Posted on 02/17/2009 9:44:00 AM PST by NYer
You wrote:
“Did you see my earlier comments about Galatians 2, where Paul corrects Peter on his misguided doctrine?”
It wasn’t doctrine. It was actions.
“And don’t lecture me about “infallibility.” I know very well what it is.”
Apparently you don’t. If you did you would know that Galatians 2 has nothing to do with infallibility.
“Peter was NOT infallible, even after he supposedly became the first Pope. Indeed, he was neither recognized as the primarily leader in the early church, nor as infallible in the area of doctrine. Those ideas sprouted later, and are false.”
No. He was recognized as the leader of the Church - that’s why the whole Church prayed for Peter was he was arrested. And that’s why everyone held their silence when he spoke in Acts 15.
“Yes, I am a Protestant.”
Noooooo! Reallllly? What a shock.
“I protest against the false doctrines introduced by Rome, and promote the true doctrines of Scripture. May Christ alone be glorified and honored.”
What you protest is truth and what you promote is simply Protestantism which has little to do with the truth.
Learn about infallibility before you attack it.
As written here:
The favorite argument of the non-Catholics is one which we will touch on briefly, and have in fact mentioned above. It concerns the first pope, Saint Peter, and his not eating with the gentile converts. This is mentioned in Galatians 2:11-14; Saint Paul says that he corrected and rebuked Peter. Surely, the argument goes, if Saint Peter were not infallible, then how could he be the first pope (if the pope is infallible) or, if Saint Peter were the first pope and was not infallible, how could all the other popes be infallible?
This argument is easy to refute by a close reading of the text. It is made very clear in the Scripture that Saint Peter did not in fact teach or solemnly define something which was wrong. In fact, quite the opposite – Saint Peter had argued that Jewish and Gentile Christians should eat together – but he just wasn’t living up to his own teaching! Saint Paul rebuked him not for an error in teaching, but rather for hypocrisy. This is a clear – and probably the first – example of infallibility versus impeccability.
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/4i.htm
But you see that’s your own personal interpetation on it.
The same reason my hubby came home to the Catholic church.
You are some human giving your take on Our Lord’s words. So what? Who are you?
The Vatican has 2000 years of scholars studying those words. Some spend his entire life on ONE Gospel or book.
Now some poster on the internet puts up something different and I should say, Mon Dieu! 2000 years of Bible study was WRONG!
Seriously, when some posters come on with his/her take on how the Vatican is wrong on the Bible, it’s like watching Loose Change.
And the gates of Hell did not prevail against His church...
The gates of Hell prevailed against the OT saints...And would have prevailed against the church except that Jesus went to Hell...
Jesus has the keys and He unlocked the gates of Hell, took captivity captive and now all passed on Christians go to Heaven instead of Hell...
The gates of Hell have absolutely NOTHING to do with whether Satan will attack or control your church...
Hey, pick up a bible and study it...It's chock full of information that you won't pick up at your church...
I understood that some of you guys just stepped over it...I'll bet you could even step in it and not get your feet wet...
And that's where I stopped reading your comment, as I assume you too are "some human."
I should add that Christendom “has 2000 years of scholars studying those words.” Not just Rome, but all of Christendom.
As I wrote earlier, may Jesus Christ the Savior of the world increase; may Rome decrease. Your idolatry of Rome is a stumbling block to your relationship with the Lord. Your calling it “home” is a symptom of your idolatry.
>>And that’s where I stopped reading your comment, as I assume you too are “some human.”<<
I listen to the scholars. I have interpreted scripture before (in my experimenting days) and got it wrong. I’ll trust the experts, thanks.
>>Your idolatry of Rome is a stumbling block to your relationship with the Lord. Your calling it “home” is a symptom of your idolatry.<<
Oooooo, the same idolotry of my dentist, right?
If I have to have a tooth filled, I’m not going to do it myself. I go to someone who has studied and knows what he is doing.
Same with Scripture. And btw “Rome” is a city. The people who studied the Scriptures were from the Vatican. Not a guy on the streets of Rome.
Yes. Also, the priest's teachings must also be compared to the interpretations of the Magisterium (i.e., not just to Joe Catholic's private interpretation of Scripture and Tradition). If a priest is out of Communion with the Magisterium, he is not to be followed.
So I apparently agree with you that the author misses the mark on describing the missing Protestant infallibility, and I am disappointed in the article for that reason. I would instead say it rather depends on the Protestant. Some may in fact or in practice place it in their pastor, just as some Catholics may in fact or in practice follow their own priest away from the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church. But most Protestants would hold infallible the human authors of Scripture when they were writing Scripture (Catholics would agree), and also the 16th-18th Century compilers of the Protestant canon (the Protestant Bible's table of contents). Some Protestants also accept some of the early Church Councils, e.g. the Nicene Creed, whereas other churches will adopt their own creeds, e.g. the Confession of Augsburg. Most Protestants also hold implicitly to certain "dogmas" (e.g. sola scriptura) which are extra-scriptural.
>>I would instead say it rather depends on the Protestant.<<
Amen!!!!!!
If we taught or thought that Popes can never err the Galatians episode would be a challenge. But we don't, so it isn't. In fact, in the forward to a recent book of his Papa Ben explicitly says that his thoughts in the book are not proposed nor to be taken as infallible. It might be worth your while to learn what we teach about Papal Infallibility before you disagree with it.
