Me too! But hasn't the Scripture set the precedent that we are to obey those men whom God has placed over and above us? Like Moses? Or the Apostles? Or even secular kings, as Paul mentions in Romans? We believe, as Christ said to Pilate (you would not have authority over me if it was not given from above), that God places people in authority over us all for His own reasons. These men are not infallible, yet Scripture tells us to obey them. A man doesn't need to be infallible to be obeyed. The reason why Church authority is even more highly regarded is because they ARE infallible ONLY because of the Holy Spirit, not their own abilities.
I must put my trust in men I do not know. The authority of these (non-Biblical) men is a self-claimed authority.
FK, I urge you to continue that line of thought to its logical conclusion...WE both base our trust that the Bible is the WORD of God BECAUSE we trust in those who gave it to us were trustworthy. St. Augustine says "I would not believe in the Scriptures if it were not for the Catholic Church". Anyone can say that there writings are inspired by God (see the Mormons). We don't believe them - but the Bible, we do, because it came from the Church.
Forgive me if I've already asked this, but the Church has never taught error?
Every word out of the mouth of a priest is not infallible. Only solemnly declared dogmatic statements. Only pronouncements made officially that claim to speak for the entire Church with the guidance of the Spirit. Indulgences continue to be an official teaching of the Church. The problem in the 1400-1500's was not the validity of the teaching, but rather the ABUSE of it. When several bishops abuse their authority, it doesn't mean that the universal church is teaching error. It means that some people are abusing their God-given authority. The wolves among the sheep.
Even in the Pope's recent pronouncement on homosexuality, he allows latent existing homosexual priests to remain in good standing
Again, that is not an official statement made from the "chair of Peter". However, frankly, how does that differ from a "latent existing" alcoholic priest who remains in good standing? We ALL have tendencies towards sin that we must fight against. Of course, priests with homosexual tendencies should remove themselves from the possibility of sinning. Perhaps a ministry to the sick, and keep away from kids. But are we to eliminate all priests who are not perfect? If a priest can preach the Church's teaching and keep a lid on his homosexual temptations, he is no different then any other priest who share the same fate as all fallen humans. Of course, that is my personal opinion, not a dogmatic statement, much like the Pope's.
However, after that it all goes back to interpretation. Following a practice and determining its meaning are two different things.
I would posit that those writing Scripture wrote it in a way that was VERY evident to those reading it. WE are confused and disagree (if we go Scripture alone) because we are not aware of the language nuances, the writing styles, the context of the times, and so forth. Thus, you are hard pressed to explain how the people Paul wrote to could be so confused about the Real Presence, considering that Paul LIVED with some of his communities for years! I would guarantee that Paul would make a statement IF the Corinthians were turning the "symbol" of the Eucharist to a "reality".
What you continue to ignore on this issue is for people to "change" from a "symbol" to a "reality" in one generation (it is clear what people from 110 AD believed) would require EVERYONE EVERYWHERE to change to the same "error" of the real presence, without a MURMUR of protest. Quite impossible, FK. We are talking about people who willingly went to lions to defend their faith. Are you saying that the Church became so confused, wimpy and inept on such a key belief in one generation?
You explained to me before that "THE CHURCH" does not equal "The Roman Catholic Church". Therefore, other than the RCC is also within "THE CHURCH". You can't admit that and then say that others are also part of the CHURCH, as long as they agree with RCC teaching. That would wipe out the whole point. Either you claim that the RCC is the only way to God, or you allow for differences
The difference between "is" and "subsists in" is a nuance difference. The Church of Christ subsists in the Roman Catholic Church means that people can be part of the Church but not be an official member of the Roman Catholic Church down the street. However, since the Church of Christ subsists in the Roman Church, a person who follows the Roman Catholic Church's beliefs and practices are part of the Roman Catholic Church in a mysterious way. Protestant communities are NOT part of the Church of Christ. The individual members, such as yourself, are part of the Roman Catholic Church to the degree that you follow its teachings and practices (presuming you were baptized validly).
Thus, when we speak of the invisible Church, it doesn't mean that the Calvinist community is invisibly connected to Rome. It means that those WITHIN the community individually are connected to this Church. There is no other "invisible church", like the invisible Lutheran church. And unfortunately, a person is no longer within this Catholic Church WHEN they learn the truth of what the Catholic Church IS and refuse to join it visibly. We call this invincibly ignorant - God will judge us on our knowledge. If a person realizes that "he who hears you, hears Me" and sees the Catholic church as the "you", but still refuses to enter - they are refusing Christ.
When we speak of the Church in regards to teaching and preaching infallibly, we speak of the visible Catholic Church. A visible Church MUST be the earthly source of infallible teachings - otherwise, anyone could make this claim to be "of the Church". Reaching back to the NT, we see the successors of Paul, Timothy and Titus (which, by the way, today is their feast day in the liturgical calendar - pray for us St. Timothy and St. Titus) being ordained specifically for this purpose. THEY were the next legitimate teachers of the faith, the protectors of correct doctrine. I think if you read the Pastorals, you'd find Apostolic Succession quite clearly explained, such as Titus 1:5 or 2 Tim 2:2. Thus, when a Lutheran pastor claims to be part of the invisible Church, he may be. But he is not an official teacher of the Church. To the degree that he teaches opposite what the Visible Church teaches, he is leading people AWAY from Christ.
You, OTOH, are bound to follow the Church teaching on this, are you not?
We are bound to follow official teachings of the Church because we believe that God speaks through it - as Christ says.
Core issues are things like the identity of Christ, the trinity, method of salvation, reality of sin, need for forgiveness, existence of heaven and hell, inerrancy of the Bible, etc.
Because it is subject to private human opinion rather than the Church, I highly doubt that you will get uniformity on every core subject - on what is necessary to know for salvation. As being subject to private opinion, you are free to ignore another's opinion. You are not bound to it. Thus, a person could state "I don't think Jesus rose bodily" and still consider themselves Christian. We might not consider them Christians, but who cares what we think (to them). That is why a heirarchy is important - to TELL US what is necessary for salvation. To TELL us the specifics of what the Bible means by "faith". And we know that it is passed down in uncorrupted form, because God promised to protect His Church - meaning the Apostolic successors who were tasked to do this very thing. (we as lay people were not given the task to "protect" the revelation given, although we certainly can).
We have more differences than you because we do not automatically submit to the direction of fallible men
You submit to your OWN selves, don't you? You are presuming to know what God means by particular Scripture passages, over and above men from 1800 years removed from today. People who were only a couple generations from Christ. While they were not infallible, what makes me smarter then them? Why do I place myself above their holy opinions? Consider, the following generations noted what the first Christians believed, as well, and agreed with their teachings and interpretations. So am I to disagree with so many generations of Christians? Why? And we haven't even discussed the fact that Christ guides His Church from error.
You do submit because you believe these men have been specially blessed with power and wisdom, etc. That's fine. That is faith
And I believe that Jesus Christ meant for His Church to last for all time - and that He would, MUST, protect it from error. How would He do this? How does God protect His Church from teaching error? Do you think that the Church would have the Nicean Creed as is WITHOUT God's guidance? Again, Christianity is a revealed religion, not one of rationale and logic (although they certainly exist within it). If God said He was 6 persons in one, we would believe Him. The Scriptures DO NOT EXPLICITLY SAY that He is a Trinity. From the Scriptures, tell me who the Holy Spirit is? A force? An angel? A creation? God? It is not quite so clear as you'd make it out to be. That is why we shouldn't ignore the Apostolic Tradition - HOW to read the Bible. Through them, we KNOW that Jesus is of the SAME essence of God, that the Holy Spirit is ALSO of the same essence of God.
The claim you make, that the Spirit guides you, is true to a degree. But it cannot be entirely true, because I believe the Spirit guides me...But yet, we disagree on the Eucharist!!! How COULD the Spirit lead two Christians to believe something entirely different, on a core issue? Thus, the Spirit DOES NOT lead us in THAT fashion. He leads the CHURCH leaders to read the sense of the faithful, to interpret the Scriptures, to interpret what has been passed down to formulate dogmatic definitions when a person refutes an important commonly-held teaching.
I have not yet been led to follow men before God's word.
Every word within the Bible came to us through men. The Judeo-Christian heritage understands that God's Word is brought to us through the instrument of men who the community deems as inspired by God. THE COMMUNITY deems they were inspired. They witness to the truth of the prophet or evangelist's words. I believe you are taking for granted how that Bible came into your hands, AS the Word of God.
I thank you for the opportunites for this discussion and your patience. God Bless.
I accept the authority of the teachings of Moses and the Apostles. However, I differentiate between following a secular leader in law vs. his religious doctrine, or lack thereof. We are to obey the secular law, generally (Daniel is an exception), but that is totally separate from our faith. I suppose we just disagree on who any of those "other" men are.
The reason why Church authority is even more highly regarded is because they ARE infallible ONLY because of the Holy Spirit, not their own abilities.
This is a main point of our disagreement. Authoritative succession throughout the ages is only true based on the say so of interested men, and their say so that God said so. When Jesus said He would be with the Apostles even until the end of the age, I took that to mean with all believers, not only the RCC.
WE both base our trust that the Bible is the WORD of God BECAUSE we trust in those who gave it to us were trustworthy. St. Augustine says "I would not believe in the Scriptures if it were not for the Catholic Church". Anyone can say that there writings are inspired by God (see the Mormons). We don't believe them - but the Bible, we do, because it came from the Church.
Actually, I don't trust anything in those who gave it to us, on their own authority, I trust in He who authored all of it. I pray that I am misinterpreting your reference to St. Augustine. Are you saying that the Church authenticates the scriptures? Not God?
Me: "Even in the Pope's recent pronouncement on homosexuality, he allows latent existing homosexual priests to remain in good standing."
Again, that is not an official statement made from the "chair of Peter". However, frankly, how does that differ from a "latent existing" alcoholic priest who remains in good standing? We ALL have tendencies towards sin that we must fight against. Of course, priests with homosexual tendencies should remove themselves from the possibility of sinning. Perhaps a ministry to the sick, and keep away from kids. But are we to eliminate all priests who are not perfect?
I do not understand the distinction of 'an official statement made from the "chair of Peter".' I thought it was a Vatican statement, which implied to me the Pope's blessing.
I appreciate the comparison to an alcoholic priest (a guy with a problem), but I was keying in on someone who is unrepentant. I haven't heard of many homosexuals who think it is wrong that they chose this lifestyle. I think alcoholics might be a little different. In either case, if one of my church ministers was a "proud" homosexual or lush, then I would want him removed. If the person wanted to seek help and get better (much more often for alcoholics than homosexuals) then I would say fine, give the guy a break.
What you continue to ignore on this issue is for people to "change" from a "symbol" to a "reality" in one generation (it is clear what people from 110 AD believed) would require EVERYONE EVERYWHERE to change to the same "error" of the real presence, without a MURMUR of protest. Quite impossible, FK. We are talking about people who willingly went to lions to defend their faith. Are you saying that the Church became so confused, wimpy and inept on such a key belief in one generation?
I don't claim to state for a fact what the original practices were. (I also do not claim that any non-Biblical practice was right simply because it was first.) I do not say that all of the earliest Christians were really Protestants, and then "switched" to Catholicism in one generation. I don't know what they did, or why. You have cited many extra-biblical sources on these practices, and I don't blame any Catholic for following them. I just haven't accepted them as authority.
There are a large number of Catholic practices/rituals with which I have no problem at all. It's just that when Biblical teaching appears to be threatened (or fails to substantiate) that I question it. It seems too peculiar to me that if God had included another 15 measly pages in the Bible, we would have no need for this discussion. For 15 extra pages, we might agree on everything. Definitionally I suppose, tradition is what didn't make it into the Bible. Much tradition is perfectly consistent with the Bible, but much of it appears to be with a very strained interpretation (IMO) of God's word.
Protestant communities are NOT part of the Church of Christ.
THIS is something I REALLY wanted a 'yea' or 'nay' on. Thank you for the clarification.
[On the subject of "core" Christian principles] As being subject to private opinion, you are free to ignore another's opinion. You are not bound to it. Thus, a person could state "I don't think Jesus rose bodily" and still consider themselves Christian. We might not consider them Christians, but who cares what we think (to them). That is why a hierarchy is important - to TELL US what is necessary for salvation.
I do feel free to both ignore another's opinion or to adopt it, based on its adherence to scripture. I'm the only one I can think of on this thread who has changed his mind on a position. I began by arguing "once saved, always saved", but then it was pointed out to me that "perseverance of the saints" was superior from a scriptural viewpoint. It was a no-brainer to me so I quickly adopted the doctrine. I will always do that. God knows the very limited extent of my intellect, He knows which of my buttons to press to get His results, He knows what I need to understand, and He provides it to me. I am fully capable of blowing the message sometimes, but overall, it's been so far so good. If He wants me to follow a different path, He knows where to find me.
