Peter the First Pope?

[Trento]

Who is denying what was pulled together. Are you saying all these protestants you listed agree with the RCC traditions over scripture? I THINK NOT. (otherwise they wouldn't be protestants.)

This is quite clear.

If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles.
the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606)

 

[DArceri]

This is quite clear.

If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles.
the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606)

Scripture is scripture...Once it was agreed upon, book closed. Tradition just gets in the way of God's WORD for SALVATION. If you want to jump through hoops to get to the LORD , be my guest.

 

[DArceri]

The church of Rome claims that the Bible is the inspired Word of God but, in reality, they supplant and undermine its absolute authority by exalting church traditions, councils, and decrees above the Scriptures. In fact, the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.) declared that church tradition was of equal authority with the Word of God.

It's either the WORD OF GOD and INFALLIBLE or its something less. ....The RCC has it as something less by adding its rituals with it and saying its equal.

PS. Scripture is abundently sufficient.....

 

[Trento]

The church of Rome claims that the Bible is the inspired Word of God but, in reality, they supplant and undermine its absolute authority by exalting church traditions, councils, and decrees above the Scriptures. In fact, the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.) declared that church tradition was of equal authority with the Word of God.

It's either the WORD OF GOD and INFALLIBLE or its something less. ....The RCC has it as something less by adding its rituals with it and saying its equal.

PS. Scripture is abundently sufficient.....

Scripture says Profatible no sufficient.
Timothy 3:16–17, for example: "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for train.

Big difference.But the word that Paul uses here is profitable, not sufficient. The normal word for "sufficient" in Greek that Paul uses elsewhere is hikanos. In 2 Timothy 3:16, he uses the word ophelimos, which is closer to the meaning of "profitable" or "useful." Something can be profitable without being sufficient. In other words, it can be a necessary condition without being a sufficient one. In fact, that is what the Catholic Church would say. Scripture is necessarybecause it is the written revelation of God himself. But that does not mean that it is sufficient for every purpose.
But there is an even more telling reason why we should not pit Scripture against Tradition by appealing to this passage in Timothy. In these pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), Paul actually appeals to the notion of Tradition as a necessary and valuable supplement to the Old Testament, which he referred to in 2 Timothy 3:16–17.

 

[jckstraw72]

PS. Scripture is abundently sufficient.....

and yet we cant even agree on what it means. apparently its not so sufficient in the interpretation area.

 

[DArceri]

and yet we cant even agree on what it means. apparently its not so sufficient in the interpretation area.

When you try to mix tradition in with scripture, it does become confusing.

 

[jckstraw72]

When you try to mix tradition in with scripture, it does become confusing.

1. even all the other Protestants who boldly eschew what they think Tradition is do not agree with you. That's why Protestantism is woefully divided.

2. The Church came first, then the NT and then hte canon of the Bible. The Gospels and Acts especially are written records of Church Tradition. The canon of the Bible was decided, with God's guidance, based upon what books the Church was reading in its liturgical tradition.

 

[DArceri]

