What IS MATT 16:18 REALLY TEACHING ?

[One God and Father of All]

There's a lot of back and forth on that. The claim is the infallibility is subject to new revelations from the Holy Spirit, it only matters if it's decided the Pope was speaking "ex cathedra" etc.

"Since the declaration of papal infallibility by Vatican I (1870), Flinn states, the only example of an ex cathedra statement thereafter took place in 1950, when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as an article faith" Link

The RCC has said that there has only been two infallible declarations of the Popes. Which means that only two of their doctrines are considered infallible.
According to scripture, something to be infallible must be something that comes from God Himself. No one knows better than God. Therefore any Pope who would claim his teaching as being infallible must also claim that his instruction came from God himself under inspiration.
Therefore the RCC claims for itself to be under the inspiration of God and it behaves as though it were by fooling the masses to believe them And to reject the scripture and instead believe what they say.

 

[ozso]

The RCC has said that there has only been two infallible declarations of the Popes. Which means that only two of their doctrines are considered infallible.
According to scripture, something to be infallible must be something that comes from God Himself. No one knows better than God. Therefore any Pope who would claim his teaching as being infallible must also claim that his instruction came from God himself under inspiration.
Therefore the RCC claims for itself to be under the inspiration of God and it behaves as though it were by fooling the masses to believe them And to reject the scripture and instead believe what they say.

I can see how that worked for a long time when people didn't have access to information and many were illiterate. But when it comes to modern times with full information being so readily available, there are things that just do not hold up to scrutiny. And it comes down to it being a matter of tradition, rather than being supported by scripture or even early church history. I get told the First Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians is "rock solid evidence" that Peter was the first Pope, and then I read it and see that it clearly is not any proof of that at all. What is one to think when the RCC makes claims that turn out to be flawed and or just plain untrue?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Not unlike most of the stuff I've read from other Roman Catholics regarding Catholocism on CF.

In my years of being in threads like this, so far the only compelling thing I've read from Catholics regarding Catholocism is the comparison of Isaiah 22:20-22 to Matthew 16:18-19.

What does it compel you to believe?

 

[Valletta]

The Catholic Church was not a State Church until after Theodosius. Then the Pope acquired greater status in terms of Church organization and representation of the territory around Rome.

The Church is both in Heaven and on Earth. Here on earth the pope is a spiritual leader, it doesn't matter what "status" he is given in the world.

 

[ozso]

What does it compel you to believe?

In this case I'm using the word compelling as in compelling evidence, meaning not able to be refuted. Or at least not easily refuted.

 

[RandyPNW]

The Church is both in Heaven and on Earth. Here on earth the pope is a spiritual leader, it doesn't matter what "status" he is given in the world.

So now you think of the Pope as a kind of angel or god in heaven? Please explain.

And please explain how a fallen Pope would exercise his "spiritual authority?"

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Church is both in Heaven and on Earth. Here on earth the pope is a spiritual leader, it doesn't matter what "status" he is given in the world.

So now you think of the Pope as a kind of angel or god in heaven? Please explain.

And please explain how a fallen Pope would exercise his "spiritual authority?"

"A spiritual leader" is what @Valletta wrote. Why do you interpret it as "a kind of angel" and "god in heaven"?

 

[Valletta]

I can see how that worked for a long time when people didn't have access to information and many were illiterate. But when it comes to modern times with full information being so readily available, there are things that just do not hold up to scrutiny. And it comes down to it being a matter of tradition, rather than being supported by scripture or even early church history. I get told the First Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians is "rock solid evidence" that Peter was the first Pope, and then I read it and see that it clearly is not any proof of that at all. What is one to think when the RCC makes claims that turn out to be flawed and or just plain untrue?

You say you "get told." By whom? "Proof" for some people varies and is difficult, some even say there is no proof that Jesus existed. Know there is a difference between "claims" by Catholics and official Church teaching.

 

[RandyPNW]

"A spiritual leader" is what @Valletta wrote. Why do you interpret it as "a kind of angel" and "god in heaven"?

The statement was made, "The Church is both in Heaven and on Earth. Here on earth the pope is a spiritual leader, it doesn't matter what "status" he is given in the world."

How am I to interpret this?

 

[ozso]

You say you "get told." By whom? "Proof" for some people varies and is difficult, some even say there is no proof that Jesus existed. Know there is a difference between "claims" by Catholics and official Church teaching.

They get told by their priests and nuns and fellow lay Catholics. Probably most grew up in a Catholic household and perhaps atteded a Catholic school and are told what's what from family and teachers. Most of what I hear from Catholics is from official Catholic teaching. Anything outside of official Catholic teaching seems greatly discouraged. Although opinions and beliefs seem to vary. Such as Xeno disagreeing with senior Catholic apologist Tim Staples on more than one occasion.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The statement was made, "The Church is both in Heaven and on Earth. Here on earth the pope is a spiritual leader, it doesn't matter what "status" he is given in the world."

How am I to interpret this?

It's simple; the pope is leader of the Catholic Church so 1.4 billion people regard him as a significant spiritual leader on Earth. But worldly people spend a lot of time reading news reports that defame the pope, the status that the worldly give to the pope is not so likely to be favourable after they read the character assassinations in the media.

