Infallible that there are only Catholics in heaven

[polonius]

Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy).

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins...In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Ephesians 4:5].

….Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Here's a teaching which meets the requirements for an infallible papal teaching (ex cathedra).

Do even Catholic believe it anymore?

Before Vatican II, there were about 14 infallible papal teachings. Now we're down to two, and it's arguable if they meet the requirement for papal infallibility.

[showme]

[Replying to post 17 by showme]

derived from his role as the apostolic successor to Saint Peter, to whom Jesus is said to have given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of "binding and loosing", naming him as the "rock" upon which the church would be built.

This is correct. And Scriptural so ironic to add the phrase to whom Jesus is said to have given. In fact, as we see in Scripture Jesus did say these words.

Everything else you posted is simply anti-Catholic propaganda that you have chosen to share <sigh>

Simon bar Jonas was called petros, which means small stone. The "church" was to be built on petras, which means foundation stone, and refers to the Spirit of Revelation, such as "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). And the reason for Simon bar Jonas to be called "stone", was that he was the doppliganger of Shebna, who was in charge of the house of David, who would "shame your master's house" and "carve a resting place for yourself in the rock" (Isaiah 22:16-18).

[polonius]

[Replying to post 19 by polonius.advice]

And keep in mind that the four evangelists wrote between 70 and 95 AD, and were not witnesses to what Jesus said.

Yes, do keep that in mind. Proving it was via Sacred Tradition that we receive our instruction.

RESPONSE: "Tradition" is based on the thinking that if people believe something long enough, it must be correct. It's claimed when there is no real evidence.

[RightReason]

[RightReason]

[showme]

[showme]

[RightReason]

[Replying to showme]

Your problem is that the "dead", your "fathers" (Jeremiah 16:19), "in the day of distress", such as the "awesome day of the LORD" (Joel 2:32), the survivors of the nations/Gentiles, will say, "our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood".

I’m sorry but that is not what Tradition is. Tradition is acknowledging that those who have gone before us, those who lived when Christ lived, are doing and carrying out that which Christ asked of them and gave them the authority to do. We are told to follow their example, whether it has been written down or passed on by word of mouth.

Tradition has been vital in history in man getting to where he is. It is also the means Christ intended, so much so we were given His Church first (Sacred Tradition), and His Church gave us the Bible (Sacred Scripture). Many today trust Sacred Scripture and believe Sacred Scripture alone is our authority, failing to recognize by even accepting Sacred Scripture you have already accepted Sacred Tradition.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 26 by showme]

Yeshua's testimony was presented using parables so that the "wicked", those without ears to hear, could not understand (Matthew 13:13)(Daniel 12:10)(Isaiah 6:10). Neither the Protestants, who claim the rock the church is built on is "you are the Christ, the son of the living God", nor the Roman Catholics, who say Peter is the rock the church is built on. Both are taking Matthew 16:16 our of context, and as both are daughters of Babylon, their days are numbered.

So, forget proper Bible analysis and just call those who don’t share your false interpretation the whore of Babylon. LOL! I provided the thorough evidence why Peter cannot mean small pebble. I also provided the evidence showing the order of the sentence, the syntax, and the context, and word choice all prove Peter is the rock. Seems like you have a lot to address but seem to be unable to so. Instead you do what others do when they are desperate because they have nothing to argue -- start quoting verses like this:

You should not worry, because it is the "many" that follow that "broad" "way" (Matthew 7:13). You will apparently be in the company of the "many".

. Is that really the best you can do?


Perhaps following faulty tradition is preventing you from correct interpretation.

[polonius]

[showme]

[Replying to showme]

Your problem is that the "dead", your "fathers" (Jeremiah 16:19), "in the day of distress", such as the "awesome day of the LORD" (Joel 2:32), the survivors of the nations/Gentiles, will say, "our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood".

I’m sorry but that is not what Tradition is. Tradition is acknowledging that those who have gone before us, those who lived when Christ lived, are doing and carrying out that which Christ asked of them and gave them the authority to do. We are told to follow their example, whether it has been written down or passed on by word of mouth.

Tradition has been vital in history in man getting to where he is. It is also the means Christ intended, so much so we were given His Church first (Sacred Tradition), and His Church gave us the Bible (Sacred Scripture). Many today trust Sacred Scripture and believe Sacred Scripture alone is our authority, failing to recognize by even accepting Sacred Scripture you have already accepted Sacred Tradition.

Isaiah 29:13 The LORD says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.

Mark 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions."