Should Women Be Ordained Into the Roman Catholic Priesthood?

Bonnie

Super Member
That isn't the question. Again, you Protestants have such a penchant for turning everything into "essential" "necessary" "either/or."

That is because we want the truth. So, we ask questions--and mine was, IS obeying the Pope necessary for our salvation, yes or no?
What is absolutely necessary and essential for salvation is a relationship with Jesus Christ in some form. Everything else is secondary.

Good.
I am not Catholic because I think I will go to Hell if I am not Catholic; I am Catholic because it is only in Catholicism where I can have the fullest expression of my relationship with Jesus.

That is false. All true believers everywhere have an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. But if you are referring obliquely to the Eucharist, there are several other churches that believe in the Real Presence.
Though---because I know in my heart that Catholicism is true, I am compelled to be Catholic. Since I know in my heart that Catholicism is true, I would be dammed if I left.

Know in your heart, huh? Do you know what the Bible says about the heart? From Jeremiah 17:

“Cursed is the one who trusts in man,
who draws strength from mere flesh
and whose heart turns away from the Lord....
“But blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord,
whose confidence is in him...
The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?

This is what many in your church do--they trust in MAN-their popes and magisterium--more than they do in Jesus Christ. They trust in Mary to help them--drawing "strength from mere flesh." Which leads them to put more trust and faith in dead saints, their leadership, and their priestess near goddess, Mary, than in Jesus Christ Himself.

And our hearts are sinful and deceitful; we cannot trust it to know the truth. We therefore trust the Lord and His Word, the Bible, for the truth. We should TRUST IN THE LORD with all our might and lean not onto our own understanding. Put trust in God in Christ Jesus and what the Bible teaches. NOT in what your church and its leadership has piled onto the true Gospel for centuries, burying it under man-made doctrines with no basis in Scripture.


I would not become atheist if the pope did those things; I would become atheist if the pope did those things and it was allowed to stand.

Which shows that you faith was more in your pope and your church than in Jesus Christ and what He did for us on the cross. Because even if your church became even MORE heterodoxical than it already is, and did allow women priests, Jesus still remains. Jesus still lives. The Gospel still exists. Jesus still died on the cross and rose again from the dead, conquering sin, death, and the devil. He did ALL of those things OUTSIDE OF YOUR CHURCH. One can believe all of those things without belonging to the CC.
When Scripture says "The Church is the pillar of Truth" I believe it.

The true church, made up of all true believers everywhere, who trust and believe in Jesus Christ for salvation, great and free.
When Jesus says "The gates of Hell will not prevail" I take him seriously.
Yes, He means that His church, founded upon Himself, will never die. There will ALWAYS be some who will know and teach the truth. Even if your church body would fall and crumble into the sea, Jesus still remains. The true Gospel still remains, kept alive by those in the TRUE church of Jesus Christ, the body of all believers everywhere.
Obviously if Jesus allows his Church to embrace heresy and teach it, he isn't much of a god now is he?

The CC is NOT HIS CHURCH. Catholics have been so indoctrinated to believe that, they they cannot see beyond their narrow Catholic glasses! They have been falsely taught that ONLY their church is the true one. Mormons think theirs is, too. So do JWs. So do other false churches. But guess what--Jesus and the truth STILL EXIST outside of your church body. JESUS AND HIS TRUTH WILL NEVER DIE. His word is truth and the word of the Lord endures forever.
And Protestantism is the fulfillment of "The gates of Hell will not prevail" well----there again, Jesus ain't much of a god now is he?

MORE baloney from the Catholic deli! HOW can Protestantism be the "gates of hell" prevailing against God's church when we are PART OF THE CHURCH?
The one thing Jesus prayed for was unity; Protestantism is nothing but division upon division upon division each believing as they wish, doing as they wish--every time they get into a snit.
Jesus didn't put truth above unity. And there are some divisions in your own church, friend--like those who want to have women ordained as priests.

Bonnie---if you think that is what God intends for his Church, then you can have it--and you can have your God.

