolution. You absolve a person, but you bind or loose a rule.

I respectfully disagree. And I rejoice, because otherwise the church died in 67 AD.


This is what Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16 "I give you the keys to the kingdom". It is not that you disagree with me, you disagree with Jesus. He was the one who said it.

You are right that without apostolic succession the church died when Peter died. But since Jesus Himself defintely said it, then there must be apostolic succession, else the church died in 67 AD, as you just argued.


And isn't it interesting, in all those many issues addressed in Acts and in the 22 NT epistles, NOT ONCE is there a single mention of those keys. Nope. Not once. No mention of the Catholic denomination, Bishop of Rome or Infallible Pope either. Nope. Not there.

We do see, though how Peter carried out having those keys.

For instance, it was Peter himself who determined that someone should replace Judas as an apostle. Not only that but Peter determined the criteria that an apostle should be selected, through the casting of lots. When you think about it, this is pretty awesome. Matthias was the only apostle to not be personally selected by Jesus, but was selected by a process determined by Peter.
Jesus was with them for a month after the resurrection, without Himself appointing someone else to replace Judas as an apostle. After Jesus ascended, Peter decided on his own to make someone as apostle! What nerve! How could he do that??? Only Jesus can appoint someone to be an apostle! But Peter was carrying out his responsibility of being the priime minister of Christ's kingdom. Because Christ enrusted the key to Peter, Peter was able to do something that no one else ever did except Jesus.

Also, whenever Peter and the other apostles are listed, Peter is first. And Judas is last. Since Judas was last, it shows thast the order is signifant. So since Peter is always listed first, it shows that Peter was the most important apostle.

Peter is mentioned more than anyone else in the New Testament besides the Lord. Look up the name "Peter" in the concordance.

When John and Peter were running to look into the empty tomb, John ran faster than Peter and was there before Peter. But John waited so that Peter went in first. Why? Could it be that John realized that Peter was the chief of the apostles.

When the angel appeared the women after the Resurrection, the angel said "Go tell the apostles, and Peter." Why did the angel single out Peter? Was it just because Peter was feeling down for denying Jesus? Or was it because he was the chief of the apostles?
Jesus once said to Peter "Simon, Satan has tried to sift you (in Greek -plural, meaning all the apostles) like wheat. But I prayed for you (in Greek - just singular. Jesus only prayed for Peter). And you repent, strengthen the brethren". So Satan is after all the apostles. Jesus prayed for only Peter. Once Peter comes back, he is to strethen the other apostles. God strengthens the other apostles through Peter.

In Galations 2, Paul goes to conversion and only sees Cephas (Peter) to his Peter's approval of the gospel Paul is preaching.

In Corinthians 15, Paul lists whom Christ appears to afterthe resuurection. Paul write "He appears to Cephas, and then to the twelve". Again Cephas (Peter) is given primacy.

After the resurrection, Jesus singles out Peter and asks him "Peter, do you love me?". Peter says yes. Jesus says "Then feed my sheep". Again Jesus asks "Peter, do you love me?", and Jesus says "Then tend my lambs". Again Jesus asks "Peter, do you love me?". Jesus then said "Then feed my sheep". Jesus did not do this with any other apostle. Just Peter.

Peter, James, and John were the only ones who saw Jesus transfigure on the mountain.

Peter, James, and John were the only ones with Jesus at the Garden of Gethsemane.

It was only to Peter that God revealed in a dream that the Gentiles can become Christians without first being Jews.

Throughout the NT, scriptures treats Peter as a special apostle, one that is far more signifant than any other apostle.

[PaulAckermann]

True - one of Australia's most prominant Catholic theologians doesn't even think Jesus necessarily spoke the words at all. His suggestion is that they were only really included in scripture to try to assert authority over the rest of the church.

Maybe those Catholic scholars were just looking for ways to dispute the views of "all Protestant scholars in the 20th century" ;)


Oh I agree that there are liberal Protestant scholars who will question whether Jesus actually said that verse, just as there are liberal Protestant scholars who would question other parts of the Bible, whether it actually happened as the Bible says it did, like the resurrection.

But even these liberal Protestant scholars would agree with the Catholic interpretation of these verses. In fact, it is because these liberal Protestant scholars agree with the Catholic interpretation is why they argue that the Catholic Church concocted these verses.

I was just arguing that all modern Protestant scholar agree with the interpretation of these verse, not whether these verses were authentically spoken by Jesus.

