Pope says uniting Christianity requires conversion

cna ^ | January 18, 2012 | David Kerr

[Quix]

Among laity within this class it is true that here are somewhat different ideas on God/Christ, and especially on other matters, yet this is typically limited, while the same is true within Roman Catholicism regarding Christ and some other core truths, even more so than among evangelicals, while what Roman Catholics can and do disagree on (including what is official doctrine) is far more than is usually known or admitted.

Thus rather than SS overall promoting widely variant views of God, instead what is evident is an overall unity in this, and in certain other core basics, with aberrant views in these most basic core teachings being more among those who effectively hold to sola ecclesia.

In addition, what this model arguably fosters among [Roman] Catholics is laity in doctrine, and more leaving Rome for evangelical churches than the reverse, which is due is typically said to be due to spiritual lack in Rome and not doctrine in particular.

Furthermore, if SS is to be disallowed due to people being able to interpret the source of their doctrine differently, then so must sola ecclesia, as her people can interpret differently what is infallible (and thus requiring assent of faith) and what is not, as well as to some extent what it means, as well as in teachings of the Ordinary magisterium which make up much of what Roman Catholics believe and practice. To which is added the extensive liberty Roman Catholics have to interpret the Bible within the parameters they interpret Rome to set.

Therefore both [Roman] Catholics and SS Protestants hold to a supreme doctrinal authority, but both require some interpret and both see differences according to that, which is only about degrees. While the unity of Rome is organizational, and conciliar and ritual professions of assent of faith to some teachings, but neither of which is necessarily greater than in conformity than in cults or can be under any one particular magisterium. Meanwhile, unity based on required assent of faith [is] inferior in quality, if not quantity, to that which is the result of the Berean heart and method.

Rather than how effective one model is against disunity being the criteria for authenticity, how it compares with the Scriptural model should be the basis.

It is true that the apostles expected faithfulness to what they taught (though comprehensive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not realized), as do SS preachers, however this was not based on the premise of an assuredly infallible perpetual magisterium (despite promises to not forsake Israel), but instead the church began in rejection of that model, as John the Baptist, Christ and the apostles did not have authority based on perpetuation via formal decent of office, and were opposed by those who sat in the seat of Moses, and their authority was challenged by the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders (Mk. 11:28-33).

But their authenticity was established through conformity to Scripture and Scriptural supernatural means of attesting to the Truth, especially new revelation. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jun. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 17:2,11; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12)

And impenitent disobedience to an apostle was met with real power, not the carnal instruments of the Inquisitions.

Rome “infallibly” claims apostolic authority, but it lacks the authenticating qualifications. And rather than the Reformation making man to be God on earth, this is the place Papal power would declare it had.

Scripture is abundantly evidenced to be the standard for obedience and for testing truth claims, which those which added to it had, and it remains the supreme authority today. And as the the apostles persuaded souls by “the manifestation of the Truth,” (2Cor. 4:2) so must teachers today, the manifest regeneration which the preaching of the gospel of grace effects being an aspect of that. To God be the glory.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED!

Given the Pope's Astronomer's declarations that the demonic fallen angels must be considered to be brothers and sisters, worthy of baptism, the infallibility farce has taken a new, even sharper and lower, nose-dive toward hell.

[CynicalBear]

>>Without MAN, your stool falls to the ground.<<

That’s right. Without man there would be no “church”. And there is no way I would make the other two legs you talk about equal to God or His word.

[MarkBsnr]

Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Thanks for supporting my point. If recordings in a book are that important, then they all would be recorded. If the Faith is most important, then it is not necessary that every detail is recorded.

You know, my faith has been so strengthened on FR due to the abysmal failure of the antiCatholics to prove it wrong and by that failure, to spur me on to prove it right. I must thank you and all of your compatriots.

[Running On Empty]

I understand what you are saying.

[daniel1212]

“But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty,” (PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE, Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII, June 20, 1894) how dare you disagree, for “Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law” (PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS).

[CynicalBear]

>>(e) There is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (cf. 1 Pet 5:13).<<

There is a serious problem for the RCC if they hold to the contention that the reference in 1Peter 5 is to Rome. The reference to Rome as “Babylon” was much later than Peter’s writings. Any reference to Rome in any writings is long after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. 1 Peter was written around 10 years before that. It is impossible to find any reference to Rome as Babylon prior to that.

On the other hand we do know that there was a church in literal Babylon and it was a large center for Jews to which Peter was the apostle. We also know that literal Babylon was where many of the Jews went after the destruction of the second temple in 70AD. Babylon was a large center for Jewry and the move to Babylon increased after the Bar Kokhba war in 132-35AD. We know the city was still there when Trajan entered Babylon in 115AD. It wasn’t until around 200AD that Babylon was deserted. There is no reason to believe either from scripture or history that Peter was not writing from literal Babylon in 1 Peter 5.

If the RCC insists on Rome being refered to in 1 Peter 5 than they must also concede that John was writing about Rome in Rev. 17.

Revelation 17:5 and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery, “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”

Is Peter writing from Rome in 1 Peter 5 and is Rome indeed the “mother of harlots”?

