Invincible or Inculpable Ignorance Neither Saves nor Damns a Person

”The difference between you reading the Bible and the Catholic Church teaching the proper interpretation of the Bible is that you will most likely fall into error and believe false doctrines since your rely on your reasoning abilities and nothing more, whereas the Church has Divine Authority to convey the Master's teachings and will not err when speaking authoritatively. “

You may believe that nonsense but it was those same “unerring” church fathers “speaking authoritatively” who established the practice of making people pay to get their relatives out of purgatory which set the stage for the Reformation. One hundred years later the “unerring” church fathers admitted that the earlier group of “unerring” church fathers was wrong.

You may think you understood Protestantism but if you did you would not have made the claim that:

”…since your rely on your reasoning abilities and nothing more”

Protestantism is carefully reviewing and studying doctrines and theology against the scriptures and church history. Although I have a Calvinist belief, I can and do worship in a Southern Baptist environment very comfortably because, while we may differ in doctrine, we have the same core beliefs. And I can verify any Protestant church’s doctrinal integrity by looking at the scriptures, the history of the church, and doctrinal statements.

You are not as fortunate. There is nothing from which to verify the accuracy of the Catholic teaching except what you are told. I just hope the church fathers don’t make any other “errors”.

St. Paul was commanded by God to write to the seven bishops of Asia in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea - see Apoc. i.11. "...Write in a book, and send to the seven churches which are in Asia...." His intent was not to write a tome used to discern the doctrines of Christianity, but to pass along the Revelation given to him by God to the bishops of the early Catholic Church.

Do you find similar commands from God to the other writers of the New Testament?

The scriptures state clearly that all scripture is written by inspiration of God.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Ergo ... all of the writers of scriptures were inspired to do so ... by God.

"Please let me know when the Catholic Church accepts divorce and birth control and homosexuality."

I've bookmarked it for your convenience...

Homosexuals… Utica (RC) Priest Discloses He is Gay

Birth Control… Catholic charities and birth control

I don’t have one immediately at hand on divorce but I’m sure I could find one.

On the other hand, many Protestant Churches pay for the abortions of their female pastors.

I would think that one would know that such a charge as this would require adequate attestation ...

... such as I would present to accompany the charge that the Catholic Church paid hush money to many of the victims of its pedophiles ...
Church pays hush money to sex abuse victims -- The Times (London)

THE Roman Catholic Church has secretly paid thousands of pounds in “hush money” to dozens of Britons who were sexually abused by priests. The disclosure will come as a further embarrassment to the Catholic Church in England and Wales and to its spiritual leader, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, who has been accused of turning a blind eye to paedophile priests when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. One of them, Father Michael Hill, was jailed in 1997 for a string of sex offences and will be sentenced tomorrow after admitting further charges of indecent assault on three boys. Several of the compensation payments — which were made on condition that the victims did not talk about them — went to people abused by Hill and Cardinal Murphy- O’Connor is said to have been aware of them. The police are already investigating claims that the Cardinal covered up Hill’s activities and he is now under pressure to resign over allegations that he failed to stop up to eight other paedophile priests in his former diocese. Inquiries by The Times have also established that the police are also investigating sex abuse allegations against priests in Birmingham, Salford and Northampton.

Unlike some of your other Catholic opponents, I am not about to let scurrilous remarks go unqualified. Please give me the names of "church fathers" who "spoke authoritatively" of the practice of "making people pay to get their relatives out of purgatory." Put up or shut up.

Protestantism is carefully reviewing and studying doctrines and theology against the scriptures and church history.

...and arriving at conclusions with your own authority, thereby making each Bible-thumper who can read his own pope. What "doctrinal statements" do you study? Those of Calvin? Is he the final authority? Do you realize that holding the true doctrine given by Christ is required by God and that by worshipping with those who you "differ in doctrine," you are contradicting the very Scriptures you profess to uphold?

"Whosoever revolteth, and continueth no in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." (2 John 9-11).

"And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, funished to every good work." (2 Tim. iii.15-17)

St. Paul here speaks of scripture that Timothy knew since his infancy - which was obviously referring to the Old Testament and more specifically the Septuagint which the Apostles relied upon. Paul had no idea at the time that his letter would be considered by the Church as "inspired," although we know now that by decree of the Church that the Holy Ghost did indeed guide his writing to be free from error and therefore this Epistle is in the Canon of the New Testament. Again, it may have been a pious belief that this letter from Paul was inspired prior to the Church's decree, but it was not known with certainty until the Church settled the matter in the Council of Carthage.

You are also guilty of circular reasoning by stating that the Scriptures are inspired because the Scriptures say they are inspired. This is a basic fallacy of logic. Again, from Karl Keating:

"What about the Bible's own claim to inspiration? There are not many places where such a claim is made even tangentially, and most books in the Old and New Testaments make no such claim at all. In fact, no New Testament writer seemed to be aware that he was writing under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, with the exception of the author of Revelation. Besides, even if every biblical book began with the phrase 'the following is an inspired book', such phrases would prove nothing. The Koran claims to be inspired, as does the Book of Mormon, as do the holy books of various Eastern religions. Even the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, found of Christian Science, claim inspiration. The mere claim of inspiration is insufficient to establish a book's bona fides."