Infallibility
Mary Ann Collins
(A Former Catholic Nun)​

February 2002​

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, popes and Catholic church councils are infallible. This means that whenever they make official declarations concerning matters of faith or morals, God supernaturally protects them from making errors. Infallibility applies to all Roman Catholic popes and church councils: past, present, and future. [Note 1] "Webster's Dictionary" defines "infallible" as "not capable of erring". It says that "infallible" as used by the Roman Catholic Church means "incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals".
What happens if a pope or a Catholic church council makes an "infallible" declaration which directly contradicts the "infallible" declaration of another pope or church council?
Truth does not contradict truth. Therefore, if the "infallible" pronouncements of the popes and Catholic church councils really are infallible, they will never contradict other "infallible" pronouncements. So if there is even one contradiction, then the doctrine of infallibility cannot be correct.
The claim for papal infallibility does not stand up to the test of history. Pope Zosimus (417-418 A.D.) reversed the pronouncement of a previous pope. He also retracted a doctrinal pronouncement that he himself had previously made. Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 A.D.). (This means that Honorious made doctrinal statements which are contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.) He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century. So here we have "infallible" popes condemning another "infallible" pope as a heretic. In 1870, the First Vatican Council abolished "infallible" papal decrees and the decrees of two "infallible" councils. [Note 2]
The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith on November 1, 1950. This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. However, as we will see, the teaching of the Assumption of Mary originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church.
In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Here we have "infallible" popes declaring a doctrine to be a heresy. Then on November 1, 1950, we have Pope Pius XII (another "infallible" pope) declaring the same doctrine to be official Roman Catholic doctrine, which all Catholics are required to believe. [Note 3]
So before November 1, 1950, any Catholic who believed in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic (because of "infallible" declarations of popes). But after November 1, 1950, any Catholic who failed to believe in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic (because of the "infallible" declaration of Pope Pius XII).
In 1864, Pope Pius IX "infallibly" declared that the idea that people have a right to freedom of conscience and freedom of worship is "insanity," "evil," "depraved," and "reprobate". He also declared that non-Catholics who live in Catholic countries should not be allowed to publicly practice their religion. In 1888, Pope Leo XIII "infallibly" declared that freedom of thought and freedom of worship are wrong. These encyclicals are available on-line. [Note 4 gives addresses for them.]
The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) produced a document entitled "Declaration on Religious Liberty" which states that all people have a right to freedom of religion. [Note 5]
Now I certainly agree with the idea of freedom of religion. However, it totally contradicts the "infallible" declarations of Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII. It also contradicts the anathemas of the Council of Trent, the killing of "heretics," the Inquisition, the burning of people who translated the Bible into the language of the common people, and the persecution of Protestants.
Freedom of religion also contradicts modern Canon Law (1988). Canon 1366 says that parents are to be punished with "a just penalty" if they allow their children to "be baptized or educated in a non-Catholic religion". The reference to baptism shows that this refers to Christian religions which are not Roman Catholic. [Note 6] (During the Inquisition, "a just penalty" included things like torture and being burned at the stake. The Inquisition was based on Canon Law.) (See the article "Hunting 'Heretics'".)
Here the Catholic Church is on the horns of a dilemma. If it says that people have a right to freedom of religion, then it admits that it is not infallible. If it says that it is infallible, then it admits that it really does not believe that people have a right to freedom of religion.
The Catholic Church can claim infallibility, or it can claim that it has seen the error of its ways and it now supports freedom of religion. But it can't have it both ways.
Two Roman Catholic organizations have found contradictions between "infallible" doctrinal declarations of the Second Vatican Council and "infallible" doctrinal pronouncements of Pope Pius IX. [Note 7 gives addresses of on-line articles dealing with these contradictions.]
The conservative group (True Catholic) concludes that, therefore, the Second Vatican Council must not be legitimate. The liberal group (Women Priests) concludes that, therefore, Pope Pius IX taught "errors". Either way, there are contradictions between official doctrinal declarations of an "infallible" pope and an "infallible" church council.
True Catholic also claims that Pope John Paul II has taught 101 things which are contrary to "infallible" Catholic doctrines which were declared by "infallible" popes and church councils. They conclude that John Paul is therefore a heretic, which, according to Canon Law, means that he is not a valid pope. So they call him an anti-pope. [Note 8 gives the address of an on-line article.]
If John Paul II is not a valid pope, then the papal chair has been vacant. In order to rectify this situation, True Catholic has elected a pope. On May 20, 1998, Pope Pius XIII was elected. [Note 9 gives the address of an on-line article.]
So we now have two men who claim to be Pope: John Paul II and Pius XIII. It seems that having two popes at the same time is not confined to the Middle Ages.​

SUMMARY
There are "infallible" doctrinal declarations which contradict one another. Therefore, the doctrine of infallibility is not valid.
The contradiction of "infallible" doctrines has caused some very conservative Catholics to believe that John Paul II is not a valid pope, and the Second Vatican Council was not a valid council. It has also caused some very liberal Catholics to believe that Pope Pius IX taught doctrinal errors.