As to any person who said that Jesus did not rise bodily, I would ask for the source of their opinion, dismiss it, and know that the person had a serious problem in core theology under beliefs of Protestants and Catholics. I don't see how this translates to a need for a hierarchy. We totally disagree on that idea, but we completely agree that the person in this example is seriously misguided. However, I suppose that you put us in the same boat with this other misguided "Christian". Oh well.
You submit to your OWN selves, don't you? You are presuming to know what God means by particular Scripture passages, over and above men from 1800 years removed from today.
Of course not. I have every bit as much faith that the Holy Spirit leads me as you do that the Holy Spirit leads others to lead you. In fact, you would have to admit that our side puts far less faith in ourselves than your side. Your salvation depends upon the inner goodness of yourself, separately, and in cooperation with God, right?We think no such thing. It is you who submit to your own selves to cooperate in salvation.
So am I to disagree with so many generations of Christians? Why?
I would say that either of us is to disagree with any error the Spirit reveals to us, regardless of how long it has been taught, by whom, or where it came from. This includes the theology of Protestant "founders". I am not wed to all of Luther's or Calvin's beliefs. The test is always the Bible and how the Spirit leads me.
If God said He was 6 persons in one, we would believe Him. The Scriptures DO NOT EXPLICITLY SAY that He is a Trinity. From the Scriptures, tell me who the Holy Spirit is? A force? An angel? A creation? God? It is not quite so clear as you'd make it out to be. That is why we shouldn't ignore the Apostolic Tradition - HOW to read the Bible. Through them, we KNOW that Jesus is of the SAME essence of God, that the Holy Spirit is ALSO of the same essence of God.
Well, with all due respect, I don't think we need any tradition to know that Jesus is of the same essence of God. Would you agree that Jesus plainly said so Himself in scripture? I'm going to presume that you believe that the Father is God and that Jesus is God. :) So, if the question is about the Spirit, one of many verses would be:
1 Corinthians 2:11 : "11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."
Does this not define the omniscience of the Spirit? Who besides God could be omniscient? No one I know of. We are even told that satan is not. So, this Spirit guy is no angel, or "force". He must be God. We do not need the Apostolic tradition to learn this lesson at all. God gives it to us clearly here, but also gives us clues in many other passages in scripture. They are all consistent independent of any teachings in tradition.
The claim you make, that the Spirit guides you, is true to a degree. But it cannot be entirely true, because I believe the Spirit guides me...But yet, we disagree on the Eucharist!!! How COULD the Spirit lead two Christians to believe something entirely different, on a core issue? Thus, the Spirit DOES NOT lead us in THAT fashion.
Yes, my claim can be entirely true! :) I appreciate and accept that the Spirit guides you too. So, either one or both of us is wrong on the Eucharist. I believe all men are capable of blowing things on matters of interpretation, including me. (Of course it's not the Spirit's fault.)
By what you said, how could the Spirit lead us on anything? We'll agree on many things, but then disagree etc., but then we'll bring in another good Christian and there will be even more disagreement. The whole point of this rambling is that maybe the Eucharist is not a core issue. I know it is very important to you, but you told me that no sacrament is absolutely required for salvation. I think we might substantially agree on "bigger" issues
Every word within the Bible came to us through men. The Judeo-Christian heritage understands that God's Word is brought to us through the instrument of men who the community deems as inspired by God. THE COMMUNITY deems they were inspired.
"THROUGH" men - 'YES'. "BY" men - 'NO'. Of course I would say that while the scribes of the NT showed their personalities, intended audiences, etc., that nevertheless, God was the final editor of every jot and tittle. I would say that there was no cooperation from any of the authors of the scriptures. They were faithful scribes, but they were not writing of themselves. That all the authors of the Bible could be so completely consistent in message and so great in wisdom across hundreds of years appears impossible to me if their human weaknesses were subject to being included in the final text. To me, God gets the only copyright on this book.
I also thank you for this discussion, and I appreciate your patience with me. I have learned a tremendous amount from you, which helps me toward my goal of being able to discuss Catholic beliefs with others and be accurate and fair. I almost think I now know more about Catholic theology than some Catholics! :) It has been wonderful to learn more about your beliefs.