Should Women Be Ordained Into the Roman Catholic Priesthood?

I didn't either! I wrote,
"However, the impression I got from the debates was that afterward, the Protestants were still Protestant, and the Catholics still Catholic."

Or, to make it PLAIN, while the debates were interesting and informative, I do not believe they changed anyone's opinion. (Just my opinion, insofar as that I didn't do any exit polls. :))
And that is a fair assessment I think.

The debates didn't convince me that White was correct, I just came away thinking "White is a good debater."

Actually, quite frankly, sometimes I even root for him when he goes up against Catholic Answers. I mean---when the folks at Catholic Answers run around and brag about not bothering to read his works or listen to his debates----they deserve to have White wipe the floor with them. I am not a professional debater and I at least know---that you need to know and understand your opponent. You need to know your opponents arguments inside and out. Preferably, you should be able to argue your opponents points better than your opponent can. Only then are you in a position to debate. White understands that; Catholic Answers does not. And the thing is, apparently Karl Keating was (or is) a lawyer. Keating should know better. Catholic Answers could be so much better; if only Keating would realize that Jack Chick is not representative of actual mainstream Protestant thought.

I read a transcript of a debate between Keating and Bart Brewer. It was very apparent that Keating had not read anything of his opponent when he came to the debate and gave his opening statement. Instead of treating Brewer's arguments he talked about Lorraine Boettner, apparently not realizing that he isn't debating Boettner but Bart Brewer.

Most of the people White goes up against--not just about Catholicism but pretty much anyone he debates aren't professional debaters and it shows. Mitch Paqua is probably one of few actual Catholic scholars he has debated, but Paqua clearly is not a debater. Paqua is brilliant; he is just not a debater. White may debate scholars, but scholars do not usually debate like that. Just because you have a PhD after your name does not mean you can think on your feet, speak well, present the material well, etc. Those who debate have to be able to think on their feet, they have to anticipate any counter points the opponent may come up with.
 
Last edited:
For the "Catholic faith" you would die...in other words, your church body, not for Christ...?

Why do you constantly keep driving a wedge between Christ and my Church as though they are somehow mutually exclusive, as though there is absolutely no relationship and no connection between Christ and my Church?

In dying for my Church I would be dying for Christ, Bonnie. The Church is the Body of Christ. While Christ is not exclusively present in the Roman Catholic Church, he is present in the Roman Catholic Communion, fully and perfectly. Thus, in dying for Catholicism I am dying for Christ.
Your last line is very telling. If you want to know what is wrong with devotion to Mary, read diLiguouri's book THE GLORIES OF MARY and see what devotion to Mary can lead to.

I guess you have a problem with his over-the-top, maudlin sap? Yeah---I can't say I like that myself. It does get a little ridiculous, if not down right annoying.

However, what he is doing is the spiritual equivalent to "I would swim a thousand oceans for you. I would give you the stars. I would scale the highest mountain for you. My love for you is deeper than the deepest ocean." etc. So I have no problem with it; it isn't to my taste, but I have no objection to it in that I think it is heretical.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
The sixth century was it? That is when the Church became Catholic? This is a new one. Usually fundamentalists claim the Church became Catholic with Constantine and that Constantine founded the Church. All of this is nonsense of course, it is just that I never heard the claim that the Church became Catholic in the sixth century.

It began with Leo the I then took great strides under Gregory the Great. It is not "nonsense." That is what Dr. Justo Gonzales told me, and what he wrote in his excellent 2 Volume book THE STORY OF CHRISTIANITY. It WAS a gradual process, as to how the bishop and church in Rome came to be the center of power for the entire church. It did NOT start in the first century.
What happened, what event in the sixth century that you can point to to make the Church Catholic? What was the Church prior to the sixth century? Protestant? Who founded or otherwise made the Church Catholic in the sixth century?
Constantine legitimized the church and when the church was made the official religion of the empire, it started to acquire its power, unfortunately. But Romanization still happened gradually over several centuries.
Gregory the Great filled in the void in leadership left when the barbarians sacked Rome. Gregory was an able, capable man. Prestige for the Roman church went up greatly under him. But it was still a gradual process.
Well I am a Bible believing blood washed child of God by Grace through Faith.
Grace through faith in what? Membership in your church? Believing in Mary as the "only hope for sinners"? Faith in attending Mass?
How is it not a direct answer? We are not Sola Scriptura. Given this, why do you ask us where the Bible teaches Catholic doctrine X or Y?

"Yes" or "no" is a direct answer--saying "We are not sola scriptura" is not. But NOT being sola scriptura is an excuse for the CC to add all sorts of unbiblical doctrines "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." Shameful.
I told you and you continue not to get it: Catholics aren't Sola Scriptura. YOU are the one that is Sola Scriptura. Why are you projecting YOUR standards of evidence on to a Church that has plainly admitted that while Scripture is ONE standard of evidence for a believer, it is not the ONLY standard?

