Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. The Holy Father is infallible only in certain limited circumstances . . . when making an official pronouncement ex cathedra. I believe it's only been done twice in this century.
That's quite different from Christ's promise that Peter is the rock on which He will build His church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
This writer is conflating two different issues and thus is attacking something that doesn't exist.
He's also dead wrong about the evidence from the "first several centuries" of the early Church of the primacy of Rome and its authority over the entire Church. Multiple letters survive from many bishops (I recall one from St. Irenaeus) acknowledging the primacy of the successor of Peter.
You know, the Tiber does have bridges. Doesn't anyone just walk?
The writer says he agrees with "98% of the content of the deposit of the faith” that is held by Roman Catholicism. In other words, there is only 2% of Roman Catholic doctrine he disagrees with. Since he choses to remain in the ECUSA, he must have a 99 – 100% level of agreement with the current policies and theology of ECUSA. Given what he says elsewhere on his blog, that is hard to believe.
The Sovereign Drug Arminianism
The "Sovereign drug, Arminianism," which said the Jesuit, "we (i.e. we Papists) have planted" in England, did indeed bid fair "to purge our Protestant Church effectually. How merrily Popery and Arminianism, at that time, danced hand in hand, may be learned from Tindal: "The churches were adorned with paintings, images, altar-pieces, & etc. and, instead of communion tables, alters were set up, and bowings to them and the sacramental elements enjoined. The predestinarian doctrines were forbid, not only to be preached, but to be printed; and the Arminian sense of the Articles was encouraged and propagated."10 The Jesuit, therefore, did not exult without cause. The "sovereign drug," so lately "planted," did indeed take deep root downward, and bring forth fruit upward, under the cherishing auspices of Charles and Laud. Heylyn, too, acknowledges, that the state of things was truly described by another Jesuit of that age, who wrote: "Protestantism waxeth weary of itself. The doctrine (by the Arminians, who then sat at the helm) is altered in many things, for which their progenitors forsook the Church of Rome: as limbus patrum; prayer for the dead, and possibility of keeping God's com- mandments; and the accounting of Calvinism to be heresy at least, if not treason."11
There is no differance beteen a arminian and catolic other than one is dressed to look like a protestant.
I am by no means saying this to in any way bash our orthodox catholic brethren who embrace the great truths of church fathers like st.augustine.
Orthodox Catholicism embraces the doctrines of grace more than pale luke warm Protestantism.
I would much rather a believer to be under the teaching direction of the current administration in rome the the apostasy of warren,olsteen and their ilk.
5 solas!
p.s. before you post a response visit my profile page:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~alpha82502/
GODSPEED!
TexAnglican needs to realize that in the passage he cites from Galatians II, that Peter's actions are not a declaration Ex Cathedra, nor are they a statement from a duly declared (not necessarily called by the Pope) council, nor are they declarations made by the Pope and the Bishops scattered around the world in agreement. Peter's actions are just that, actions and therefore do not come into the realm of infallibility.
Taylor Marshall is a very fine young man of firm convictions. God love him. He is very brave like many of these new spiritual sons to the Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman.