Replies

► Overall on basis of belief; Pt. 1

“But it is defended as if it were infallible, while as there is no infallible list of what all church fathers consist of, or of all infallible pronouncements, not everything is clear as to what is infallible.”

Actually, there is a list.

“BK, you said there was an infallible list, but where is it? One on who all the CFs consist of is also needed. And it is not unanimity that makes CFs infallible, but Rome’s decree that they were, and its definition of unanimous consent.”

As I said there is a list. It will take time for me to put it together for you. :) I don’t have it ready at the go right now, but I will in a bit.

Take some time? Are are you going to get the pope to convene an ecumenical council and provide one? Either an infallible list of all infallible teachings, as well as a complete list of all the CFs exists, to or it does not. Either provide it or admit that there is no infallible list of all infallible teachings (or CFs), and that in response to that assertion by me that there is none then you were trying to provide a non-infallible list, which only confirms my statement that there is none

“All things considered, the attempts to extend the meaning of “brothers” in this pericope.”

Again, snipping it here. The word is adelphoi,... The burden is on proving the close relationship, and lacking sufficient evidence, all we can conclude is that there is some family relationship but not the distance between them and Christ.

The burden is more on proving it is not a close relationship in the context of verses at issue. And again, you are relying on what one word can mean, which itself is not the issue, but the context.

"And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house." (Matthew 13:56-57)

Here you have Jesus brothers and sisters along with his own literal mother being referred to, while speaking in His own literal country in the narrow sense, that of Nazareth, and referring to His own house[oikia, rarely used in larger sense]. All these can be used in the larger or the spiritual sense, none of which is disallowed, but the most natural reading is that of His own family and household. Which is what i argued, not that it must be. But any conclusion based upon objective exegesis is disallowed if it does not support Rome by Catholics who are committed to defending truth based on Roman decree.

“I can provide other statements from Catholic sources”

And I can cite what the Pope writes on the P-V of Mary too.

Which means nothing when you are attempt to show warrant for submission to the pope, and in which case reasons are not needed.

“what makes this assured truth for the Roman Catholic is that Rome has decreed it to be so, and under that premise your appeal to other sources need not prove it, nor does it”

What one Catholic writes is not ‘Rome’s decree’. Far from it.

That is my point, which you are missing, that assurance of truth for the Roman Catholic rests upon what the assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) says, even though that is quite limited.

If your approach is simply to dig up a Catholic author who disagrees with what the Church teaches, you’re in for some disappointment. As I said previously, the magisterium does not work that way.

You are misinterpreting me. My point is that your authority is the AIM of Rome, even though you argue in support of warrant for such an entity which claims to be the OTC in unity. And in response, i may invoke approved Catholic works as having more weight than you, and writings from Catholics based upon their merits, and as not being biased against Rome.

However, these are “only” arguments, and if assurance rested upon the evidence for such then you would not need the assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) to provide real assurance of certitude, which is an aspect of the Catholic argument for the AIM of Rome and against private interpretation..In which argumentation they seek for us to make a fallible decision to trust in an assured infallible authority, which has infallibly defined itself as so being. Therefore such approved statements as this are given...,

Snipping the non-sequitor “Catholics don’t reason because they disagree with me”.

“You are noncomprehending what the writer and i am saying,”

No, I fully understand what he is saying. He is arguing that because of what the Church teaches we must discard reason. This is a bad argument because I can just as easily argue that in order to maintain church teachings requires the application of reason, ergo, his argument fails.

That you fully understand him is contrary to the larger context, which reference and link provides, as he is not referring to reason in defending the faith, or totally negating any need for reason, but reasons that if Rome states something as Truth then you need not find sanction for it by such reason as you used in coming to submit to Rome, but only need to give assent. That he obviously does not exclude the use of reason in defending the faith is seen by the author himself engaging in such, though this was not seen as the work of laymen.

