Annalex:If you don't believe the Church in her historical knowledge, why do you believe the Gospel?
daniel1212 : i have already answered it this vain argument, only to see it repeated
You will probably see it repeated many times even after I read and responded to what you wrote. Remember, I do not read ahead and respond when I get around to a particular post, usually about one week after it is posted, because there is one of me and many of you posting, and I don't skip serious posts.
Mine are indeed serious, I do respond methodologically likewise, but prefer to wait posting till i have finished my responses coming from one party. And the answer to the above is again below.
Why you will still see this argument repeated? Because your point, that you are at liberty accepting A but not B from the Church is, of course, valid, but I am not making that point at all.
Likewise in my responses, but you are unable to accept A and B from Scripture if you obey the requirement that you do not question the church.
It would indeed be wrong, -- completely un-Christian -- for me to thump the Catechism on the imaginary podium and shout, Obey the Living Magisterium! If I cite the Magisterium at all -- at times I do, typically, the Catechism, -- that is to explain what the Catholic Church really teaches.
Yet the Catechism is only infallible where it restates truths that have already been defined by the Magisterium, and though it also contains non-infallible teaching from the ordinary magisterium, and while it may define something many RC theologians might disagree with, such as "To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth" (1994 CCC 2483), which the 97 version stops after “error,” and some things may change, yet its teaching still requires an assent of the will and intellect.
I do not expect anyone to obey the Church just because you have resolved to obey the Bible.
Whereas we can, by appealing to “manifestation of the truth,” and while Roman Catholics apologists condemn the PI method as relying upon fallible human reasoning if the conclusions conflict with Rome, they allow themselves to engage in PI when responding to evangelicals if it backs up Rome's claim, and also teach things that were not in unanimous consent of the fathers, as is required of Rome but liberally defined, yet the perceived conflation of the apologists rendering involves the very thing which is supposed to invalidate PI in interpretation of the Bible (which 2Pt. 1:20 does not refer to, nor is the AIM inspired like the prophetic writers).
I do, however, have every right to point out how the Protestant doctrines stand in stark contrast to the Bible at least on the subject of Faith Alone and Bible Alone, and the rejection of the properly offered Sacraments of the Church. This is simply asking for consistency. If you did not profess obedience to the Bible I would not be making biblical points at all, just like I would not argue scripture with a Buddhist.
There is no problem with asking us to be consistent with Scripture, but as for your consistency, you cannot accept the Scripture as the supreme doctrinal authority on faith and morals or allow that such truth can be ascertained by it, as that power uniquely belongs to Rome's AIM, but you appeal to it as if it were able to in condescension to Protestants, in order to convince them that they cannot have assurance of Truth by it, but need to implicitly submit to Rome.
The hostile attitude to the historical witness of the Church is of course not a logical contradiction to the belief in the same witness when it happens to be recorded in canonical scripture.
You have not referenced what you are responding to, but i surmise you are attempting to invalidate the “stewardship of Scripture equals infallible magisterium” logic, which is refuted by Scripture (i.e. the Jews had no AIM), and is therefore not a valid deduction.
It is simply something worth asking: what is it in the Scripture, beside the fact that the Church had canonized it, that makes it so distinct from things the Church also believed at the same time she canonized the scripture?
You mean in 1546 when it first infallibly finalized according to Rome (this has been documernted in previous debates here)? If that is the case, and it includes teachings and practices that were established then, it would include prayers to the departed, purgatory, indulgences and the Treasury of Merit, the secular power of the pope,.. but as these were not something that were either not present or not settled doctrines in the early church circa 325, and as more would come as a result of development of doctrine, and which owe themselves to Rome's AIM over warrant of Scripture, then your question should have been, what is so distinct about basis for the claims of Rome versus what the Scriptures reveal?
To your points.
1. Historical lineage does not make one an authentic Jew, spiritually speaking, as certain Jews presumed it did, (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:39,44; and their office required it), or a true Christian or church. Rather it is manifest Scriptural faith
True. Neither does historical lineage alone ensure validity of Apostolic succession. Both the Lutherans and the Anglicans lost it despite canonical provenance of their priests, due to the doctrinal errors of theirs.
