Posted on 06/28/2008 3:25:43 PM PDT by NYer
Done and done.
>those to whom Scripture is entrusted are infallible, and must be obeyed.<
“Once again I must point out that seeing that you obviously have a totally flawed understanding of infallibility why would I even consider anything else that you say?”
How is that flawed?
“You just have to assent to it and obey. Get it? It is what we do before God, we say yes and we obey.”
I do get it (though this does not apply to all levels of RC teaching), and which confirms my prior statement.
“the Catholic Church not only claims that it is the ultimate earthly authority, it IS the ultimate earthly authority because it is led and protected by the Holy Spirit sent down at Pentacost.”
I obviously am familiar with that claim, and one of my responses was that “the Catholic doctrine of a perpetuated Petrine papacy [which is foundational to your claim] critically fails to possess the explicit and implicit substantiation that the Holy Spirit is faithful to provide for other major doctrines of like critical nature.”
“I had never heard the phrase either but this site was interesting. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a29.htm";
Thank you for providing a respectable Catholic source that confirms this is an accurate term. For all intents and purposes, what Rome is asserting is that those to whom the word of God comes have autocratic authority over it, and based upon her interpretation of Scripture, she has the sole authority to infallibly define what is Scripture and it’s meaning, as well as to effectively add to it by making church tradition of equal authority to it.
My brief response to this is that i fully agree that God established His enduring church (Mt. 16:18), and that it does have the powers from Christ the Scriptures ascribe to it (Mt. 18:18), and that He did establish ordination of Bishops/elders (same office) and deacons (Tts. 1:5-9; Heb. 6:2; Acts 6:2-6), but not a successor to Peter, and that the pastoral office functions as teachers and overseers to whom obedience is enjoined (1 Tim. 4; Heb. 13:17). And which is manifest in Bible believing churches,. And that God used holy men to penn His Scriptures (2 Pet. 2:21, 21). The differences are that the same class of revelation (the Scriptures) manifest that both those who give the word as well as it’s preservers are subject to it (Mk. 7:6-13), and that even the preaching of the very apostles had to be able to withstand Scriptural scrutiny by common men who were lovers of truth and the Scriptures, and who are commended by the Holy Spirit (Acts 17:11).
And that while there was an oral tradition, if it was wholly inspired then this would have been written down as was the Biblical manner (Ex. 17:14; Dt. 31:24; 1 Sa. 10:25; Jer. 30:2; 45:1; 51:60), and included as Scripture, which is the only class of revelation that is explicitly declared to be wholly inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). And the canon being closed, to make another stream of revelation equal to is essentially adding to the canon.
And while this does not mean we cannot not refer to history, or that God cannot speak to us today (which evangelicals believe), it means that such must be subject to the codified word of God, the Scriptures. And it here that the case for the foundational perpetuated Petrine papacy it wanting, as well as for doctrines such as the perpetual virginity of Mary (etc.).
“Thank you for providing a respectable Catholic source that confirms this is an accurate term.”
Actually, I did no such thing, I said I found it interesting, I scanned it but did not study it. It did seem like a respectable source but I also added that there was NO reference on the New Advent site whatsoever and that is a really respectable site with many Catholic references. So I will repeat there was NO reference to the phrase on the most respectable Catholic reference site.
I don’t have time right now but will respond to the rest of the post later.
“And that while there was an oral tradition, if it was wholly inspired then this would have been written down as was the Biblical manner”
Profoundly devastating to your own case. Christ lives. Christ spoke and interacted enough to fill volumes, yet it is not written down. You’re claiming Christ’s Life is only contained in the Bible. Your Christ is a dead Christ, mine lives. Through His Life, Tradition, the Bible, and His Church that he founded for us.
Protestantism has tradition right at its core. The canon of Scripture is itself a tradition nowhere established in the Bible. It’s a church tradition. Protestants are in the position of having its primary authority not being able to justify its own existence.
I have a few minutes.
More on the site I linked. It sounded just as I stated, interesting. It was written by a self-described Catholic, I know nothing of his credentials. As I said it was interesting, it is not some kind of Catholic phrase and Catholics don’t bandy it about. I had never heard the term until you posted it and I am often on Catholic sites. So if you are implying that I verified that it was an authentic Catholic phrase or teaching you are more than wrong.
I won’t answer your question about infallibility because there is an active thread on it and you can read it.
