It was all my doing.
Posted on 04/20/2014 12:50:38 PM PDT by Gamecock
The perennial question in the debate over sola Scriptura is whether the church is over the Bible or the Bible is over the church. If you take the latter position, then you are (generally speaking) a Protestant who believes the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, are the only infallible rule and therefore the supreme authority over the church. But, here is the irony: Roman Catholics also claim to be “under” the authority of the Bible.
The Roman Catholic church insists that the Scripture is always superior to the Magisterium. Dei Verbum declares, “This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it” (2.10), and the Catholic Catechism declares: “Yet, this Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but its servant” (86). However, despite these qualifications, one still wonders how Scripture can be deemed the ultimate authority if the Magisterium is able to define, determine, and interpret the Scripture in the first place. Moreover, the Magisterium seems to “discover” doctrines that are not consistent with the original meaning of Scripture itself—e.g,, the immaculate conception, purgatory, papal infallibility and the like. Thus, despite these declarations from Rome, residual concerns remain about whether the Magisterium functionally has authority over the Scriptures.
My friend and colleague James Anderson has written a helpful blog post that brings even further clarity to this issue. He begins by observing the judicial activism that happens all too often in the American political system. Judges go well beyond the original intent of the constitution and actually create new laws from the bench. He then argues:
What has happened in the US system of government almost exactly parallels what happened in the government of the Christian church over the course of many centuries, a development that finds its fullest expression in the Roman Catholic Church.
The Bible serves as the constitution of the Christian faith. It is the covenant documentation. It defines the Christian church: what constitutes the church, what is its mission, who runs the church and how it should be run, what are the responsibilities of the church, what is the scope of its authority, what laws govern the church and its members, and so forth. Once the constitution has been written, the task of the ‘judges’ (the elders/overseers of the church) is to interpret and apply it according to its original intent. Their task is not to create new laws or to come up with “interpretations” that cannot be found in the text of the constitution itself (interpreted according to original intent) and would never have crossed the minds of the “founding fathers” (Eph. 2:20).
Yet that’s just what happened over the course of time with the development of episcopacy, the rise of the papacy, and the increasing weight given to church tradition. To borrow Grudem’s phrasing: If the Bible didn’t say something something that the bishops wanted it to say, or thought it should say, they could claim to “discover” new doctrines in the Bible — purgatory, indulgences, apostolic succession, papal infallibility, etc. — and no one would have power to overrule them.
Adapting the candid statement of Chief Justice Hughes, today’s Roman Catholic might well put it thus: “We are under the Bible, but the Bible is what the Pope says it is.” In fact, that’s exactly how things stand in practice. Functionally the Pope has become the highest governing authority in his church: higher even than the Bible. The church has been derailed by “ecclesial activism”.
Thus, even though Rome claims that the Bible is its ultimate authority, practically speaking it is the church that is the ultimate authority. Rome is committed to sola ecclesia. And this clarifies the real difference between Protestants and Catholics. Something has to be the ultimate authority. It is either Scripture or the church.
Indeed!
Lots of these in religion threads.
I have, but usually it's about a dumb mistake I've made in posting and it needs removed.
I think most of us have developed a really tough skin, and realize that these words on the screen can't hurt us - just pi uh, tick us off a lot.
I've done my share of insulting here; and deservedly received some in return.
Magic formula? Who is claiming Magic formula?
The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ...
When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man..
Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary [who is said to be all but almighty herself]...The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command. ...No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus.(John A. O’Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., The Faith of Millions, 255-256)
LOL
It only encourages him.
--Mrs_Elsie(I have to LIVE with him!)
About as imaginative as HAROLD CAMPING being a prophet of God. "And may we take our next caller please."
Chapter and verse please, of even one prayer anywhere in Scripture of even one believer praying to anyone in Heaven but the Lord.
Or of anyone being in Heaven and able to personally hear and respond to the multitudinous incessant mental prayers from those on earth addressed to them, thus possessing an attribute only God is shown to have.
I have not followed your exchange, but that question only applies to those who claim the gift of assured infallibility, thus making them as popes. Those who do so are lead cults.
But as this claim is Rome's strong suit, and is what is behind RC assertions (I am right because I am taught by my church which is right), and as they are to render assent of faith to these, then knowing all the infallible teachings of Rome, and even what magisterial level each teachings falls under, is important for this claim.
Can you provide an infallible list of all such?
Upon physical death we are free of the earthly curse of sin. GOD can not look upon sin so why would he allow the believers among him to do so after death? Would GOD want them to see the suffering of others they left behind?
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)
Would GOD want them to see the suffering of others they left behind?
We have no proof they do, unless that was really Samuel whom the witch divined. But as for your reasoning, if they so, it can be because He has not yet wiped away every tear and made all things new.
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (Revelation 21:4-5)
The believers with the Lord could tell much thru the arrival of new saints, and the condition they are in, and those under the altar in Rv. 6:10 will cry "with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?"
But neither this, not elder and angels offering up the prayers of the saints as a remembrance to God of their cry, (Rv. 5:8; 8:4,5) testifies to the departed knowing, or seeing and hearing what is going on in the earth.
Whether they do and how much can only be speculation, though they cannot be omniscient, as they is only shown as being a Divine attribute.
Likewise being able to hear virtually unlimited incessant prayers from earth, which PTDS presumes, is only shown to be a Divine attribute, as is being the object of prayer from earth.
The silence of God is to be respected as well as what He says, and valid doctrine is not that of arguing from silence or specious extrapolation to support a basic practice that is utterly absent from Scripture, while ascribing attributes to men which only God is shown to have, is blasphemous. Which is one reason the Pharisees charged Christ with blasphemous, but which is a mark of His deity, as is being the only mediator in the Heavenly man btwn the God and man. (1Tim. 2:5)
There is a lot of misconceptions about this dogma of the Church.
But I think the way to illustrate the problem of your position is to ask you:
Can you list the dogma/doctrine that you hold to that are fallible?
Red herring duly noted.
Dan, I see you’ve yet again, asked a Catholic something that cannot be answered.
It requires some thought, yes. And fairness.
So, how about your thoughts?
Which dogma/doctrine that you hold to are fallible? And which are infallible?
The options would be:
A) You don’t have dogma/doctrine - which would mean you don’t really have religious beliefs. I wouldn’t think that would apply to you or any religious person.
B) That you believe your dogma/doctrine are fallible. I.e., might not be true. This would present an odd situation. Essentially saying: “We hold this to be absolutely true, but maybe not.”
No; because fallible is a descriptor of a quality possessed by something; not a substance of it's own.
I could say, "God requires us to not eat Jello® on Thursday."
The statement is not fallible or infallible; it is either true or false.
I would be fallible or infallible for saying it; depending on it's veracity.
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.