I hope that all of us here believe that the Bible is fully the Word of God. I hope you are not arguing that there there a parts in the Bible that are not the Word of God.

[PaulAckermann]

Good Day, PaulA

Classic bait and switch......:doh:

Are you going to address the issue or not??

If you would like to discuss the Trinity, may be an other thread would be usefull....

The pope is infallible, cause the church says he is... and you believe them and you can not be wrong, because they told you...

Still a Circle ...O

In Him,

Bill


You are also using a classic argument. You put a label on someone's argument ("bait n switch") and then you do not have to deal with their argument.


You argued that since the Bible never uses the words "papal infallibity" then that mean that papal infallibilty is not in the Bible. I am showing the inconsistency of that position by showing that you beieve in the "Trinity" even though the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible.

I am showing that your belief in the Trinity is just as much a circle.

Jesus himself used the "bait n switch" argument on the Pharisees. When they asked him by what authority did he teach. He switched it on them and asked by aithority did John the Batist teach. The Phariees refused to answer Jesus. So He refused to to answer them.

If the "bait n switch" was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me.

[PaulAckermann]

Good Day, PA

^_^ Kind of funny you speak for "all Prot" scholars of the 20th century....

When you run into problems with some with in your own denomanation...

The Roman Catholic historian Klaus Schatz comments:

"There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.'…If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer....Rome did not succeed in maintaining its position against the contrary opinion and praxis of a significant portion of the Church. The two most important controversies of this type were the disputes over the feast of Easter and heretical baptism. Each marks a stage in Rome’s sense of authority and at the same time reveals the initial resistance of other churches to the Roman claim." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2, 11)

You may wish to update your knowledge as it refers to this issue and people who are not of your denomination.

In Him,

Bill





I never said all modern Catholic scholars. I said all modern Protestant scholars.

So what that you found a Catholic scholar who does not believe in the primacy of the pope?


Protestant scholar Rudolf Bultmann taught that that the resurrection of Christ was just a myth. Are you going to reject the resurrection just because what Bultman teaches?

So why should I not believe in papal infallibilty just because some maverick Catholic teaches against it?


I know, this is just "bait n switch". :)

[BBAS 64]

You are also using a classic argument. You put a label on someone's argument ("bait n switch") and then you do not have to deal with their argument.


You argued that since the Bible never uses the words "papal infallibity" then that mean that papal infallibilty is not in the Bible. I am showing the inconsistency of that position by showing that you beieve in the "Trinity" even though the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible.

I am showing that your belief in the Trinity is just as much a circle.

Jesus himself used the "bait n switch" argument on the Pharisees. When they asked him by what authority did he teach. He switched it on them and asked by aithority did John the Batist teach. The Phariees refused to answer Jesus. So He refused to to answer them.

If the "bait n switch" was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me.

Good Day, PaulA

Lets review this what you said.

"
I believe in papal infallibility because Christ said it, not just the CC. Since it originates with Christ, it is not circular."

The whole problem is he never said it..... nope never cite please!

Jesus did not use the bait and swtich, it was a logical comparision.

You compared your belief in the pope on the same level as the trinity... as that proves your assertion, hardly.

I never said the word trinity was in the holy scripture, you assumed it as a fallacy, but is indeed a biblical teaching. You said Christ "said" something but have no basis in fact that he "said" it.

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

I never said all modern Catholic scholars. I said all modern Protestant scholars.

So what that you found a Catholic scholar who does not believe in the primacy of the pope?


Protestant scholar Rudolf Bultmann taught that that the resurrection of Christ was just a myth. Are you going to reject the resurrection just because what Bultman teaches?

So why should I not believe in papal infallibilty just because some maverick Catholic teaches against it?


I know, this is just "bait n switch". :)

Good Day, Paul

You should really go back and read the quote...

No, not a bait and switch, an appeal to the Majority...
which you again have yet to prove, just an other baseless assertion from which you draw a conclusion.

You bring up Bultmon, but it has nothing to do with that which you are under the weight to prove "Papal Infalliblilty".

Maverick.. :doh: .. Roman Catholic none the less.....

I though your pope excommunicated those kinds, it is a matter of the faith don't ya know :D

Here is another for you:

Your view lack historical understanding and is there fore novel in the realm of historical record. My appeal is only historical in nature

A survey of early church fathers commentaries shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, forty-four thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, sixteen thought Christ himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognise ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone.
Jean de Launoy Epist. Vii., Opp. Vol. V., pt 2. p.99, Geneva, 1731


Bill

[PaulAckermann]

Good Day, PaulA

Lets review this what you said.

