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.
Ah, sorry. Thanks for your patience. Every word from the Pope is not infallible. Again, the Pope is only infallible when he makes official, solemnly declared statements from the Chair of Peter. His opinions as a private theologian are not infallibly protected, only those when operating as the official promulgator and definer of Catholic faith or morals. As I mentioned before, this is an extraordinary charism from the Spirit. It has been exercised only TWICE in 150 years, the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary. The rest are considered ordinary teachings that we follow as a matter of obedience to higher authority – but in of itself not necessarily infallible.
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.
I agree. But the Pope has to be careful. The Church is not a business, but is more a family (of God). To give an example, would you remove a father from a family because they didn’t discipline their children very well or taught them some disgusting habit, perhaps? It is much the same thing. The Church must be careful, because priests are the communities’ spiritual father. The Bishop doesn’t want to cause Schism, that’s for sure. There are a number of issues that doesn’t make this such a slam-dunk affair. I think the Pope has done his homework on the issue.
Protestant communities are NOT part of the Church of Christ.
I hope you understand that to mean “the First Southern Baptist Church on Main Street” is not part of the Church of Christ, BUT some of the PEOPLE who attend the “First Southern Baptist Church on Main Street” ARE of the Church of Christ…There can only be one visible organization that we refer to as the Church of Christ. The Scriptures clearly tell us that there is “one faith, one baptism” and “one loaf”…Not many different ones.
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.
You are correct, and I give you a lot of credit. You truly are a rare person in these forums.
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
I agree. Perhaps it was you that I wrote that I cannot convert anyone, only God can. I merely present the Catholic side. If God wills, the seed planted will grow into faith, either now, or a later time. My “job” is to present the truth of the Catholic Faith, which unfortunately, not many Catholics are aware of, either…
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.
Because there can only be ONE truth! I believe you are succumbing to the idea in society that is way over-used and misunderstood: Tolerance. By making truth subjective, by saying “your truth is as good as mine”, you are saying that truth is not really important; it is a matter of opinion. In the name of “tolerance”, we live and let live. However, if we are to love, it is our JOB to bring the TRUTH to others, to bring people out of ignorance. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. He came to bring us truth, and it will set us free! Certainly, we don’t bring truth by hammering them. We challenge them. We present the truth to them, logically discussing how they have incorrect ideas. The person above can listen to you, and walk away thinking you are crazy. “What authority does he have”? Perhaps, you will be able to present a case that will convince him otherwise. But as you have noted of your own experience, this doesn’t happen often. Thus, if we have a visible authority that is accepted as coming from Christ, we don’t have these issues of “what should I believe as TRUTH?” We don’t rely on our own interpretations, either.
I suppose that you put us in the same boat with this other misguided "Christian". Oh well.
I would say that you haven’t been exposed to the truth yet!
In fact, you would have to admit that our side puts far less faith in ourselves than your side.
By making yourself the final arbitrator of what is the truth?
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.
Well, I thought I explained that “our” inner goodness comes from God and God alone. We cooperate in salvation merely because God ALLOWS us to. He, being LOVE, operates that way. He desires a free union of love between two beings, Him and us. Thus, we must not willingly reject Him. But we realize that all that God gives us is gift. We cannot truly begin to understand God until we understand that EVERYTHING we have is a gift from Him. So knowing this, cooperation is merely saying “yes” to God’s gifts. Isn’t that what the Scripture demands from us? To choose good or to choose evil?
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.
What errors does the Catholic Church teach? I am not aware of anything that is taught that is explicitly denied of us in Scriptures. Everything I am aware of that is taught is not in contradistinction to Scripture.
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.)
You can never be sure your claim is actually true because we are not infallible. You yourself believe that man sins, that man sometimes chooses sin, even after our “salvation”. How do you know you are not choosing something that suits your current fancy? How do you know the devil is not leading you to believe something? How do you know you are accurately interpreting what the Spirit says? How do you know the “promptings” within you are actually the Spirit? Too many variables destroy the idea that an individual can KNOW he is correct regarding doctrine of the faith (without an authoritative interpreter to say “yes, this means that”, or “no, that does not mean that”)
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.
The Spirit leads us to love. We understand from Scripture that the Spirit is leading His Church but not APART from it! Christ said a Kingdom set up against itself will surely fall. Did Christ establish a Church so the Holy Spirit could lead it into diffuse and diverse paths? Saying that the Eucharist is not important because it is not absolutely essential is like saying I can live without food. Or I can get around with no legs…Christ IS the Eucharist. Wouldn’t you say that Christ coming to us to feed us spiritually is critical towards our salvation?
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.
I admit you are a rare breed, and I appreciate your questions. Sadly, you are probably correct in that you know more than many Catholics on their faith. If there is one thing I admire regarding Protestants is there desire to learn more about God through the Scriptures. They do it often on their own time (outside the Sunday “obligation”). We need more people like that within our Church. But I trust God knows what He is doing!
Brother in Christ
Again, the Pope is only infallible when he makes official, solemnly declared statements from the Chair of Peter. His opinions as a private theologian are not infallibly protected, only those when operating as the official promulgator and definer of Catholic faith or morals. As I mentioned before, this is an extraordinary charism from the Spirit. It has been exercised only TWICE in 150 years, the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary.
I did not have any idea about this. Thanks very much for the explanation. This will put a whole new light on how I read the news about these Vatican statements. And, I certainly believe that the Pope is no slouch as a private theologian :) I also did not know that the idea of the immaculate conception of Mary is so relatively new? Was it the case that the idea was always "there", but was only made "official" in the last 150 years, or is this truly new?
The Church is not a business, but is more a family (of God). To give an example, would you remove a father from a family because they didn’t discipline their children very well or taught them some disgusting habit, perhaps? It is much the same thing.