St. Paul here speaks of scripture that Timothy knew since his infancy - which was obviously referring to the Old Testament and more specifically the Septuagint which the Apostles relied upon. Paul had no idea at the time that his letter would be considered by the Church as "inspired," although we know now that by decree of the Church that the Holy Ghost did indeed guide his writing to be free from error and therefore this Epistle is in the Canon of the New Testament. Again, it may have been a pious belief that this letter from Paul was inspired prior to the Church's decree, but it was not known with certainty until the Church settled the matter in the Council of Carthage.

You can't say, ... with any certainty, ... whether Paul had prior knowledge that his and other Apostolic writings would be canonized as scripture or not.

The pages of the (Old & New) Testament scriptures are filled with the writings of those who were given such foreknowledge as this.

In any case, the point you make is, now, irrelevant (in the sense that the scriptures inform the audience of the church), ... for the church has declared (through the inspiration of God) that the New Testament writings are scripture.

So, ... as the Old Testament scriptures informed Timothy, ... so the Old and New Testament scriptures inform us.

You are also guilty of circular reasoning by stating that the Scriptures are inspired because the Scriptures say they are inspired. This is a basic fallacy of logic.

Not so ... for the church has declared (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that this passage is, itself, scripture.

The logic involved might be a problem for the unbeliever ... but, for the believer, there is no problem.

The church is the second witness.

The denominations that approve of abortion, much less pay for their female pastors or staff receiving abortions, are neither Protestant nor Christian. They may bear the name of an historical church with roots in the Reformation era, but they have abandoned the doctrines stated in the Reformation creeds, the early Church creeds, and Scripture, not only with respect to abortion, but in myriad other areas. As an analogy, the Polish National Catholic Church, the Liberal Catholic Church, and the sedevacantist groups may call themselves Catholic, but they have, at a minimum, abandoned the doctrine of Papal supremacy. Whatever they may call themselves, these groups are not Roman Catholic.

You Catholics like to tout the doctrinal solidarity you have in the church as evidence of solid Bible doctrine established by the church fathers. I’ve said it on another post and I’ll say it here; when doctrine is established but ignored-even for a “few”, then you have no doctrine.

While the Catholic Church has specific doctrines for homosexuals, birth control, etc., they tend to be quietly ignored in order to placate those in disobedience. Don’t take my word. Look at the furor caused by one righteous Cardinal refusing to administer the Eucharist to pro-choice politicians. (At least some are willing to take a stand.) And we won’t even talk about the pedophile priests who are quietly reassigned.

You may call me an “ass” but when you Catholics start touting your virtues while ignoring your problems, you come off to me as a noise gong or a clanging symbol.

What "doctrinal statements" do you study?

The creeds (Apostles', Nicene, etc.) ?

Do you realize that holding the true doctrine given by Christ is required by God and that by worshipping with those who you "differ in doctrine," you are contradicting the very Scriptures you profess to uphold?

Not so ... the relevant question at hand is ... how to best comprehend the doctrine of Christ ?

The Protestants contend that there is no clearer presentation of the doctrine of Christ ... than His very own words ... recorded by those who sat at His feet. The very words of He Who is Truth.

The Catholic position is that Jesus' words must be explained ... that there are those who can explain Christ's doctrine better than He, Himself did ... that we must rather listen to these 'interpretations' of Christ's doctrine, ... than to His very words.

You can't say, ... with any certainty, ... whether Paul had prior knowledge that his and other Apostolic writings would be canonized as scripture or not.

I just did. St. Paul was writing to Timothy in the example you gave, not the Church as a whole. It was not his intent to write Sacred Scripture; it was his intent to instruct and admonish Timothy, a bishop of the Catholic Church.

...for the church has declared (through the inspiration of God) that the New Testament writings are scripture.

Thank God - now we agree. The Catholic Church declared them inspired and thus we hold them as such.

The logic involved might be a problem for the unbeliever ... but, for the believer, there is no problem.

Logical fallacies are a problem for everyone, believer or not. You'll never convince anyone of the truth if your argument doesn't hold water.

Scurrilous am I???

You may wish to review the history of Popes Alexander VI, Julius II, and Leo X at www.newadvent.org (a Catholic website I use frequently to study church history). You’ll find that even the Catholic Church doesn’t have very kind words for the practice of selling indulgents. You may also wish to review an old post:

The Resurrection of Indulgences or Is Tetzel really dead?

for a history on this subject.

While you’re reviewing church history I would also suggest you check out Pope Honorius I at newadvent. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680).