We DO get it and reject it, because adding man-made traditions as doctrine is HIGHLY UNSCRIPTURAL and condemned by Jesus Christ. So, why does the CC go against what Jesus said?
So how about this: I will grant there is absolutely nothing about a pope, Mary, the saints, Purgatory, etc, in the Bible. Now my question: SO WHAT? Why does there have to be anything about these doctrines in the Bible? Why is the testimony of the Church not evidence that these doctrines were taught by the Apostles and revealed by God?
Mariolatry, purgatory, and praying to dead saints are nowhere in the Bible. ONLY by grossly twisting what the Bible says and putting a Catholic "spin" on it, enables Catholics to claim that these things are biblical. But we Protestants know better.

The testimony of YOUR church has zero authority with those of us who ARE sola scriptura. We can also read the Bible for ourselves and see that nowhere are these things taught. Not even a hint.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Why do you constantly keep driving a wedge between Christ and my Church as though they are somehow mutually exclusive, as though there is absolutely no relationship and no connection between Christ and my Church?

Why do some in Catholicism make their church and Jesus out to be practically the same thing, like saying stuff that IF the CC taught something unbiblical or a doctrine could be proven to be untrue, then that would mean Christianity is untrue and they would become atheists? That means they equate their church WITH JESUS CHRIST.
In dying for my Church I would be dying for Christ, Bonnie.

Would you? Since neither Jesus Christ or the Apostles taught much that is taught in your church, how could that be? When your church teaches so much that is the "doctrines of men" and therefore, worshiping God in vain?
The Church is the Body of Christ.

ALL true believers are the Body of Christ--not just your church. And I would think that ONLY those in your church who put their faith entirely in Jesus Christ to save them--and NOT in Mary, or doing penance, attending Mass, etc.--would truly be of that body.
While Christ is not exclusively present in the Roman Catholic Church, he is present in the Roman Catholic Communion, fully and perfectly. Thus, in dying for Catholicism I am dying for Christ.

Oh, goody, so you admit we are Christians and are in Christ Jesus! How nice! And in case you forgot, the LCMS believes in the Real Presence, but also believes that the bread and wine are also still bread and wine, after consecration. Dual natures--just like Jesus. :)
I guess you have a problem with his over-the-top, maudlin sap? Yeah---I can't say I like that myself. It does get a little ridiculous, if not down right annoying.

Good for you. But what diLiguori wrote shows what can happen with hyper-duli-ing Mary. It can lead to putting more faith in Mary for help and salvation than in Jesus Christ, Who IS the ONLY HOPE FOR SINNERS. We can never, ever venerate Jesus too much--but we can mere human beings.
However, what he is doing is the spiritual equivalent to "I would swim a thousand oceans for you. I would give you the stars. I would scale the highest mountain for you. My love for you is deeper than the deepest ocean." etc. So I have no problem with it; it isn't to my taste, but I have no objection to it in that I think it is heretical.
Oh, baloney! What a feeble excuse! What diLiguori wrote goes far beyond the hyperbole of two lovers plighting their troth to each other. I have read the first 3 chapters in his book and they nearly made me sick to my stomach. Too bad he didn't write THE GLORIES OF CHRIST. Then who would there be who would take umbrage with what he wrote?
 

mica

Well-known member
So says the Protestant fundamentalist.
then you replied to the wrong poster.

Time and time again I have told you that I do not accept your characterizations of the Catholic Faith.
so? that doesn't make my characterizations of it false. from your own posts you don't agree with most other catholics and on some things, not even with what the RCC teaches. you pick'n choose your cafeteria beliefs.

I believe that there IS a connection; what I believe is what is relevant here--not what you believe.
that's what you believe, and because you believe it doesn't make it true.
 
It began with Leo the I then took great strides under Gregory the Great. It is not "nonsense." That is what Dr. Justo Gonzales told me, and what he wrote in his excellent 2 Volume book THE STORY OF CHRISTIANITY. It WAS a gradual process, as to how the bishop and church in Rome came to be the center of power for the entire church. It did NOT start in the first century.

So---there was not a pope and bishops who functioned with magisterial authority prior to this point in time? That was all invented under Pope Gregory?

Then who lead the great councils of the Church in these centuries prior? Protestant trustees? Pastor Bob? Who?

This "Dr. Justo Gonzoles" guy makes the mistake that modern Roman Catholic theologians made when they read history: they jump to conclusions. The assume that because the papacy and bishops did not function in exactly the same manner as they do in the modern church that it must mean God never intended for a pope and bishops to exercise teaching authority in the Church or that God did not intend the leaders of his Church to be a pope and bishops.

No one who asserts that that the pope excises a primacy in the Church, no one who asserts that the bishops are the successors of the apostles and posses teaching authority that this means they all functioned, worked and thought exactly as the pope and bishops do today.

