Whats the protestant view on the Popes claim of infallibility

MooseJam

Is it just a case of sorry that isn't so or is he commiting a grievous sin with this claim ?

neuro-praxis

My, you're in a controversial mood this morning.

Are you looking for an orthodox doctrine, or the myriad of personal opinions that exist on the subject?

MooseJam

both would be good, I'd guess the guy would be in trouble if I was a protestant

philologos

The simple answer I would give as COI is that the man is a priest and a servant of God, however what he claims is never infallable even when ruling on doctrine for Catholics. He is a man regardless. Even prophets made mistakes, so I assume this applies for the Pope also.

BrianCalgary

To be sticky, I'm neither Protestant (as I am not protesting anything) nor Catholic, but a Christian.

That means that my identity is in Christ, not in a denomination nor against a denomination.

So, therefore I don't accept the Pope being infallible. He is a man who interprets the Bible from a particular bias that may not be necessarily true.

Just like the rest of us.

kelly1

Papal infallibility is based on Christ's words:

John 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.

The apostles were infallible when it came to writing scripture. This same gift of the Spirit is handed down to successive popes. Why would infallibility be lost if it meant the Church could start teaching error. Christ wouldn't allow His Church to do that! The pope is only infallible by the power of the Holy Spirit and only when it comes to proclaiming dogma "ex cathedra".

philologos

Kelly correct me if I'm wrong but the Roman Catholic Church has taught error during several times in history, particularly prior to the Reformation.

Selling indulgences for example directly contradicts Acts 8.

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

Kelly correct me if I'm wrong but the Roman Catholic Church has taught error during several times in history, particularly prior to the Reformation.

Selling indulgences for example directly contradicts Acts 8.

The selling of indulgences isn't a teaching or dogma, it's simony. Big difference.

RealEstateKing

John 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.

Papal infallibility is based on that?

It must be based on something less tenuous than that surely?

kelly1

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Papal infallibility is based on that?

It must be based on something less tenuous than that surely?

No. Try this:

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_031.htm

Doctor DooM

Would I be right in saying outside of the Roman Catholic church itself it is widely believed that the pope who introduced it did so to compensate for the Vatican's failing real world power by attempting to assert total "theological" domination?

PDN

Pope John XXII (1316-1334) called the doctrine of papal infallibility "...a work of the devil...the Father of Lies." and in 1324 actually issued a papal bull condemning it as heresy.

I wonder, according to Catholic doctrine, if that would mean John XXII's Papal Bull, the one that declared papal infallibility to be a heresy, was itself infallible?

Doctor DooM

PDN wrote: »

Pope John XXII (1316-1334) called the doctrine of papal infallibility "...a work of the devil...the Father of Lies." and in 1324 actually issued a papal bull condemning it as heresy.

I wonder, according to Catholic doctrine, if that would mean John XXII's Papal Bull, the one that declared papal infallibility to be a heresy, was itself infallible?

If I was a dog, I would be scratching my head with my back paw trying to comprehend that...

Didn't the pope who introduced it basically bully the bishops into voting for it? I read this in a book a while back, I can't for the life of me remember the exact details.

Dog Fan

SDooM just beat me to it.

But. If John XXII declared it a heresy, does that mean that any pope claiming infallibility on a doctrinal issue is actually fallible?

I was never very good at logic. Great at being stubborn.

PDN

Dog Fan wrote: »

But. If John XXII declared it a heresy, does that mean that any pope claiming infallibility on a doctrinal issue is actually fallible? .

Only if John XXII was infallible. But then, of course, that would mean he was fallible. in which case ...... my head hurts!

Dog Fan

PDN wrote: »

Only if John XXII was infallible. But then, of course, that would mean he was fallible. in which case ...... my head hurts!

Thank God it's not just me!

Doctor DooM

PDN wrote: »

Only if John XXII was infallible. But then, of course, that would mean he was fallible. in which case ...... my head hurts!

