Posted on 12/30/2013 9:35:20 AM PST by RnMomof7
......"The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life has put hard numbers on the anecdotal evidence: One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.........
"Thankfully, although the U.S. bishops have not supported research on people who have left the church, the Pew Center has.
Pew’s data shows that those leaving the church are not homogenous. They can be divided into two major groups: those who become unaffiliated and those who become Protestant. Almost half of those leaving the church become unaffiliated and almost half become Protestant. Only about 10 percent of ex-Catholics join non-Christian religions.
This article will focus on Catholics who have become Protestant. I am not saying that those who become unaffiliated are not important; I am leaving that discussion to another time."................
"Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic. While 42 percent of Catholics who stay attend services weekly, 63 percent of Catholics who become Protestants go to church every week. That is a 21 percentage-point difference.
" Seventy-one percent say their faith is “very strong,” while only 35 percent and 22 percent reported that their faith was very strong when they were children and teenagers, respectively. On the other hand, only 46 percent of those who are still Catholic report their faith as “very strong” today as an adult.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncronline.org ...
How many Catholics will be married by sodomites?
More than none.
I can't imagine how many marriages have been *blessed* by homosexual priests whose hands have molested children.
Kinda makes you want to retch at the thought. It's almost as bad as those priests lifting up the eucharist with those same hands, pretending they are holy enough to touch it.
It's a wonder God doesn't strike them down with lightning.
You beat me to it. I was just in the process of pointing out the obvious disconnect when I saw this post of yours.
You bring up a valid point. Can a priest who is unrepentant hear and absolve sins? If he is unrepentant can he oversee the daily sacrifice.
Of course not, but that is not in dispute, and we contend against those who do so, which RCs often engage in, besides liberal views of Scripture. Even quoting Pope Benedict while wresting Scriptures. And who also states, “Co-redemptrix departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings,” while others disagree, and pull all sort of things out of Scripture to support their Mariology.
The issue is what the supreme authority is.
These are the usual norms of Scriptural interpretation and we have One Church established by the Christ to do this.
If she does say so herself, and as conditionally infallible. What is the basis (Scripture, history, etc?) for your assurance of this claim? Is it that that the steward of Scripture makes them the infallible interpreter of it, and that this infallible magisterium is necessary to recognize and preserve truth, so the flock will not follow others?
That Truth is found in the “Catholic Catechism” with no room for Cafeteria Catholics to pick, choose, and pull apart.
Your problem is that reality denies your mythical fantasy. Souls of evangelical type faith like myself and better have held and contended for core truths we both concur with for hundreds of years, and against cults, as well as against tradition of men that are the result of sola ecclesia (their church alone is the supreme authority on earth) , which they also operate out of.
And under which you have both formal and informal divisions and sects. As we do, sadly, the different being a matter of degrees, while comprehensive doctrinal unity never existed. .
In addition, your error is asserting faithfulness is based upon official statements, but the CCC can state all it wants, as i can as well, but that is not necessarily what i really believe, which, as said, is manifest by what is overall do. For as James 2 teaches, "I will shew thee my faith by my works." Thus believer will be judged by their works, as this is what evidences faith, real or spurious.
And Rome abounds with liberalism, treating them as members in life and in death. As said, canon law (1184) forbids ecclesiastical funerals to such as would cause "public scandal of the faithful," but which in application means notorious public examples like Hugo Chavez or Teddy K are given ecclesiastical funerals, and the latter congenial correspondence and blessing by the pope. All such manifests more what your church really believes than her statements.
Moreover, gong back to Scripture, Rome as the church with its magisterial levels, has even sanctioned very liberal Bible scholarship in her own Bible for decades, thus she manifests what she believes, and thus is shown as effectually fostering liberalism overall wherever she predominates, in contrast to evangelical faith. (Though both are in declension overall in these latter days.)
I have been assured by Catholics that those priests after all, are only human and sin just like the rest of us. (which of course, is not true because molesting children is not *sinning like the rest of us*)
Additionally, if his intent is *pure* then the sacrament is valid.
Catholics HAVE to take that position, even if for their own sanity. To take any other position would mean that no Catholic could ever be sure that the sacraments they received are valid.