"
I believe in papal infallibility because Christ said it, not just the CC. Since it originates with Christ, it is not circular."

The whole problem is he never said it..... nope never cite please!

Jesus did not use the bait and swtich, it was a logical comparision.

You compared your belief in the pope on the same level as the trinity... as that proves your assertion, hardly.

I never said the word trinity was in the holy scripture, you assumed it as a fallacy, but is indeed a biblical teaching. You said Christ "said" something but have no basis in fact that he "said" it.

Peace to u,

Bill









Yes I do - Matthew 16.

Now Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:14&sr=1&t=nas) And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." 15 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:15&sr=1&t=nas) He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:16&sr=1&t=nas) Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:18&sr=1&t=nas) "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:19&sr=1&t=nas) "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." 20 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:20&sr=1&t=nas) Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.


Jesus said the following things to Simon

1. Simon’s name is changed to “Rock” (In Greek, the word Petros means “rock”)
2. Jesus said that upon this Rock he will build His church
3. The gates of death and hell will not prevail against the church because it is built on the Rock, which is Peter (In Caesarea Philippi, there is a huge rock, about 400 high in the waters. On top of this high rock is a pagan temple. Below in the waters there is huge chasm with water in it. The people called this The Gates of Sheol. Just as this huge rock protects this pagan temple from the waters overcoming the pagan temple, who will the Rock that Jesus chose to build his church on will protect His church).
4. Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In the Old Testament, the Royal Steward was given the symbolic key to the kingdom by the king. This symbolized that the king has delegated all authority to the Steward.
5. Jesus said that whatever Peter bound on earth will be bound in heaven. Not just some things, but anything.

So even though the Bible does not use the word “papal infallibility” on Peter, it does say that Peter is the Rock who will protect the gates of death and hell from prevailing against the church, he is giving full authority over the church, and whatever rules he makes on earth will be honored in heaven. It is hard to believe that Jesus would have given Peter this much authority without the Holy Spirit safe-guarding Peter’s decisions from heresy. It is also hard to believe that Jesus only intended for Peter alone. Even after Peter’s death, there was and is the danger of the gates of death and hell attacking the church. Apostolic succession is implied in this verse, unless you believe that Jesus thought He was going to return before Peter died.

[PaulAckermann]

Good Day, Paul


I though your pope excommunicated those kinds, it is a matter of the faith don't ya know


The CC teaches that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. A pope can err in matter of church discipline. So a pope can be wrong in excommunicating someone, and he can be wrong in not excommunicating someone.

The popes were stricter long ago. The modern popes are far more reluctant to excommunicate someone. Excommunication is supposed to bring the person to repentance. But, as in the Reformation, excommunication just aggravated the situation and brought on schism. The modern pope tries to avoid that. Instead, he encourages the flock to understand the official teachings of the Catholic Church, such as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.




Here is another for you:

Your view lack historical understanding and is there fore novel in the realm of historical record. My appeal is only historical in nature

A survey of early church fathers commentaries shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, forty-four thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, sixteen thought Christ himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognise ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone.
Jean de Launoy Epist. Vii., Opp. Vol. V., pt 2. p.99, Geneva, 1731


Bill

Some thoughts of mine.

1. I never appealed to the ecf’s interpretation of Matthew 16. I appealed to the obvious understanding of Matthew 16 itself. I was fully aware of differences opinion among ecf on the verse, which is why I never used the ecf as an argument for interpreting Matthew 16.


2. Just because an ecf interpret Jesus, Peter’s saying, or the apostles as the rock, does not mean that the ecf rejected the primacy of the pope. This is a false assumption. For instance, one of the fathers who did interpret this passage other than Peter was Augustine. And yet once when the Roman bishop made about Pelagianism, Augustine said “Rome has spoken, it is settled!” This shows that Augustine viewed the Roman bishop as the final authority on controversies within the church.


3. I am curious. Since you are the one who brought up the ecf, does that mean you will believe a certain doctrine that is believed by the unanimous opinion of the ecf? If I show you that that majority of ecf believed in the primacy of pope, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the Mass as a sacrifice, and confession, would you then believe. Yes I know. This is bait and switch. But it seems you are awfully inconsistent, even being hypocritical. When you think the ecf supports your position, then everyone should listen to the ecf. But when the ecf goes against your opinion, you go against it.