I think I understand the issue. The popes are all infallible. The problem is your logic is not.

Wiki doesn't say anything about what I read...

Dog Fan

The hard bit for me is accepting the bits where he claims infallibility on issues that I don't like.
Let's face it, we do like our religion to be in our comfort zone. (or is that just me?)

rugbyman

not exactly certain of my points but some what sure.

did not know about xxii in the 1300 proclaiming heresy

dont know how earlier poster says direct line of popes from apostles.

the doctrine of papal infallibility was only introduced about 300 years ago, this would seem to preclude the earlier pope proclaiming it a heresy(which it seems to me ). oops yes he could proclaim it so, if it was only talked about then

so, back to 300 years ago, it was introduced. how many infallible pronouncements have been made , either one or none, I think.

its easy enough to be infallible if you dont say anything infallible.

Doctor DooM

Dog Fan wrote: »

The hard bit for me is accepting the bits where he claims infallibility on issues that I don't like.
Let's face it, we do like our religion to be in our comfort zone. (or is that just me?)

TBH knowing a bit about the pope as a person, in general I like to see what he thinks on a subject* (personally) and do the opposite.

It's been a long time since I thought of Myself as being RC in any way shape or form though.

*CAVEAT: I do not actually do the opposite on everything before someone starts misquoting me

Dog Fan

SDooM wrote: »

*CAVEAT: I do not actually do the opposite on everything before someone starts misquoting me

Pity. Could be fun getting you to do stuff otherwise.

RayMc

rugbyman wrote: »

so, back to 300 years ago, it was introduced. how many infallible pronouncements have been made , either one or none, I think.

its easy enough to be infallible if you dont say anything infallible.

More than that I think but it's still not exactly a common occurrence.

How does one know if the pope is speaking ex cathedra or not? And am I right in thinking that the catholic church claims infallibilty for other types of statement/teachings? i.e. not just ex cathedra papal statements

PDN

rugbyman wrote: »

not exactly certain of my points but some what sure.

did not know about xxii in the 1300 proclaiming heresy

dont know how earlier poster says direct line of popes from apostles.

the doctrine of papal infallibility was only introduced about 300 years ago, this would seem to preclude the earlier pope proclaiming it a heresy(which it seems to me ). oops yes he could proclaim it so, if it was only talked about then

so, back to 300 years ago, it was introduced. how many infallible pronouncements have been made , either one or none, I think.

its easy enough to be infallible if you dont say anything infallible.

Many years ago I was talking to a Church of Ireland minister who was something of an expert on Vatican matters. He quoted John XXIII (the guy who called Vatican II) as saying, "I believe in papal infallibility - but you're not going to catch this Pope making any infallible statements!"

I've tried to find confirmation of this quote online but can't find anything - but it makes a nice story!

Doctor DooM

PDN wrote: »

Many years ago I was talking to a Church of Ireland minister who was something of an expert on Vatican matters. He quoted John XXIII (the guy who called Vatican II) as saying, "I believe in papal infallibility - but you're not going to catch this Pope making any infallible statements!"

I've tried to find confirmation of this quote online but can't find anything - but it makes a nice story!

This gentleman wouldn't have happened to come from Kildare, would he?

Dog Fan

PDN wrote: »

Many years ago I was talking to a Church of Ireland minister who was something of an expert on Vatican matters. He quoted John XXIII (the guy who called Vatican II) as saying, "I believe in papal infallibility - but you're not going to catch this Pope making any infallible statements!"

I've tried to find confirmation of this quote online but can't find anything - but it makes a nice story!

Heard that quote too.

PDN

SDooM wrote: »

This gentleman wouldn't have happened to come from Kildare, would he?

Afraid not, Belfast - as far as I remember.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

Pope John XXII (1316-1334) called the doctrine of papal infallibility "...a work of the devil...the Father of Lies." and in 1324 actually issued a papal bull condemning it as heresy.