Heck--we can use the US as an example of what I mean--and our country is only around 240 years old. The presidency and the vice presidency do not look and operate like they did in George Washington's time. There was not even a Whitehouse at that time. The Vice President during the first 100 years or so of the American experiment was largely irrelevant in politics. Even up to the days of Harry Truman, the Vice President was largely irrelevant. Truman knew nothing of the Manhattan Project until he became president.

Now, what this "Dr. Justo Gonzoles" guy seems to be doing with Church history would be analagous to a historian of American history saying something like "Well, since the presidency and vice presidency do not look, think, feel or act like they did during the early days of our country, we conclude that the presidency and vice presidency as they exist today is an invention.

The offices of the Church tend to function and work as the time and circumstances warrant. That the papacy and bishops didn't act or function exactly like they do today is not evidence that God never intended the office. It is just evidence that different aspects of the office developed as historical circumstances required.

I fully recognize and grant that some of the trappings that became associated with the pope and bishops is not scriptural; however, saying that some of the trappings are not scriptural is not the same thing as invalidating the office altogether.

If I could sum up what I wrote above in a simple way: this "Dr. Justo Gonzoles" character seems to be confusing the founding of an office with the external trappings of said office and concluding that because the external trappings of the office that exist today did not exist then, it means the office itself was an invention.
Constantine legitimized the church and when the church was made the official religion of the empire, it started to acquire its power, unfortunately. But Romanization still happened gradually over several centuries.

Yes, in history, the Church had political power as well as spiritual leadership. But the Church having temporal power is not essential to her mission or the office of pope and bishops.
Gregory the Great filled in the void in leadership left when the barbarians sacked Rome. Gregory was an able, capable man. Prestige for the Roman church went up greatly under him. But it was still a gradual process.

I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
Grace through faith in what? Membership in your church? Believing in Mary as the "only hope for sinners"? Faith in attending Mass?

Faith in Christ. The rest of what you mention are CONSEQUENCES of believing in Christ.
"Yes" or "no" is a direct answer--saying "We are not sola scriptura" is not. But NOT being sola scriptura is an excuse for the CC to add all sorts of unbiblical doctrines "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." Shameful.

You didn't answer my question: why is the testimony of the Church not to be taken as evidence that Scripture teaches something?

You are sort of like atheists who say "There is no evidence for the existence of God" and then make sure that they so narrowly define what constitutes evidence as to conveniently rule out any evidence you can present.
We DO get it and reject it, because adding man-made traditions as doctrine is HIGHLY UNSCRIPTURAL and condemned by Jesus Christ. So, why does the CC go against what Jesus said?

Question begging. Who says that the Catholic Church in fact teaches man made doctrines?
Mariolatry, purgatory, and praying to dead saints are nowhere in the Bible. ONLY by grossly twisting what the Bible says and putting a Catholic "spin" on it, enables Catholics to claim that these things are biblical. But we Protestants know better.

Okay--who says that the way Protestants interpret the Bible and the methods they use are the only valid way to understand what the Scriptures teach? Where does the Bible teach that the modern methods of Scriptural interpretation are absolute and definitive when it comes to what the Scriptures teach? I want chapter and verse.
The testimony of YOUR church has zero authority with those of us who ARE sola scriptura. We can also read the Bible for ourselves and see that nowhere are these things taught. Not even a hint.

Yes--and that conveniently allows you to essentially teach and believe whatever you want.
 
Last edited:
Why do some in Catholicism make their church and Jesus out to be practically the same thing, like saying stuff that IF the CC taught something unbiblical or a doctrine could be proven to be untrue, then that would mean Christianity is untrue and they would become atheists? That means they equate their church WITH JESUS CHRIST.

And I should not do this why exactly?

As I said, Bonnie, the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. Note that the Church of Christ is not bound to or limited to the RCC, but it does subsist in the RCC. Given this, I see no reason to be anything other than Catholic, and given this, if the Church ever formally taught something outside the Bible or something that was untrue, it follows that the Catholic Church cannot be the Church of Christ. But if that is the case, there is nowhere else to go since the presence of Christ anywhere else depends upon his subsistence in the RCC.

In other words: Catholicism is like the real Rolex. Protestantism is like the imitation Rolex--some imitations better than others. But if Catholicism itself is fake, what does that make the fakes?

If the Rolex watch itself is fake and never was truly real, then what does that make the fake Rolex watches? If you can't have the real thing because there never was the real thing to begin with--it was all just a sham, why would you want the fake? Having a fake of the fake is not a better position to be in, Bonnie. Hence why I would never consider Protestantism if the RCC fell.
Would you? Since neither Jesus Christ or the Apostles taught much that is taught in your church, how could that be? When your church teaches so much that is the "doctrines of men" and therefore, worshiping God in vain?

Again, nothing but question begging.
ALL true believers are the Body of Christ--not just your church.

That is correct; but this assumes that there is a real Church to begin with. If there is no real Church, then what are they a member of?
And I would think that ONLY those in your church who put their faith entirely in Jesus Christ to save them--and NOT in Mary, or doing penance, attending Mass, etc.--would truly be of that body.

