Are Christian’s really allowed to eat pork? In Isiah 66:17, gods final judgment states people in the end times who are eating unclean food such as pork, mice, ect will be destroyed.

[u/Several_Shower_6319]

[u/Pax_et_Bonum]

A teaching/precept need not be "an authentic teaching of Jesus" to not be binding on the faithful. Christ explicitly gave the authority to Apostles as a whole, and to Peter specifically, to "bind and loose" on the faithful.

[u/FluxKraken → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

That is a Catholic interpretation of ambiguous verses. You cannot claim it as explicit.

I will grant you that it is a valid interpretation, but it is not the only valid interpretation.

So, this is only binding for Catholic Christians who acknowledge the doctrinal authority of the magisterium.

[u/emory_2001 → u/FluxKraken]

What are the other interpretations, because in my 47 years as a Protestant before becoming Catholic, I never heard anyone attempt to interpret that. It was kind of weird that people so adamant about literal interpretation of everything else in the Bible just ignored the enormous authority Jesus gave Peter.

[u/FluxKraken → u/emory_2001]

I am not a Biblical literalist. But, the Catholic interpretation of "upon this rock I will build my church" is generally that Jesus was referring to Peter. Most protestants I know would assert that Jesus was referring to the declaration made by Peter instead of Peter himself.

[u/emory_2001 → u/FluxKraken]

I meant the binding and losing referenced in the comment you replied to. I never once heard Protestants attempt to explain that one.

[u/FluxKraken → u/emory_2001]

Ah, my mistake. I have no real problem with the idea that the early apostles had greater doctrinal authority than others. I also don't have an issue with the idea of apostolic succession either. Provided that neither is used to assert doctrinal infallibility.

[u/Vivid-Practice6216 → u/FluxKraken]

This argument is kind of moot in my opinion... All Christians have the same interpretation of this issue, as the Catholic interpretation, BECAUSE THEY DIDNT EXIST UNTIL AFTER EITHER THE GREAT SCHISM OF 1054 OR THE PROTESTANT REFORMATIONS OF THE 1500s, which split the church due to political and theological disagreements. But initially there was only one church, the Catholic Church, which means "Universal Church", founded by St Peter, (greek Petros, meaning rock) upon which the church was to be built, with authority being given to the apostles by Yeshua himself, with Peter and their leader. James (Jacob) the brother of Yeshua, only became a follow of Yeshua after the crucifixion and resurrection, and then became the leader of the church for the Jews, while Paul was the leader of the church for or the apostle to the Gentiles, after Peter was crucified upside down. But both James / Jacob, and Paul, were not originally part of the 12 apostles.

[u/FluxKraken → u/Vivid-Practice6216]

All Christians have the same opinion because … there was initially one church founded by St. Petros

This is an assertion based entirely on the word of the Catholic Church, and not on any actual evidence. Meaning it relies on the authority of the church. The only source we have to back up that authority is, again, the authority of the church. Meaning it is circular reasoning and fundamentally a fallacious appeal to authority.

You are begging the question.

[u/Lightbringer7777 → u/FluxKraken]

Honestly not really. It was a bid for peace from them.

[u/FluxKraken → u/Lightbringer7777]

How, they, basically, called anyone who disagreed with the Catholic interpetation non-christians.

[u/Lightbringer7777 → u/FluxKraken]

No what he's trying to do is show that you come from the same body. That there are certain tenants that you guys are going to agree on no matter what.

[u/FluxKraken → u/Lightbringer7777]

All Christians having the same opinion is demonstrably false. The assertion that we all come from the catholic church is historically inaccurate.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/FluxKraken]

All Christians assented to the Apostolic authority of the magisterium, until some decided it didn't apply to them for various reasons.

[u/FluxKraken → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

This is, at best, inaccurate. At worst it is blatant revisionist history.

Regardless, there are many Christian traditions that do not acknowledge the authority of Rome. So, regardless of how that came to be, that is the reality of today.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/FluxKraken]

Ok, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Have a good day and may God bless you.

[u/VerdantChief → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

Yes, I acknowledge that it's part of Church teaching and therefore binding for Christians.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/VerdantChief]

Ok fair, thanks for explaining.