USE OF THIS ARTICLE​

I encourage you to link to this article. You have permission to quote from this article, as long as you do it fairly and accurately. You have permission to make copies of this article for friends and for use in classes.


www.CatholicConcerns.Com


​

A personal letter from the author of why this website was created:
http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Reader.html

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The church of Rome claims that the Bible is the inspired Word of God but, in reality, they supplant and undermine its absolute authority by exalting church traditions, councils, and decrees above the Scriptures. In fact, the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.) declared that church tradition was of equal authority with the Word of God.

It's either the WORD OF GOD and INFALLIBLE or its something less. ....The RCC has it as something less by adding its rituals with it and saying its equal.

PS. Scripture is abundently sufficient.....

As I understand it, the RC denomination self-claims to be THE Teaching Authority (not God's Holy Word). And, it self-claims, the Bible means whatever it says it says since it ALONE is the "sole interpreter" of it. The Authority, then, is in the Church's interpretation of the text rather than in the text itself. But it's more complex than that. The Bible is infallible and inerrant and authoritative because it's divinely inspired, they insist, but so is the Teaching of the RC denomination ("infallible preching/Apostolic Tradition"). Since God cannot contradict Himself, ergo the Bible MUST agree with the RC denomination. Any interpretation of Scripture that would even appear to disagree with the teachings of the RC denomination is in error and must be rejected. The Bible MUST be interpreted via the "lens" of the teachings of the RC denomination and any correct interpretation will confirm the teachings and claims of the RC denomination.


I hope that helps a bit.


Thank you for your valued input!
And for reading my $0.01



Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

1. even all the other Protestants who boldly eschew what they think Tradition is do not agree with you. That's why Protestantism is woefully divided.

2. The Church came first, then the NT and then hte canon of the Bible. The Gospels and Acts especially are written records of Church Tradition. The canon of the Bible was decided, with God's guidance, based upon what books the Church was reading in its liturgical tradition.

It's interesting to me that Eastern Orthodox Christians yell, "WE are THE Church - and WE are right!" At the same time, Roman Catholics yell, "WE are THE Church - and WE are right!"

Your fight is not with those who want to read and believe the Bible...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


To the question of our thread....



Since there's nothing in God's Holy Scriptures that addresses this question, all we have is fallible human history.


So, what does that human history say? What contemporary, objective, unbiased historical confirmation exists that Peter was the first POPE (or a POPE at all)? During my years of being a guest in my Catholic church, all I saw was extremely biased opinions from CENTURIES later that had anything to do with this topic.

But I am very open to such. Something unbiased from the 60's or even 70's that clearly indicates Peter was regarded as a POPE (not simply in Rome or a pastor in Rome or a bishop in Rome - but the Infallible Pope, supreme above all bishops in normative authority, the 'Vicar of Christ,' not simply 'first among equals.'). Until then, IMHO, it's a completely unsubstantiated self-claim. That doesn't make it wrong, of course, but it doesn't make it right either, it just makes it an unsubstantiated self-claim.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

Infallibility

Mary Ann Collins
(A Former Catholic Nun)​

February 2002​

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, popes and Catholic church councils are infallible. This means that whenever they make official declarations concerning matters of faith or morals, God supernaturally protects them from making errors. Infallibility applies to all Roman Catholic popes and church councils: past, present, and future. [Note 1] "Webster's Dictionary" defines "infallible" as "not capable of erring". It says that "infallible" as used by the Roman Catholic Church means "incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals".
What happens if a pope or a Catholic church council makes an "infallible" declaration which directly contradicts the "infallible" declaration of another pope or church council?
Truth does not contradict truth. Therefore, if the "infallible" pronouncements of the popes and Catholic church councils really are infallible, they will never contradict other "infallible" pronouncements. So if there is even one contradiction, then the doctrine of infallibility cannot be correct.
The claim for papal infallibility does not stand up to the test of history.