Except that the purpose of penance is not to get forgiveness of sin. In fact, works of penance presuppose forgiveness. This is something you fundamentalists do not seem to grasp. We do not do penance to get forgiveness, we do penance because we are forgiven. Works of Penance try to set right the evil we have done in an analagous way that a spouse might buy flowers for his wife as a sign of his sorrow for whatever he did that was wrong.
Oh, goody, so you admit we are Christians and are in Christ Jesus! How nice! And in case you forgot, the LCMS believes in the Real Presence, but also believes that the bread and wine are also still bread and wine, after consecration. Dual natures--just like Jesus. :)

Yes, I know what you believe. You see it as a sacramental union.

Question: how is that different from Consubstantiation? You did explain it once to me before--but that was a long time ago and I forget what you said.
Good for you. But what diLiguori wrote shows what can happen with hyper-duli-ing Mary. It can lead to putting more faith in Mary for help and salvation than in Jesus Christ, Who IS the ONLY HOPE FOR SINNERS. We can never, ever venerate Jesus too much--but we can mere human beings.

Well, since we are not set to become GOD, Jesus cannot be our hope, now can he? Our hope can only be in something we will legitimately have and was promised by God. What does Mary have that all Christians will have one day? PERFECT redemption. That is why Mary is our only hope; she has now what we all one day desire and are striving for. Jesus is our hope in that we believe he will save us; Mary is our hope because in her is redemption. Redemption is not in Christ, is it? Christ is not redeemed is he? Where is redemption? In Mary and by extension the Church; the Church is what is redeemed.

Oh, baloney! What a feeble excuse! What diLiguori wrote goes far beyond the hyperbole of two lovers plighting their troth to each other. I have read the first 3 chapters in his book and they nearly made me sick to my stomach. Too bad he didn't write THE GLORIES OF CHRIST. Then who would there be who would take umbrage with what he wrote?

Well then, we see the matter differently don't we?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
So---there was not a pope and bishops who functioned with magisterial authority prior to this point in time? That was all invented under Pope Gregory?

In Rome itself, sure. But i meant with absolute authority over the entire church. That was a gradual process.
Then who lead the great councils of the Church in these centuries prior? Protestant trustees? Pastor Bob? Who?

Who led the Counsel of Jerusalem in Acts 15?
This "Dr. Justo Gonzoles" guy makes the mistake that modern Roman Catholic theologians made when they read history: they jump to conclusions. The assume that because the papacy and bishops did not function in exactly the same manner as they do in the modern church that it must mean God never intended for a pope and bishops to exercise teaching authority in the Church or that God did not intend the leaders of his Church to be a pope and bishops.

Gonzalez's' area of expertise is the the church and its history. Notre Dame university uses some of his books in their curriculum, so they apparently don't consider him to be a heretic. So, I doubt that Gonzalez made a mistake. You are just guessing. History is history. It is YOUR church that mischaracterizes the history of the church, when it says that Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church. That is false. Jesus founded THE CHURCH, period, which is made up of all people who confess and profess Jesus Christ as Lord and God and Savior and trust in Him only for salvation, great and free.
No one who asserts that that the pope excises a primacy in the Church, no one who asserts that the bishops are the successors of the apostles and posses teaching authority that this means they all functioned, worked and thought exactly as the pope and bishops do today.
So? Your church still wasn't founded by Jesus Christ.
Heck--we can use the US as an example of what I mean--and our country is only around 240 years old. The presidency and the vice presidency do not look and operate like they did in George Washington's time. There was not even a Whitehouse at that time. The Vice President during the first 100 years or so of the American experiment was largely irrelevant in politics. Even up to the days of Harry Truman, the Vice President was largely irrelevant. Truman knew nothing of the Manhattan Project until he became president.

The USA isn't the church. Bad analogy.
Now, what this "Dr. Justo Gonzoles" guy seems to be doing with Church history would be analagous to a historian of American history saying something like "Well, since the presidency and vice presidency do not look, think, feel or act like they did during the early days of our country, we conclude that the presidency and vice presidency as they exist today is an invention.

What Dr. Gonzalez did was write the church's history as it should be written. Not as the RCC WANTS it written.
The offices of the Church tend to function and work as the time and circumstances warrant. That the papacy and bishops didn't act or function exactly like they do today is not evidence that God never intended the office. It is just evidence that different aspects of the office developed as historical circumstances required.

There wasn't any "papacy" in the early church which is my point. It took several centuries for the papacy with supreme power over the entire church to develop.
I fully recognize and grant that some of the trappings that became associated with the pope and bishops is not scriptural; however, saying that some of the trappings are not scriptural is not the same thing as invalidating the office altogether.

Not only trappings, but some teachings are not scriptural--like being subject to the pope being necessary for salvation. Care to show us THAT in the Bible?
If I could sum up what I wrote above in a simple way: this "Dr. Justo Gonzoles" character seems to be confusing the founding of an office with the external trappings of said office and concluding that because the external trappings of the office that exist today did not exist then, it means the office itself was an invention.

