No Salvation Outside the Church

Catholic Answers ^ | 12/05 | Fr. Ray Ryland

[Mr Rogers]

In all seriousness, I would answer yes. We spent a year caring for our then 2 year old granddaughter. There were times where she wasn’t just wrong, but malicious.

There was an element of self-aware meanness I hadn’t seen in our kids, or at least hadn’t noticed so strongly. She’ll turn 4 this month, and has made great strides...but I am convinced more than ever that civilization is a veneer we acquire.

As I said, I don’t know what happens to a baby that dies. I’ll trust God to do what is right.

[Mr Rogers]

You might find John Gill’s Commentaries interesting. They are available free, along with several others, here:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bible/features/commentaries.html

[CTrent1564]

PugetSoundSoldier

1) Infallibility: Reading your post you are confusing “infallibility” with “impeccability”. The Pope is not infallible in his person, in terms of his daily habits, ie. that he will always make the correct decision in his personal life, but infallibility is the God given protection through the Holy Spirit that in his role as Bishop of Rome and successor of St. Peter, and not as a private theologian, that that the Church will not teach unorthodox doctrine. Infallibility only relates to dogmatic teachings on faith and morals and is dealing with an issue that is to be held in the entire Church. This does not mean that Popes are “impeccable,” which means Popes sin like everyone else. You are making an argument which is a strawman.

The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome is clearly taught and understood in the early Church, although it does mean a primacy of Jurisdiction. Three Churches were recognized as having a primacy by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD [Canon 6]. Later councils listed Rome as First, which is the meaning implicit in Canon 6 of Nicea. As successor of the St. Peter, the Pope continues to exercise the role of Peter as first among the Apostles and the special role that Christ gave St. Peter, which are affirmed in numerous texts [Mt 16:16-18; Jn 21:15-17; Luke 22:32]. The Acts of the Apostles affirm the role of St. Peter in deciding doctrinal questions, in communion with the other Apostles of course, but Peter is always there with the other Apostles binding and loosing. The context of Mt: 16:16-19 is being directed towards his disciples (e.g. The Twelve) as the parallel texts support (c.f. Mark 8: 27-30; Luke 9:18-21) thus every Christian does not have the power to “bind and loose”. This was given only to the Apostles. So, after Judas betrayal and death, Peter called the Apostles together and quoted the Psalms and said “may another take his office” (c.f. Acts 1:20). In Acts 1:26, Mathias was counted with the eleven other apostles and we now have a reconstituted twelve apostles. So again, the power to bind and loose is given to all the Apostles (not every Christian) but St. Peter alone is named the “rock” given the keys.

Two points, St. Paul states “you are members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets with Christ as the capstone” (c.f. Eph 2:20) and the “keys” are a typological sign that is found in the OT and is an OT symbol of authority (c.f. Isaiah 22: 15-23) and is also mentioned in Revelation 3:7, prefigures the role Christ gave to St. Peter (i.e. Authority). As I mentioned earlier, two other Gospels [cf. Luke 22:31-32 and Jn. 21:15-17] are only directed at St. Peter. In two resurrection narratives, St. John arrives first to the tomb but waits for St. Peter to arrive, who then enters the tomb first (c.f. Lk 24:12; John 20-4-6).

As noted in the Acts 1, we see St. Peter taking the role in re-establishing the 12 Apostles. After Pentecost, it is St. Peter who preaches the Gospel first (c.f. Acts 2:14), it is St. Peter who works the first miracle (c.f. Acts 3:6-7), it is St. Peter who issues the first excommunication against Ananias and Sapphira (c.f. Acts 5: 3). St. Peter resolves the doctrinal issues of dietary laws for the gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem (c.f. Acts 15: 6-12) stating that “we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus” (c.f. Acts 15:11):.

Also, we see in 1 Peter 5:13 “The Chosen one at Bablyon sends you greetings, as does my son Mark” [NAB translation.] The RSV, my personal favorite, as it is the most accurate according to most Catholic scholars, translates 1 Peter 5:13 as “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings and so does my son Mark”. This passage indicates the underlying concept that the Church of Rome was elected/chosen, etc. and St. Peter was the leader there.