No, I don't think God intended that for His church--just as He didn't intend for His church to pray to dead saints; call Mary "only hope for sinners" and pray to her for help and succor...He didn't intend for people to believe that obeying the Pope is necessary for salvation; He didn't intend for the church to teach and believe that we are saved by grace through faith and our works, or to issue Indulgences, or believe in Purgatory; or to have the church centered in one man in Rome, who lives in a huge palace lavishly decorated with art....
We do not place our doctrines over the Bible. We believe them because they are revealed. Because they are revealed, it follows the Bible teaches them.

yes, your church does, since it "teaches for doctrine the commandments of men." Like Mariology; praying to dead saints; Indulgences, Purgatory; priests cannot get married....
Again, Bonnie, I take God seriously when He says that the Church is the pillar of truth and the gates of Hell will not prevail. What don't you understand about that?

So do I so it is really shameful when your church teaches false doctrines and tries to pan them off as the truth--and make believing some of them necessary for remaining in your church.
That isn't what the pope meant? Care to tell me how you know this?
How do you know he did not? The unum sanctam came about due to a squabble between Pope Boniface VII and King Philip IV of France. Boniface was asserting that the spiritual is higher than the secular, and he did not want church privileges impeded by the King. The squabble also revolved around taxes, and who had the right to tax whom and how much. Thus came about the Unum Sanctam:

Unam sanctam is a papal bull that was issued by Pope Boniface VIII on 18 November 1302. It laid down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Catholic Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the Pope as supreme head of the Church and the duty thence arising of submission to the Pope to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation. The Pope further emphasised the higher position of the spiritual in comparison with the secular order. The historian Brian Tierney calls it "probably the most famous of all the documents on church and state that has [come] down to us from the Middle Ages".

And

Boniface interpreted it as a form of the concept of plenitudo potestatis (plenitude of power), that those who resist the Roman Pontiff resist God's ordination.[12] In the 13th century, the canonists used the term plenitudo potestatis to characterize the power of the Pope within the church or, more rarely, his prerogative in the secular sphere.[13] The bull declares that the Church must be united and the Pope was its sole and absolute head: "Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster".[14]

The bull also stated, "We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal."[14] The metaphor refers to the swords yielded by the Apostles upon Christ's arrest (Luke 22:38; Matthew 26:52).[2] Early theologians believed that if there are two swords, one must be subordinate to the other, rungs in a spiritual hierarchical ladder: the spiritual judges the secular "on account of its greatness and sublimity",[2] and the higher spiritual power judges the lower spiritual power etc.[12] Thus, the bull concluded, the temporal authorities must submit to the spiritual authorities, not merely on matters concerning doctrine and morality: "For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgment if it has not been good". The bull ended, "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Unam sanctam - Wikipedia

I guess the church back then had not heard of the "Two kingdom" concept, as Luther taught.

So, yes I think that is what Pope Boniface VIII meant.
 
Last edited:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I don't know; but I do know we do not label what we believe about it, as we think there is no label that adequately describes what happens after the Pastor consecrates the Bread and Wine. We call it the "Real Presence" and leave it at that.

And that would be fine--but what happens why people start asking questions about the nature of this presence and how to understand it? In other words--what happens when people start asking questions like "Christ is really present. Fine. What does it mean to say that Christ is present? How should we describe this presence?"

So, how can tradition be "infallible" if it is NOT "God-breathed"? It is "man-breathed"--is man infallible?

Because Infallibility and Inspiration are two distinct things. The Bible is infallible because it is inspired. The Bible is inspired because God authored the Bible.

That which is Theopneustos, is by definition infallible, but not only that which is Theopneustos manifests the authority of God. Any place the authority of God is manifested would by definition have to be infallible.

The mistake the Sola Scriptura adherents make is in-----jumping to conclusions. How do they do this? They assume that because only Scripture is Theopneustos that God's authority is manifest in the Scriptures alone. That conclusion in my mind does not follow. The inspired authority of God is manifest in the Scriptures alone, but the authority of God itself is not manifest in the Scriptures alone. God manifests his authority in distinct ways. Because the Church is the divinely authorized teacher of the Scriptures, God works in and through the Church, guaranteeing her teaching.

Not rocket science Bonnie.
Tradition is your man-made dogmas that have no basis in Scripture whatsoever.