I wonder, according to Catholic doctrine, if that would mean John XXII's Papal Bull, the one that declared papal infallibility to be a heresy, was itself infallible?

Not this again! The document which supposedly contains this declaration, Quia Quorundam, does not contain the word devil, infallible or infallibility. It relates to a row between John XXII and the Franciscians over the necessity of poverty. It's nothing to do with infallibility.

http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bullarium/qquor-e.html

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1

RayMc wrote: »

More than that I think but it's still not exactly a common occurrence.

How does one know if the pope is speaking ex cathedra or not? And am I right in thinking that the catholic church claims infallibilty for other types of statement/teachings? i.e. not just ex cathedra papal statements

Hello Ray, welcome to the forum!

Some info on Ex Cathedra here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm
and Papal Infallibility here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

In case people don't know, it's not just the pope that's infallible but also the bishops collectively at ecumenical councils.

wolfsbane

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello Ray, welcome to the forum!

Some info on Ex Cathedra here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm
and Papal Infallibility here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

In case people don't know, it's not just the pope that's infallible but also the bishops collectively at ecumenical councils.

Sounds very ephemeral to me, Noel. Some definites - all the canonized 'saints' are such. But what about Creation vs Evolution? Contraception? Divorce & Remarriage? Just sticking with those three, can you figure out from the sites you posted exactly what is the infallible truth concerning them?

I note you said previously The apostles were infallible when it came to writing scripture. This same gift of the Spirit is handed down to successive popes. Why would infallibility be lost if it meant the Church could start teaching error. Christ wouldn't allow His Church to do that!

Why do the popes not write new Scripture? Peter and Paul wrote giving many ethical and doctrinal truths on issues that confronted the churches then: marriage, divorce, observance of Jewish Law, role of women, etc. We have several pressing issues now - how about an infallible letter, not just an odd sentence or two every decade or so?

No, papal infallibility is a human invention, like many of Rome's other doctrines - the priesthood, sacrifice of the Mass, Immaculate conception of Mary, etc.

Christ keeps His church free from fundamental error by the working of the Holy Spirit within her, not by one man who blasphemously claims for himself the title of Holy Father, Pontifex Maximus and Vicar of Christ. These titles belong respectively to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

No wonder he dares to assert his infallibility.

Splendour

kelly1 wrote: »

The selling of indulgences isn't a teaching or dogma, it's simony. Big difference.

And what about the former teaching on Limbo?

Run_to_da_hills

We were led to believe in school that the pope was Inflammable

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

The selling of indulgences isn't a teaching or dogma, it's simony. Big difference.

Noel, I'm not sure what point you're making here.

I was reading this web page that carries the imprimatur of the Bishop of San Diego: http://www.catholic.com/library/primer_on_indulgences.asp

A few of the quotes certainly seem to put indulgences in the realm of teaching and dogma.

Indulgences are part of the Church’s infallible teaching. This means that no Catholic is at liberty to disbelieve in them. The Council of Trent stated that it "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them"(Trent, session 25, Decree on Indulgences). Trent’s anathema places indulgences in the realm of infallibly defined teaching.

Also, Pope Paul VI issued an Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences where he seems to treat Indulgences as dogma: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6INDULG.HTM

So is your position that Indulgences are dogma, but that the selling of them is not?

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

So is your position that Indulgences are dogma, but that the selling of them is not?

Yes, correct. The selling of them is wrong.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christ keeps His church free from fundamental error by the working of the Holy Spirit within her, not by one man who blasphemously claims for himself the title of Holy Father, Pontifex Maximus and Vicar of Christ. These titles belong respectively to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Just on a point of information, the ceremonial title Pontifex Maximus is an old one and was first used by the head priest of Rome. Over the course of centuries, the title was assumed by the Emperors, before being finally appropriated by the church in the late 300's.

So, strictly speaking, Jesus is acting as a heretic in acquiring a religious title which belonged to another religion.