He does not provide a means to assess how reason may be employed. Nor does he bother, because it is simply his opinion and without merit. I could dismiss what everyone writes here by saying they ‘lack reason’, but I suspect you would find it unsatisfying.

His scope is limited, as evidently your reading is, as he does sanction reason being employed as regards converting to Rome, and his freedom from reason remarks as are regards finding merit for what Rome authoritatively teaches, and consistently seeking after truth rather than being convinced that he holds it. “The message of the Church is: these are God's words. As for what these words stand for, you are not to trust her, but Him. The foundation of divine belief is one thing; the motives of credibility are another.” (cp. XVIII)

His position that a Catholic need not use reason to find warrant for what has Rome authoritatively teaches has evident merit, as you can indeed leave such reason at the door as regards seeking the basis for your belief in such things as the Assumption, for certitude rests upon papal decree that it is so.

“that you need not to in such a case as this”

In order to understand the teachings of the Church, and to effectively apologize for them, one must apply one’s sense of reason.

Again you are ignoring context and burning a straw man. This is about negating the need of fallible human reason to determine doctrinal truth rather than relying on Rome to do so. The fact is that if Rome has spoken, as it has regards the Assumption, the matter is settled for the Roman Catholic, and he need not engage in finding reasons for the warrant for such. Thus all the reasons you provide for the assumption are superfluous as regards whether you will believe them or not, as Rome's assured infallibility is your real basis for assent of faith to them, which is my argument, otherwise you doubt that Rome really is infallible when she teaches as such. However, whether she has indeed taught something infallibly can be a matter of differing interpretation.

“as you are to simply trust that the AIM of Rome is right”

I assure you that it requires reason in order to comprehend what those teachings are. :)

Indeed, as well as what is authoritative teaching, but which was not the aspect as issue.

“implicit trust is what cults require”

I am not bound to Rome through anything but my free will. I am free to investigate into the contents of Sacred Scipture and the treatises of the magisterium without constraint.

You are avoiding the obvious. Of course you are not a robot and do have free will, as to Mormons, etc., but you are indeed bound to give assent to Rome if you will consider yourself a faithful Roman Catholic. And this itself is not even the problem, as all membership has conditions, but my statement was in regards to required implicit assent of faith to an office of men based upon the premise of assured infallibility.

“magisterium which is effectively held as supreme over Scripture”

Nonsense, for the magisterium cannot promulgate teachings contrary to scripture.

Refuted before. As expressed before, your reasoning is superficial, for as said, Rome can claim she has warrant from Scripture, or at least is not contradicting it, but that is not the basis for assurance that she has spoken infallibly. But this is based upon the premise of her formulaic infallibility, that her sacred magisterium is so when speaking universally on faith and morals, and under which decrees that she is, while the charism of infallibility is held as being restricted to the actual decree, and does not necessarily extend to the reasons and arguments given for it.

If the magisterium were sincerely supreme, then they could simply discard books at will, like Luther did. By using Luther’s canon you are effectively ceding magesterial supremacy to one man.

Once again, we do not follow Luther's canon, which was more restricted, nor was he unique in his exclusions, but we commonly hold to an ancient 39 book Hebrew canon and 27 book New Testament canon, which was established after the manner that writings became established as being Scripture before there was a church in Rome, whose infallible, indisputable canon was not given until the year Luther died. And this has been dealt with before rather extensively with much documentation i should have to repeat.

As regards the magisterium being sincerely supreme, this is the Catholic polemic, that as the Scriptures came through Rome, and she has perpetual continuity thru formal decent, and infallibly defines their meaning, than what she says has supreme authority, including her claim that she does not conflict with Scripture. But which premise would have required the New Testament believers to have submitted to the instruments and stewards of the then-existing Scriptures, and to those who sat in the seat of Moses as being infallible, rather than the spiritual authority of these upstart followers of the Nazarene being established in dissent from them, in conformity to Scriptural and its means of attestation, to the glory of God.