Okay Bonnie, let me try it this way:

So you tell me that I should not believe any teaching that does not have sufficient proof from Scripture, correct? Good. I reject what you teach me because I have arbitrarily decided that YOU have not sufficiently proven your teaching from the Scriptures. When I decide that you have sufficiently proven your teachings, then I will consider them.

So--how is this NOT how Protestantism works exactly?
God guides His church, but His people must listen when He does so. And the fallible human beings leading your church have blatantly led it astray from the true teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, with its false dogmas of Indulgences, Purgatory, praying to saints dead in the Lord; Mariolatry, salvation by grace through faith AND works; etc. and etc. None of these things is found or even hinted at in the Bible.

But I believe the Church has sufficiently proven these doctrines from Scripture; therefore, under your own standard I am fine with accepting them.

In other words: just because YOU think the Church has not sufficiently proven these doctrines from Scripture, why does that mean I have to reject them, if I think sufficient proof has been offered?
I take the entire Bible into consideration and don't isolate verses. I also let the Bible be the final arbiter of truth, not my church's president.

But you just so happen to conveniently believe that the doctrines taught by the Lutheran Church are scriptural and that the Lutheran Church is correctly (however you define correctly) using the Scriptures to prove their doctrines.

That is because we want the truth. So, we ask questions--and mine was, IS obeying the Pope necessary for our salvation, yes or no?

Not all questions can be answered that way Bonnie.
That is false. All true believers everywhere have an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.

I wasn't denying the legitimacy or the intimacy of the relationship.
But if you are referring obliquely to the Eucharist, there are several other churches that believe in the Real Presence.

Yes; but, they reject Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation, well, you can't get much more really present then that. So why would I want anything that the other churches are offering with regard to the Eucharist?
Know in your heart, huh? Do you know what the Bible says about the heart? From Jeremiah 17:

Yes, and I fully agree with Jeremiah 17. You are assuming that my heart has not been regenerated and that I cannot recognize Truth when I see it.

This is what many in your church do--they trust in MAN-their popes and magisterium--more than they do in Jesus Christ.

Quite the reverse actually; I trust popes and the magisterium BECAUSE I trust Christ.
They trust in Mary to help them--drawing "strength from mere flesh."

Why can't Mary or any of the saints help us and pray for us?
Which leads them to put more trust and faith in dead saints, their leadership, and their priestess near goddess, Mary, than in Jesus Christ Himself.

No; Faith alone is in Christ. That does not mean I cannot love and be devoted to Mary and the saints. Love is not zero sum. WORSHIP is zero sum, but love is not.
Else, why say "If the pope ever starts teaching something against the Scriptures and allows women to be priests, it means Christianity would be wrong and I would probably become an atheist." (paraphrased). Which shows that the person's faith is more in his church and its leadership than in Jesus Christ Himself. Because one can still be in the true church, outside of Catholicism, still hear the Good News preached, still partake of the Lord's Supper, still receive forgiveness of sins. One doesn't need megalithic institution like the CC to have those things.

Well, as I have said and will say again--The Catholic Church is the real deal. All the other churches are imitations. It it turns out that the real deal is, in fact, not the real deal, the cheap imitations---aren't even cheap imitations in such a case--so why would I want them at that point?
Which shows that you faith was more in your pope and your church than in Jesus Christ and what He did for us on the cross. Because even if your church became even MORE heterodoxical than it already is, and did allow women priests, Jesus still remains. Jesus still lives. The Gospel still exists. Jesus still died on the cross and rose again from the dead, conquering sin, death, and the devil. He did ALL of those things OUTSIDE OF YOUR CHURCH. One can believe all of those things without belonging to the CC.

No, Bonnie it doesn't. We are the real deal. All other Christian sects are imitations--some better than others. If the real deal, is, in fact, fake, then what does that make the fakes? How can something be faker than fake?
The CC is NOT HIS CHURCH. Catholics have been so indoctrinated to believe that, they they cannot see beyond their narrow Catholic glasses! They have been falsely taught that ONLY their church is the true one.

It is.
Mormons think theirs is, too. So do JWs. So do other false churches.