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sounds very ephemeral to me, Noel. Some definites - all the canonized 'saints' are such. But what about Creation vs Evolution? Contraception? Divorce & Remarriage? Just sticking with those three, can you figure out from the sites you posted exactly what is the infallible truth concerning them?

The church doesn't have a definite position on evolution vs creation but it certainly teaches that God created the universe out of nothing. The teaching on contraception is infallible and I think the same applies to divorce.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why do the popes not write new Scripture? Peter and Paul wrote giving many ethical and doctrinal truths on issues that confronted the churches then: marriage, divorce, observance of Jewish Law, role of women, etc. We have several pressing issues now - how about an infallible letter, not just an odd sentence or two every decade or so?

Public revelation finished with the death of the last apostle. After that it's down to tradition and interpretation of scripture. The bible will never change but the popes have written heaps of encyclicals which of course will never be part of the canon.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, papal infallibility is a human invention, like many of Rome's other doctrines - the priesthood, sacrifice of the Mass, Immaculate conception of Mary, etc.

You are of course entitled to you opinion.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christ keeps His church free from fundamental error by the working of the Holy Spirit within her...

If you think about what you wrote there, you'll realize that it can't be true because different Christian churches teach different interpretations of scripture. Depends of course what you mean by church.

Splendour wrote: »

And what about the former teaching on Limbo?

Limbo is only a theory, it was never dogma and isn't taught any longer.

iUseVi

kelly1 wrote: »

Limbo is only a theory, it was never dogma and isn't taught any longer.

Heard about that, does anything take its place? I mean, where do babies go now?

kelly1

iUseVi wrote: »

Heard about that, does anything take its place? I mean, where do babies go now?

That's entirely in God's hands. We can only hope in His mercy.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Just on a point of information, the ceremonial title Pontifex Maximus is an old one and was first used by the head priest of Rome. Over the course of centuries, the title was assumed by the Emperors, before being finally appropriated by the church in the late 300's.

So, strictly speaking, Jesus is acting as a heretic in acquiring a religious title which belonged to another religion.

Yes, my fault for not explaining better. The pope is using the title Pontifex Maximus in a direct allusion to Christ's office as High Priest of His people. Christ never claimed the title Pontifex Maximus, nor did the apostles use it of him. They did describe Him as their High Priest, and that was a long time before the late 300's.

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Christ keeps His church free from fundamental error by the working of the Holy Spirit within her...
If you think about what you wrote there, you'll realize that it can't be true because different Christian churches teach different interpretations of scripture. Depends of course what you mean by church.

I didn't say all doctrines have been kept pure, just the essentials - the fundamentals.

Those are in turn the doctrines that define a true church. A denial of any indicates that church is false or apostate. A denial of the lesser doctrines merely means the church is in error on that point/s.

All of the doctrines are preserved of course - in the Scripture. They are not lost to the Church, though various churches err concerning some or many. Christians interact with one another, seeking a more accurate understanding of all of Scripture, even though we agree on the fundamentals.

wolfsbane

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

We were led to believe in school that the pope was Inflammable

Nah, that was his opponents - if he could catch them.:D

Splendour

kelly1 wrote: »

Limbo is only a theory, it was never dogma and isn't taught any longer.

That may be so, but in the minds of many believing Catholics it was a church teaching that came from an 'infallible ' pope, and thus for many years people suffered believing their lost babies souls to be in a state of limbo.

I believe the CC has brought more damage onto itself by constantly changing the rules. In fact, I don't think most Catholics (including priests)know what the rules are anymore...(sorry-a bit off topic).

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

kelly1 said:
I didn't say all doctrines have been kept pure, just the essentials - the fundamentals.

Those are in turn the doctrines that define a true church. A denial of any indicates that church is false or apostate. A denial of the lesser doctrines merely means the church is in error on that point/s.