Gonzalez is not confused at all. You are just guessing.
Yes, in history, the Church had political power as well as spiritual leadership. But the Church having temporal power is not essential to her mission or the office of pope and bishops.

I realize that, but back hundreds of years ago, the church had both political power as well as ecclesiastical power.
I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

it is part of the history of the church and how it came to be centered in Rome. Read up on Gregory the Great.
Faith in Christ. The rest of what you mention are CONSEQUENCES of believing in Christ.

IF that were true, there would be NO cathedrals named "Our Lady of Salvation" or a title for Mary "only hope for sinners." There would be no need to believe we need Mary to intercede for us with her Son, to save us from His supposed wrath.
You didn't answer my question: why is the testimony of the Church not to be taken as evidence that Scripture teaches something?

Please restate the question; I am not sure what you are getting at. We have the testimony of the apostles in the Bible, though.
You are sort of like atheists who say "There is no evidence for the existence of God" and then make sure that they so narrowly define what constitutes evidence as to conveniently rule out any evidence you can present.

No ,it isn't. Your church declares that human traditions are equal to what Scriptures say. That opens the door for your church to declare stuff as doctrine that is nowhere found or even hinted at in the Bible.
Question begging. Who says that the Catholic Church in fact teaches man made doctrines?

Everyone who reads the Bible without Roman Catholic glasses on. Stuff like: Indulgences; Purgatory; Mariolatry; Mary's PV, IC, and Assumption; praying to saints dead in the Lord, being subject to the pope is necessary for salvation...all man-made doctrines with no basis in Scripture whatsoever.
Okay--who says that the way Protestants interpret the Bible and the methods they use are the only valid way to understand what the Scriptures teach? Where does the Bible teach that the modern methods of Scriptural interpretation are absolute and definitive when it comes to what the Scriptures teach? I want chapter and verse.

What modern methods? If you mean historical/critical, my church rejects that method. We use Scripture as the final authority and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.
Yes--and that conveniently allows you to essentially teach and believe whatever you want.
No, it doesn't. Parroting what I write won't change the fact that your church, by not being sola scriptura, can then declare man-made teachings as doctrine--but in vain do they worship God, when they do that!
 
Last edited:

mica

Well-known member
Bonnie said:
The testimony of YOUR church has zero authority with those of us who ARE sola scriptura. We can also read the Bible for ourselves and see that nowhere are these things taught. Not even a hint.
...
Yes--and that conveniently allows you to essentially teach and believe whatever you want.
that is so wrong. It limits us to teaching His word, His truth.

not being SS
(like the RCC) allows one to make up, believe and teach whatever they want - like the RCC does.
 
In Rome itself, sure. But i meant with absolute authority over the entire church. That was a gradual process.

But the pope does not have "absolute authority" over the entire Church.

What do you think would happen if Pope Francis tried to change church teaching on gay marriage, women's ordination, etc? You think everyone would just go along with it because "Well, he is the pope and he has absolute authority over the Church."

Have you seen some of the bishops challenging Pope Francis even now over some of the things he has said and done? Does this suggest people that believe the pope has "absolute authority?"
Who led the Counsel of Jerusalem in Acts 15?

Well, I am not looking it up--so correct me if I am wrong, but was it not James the Apostle?

I can only assume that you are jumping to the conclusion that because Peter the first pope did not lead the council that this somehow means he mustn't have been pope and did not exercise authority within the Church?

Now my question: why should we assume this? It does not matter who leads a council; that became important only in later centuries and only because it became necessary to delineate the power of the Church from the power of the state. The pope leading a council is by no means essential to the functioning of a council. James lead the Council of Jerusalem because that was the Church in which he was the bishop. Peter's presence in Jerusalem doesn't mean James does not lead the Church of Jerusalem.
Gonzales' area of expertise is the the church and its history.

Yes; HISTORY, not theology. The DATA of history is one thing. What HAPPENED historically is one thing. But we should avoid jumping to theological conclusions based on the HISTORICAL data alone.

Historians who jump to theological conclusions are analagous to scientists who discover something and then jump to conclusions about moral questions. For example: scientists think that because they can or have shown that homosexuality is not a choice that this means there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. Scientists however do not seem to understand that human passions are one thing, actions another. The point--is that scientists are out of their area when they try to use scientific discoveries to answer moral questions. Science itself has nothing to say about morality. It lacks the tools to answer moral questions.
Notre Dame university uses some of his books in their curriculum, so they apparently don't consider him to be a heretic.

No, but this is Notre Dame we are talking about, isn't it? They aren't exactly known for their fidelity to Church teaching or their robust theological program of teaching the actual Catholic Faith.

You, Bonnie, are more Catholic then Notre Dame is. So what does that tell you about Notre Dame?