Why belong to a Church that does not think it is the true Church? I might disagree with the Mormons, JW's and other false religions, but they got one thing right: any Church that isn't certain of what they believe and teach, does not deserve to be called a Church.
But guess what--Jesus and the truth STILL EXIST outside of your church body. JESUS AND THE TRUTH WILL NEVER DIE.

Yes, it exists outside the visible boundaries of my church body, but only because my church body exists in the first place. If my church body did not exist, there wouldn't be anything to exist outside the visible boundaries of my church body.
MORE baloney from the Catholic deli! HOW can Protestantism be the "gates of hell" prevailing against God's church when we are PART OF THE CHURCH?
I didn't say Protestantism was the gates of Hell prevailing.

I said--IF you think Protestantism is an example of the gates of Hell NOT prevailing, you can have it. You can also have the God of Protestantism.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Keating retired from Catholic Answers four years ago [June 30, 2017].
If only whoever is running Catholic Answers would realize Jack Chick is not representative of mainstream Protestant thought...

Actually--if I took over Catholic Answers I would want to take them in a more scholarly direction. I would want to focus on mainstream Protestantism and more robustly deal with their claims.

The problem as I see it is that Catholic scholars on the whole do not really understand what is and is not being asserted with regard to Sola Scriptura. When I was in college, I remember the professors talking about Sola Scriptura. The definition they gave and subsequently refuted was the classic mistake of conflating the more fundamentalist definition of Solo Scriptura with the mainstream Sola Scriptura.

When I asked if they were familiar with writings on the subject, such as William Whitaker, etc, they weren't. Only one professor I had was familiar with Whitaker as he read him in his Protestant days. He converted to Catholicism. He admitted he is a good scholar, but he also knows Latin. He read Thomas Stapleton's' reply--which was written about four years after Whitaker's publication appeared. It is massive. That reply has never been translated into English. Whitaker was apparently impressed with it.

In any case, in all the professors I had, one was familiar with Whitaker. Since Whitaker is generally hailed by Protestants as THE scholar who wrote the definitive rebuttal to the Catholic apologists, you would think more professors would know the work--and Stapleton's reply.

Whatever the case may be, I find that many Catholic scholars simply do not know the doctrine of Sola Scriptura well enough to talk about it--but they think they do. Hence--what you see at Catholic Answers.

Patrick Madrid has apparently gotten a graduate degree in Catholic theology since his debate with James White on the subject of Sola Scriptura. He is now a professor. When I heard the debate, I thought James had won the debate. Madrid to this day honestly thinks he won the debate--and in his theology classes---they go over that debate and discuss it.

Why do I think White won? Because Madrid in my mind seemed to be debating the caricature, while White was debating the actual reformed doctrine. But then again, I listed to that debate a long time ago. So I might be misremembering things.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
Romish, I cannot keep answering your posts like this; they are too long and hard for me to see.

If someone answers questions about the nature of something in our faith, then we answer as honestly as possible, based upon the biblical witness. If we do not know, or the bible is silent about it, then we say so. But that is not the same thing as asking if something is NECESSARY for salvation.

Your stuff about infallible is confusing. Jesus didn't think human traditions were infallible "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." And that is what your church does--teach man-made teachings as doctrines. So, it worships God in vain.

This is gibberish:

The mistake the Sola Scriptura adherents make is in-----jumping to conclusions. How do they do this? They assume that because only Scripture is Theopneustos that God's authority is manifest in the Scriptures alone. That conclusion in my mind does not follow. The inspired authority of God is manifest in the Scriptures alone, but the authority of God itself is not manifest in the Scriptures alone. God manifests his authority in distinct ways. Because the Church is the divinely authorized teacher of the Scriptures, God works in and through the Church, guaranteeing her teaching.

Ah, I see--all of this is just to justify Catholics blindly following their leaders, no matter how ubiblical the teachings are, so as to be exempt from the responsibility of "searching the scriptures" and "test{ing} all things". How...convenient. "Well, Jesus , it isn't MY fault I thought it was okay to pray to Mary and say she is the only hope for sinners, and trust in her to save me--our popes said it was okay and we are supposed to obey our leaders, so it is all THEIR fault."

We jump to NO conclusions. The Bible has all we need to know when it comes to salvation. HOW we do some things in practice, the customs, in our churches is up to us, so long as those things do not contradict scripture or profane God and His teachings--things like following a liturgical year or not; pastors wearing robes or just suits--things that are "adiophora--neither commanded nor forbidden."