And they say they same for Rome, but Rome's clams are effectively based upon her own infallible declaration that she cannot be wrong, while the early church persuaded souls by manifestations the truth, by holiness and doctrines which were Scripturally substantiated and Divinely attested to, and grew by such, not by the power of the sword or forgeries which Rome owes much to for the growth of her papal power, and a magisterium that is assuredly infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallible declared formula, which fosters people bound by trust in her. In contrast, the evangelical church can only depend upon God and His Scriptures and the regenerative effects of its gospel to sustain it and grow.
unlike the church at Rome, the law was explicitly stated to have been committed to the Jews, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and yet they were manifestly not assuredly infallible in faith and morals
This goes to the disctintion between the non-salvific nature of the works of Jewish law, the part on which, hopefully we all agree, and the absolute nature of the teaching of Jesus Christ. The Jewish law was given to the Jews and not binding on the Gentiles; as the Church discovered, once a Jew becoems Christian the Law of Moses was no longer binding on him either. The Jewish lawmaking authority was temporal, the authority of the Church eternal (Mt 16:18-19). So no parallel can be drawn between the rule of the Rabbis and the Church.
The issue is the principle of authority, and your distinctions are irrelevant here (though the Jewish magisterium was establishing moral law which condemned the Gentiles as well (Rm. 3:19), and they lost there authority due to their impenitence and rejection of God's Prophet, which also indicts Rome), as there certainly is a parallel for Rome's claims, thus your own apologists invoke it:
“Since Jesus recognized the authority of the Old Testament magisterium when it spoke ex cathedra (with the authority of Moses), we recognize that the New Testament magisterium of the Church, which speaks with the authority not of Moses but of Jesus Christ himself.” (Catholic Answers)
The Papacy itself did not start with the Catholic Church. It goes all the way back to Adam ...At the time of Jesus, the Prime Ministry in place was the CHAIR OF MOSES. The High Priest and the Pharisees were the Magisterium. What the Mosaic "pope" taught had to be obeyed (Mt 23:2-3)..The old chair of authority was established under Moses. The new chair of authority was established under Peter. Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM, L.Th. - 5/20/2007
The principle of a continuing magisterium is sound, but the historical constant is that they did not have a Roman Catholic formulaic assured infallibility. Although the magisterium was important, without an Jewish AIM writings were established as Scripture, and God preserved the faith using prophets whose authority did not depend magisterial sanction for their authority, but upon Scriptural conformity and Divine attestation. Likewise Jesus authority, and thus when it was challenged or in establishing it and His teaching, He invoked John the Baptist, (Mk. 11:28-30) and the Scriptures and His own works. (Mt. 22:42-45; Jn. 5:33-36,39; Lk. 24:27,44) In like manner the apostles for their authority and preaching . (Acts 10:37-43; 17:2; 28:23; Rm. 1:2; 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12) And upon this basis is all authority manifest, in proportion to its claims, not pedigree or high sounding claims. (cf. 1Cor. 4:18-21)
3. Scripture being the supreme transcendent assuredly infallible objective authority [similar point is made in 4 and the same answer applies]
It is. The Magisterium that rules against the scripture, were it to ever happen, would not be guided by the Holy Ghost and will ispo facto cease to be the Magisterium of the Church.
You cannot claim to defined both the exten of Scripture and its meaning and claim to be subject to it. Rather, this can never happen because the magisterium is ispo facto infallible when speaking in accordance with its criteria, which is not that it must be shown to be Scripturally substantiated, but it claim to be so the it ispo facto is,m and any contention is ispo facto fallible. Moreover, “infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma,” and The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility” unless they were previously defined as such. — New Catholic Encyclopedia, Infallibility. Of course, such requires interpretation and ciould seem to contradict other statements.
5. The authenticity of Rome's AIM is based upon her own declaration that she is assuredly infallible
Yes. There are levels of speech uttered by the Magisterium, like there are levels of any speech. The Magisterium should be the judge of when the Magisterium intends to make an infallible statement and when it is ordinary teaching. This is just logical that the speaker is the judge of the intent of his speech.
6. This agins rests ont he idea that there is a direct analogy between the Jewish rabbinate and the Church.
The magisterial principle is constant, irregardless that the Jewish one ceased, just as Christ fulfilled the Old Testament and the church is the Temple.
That premise is false.