[Iscool]

You know, my faith has been so strengthened on FR due to the abysmal failure of the antiCatholics to prove it wrong and by that failure, to spur me on to prove it right. I must thank you and all of your compatriots.

Why??? It appears that you have failed at every turn...You can't respond to any scripture that is given to point you in the right direction...

You seem to get shot down every time you post some scripture to defend your religion's position...

I don't believe you are strengthened at all...I think you are just in too deep, or too prideful to admit you are wrong...

[daniel1212]

Good post.

But Rome has infallibly declared that she is infallible, when speaking according to her infallibly declared scope and subject-based formula, even if that is not necessarily a formal infallible exegesis of Mat. 16:18 (as the reasoning and arguments behind an infallible decree are not necessarily infallible). Which verse can also mean, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (CCC, pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with, as does Scripture for the Object of said faith being the Rock. (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)

[daniel1212]

Not to mention that Christianity itself was not founded upon the premise of an assuredly infallible perpetual magisterium instrumentally assured via formal decent (though SS affirms ordination), as that would have required all to have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) and thus there would have been no church. As also argued here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2834915/posts?page=131#131, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2834915/posts?page=157#157

[metmom]

I hope I am not being presumptuous to say that you are a sinner. Yet, you believe that in spite of being a sinner, the Holy Spirit can/will guide you to the truth. What would make you different from the Church?

It doesn't. We keep trying to tell you that. The Holy Spirit was given to men individually, not an organization to an elite group of men. Eery believer has the Holy Spirit living within him to guide us into truth as Jesus stated.

The nature of mankind did not change with the coming of Christ, rather the nature of the covenant changed for we now had a perfect sacrifice and a perfect intercessor for our redemption.

On the contrary, Scripture does indeed teach us that we have a new nature. We are born again (John 3) and receive that new nature which wars against the old nature (Romans 7&8).

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

If we are born again, born to life spiritually, we'd BETTER exhibit a new nature. It comes with the territory.

If someone can't see a dramatic change in their lives with that commitment, they need to take a really close look at exactly what it is they believe and what it is that they professed to.

1 Corinthians 2:16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

[boatbums]

Thanks for supporting my point. If recordings in a book are that important, then they all would be recorded. If the Faith is most important, then it is not necessary that every detail is recorded.

That Scripture passage, contrary to how you state it, proves to us that Holy Scripture's purpose is to be THE authority for our faith. Of course, not everything Jesus did was written down, but we have assurance that everything he TAUGHT that is necessary for us to know and believe, HAS been written and we do not need to be subservient to outside writings or "traditions" in order to have this assurance. So, yes, faith must be present to enliven and energize the truth - to internalize it and live by it. That is why John said what he did that not everything Jesus did was or could be written down, but what has been written is so that we may KNOW and BELIEVE "that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name". Any extraneous writings or traditions that subtract from that assurance can and should be denied and counted as false.

[MarkBsnr]

Appreciate the compliment, but I'm only an engineer.

Requires much study nonetheless, while i did graduate from high school (in Amerika), and have my BA (born again) and PHD (preaching Hell and damnation) and other degrees (or grace)!

There are many who rise above their circumstances.

There is only one Church; however there are many Protestant churches and even more churches of one.

There is only one holy Roman Church® according to her infallible definition of herself with her distinctive doctrines such as papal infallibility

There is only one holy Catholic Church who teaches the Faith given by Jesus to the Apostles and handed down to us.

while Protestantism, being not one particular formal church but many, ought to at least be defined according to its most basic historical distinctive, that of formally and effectively holding to the Scriptures as the Divinely inspired Word of God and being the supreme authority for its doctrines (i.e. evangelical type churches versus liberal theology) in contrast to an office of men which are formally or effectively held as infallible and supreme over Scripture (as they uniquely authoritatively defines the contents and meaning of Scripture).

I would rather define it as the personal interpretation of Scripture in order to define individual beliefs on a whim.

Thus the real comparison is between sola Scriptura versus sola Ecclesia.

And the far reaching implications.

As far as official statements, the Roman Catholic Church has its magisterium which, even if claiming universal jurisdiction, effectively can only claim jurisdiction over her own flock, and thus it differs somewhat from the EOs and some Catholic churches. But all hold to the Apostle's Creed and other statements defining who God is.

The only ecumenical Creed is the Nicene Creed. And all Churches are somewhat in communion. It is less a matter of theology and more a matter of clashes of individuals.

Thus rather than SS overall promoting widely variant views of God, instead what is evident is an overall unity in this, and in certain other core basics, with aberrant views in these most basic core teachings being more among those who effectively hold to sola ecclesia.

Negative. There is Catholic teaching versus what a Pelosi or Kennedy might hold, versus what individual Protestants or Protestant churches do hold given their claim of personal interpretation.

It is true that the apostles expected faithfulness to what they taught (though comprehensive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not realized), as do SS preachers,

SS preachers expect adherence to whatever it is that they preach today.

And yesterday, today and tomorrow may or may not have any similarity to SS preachers.