4. The Catholic Church teaches that we should look at the ecf when their view is unaminous. 80% doesn’t cut it. Some ecf taught there was a place called Limbo, a place where the souls of unbaptized babies go. Some ecf taught against it. The ecf Origen taught that Satan will eventually be saved. So the ecf can be wrong. So since there is a huge discrepancy among the ecf on how to interpret this verse, we cannot go by the ecf, anymore than we should believe that Satan will saved just because one ecf taught this. We only go by the ecf when it is unanimous, such as the Real Presence in the Eecharist and Eucharist being a sacrifice.

[BBAS 64]

The CC teaches that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. A pope can err in matter of church discipline. So a pope can be wrong in excommunicating someone, and he can be wrong in not excommunicating someone.

The popes were stricter long ago. The modern popes are far more reluctant to excommunicate someone. Excommunication is supposed to bring the person to repentance. But, as in the Reformation, excommunication just aggravated the situation and brought on schism. The modern pope tries to avoid that. Instead, he encourages the flock to understand the official teachings of the Catholic Church, such as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.



Some thoughts of mine.

1. I never appealed to the ecf’s interpretation of Matthew 16. I appealed to the obvious understanding of Matthew 16 itself. I was fully aware of differences opinion among ecf on the verse, which is why I never used the ecf as an argument for interpreting Matthew 16.


2. Just because an ecf interpret Jesus, Peter’s saying, or the apostles as the rock, does not mean that the ecf rejected the primacy of the pope. This is a false assumption. For instance, one of the fathers who did interpret this passage other than Peter was Augustine. And yet once when the Roman bishop made about Pelagianism, Augustine said “Rome has spoken, it is settled!” This shows that Augustine viewed the Roman bishop as the final authority on controversies within the church.


3. I am curious. Since you are the one who brought up the ecf, does that mean you will believe a certain doctrine that is believed by the unanimous opinion of the ecf? If I show you that that majority of ecf believed in the primacy of pope, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the Mass as a sacrifice, and confession, would you then believe. Yes I know. This is bait and switch. But it seems you are awfully inconsistent, even being hypocritical. When you think the ecf supports your position, then everyone should listen to the ecf. But when the ecf goes against your opinion, you go against it.


4. The Catholic Church teaches that we should look at the ecf when their view is unaminous. 80% doesn’t cut it. Some ecf taught there was a place called Limbo, a place where the souls of unbaptized babies go. Some ecf taught against it. The ecf Origen taught that Satan will eventually be saved. So the ecf can be wrong. So since there is a huge discrepancy among the ecf on how to interpret this verse, we cannot go by the ecf, anymore than we should believe that Satan will saved just because one ecf taught this. We only go by the ecf when it is unanimous, such as the Real Presence in the Eecharist and Eucharist being a sacrifice.

Good Day, PaulA

Just to address the call to unaminous consent of the ECF, is a pipe dream it does not exist.

The quote "rome has spoken" has been addressed over and over again, it for sure does not settle any thing, there are a number of RC Augustinians that question if he even said that at all. RC's on this very board have provided sources of such.

Back to Consent of the ECF RCC scholars:

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.: When one hears today the call for a return to a patristic interpretation of Scripture, there is often latent in it a recollection of Church documents that spoke at times of the ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’ as the guide for biblical interpretation.(fn. 23) But just what this would entail is far from clear. For, as already mentioned, there were Church Fathers who did use a form of the historical-critical method, suited to their own day, and advocated a literal interpretation of Scripture, not the allegorical. But not all did so. Yet there was no uniform or monolithic patristic interpretation, either in the Greek Church of the East, Alexandrian or Antiochene, or in the Latin Church of the West. No one can ever tell us where such a “unanimous consent of the fathers” is to be found, and Pius XII finally thought it pertinent to call attention to the fact that there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, “nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.” (fn. 24) Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Scripture, The Soul of Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1994), p. 70.

Speaking of the difficulty of the so-called Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus in Catholic theology, Cardinal Congar wrote: Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts. But it does somethimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiasiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than judicial. . . . Historical documentation is at the factual level; it must leave room for a judgement made not in the light of the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church's faith.” Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 398-399.


Even know you may think it so, it is non existant with in the pages of their writtings, on every single issue. It is the RCC and it's faith that determines it alone.

Peace to u,

Bill

[prophecy4]

Yes I do - Matthew 16.

Now Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:14&sr=1&t=nas) And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." 15 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:15&sr=1&t=nas) He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:16&sr=1&t=nas) Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:18&sr=1&t=nas) "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:19&sr=1&t=nas) "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." 20 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:20&sr=1&t=nas) Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.


