The Real Presence-the Eucharist

[Goatee]

That is absurd, for you are reading into the effects of the atonement that which is nowhere taught or exampled, but which is only shown to be the position and power of God. You might as well argue that since Jesus conquered death then believers will not die, or can read minds and fly at will wherever angels go!

And is your view of Scripture so low that you actually think that if praying to created beings in Heaven was of God, and thus a practice of believers, that the Holy Spirit would utterly fail to provide even one example of them doing so, while recording pagans doing so, and recording approx. 200 prayers in Scripture to God, and instruction to pray to Him in Heaven? Really?

Why not just admit that this comes from tradition, rather than read it into Scripture, and thus abuse it?

And of course only 'your' way is the right way? You my friend in Christ are trying the wide road as it is easier for you. Catholicism is being stoned in this very thread! But, united we stand in the love of God.

 

[Goatee]

@rturner76

Does't grace goes also with faith?

So by the grace of God everybody then gets saved?

Everybody doesn't have to do a thing?

How about Revelation21:8
The cowardly,
The unbelivers,
The abominable and murderers,
The whoremongers,
The sorcerers,
The idolaters,
And ALL the liars.

They will end up in the lake of fire that is the second death. The SPIRITUAL DEATH forever.

So not everybody gets saved like you propose.

They do if they repent!

 

[Goatee]

Indeed you do, with Scripture that is. All you need to do is find one example among the approx. 200 prayers to Heaven in Scripture where any believer prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or justify how the Holy Spirit would not provide any despite this being a most basic common Cath practice, and there were plenty of created beings in Heaven to pray to.

If you cannot, stop condemning yourself by insisting on reading into Scripture what you can only wish was there.

Beautiful thing in Catholicism is that we have Sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture. You have Sola Scripture which in itself is not mentioned in the Bible!

 

[Goatee]

I only drank liquids yesterday till about 9pm, but i do not need to fast to know that Scripture simply does not teach the Cath Eucharist any more then i need to fast more to know it does not teach praying to created beings in Heaven, among many other Cath inventions.

It does not teach it in your eyes! We see it in Sacred Scripture as pointed out to you before but you 'interpret' scripture to suit your own beliefs!!! You are very much 'blinkered'. Buddy

 

[Philip_B]

Yet all these, though they were commended for their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better so that they would not, without us, be made perfect. Hebrews 11:39-40​

OK. I am still on song.

 

[Goatee]

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have significant differences, no less than the power and infallibility of the pope, from which the Roman Bishops derived theirs, while as for the lack of respect, as a RC you are to be defending and promoting an elitist "one true church" which does not even hold Prot churches as worthy of properly being called "churches. and historically damned all who would not submit to the pope. Such elitist arrogance invites challenges and refutation, yet RCs take umbrage at such as if there were victims.

Which assertion is merely begging the question, presuming the very thing that is not and cannot be established in comparison with the NT church.

And just why can it not be that one examined the distinctive claims of Catholicism in the light of Scripture and found that Catholicism is substantially not there, and contrary to it?

]You mean you can't see why anybody would want to persuade people out of church that is not that of the NT, and has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes, and treats even proabortion, prpsodomite public figures as members in life and in death, and yet attacks conservative evangelicals?

In reality, there was no indisputable canon for most of Rome's history, but scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon — after the death of Luther.

Seriously, you need to go back and take a good long look at Christian History as you seem completely lost!

 

[thecolorsblend]

So you presume to post on a thread about a most substantial issue, involving statements in 4 gospels, and a long discourse in one, your response is tl;dr (too long; didn't read)?

I do indeed. I frequently use my phone to reply to posts. Posts rivaling War & Peace in their length are a bigger pain to read, much less respond to.

Which is consistent with your reliance upon uninspired, post-apostolic men, and ultimately the presumed ensured veracity of Rome,

St. Irenaeus, a well-respected Church Father, wrote...

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.
- St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189])

Irenaeus makes no mention of Sacred Scripture or even doctrine here. To him, the question comes down to whether or not someone agrees with Rome. Look at the date of his letter there.

It's not like he was the first who thought there was something special about Rome though.

You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force.
- St. Ignatius (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110])

But even St. Ignatius wasn't the first.

Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed... Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret... If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger... You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.
- Pope Clement I (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80])

Pope Clement wrote this during the lifetime of at least one apostle. Surely that apostle would have made an effort to correct Clement if he was overstepping his boundaries or his authority by addressing the Corinthians like that, right?

Unless, that is, there's some authority that's peculiar to Rome and which isn't found anyplace else...

rather than being as a noble Berean and searching the Scriptures to see if this was so.

St. Paul was chased out of Thessalonica. The jews there listened for a while and then ran him out of town.

The Berean jews St. Paul met were more noble because they accepted his orally transmitted message. By definition, the jews in Thessalonica were closer to a pseudo-Sola Scriptura model than the Berean jews, who were of a more noble character because they trusted the messenger and the message. They didn't abide by Sacred Scripture as their sole rule of faith like the Thessalonian jews somewhat did.

Using the Bereans as a model of obedience necessarily leads one away from Sola Scriptura... a fact which Protestants don't seem to recognize very often.

Generally, Sola Scriptura is only a somewhat sellable idea in a time when universal literacy is possible and there is widespread access to the scriptures. But for the preceding 1,900 years before then, you're left with a time when most people couldn't afford copies of the scriptures... which is just as well since they probably couldn't read them anyway.

That's a bit of a problem with Protestantism since it relies upon the individual to be able to read, afford his own Bible and be knowledgeable enough to establish doctrine based upon his own understanding of what the scriptures say. It basically requires the individual to be a scholar in his own right. And even then, a lot of people will still disagree with him.

Literacy and wealth (or the lack of either or both) are virtual non-issues with traditional Christianity, though, where the richest and most educated receive the same sacraments and listen to the same readings as the poorest and least educated. It basically requires the individual to have faith and obedience.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Its a shame you dont understand Catholicism. But then again many people dont!

We are the original church. The Rock which others jumped from due to their weaknesses.

I know the CC is the true church of Christ. I am proud to be a Catholic and i know that our teachings are directly from God.

God bless you

So i see you cannot provide what is needed, and instead you are simply providing an argument against being an RC by continually making unsubstantiated baseless charges and cult-like assertions.

Give it up.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

to Root of Jesse and thecolorsblend

I asked you both a question on post #76 in this thread with no reply

Antletems would you like to answer it for me.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I do indeed. I frequently use my phone to reply to posts. Posts rivaling War & Peace in their length are a bigger pain to read, much less respond to.
St. Irenaeus, a well-respected Church Father, wrote...
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition...

Which if true (documents falsely claiming Ignatius as their author abound, and in contrast to others, only one manuscript source of Against Heresies is exists from prior to the 10th century) simply testifies to post-apostolic declension, contrary to Scripture, and your reliance upon such testifies to the lack of support in wholly inspired Scripture, so why post more if it?

We certainly do not see the church of Rome church being described as having superior origin, and to which all the churches must agree, and thus you can only wish it supported your propagandist tradition.

Peter is not even mentioned once in Paul's epistle to the Romans (nor much at elsewhere by him), resulting in the absurd apologetic that Paul left him out due to fear of bringing persecution upon him, and yet there is not even any exhortation to submit to their sppsd named pastor Peter. But RCs compel Scripture to support them like an abused servant.

Pope Clement I (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80])

Actually this is an anonymous letter it is dated from 80 A.D. to the mid 2nd century, and repeatedly refers to the Old Testament as Scripture, and does not teach a monarchical episcopate, while the only complete Latin translation we have from before the 10th century is a debated one, including the test at issue.

As the esteemed (by many Caths) J.N.D. Kelly notes on this,

To illustrate his argument Irenaeus singled out, in a famous and much debated passage, the Roman church; its greatness, its antiquity, its foundation by the apostles Peter and Paul, the fact too that it was universally known, made it an apt example.Ad hanc enim ecclesiam, so the surviving Latin translation runs, propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua simper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolic traditio. If convenire here means ‘agree with’ and principalitas refers to the Roman primacy (in whatever sense), the gist of the sentence may be taken to be that Christians of every other church are required, in view of its special position of leadership, to fall into line with the Roman church, inasmuch as the authentic apostolic tradition is always preserved by the faithful who are everywhere. This interpretation, or some variant of it, has been accepted by many, but it is awkward to refer in qua to hanc … ecclesiam, and [it is] anachronistic to attribute such thinking to Irenaeus (J.N.D. Kelly “Early Christian Doctrines”, pg 193, eph mine).