So again, with respect to infallibility, the Pope, exercising his role as Bishop of Rome, first among equals, and successor to St. Peter, does exercise infallibility with respect to teaching on faith and morals, along. It does not mean he is impeccable. Look at it this way, a Math Professor can go to University and give a Math theorem that is groundbreaking and is infallibly true. After giving his Lecture, he can get in his car and go to the local watering hole [bar] and drink excessively and get a cited for Driving under the influence. The Math Professor is infallible, in terms of the Math truths that he taught, but he certainly was not impeccable in his personal behavior.

2) Sin: The distinction between mortal and venial sin, in Catholic theology, is rooted in both natural reason, which God gave us, and sacred scripture. For example, we read in the Sacred Scriptures “If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly” (c.f. 1 Jn 5:16-17). Christ himself seems to be making distinctions (cf. Luke 12:47-48) whereas those who wee given much [perhaps ones who had greater access to the fullness of faith] and don’t “act in accordance with his will” will be “beaten severely” whereas those “ignorant” will be “beaten lightly”. If all sin is the same, regardless of how smart we are, are whether we have not been exposed to the most orthodox presentation of the Gospel, why then the distinction by Christ. The parallel text in Mt 24: 45-51 makes similar statements. The passage in Mt. 12:31-32 speaks of a sin that “will not be forgiven…in this age or the age to come”. This then, can’t be what 1 John 5:16-17 is referring to. In Catholic Doctrine, the passage in Mt 12:31-32 is the rejection of the Grace of the Holy Spirit, or failure to repent before one dies, and thus this sin will not be forgiven. Deadly sins, in the context of 1 John 5:16-17 must be seen as being sins of grave matter, such as murder, blaspheme towards God, adultery, etc, which are all spelled out in the 10 commandments.

In addition, see other passages of Sacred Scripture that are consistent with the distinction between Mortal and Venial sins. For example, in the Letter of St. James we read “My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save is soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” [James 5:19-20]. In 1 Peter 4:8 we read “Above all, let your love for one another be intense, because love covers a multitude of sins.” These two passages obviously are saying “some sins” are covered through charity/love, which of course is not the sin which will not be forgiven (c.f. Mt 12:31-32) nor is it “deadly sin”, referred to in 1 John 5:15-17, which would seem to require someone to confess their sins and ask for forgiveness, which in Catholic Tradition happens in the sacrament of reconciliation [c.f., Jn. 20: 21-23; 2 Cor. 5: 11-20; 1 John 1: 9-10; James 5: 13-16]. So when we view the epistles of St.’s John, James and Peter, there clearly is a distinction among sins.

Regards

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Fundamentally, the authority claimed for the papal infallibility is based upon tradition; the fact is you will never accept another interpretation of the Scripture because it does not support your viewpoint. All have sinned, and we see even Peter being corrected by Paul with regards to the treatment of Gentiles. If the first “pope” was wrong, what makes you think any since then have been perfect?

We’re going to have to agree to disagree. Your interpretations are rooted in other expositions; likewise mine. Both claim Scriptural basis. So be it.

[stfassisi]

Infallibility only relates to dogmatic teachings on faith and morals and is dealing with an issue that is to be held in the entire Church.

Correct! This is a stumbling block for many who don't understand this.

In fact, there were many Popes throughout history who did NOT make a single infallible teaching regarding issues on faith and morals.

[CTrent1564]

Pugetsoundsoldier:

I know somewhere in the this thread you mentioned you were once Catholic and it seems to me, again seems, that your post criticize all those things that seem to go against Catholic teachings that you now reject.

I hope my last post at least pointed out that in “no fashion” does the Doctrine of papal infallability implies that Popes are “impecable.” and that Sacred Scripture itself does speak of distinctions among sins, which of course is part of Catholic Moral Doctrine [ie. Mortal versus Venial sin]. While you may no longer accept those doctrines as binding on you in the faith tradition that you now belong to, I hope you wil at least acknowledge that your previous post had some misconceptions, with respect to “infallibility” and was, pardon my Sicilian candidness, was wrong with respect to the question of “sin”

In addition, your post on Sola Scriptura is once again one of the claims of Reformed Protestantism against Catholicism, and for that matter, Eastern Orthodoxy.