If that’s the case, then there is no way of them knowing if their own baptism is valid and they’re not really saved.
Or if their own marriage is valid and they are not really living in sin.
So as a self-defense mechanism, they have no choice but to conclude and defend the concept that the priest can perform his duties independent of his moral character.
You are not allowed to open that archive!
Or if their own marriage is valid and they are not really living in sin.
And considering the wide scope of possible reasons why a marriage may be annulled, and an est. 400,000 marriages have been annulled since 1970 (http://articles.philly.com/1986-05-08/news/26049605_1_annulments-divorced-catholics-marriage), then how many RCs today are possibly in invalid marriages, even though canon law presumes all marriages are valid until proven invalid.
And i do not know why this would be different from what Ligouri states, that "God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priest, and either not to pardon or to pardon,...the sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it. - Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2. http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks12liguuoft/alphonsusworks12liguuoft_djvu.txt
When the Bible, in which even every consummated marriage was called marriage, even in the ol bait n' switch of uncle Laban, nor the many possible reasons Rome has for annulments, is made subject to man, even God can be held bound to act contrary to His word.
Says one traditional RC site: 68% of annulments today [dated] are granted because of "defective consent," which involves at least one of the parties not having sufficient knowledge or maturity to know what was involved in marriage. The ingenuity of judges in confidently asserting that such knowledge or maturity was lacking is amazing. Vasoli says that it is done by substituting "junk psychology" for sound psychology and psychiatry. He quotes the statement of one matrimonial judge: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid." (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/28_Annulments.pdf)
Your response simply affirms my point by quoting scripture as “your” view of the teachings of the Christ no more than the David Koresh’s, Jim Jones; Robert Schuller’s, and Joel Osteen’s of today. This is precisely why Christ delivered the “Great Commission” to St. Peter to teach one truth given to His Church.
Every time, in the whole New Testament, there is a list of the 12 apostles, Peter is always named first. Even though he was not the first apostle to be chosen (see again Jn.1:40-42), he is first among the apostles.
The ministry Jesus intended for Peter
Peter the Rock: (Read with the class Mt. 16:13-23)
Peter acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God.
Jesus praises Peter in response, and outlines the special ministry He will give to him (in the future; it is all future tense)
First: He makes a play on words: “You are Peter (Rock), and on this rock I will build my Church.” In Christ’s own native tongue, Aramaic, the two words would have been identical: “You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church.” Peter himself is the rock on which the Church will be built.
Second: “the powers of death shall not prevail against it” (that is , the Church built on Peter). So Peter is to be a lasting foundation stone, a continual rock-support for the Church in every generation, not just in his own lifetime.
Third: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom.” The keeper of “the keys,” in ancient Israel, was the chief deputy of the king, with authority to admit or exclude from the king’s household, or capital city, whomever he wished, in accordance with the best interest of the king (eg., Is. 22:22). So, to be in the household of Jesus the “Christ” (the anointed Messiah-king) is to be there with Peter’s recognition.
Fourth: the authority to “bind” and “loose”. Among the ancient rabbis, this phrase meant the authority to forbid and permit in the community of faith, including the teaching of God’s law.
Fifth: Peter’s decisions to “bind” (forbid) and “loose” (permit) in the Church are to be ratified (backed-up) “in heaven.” So heaven’s guidance is promised to Peter for his authoritative decisions.
In short, Jesus promised to make Peter His key bearer – His chief deputy in the community of His disciples – and this would be so for every generation, with the support of heaven. In this way Peter’s ministry would be the “Rock” of the Church
While Peter deserves the highest praise for his devotion to the Savior, it is quite clear in Scripture that the Rock is not Peter, but Christ.
Only five verses after Matthew 16:18 which you cite, Christ compares Peter to Satan for hindering his ministry: "But He turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men'." (Matthew 16:23)
Peter himself refers to Christ as the 'chief cornerstone' (1 Peter 1:4-6). Paul adds to this in Ephesians: " "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:19-22) and again in 1 Corinthians 3:11: "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
Even David knew it: "Who is a rock, except our God?" (Psalm 18:31).