Jesus said the following things to Simon

1. Simon’s name is changed to “Rock” (In Greek, the word Petros means “rock”)
2. Jesus said that upon this Rock he will build His church
3. The gates of death and hell will not prevail against the church because it is built on the Rock, which is Peter


Jesus is also called The Rock (Deut. 32:15, 18,30,31; 2 Samuel 22:2, 32; 2 Samuel 23:3; and the nail in the coffin 1 Cor. 10:4)

All through the Bible, God claims His title as The Rock. Jesus claimed that He was God. Thus, He is The Rock, not Peter.

Furthermore, when He said that, how do you know He didn't point at Himself while talking. He probably said, while pointing at Himself. "Upon this rock..."

In context, "Your name means rock, but it's upon this Rock (pointing at himself), I will build my church."

The gates of hell will not prevail because the church was built upon Jesus. What power did Peter have? Jesus was, is, and will always be the Rock.

I don't really put too much credibility into what Catholics teach. Making of saints, saying hail Mary, statues of mary (violation of 1st and 2nd commandments), someone please tell me where doing any of that is found in scripture?

[PaulAckermann]

Jesus is also called The Rock (Deut. 32:15, 18,30,31; 2 Samuel 22:2, 32; 2 Samuel 23:3; and the nail in the coffin 1 Cor. 10:4)

All through the Bible, God claims His title as The Rock. Jesus claimed that He was God. Thus, He is The Rock, not Peter.



You are making a faulty argument. You are saying that since A is true then B must be false. That it not necessarily correct. Both A and B can be true. The CC does not deny that ultimately Jesus, God, is ultimately the Rock. But it is poor exegesis to says that since somewhere else God is the Rock, that in Matt 16 Jesus could not be referring to Peter as the Rock.

Jesus once said that He is the light of world. And yet Jesus also called other Christians as the light of the world. Jesus calls himself the Good Shepherd. But at other places it refers to the elders of the church as shepherds. It is not an either-or, but a both and.




Furthermore, when He said that, how do you know He didn't point at Himself while talking. He probably said, while pointing at Himself. "Upon this rock..."



Does this mean you reject sola scriptura? The sola scriptura doctrine states that we only believe what is in the Bible. So since the Bible does not record Jesus pointing to Himself, it would be a violation of the Protestant principle of sola scriptura to believe
it.

Not only that, but whenever there was a possibility of miscommunication between the Gospel writers and their readers, the Gospel writers would interject their own commentary in order to avoid any confusion. For instance, when Jesus said to Peter that if John was to remain alive until Jesus’ second coming, it is none of Peter’s business, John clarified with his own commentary that this does not mean that Jesus predicted that Jesus would return before John died. It would be extremely poor communication for Matthew to leave out the part that Jesus pointed to Himself, especially since it would have clarified to the readers what Matthew meant. Not only that, but Matthew was one of the apostles. He was there when Jesus had this talk with Peters. He would have seen Jesus pointing to Himself.

Not only that, but since the Holy Spirit guided Matthew in His writing, if Jesus did point to Himself, would the Holy Spirit have guided Matthew to neglect that important point, considering the fact the Holy Spirit would have foreknown that most of Christendom would taken Jesus to mean Peter as the Rock? This does not say much about the Bible being inspired by the Holy Spirit, is this was the case. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire Matthew to communicate so poorly?


In context, "Your name means rock, but it's upon this Rock (pointing at himself), I will build my church."


In the original Greek, Matthew used the word “kai”, which means “and”. He did not use “alla”, which means “but”.

Not only that, but Peter’s name was NOT Rock up until this time. His name was Simon bar Jona. Jesus changed his name to Rock. In the OT, God would change a person’s name in order to signify a change in that person by some even. God changed Abram to Abraham. He changed Jacob to Israel. A name change by God was considered very significant. It is highly unlikely that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Rock just to point out that Simon was not the Rock.



The gates of hell will not prevail because the church was built upon Jesus. What power did Peter have? Jesus was, is, and will always be the Rock.


Of course the ultimate power is from Jesus. But that does not mean that Jesus did not choose to work through Peter.



I don't really put too much credibility into what Catholics teach. Making of saints, saying hail Mary, statues of mary (violation of 1st and 2nd commandments), someone please tell me where doing any of that is found in scripture?


Where in scripture does it say that Jesus pointed to himself when he said “upon this rock”. And yet you believe that!