Who says? Has this been officially defined or does this rest upon your PI? Why should you be believed over other Roman Catholic apologists such as who say, “Matthew 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you (Moses chair was a prefigurement of the chair of St. Peter.)”
the Divinely inspired writings were essentially progressively recognized as such due to their qualities and effects
Indeed, and that was the collective work of the Church.
And Old Testament writings where recognized by the Jews, thus it was wrong to disagree with them and thus you have no church, though since the one who vainly attempts to use this logic defines itself as uniquely the one who collected the Scriptures, based upon her self-authenticating infallible interpretation of what constitutes authenticity, then anything can be “proved.”
7. ...immoral, impenitent Popes
we don't know about "impenitent", neither you or I were their confessors. St. Peter himself was not exactly infallible in his ordinary life. The issue is not that we had bad popes, -- we certainly did, -- but the teaching the Magisterium produced, perhaps, despite these very popes. Let us not forget that the infallible magisterial teaching is not a day-to-day governance of the Church. Bad popes generally left no lasting legacy.
Yes, and so Hitler also *may* be in Heaven, but besides your special pleading your response ignores the issue, which is not that bad leaders do not invalidate an office, though its holders can be replaced, but that an unbeliever could not be a successor to Peter, as one cannot even be a true member of the church who was an unbeliever, and a successor for Judas even had to be personal disciple of Christ. And as impenitent adulterers, fornicators, extortioners, etc, are to be put away out of the church and are damned, (1Cor. 5:11-13; 6:9,10; Rv. 21:27) they cannot lay claim to saving faith. They may “profess that they know God; but in works they deny him...” More than one pope fit this description, but just one will suffice, which is,
Pope Alexander, who lived during the time of Martin Luther.
He was born Rodrigo Borgia near Valencia, Spain, the nephew of Callixtus, who made him a cardinal at the age of twenty-five (1456) and vice-chancellor of the Holy See (1457). As vice-chancellor, he amassed great wealth, lived an openly promiscuous life, and fathered seven children, both as a cardinal and the pope. Pius II, who had succeeded Callixtus and continued to support the rise in the church hierarchy of Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, had to warn the young cardinal to refrain from his practice of participating in orgies. It was, as Pius expressed it, "unseemly."
While a cardinal, he took as his mistress Vannozza de Catanei who bore him four children, including Cesare (born 1475) and Lucrezia (born, 1480). By the time he became pope in 1492, he had cast off Vannozza and acquired as a mistress the young Guilia Farenese, who was probably the mother of two or three additional children sired by Alexander. Before Vannozza, Rodrigo had fathered at least two children by one or more women whose names are lost to history.
Pope Innocent VIII died, and a political struggle ensued for the papacy. The bargaining was fierce, and when the votes were finally counted, Rodrigo Borgia, with the purchase of the vote of a ninety-six-year-old cardinal who no longer had all of his faculties, was elected. One of the six cardinals who could not be bought was Giuliano della Rovere, was to remain an enemy of the Borgias, and eventually would succeed Alexander VI as Pope Julius II, noted patron of Michelangelo, the "Warrior Pope."
But Rodrigo, now Alexander VI, had learned something from his predecessor, the misnamed Innocent VIII, who was the first pope to acknowledge openly his illegitimate children, loading them with riches and titles. Alexander took advantage of the precedent.
After a strong beginning as pope, reforming the Curia and forbidding simony --- which is, of course, the means by which he had purchased the papacy --- Alexander concentrated his efforts on his primary interests. These were, like Innocent VIII, the acquisition of gold, the pursuit of women, and the interests of his family. However, Alexander made his predecessor look like a rank amateur...
By 1500, Alexander's behavior --- with Cesare as a dominating influence --- became even more outrageous. Licentiousness and murder were the order of the day for both father and son.... [it gets no better)
There was in him, and in full measure, all vices both of flesh and spirit ...There was in him no religion, no keeping of his word. He promised all things liberally, but bound himself to nothing that was not useful to himself. He had no care for justice, since in his days Rome was a den of thieves and murderers. Nevertheless, his sins meeting with no punishment in this world, he was to the last of his days most prosperous. In one word, he was more evil and more lucky than, perhaps, any other pope for many ages before." --- Francesco Guicciardini (as reported in Chamberlain) - http://www.csus.edu/indiv/c/craftg/Hist127/ALEXANDER%20VI.pdf
Annalex: your point, that you are at liberty accepting A but not B from the Church is, of course, valid, but I am not making that point at all.
daniel1212: you are unable to accept A and B from Scripture if you obey the requirement that you do not question the church.