Bless your evening.
While you also proceed to engage in quoting scripture to support Rome, yet even if she gives the same argument, that does not make her interpretation of Scripture, tradition and history assuredly right to me either, and does not answer my question as to what your basis for your assurance that Rome is what it claims, unless you are saying Scriptural proof is, based on your examination? Would you clearly answer that?
I am familiar with your arguments, but want to know what your basis for assurance is that Rome is that one true church .
Hope to get back to you tomorrow.
This is not a forum for an exegetical discussion like what you suggest.
But the short answer is this.
“Christian generations do not exist as self contained islands. It is the same Church, whether we are talking about the first century, or the twentieth. Its essential character and activities persist. Peter’s ministry is as much a part of its life now as it was and has always been throughout its history the Church will need its rock; it will need to be strengthened, and it will need to be fed.” (Fr. Roderick Strange, The Catholic Faith, Oxford University Press).
“I can’t imagine how many marriages have been *blessed* by homosexual priests whose hands have molested children”
Most liberals hate the Catholic Church. Especially fallen-away Catholic liberals that are hiding out on FR.
Here’s a fuller answer:
My apologies in advance, but its best stated through someone who once upon time appeared to have shared your Protestant views.
Here’s his long view following a serious, long, and honest search to the question you asked.
How Do We Know It’s the True Church?
Twelve Things to Look For
By: Fr. Dwight Longenecker
My conversion to the Catholic faith began in the world of Protestant fundamentalism. After being brought up in an independent Bible church, I attended the fundamentalist Bob Jones University. While there I became an Anglican; later, I went to England to become an Anglican priest.
My pilgrimage of faith came to a crisis in the early 1990s as the Anglican Church struggled over the question of the ordination of women. By instinct I was against the innovation, but I wanted to be positive and affirm new ideas rather than reject them just because they were new. I decided to put my prejudices to one side and listen as openly as possible to both sides of the debate.
As I listened I realized that from a human point of view, both the people in favor of women’s ordination and those against it had some good arguments. Both sides argued from Scripture, tradition, and reason.
Both sides argued from practicality, compassion and justice. Both sides honestly considered their arguments to be persuasive. Furthermore, both sides were composed of prayerful, church-going, sincere Christians who genuinely believed the Holy Spirit was directing them. How could both be right?
From a human point of view, both arguments could be sustained. This led me to a real consideration of the question of authority in the Church. I realized that the divisions over women’s ordination in the Anglican Church were no different, in essence, than every other debate that has divided the thousands of Protestant denominations.
Some groups split over women’s ordination; others split over whether women should wear hats to church. Some split over doctrinal issues; others split over moral issues. Whatever the issue and whatever the split, the basic problem is one of authority. If Christians have a sincere disagreement, who decides?
Wobbly Three-Legged Stool
Evangelical Protestants say the Bible decides, but this begs the question when the two warring parties agree that the Bible is the final authority. They eventually split because they can’t agree about what the Bible actually teaches. I had moved away from the Protestant understanding that Scripture is the only authority, and as an Anglican, believed that authority rested in Scripture, tradition, and reason.
Anglicans call this the “three-legged stool.” By turning to Scripture, tradition, and human reason they hope to have a secure teaching authority. I came to realize, however, that this solution also begs the question.
Just as we have to ask the Protestant who believes in sola scriptura, “Whose interpretation of Scripture?,” we have to ask the Anglican, “Whose reason and whose tradition?” In the debate over women’s ordination (and now in the debate over homosexuality), both sides appeal to human reason, Scripture and tradition, and they come up with wildly different conclusions.
In the end, the Anglican appeal to a three-legged stool relies on individual interpretation, just as the Protestant appeals to sola scriptura. The three-legged stool turns out to be a theological pogo stick.
A Son of Benedict Speaks
About this time I had a conversation with the Abbot of Quarr Abbey (a Catholic Benedictine monastery on the Isle of Wight). He listened to my situation with compassion and interest. I explained that I did not want to deny women’s ordination. I wanted to affirm all things that were good, and I could see some good arguments in favor of women’s ordination.