But regardless--this Gonzolez character is a HISTORIAN. We cannot jump to conclusions based on his historical research.
So, I doubt that Gonzales made a mistake. History is history.

Not if he is just reporting history, no. If he jumps to conclusions, then he would be making mistakes.
It is YOUR church that mischaracterizes the history of the church, when it says that Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church. That is false. Jesus founded THE CHURCH, period, which is made up of all people who confess and profess Jesus Christ as Lord and God and Savior and trust in Him only for salvation, great and free.

Yes, I agree that Jesus founded THE Church which is not limited to the RCC. But the Church that he founded SUBSISTS in the RCC, which means I see no reason to be anything other than Catholic since I know this.
So? Your church still wasn't founded by Jesus Christ.

And yours was founded by Martin Luther. Thus, neither was yours.
The USA isn't the church. Bad analogy.

No, it is not a bad analogy. It is a good analogy for the point I was trying to make which was apparently lost on you.
What Dr. Gonzales did was write the church's history as it should be written.

Who said he didn't write history the way history should be written? I am sure he is a fine historian. I am not questioning his credentials as a historian.
There wasn't any "papacy" in the early church which is my point. It took several centuries for the papacy with supreme power over the entire church to develop.

There was indeed a pope in the early Church. This "Rome was governed by a plurality of elders" business does not disprove the existence of a papacy since the authority of the bishops is not mutually opposed to the pope and visa-versa. The important thing is that the bishops and pope in the Church from a communion and a unity.
Not only trappings, but some teachings are not scriptural--like being subject to the pope being necessary for salvation. Care to show us THAT in the Bible?

Being subject to the pope as necessary for salvation in context----was the pope saying that----he and not the emperor leads the Church. Remember, church and state were intertwined during this time. It was not always clear where the distinctions were. Thus, when the pope said "It is necessary for salvation that all Christians be subject to the pope" what was being affirmed is that the pope, not the emperor heads the Church.
it is part of the history of the church and how it came to be centered in Rome.

The Church came to be centered in Rome because of Rome's association with Peter and Paul. There were four Patriarchal dioceses in the East. Three of those sees had prominence because of their association with Peter. One of them, Constantinople has prominence because it was the capital of the empire.

Rome in the West was not only associated with Peter, but with Paul: these are the pillar apostles. It was believed that Peter and Paul were both martyred in Rome.
IF that were true, there would be NO cathedrals named "Our Lady of Salvation" or a title for Mary "only hope for sinners." There would be no need to believe we need Mary to intercede for us with her Son, to save us from His supposed wrath.

What Cathedral is called "Our Lady of Salvation?" If there is such a cathedral, I would object to such a title.
Please restate the question; I am not sure what you are getting at.

How is Consubstantiation different from what Lutherans assert about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist?
No ,it isn't. Your church declares that human traditions are equal to what Scriptures say.

No we do not. Nothing equals Scripture. Scripture is unique. Scripture is supreme. Scripture is God breathed. Tradition is infallible, not God Breathed. Tradition is situated below Scripture and is normed by Scripture. Tradition is human, Scripture is Divine. The authority of the Church is divine in the sense that the Church is the divinely established teacher, instructor and interpreter and guardian of Scripture, but the Church is subject to Scripture.

Tradition is the human testimony to God's deeds, works and revelation in salvation history, Scripture is the Divine testimony. There is nothing in Scripture that isn't in Tradition and visa-versa. Catholics just believe that God guarantees this human testimony throughout time, guarantees that the Church will always testify truthfully to God's revelations collectively.
That opens the door for your church to declare stuff as doctrine that is nowhere found or even hinted at in the Bible.

Yes; if you assume that God does not guide the Church and is not the guarantor behind what the Church teaches, sure. If I shared your assumptions, I would be saying the same thing.
Everyone who reads the Bible without Roman Catholic glasses on. Stuff like: Indulgences; Purgatory; Mariolatry; Mary's PV, IC, and Assumption; praying to saints dead in the Lord, being subject to the pope is necessary for salvation...all man-made doctrines with no basis in Scripture whatsoever.

And why are "Roman Catholic glasses" any worse than Lutheran glasses exactly?
What modern methods? If you mean historical/critical, my church rejects that method. We use Scripture as the final authority and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Yes, but surely you know that that no document, even that which is divine is approached objectively. This is why people establish acceptable rules of interpretation.

And I am glad to hear that your Church rejects the Historical Critical Method. I reject that method too.
No, it doesn't. Parroting what I write won't change the fact that your church, by not being sola scriptura, can then declare man-made teachings as doctrine--but in vain do they worship God, when they do that!

Again, if I shared your assumptions I would believe as you believe.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
But the pope does not have "absolute authority" over the entire Church.

OH, so it is NOT necessary to obey the pope in order to be saved....is that it?
What do you think would happen if Pope Francis tried to change church teaching on gay marriage, women's ordination, etc? You think everyone would just go along with it because "Well, he is the pope and he has absolute authority over the Church."

