thessalonian Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1297483721' post='2211571'] Jesus also told the other apostoles 'what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven...' etc etc. i think he said it applied to anyone. matthew 18 not to get into a bible debate about infallibiity. i'd say history is more important given the inconclusiveness of hte bible, and i'd say history favors the view of the Orthodox church more than the CC [/quote] Anyone? The statement in Matt 18 is to the apostles collectively, including Peter. This to me fits will with infallibility of councils who are the sucessors of the apostles. Thus it seems very appropriate and consistent with Catholic theology that Matt 16:18 points to papal infallibility and there is a passage very much like it that shows the broader infallibility of the Bishops in council with the Pope. Dairy you go 90% with Catholicism then you do something like this asserting your personal opinion. Trust not in your own understanding dairy. Prov 3:5. God gave shepherds after his own heart who will provide you knowledge and understanding. Jer 3:15.
MarkKurallSchuenemann Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 Healthy rebukes are great for the faith. It is too bad you can't rebuke too much anymore - most people get so defensive when you say - look, I don't agree with that.
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) it looks to me like matthew 18 is for everyone. you deal with unrepentent people as described by matthew 18. that passage is used to describe how to deal with them, by everyone. it's not thought of as only applying to the apostles, in everyday reference. that verses seems more like dilluting the 'binding and losing' passage of of Peter and the keys. Edited February 12, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c
kafka Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 [quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1297501055' post='2211633'] But Cephas is Simon Peter. And in Aramaic it (Cephas) means "The Rock" just like in Matthew 16 when Jesus refers to Peter as the Rock. I can't see why we wouldn't think that Cephas in Galatians is not the same person. Unless you want to rely on someone's dream. I am not going to. [/quote] Right. Her private revelations are fallible, I place some value on them, but one shouldnt rely on them. [quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1297526750' post='2211676'] It is not wrong to rebuke a leader. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the pope that was trying to keep the papacy in Avignon. Good that Catherine Emmerich is not infallible. History, tradition, and the passage itself do not support her. To me this story confirms Catholic understanding of infallibility. This type of claim is an overelevation of the papacy in the minds of some. The humanity of the office is to be understood while the divinity is recognized. Peter was known to have been Bishop of Antioch for a time so that supports it being him. Historically Peter/Cephas was extremely rare as a name in these days. [/quote] Right, and I agree about rebuking and the limits of the Pope. I just thought it was interesting. I still think it is strange that Paul uses both names in the passage: Peter and Cephas, and lists James before Cephas, but the interpretation favoring it being Peter and the fact that the Pope is not personally infallible, is sinful, can make an unwise decision, can hold a personal opinion that is erroneous and so on is certainly valid in my eyes.
infinitelord1 Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 [quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1297529939' post='2211695'] Healthy rebukes are great for the faith. It is too bad you can't rebuke too much anymore - most people get so defensive when you say - look, I don't agree with that. [/quote] I like it when people rebuke me from sin. So long as they don't think they are in charge of me in anyway. Besides that I feel a sense of structure from it.
tinytherese Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 [quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1297467635' post='2211512'] When was the doctrine of Papal infallibility established? Do we have evidence, such as early Church Father teachings, of Papal Infallibility before the Edict of Milan? Other than scripture of course. [/quote] Yes, there is eveidence in the writings of the early Church Fathers in belief in papal infallibility. http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
MarkKurallSchuenemann Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 [quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1297564712' post='2211854'] I like it when people rebuke me from sin. So long as they don't think they are in charge of me in anyway. Besides that I feel a sense of structure from it. [/quote] I like it too. Though some of my rebukes on this board have been - "We've got 2,000 years of tradition that says you are wrong," . . . Especially on a debate board, nobody should be that rude!