>I do get it (though this does not apply to all levels of RC teaching), and which confirms my prior statement.<
This does apply to all official Catholic teaching. It is all in the Catechism and yes, we must assent to all of it. It doesn’t apply to opinions from anyone, when in doubt, look it up in the Catechism.
>I obviously am familiar with that claim,...<
Please give me some examples and valid links. No pope in history has ever officially taught heresy.
What critically fails to possess and promulgate the Truth is Sola Scriptura, which is not Biblical. Everyman a pope obviously does not work. Catholics know the meaning of Scripture because Scripture was written through the Tradition of the Apostles. The Catholic Church didn’t get its Tradition from Scripture. The Scripture came through Tradition.
You think that you can make some kind of argument with your own personal interpretation of Scripture. I’m telling you that you cannot.
I used to be a Protestant, I’ve read my Bible since I was around 7 years old, I’ve read it twice cover to cover and many more times by chapter, book and verse. It was my Bible reading that led me to ask questions and it was the answers to those questions that led me to the Catholic Church.
I never thought that I’d check out the Catholic Church, I was just looking for the real deal and I found it. It took 46 years for me to come home to the Church that Jesus established and unless the “Gates of Hell”, do prevail and I find that Jesus was a liar after all, I will probably become apostate or Jewish because Jesus meant what He said or He wasn’t who He said.
I’ve read thousands of posts similar to yours and though most Protestants have good talking points their understanding is a mile wide and an inch deep.
If you would like to study the journey of a Catholic Convert, I’d suggest you read GK Chesterton. He will make you laugh but his writings are very profound and right on the money.
The Normans, after all, were Catholics themselves (as were everyone in Western Europe, excepting some remaining pagans in Scandinavia), The battle to which you refer was part of a 3 way contest for control of southern Italy between the locals, supported by the Pope, the Byzantine Empire (this was the occasion of the Great Schism with Orthodoxy), and conquering Normans, still half-barbarians.
All Christ did was indeed inspired of God, but what i am referring to was records of what He said and did, which if written wholly inspired, would be part of the revelation that the Holy Spirit states is wholly inspired. To hold that a written or oral tradition is equal to that is to essentially hold that that the canon is not closed. And to allow the teaching as God-inspired doctrines that are the unwarranted commandments of men.
“The canon of Scripture is itself a tradition..”
Indeed it is, though the inspired books are established as Scripture not due to ecclesiastical decree, but to their manifest enduring purity and power down thru history. And as i also stated, sola scriptura does not disallow history, or God “speaking” to us today, but such must be subject to the established (2 Tim. 3:16) word of God, the Scriptures, which what the Lord and His apostles often proved things by (in addition to powerful Divine attestation), and were themselves proved to be sound by.
I’ve had a few moments to think and I would hold Paul up to you as one who misinterpreted Scripture. He was a very brilliant and religious Jew. He knew the Scripture backward and forward and yet he didn’t recognize Jesus from his very own Scriptures because, like most Jews, he had his own opinion of what the Messiah was going to be. Most of the Jews thought Jesus was going to be a warrior or a king of this world but instead He was a man who taught love above all and then gave Himself up to the cross on Calvary like a thief or a murderer when He had never done any wrong.
It took an appearance by Jesus, himself, to awaken the soul of Paul and it could happen to you too.
I challenge you to pray to God to truly open your eyes, not unto your own understanding but unto God’s will.
“Indeed it is, though the inspired books are established as Scripture not due to ecclesiastical decree, but to their manifest enduring purity and power down thru history”
The Biblical Canon you hold dear was established by the authority of the Catholic Church. Most Protestant scholars even concede this. There are some parts that were taken out in the 1500’s by some who split from the Church in the Reformation period. Anything else is a rationalization - such as denial that Reformers used this Churches Canon until it didn’t meet there needs. They THEY independently changed the nature of the Bible with no authority.
Sure the Normans were nominally Christian / Catholic themselves, some were even pious.
But Pope Leo thought the power of God would allow him and an army of Italians to prevail militarily against the Normans. His army was convinced it was true as well, right up until the Norman charge and rout. So much for that theory. ;)
I tend to doubt that the Pope believed that, whatever he said to the troops to encourage them. In any case the belief is that 'the Gates of Hell' will not prevail against the Church, not that the temporal power of the Pope would prevail against that of other members of the Church.