[PaulAckermann]

Good Day, PaulA

Just to address the call to unaminous consent of the ECF, is a pipe dream it does not exist.

The quote "rome has spoken" has been addressed over and over again, it for sure does not settle any thing, there are a number of RC Augustinians that question if he even said that at all. RC's on this very board have provided sources of such.


I for one believe he has said it. If you want to debate that issue, let’s go for it. Otherwise, let’s not use a poor argument that this has been discussed already and therefore it is somehow settled. Or the equally poor argument that since some on this forum have argued against it, that the case is settled. The last time I noticed, this forum has no Magisterium. Nothing is ever settled. If you want things to be settled once and for all, you should become Catholic.

There is no point in arguing “This forum has spoken, it is settled!”




Back to Consent of the ECF RCC scholars:

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.: When one hears today the call for a return to a patristic interpretation of Scripture, there is often latent in it a recollection of Church documents that spoke at times of the ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’ as the guide for biblical interpretation.(fn. 23) But just what this would entail is far from clear. For, as already mentioned, there were Church Fathers who did use a form of the historical-critical method, suited to their own day, and advocated a literal interpretation of Scripture, not the allegorical. But not all did so. Yet there was no uniform or monolithic patristic interpretation, either in the Greek Church of the East, Alexandrian or Antiochene, or in the Latin Church of the West. No one can ever tell us where such a “unanimous consent of the fathers” is to be found, and Pius XII finally thought it pertinent to call attention to the fact that there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, “nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.” (fn. 24) Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Scripture, The Soul of Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1994), p. 70.



Actually, this was another point I intended to make. There is a difference between using the unanimous consent of the Fathers for general theology and using the unanimous consent of the Fathers in order to exegete a particular verse. The ecf were not Protestants. They did not go around parsing each word in the NT letters and gospels. The first Bible commentary was not written until the 5th century by Jerome.

So when the ecf taught they were not bound to just exegeting a scripture verse. When the CC talks about tradition, it is not saying that we need to use tradition to find out how a particular verse is used. As I said before, it is to find a general theology, such as the Mass being a sacrifice.



Speaking of the difficulty of the so-called Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus in Catholic theology, Cardinal Congar wrote: Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts. But it does somethimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiasiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than judicial. . . . Historical documentation is at the factual level; it must leave room for a judgement made not in the light of the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church's faith.” Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 398-399.




I am surprised of this quote, since this quote supports my argument.

It says here: “In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is unnecessary”. That is exactly my point. I am not the one who is trying to look at the patristic writers in how to interpret Matthew 16. It is you.

Also, he says “But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching.” Again, he is writing what I wrote. SOME Fathers understood a passage differently than the Church. So what? SOME Fathers thought that Satan was going to be saved. SOME Father taught in a Limbo, and SOME did not. It should not be surprising that SOME of the Father saw a verse differently than the Catholic Church saw it.



It is the RCC and it's faith that determines it alone.


Warning. I am going to use the old bait n switch again.

On what basis do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Is it because the Bible says so? Isn’t that circular? Isn’t it only because your faith determines it? Isn’t it just a statement of belief?

If this is not so, then please provide scientific proof that the Bible is the Word of God.

If we Catholics believed in the Catholic Church only because it is our faith, how is that any different in your believing that the Bible is the Word of God just because that is what you believe?

[prophecy4]

You are making a faulty argument. You are saying that since A is true then B must be false. That it not necessarily correct. Both A and B can be true. The CC does not deny that ultimately Jesus, God, is ultimately the Rock. But it is poor exegesis to says that since somewhere else God is the Rock, that in Matt 16 Jesus could not be referring to Peter as the Rock.

Just because Peters name is rock, doesn't mean Jesus was talking about him. The Bible also says that Jesus has brothers and sisters, but the Catholic church ASSUMES she remained a virgin even though it's not in scripture.

Jesus once said that He is the light of world. And yet Jesus also called other Christians as the light of the world. Jesus calls himself the Good Shepherd. But at other places it refers to the elders of the church as shepherds. It is not an either-or, but a both and.

Jesus called Himself the good shepard otherwise known as the Head Shepard. We are shepards of His flock while we are gone.




Does this mean you reject sola scriptura? The sola scriptura doctrine states that we only believe what is in the Bible. So since the Bible does not record Jesus pointing to Himself, it would be a violation of the Protestant principle of sola scriptura to believe
it.