SUMMARY
There are "infallible" doctrinal declarations which contradict one another. Therefore, the doctrine of infallibility is not valid.
The contradiction of "infallible" doctrines has caused some very conservative Catholics to believe that John Paul II is not a valid pope, and the Second Vatican Council was not a valid council. It has also caused some very liberal Catholics to believe that Pope Pius IX taught doctrinal errors.​

USE OF THIS ARTICLE
I encourage you to link to this article. You have permission to quote from this article, as long as you do it fairly and accurately. You have permission to make copies of this article for friends and for use in classes.


www.CatholicConcerns.Com



​

A personal letter from the author of why this website was created:
http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Reader.html​

*edited for brevity*

This summarizes much of what I've recognized over the years with this particular denomination. I'm glad to see it expressed so concisely. Not as a put-down, but in hopes that some folks will understand that none of us have arrived yet..."For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:12

Why does it matter if Peter was the first pope or not? Is there some "supremacy" issue that needs to be proven? Do any of us HAVE to be THE ones who have everything right? I don't get it.

Some of both the RCC and Orthodox Churches lay claims to the TRUE teachings of the Church Fathers by Apostolic succession etc. etc. But there are areas of these "truths" where both are not in agreement. Simple logic demands that at least one of the two is wrong.

How do we discern the truth? By the Word of God...but some of these things are "dogmas" and aren't found IN the Word of God...now what? How do we discern the truth?

We can test the spirits and see if they be of God. This is a quarrelsome thing...its been going on for how long now? Is quarreling among bretheren a God thing? "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" Psalm 133:1

"Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen." 2 Timothy 2:14 NIV

Testing the spirits is a bit shaky for me...

Hmmm...help me with this...how does Peter being a pope or not being a pope help me with my present day, immediate relationship with my Father in heaven? Will it affect the praises I shout to Him? Will it affect the love He has for me? Will it really, really benefit me in any way?​

 

[StTherese]

Hmmm...help me with this...how does Peter being a pope or not being a pope help me with my present day, immediate relationship with my Father in heaven? Will it affect the praises I shout to Him? Will it affect the love He has for me? Will it really, really benefit me in any way?

To have the fullness of Truth!

 

[Trento]

Infallibility​

Mary Ann Collins
(A Former Catholic Nun)​

February 2002​

Mary Ann Collins cannot be located other than on her web site. She states on her web site that her father and pastor cautioned her not to give any personal information. Collins obeyed them with such zeal that many Catholics and Protestants alike now question whether she exists at all or is actually a creation devised by a person or people to credibly spread disinformation about the Catholic Church. In this information age it is fascinating to find someone about which there is no concrete information. No one has admitted ever knowing or seeing her. No one knows where she lives or what she does for a living. She has never given an interview, including anything as innocuous as speaking at a local church to promote her discoveries or books. This is a level of privacy not achieved even by Jack Chick, a famous and notoriously reclusive distributor of anti-Catholic materials. Despite all his efforts at concealment, because of his belief that the Catholic Church pursues ex-Catholics, basic details of Chick’s life and career have gradually trickled into public knowledge. Furthermore, he occasionally has been seen in public which has resulted in a hand-drawn sketch.

Maria Monk in the 19th century claimed to be a nun that escaped after years of torture and sexual degradation at a convent in Canada. According to William Donohue, President and CEO of the Catholic League, she "popularized so many of the anti-Catholic stereotypes that would persist in the American consciousness well into the 20th Century." Even after Maria Monk was exposed as a fraud by Protestants -- she never was a nun and never set a foot in the convent -- she remains popular today among Fundamentalist Christians who still read her book.
In the summer of 1869, newspapers throughout Europe and the United States were filled with graphic accounts of the torture and imprisonment of Barbara Ubry, a nun in the Carmelite convent of Cracow. She was allegedly held for twenty-one years for fear that she may expose the sexual crimes committed by the Father Confessor of the convent. Her story also turned out to be false without any evidence that she existed. Historians point to the anti-clericalism in Europe and the US that fed this story. The most recent fake nun is Sister Charlotte, who died in 1983, whose story bears similarities to Maria Monk.
Will Mary Ann Collins be the new addition to the canon of fake nuns? Her story will continue to be investigated.
We sent several emails to Mary Ann Collins but never received any answer.