“ou are to simply trust that the AIM of Rome is right, ..rather than relying upon searching the Scriptures for its substantiation”

Again, I assure you that Catholics understand the teaching of the Church as compatible to, not in conflict with Sacred Scripture. This requires investigations and understanding into Scripture.

Refuted before. Again, i assure you that the assurance that the teaching of the Church is compatible to, and not in conflict with Sacred Scripture is based upon the premise that what she decrees to be Truth is Truth, as per the aforementioned manner by which she defined herself to be True. And thus the real goal of Roman Catholic apologists is to bring souls to submit to the AIM of Rome as effectively supreme. In contrast, if Catholic faith depends upon the weight of Scriptural warrant then it makes Catholics to be as Protestants.

“yet in order to do so you must disallow supernaturally established Scripture from providing assurance of truth”

As I already cited earlier, the Catholic church affirms the supernatural origin and inspiration of Sacred Scripture. Ergo, this claim has no merit. There is no conflict between what the Church believes and what you have stated here.

Ergo, you are not following the argument and what i said earlier, which is not whether Rome affirms the supernatural origin and inspiration of Sacred Scripture, but that assurance of truth is based upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, in text and attestation, not because the “sacred magisterium” has defined herself as infallible and decreed something that it fits her scope and subject-based criteria. She may claim it is Scriptural, but your assent of faith to infallible decrees is not based upon whether you find it to be so, if you are a faithful Catholic. As you concur that “the voice of the Pope is the voice of God” (in infallible decrees) then this should not be contended.

“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”

“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” (ibid, Graham)

“due to the fallible nature of man”

If man’s falliable nature were truly in play here, then you cannot assert that scripture written by men is free of error. You must allow that those who wrote scripture did so under the power of the holy spirit, preventing them from error.

This, also, is what the Catholic church teaches.

Again, the issue is not that the writers of Scripture were infallible in what they penned (which sometimes was personal correspondence), but the claim of the sacred magisterium to formulaic infallibility. That men could and can speak infallible truth is not the issue, as even Caiaphas did, but no office is promised perpetual infallibility whenever they speak on faith and morals to all the church. Support for that is extrapolated to of texts, but assurance is based on Rome declaring it is true.

The Scriptures, which, like true men of God, became established as Divine due to their qualities and attestation, are alone as the only transcendent material authority which are assuredly infallible as being God-breathed, and can be historically verifiable, unlike oral tradition.

And Scripturally we see writings being established as Scripture, and Truth given and preserved without a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, as God often raised up men from outside the formal office to correct it. But whom, like Rome, they often persecuted and killed, but by which a remnant of believers were preserved. Those who sat in the seat of Moses had a real problem with the Lord Jesus and men like John the Baptist, because of their erroneous premise of perpetual authority.

By the Scriptures we know the first ecumenical early church council provided infallible truth, (Acts 15) but which was not based upon the novel premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office, which the Pharisees had basically presumed, but the decision and doctrine was based upon Scripture and its manifestation of Truth.

“require us to submit to infallible Rome”

You have already submitted yourselves to infalliable Rome, for you bind yourselves to the book she has written.

Refuted before. By which logic the early church was in submission to the Jews who were the unique instruments of written Divine revelation, and its leadership, and this needed to submit to them. But what the Christian faith teaches is that an entity being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ does not confer perpetual assured infallibility, nor does affirming some of what they taught constitute submission to them.

“But assured formulaic infallibility of office is not how believers found assurance in Scripture”

Which is not what the Church teaches about infalliability, nor does the Church require it to understand Sacred Scripture. For if we had to be infalliable to understand it, none of us could.

Rome clearly teaches formulaic infallibility of office, as described above. And while your argument is that one must infallibly interpretation Scripture in order to have assurance from that infallible authority, Rome does not teach that her members infallibly interpreted her infallible authority.

“by manifestation of the truth in the light of what has been established as truth by supernatural qualities, effects, attestation and conflation, as has been heretofore described.”