Hopefully most Catholics would not follow some Catholics and believe that Christianity is false and become athesits...
Have you seen some of the bishops challenging Pope Francis even now over some of the things he has said and done? Does this suggest people that believe the pope has "absolute authority?"

Yes. But if Francis made a decision on those things, speaking ex cathedra, would the dissenting bishops be required to obey him then?

If popes don't have absolute authority over the church, then why did that one pope decree that it was necessary to be subject to the pope in order to be saved? Sounds like absolute authority to me....
Well, I am not looking it up--so correct me if I am wrong, but was it not James the Apostle?

Why don't you look it up? But no, it was NOT James.
I can only assume that you are jumping to the conclusion that because Peter the first pope did not lead the council that this somehow means he mustn't have been pope and did not exercise authority within the Church?

I am jumping at nothing. Nowhere does the NT say that Peter was the head of the church. Gotta go facetime with family.
Now my question: why should we assume this? It does not matter who leads a council; that became important only in later centuries and only because it became necessary to delineate the power of the Church from the power of the state. The pope leading a council is by no means essential to the functioning of a council. James lead the Council of Jerusalem because that was the Church in which he was the bishop. Peter's presence in Jerusalem doesn't mean James does not lead the Church of Jerusalem.

Fine, I am aware of James' leadership in the early church.
Yes; HISTORY, not theology. The DATA of history is one thing. What HAPPENED historically is one thing. But we should avoid jumping to theological conclusions based on the HISTORICAL data alone.

I am not jumping to "theological conclusions." History is history.
Historians who jump to theological conclusions are analagous to scientists who discover something and then jump to conclusions about moral questions. For example: scientists think that because they can or have shown that homosexuality is not a choice that this means there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. Scientists however do not seem to understand that human passions are one thing, actions another. The point--is that scientists are out of their area when they try to use scientific discoveries to answer moral questions. Science itself has nothing to say about morality. It lacks the tools to answer moral questions.

Gonzalez was nowhere jumping to "theological conclusions." I have his books and know what he wrote and also what he wrote to me. Do YOU have his books?
No, but this is Notre Dame we are talking about, isn't it? They aren't exactly known for their fidelity to Church teaching or their robust theological program of teaching the actual Catholic Faith.

Notre Dame is a Catholic university and it has uses some of Gonzalez' books for decades. If you don't like it, take it up with them.
You, Bonnie, are more Catholic then Notre Dame is. So what does that tell you about Notre Dame?

No, I am not "Catholic" in any way, shape, or form.
But regardless--this Gonzolez character is a HISTORIAN. We cannot jump to conclusions based on his historical research.

Gonzolez is a church historian; his area of expertise is the history of the church. So, of COURSE he is a historian!
Not if he is just reporting history, no. If he jumps to conclusions, then he would be making mistakes.

So, ,how do you know he is "jumping to conclusions"? Have you read his THE STORY OF CHRISTIANITY ?
Yes, I agree that Jesus founded THE Church which is not limited to the RCC. But the Church that he founded SUBSISTS in the RCC, which means I see no reason to be anything other than Catholic since I know this.

Baloney. The church Jesus founded consists of ALL true believers everywhere, regardless of denominational affiliation.
And yours was founded by Martin Luther. Thus, neither was yours.

All true churches which teach the fullness of the Gospel and proclaim Christ and Him crucified for sinners and raised for our justification were "founded" by Jesus Christ. All Luther did was rediscover the true Gospel in the actual Bible, that your church had buried under tons of non-Biblical, man-made doctrines. But the truth can never be destroyed and God always keeps a remnant for Himself and He used Luther to bring the true Gospel into the open, once again.
No, it is not a bad analogy. It is a good analogy for the point I was trying to make which was apparently lost on you.

Your point was pointless.
Who said he didn't write history the way history should be written? I am sure he is a fine historian. I am not questioning his credentials as a historian.

Sure sounded like it to me.
There was indeed a pope in the early Church. This "Rome was governed by a plurality of elders" business does not disprove the existence of a papacy since the authority of the bishops is not mutually opposed to the pope and visa-versa. The important thing is that the bishops and pope in the Church from a communion and a unity.

If by "pope" you simply mean the head pastor of an individual church--sure, the church in Rome had that. But it took centuries before that church became the center of power for the entire church, headed by the bishop of Rome.
Being subject to the pope as necessary for salvation in context----was the pope saying that----he and not the emperor leads the Church. Remember, church and state were intertwined during this time. It was not always clear where the distinctions were. Thus, when the pope said "It is necessary for salvation that all Christians be subject to the pope" what was being affirmed is that the pope, not the emperor heads the Church.

Oh, baloney! The Pope who wrote that meant being subject to HIMSELF was being necessary for salvation! And the pope is NOT the head of the church; Jesus Christ IS.
The Church came to be centered in Rome because of Rome's association with Peter and Paul. There were four Patriarchal dioceses in the East. Three of those sees had prominence because of their association with Peter. One of them, Constantinople has prominence because it was the capital of the empire.