He admired this desire to affirm all things but he said something that set me thinking further:
Sometimes we have to deny some lesser good in order to affirm the greater good. I think you have to deny women’s ordination in order to affirm the apostolic ministry. If the apostolic authority says no to women’s ordination, then to affirm the greater good of apostolic authority you will have to deny the lesser good of women’s ordination. Because if we deny the greater good, then eventually we will lose the lesser good as well.
He hit the nail on the head. His words led me to explore the basis for authority in the Catholic Church. I already had read and pretty much accepted the Scriptural support for the Petrine ministry in the Church. I also had come to understand and value the four-fold marks of the True Church—that it is “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.” As I studied and pondered the matter further, however, I saw twelve other traits of the church’s authority.
These twelve traits—in six paired sets—helped me to understand how comprehensive and complete the Catholic claims of authority are. I came to realize that other churches and ecclesial bodies might claim some of the traits, but only the Catholic Church demonstrated all twelve fully.
It Is Rooted in History . . .
What are the twelve traits of authority, and how do they work? We have to ask what a group of Christians who were deliberating a difficult matter would need to make their decision.
First of all, it seems clear that their decision would have to be made from a historical perspective. It was not good enough to decide complex moral, social, or doctrinal issues based on popularity polls or yesterday’s newspaper. To decide difficult questions, a valid authority has to be historical.
By this I mean not only does it has to have an understanding of history, but itself must be rooted in history. In addition, the authority has to show a real continuity with the historical experience of Christianity.
The churches that have existed for four or five hundred years can demonstrate this to a degree, but only the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) Church has a living link with history that goes back to Roman times—and then, through Judaism, back to the beginning of human history.
. . . and Adaptable
The historical link is essential, but on its own is not sufficient. Historical authority has to be balanced with the ability to be up to date. An authority that is only historical becomes ossified. It never changes. An authority that cannot be up to date is not only rooted in history, it is bound by history. A valid authority structure needs to be flexible and adaptable. Christians face complex modern moral and doctrinal dilemmas. A valid authority system draws on the wisdom of the past to rule properly on the questions of the present.
It Is Objective . . .
A third quality of a valid authority system is that it needs to be objective. By this I mean it needs to be independent of any one person’s or group’s agenda, ideology, philosophy or self-interest. A valid authority transcends all political, economic, and cultural pressures. The objective quality of this authority system also allows it to make decisions that are unpopular or that go against the spirit of the times and majority opinion.
An objective authority is based on certain universal basic assumptions, immutable principles, and observable and undeniable premises. From these objective criteria the valid authority system builds its teaching.
. . . and Flexible
For the authority to be valid, however, it cannot rely on abstract principles and objective criteria alone. The valid authority is suitably subjective in applying objective principles. In other words, it understands that the complexities of real life and the pastoral exigencies of helping real people demand a flexible, practical, and down-to-earth application.
The Catholic authority system does just that. Throughout the Code of Canon Law, for example, we are reminded that the law is there to serve the people of God in their quest for salvation.
Individual Christians, or particular Christian groups, often fall into one side of this pair or the other. The rigorists or legalists want everything to be objective and “black and white” all the time, while the liberals or sentimentalists want every decision to be relative, open-ended, and flexible according to the pastoral needs. Only the Catholic system can hold the two in tension, because only the Catholic system has an infallible authority which can keep the two sides balanced.
It Is Universal . . .
An authority that can speak to all situations can only do so if it comes from a universal source. This source of authority needs to be universal not only geographically, but also chronologically. In other words, it transcends national agendas and limitations, but it also transcends the cultural trends and intellectual fashions of any particular time.
Every church or ecclesial structure other than the Catholic Church is limited, either by its historical foundations or by its cultural and national identity.
For example, the Eastern Orthodox find it very hard to transcend their national identity, while the churches of the Reformed tradition struggle to transcend the particular cultural issues that surround their foundation.
The national, cultural, and chronological identities of other ecclesial bodies limit their ability to speak with a universal voice. When they do move away from their foundations they usually find themselves at sea amidst the fashions and trends of the present day. They also find that they lose their distinctive identities when they drift from their foundations. A universal authority system, on the other hand, transcends both chronological and geographical limitations.
