Oddbean

Lol! My terms? No. Jesus' terms certainly. Jesus never meant to rest authority for the church, his bride, in any one man. So, I reject your idea of an infallible church/pope outright. It's just that simple.

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19)

Because Jesus instituted a physical church which needs a leader… I can’t tell if you’re trolling or genuinely curious. Joe Heshmeyer has done good work on early Christianity. He wrote the books Pope Peter and The Early Church Was the Catholic. I think all Christians believe the Holy Spirit guides “the church,” even if they believe “the church” to be an informal community of believers. As the early Christians did, Catholics believe the Church is a physical presence on earth, which is to say, a real community with real leaders. Just like the apostles replaced Judas with Matthias, succession is essential to continue the mission of the Church. Also, for the sake of clarity, papal infallibility is extremely narrowly defined. It exists because the (head of the) Church can’t officially teach error, which is a pretty obvious dogma if you already accept that the Holy Spirit is guiding it.

Because Jesus instituted a physical church which needs a leader… And yet Peter still lives, or do you not believe that? Do you not believe that Jesus is also physical and the head of the church? If Jesus is the head of the church, and he's alive and leading along with the holy spirit, and he's also not "here," then Peter doesn't need to be "here" to be the rock upon which the church is built. I'm not trolling. I just can't believe that catholics can't bother to figure out pretty simple stuff like this. Judas was replaced because of the betrayal, not because the 12 apostles needed to be succeeded in perpetuity. The Apostles will sit in judgment of the 12 tribes. The Apostles. Not anyone else. That's their role, other than obviously filling the great commission. There has never been any indication in scripture (that I'm aware of) that The Church is in need of a singular human leader. Following the lead from the OT, kings were NOT what God preferred for His chosen nation. I can and do equate the pope to a self proclaimed king (yeah, yeah, he's elected, BFD) which is, IMO, anathema to how God wants His people to be "ruled." What you are saying is, IMO, much to materialistic and also does not follow the precedents set by God in the example of Isreal (the people from the Bible, not the current state gubment) and how He wishes them to be. I don't really care how narrowly defined papal infallibility is or is not. It's an idiotic concept prima fascia. The whole of the papacy is incorrect. The whole hierarchical structure of the church is incorrect. Much of the doctrine is directly in conflict with scripture (used in a fairly broad sense here), and therefore is, IMO, heretical. It might seem like I'm trolling, but I'm not. I place no faith in men. I place less than no faith in those that claim some sort of power over me. I have no king but Christ. Anyone who would Shephard me better be local and strong, and I don't consider the pope to be either.

Because there aren't any “Christians” who claim no one has authority over them because they're under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who aren't a “mouthpiece of the satanic pedo death cult”? I can't believe Protestants can't bother to see what has happened to Christianity outside the Church. It's shocking how weak the arguments are against Catholicism and how intransigent its opponents are. I've yet to see a Biblical reference or evidence to refute my claims, only opinions written authoritatively. I'm all for conversations between different denominations to figure out the truth, but many like this lack essential goodwill.

Who said I was a protestant? I heave huge issues with pretty much all protestant denominations as well as issues with orthodoxy. Stop assuming things. You can't believe what's happened to Christianity outside the catholic church? Well, I can't believe what's happened to the totality of Christianity in "the west." period. Catholics always act holier than everyone, and don't want to hear any, even minor, criticisms of the claims of the catholic church being the one, true church. That goes against all the descriptions of the church used in the Bible. Christians are part of the body of Christ. Follow that metaphor: each body part is unique, but essential. That should clue you in that there is no one single church that's complete in and of itself. We are all part of the body of Christ, we are all unique, and we don't all need to fall under anyone else's lead but Christ's. The pope has no right of authority over me, even since I simply reject his authority, or any pope's authority. The current pope certainly has issues with his philosophical foundations, is directly in bed with anti-humam forces, and is not leading the catholic church in a direction that I think is correct for any person claiming to follow Christ. Specifically, his socialist bent is disturbing and gross. To answer your charge, specifically: protestants are generally a bunch of lame grandstands, at least in the US and Yurp. They are victims of their own success and ego and I can't stand all the idiocy that goes into many of the supposed tenets of their faith. Using examples from the Bible about how God dealt with his chosen nation is weak? 🙄 I've already provided several direct concepts from the Bible. That's evidence that I'm guessing you ignored. That's pretty lame of you. 😐 Why should I have any goodwill to modern catholicism? It's not even what once was and has lost most of what made it powerful, though, I am not knowledgeable enough to go after the roots of its power in any depth. The arguments are making are "the catholic church is great because the catholic church is great!" That's weak reasoning, and hearing that is actually lame.

Protestant: “a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protestant Protestantism is, by definition, a *protest* against the Catholic faith. I suggest you do a little more research into your faith, and then we can have a more fruitful discussion.

Also, I have been examining my faith. It has only confirmed my conclusions about catholicism while also looking holes in a bunch of reformation stuff that I had simply took for granted and was not scripturally correct.

I appreciate your willingness to examine your faith. To answer a previous question, the reason why you should always show goodwill towards everyone is to accept them where they are and try to convert them to the truth while keeping your heart open to recognizing the truth as well, wherever it may be (the Church doesn’t claim to be the only place of truth, just the fullness of truth). Joe Heschmeyer posted a video recently titled The Biblical Case for Infallibility. Since you don’t claim goodwill towards Catholics, and you seem to have a strong resentment for anything a Catholic has to say about the Church, I don’t expect you to be open to his arguments. However, since you seem dedicated to Scripture, which is admirable, I hope you review the Bible passages he references and reflect on what God is trying to tell us. https://youtu.be/2djx9lESGgA?si=zncj1SehMeYL5sfZ

OK. It took me a while to finish it with the attention that I needed to really listen and think about what the presenter was laying out. So... I agree with nearly everything he said. My one issue is that he insists that the big C Catholic Church is the "one true church." That is so demonstrably false, and my first, largest criticism of the catholic church, that it gets really hard to take much past that seriously for me. Especially in light of the current pope, who is, as I have stated, part of the satanic pedo cult and has greatly espoused a satanic doctrine based on Marxist BS (which is itself satanic), that even if the Roman Catholic church had not been yet compromised by the election of this pope, is now certainly compromised by lies, so that the truth in unity that the presenter rightly declares as necessary for The Church writ large, is not present (and is my contention that it has not been present since at least Justinian's reign). So, while agree that protestantism is a mess, the lack of acknowledgement that the current leadership of TRCC is heretical just undermines any other position that one might take in the debate that TRCC is "the one true church" that all Christians should abide in unity within.

I appreciate you taking the time to analyze the arguments thoroughly. Is there a denomination with a better claim to being the one true church than the Catholic Church? If the answer is no church can claim that, it seems to me that you have a position that contradicts scripture because there is no church we can point to that is being guarded from the gates of hell. Unless you think the community of believers is the church with authority resting in the individual to make declarations on faith and morals, however, that seems contrary to Jesus's prayer for unity since there is no way individuals will all agree. It appears to me there is no escaping recognizing authority for the sake of unity. For this reason, the Catholic Church claims it has the authority to safeguard the deposit of faith (Scripture and Tradition) for Christian unity. FWIW, even though the pope has authority, that doesn't mean he's above criticism. I am certainly critical of the pope at times. This is an example of criticism from a *cardinal* showing even very sharp public criticism is appropriate: https://newdailycompass.com/en/a-profile-of-the-next-pope-writes-cardinal