As far as which doctrinal standards I review, I review EVERYTHING including Catholic, Arminian and Calvin doctrine. And I go directly to the source, not to someone who will interpret it for me (although I look at opposing views). Where I feel I’m in error I’m willing to modify my views such as switching to a more Calvinistic perspective after 30 years.

Most Catholics on this board seem not to wish to research history and doctrine beyond what is published by the Catholic Church. Or so I've been told.

You can't say, ... with any certainty, ... whether Paul had prior knowledge that his and other Apostolic writings would be canonized as scripture or not.

I just did.

In that case, ... what evidence do you have to support your claim ?

St. Paul was writing to Timothy in the example you gave, not the Church as a whole. It was not his intent to write Sacred Scripture; it was his intent to instruct and admonish Timothy, a bishop of the Catholic Church.

While Paul's motive in writing to Timothy is is to be considered, ... I believe that one might also consider the purpose of God.

God inspired Paul to write ...

... and, quite obviously, God intended that Paul's writing be canonized into scripture at the appropriate time.

Logical fallacies are a problem for everyone, believer or not. You'll never convince anyone of the truth if your argument doesn't hold water.

Our contentions on this point are identical.

God inspired the writings canonized in the New Testament.

God inspired the church to canonize the collection of the writings of the New Testament.

The church (through the inspiration of God) declared the New Testament writings to be scripture.

If there are any logical problems with this presentation, ... you and I share them.

If I break a law, I effectively demolish the law? Or do I simply demonstrate my unwillingness to adhere to the law. There is a difference.

The disobedient acts of a few or even of many, do not negate the validity of the reveled Truth of the Church, no matter how much you or the disobedient imagine it to be. No one can controvert truth.

You may call me an “ass” but when you Catholics start touting your virtues while ignoring your problems, you come off to me as a noise gong or a clanging symbol.

That's your impression, not reality. The reality is that you choose to focus on the presence of disobedience rather than the fact of true Doctrine. You have to because if you were to look at the reality of His Church, you would repent your apostasy.

So you give me a list of popes whose personal behavior was abhorrent and one who was condemned as a heretic for admitting the Monothelite error in a non-ex cathedra statement to prove what? That you can read? That there have been bad popes? I never said the Church was impeccable - there can be bad popes and wretched prelates of all sorts, but the Church can never officially teach error or betray the doctrine of Christ, otherwise the charism of infallibility would be meaningless and the gates of Hell would have prevaled (St. Matthew xvi.18) I will openly admit that the selling of indulgences (an act condemned as "simony" - see Acts. viii.20) was wrong and helped give cause to the Protestant revolt, but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water when a few unsavory Church authorities break the rules. Here are a few more words on Pope Honorius:

"Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote to Pope Honorius I (625-38) telling him of the reconciliation of followers of Monophysism by the use of the formula that there was 'one will and one energy in Christ'; that its orthodoxy had been challenged; and asking for a ruling. Honorius neither defined nor condemned: he insisted that Christ was perfect God and perfect man, and wished any reference to one or two energies (or operations) to be dropped; and admitted that 'there being only one principle of action, or one direction of the will in Christ, therefore there must be one will also.' This was the heresy of Monothelism, unless he meant by 'one will' simply a perfect concord of the human and divine wills. But in any case infallibility is not involved, for he did not make an ex cathedra decision (as given proper definition by the First Vatican Council, Session IV, Chapter 4); his reply was not a clear statement for the acceptance of the whole Church and he wrote, 'We must not wrest what they say into church dogmas.' In the sixth ecumenical council, Monothelism was condemned and Pope Honorius anathematized by name for having followed the heretical lead of Sergius. This anathema Pope St. Leo II confirmed only in the sense of a condemnation of his predecessor for 'hedging' and neglecting to denounce heresy outright when he ought to have done so." (Attwater, Donald. A Catholic Dictionary. 1997)

Of course, I find it hilarious that you are concerned with papal condemnations and yet profess to be a Calvinist. I'm thinking the anathemas issued by the Council of Trent would have encompassed a large portion of his teachings.

"If I break a law, I effectively demolish the law? Or do I simply demonstrate my unwillingness to adhere to the law."

If police ignore enforcing the law you have anarchy. While the law may be on the books, without enforcement you essentially have no law. That is the state the Catholic Church finds itself in today.

And, apostate that I am, I disagree with the theology of the Catholic Church and believe it is in error. However, and this will be reassuring to the Catholics I’m sure, unlike the Catholic view that anyone outside the church is an apostate; I do not believe that about Catholics. As much as I have looked into this matter (and it has been substantial) while I believe (IMO) Catholics to hold erroneous views, I see nothing in the core theology which would make me think they are nothing other than my brothers and sisters in Christ. And I based this not on my own "views" but my study of early church history and scripture.

There are many denominations that have told me exactly what you are trying to tell me; that you’re the one true church. And they have their doctrine all lined up. Fortunately, through God’s saving act I know exactly my position within Christ and what is thought of me is irrelevant. Someday all Catholics will realize that being a member of a church means nothing.

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.