You seem to be suggesting that the Holy Spirit it doing a mediocre job of keeping the Church free from error. Blasphemy surely?

wolfsbane wrote: »

All of the doctrines are preserved of course - in the Scripture. They are not lost to the Church, though various churches err concerning some or many. Christians interact with one another, seeking a more accurate understanding of all of Scripture, even though we agree on the fundamentals.

The doctrine on the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is an absolutely fundamental doctrine of the Catholic Church. In fact the Eucharist is the "source and summit" of the CC. Most other Churches deny this. That's one major example of what has been lost in other churches.

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
kelly1 said:
I didn't say all doctrines have been kept pure, just the essentials - the fundamentals.

Those are in turn the doctrines that define a true church. A denial of any indicates that church is false or apostate. A denial of the lesser doctrines merely means the church is in error on that point/s.
You seem to be suggesting that the Holy Spirit it doing a mediocre job of keeping the Church free from error. Blasphemy surely?

No, just that God expects us to labour in the word, to study it and advance in our knowledge. That can't apply to fundamental doctrine, as one cannot be a Christian and be in error on those - but it is true for the other doctrines. It was true for them even in the apostles' day, when errors had to be set right concerning clean/unclean foods, etc.

Just as God does not keep the true Christian free from all practical sin, He does not keep him from all doctrinal error. God does keep His people from unforgivable sin, so likewise from fundamental error.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
All of the doctrines are preserved of course - in the Scripture. They are not lost to the Church, though various churches err concerning some or many. Christians interact with one another, seeking a more accurate understanding of all of Scripture, even though we agree on the fundamentals.
The doctrine on the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is an absolutely fundamental doctrine of the Catholic Church. In fact the Eucharist is the "source and summit" of the CC. Most other Churches deny this. That's one major example of what has been lost in other churches.

Yes, it is a fundamental of the RCC - but thankfully not of the Church Christ founded. The real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament was a heresy introduced into an increasingly corrupted section of the Church, fitting into its invention of a sacrificing priesthood.

None of this was known in the New Testament. There Christ's sacrifice is revealed to be a once-off event, perfect, therefore requiring no repeat. Christ's body ascended to heaven, where it remains until His Second Coming.
Hebrews 10:12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

The idea that a man can ring a bell and give an incantation and so make Christ's body and blood materialize before him is a magic more in keeping with Simon Magnus than Simon Peter. Hocus pocus - no wonder the world borrows the Mass term to describe magical incantation.

Noel, true Christians meet to remember the Lord's death by breaking bread and drinking wine, as He commanded. The bread represents His body, the wine His blood. Taking them we proclaim that He died for us. No re-offering of Him, no worshipping the bread and wine. We worship Christ who is in heaven. The only sense He is on earth is by His vicar - the Holy Spirit whom He sent to bring His prescence and the Father's prescence into our hearts.

John 14:15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

19 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”
22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?”
23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, just that God expects us to labour in the word, to study it and advance in our knowledge. That can't apply to fundamental doctrine, as one cannot be a Christian and be in error on those - but it is true for the other doctrines. It was true for them even in the apostles' day, when errors had to be set right concerning clean/unclean foods, etc.

Again, I think you are effectively doubting God's providence. God has provided us with the truth from Jesus, revealed to His apostles and faithfully handed down, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to successive bishops. It is the Holy Spirit which keeps the Church free from doctrinal error.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just as God does not keep the true Christian free from all practical sin, He does not keep him from all doctrinal error. God does keep His people from unforgivable sin, so likewise from fundamental error.

Can't agree. Not everybody has the authority to infallibly interpret scripture. This was given to the apostles and their successors alone. Why do you think there is so much disagreement of interpretation among different denominations/churches?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it is a fundamental of the RCC - but thankfully not of the Church Christ founded. The real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament was a heresy introduced into an increasingly corrupted section of the Church, fitting into its invention of a sacrificing priesthood.

I suppose you would use the Constantine conspiracy theory to back this up? Belief in the real presence of Christ in the blessed sacrament has been there from the very start. It's in the bible if you remove your blinkers!

wolfsbane wrote: »

There Christ's sacrifice is revealed to be a once-off event, perfect, therefore requiring no repeat. Christ's body ascended to heaven, where it remains until His Second Coming.