No, when it comes to matters of faith, the Bible is enough. The Scriptures have all we need to know.

Not rocket science, Romish.

I do not arbitrarily reject Roman teachings; I reject many of them BECAUSE they are nowhere taught in Scripture, and actually contradict Scripture:

1. Praying to saints dead in the Lord
2. Mariolatry and all it has in it
3. Obeying the pope is necessary for salvation
4. Salvation by grace through faith and our works
5. Handing out indulgences
6. Purgatory
7. Celibate priesthood/pastors

None of these things can be found in Scripture, not even a hint.

We Protestants have proven that no. 4 is incorrect, by quoting the Bible all over the place, especially from Paul's letters--but no Catholic on here will see those Bible verses as proof. They will turn a blind eye to them. Though they have seen the verses quoted and had them explained, they refuse to believe them. They willfully blind themselves to the truth; therefore, there sin remains. It is more important to uphold Mother church at all cost--even at the cost of the truth.

There are no scriptures that "sufficiently prove" the above list to be true. Catholics are deluded if they think the Bible upholds any of these teachings in my list.

I reject Roman beliefs about these things because there IS ZERO PROOF for any of them in the Bible. The few "proofs" I have seen Catholics try to show over the years came only from blatantly twisting the plain words of Scripture. The rest is simply from human speculation.

But here is you chance to show us FROM THE BIBLE the things in my list. Go for it!
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Unam sanctam - Wikipedia

I guess the church back then had not heard of the "Two kingdom" concept, as Luther taught.

So, yes I think that is what Pope Boniface VIII meant.

I know that document. I taught that document when I taught theology.

The document did assert that it was necessary for salvation for all people to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Contextually, there was no Protestantism then, so we cannot read the statement as answering questions about the relationship of Protestantism to Catholicism, etc. Contextually the document was asserting that the pope is head of the Church not the emperor. In spiritual matters, the pope, not the emperor is decisive.

Hence, it is necessary for salvation for all people to be subject to the Roman pontiff; that is, when it comes to matters of Faith and morals, matters that effect salvation, it is the pope, not the emperor that people look and is decisive.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Romish, I cannot keep answering your posts like this; they are too long and hard for me to see.

If someone answers questions about the nature of something in our faith, then we answer as honestly as possible, based upon the biblical witness. If we do not know, or the bible is silent about it, then we say so. But that is not the same thing as asking if something is NECESSARY for salvation.

Your stuff about infallible is confusing. Jesus didn't think human traditions were infallible "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." And that is what your church does--teach man-made teachings as doctrines. So, it worships God in vain.

This is gibberish:



Ah, I see--all of this is just to justify Catholics blindly following their leaders, no matter how ubiblical the teachings are, so as to be exempt from the responsibility of "searching the scriptures" and "test{ing} all things". How...convenient. "Well, Jesus , it isn't MY fault I thought it was okay to pray to Mary and say she is the only hope for sinners, and trust in her to save me--our popes said it was okay and we are supposed to obey our leaders, so it is all THEIR fault."

We jump to NO conclusions. The Bible has all we need to know when it comes to salvation. HOW we do some things in practice, the customs, in our churches is up to us, so long as those things do not contradict scripture or profane God and His teachings--things like following a liturgical year or not; pastors wearing robes or just suits--things that are "adiophora--neither commanded nor forbidden."

No, when it comes to matters of faith, the Bible is enough. The Scriptures have all we need to know.

Not rocket science, Romish.

I do not arbitrarily reject Roman teachings; I reject many of them BECAUSE they are nowhere taught in Scripture, and actually contradict Scripture:

1. Praying to saints dead in the Lord
2. Mariolatry and all it has in it
3. Obeying the pope is necessary for salvation
4. Salvation by grace through faith and our works
5. Handing out indulgences
6. Purgatory
7. Celibate priesthood/pastors

None of these things can be found in Scripture, not even a hint.