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

Well I certainly don't want to be "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Timothy 3:7

So where do I find this..."truth"?

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:" John 16:13

"Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." John 14:17

OK, the Spirit of Truth is in me, but what is truth?

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." John 17:17

How do I know if someone's telling me the truth about God's Word?

"And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." 1 John 5:6

How do I know if I can trust someone else's word?

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 2:3

"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." John 15:12

If there is contention, division and strife, the fruit is missing...when the fruit is missing, so is the truth. Why climb an apple tree if you don't see any apples?

Again, on this point of contention, what wonderful benefit will knowing the truth about it have in my life? Will it change the number of people I reach for Christ? Will it cast demons out of people? Will it raise the dead?

Will it glorify Jesus...or someone else...?

 

[DArceri]

......... That's why Protestantism is woefully divided.

In an age of "progressive" thought and "modernism", there is always going to be a struggle to hold on to memberships. Everyone today wants their church to adapt to todays lifestyles and when the a church doesn't, they move on.


A sad problem in most churches is that the members of a church do not necessarily believe in their church's doctrines (or don't know what their church's doctrines are). This maybe particularly true of Catholics, and Orthodox Christians because people in these groups often belong on the basis of family ties. Liberal Catholics and Orthodox Christians do not as readily move from church to church as many Protestants do. For example, a theologically liberal Baptist may join a Methodist church while the theologically liberal Catholic is more likely to remain Catholic.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

Mary Ann Collins cannot be located other than on her web site. She states on her web site that her father and pastor cautioned her not to give any personal information. Collins obeyed them with such zeal that many Catholics and Protestants alike now question whether she exists at all or is actually a creation devised by a person or people to credibly spread disinformation about the Catholic Church. In this information age it is fascinating to find someone about which there is no concrete information. No one has admitted ever knowing or seeing her. No one knows where she lives or what she does for a living. She has never given an interview, including anything as innocuous as speaking at a local church to promote her discoveries or books. This is a level of privacy not achieved even by Jack Chick, a famous and notoriously reclusive distributor of anti-Catholic materials. Despite all his efforts at concealment, because of his belief that the Catholic Church pursues ex-Catholics, basic details of Chick’s life and career have gradually trickled into public knowledge. Furthermore, he occasionally has been seen in public which has resulted in a hand-drawn sketch.

Maria Monk in the 19th century claimed to be a nun that escaped after years of torture and sexual degradation at a convent in Canada. According to William Donohue, President and CEO of the Catholic League, she "popularized so many of the anti-Catholic stereotypes that would persist in the American consciousness well into the 20th Century." Even after Maria Monk was exposed as a fraud by Protestants -- she never was a nun and never set a foot in the convent -- she remains popular today among Fundamentalist Christians who still read her book.
In the summer of 1869, newspapers throughout Europe and the United States were filled with graphic accounts of the torture and imprisonment of Barbara Ubry, a nun in the Carmelite convent of Cracow. She was allegedly held for twenty-one years for fear that she may expose the sexual crimes committed by the Father Confessor of the convent. Her story also turned out to be false without any evidence that she existed. Historians point to the anti-clericalism in Europe and the US that fed this story. The most recent fake nun is Sister Charlotte, who died in 1983, whose story bears similarities to Maria Monk.
Will Mary Ann Collins be the new addition to the canon of fake nuns? Her story will continue to be investigated.
We sent several emails to Mary Ann Collins but never received any answer.

What will it benefit to investigate her story? Whether she truly exists or not doesn't really matter. The facts don't change...