If that's the case, where in the Bible does it tell the church to pray to Mary or any other saint? Where does it say the pope is infallable? Where does it say to build statues to Mary? Where does it say to ask "dead" people to pray for you? Where does it say the eucharist is really His blood and body and not just a representation? By the way, Jesus also called us sheep, how come we don't walk around bleeting?
Where does it say to baptize babies? How come it wasn't practice by John or Jesus?

Not only that, but whenever there was a possibility of miscommunication between the Gospel writers and their readers, the Gospel writers would interject their own commentary in order to avoid any confusion. For instance, when Jesus said to Peter that if John was to remain alive until Jesus’ second coming, it is none of Peter’s business, John clarified with his own commentary that this does not mean that Jesus predicted that Jesus would return before John died. It would be extremely poor communication for Matthew to leave out the part that Jesus pointed to Himself, especially since it would have clarified to the readers what Matthew meant. Not only that, but Matthew was one of the apostles. He was there when Jesus had this talk with Peters. He would have seen Jesus pointing to Himself.

Let's start with John. He only explained that because as he said, there was a rumor starting to circulate. Since he wrote his book after the rumor, it only makes sense to address it. Just for the sake of argument, how come Peter never mentions himself being Pope in any of his letters? How come Peter NEVER says he's infallable? There are tons of parts in the New Testament that are not explained by the author.

Not only that, but since the Holy Spirit guided Matthew in His writing, if Jesus did point to Himself, would the Holy Spirit have guided Matthew to neglect that important point, considering the fact the Holy Spirit would have foreknown that most of Christendom would taken Jesus to mean Peter as the Rock? This does not say much about the Bible being inspired by the Holy Spirit, is this was the case. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire Matthew to communicate so poorly?

That's like saying, since the Holy Spirit led John in writing Revelation, how come He didn't lead John to provide the interpretation? That is a Catholic belief. Not most of Christiandome, if you can even call Catholics Christian. The God I worship never told me to build statues and pray to Mary. Again, you are assuming Jesus did not point to Himself or use voice inflection to show that he was talking about himself. The fact is we don't know. What we do know is that Peter DID NOT build the church by himself. What we do know is that Peter taught what Christ taught and not once did it even closely resemble what the Catholic church teaches. Bowing to the Pope? Drinking blood? Which, by the way is forbidden by scripture. Mary was a perpetual virgin? None of it is in scripture or written by Peter.



In the original Greek, Matthew used the word “kai”, which means “and”. He did not use “alla”, which means “but”.

not exactly sure what you are talking about here.



Considering that after Jesus death, Peter became like a rock and even died for his faith, that could be the reason for the change. Before Jesus died, peter talked a good game, but didn't stand up.




Of course the ultimate power is from Jesus. But that does not mean that Jesus did not choose to work through Peter.

So did he only choose to work through Peter? What about the rest, was there work for nothing? I don't see anything about following a single leader, except Christ and Antichrist. I don't see any of the Catholic church's teachings in the NT.


[quote]Where in scripture does it say that Jesus pointed to himself when he said “upon this rock”. And yet you believe that!

You assumed I believed that. I just said, what if? I personally don't think He was talking about Peter. It just doesn't add up. Here is are some questions.

If the pope is infallable, how come they stayed silent when the Jews were being massacred?

How come they build statues to mary, which is a blatent violation of 1 and 2 commandments? How come they pray to mary even though it's not scriptural?

[Tyndale]