. . . and Local
However, this universal authority needs to be applied in a particular and local way. An authority that is only universal remains vague, abstract, and disincarnate. For a universal authority system to be valid, it also must be expressed locally. Catholicism speaks with a universal voice, but it is also as local as St. Patrick’s Church and Fr. Magee on the corner of Chestnut Street.
Not only does the universal Church have a local outlet, but that outlet has a certain autonomy which allows it to be flexible in its application of the universal authority. Catholicism travels well, and because of the universal authority structure, it can allow far more varieties of enculturation at the local level than churches which are more bound by the time and place of their foundations.
It Is Intellectually Challenging . . .
The fourth pair of characteristics that demonstrate the validity of the Catholic authority system include its intellectual satisfaction and its accessibility. If an authority system is to speak to the complexities of the human situation, then it must be able to hold its own with the philosophical and intellectual experts in every field of human endeavor.
What other ecclesial system can marshal experts from every area of human expertise to speak authoritatively in matters of faith and morals? Time and again, the Catholic Church has been able to speak with authority about the spiritual dimension of economics, ethics, politics, diplomacy, the arts, and philosophy.
This authority must not only be able to hold its own with the intellectual experts in all fields, but it must be intellectually satisfying and coherent within itself. A unified and complete intellectual system must be able to explain the world as it is.
Furthermore, this intellectual system must continually develop and be re-expressed—always interpreting ageless truth in a way that is accessible for the age in which it lives. This intellectual system must be an integral and vital part of the religion, while also being large enough to self-criticize. Only the Catholic faith has such an all-encompassing, impressive system of teaching.
. . . and Accessible to the Uneducated
Nonetheless, while the authority system must be intellectually top notch, the religious system must also be accessible to peasants and the illiterate. A religious system that is only intellectual or appeals merely to the literate can speak only for the intellectuals and literate.
Some denominations appeal to the simple and unlearned, but have trouble keeping the top minds. Others appeal to the educated elite, but lose the masses. Catholicism, on the other hand, is a religion of the greatest minds of history and the religion of ignorant peasants. It is a religion that is complex enough for St. Thomas Aquinas and simple enough for St. Joseph Cupertino. It has room at the manger for both the magi and the shepherds.
It Is Visible . . .
As a Protestant I was taught that the Church was invisible. That is, it consisted of all people everywhere who believed in Jesus, and that the true members of the Church were known to God alone. This is true, but there is more to it than that. Invisibility and visibility make up the fifth paired set of characteristics that mark the truly authoritative church.
The Church is made up of all people everywhere who trust in Christ. However, this characteristic alone is not satisfactory because human beings locked in the visible plane of reality also demand that the Church be visible. Even those who believe only in the invisible church belong to a particular church which they attend every Sunday. Those who believe only in the invisible church must conclude that the church they go to doesn’t really matter.
. . . and Invisible
The Catholic system of authority recognizes both the invisible dimension of the Church and the visible. The Church is greater than what we can observe, but the church we observe is also greater than we think. The invisible Church subsists in the Catholic Church, and while you may not be able to identify the extent of the invisible Church, you can with certainty point to the Catholic Church and say,
“There is the Body of Christ.”
A few small Protestant denominations claim that their visible church is the true church, but their claims are ludicrous because they have none of the other twelve traits of true authority. Because it has all these traits, only the Catholic Church can claim to be the living, historical embodiment of the Body of Christ on earth.
It is Both Human and Divine
Finally, for the church to speak with authority it must be both human and divine. An authority that speaks only with a divine voice lacks the authenticity that comes with human experience. So Islam and Mormonism, which are both based on a book supposedly dictated by angels, are unsatisfactory because their authority is supernaturally imposed on the human condition.
On the other hand, a religion that is purely a construct of the human condition is merely a system of good works, religious techniques, or good ideas. Christian Science or Unitarianism, for example, is developed from human understandings and natural goodness. As such, both lack a supernatural voice of authority.
The Judeo-Christian story, however, is both human and divine. The voice of authority is always expressed through human experience and human history. Divine inspiration in the Judeo-Christian tradition is God’s word spoken through human words. This incarnated form of authority finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, who hands on his totally incarnated authority to Peter and his successors.