We Protestants have proven that no. 4 is incorrect, by quoting the Bible all over the place, especially from Paul's letters--but no Catholic on here will see those Bible verses as proof. They will turn a blind eye to them. Though they have seen the verses quoted and had them explained, they refuse to believe them. They willfully blind themselves to the truth; therefore, there sin remains. It is more important to uphold Mother church at all cost--even at the cost of the truth.

There are no scriptures that "sufficiently prove" the above list to be true. Catholics are deluded if they think the Bible upholds any of these teachings in my list.

I reject Roman beliefs about these things because there IS ZERO PROOF for any of them in the Bible. The few "proofs" I have seen Catholics try to show over the years came only from blatantly twisting the plain words of Scripture. The rest is simply from human speculation.

But here is you chance to show us FROM THE BIBLE the things in my list. Go for it!
But I believe those doctrines ARE scriptural. What is more, I believe that my teacher, namely, the Church has given sufficient proof from the Scriptures for those doctrines.

Thus, by your own standard, I am fine. Why do YOU get to decide that my teacher has NOT sufficiently proven those doctrines?
 

balshan

Well-known member
But I believe those doctrines ARE scriptural. What is more, I believe that my teacher, namely, the Church has given sufficient proof from the Scriptures for those doctrines.

Thus, by your own standard, I am fine. Why do YOU get to decide that my teacher has NOT sufficiently proven those doctrines?
Your teacher is a wolf and that shows in its false teachings. Yep but scripture tells us we can interpret for ourselves. So this is just another example of going against scripture.
 

mica

Well-known member
romishpopishorganist said:
But I believe those doctrines ARE scriptural. What is more, I believe that my teacher, namely, the Church has given sufficient proof from the Scriptures for those doctrines.
that you believe they are scripture, does not make them scripture.

sufficient for whom? only for those who don't know even the basics of His truth found within scripture, and those whose hearts have not been changed by God.

Thus, by your own standard, I am fine. Why do YOU get to decide that my teacher has NOT sufficiently proven those doctrines?
scripture tells us to search it, to know it, to check scripture against scripture and to study it. and every verse that warns against false teachers is telling us to do that.

Your 'teacher' tells us with every false belief and doctrine it teaches, that it is not the pillar holding up His truth and it is not guided by the Holy Spirit.

Gal 1 kjv -
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
But I believe those doctrines ARE scriptural. What is more, I believe that my teacher, namely, the Church has given sufficient proof from the Scriptures for those doctrines.

Thus, by your own standard, I am fine. Why do YOU get to decide that my teacher has NOT sufficiently proven those doctrines?
When you have to redefine words and engage in eisegesis to make a doctrine, chances are its false. There are clear verses where Jesus is sinless, ascended to heaven, sacrificed one time...Where are the equally clear verses for marys sinlessness or assumption or your 'sacrifice of the mass'? Your church is pulling a fast one on you and it could cost you your eternity? Are you willing to sacrifice that in the name of rome? Do some study before its too late.
 

mica

Well-known member
I know that document. I taught that document when I taught theology.

The document did assert that it was necessary for salvation for all people to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Contextually, there was no Protestantism then, so we cannot read the statement as answering questions about the relationship of Protestantism to Catholicism, etc. Contextually the document was asserting that the pope is head of the Church not the emperor. In spiritual matters, the pope, not the emperor is decisive.

Hence, it is necessary for salvation for all people to be subject to the Roman pontiff; that is, when it comes to matters of Faith and morals, matters that effect salvation, it is the pope, not the emperor that people look and is decisive.
and the false teaching goes on and on.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
I know that document. I taught that document when I taught theology.

The document did assert that it was necessary for salvation for all people to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Contextually, there was no Protestantism then, so we cannot read the statement as answering questions about the relationship of Protestantism to Catholicism, etc. Contextually the document was asserting that the pope is head of the Church not the emperor. In spiritual matters, the pope, not the emperor is decisive.

Hence, it is necessary for salvation for all people to be subject to the Roman pontiff; that is, when it comes to matters of Faith and morals, matters that effect salvation, it is the pope, not the emperor that people look and is decisive.
I agree that is what the document says. But I and other Protestants reject it. When it comes to faith and morals, matters that affect salvation, Protestants look to the BIBLE, and it is the BIBLE that is decisive--Catholics look to their POPE.

Therein lies the difference.
 
Top