And consistent with this, Catholic historians themselves provide testimony against your papal presumptions: Historical testimony to the progressive deformation of the church. Including falsified history

Pope Clement wrote this during the lifetime of at least one apostle. Surely that apostle would have made an effort to correct Clement if he was overstepping his boundaries or his authority by addressing the Corinthians like that, right?

As your premise is dubious so your conclusion is. We have no proof this alleged product of Clement was concurrent with an active apostle, nor that if he was that there was not rebuke, but what we do have is the NT, and which does not support this papal propaganda. Peter as supreme head of the church is nowhere taught, nor is submission to him as such by the churches enjoined, nor is there any manifest preparations for a successor to Him.

The Berean jews St. Paul met were more noble because they accepted his orally transmitted message.

You are presenting a misleading account, for they they accepted his orally transmitted message because they verified it by the Scriptures.

By definition, the jews in Thessalonica were closer to a pseudo-Sola Scriptura model than the Berean jews, who were of a more noble character because they trusted the messenger and the message. They didn't abide by Sacred Scripture as their sole rule of faith like the Thessalonian jews somewhat did.

Wrong again. If the Bereans accepted what was preached as being the word of God because they believed the preachers could not err, then they would be supporting Catholicism. For the noble Bereans were lovers of Truth, and so eagerly heard the apostles but thus subjected oral preaching to Scripture as being the supreme rule, versus the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

"The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

But as the Bereans, evangelicals who come to hear the preaching of the word are not to be presuming that the teachers possess ensure veracity, but instead the veracity of what is preached is subject to testing by Scripture.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

Moreover, that some souls can claim to reject Christ based on what they claim to see in Scripture, while men such as Paul and Apollos "mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ" (Acts 18:28) does not impugn Scripture as being the only wholly inspired standard for Truth and obedience.

Using the Bereans as a model of obedience necessarily leads one away from Sola Scriptura... a fact which Protestants don't seem to recognize very often.

Nonsense, as shown, and s conclusion resulting from your evident reliance upon Catholic Answers type web sites for their refuted polemics. For as shown, evangelicals as to do what the Bereans did.

Generally, Sola Scriptura is only a somewhat sellable idea in a time when universal literacy is possible and there is widespread access to the scriptures. But for the preceding 1,900 years before then, you're left with a time when most people couldn't afford copies of the scriptures... which is just as well since they probably couldn't read them anyway.

Wrong again, for SS does not even require that all the hearers have a personal copy of the Scriptures, any more than they did when under the Law. Nor does everyone have to be able to read a copy of the US Constitution for it to be the law of the land.

A SS preacher can enjoin obedience to what they preach, but SS means that the veracity of it and binding authority rests upon its Scriptural substantiation.

That's a bit of a problem with Protestantism since it relies upon the individual to be able to read, afford his own Bible and be knowledgeable enough to establish doctrine based upon his own understanding of what the scriptures say. It basically requires the individual to be a scholar in his own right. And even then, a lot of people will still disagree with him.

If that was true then no SS missionary could go to a foreign land until the populace had personal Bibles in their own language. But instead, SS means that the Scriptures are The Standard as the only wholly inspired substantial body of Truth. You have another?

For as is abundantly evidenced, the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

And of course only 'your' way is the right way? You my friend in Christ are trying the wide road as it is easier for you. Catholicism is being stoned in this very thread! But, united we stand in the love of God.

Simply more recourse to mere assertions in lieu of an argument, which cannot stand in the light of what is substantiated.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Beautiful thing in Catholicism is that we have Sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture. You have Sola Scripture which in itself is not mentioned in the Bible!

Which objection itself is a strawman of SS. What Scripture abundantly evidences, is that, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

And is the only wholly Divinely inspired substantive body of Truth, and sufficient in its formal and material aspects.

For the teachings of the church to be the supreme law, as papal teaching states, then the word of the popes and magisterium would have to be wholly inspired of God, which they are not.