Further, there is no clear record of Peter propounding doctrine. What we have instead is good, old Peter wimping out again, as if to inoculate the Catholics of later centuries against the scandal of papal peccability.
Catherine of Siena, a major figure of the lay Dominicans and a doctor of the Church had no reticence about upbraiding popes.
By the way, in the reflection on the keys, our studies take us to Shebna and Eliakim of Isaiah 22 as well.
It is always good to study the Scriptures in humility, praying that God will give us an ear to hear His Word. (Okay, maybe not ALWAYS good. If the house is on fire or somebody needs help with the dishes, maybe doing to\he Word is better, for a while but only for a while, than reading it ....)
It doesn't take 2000 years to study the scriptures...And it seems history reveals that many of those scholars spent most of their time trying to figure out how to understand and apply Holy Scripture in the view of secular philosophy...
Some spend his entire life on ONE Gospel or book.
A life time on one book??? And he still didn't get it??? Perhaps someone should have suggested to this guy that he may do better in another line of work...
Isn't that an oddity??? When I go home, it will be to Heaven...When they go home, it's to Rome...
Oh.
Can you talk about the difference between doctrine and deeds. May I assume you know very well that they are distinct?
Do you know very well that it appears that what you think we teach about papal infallibility and what we in fact teach are different?
I don't know much, very well or poorly. But I do know that when somebody says I think something I know I don't think, I find it hard to believe him. And when an argument is based on that shaky foundation, I know I find it hard to pay attention.
It sounds like you are right to reject what you think the Catholic Church teaches. But I'm hitting a wall on the "know very well," since what you know is so different from what I have learned in attending and giving classes and in studying the question. You are clearly rejecting something, but that something is not what I embrace.
So when Zion's Crossroads Baptist Church has a homecoming they kill everyone who attends? Or is it possible that "home" is used equivocally, meaning one thing in one context and another in another?
In most cases but in yours, nope...
In a weekly catechesis, Pope John Paul II wrote:
In the context of Revelation, we know that the "heaven" or "happiness" in which we will find ourselves is neither an abstraction nor a physical place in the clouds but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father that takes place in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit. It is always necessary to maintain a certain restraint in describing these "ultimate realities" since their depiction is always unsatisfactory (July 21, 1999).
The fundamental essence of heaven is union with God. The Catechism explains that "perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity . . . is called ‘heaven.’ Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness" (CCC 1024). It also states that "heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ" (CCC 1026).
From this place (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0509bt.asp)
You guys don't believe in Heaven as we do...For you, it's not a physical place...It's a state of mind....So I can understand why Rome is your home, your heaven...
But for us Bible Believers, Heaven is a physical, real place...And THAT place is OUR home...
Leaving aside the futility of insisting that I think what I don't think ...
"real" and "physical"— We've been round the houses on these words before.
To me "real" strictly speaking, means 'of or pertaining to a "thing"', so, by extension, existing in some manner comparable to that in which a thing exists. It comes from the Latin word "res" which means thing.
"Physical" comes from the Greek word φυω (phuo, noun cognate φυσις, phusis) to grow, the way plants and animals grow. This implies changing. It is often translated as "nature" which pertains to things that have a nativity, a birth. You have criticized those who take recourse to philosophy, but you use the language of philosophy to make your assertions.
But if you say that heaven is "real" and "physical" does this mean that you think the Holy Spirit in which a union with the Trinity must take place, and the Son through whom such a union is mediated, and the Father to whom we hope to be united are UNreal?
Or, if heaven is a real and physical place, are those words used in the same way of union with God? If not, and if in heaven we are still in the MERELY real and physical do we not "see Him as He is?"
If we see Him with "real and physical" sight in a real and physical place, is He a real and physical object among the other objects in heaven? My current "real and physical" sight is limited so that I can only look at so many things at a time. Will my hoped for vision of God obscure my sight so that looking at Him I can see the real and physical angels, saints, the glassy sea, the white robes, and crowns?
From my point of view your "real and physical" heaven is pretty small beer compared with the more than real and more than physical self-disclosure of God to the Blessed and the "ultimate realities" which are greater than the merely "real and physical".
And if you read the text you cite you will find that it says, ""heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ" (CCC 1026). We do not claim perfect incorporation into Christ for the members of the Church on earth. in our view the Church is rather a sacramental sign, that is it causes what it represents, of heaven, in a manner similar (but not exactly like) the presence of God in the Eucharist is not the same as the presence of God in the beatific vision.
So this quote will not serve to show that we use "home" univocally of Church and Heaven.
Will my hoped for vision of God obscure my sight so that looking at Him I can cannot see the real and physical angels, saints, the glassy sea, the white robes, and crowns?
Do you also write some of the Harry Potter stories???
The car you drive is real...It’s physical...The bed you sleep in is real, physical...
The scripture says God real and is a Spirit, not physical...The scriptures says the Holy Spirit is real, and a Spirit, not physical...
The scripture says Jesus is real, and physical...The scripture says all three are one...But all separate...I believe that...
So why not knock off all the double speak and admit whether you think heaven is real and physical, or no...If you could get your car to heaven, could you drive it on the streets of heaven??? Yea or Nea...Simple as that...
You said something. I questioned it. You did not address the questions but made personal remarks.
Have a nice day.
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.