It would depend on the habit, and there certainly is a line that, once crossed, would require removal. I do not presume at all to dictate to the Catholic Church what that line should be, however, I know that you agree with me that clergy of any Christian faith should always be held to higher standards than the non-clerical father in your example.
Thank you very much for the compliment on open mindedness. :)
Protestant communities are NOT part of the Church of Christ.
I hope you understand that to mean “the First Southern Baptist Church on Main Street” is not part of the Church of Christ, BUT some of the PEOPLE who attend the “First Southern Baptist Church on Main Street” ARE of the Church of Christ…
That is the way I took it, but I shuttered at the implications, following up on above. I appreciate that lay people like me have a chance through invincible ignorance, but wouldn't you have to say that my pastor is necessarily doomed? How about Billy Graham? By this reasoning, all well trained and very learned leaders of Protestant churches are actively leading people away from the Church of Christ. INCLUDING CHILDREN. They must have special places in hell reserved for them, no? :)
Perhaps it was you that I wrote that I cannot convert anyone, only God can. I merely present the Catholic side. If God wills, the seed planted will grow into faith, either now, or a later time. My “job” is to present the truth of the Catholic Faith, ...
It was you, and I cannot agree more with the sentiment. :)
[On whether there is a need for a hierarchy] Because there can only be ONE truth! I believe you are succumbing to the idea in society that is way over-used and misunderstood: Tolerance. By making truth subjective, by saying “your truth is as good as mine”, you are saying that truth is not really important; it is a matter of opinion.
I don't see truth as a matter of opinion at all, I might be tolerant of a person out of love, but certainly not to her views if I believe them to be in error. I would then work very hard, as you would, to make the case. I do believe there is one and only one truth, whether I know it, or like it, or not. I seek to know it and reckon it, and of course in my biased opinion, on balence, so far so good! :)
In addition, while I think there is only one truth on a given matter, I can sometimes give some leeway on the way to get there. For example, we both believe that the Spirit indwells and guides the saved person. This is the truth. We disagree on how that happens, you believe it comes through the Church, and I believe it happens in a more direct manner. The "core" issue is the existence of the indwelling Spirit. I respectfully and strongly disagree about the mechanics, but I choose to focus on the bigger issue. I think I get this approach from what Jesus said concerning John the Baptist:
Matt. 11:11, 18-19 : "11 I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. ... 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."
They had completely different methods of preaching. John was "fire and brimstone", while Jesus was calmer and more declarative. Both were absolutely correct and arrived at the same place via different means. Both spoke absolute truth. I still remember how much that understanding knocked me over when I first learned it. Jesus was certainly "tolerant" of John's methods even though they were not His own. He sacrificed no truth to hold this view.
Well, I thought I explained that “our” inner goodness comes from God and God alone. We cooperate in salvation merely because God ALLOWS us to. ... Thus, we must not willingly reject Him. But we realize that all that God gives us is gift. We cannot truly begin to understand God until we understand that EVERYTHING we have is a gift from Him. So knowing this, cooperation is merely saying “yes” to God’s gifts.
You certainly did explain that God graces us to be able to cooperate in free will to accept Him. My point, as I understand you, is that the decision remains your own to be saved, this is your free will.
Here's what I don't get: I think that you say that God graces us all with enough to make a decision for or against God. Some say 'yes', some say 'no'. OK, why would anyone say "NO"? Who wouldn't accept such a gift? Does God give more grace to some than others? Are some people born with a larger capacity for cooperation than others? Would that come from God, since God created "all of" all of us? Doesn't God Himself create the free will that we would use? (This goes back to my use of the word "luck".) What separates the 'yes' people from the 'no' people?
What errors does the Catholic Church teach? I am not aware of anything that is taught that is explicitly denied of us in Scriptures. Everything I am aware of that is taught is not in contradistinction to Scripture.
On many matters, there is clearly no contradistinction. On others, it is precisely a matter of interpretation, which is why I put it in the context of what the Spirit reveals to us. I know the Catholic theology is well developed enough not to allow patent error to all readers (e.g. Jesus never lived on earth in human form). So, all of our theologies have critics from other Christians. Among Christian faiths, this does not bother me to a huge extent, because if someone I disagree with is really a Christian, then he will be in heaven and when I see him I can say "NAH, NAH!" :)
You yourself believe that man sins, that man sometimes chooses sin, even after our “salvation”. How do you know you are not choosing something that suits your current fancy?
For whatever current fancy I might have I would first look to scripture to the best of my knowledge. After that, I might look to others of like faith and learn their teachings. As we touched on recently, on this thread I did have a fancy, and it was wrong. I didn't know the scripture well enough to realize it, and I have heard people I respect promote "once saved always saved" so that was my fancy. I am grateful to God that I have been touched and further sanctified and have learned a better teaching.
However, I also believe that I could have gone for the rest of my life without learning this new teaching and still have gone to heaven. I "KNOW" I will never learn a new teaching now that will get me into heaven where I was lost before (now).
How do you know the devil is not leading you to believe something? How do you know you are accurately interpreting what the Spirit says? How do you know the “promptings” within you are actually the Spirit?
I know for sure that the devil tries to lead me away from God each and every day. But, I also know that I am protected and that God keeps His own. God will not allow me to don the Nikes and go chasing after Haley's comet. I have said that I make no claim of a monopoly on perfect interpretation of all scripture. :) My faith says that the Spirit will always point me toward the narrow road, even if I sometimes stray through briers or rocky sidepaths.
If there is one thing I admire regarding Protestants is there desire to learn more about God through the Scriptures. They do it often on their own time (outside the Sunday “obligation”).
I thank you for the very kind words. I am in great admiration of your vast knowledge of scripture. You represent your faith exceedingly well.
God bless.