God offers sanctuary for your soul, he promises no protection for the body, or even the “body” of the Church from corruption or assassination or conquest.
So how is the Norman state in Italy doing THESE days?
As well as the Norman state of England I would imagine! ;) They were never kicked out, they just slowly absorbed into the subjugated population.
“The Biblical Canon you hold dear was established by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Rome can decree what it will, but if the books were not manifest as inspired by their power and purity and supplementary conformity to each other then they would be obscure today, which is what the 7 extra books, relatively are. And which are excluded for good reasons, fallible Reformers initial acceptance notwithstanding: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_apocrypha_inspired_of_god and http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart1.html *
What does the Catholic Church mean by the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"
Christian, I Presume? (Salvation) [Ecumenical]
Rock Solid: The Salvation History of the Catholic Church [Ecumenical]
Getting in Touch With Reality (good character and behavior as a ticket to Heaven)
The Early Church Fathers on Salvation Outside the Church [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
Extra ecclesiam - Outside the Church there is no salvation.
Is Faith Necessary for Salvation? (Part 2)
Good Will Equals Salvation? (Did the pope say non christians could be saved - part 1)
The Experience of the Salvation of Christ Today
“I have a few minutes.”
I understand; near constant attendance to this forum should not be expected.
“if you are implying that I verified that it was an authentic Catholic phrase or teaching you are more than wrong.”
It was never my argument that it was a phrase, but that it accurately describes Rome’s position.
“This [obedience] does apply to all official Catholic teaching.”
I was referring to the differences between the infallible Sacred Magisterium and the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium, and between sacred assent (precludes the possibility of faithful dissent) and ordinary assent (includes the possibility of limited faithful dissent in non-salvific areas). Here is Catholic explanation of such: http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/assent-dissent.htm.
Of course, as said before, there is no infallible list of all infallible doctrines, and much has not been infallibly defined, leaving much to fallible conclusions.
“Scripture came through Tradition.”
It is true that Scripture is the part of tradition that is known to be 100% inspired of God, and the canon serves to confirm that, while making tradition to be of equal authority with it defeats that distinction and essentially adds to the canon. But let me also state that sole Scriptura does not negate the use of tradition, but makes infallible Scripture the infallible rule of faith for the Church and ultimate authority.
“You think that you can make some kind of argument with your own personal interpretation of Scripture. I’m telling you that you cannot.”
I am telling you that any arguments must be able to demonstrably withstand Scriptural scrutiny by even the laity (Act 17:11), as the apostles could. What you have asserted elsewhere and implied is that implicit trust in Rome is required, and thus to search the scriptures is not really needed to know this for certain. The Pharisees had a like Roman presumption (Mk. 7:6-13), which leads to men teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
“Everyman a pope obviously does not work.”
And everyman under the Pope allowed such things as the Crusades and Inquisitions (and current widespread Catholic Bible illiteracy), under a church state that used the means of the Empire, but which carnal means of warfare and civil rule over those without are clearly disallowed for the church (Mt. 22:21; Rm. 13:1-6; 1 Cor. 5:12, 13; 1 Pt. 2:13, 14).
But Sola Scriptura is not making every man a pope, as the Pope operates as head of an autocratic magisterium
that in reality authorizes itself, as she claims sole authority to infallibly define what Scripture fully consists of (which took approx. 1500 years), as well as tradition, and to infallibly interpret both. In contrast, those under sola Scriptura must be able to demonstrate the Scriptural worthiness of a doctrine, relying upon an infallible source, not a supposed infallible man. And it is by such as “prove all things” by that which is proven, with consistent surrender to Christ, that the church has and will endure.
In addition, seeking to convince the laity (regarding the supremacy of Rome) based upon reasoning with them out of the scriptures (Act 17:2), the best you can hope for is a fallible conclusion. Yet the preaching of the Lord and His apostles appealed to human reasoning, with all it’s inherent risks, manifestly presupposing that lovers of truth would be convinced by the Scriptures (Mt. 22:29-46; Jn. 5:39; Acts 2:14-35; 7; 17:3, 11; 18:28; 28, etc.), as well as powerful supernatural attestation (Jn. 14:11; Rm. 15:19).
“I used to be a Protestant..”
That is rather broad, but when and how were you born again?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.