Moreover, God's means of preservation is writing.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book.. (Exodus 17:14)
And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. (Exodus 34:27)
And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing.. (Deuteronomy 10:4)
And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18)
And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law,..(Deuteronomy 27:3)
And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, (Deuteronomy 31:24)
Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23)
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12)
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15)

 

[rturner76]

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have significant differences, no less than the power and infallibility of the pope, from which the Roman Bishops derived theirs, while as for the lack of respect, as a RC you are to be defending and promoting an elitist "one true church" which does not even hold Prot churches as worthy of properly being called "churches. and historically damned all who would not submit to the pope. Such elitist arrogance invites challenges and refutation, yet RCs take umbrage at such as if there were victims.

I don't think people must believe in Papal Infallibility in order to be a Catholic any more. Many still choose to and I think it is unlikely the Pope will make a mistake in doctrine due to his training and divine guidance. Still he is a human so I don't think the Orthodox are very far off on that issue. It is very controversial. The RC has recently updated her stance on the "one true church" issue from what I've been told. Catholics believe we are all Christians, just that we and the EO were the first and have the fullness of Apostolic Succession. In the past they Dammed others for not bowing to the Pope but not since Vatican II for sure.

Which assertion is merely begging the question, presuming the very thing that is not and cannot be established in comparison with the NT church.

Well for example the Book of Romans was written to the church in Rome. This church in Rome is what we now know as the Roman Catholic Church....see how that works?

You mean you can't see why anybody would want to persuade people out of church that is not that of the NT, and has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes, and treats even proabortion, prpsodomite public figures as members in life and in death, and yet attacks conservative evangelicals?

I don't know who the people are that are pro abortion and sodomites maybe Democrats? I do know the church is nowadays not turning people away and embracing all people no matter where they are on their spiritual journey. I am pretty sure though that a Priest can deny anyone the Eucharist that is living in sin who is not confessed and agreed to change their ways. Some Priests allow more than others depending on the parishioners and who their Bishop is.

In reality, there was no indisputable canon for most of Rome's history, but scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon — after the death of Luther.

The NT Bible we use today was approved by the councils held by the Catholic Church in the third century but they had been using the texts since the first century. The third is when they made an official gathering of the approved texts that all the major churches agreed on. That is something that can be easily looked up. The RC didn't invent them, they just finalized what was already in use at the time.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Seriously, you need to go back and take a good long look at Christian History as you seem completely lost!

Go ahead if you dare.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I don't think people must believe in Papal Infallibility in order to be a Catholic any more.

Then you are living in the wrong era. V1 states regaredin gPI:
"So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

But PI was a highly contentious and politicized debate, and a late product. Thus the 1860 edition of Keenan's Catechism in use in Catholic schools in England, Scotland and Wales attributed to Protestants the idea that Catholics were obliged to believe in papal infallibility:

(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no
decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.

The RC has recently updated her stance on the "one true church" issue from what I've been told. Catholics believe we are all Christians, just that we and the EO were the first and have the fullness of Apostolic Succession. In the past they Dammed others for not bowing to the Pope but not since Vatican II for sure.

Yes, she did change, but since Rome presumes to define what a contradition is then she denies she changed.

Well for example the Book of Romans was written to the church in Rome. This church in Rome is what we now know as the Roman Catholic Church....see how that works?

That is one small step for a RC man, but one giant leap of logic for a man of Scripture, seeing as the book of Romans (nor any other letter to churches) does not teach the papacy, praying to created beings in Heaven, justification by merit, nor any Cath distinctive.

I don't know who the people are that are pro abortion and sodomites maybe Democrats? I do know the church is nowadays not turning people away and embracing all people no matter where they are on their spiritual journey.

Both are sadly true.

I am pretty sure though that a Priest can deny anyone the Eucharist that is living in sin who is not confessed and agreed to change their ways. Some Priests allow more than others depending on the parishioners and who their Bishop is.

They can but most do not, thus manifesting their interpretation of such laws as canon 915. And RCs are supposed to follow their pastors as docile sheep, as per papal teaching.

The NT Bible we use today was approved by the councils held by the Catholic Church in the third century but they had been using the texts since the first century.
The third is when they made an official gathering of the approved texts that all the major churches agreed on. That is something that can be easily looked up. The RC didn't invent them, they just finalized what was already in use at the time.