Hebrews 10:12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

It is a misunderstanding to say that the Mass is a repeat sacrifice on Calvary. It is in fact a re-presentation of the one and only sacrifice of Calvary and which is offered to the Father in atonement for sins and as a means to plead for mercy. The Mass is the ultimate prayer.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The idea that a man can ring a bell and give an incantation and so make Christ's body and blood materialize before him is a magic more in keeping with Simon Magnus than Simon Peter. Hocus pocus - no wonder the world borrows the Mass term to describe magical incantation.

Again you misunderstand. The ringing of the bell has no has no effect. It's only a means to call our attention what's happening on the altar. The priest also has no direct power to consecrate the bread and wine. He acts in persona Christi so that Christ in fact is performing the miracle. The priest is only the Lord's instrument.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Noel, true Christians meet to remember the Lord's death by breaking bread and drinking wine, as He commanded. The bread represents His body, the wine His blood. Taking them we proclaim that He died for us. No re-offering of Him, no worshipping the bread and wine. We worship Christ who is in heaven. The only sense He is on earth is by His vicar - the Holy Spirit whom He sent to bring His prescence and the Father's prescence into our hearts.

Christ asked us to eat His Body and drink His Blood, not bread and wine.

Matthew 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Does reading this not cause you some uneasiness about what you believe? No matter how you try, you can't change Christ's word to suit your own beliefs. He didn't say "take this bread, which represents my body and eat...".

Incidentally why do you think Christ asked us to symbolically eat and drink His flesh and blood?

I think I might just start a new thread on this subject.

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, just that God expects us to labour in the word, to study it and advance in our knowledge. That can't apply to fundamental doctrine, as one cannot be a Christian and be in error on those - but it is true for the other doctrines. It was true for them even in the apostles' day, when errors had to be set right concerning clean/unclean foods, etc.
Again, I think you are effectively doubting God's providence. God has provided us with the truth from Jesus, revealed to His apostles and faithfully handed down, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to successive bishops. It is the Holy Spirit which keeps the Church free from doctrinal error.

It is indeed the Holy Spirit who keeps the church free from error - but that means not that error will not be held or taught by any pastor/overseer(bishop), just that no fundamental error will enter the Church and be accepted by the Church. If you are saying no error whatsoever will be taught by pastors, then you need to explain the divergent theories about the End times that were held by the Early Fathers and that continue till this day. Or any of the other doctrines.

You seem to want to insist the RCC has the whole truth and nothing but the truth by ascribing erroneous teaching in it to mere opinions - that only what has been defined as dogma is infallibly true. The Reformed Churches could just as well say only the fundamentals are infallibly true and the other doctrines are mere opinions. We are on the same ground of infallibility as you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Just as God does not keep the true Christian free from all practical sin, He does not keep him from all doctrinal error. God does keep His people from unforgivable sin, so likewise from fundamental error.
Can't agree. Not everybody has the authority to infallibly interpret scripture. This was given to the apostles and their successors alone. Why do you think there is so much disagreement of interpretation among different denominations/churches?

Why is there such disagreement among Roman Catholics about various issues? Does the Holy Spirit not give apostolic infallibility on these truths? If not, why not? If Paul were here, we could ask him for a definitive teaching on Creation/Evolution. Why not Benedict? Why such a long time dithering about Limbo?

Could it be the popes have no more guidance that you and me on it - and as I would allege, a lot less than me and millions like me.

I suppose you would use the Constantine conspiracy theory to back this up? Belief in the real presence of Christ in the blessed sacrament has been there from the very start. It's in the bible if you remove your blinkers!

I can see no priesthood in the New Testament church - perhaps you will point it out? Further, I see no sacrifice for them to offer - Christ was offered once, no more to suffer, as He accomplished everything needed by His death on the cross.