This seems to speak to a point I am not making, -- I agree that you can in logic accept that the Scripture is valid as written (A) but not accept that Mary was forever virgin (B), even while seeing that both the scripture and the knowledge about life of Mary come from the same group of people, the Early Church. But I would like to comment on "obeying the Church". That requirement exists, but not in a way to forbid questioning. Rather, a Christian should examine the doctrine in order to understand it and without prejudice. Second, if he understands it, there is no confict of conscience. If he doesnt't understand, or if he thinks that he understands, but his perceived understanding is contrary to the doctrine, then as a good Christian he should continue internal work on it (that usually means seeking competent help) and in the meanwhile not speak against the doctrine. All that time, including the time when he is in internal conflict with the doctrine he remains a faithful Catholic. If he obstinately declares that he does not believe the doctrine and does not wish to further develop his understanding to bridge the conflict, and especially if he makes a public stand of it, then he has left the Catholic Church: he has excommunicated himself and joined a view that is under anathema. Freedom of will is also a freedom to err, but the state of error cannot be held in God's house which is the Church.
Lastly, I do not understand how under any form of obedience to the Church it follows that I am "unable to accept A and B from Scripture" so long as the Chruch teaches both A and B. It seems that the opposite would be true.
the Catechism is only infallible where it restates truths that have already been defined by the Magisterium
Yes.
some things may change, yet its teaching still requires an assent of the will and intellect
What you quoted to support that is a formal definition of lying that changed from 1994 to 97. Did the moral judgment of varyous types of speech change, or did merely a definition change? As you gave it, the definition was broadened to include cases of lying, say, to military enemy at war. Did the previous Catechism morally prohibited such and the next morally alowed for it? At most we are seing a minor correction, most likely, no change in the moral teaching at all, just a change in verbal delivery. Surely, if one is surprised by anything in the Catechism as to what is ethical or the rule of faith, he can ask his priest or bishop, -- that is, ask the living magisterium directly, where he would have the benefit written word does not offer, to ask follow up questions.
while Roman Catholics apologists condemn the PI method as relying upon fallible human reasoning if the conclusions conflict with Rome, they allow themselves to engage in PI when responding to evangelicals if it backs up Rome's claim
Private interpretation is a stage of reading the scripture that is inevitable, like a child must crawl before he can run a marathon. It is not a sin to engage in it; it may be helpful or simply amusing to do it. The Church has defined little as the only possible interpretation. I'll give you an example. Jesus on the Cross tells Mary and the beloved disciple to mutually adopt each other. St. John then records what happened rather idiomatically: "the disciple took Mary 'eis ta idia'". This is often liberally translated "took her to his HOME". The literal translation should say "to HIS OWN". So there is a range of interpretations here, from seeing here a fact of spiritual adoption by Mary of the entire Church to an economic arrangement between two people without much theological significance. The Church does not say that one interpretation is valid and the other is all wrong, but the Church teaches that Mary has a mystical connection to the Church and would cite this episode. The scripture is evidence of the fact and the fact is taught by the Church. The Church does not say that the scripture mathematically necessitates the fact. One can interpret the verse in a mundane way; he then loses use of an evidence, but his private interpretation is possible. Another apologist would interpret the same scripture in the highly spiritualized sense and it would appear that he derives the whole mariology from it. Both ar private interpretations, one unhelpful, the other helpful, but both are possible private interpretations. Naturally, a Catohlic apologist would prefer one and not the other, and at the same time point out to you critically that the mundane interpretation is merely private.
but you appeal to [the scripture] as if it were able to [alone ascertain truth] in condescension to Protestants
It is not necessarily condescension as a psychological attitude. It is a logical device. If you say that the Scripture is the sole rule of faith then I can point to you where the scripture would condemn your doctrine. Therefore either your doctrine is wrong, or your view on the scripture as the rule of faith is wrong. Classic example: you teach that salvation is by faith alone, but a verse in James 2 says exact opposite. You can interperet James 2:17-26 cleverly as not quite contradicting what now becomes a seemingly complex doctrine that somehow holds both "faith alone" and "not by faith alone". But the outcome is that either the entire complexity of the doctrine is not in the scripture or the apparent trust of the doctrine is condemned by the scripture. Either way, either the scripture is not the sole rule of faith for you or your doctrine contradicts the scripture.