Again, which is what the Church teaches as confirmed by the Catechism.

Good to see you affirm how one found assurance in Scripture.

The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy”

Not true.

“It was”

In every age you find Saints who have written extensive commentaries of heresy. They could not have compiled their understanding of heresy without serious study. Ergo, the Church actually requires study of heresy in order that it might properly be refuted.

Ergo, you ignore the class which are the subject of such in the substantiation given by me, “any lay person.”

“and even the Bible was restricted”

Evidence would be nice.

What do you mean “evidence would be nice” in response to “even the Bible was restricted.” You did this before, resulting in my posting great lengths to any already long post, and evidence that you do not go linked material. Perhaps you do not recognize hot linked words, but when you see an underlined word (usually blue) that makes your cursor turn into a hand, then if you click on it with your mouse it will take you to another page.

Are you saying that I cannot go and get a bible and read it anytime I wish? You are gravely mistaken if you believe that is the case. We are encouraged to reflect upon scripture whenever possible.

Are you saying that my qualifying word “was” means it is still is?

And this was not a fringe position:

“Do not converse with heretics even for the sake of defending the faith, for fear lest their words instil their poison in your mind.” (Bl. Isaias Boner of Krakow, Polish, Augustinian priest, theologian, professor of Scripture, d. 1471)

“...the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 9, “Whether it is lawful to communicate with unbelievers?”; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm

“We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith.”

Then you have little understanding of my office. :)

And so just what is that mystery office? And will you enable us to verify your claim, since it would be necessary to justify you if this were still forbidden?

“That a layman must not publicly make a speech or teach, thus investing himself with the dignity of a teacher, but, instead, must submit to the ordinance handed down by the Lord, and to open his ear wide to them who have received the grace of teaching ability, and to be taught by them the divine facts thoroughly.”

Again, you have little understanding of my office.

No doubt, since you offer no substantiation that you are an official teacher, yet they needed permission to engage in debates.

“His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit...he must refuse to be liberal in the sense of reading all sorts of Protestant controversial literature.”

Given my origins, I cannot see how such would apply to me.

Presuming you interpret him correctly as a convert of 7 years, then you issue is with approved teaching, whilst you have no stamps.

And you will attain understanding when you finally realize that this is something that isn’t controversial. :) I may not be a Sungenis, but we are all, happily, peons.

This again ignores context, as the statement was, “If you disagree, then considering you are simply ‘another peon with an opinion’ in stature in Rome.”“ To reckon oneself as a peon is right, but Rome more manifestly is about a hierarchy, and what you seem to infer of yourself you fail to substantiate.

Following up on the other post.

“Take some time?”

daniel1212 -

If your disagreements touch something that I don’t already have prepared, then I have to put it together for you. Most of what you brought up isn’t anything special.

This is a good question that takes time to prepare. Plus I have to answer 5 other people. So sorry that you had to wait.

“Are are you going to get the pope to convene an ecumenical council and provide one?”

Again, I demonstrated why an infalliable list contradicts infalliability.

“trying to provide a non-infallible list, which only confirms my statement that there is none”

Any list provided would be wholly correct, yet it could not be infalliable simply because there are teachings known today that while they are not infalliable, may become so later.

“The burden is more on proving it is not a close relationship”

Can’t prove a negative. Lacking sufficient evidence, we cannot conclude a close relationship between the two.

“most natural reading is that of His own family and household.”

An English Protestant commentates on a Greek Catholic book, and concludes that his opinion coincides with the ‘most natural reading’, not by consulting the Greek, but rather, citing the english.

Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. Adelphoi is used to refer to the brethren of Christ. Same book, same author. Yet here we are to conclude that it has the special meaning of stating that they are biological brothers? No. Families, back then, are not what we consider families to be today.

“Which means nothing when you are attempt to show warrant for submission to the pope, and in which case reasons are not needed.”