 

[ozso]

It's simple; the pope is leader of the Catholic Church so 1.4 billion people regard him as a significant spiritual leader on Earth. But worldly people spend a lot of time reading news reports that defame the pope, the status that the worldly give to the pope is not so likely to be favourable after they read the character assassinations in the media.

I was under the impression the worldly like Francis because he's not materialistic and seems quite liberal to them. Especially what they perceive as his support for LGBT etc. Whereas the criticism I've heard against him has come from Catholics.

 

[Valletta]

They get told by their priests and nuns and fellow lay Catholics. Probably most grew up in a Catholic household and perhaps atteded a Catholic school and are told what's what from family and teachers. Most of what I hear from Catholics is from official Catholic teaching. Anything outside of official Catholic teaching seems greatly discouraged. Although opinions and beliefs seem to vary. Such as Xeno disagreeing with senior Catholic apologist Tim Staples on more than one occasion.

As to what is discouraged outside of Catholic teaching I don't know how that compares with other religions. Certainly things against Catholic official teaching are discouraged--if you said there are only five commandments or Jesus Christ was not a real historical figure. I don't know how discouragement or encouragement would stack up against other religions. The one area where the Church has, understandably, stepped in is with private revelation, stating particular private revelations are approved to believe in. But outside of that I can't at the moment think of an area I would be particularly encouraged or discouraged in pursuing. People can make arguments one way or another for many things.

 

[ozso]

As to what is discouraged outside of Catholic teaching I don't know how that compares with other religions. Certainly things against Catholic official teaching are discouraged--if you said there are only five commandments or Jesus Christ was not a real historical figure. I don't know how discouragement or encouragement would stack up against other religions. The one area where the Church has, understandably, stepped in is with private revelation, stating particular private revelations are approved to believe in. But outside of that I can't at the moment think of an area I would be particularly encouraged or discouraged in pursuing. People can make arguments one way or another for many things.

As I recall you refer to any form of Christianity outside of Roman Catholicism as other religions. But you know how it goes as well as I do. The schism that exists is the dogma that's specific to Roman Catholicism within Christianity. We don't argue about things like 5 commandments or Jesus not being an historical figure. We argue about whether or not certain Roman Catholic traditions, dogma and rituals have scriptural backing and if they existed in the early church.

 

[Valletta]

As I recall you refer to any form of Christianity outside of Roman Catholicism as other religions. But you know how it goes as well as I do. The schism that exists is the dogma that's specific to Roman Catholicism within Christianity. We don't argue about things like 5 commandments or Jesus not being an historical figure. We argue about whether or not certain Roman Catholic traditions, dogma and rituals have scriptural backing and if they existed in the early church.

Certainly the strong movement still exists to find something wrong with Catholic teaching, it is almost non-existent the other way around. I was responding to your comment about what lines of thought might be discouraged in the Catholic Church, not about what is argued about with non-Catholics.

 

[ozso]

Certainly the strong movement still exists to find something wrong with Catholic teaching, it is almost non-existent the other way around. I was responding to your comment about what lines of thought might be discouraged in the Catholic Church, not about what is argued about with non-Catholics.

As a Catholic you must adhere to Catholic specific tradition, dogma and rituals. Thinking outside of that box is a no no. As for the other way around, I've heard tons of criticism from Catholics regarding non Roman Catholic Christianity. Non-Catholic Christians are heretics who worship the Bible. Since they don't acknowledge Mary the way Catholics do they deny Christology and so on.

 

[RandyPNW]

It's simple; the pope is leader of the Catholic Church so 1.4 billion people regard him as a significant spiritual leader on Earth. But worldly people spend a lot of time reading news reports that defame the pope, the status that the worldly give to the pope is not so likely to be favourable after they read the character assassinations in the media.

You're defending your own belief, and not what the person stated. He stated the Pope is not merely a leader on earth, but also a leader in heaven. What then if the Pope acts inconsonant with biblical/spiritual ideals, which certainly has happened in history? What happens to his "spiritual authority" then?

If you are just going to defend someone because "he is the Pope" you are protecting a sinner when and if he actually sins or perverts Scriptural/spiritual truth. We don't need to have Christian leadership defended if it falls short of good leadership standards.

That is what I believe is a major problem with defense of the Pope by Catholics. He is so elevated that excuses are made for him when he does wrong, or when his beliefs go against the apostles and their teachings.

I am not a Pope basher. But I will not defend Francis when he gives support to "gay marriage blessings!" And I will not defend corrupt Catholic teaching in the name of "Christian unity." Reform the bad doctrine, and get rid of the bad Pope, and we'll be fine.

 

[ozso]

One thing is for sure. Popes are supposed to be successors of Peter, but there are several who behaved in a way Peter never would have.

 

[One God and Father of All]

One thing is for sure. Popes are supposed to be successors of Peter, but there are several who behaved in a way Peter never would have.

The Catholic religion is against the Protestant religion because it has claimed sola scriptura and has denied, rightly so, that doctrines are to be believed based on tradition.

 

[ozso]

The Catholic religion is against the Protestant religion because it has claimed sola scriptura and has denied, rightly so, that doctrines are to be believed based on tradition.

The idea of course is the Catholic Church has full authority over scripture. Which ironically is founded upon a single verse of scripture (1 Timothy 3:15).