No, the church became centered in Rome because Rome was the capital of the empire and had a very large church there; large churches tended to have more power over small churches, and more importance. But it was a gradual process.
Rome in the West was not only associated with Peter, but with Paul: these are the pillar apostles. It was believed that Peter and Paul were both martyred in Rome.

Rome was the capital of the empire and had a very large church there. And Jerusalem was associated with the early church more than Rome.
What Cathedral is called "Our Lady of Salvation?" If there is such a cathedral, I would object to such a title.

Did you miss the thread on here about the Pope visiting that cathedral in Iran? That was the name of the cathedral he visited.
 
Last edited:
OH, so it is NOT necessary to obey the pope in order to be saved....is that it?

For those who know better, yes.
Hopefully most Catholics would not follow some Catholics and believe that Christianity is false and become athesits...

If Pope Francis changed Church teaching on gay marriage, abortion, divorce and remarriage, women's ordination, contraception, sacraments, etc, and that was not challenged and that was ultimately allowed to stand--I would become atheist. The Church cannot change that which is not changeable. The Church does not have authority over God's Word.

Yes. But if Francis made a decision on those things, speaking ex cathedra, would the dissenting bishops be required to obey him then?

So you are asking----if Pope Francis attempts to bind the universal Church to that which is heresy are the bishops bound to obey him? NO! HELL NO! Is that clear enough? I certainly wouldn't obey him.

Now, what would happen if Pope Francis did such a thing? That is unknown and untested. In other words---would--by the fact that he attempted to bind the Church to heresy mean he ceases to be pope, would be be deposed, how would his removal happen, etc? No one knows--as something like that has never happened before. But whatever happens--it would likely involve a lot of controversy, division and a Church council to figure it out.
If popes don't have absolute authority over the church, then why did that one pope decree that it was necessary to be subject to the pope in order to be saved? Sounds like absolute authority to me....

I answered that already. I am not answering it again. If you are not going to read my responses to you, do not ask me questions that you do not want the answers to.
Why don't you look it up? But no, it was NOT James.

Yes he did; it is not specified but James had a prominent role, then Peter.

Do not play games Bonnie. Are you looking for me to say "God" or "The Holy Spirit" or "The Apostolic College?"
I am jumping at nothing. Nowhere does the NT say that Peter was the head of the church. Gotta go facetime with family.

Why is the testimony of the Church, and for that matter Peter's own actions not evidence o his headship? In other words--for a man that wasn't in charge--he sure acted like he was in charge.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
For those who know better, yes.


If Pope Francis changed Church teaching on gay marriage, abortion, divorce and remarriage, women's ordination, contraception, sacraments, etc, and that was not challenged and that was ultimately allowed to stand--I would become atheist. The Church cannot change that which is not changeable. The Church does not have authority over God's Word.



So you are asking----if Pope Francis attempts to bind the universal Church to that which is heresy are the bishops bound to obey him? NO! HELL NO! Is that clear enough? I certainly wouldn't obey him.

Now, what would happen if Pope Francis did such a thing? That is unknown and untested. In other words---would--by the fact that he attempted to bind the Church to heresy mean he ceases to be pope, would be be deposed, how would his removal happen, etc? No one knows--as something like that has never happened before. But whatever happens--it would likely involve a lot of controversy, division and a Church council to figure it out.


I answered that already. I am not answering it again. If you are not going to read my responses to you, do not ask me questions that you do not want the answers to.


Yes he did; it is not specified but James had a prominent role, then Peter.

Do not play games Bonnie. Are you looking for me to say "God" or "The Holy Spirit" or "The Apostolic College?"


Why is the testimony of the Church, and for that matter Peter's own actions not evidence o his headship? In other words--for a man that wasn't in charge--he sure acted like he was in charge.
Paul rebuked Peter to his face, for his hypocrisy...judging by that incident, looks more as if Paul were in charge...:)
 
Paul rebuked Peter to his face, for his hypocrisy...judging by that incident, looks more as if Paul were in charge...:)

Paul rebuked Peter to his face----and-----what is your point? Is your point that because Paul challenged him this must mean that Peter cannot be the leader of the universal church? Is that what you are getting at?

Well, Paul was right to challenge Peter. Peter was in the wrong. That being said, Paul was a bit of a blow hard...

Since when has any leader never been challenged? The only leader that is absolute and should not be challenged is Jesus.

Even today bishops rebuke the pope. Have you never heard of Cardinal Burke? Cardinal Burke and several other bishops publicly rebuked Pope Francis and called him out over his pastoral letter on marriage and how to pastorally handle divorced and remarried couples. Gee, I guess that must mean that Pope Francis is not recognized as head of the church...you know--because Cardinal Burke and other bishops challenged him. That must mean Cardinal Burke is head of the Church...
 
Top