You quote everyone but the Pope. Why is that? If I want to understand what the Catholic church teaches, why would I selectively cite people other than him?

“That is my point, which you are missing, that assurance of truth for the Roman Catholic rests upon what the assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) says, even though that is quite limited.”

One person does not equate with the infalliable magisterium, with the exception of the Pope.

“And in response, i may invoke approved Catholic works as having more weight than you, and writings from Catholics based upon their merits, and as not being biased against Rome”

Again, you keep missing the point. What one Catholic author writes is not indication that this is what the magisterium teaches. You could cite the Catechism, but you seem strangely adverse to doing so.

“Truth then you need not find sanction for it by such reason as you used in coming to submit to Rome, but only need to give assent.”

To convert you need to give assent, for everything that the Church teaches, and to commit to defending what the Church teaches. So this objection falls. Assent is not sufficient. You have to demonstrate understanding of what the Church teaches.

“This is about negating the need of fallible human reason to determine doctrinal truth rather than relying on Rome to do so”

This begs the question. A convert must first be convinced that magisterial infalliability is in fact TRUE before they would be willing to concede that they teach doctrinal truth.

Again, a convert must be convinced through reason that the Church is correct. Arguing that they ‘dump their reason’ when converting to the Church, and ‘find their reason’ when they convert away from the Church are baseless.

“required implicit assent of faith to an office of men based upon the premise of assured infallibility.”

Again, we go back to Matthew. The Church argues that the Church has the authority, because of Apostolic succession and the authority given to Peter. It does not argue that the source of infalliability stems from itself, but from Christ.

First page of the catechism on infalliability. You really should read the Catechism.

“Refuted before. As expressed before, your reasoning is superficial, for as said, Rome can claim she has warrant from Scripture, or at least is not contradicting it, but that is not the basis for assurance that she has spoken infallibly.”

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I keep returning back to Matthew. The premise of Infalliability derives from the promises of Christ to Peter. Arguing otherwise, simply ignores what the Church truly teaches.

Read the Catechism.

“Once again, we do not follow Luther’s canon”

Does your canon deviate from Luther’s? Yes or no. Who is we and how does your canon deviate from his?

“to those who sat in the seat of Moses as being infallible, rather than the spiritual authority of these upstart followers of the Nazarene being established in dissent from them, in conformity to Scriptural and its means of attestation, to the glory of God.”

Finally. Now we get to a decent argument. Why do you think Christ told Peter - “I give YOU the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven”. He was replacing those who sat in the seat of Moses. If Christ had given his spiritual authority to those who sat in the seat of Moses, then he would not have given the Keys to Peter.

“In contrast, if Catholic faith depends upon the weight of Scriptural warrant then it makes Catholics to be as Protestants”

The Church came first, and the authority of the Apostles stems from inspiration, not infalliability. Something you would know if you read the Catechism....

Scripture cannot contradict tradition, and tradition cannot contradict scripture. Just as God’s blessings in inspiring the Gospel writers is not contradicted by the infalliability of the magisterium in confirming the Canon.

I’m snipping the rest. You just keep repeating yourself, ad nauseaum.

Let me ask you a question daniel?

Do you believe that any of your argument that Catholics are forbidden to read scripture has any appeal to anyone? Really? Do you think that anyone is going to take what you say at face value as applicable to the Church today.

You did not say that you were providing historical evidence of disciplinary (not doctrinal decrees), limited to some of the laity (and not others), decrees which are no longer in force today.

As for my office, yes I do teach and yes I am of the laity for me to do my work, I have to consult scripture. So if you contend that the Church today holds this to be true, then I’m not sure what to think of you or your experience.

Sorry to say, but the Church does affirm that Scripture is true, does affirm that Scripture is sufficient (something I don’t see you arguing against anything), argues that Scripture is infalliable, and moreover, argues that you can’t rip out books because you don’t like them.

Frankly, the Church respects Sacred Scripture more than anybody else.