At the same time, the Church considers herself the sole rule of faith. So, the scripture must only be consistent with what the Church teaches, but it may not contain everything that the Church teaches, and not every private interpretation of the scripture must agree with what the Church teaches. For example, our mariology is poorly supported by the scripture. If the Protestants had something poorly supported by the scripture, they would be under a logical obligation to drop it from their doctrines, because they state the Sola Scriptura. But Catholics reserve the right to teach outside of the scripture, -- they only need consistency with the scripture. So a few scriptural references to Mary, while not containing the entirety of the doctrine, do not contradict it.
Either you as Protestants fail by your rules or your rule fails you, but we are fine by our rules. Yes, the rules are different, -- but you chose your rules yourselves in 15c while our rules came from before the scripture was even written.
More later...
what is it in the Scripture, beside the fact that the Church had canonized it, that makes it so distinct from things the Church also believed at the same time she canonized the scripture? [...] what is so distinct about basis for the claims of Rome [even past the set of beliefs of the Early Church] versus what the Scriptures reveal?
The answer is that the Holy Scripture is that part of the Holy Tradition that was available in written form by the close of the period of the Apostolic Fathers, was wholly consistent with the Deposit of Faith as the Church knew it to be, had clear Apostolic or near-apostolic authorship, and was used in the Liturgy. The rest is the beliefs that the Church held, at least in the sense that she collectively could tell orthodoxy from heresy. For example, as the trinitarian and christological dogmas were decided, they were decided based on the sense of orthodoxy that the Church possessed internally, rather than on the written Word. To that, over time, doctrines are added that clarify points not clearly expressed earlier, or points referring to the issues of the day that come along. For example, the Church could not develop doctrines to do with medical ethics till very recently when certain medical possibilities became reality. That latter part is the teaching of the Living Magisterium.
Annalex: Both the Lutherans and the Anglicans lost it despite canonical provenance of their priests, due to the doctrinal errors of theirs.
Daniel: And they say they same for Rome
Yes. So we are not Lutheran and they are not Catholic. These demarkations, by the way, do not exclude arguments that are "Scripturally substantiated and Divinely attested to". They simply mark doctrines that are inacceptable for the benefit of the flock on either side.
your distinctions [between temporal authority of the Jewish rabbis and eternal character of Christ's Church] are irrelevant here
I don't see how the fact that some typological comparisons can nevertheless be drawn between the two, makes the distinction irrelevant.
In like manner the apostles for their authority and preaching [used the scripture]
Yes. So does the Infallible Living Magisterium fashioned after the Holy Apostles. It is the function of the Church, among others, to persuade rather than to simply proclaim doctrines.
You cannot claim to defined both the exten of Scripture and its meaning and claim to be subject to it [etc...]
I am not sure I understand that paragraph, -- I have difficulty grammatically parsing it. The Church Fathers defined what the Scripture is. The Magisterium today is not them, even though it succeeds them. It can, in a thought experiment, go into apostasy. We have a divine assurance that it won't. So far it hasn't. If the Magisterium commits an act of apostasy, we shall find out, -- maybe not everyone, but some informed remnant will find out, and we'll know them by their orthodoxy. This is a part of normal live functioning of the Church where parts self-correct. Consider, for example, the near-apostasy of the Vatican II and how it is being corrected in the past two pontificates quite nicely by forces of traditionalism, often lay traditionalism.
The magisterial principle is constant, irregardless that the Jewish one ceased
No, it is not constant, because the Church lifted the centerpiece of the Mosaic Law (Acts 15) and Jesus himself taught His Church to read the Old Testament critically abd be aware of its limited pedagogical nature (Matthew 5-7, Mark 10:5). Yet the Church herself enjoys the promise of infallibility from Christ because she is sent by Christ as Himself (John 20:21, Luke 10:16, 1 Cor 4:16, as well as, of course, Matthew 16:18).
Moses chair was a prefigurement of the chair of St. Peter
"Prefigurement" it surely was, but it is Christ's Kingship that "will have no end". You are arguing from a type.
they [bad popes] cannot lay claim to saving faith
So? It is quite possible that there were some popes that went straight to hell. Only some popes are canonized saints; about the rest, you can have any opinion you want.