Built upon the Rock
Some Churches may exercise some of the twelve traits, but only the Catholic Church is able to field all twelve as a foundation for decision-making. When the Catholic Church pronounces on any difficult question, the response is historical, but up to date. It is based on objective principles but applies to specific needs. The Church’s authority transcends space and time, but it is relevant to a particular place and time.
The response will be intellectually profound, but expressed in a way that is simple enough for anyone to apply. Finally, it will express truths that are embedded in the human experience, but spring from divine inspiration.
This authority works infallibly through the active ministry of the whole Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that it is Christ who is infallible, and he grants a measure of his infallibility to his body, the Church.
That infallibility is worked out through these twelve traits, but it is expressed most majestically and fully through Christ’s minister of infallibility: one person—the Rock on which the Church is built, Peter and his successors.
“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye”
http://stopbaptistpredators.org/article07/child_sex_abuse_by_protestant_clergy.html
http://suite101.com/a/sex-abuse-in-the-protestant-church-a268469
http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex11.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/the-protestant-clergy-sex_b_740853.html
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2007/06/sex-abuse-of-minors-higher-in.html
Show us in Scripture where Jesus ever promised a "perpetual" Apostleship for His church. Peter had no more authority to hand down his Apostolic office and gifts than Judas did. What got handed down was the message - the ministry of reconciliation, the gospel - and not an official title or authority.
Show us in Scripture where there was a centrally established hierarchical group that had jurisdiction over all other local churches or one office that was put in charge of the development of doctrine.
Show us in Scripture where such an office had divine authority to change the core tenets of the Christian faith and make mandatory obedience to this authority a basis for salvation.
Sure, you have "traditions", but we all know those can be invented, revised and contradicted depending upon who is currently seated as that authority and what one pope might have deemed an essential issue to be held by all the faithful, another could come right after him and negate that command.
The ministry Jesus gave to Peter - as well as to the other Apostles and disciples - was one of preaching the gospel, discipling others, starting churches, training leaders and then moving on to the next ready-to-harvest field of souls. The Holy Scriptures remain the authority by which all claims to the rule of the faith must be measured. That has NEVER changed and, along with the Holy Spirit, was and will continue to be the authority we have from God over ANY church which asserts IT is that authority. I will believe God over man.
Actually, it is fit for any such, but all i am asking are some basic questions here. .
But the short answer is this. “Christian generations do not exist as self contained islands....
That is simply not an answer to my question, unless you mean that the basis for your assurance that Rome is the one true church, with its (conditionally) infallible magisterium, is that it is necessary. And perhaps the historicity and tradition of Rome and promises of Scripture give you full assurance that she is that infallible church.
Is that the basis for your assurance, and why do we need that infallible church?
Big snowstorm here today, so i may be typing and shoveling!
That’s not an answer to my observation.
That is deflection and blame shifting.
Another non-answer that simple proves my point.
But; when it's been POUNDED into your head that it IS Peter...
All this tells me is that he rejects conclusions based on appeal to Scripture, tradition, and human reason, and then proceeds to argue from Scripture, tradition, history and human reason to conclude that Rome is the one true church with its four-fold marks “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic." And thus the supreme authority on Truth.
The result of his fallible reasoning is that of taking a step of faith that Rome is worthy of his implicit trust, as a convert does in trusting Christ, for its reasoning rejects fallible reasoning as unreliable and thus she alone authoritatively decides what Scripture, tradition, history mean. The RC henceforth is not to objectively examine evidence to determine the veracity of official church teaching.
And it is upon that premise of Rome's assured veracity, that the member has real assurance that Rome is the one true church, as Rome has infallibly declared that she is. The RC henceforth is not to objectively examine evidence to determine the veracity of official church teaching. But the question for me who finds Scripture worthy of being the supreme authority (and Rome is also subject to some interpretation), is whether the premise of an perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium is Scriptural and necessary. What is the Scriptural basis upon which the church began? And is Rome worthy of her supreme position and assent, or is Scripture?