It is called the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. In brief, it teaches that when the Pope, speaking in his official capacity as the successor to St. Peter (ex cathedra, or from his throne), he cannot be in error; his pronouncements on matters of doctrine and morals are infallible and are binding upon all Roman Catholics, and they are commanded to accept the decrees of the Pope without questioning.
The Pope, it is taught by this doctrine, is as much infallibly inspired in his teaching as the writers of the Scriptures. Previous to the adoption of the doctrine of Infallibility, the church councils added all the innumerable traditions to the Bible, but since the Pope was declared to be the infallible interpreter of the Scriptures and the final authority on doctrine and morals, the Church must now accept whatever new doctrine or "revelation" the Pope as head of the church imposes upon them.
The strange thing about this Papal infallibility is the fact that it was not accepted until in the latter half of the l9th century. During the reign of Pope Pius IX, a Vatican council convened to discuss the subject of Papal infallibility, which had been brewing for some time. In 1869, less than 100 years ago (and 1800 years after God closed the canon of Scripture - Revelation 22:18), Pope Pius IX called this Council in which the issue was to be debated. Strong opposition was raised by certain prominent bishops, who pointed out the history of errors by past popes.
...the dark and sordid history of murder, incest, adultery and avarice associated with past popes. Among those most strongly opposed to this new dogma was Bishop Stossmayer, who traced the history of past Popes, and pointed out how the decrees of past infallible (!) Popes had been rescinded, reversed or set aside by other Popes. The Bishop pointed out the dark and sordid history of murder, incest, adultery and avarice associated with past popes.
In spite of the violent protests of a segment of the council, however, the Vatican Council enacted into dogma the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in July, 1870. Of course, this action raises a lot of questions. How is it that this doctrine was not revealed or adopted till 1800 years after Peter, their so-called first Pope, admitted that he could not even understand some things in the Scriptures written by Paul (II Peter 3:16)? Was Pope Pius IX the first Pope who was infallible? Were the Popes before him also infallible? How then could they disagree, and one Pope set aside what another Pope had declared as an infallible revelation? How is it that the Assumption of Mary was never revealed until the 20th century? - but then, no one is supposed to ask such questions about an "infallible" Pope. The faithful Roman Catholic is not to ask questions at all: he is obliged to accept what his Church teaches.
Romanism is a usurpation of deity. Romanism is a usurpation of deity. The Roman system, while it professes faith in a Trinity, really denies the Godhead by assuming all the honours and powers belonging to God. The Fatherhood of God is an almost unknown subject in Romanism. Where do you ever meet with worship directed to God the Father in Romanism? God's place as an object of worship has been taken over by Mary. The Pope has usurped the place of Christ by making himself the head of the Church, and the work of the Holy Spirit has been assumed by a man who claims to be the infallible teacher. Thus Romanism has virtually denied the work of a Triune God by taking over the offices of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Peter, described by Rome as "the first Pope" and whose successors all the Popes claim to be, must therefore have been 'infallible', but the Bible says: "When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal. 2:11)

[prophecy4]

It is called the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. In brief, it teaches that when the Pope, speaking in his official capacity as the successor to St. Peter (ex cathedra, or from his throne), he cannot be in error; his pronouncements on matters of doctrine and morals are infallible and are binding upon all Roman Catholics, and they are commanded to accept the decrees of the Pope without questioning.
The Pope, it is taught by this doctrine, is as much infallibly inspired in his teaching as the writers of the Scriptures. Previous to the adoption of the doctrine of Infallibility, the church councils added all the innumerable traditions to the Bible, but since the Pope was declared to be the infallible interpreter of the Scriptures and the final authority on doctrine and morals, the Church must now accept whatever new doctrine or "revelation" the Pope as head of the church imposes upon them.
The strange thing about this Papal infallibility is the fact that it was not accepted until in the latter half of the l9th century. During the reign of Pope Pius IX, a Vatican council convened to discuss the subject of Papal infallibility, which had been brewing for some time. In 1869, less than 100 years ago (and 1800 years after God closed the canon of Scripture - Revelation 22:18), Pope Pius IX called this Council in which the issue was to be debated. Strong opposition was raised by certain prominent bishops, who pointed out the history of errors by past popes.
...the dark and sordid history of murder, incest, adultery and avarice associated with past popes. Among those most strongly opposed to this new dogma was Bishop Stossmayer, who traced the history of past Popes, and pointed out how the decrees of past infallible (!) Popes had been rescinded, reversed or set aside by other Popes. The Bishop pointed out the dark and sordid history of murder, incest, adultery and avarice associated with past popes.
In spite of the violent protests of a segment of the council, however, the Vatican Council enacted into dogma the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in July, 1870. Of course, this action raises a lot of questions. How is it that this doctrine was not revealed or adopted till 1800 years after Peter, their so-called first Pope, admitted that he could not even understand some things in the Scriptures written by Paul (II Peter 3:16)? Was Pope Pius IX the first Pope who was infallible? Were the Popes before him also infallible? How then could they disagree, and one Pope set aside what another Pope had declared as an infallible revelation? How is it that the Assumption of Mary was never revealed until the 20th century? - but then, no one is supposed to ask such questions about an "infallible" Pope. The faithful Roman Catholic is not to ask questions at all: he is obliged to accept what his Church teaches.
Romanism is a usurpation of deity. Romanism is a usurpation of deity. The Roman system, while it professes faith in a Trinity, really denies the Godhead by assuming all the honours and powers belonging to God. The Fatherhood of God is an almost unknown subject in Romanism. Where do you ever meet with worship directed to God the Father in Romanism? God's place as an object of worship has been taken over by