infinitelord1 Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 (edited) [quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1297571694' post='2211872'] I like it too. Though some of my rebukes on this board have been - "We've got 2,000 years of tradition that says you are wrong," . . . Especially on a debate board, nobody should be that rude! [/quote] That is the truth though. Tradition says you are wrong. Accept it. Stop being so stubborn. Edited February 13, 2011 by infinitelord1
MarkKurallSchuenemann Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 [quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1297574155' post='2211888'] That is the truth though. Tradition says you are wrong. Accept it. Stop being so stubborn. [/quote] LOL! That made my day! Thanks.
infinitelord1 Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 [quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1297574706' post='2211890'] LOL! That made my day! Thanks. [/quote] When was it that I was rude to you by the way? Because I recall you making a comment, "They can be even worse to work things out than a Catholic". Yeah I can see how that may spark some remarks out of me that may seem rude.
MarkKurallSchuenemann Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 [quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1297574827' post='2211891'] When was it that I was rude to you by the way? Because I recall you making a comment, "They can be even worse to work things out than a Catholic". Yeah I can see how that may spark some remarks out of me that may seem rude. [/quote] Not you. When I was discussing demonic possession, and I made it known that I believe the only power Satan has is lies - he may convince people to do the wrong thing, but a person can still choose not to do what is being suggested, I got that a lot. Our traditions say you are wrong, and that Satan really does have control over the person's body and they can't do anything but that. . . I wouldn't back down from this, I think such stories are great for Hollywood movies and TV shows, but a demon can't take over your body and force it to do things you don't want to do.
infinitelord1 Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 [quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1297575179' post='2211892'] Not you. When I was discussing demonic possession, and I made it known that I believe the only power Satan has is lies - he may convince people to do the wrong thing, but a person can still choose not to do what is being suggested, I got that a lot. Our traditions say you are wrong, and that Satan really does have control over the person's body and they can't do anything but that. . . I wouldn't back down from this, I think such stories are great for Hollywood movies and TV shows, but a demon can't take over your body and force it to do things you don't want to do. [/quote] Explain to me what your traditions are...and trace them back historically.
MarkKurallSchuenemann Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 (edited) [quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1297578468' post='2211904'] Explain to me what your traditions are...and trace them back historically. [/quote] I have scripture that traces itself back to the times of the apostles, and my own life experiences. And I always evaluate every doctrine I hear - which is scriptural - Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge - [b][url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+14:29&version=KJV"]1 Corinthians 14:29[/url][/b] - by looking at one scripture. God doesn't give the spirit of fear, but one of power, love, and a sound mind. On the demonic possession stuff, I rejected it because well - the idea that a demon can take over someone's body and make that body do whatever it wants, [b]to the person who has been possessed horror[/b] (that is fear which God doesn't give the spirit off - imagine the idea that God can take down your defense at any time and allow Satan to have your way with your body - against your will - causing your body to stab people or slit people's throats, or murder people, or commit robberies - ect, ect, ect - wouldn't that scare you!), doesn't sound very sound to me. It makes for great TV shows and movies, but I don't believe a demon can truly do that. The person must accept it's influence to that degree. I was possessed by a religious demon for almost 9 years, and trust me - I had the ability to decide things - but it would influence my actions by giving me pleasure for following what it wanted me to do - and so I continued to submit to it because I thought it was God giving me joy - but I was still in control, and when good Christian friends of mine told me that was what was happening, I had the ability to pray against it and send it to hell. See the subtle difference between my life experience and what Catholic Church says is demonic possession. According to them, I shouldn't have been able to pray that day because the demon was in charge. . . So I have an obligation to not accept that doctrine because it is a fearful doctrine that doesn't make much sense. But my thoughtful rebuke of that doctrine was only meet with - our church has 2,000 years of that doctrine so you are wrong by some people. Sure, there were a couple of people who happened to agree with me that it is only emotional influence causing people to do evil things, but there were others who were outright said I was wrong and wouldn't back down. Edited February 13, 2011 by MarkKurallSchuenemann
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now