And the Jews were the instruments, discerners and stewards of Scripture before that, which means that the instruments, discerners and stewards of Scripture need not and do no possess the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Which if true (documents falsely claiming Ignatius as their author abound, and in contrast to others, only one manuscript source of Against Heresies is exists from prior to the 10th century) simply testifies to post-apostolic declension, contrary to Scripture, and your reliance upon such testifies to the lack of support in wholly inspired Scripture, so why post more if it?

If that was the sole source for the legitimacy of the papacy, your point would be more persuasive.

You are presenting a misleading account, for they they accepted his orally transmitted message because they verified it by the Scriptures.

I'm not sure where that's coming from. The Thessalonian jews studied the scriptures and rejected St. Paul's message. The Berean jews did likewise and accepted him. So apparently scripture cannot be the sole rule of faith or else surely the Thessalonian jews and the Berean jews would've reached the same conclusions, eh?

"The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

Not really sure why you're bringing this up since it doesn't relate to much of anything we've discussed in this thread.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

Yes, that's the passage Protestants are so fond of quoting. But, in context, it works against Sola Scriptura. This is why St. Paul's episode in Thessalonia discussed earlier in Acts 17 typically gets ignored. The Thessalonian jews are called by St. Luke less noble than the Berean jews. The Berean jews were jews. The ancient jews had no concept of Sola Scriptura. It wouldn't have computed for them. Meanwhile, the Thessalonian jews listened to Paul for three weeks and compared his teachings to Sacred Scripture. Then they rejected him.

If anybody in Acts 17 can be even vaguely called adherents of Sola Scriptura, it's the Thessalonian jews; not the Berean jews.

Nonsense, as shown, and s conclusion resulting from your evident reliance upon Catholic Answers type web sites for their refuted polemics.

??? If Catholic Answers agrees with me, I'm flattered (and encouraged!). But I typically link to their pages rather than knowingly attempt to regurgitate whatever they say.

Wrong again, for SS does not even require that all the hearers have a personal copy of the Scriptures, any more than they did when under the Law. Nor does everyone have to be able to read a copy of the US Constitution for it to be the law of the land.

A SS preacher can enjoin obedience to what they preach, but SS means that the veracity of it and binding authority rests upon its Scriptural substantiation.

By whose standard? Someone must interpret the scriptures. Where Protestants and traditional Christians disagree is who should do the interpreting. I'm content to let my Church interpret the texts. They've had 2,000 years to do so and won't necessarily be swayed by events of the day to force the scriptures to say something they don't.

 

[amadeois]

Oooooh my, it is so sad to see what is going here in this thread.

But some people are relentless and stubborn to the max.

But that is the way they see it, not the light. Blinded by the lies of the enemy of Yahweh.

So why waste more time trying to show them what they refuse to see.

Similar to the faraoh in Egypt, his heart got harder and harder.

So friends, those that know the truth, I'm out of here.

 

[amadeois]

Sad, so sad. Is pathetic.

 

[amadeois]

I'm going camping. Chiao.

 

[rturner76]

Then you are living in the wrong era. V1 states regaredin gPI:
"So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

But PI was a highly contentious and politicized debate, and a late product. Thus the 1860 edition of Keenan's Catechism in use in Catholic schools in England, Scotland and Wales attributed to Protestants the idea that Catholics were obliged to believe in papal infallibility:

(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no
decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.

Question, if one is to be anathema for this reason, must you be pronounced that way by a Priest? Is it simply by internally doubting one is automatically anathema? I think it's more the concept of PI than what it actually is. It's the Pope speaking on behalf of the church on an issue the church has looked at studied and agreed on. 'Not just the Pope getting up there and free styling on the microphone

That is one small step for a RC man, but one giant leap of logic for a man of Scripture, seeing as the book of Romans (nor any other letter to churches) does not teach the papacy, praying to created beings in Heaven, justification by merit, nor any Cath distinctiv

Right and here is where the RC also parts with the EO in philosophy. It is believed that when Jesus went up to heaven, he sent the Holy Spirit to guide the disciples (Apostles). It was believed the Holy Spirit was to guide them in their teaching and writing through divine revelation. It is then believed that the Apostles, through the Apostolic succession then passed on the Holy Spirit and the gift of Divine Revelation to their followers. This is why the church believes more can still be revealed. I believe the EO teaches all has already been revealed. I believe this is how things like slavery and the death penalty have been found to be wrong when they were acceptable at a different time during the life of the church.