Posted on 05/05/2024 1:52:05 PM PDT by ebb tide
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I found that part. But Jesus is The Rock not Peter. The gates of hell prevailed against Peter three times while he denied knowing his Lord. So, His Church is not built on the shifting sand of mankind. NO! It is built on the Cornerstone (Who is Jesus). And no mention of successorship, written or implied.
"Now it would be rather silly for someone to think that God meant for his church to be founded only to die with Peter."
Now why would a sane person ever think that?? Only a Catholic would pose that hypothetical. Peter had no supremacy over the others and that is obvious in various texts. In fact he was called out over his hiding his eating habits with Gentiles and even Paul said he was no less an apostle than Peter. There goes your Petrine Supremacy theory out the window.
see post #41.
Show me in the Bible the passage that records Jesus telling Martin Luther that he was authorized to start a new church in his name.
That is the commission of all of the saved. To witness to others. Martin Luther did so at great risk of injury to himself. He read the Bible. He followed what light was given unto him. The Catholic Church had become quite corrupt at that time and God decided it was time for a reformation (for those who hear and think). Thank God for Martin Luther.
Luther lives rent free in the mind of the Roman Catholic.
Martin Luther couldn’t keep his promise of chastity and edited the Bible to suit his own weakness. Began the nonsense of easy salvation. Jesus said the gate to Heaven is “narrow” and warned few find it. Said not everyone who said to Him “Lord, Lord” would enter the Kingdom of Heaven, demolishing the idea of certain salvation by mouthed formula.
“If a godly person is barely saved, where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?” -1 Peter 4:18
Luther’s errors have resulted in all the nonsense we see today. Catholics and Christians almost universally using abortifacient contraceptives. Catholics and Christians having abortions and justifying it. Divorce, multiple marriages, fornication, lustful thoughts no big deal because one is “saved”, porn addiction, IVF, freezing eggs, etc. How many times do the Scriptures tell Christians not to deceive themselves with rationalizations of their sins?
I ask again, where is Martin Luther written in the Bible? I’d really like to look those verses over carefully. Thanks in advance.
Using your own logic, if he’s not mentioned in the Bible as God’s representative, he’s not a legitimate representative of God, and your faith is based on a lie.
Tell us all about the "assurance" that you have that your minister is giving you the "correct interpretation of the Word".
How do you know it's correct? Because you agree with it? Hardly an objective test. Hardly a test that matters to anyone except you and God.
Rome has only dogmatically defined less than 40 verses of the Bible
Ex cathedra teachings do not, generally speaking, "dogmatically define" verses of the Bible. (What would that even mean? How would you "dogmatically" exhaust all possible meanings? Why would you even want to do that? "Hey Scripture scholars, your job on this verse is done; nothing more need be said." ... why?)
They do dogmatically define specific teachings concerning faith and morals. So that, for example, when Arius taught that God-the-Son incarnate in Jesus was a "lesser god" who was created by the Father at a point in time ("there was a time when He was not" was their slogan), the Nicene council authoritatively, dogmatically, said, "NO" ... God the Son and God the Father are homousios ("of one substance") and God the Son was eternally "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God".
And when Pelagius said that grace consisted of us being able to save ourselves by our own efforts and that the Cross was just Jesus giving us a good example, the Church authoritatively -- dogmatically -- stepped in, most notably at the II Council of Orange (a local council given dogmatic force by a later Papal decree) and said, "NO" ... apart from grace you are dead in your sins and can do nothing at all to gain God's favor.
I'm betting that you agree with both of those positions. Christians don't have to re-fight those fights because the Church, at a very early stage, ruled dogmatically on them. If my priest teaches contrary to those dogmatic positions, I know he's not teaching the faith.
His vow was based on misinformation. The Church lied to him. Peter was married. There was no commandment to be celibate. There should be no coercion. For ML to continue his work as a priesthood that he felt called to, a man made requirement was burdened on him. Therefore the vow was nullified because it was based on lies.
Would it be fair to say that you've not actually read Pastor Aeternus?
It never directly uses the term "Papal Infallibility". Here is the money quote (and also the only instance of the term "infallibility" in the document).
... we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, **1** in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **2** in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he **3** defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals **4** to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
I helpfully noted the FOUR conditions required for a Papal **teaching** to be infallible: **1** **2** ... so on.
That infallibility belongs to the Pope only when he proclaims a doctrine meeting all four conditions; it doesn't somehow inhere in him personally on a continuous basis.
So how is that any different? How do you know your local Bible study leader, if the RC has one, is right in what they’re teaching?
Show us the passages that clearly declare Mary as sinless, our best advocate, etc.
Martin Luther was way more the Christian than your Frankie the ex-bartender.
Are you saying all the bulls and other writings from the pope aren’t valid or binding on the Roman Catholic?
Who's "we"? If you mean "Catholic laypeople," you're quite wrong. In fact, private Bible reading is an indulgenced act, and has been for a long time. The Church can't promote anything more highly than to attach an indulgence to it.
Only Rome can tell us what is or isn’t right.
Wrong. God didn't give you a conscience as a vestigial organ. It's your duty to form your conscience by studying correct teaching, among other things. Sitting around waiting for Rome to rule on every jot and tittle will keep you waiting for a very long time.
It's been 2000 years, eagleone. Most question have been posed before, most of the answers, with varying degrees of authority, are written down in books. Much of it is even on the Internet. If I had trouble understanding something or it seemed contradictory, it's not that hard for me to find a solid priest and ask him.
Your question is a little bit like asking how anyone do mathematics without the International Mathematics Union issuing an authoritative decree that every line of every solution to every problem is correct. If you're just trying to compute how much fertilizer you need for your lawn, you don't really need to go to the world's highest authority on math to figure it out.
How do you know your local Bible study leader, if the RC has one, is right in what they’re teaching?
I don't go to parish lay-led Bible studies, because they're usually really bad. (Not goring any individual ox here; I'm just speaking generally, in my experience ...) As I say, if I have a question, the answer is usually written down (I have a fairly big bookshelf) or on the Internet.
Do Roman Catholics not say we have to “cooperate” with God for our salvation? Sounds like they’re making the same error you note of Pelagius.
Why do you immediately jump from "not infallible" to "not valid or binding"?
(And btw, something can be "valid" but "not binding" quite easily. Clement XIV's decree suppressing the Jesuits was absolutely valid. It is not binding on me in any way; this is not the 18th century, and I am not a Jesuit.)
Active cooperation is necessarily enabled by actual grace. Look it up.
Rome only began promoting individual Bible study in 1943 IIRC. I guess that could be a long time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.