It is a misunderstanding to say that the Mass is a repeat sacrifice on Calvary. It is in fact a re-presentation of the one and only sacrifice of Calvary and which is offered to the Father in atonement for sins and as a means to plead for mercy. The Mass is the ultimate prayer.

So it is the same sacrifice, but offered again and again? That the wafer and wine are actually the whole of Christ, just as surely as He hung on the cross, being offered again and again to God? That this wafer and wine is not just symbolic of Christ, but actually Him - as are all the other wafers and wine consecrated throughout the world at that same moment? That it is proper for man to worship that wafer and wine, with the same worship given to God in heaven?

As I said, I find no such behaviour in the New Testament. No carrying about of this wafer god in solemn procession through the streets, no putting him to bed in a little 'ark' in the back of the church, no genuflecting toward it as we pass. All the idolatrous inventions of a paganised church long after the departure of the apostles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The idea that a man can ring a bell and give an incantation and so make Christ's body and blood materialize before him is a magic more in keeping with Simon Magnus than Simon Peter. Hocus pocus - no wonder the world borrows the Mass term to describe magical incantation.

Again you misunderstand. The ringing of the bell has no has no effect. It's only a means to call our attention what's happening on the altar. The priest also has no direct power to consecrate the bread and wine. He acts in persona Christi so that Christ in fact is performing the miracle. The priest is only the Lord's instrument.

Regardless of the medium, the hocus pocus produces the effect. Bread and wine become God, at the words of the priest - allegedly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Noel, true Christians meet to remember the Lord's death by breaking bread and drinking wine, as He commanded. The bread represents His body, the wine His blood. Taking them we proclaim that He died for us. No re-offering of Him, no worshipping the bread and wine. We worship Christ who is in heaven. The only sense He is on earth is by His vicar - the Holy Spirit whom He sent to bring His prescence and the Father's prescence into our hearts.
Christ asked us to eat His Body and drink His Blood, not bread and wine.

Matthew 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Does reading this not cause you some uneasiness about what you believe? No matter how you try, you can't change Christ's word to suit your own beliefs. He didn't say "take this bread, which represents my body and eat...".

Depends how you understand language. Note that Jesus took bread, said Take ye, and eat. That means You that this, and eat it. Eat the bread. Likewise with the wine.

It is what He then says about the bread and wine that matter. He says the bread is His body, the wine, His blood. We have now to ask ourselves if this is meant literally or metaphorically. You seem to think it must be either literal or simile - but metaphor is just as likely, and requires no 'this represents'. An example from Christ's other words:
John 15:5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. Do you think He meant He is literally a vine and we literally branches? Or did He mean He is like a vine, and we its branches?

A further guide for our interpretation is this: Christ was standing in His body and blood, so could not be in the bread and wine. Christ's body is not omnipresent. It is currently in Heaven, not on Earth. One Day He will return here.

Again, we should go to the passage that speaks specifically of His body and blood being eaten by His people, to see what they tell us:
John 6:47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” 52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
Note the literal meaning which the Jews took from His words. Then note Christ's explanation. Eating Moses' bread led to death. Eating His bread leads to not dying. Did He mean those who ate Him would not die just as Moses and the people died? No, for those who eat Him have to be raised up at the last day. The physical is not meant. But the spiritual is - eternal life.

So is Jesus speaking of eating His physical body when He says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood - or eating Him spiritually? Spiritually - he who believes in Me has everlasting life; It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Incidentally why do you think Christ asked us to symbolically eat and drink His flesh and blood?

To remember Him, His suffering for us; and to proclaim that His death was for us. It is an act of devotion for His people, to stir up their affections, and an act of fellowship with His people, to stir up their love for one another. It is not an act of atonement, an offering to pay for our sins.

I think I might just start a new thread on this subject.

There certainly is a lot to be discussed. For example:
Do you believe I am accursed from Christ because I deny the bread is the whole person of the Lord Jesus?