 

[Trento]

*edited for brevity*


Hmmm...help me with this...how does Peter being a pope or not being a pope help me with my present day, immediate relationship with my Father in heaven? Will it affect the praises I shout to Him? Will it affect the love He has for me? Will it really, really benefit me in any way?

The Pope has the ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church. This, my friend, was the ministry of the fisherman named Simon Peter and that of the Roman bishops who succeeded him.

Truth by its very nature is unitive not divisive and Our Lord not only prayed for unity among His believers (John 17) but He also warned that divided houses could not stand (Matt. 12:25-29; Mark 3:23-26; Luke 11:14-20). There is a fundamental rule to logic that is called the "Law of Non-Contradiction" and it could be argued that by implication Our Lord was teaching it when he spoke about Satan casting out Satan. The Law of Non-Contradiction applies perfectly in these passages because it basically states that something cannot be both true and false. This is what happens if Satan casts out Satan- he contradicts himself. Therefore through self-contradiction his kingdom cannot stand. Well, what is happening when you have thousands of Christian groups professing different beliefs and all claiming to follow "the Bible"? How does this square with the exhortations not only from the Scriptures but also from the writings of the early Church Fathers about the necessity of maintaining unity??? Unfortunately most Christians regardless of affiliation are ill-equipped for fostering an atmosphere of greater understanding. This is primarily because most Christians do not seem willing to take the time to learn what their fellow Christians believe. In addition, they have the view that "it does not matter what you say because I am right anyway" which of course only causes more problems and exasperates the scandal.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Pope has the ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church.

I respectfully disagree.

Pope Benedict has some authority within the Catholic DENOMINATION because those within it so ascribe such to him. He has no authority over the 1,000,000,000 other Christians.


Dr. Jerry Kieschnick has some authority within the LCMS denomination (not much, LOL) because we so ascribe such to him. He has no authority over you.


Christ is the Lord of the Church.
The job is taken.

He also warned that divided houses could not stand (Matt. 12:25-29; Mark 3:23-26; Luke 11:14-20).

So maybe the Pope's propensity to excommunicate others (resulting in over half not being in Catholicism), the split from the Orthodox Church in 1054, and all those dogmas declaring others to be heretics might cause some to pause and reflect on the disunity that has resulted? Just a thought.

There is a fundamental rule to logic that is called the "Law of Non-Contradiction" and it could be argued that by implication Our Lord was teaching it when he spoke about Satan casting out Satan. The Law of Non-Contradiction applies perfectly in these passages because it basically states that something cannot be both true and false. This is what happens if Satan casts out Satan- he contradicts himself. Therefore through self-contradiction his kingdom cannot stand. Well, what is happening when you have thousands of Christian groups professing different beliefs and all claiming to follow "the Bible"? How does this square with the exhortations not only from the Scriptures but also from the writings of the early Church Fathers about the necessity of maintaining unity??? Unfortunately most Christians regardless of affiliation are ill-equipped for fostering an atmosphere of greater understanding. This is primarily because most Christians do not seem willing to take the time to learn what their fellow Christians believe. In addition, they have the view that "it does not matter what you say because I am right anyway" which of course only causes more problems and exasperates the scandal.

1. I disagree with your assumption that the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the mystical union of all believers, the communion of saints is an institution and it just happens to be yours. When I confess in the Creed that we believe in ONE holy CATHOLIC church, that's what I mean. I don't have to cross my fingers.


2. The RC denomination might have given that a thought before they split from the Orthodox Church in 1054, created all those new dogmas, excommunicated Luther, etc.


3. Of course, if self declares self to be infallible and the sole teaching authority, then self will accept self as infallible and the sole teaching authority. No one denies that. We might not agree that THAT'S what Jesus was referring to there.



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Rick Otto]

""The Pope has the ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church"

"Unity"...
Who has the power & jurisdiction over men's hearts?

Why then heap stones? Listen to Him,... He prayed for unity, not conformity.

"Truth by its very nature is unitive not divisive..."
Jurisdiction is a division, an extent beyond which authority doesn't reach.
Where does God's jurisdiction end?