Scripture is abundantly evidenced to be the standard for obedience and for testing truth claims, which those which added to it had, and it remains the supreme authority today. And as the the apostles persuaded souls by “the manifestation of the Truth,” (2Cor. 4:2) so must teachers today, the manifest regeneration which the preaching of the gospel of grace effects being an aspect of that. To God be the glory. Sorry for the length.

However, Scripture was not the model for the first Christians. Teachings of the Apostles and the early Church was. Scripture simply backed up what the Church taught. Paul says that the Church is the basis and pillar of truth, not Scripture.

Your essays are normally well reasoned and thought provoking. Thank you.

[MarkBsnr]

Since I post far more Scripture in defense of my positions, that is rather odd statement to make.

FOTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reality is real, no matter how the children of the Reformation wish otherwise.

[MarkBsnr]

More generally, every argument for Petrine primacy is an argument against papal primacy since the more that Catholicism plays up the unique authority of Peter, as over against the Apostolic college, the less his prerogatives are transferable to a line of successors. There’s a basic tension between the exclusivity of his office vis-à-vis the Apostolate and the inclusivity of his office vis-à-vis the Episcopate.

An interesting essay. However, we have the requirement of succession, as in Mattias and as in Timothy and Titus. Petrine 'supremacy' is actually first among equals, rather than true supremacy.

[MarkBsnr]

I do not debate with those who lie about me.

I have no idea what you are talking about but whatever it is, you obviously made it up... But it doesn't matter to me in the least whether you respond to me...

I do not debate with those who lie about me.

[MarkBsnr]

You know, my faith has been so strengthened on FR due to the abysmal failure of the antiCatholics to prove it wrong and by that failure, to spur me on to prove it right. I must thank you and all of your compatriots.

Why??? It appears that you have failed at every turn...You can't respond to any scripture that is given to point you in the right direction... You seem to get shot down every time you post some scripture to defend your religion's position... I don't believe you are strengthened at all...I think you are just in too deep, or too prideful to admit you are wrong...

I do not debate with those who lie about me.

[Jvette]

As usual, this exhibits a profound lack of understanding of the progression of the Church, which while still the same Church as in the NT in substance, if not form, as well as a lack of understanding of the primacy of Peter, within the Church.

As you note, the authority to bind and loose is given to all the Apostles, but Peter was singled out, not just in the passage regarding the keys, but in many others as well.

The papacy is not a dictatorship or monarchy, but a seat of authority and leadership, which is always administered in communion with the other bishops.

Let’s look at the example of the Council of Jerusalem. Peter and Paul come to the council made up of the leaders of the church. Peter makes his case, explaining the revelation the Lord gave him in a dream. Paul testifies to the works done for the Gentiles and James then solidifies the consent of all with his verdict.

Peter does not just say this is the way it’s going to be. The leaders came together and consulted each other and the Holy Spirit guided them to accept the truth.

Later on, we have Paul receiving a revelation and then going to consult the others regarding his preaching.

The pope does not just make arbitrary pronouncements in a vacuum. That is why doctrines come as a result of a council and always comes under “we” not “I”.

It is noteworthy too that just as the deity and two natures of Jesus were officially defined, ALL of the official doctrines of the church came over a course of generations, sometimes centuries.

As we look back through all of salvation history, we see that God ALWAYS gives His people a leader. Abraham, Moses, Joseph, David and with each new leader is a renewing of the covenant and a broadening of it to include more and more people.

Jesus is the leader of the new covenant and of the church, but He works through those human leaders of the church through the Holy Spirit.

The problem is with thinking that every exact situation the Church has faced and will face was specifically covered in Scriptures. The Bible is not an exhaustive historical record, but a spiritual, doctrinal and congregational guide.

This is why the writings of the early church fathers are so important. They are not the Bible but they leave us a record of how the church was understood in the first few generations after Christ and how the hierarchy developed and why the church has its center in Rome.

Discount it all you want, but the proof is in the pudding and from the accounts of early Christians, we know that the Church in Rome was considered to be the See of Peter, because he was martyred there.

There isn’t a single writing from any early Christian that says differently.

[Jvette]

****If Peter did not believe what he was doing was right, it was hypocrisy...If he did believe what he was doing was right, it was false doctrine...****

Do not add to Scripture what is not there, which is what Peter did or did not believe. The rebuke was for failing to live up to what they had decided in Jerusalem regarding the Gentiles.

That was hypocrisy, which is exactly what Paul called it.

Peter was not perfect, none of them were, none of us are.

But, God has not demanded perfection from those He has chosen to lead us. Moses acted without God’s consent and suffered the consequence of not entering the Promised Land.

David was extremely sinful. God made him a great king, the line from which Jesus comes to us, despite having to forgive him many, many sins.

[Jvette]

I never said it was the same Spirit.

Tell me, when you were looking for these verses which you use, did you happen to see the one by St. Paul about how the one Spirit gives different gifts to different people?

[Iscool]

I do not debate with those who lie about me.

So that's your story and your stickin' to it...HaHaHa...

Whatever...