Moreover, while you appeal is to fallible human reasoning so that i will not rely on fallible human reasoning, but place implicit faith in Rome in matters she requires such assent of faith in, yet this still does not eliminate the problem of interpretation, as the Interpreter requires interpretation to varying degrees (and you have no infallible interpreter of your infallible interpreter), though it cuts the scope and degree of such down depending on how broad and deep the Interpreter goes in making authoritative declarations. More on that to follow. Likewise the clearest teachings in Scripture have the greatest assent.
Evangelical Protestants say the Bible decides, but this begs the question when the two warring parties agree that the Bible is the final authority.
Likewise, Catholics (and cults, effectively) say the church supremely decides, that her interpretation of tradition, history and Scripture is assuredly true (with Rome infallibly declaring she is infallible), but under this model it still begs the question when two churches operating out of sola ecclesia (the church is alone as the final and supreme authority on earth), such as the EO's and Rome, both claim they are the one true church, based on their respective interpretations of Tradition, history and Scripture. Which extends even to the scope of papal power.
And "The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory [and indulgences], and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135. RCs,
And there is more than that, besides substantial assent to core teachings. Moreover, "churches" as the LDS also (if absurdly, but that's according to reason) argue her interpretation of history, Scripture and tradition makes her the OTC. When the church is supreme, then when it speaks, the matter is settled without having to rest upon Scriptural substantiation, upon which the church began in dissent from those who presumed of themselves above that which is written.
In addition, rather than unity being impossible under Scripture being supreme as the wholly inspired Word of God, the reason why Evangelical Protestants are termed "Evangelical" is because they have historically contended for core truths against liberalism and cults that deny them, as well as against extraScriptural traditions of Catholicism, while characteristically having limited degrees of disagreements on other issues. If they did not have this degree of unity then they would not have been a distinct movement, and treated by both liberals and Rome as their greatest threat.
Likewise, Catholics say the church decides, but as that still leaves competition, RCs say Rome decides, but in reality while they assent to core truths, yet most all of what Rome teaches allows for varying amounts of interpretation, including what is infallible, and what magisterial level each teaching falls under (and some say most of what they believe and practice does not come from the sacred supreme magisterium and does not exclude some dissent).
In addition is the great amount of liberty RCs have to adopt interpretations of Scripture to support Rome, within the parameters of official RC teaching. And even what is official (such as in Bulls encyclicals), beyond what the CCC contains (and how much of that contains infallible teaching). And disagreement abounds in Catholicism.
The more absolute the church teaches and enforces its doctrine, then the more unity you see, thus members of the Watchtower Society are more uniform than Catholics, but again, the question is for me is, is sola ecclesia Scriptural? Did the church begin based upon the basis of an infallible magisterium?
In addition, while the Bible is also subject to different interpretations, and the Catholic model of sola ecclesia does work to lessen the scope of disagreement, yet under this model false teachings and extrascriptural traditions can more easily be perpetuated.
Of course, this is denied under the premise that only Rome is the supreme authority, but the question remains whether that is warranted, and the basis that this is determined upon.
While the RCC position IS the correct one; right?
So let's see just what she teaches; ok??
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1,
Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. — http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/firstvc.htm
Yet as the Dominican cardinal and Catholic theologian Yves Congar O.P. states,
Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare...One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. — Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P., p. 71
And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock, stated that,
“If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” — Speech of archbishop Kenkick, p. 109; An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.
Your own CCC allows the interpretation that, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424), for some of the ancients (for what their opinion is worth) provided for this or other interpretations.
• Ambrosiaster [who elsewhere upholds Peter as being the chief apostle to whom the Lord had entrusted the care of the Church, but not superior to Paul as an apostle except in time], Eph. 2:20:
Wherefore the Lord says to Peter: 'Upon this rock I shall build my Church,' that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life. — Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians—Philemon, Eph. 2:20; Gerald L. Bray, p. 42
• Augustine, sermon:
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327
Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.
• Augustine, sermon:
For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)
• Augustine, sermon:
And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289
• Augustine, sermon:
Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95
• Augustine, sermon:
...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193
• Augustine, Psalm LXI:
Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)
• Augustine, in “Retractions,”
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
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.