With respect to Sola-Scriptura, and the passage you quoted from 2 Timothy 3: 16: “All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, and correcting and training in righteousness”, which is often cited by Protestants in defense of “sola-scriptura” actually supports the Catholic position as in no place does it say the Bible in the final authority in matters of faith. In fact, the Scriptures state “the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (cf. 1 Tim. 3:15). Christ is God’s final word, he is the word made flesh who reveals God, and thus the Scriptures speak of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. Eph 5:26-27) the Church as the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-15; Col. 1:18 ) the temple of the Living God (cf. Eph 2:19-22) and the people of God (cf. 1 Peter 2:9-10).

Christ founded a Church (Mt 18:16) and commanded them to preach to all nations (Mt 28) and thus the scriptures taken apart from the Church, and set up as the authority for Truth, is not in conformity with the early Church at all, and is inconsistent with the Bible itself. In addition, the passage you cited 2 Tim 3:16 is from an epistle probably written in the 60’s before St. Paul’s death in Rome and thus was written before at least 3 Gospels were “most likely written” as most scholarship today indicates that Matthew, Luke and John were written 70-80 AD [Mt. and Lk] and 90 AD, for John. Mark on the other had, was probably written around the same time as early Church Fathers indicate that Mark’s Gospel is St. Peters preaching written down by St. Mark in Rome during Nero’s persecution.

Also, the first 370 years of Christianity, putting Christ’s passion, death and resurrection around 30 AD, did not have a complete New Testament. There is “no scholarly debate” on this question as the formation of the NT canon started in 144 AD, when Marcion, a Gnostic heretic challenged the Bishop of Rome and demanded that only Luke’s Gospel and 10 Pauline epistles be accepted. He was excommunicated!

With respect to the Church of Rome and Marcion, the Anglican Patristic and Church History Scholar Henry Chadwick notes he was excommunicated there in 144 AD (The Penguin History of the Early Church, Revised Edition, page 39) and notes that this event helped push the Church to determine the canon. The Late Professor Jaroslav Pelikan in Volume 1 of his 5 Volume work “The Christian Tradition describes Marcion’s Gnostic doctrines and how the Church dealt with it. He concluded by stating “this makes Marcion an important figure not only in the history of the development of doctrine, but also the history of both the text and the canon of the New Testament” (p. 79).

The earliest list of NT books is the so-called Muratorian Fragment, composed 180 to 200 AD, which has a NT canon close to our 27 book canon, but short 4-5 books as 1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, James are not listed) and while the fragment lists the Revelation of John, it states that it should not be read in Church [i.e. acceptable for reading in the celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist was a key criteria for being in the canon].

Over the next 200 years, the formation of the Canon would continue. Origen [ gives a description of the canon in the 3rd century from the Church of Alexandria, in various commentaries of his, and we see that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, all which would become part of the NT, and Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and probably the Gospel of the Hebrews, were all disputed. The evidence here suggests that some books that would eventually not be recognized were in fact viewed as canonical as late as the time of Origen (ca. A.D. 185-254). In his history of the Church Eusebius, written between 300 and 325 AD, he gives us a clear picture of the state of the Biblical canon. He points out that Peter’s first epistle, in which Mark is mentioned, was composed in Rome itself and Peter indicates this himself referring to Rome figuratively as Babylon. Thus, Eusebius indicates that 1 Peter is agreed upon while 2 Peter is not canonical, but it is studies with other scriptures. The fourteen of Paul are obvious and certain, but he notes that Hebrews is disputed saying that it was rejected by the Church at Rome as not being Paul. Eusebius goes on to point out that the 4 gospels should be put in first place, followed by the Acts of the Apostles then the epistles of Paul, 1 John and then 1 Peter. After those, if it is desirable, then perhaps Revelations can be put in.
However, he then goes on to show that there are several disputed books. He lists James, Jude, and once again 2 Peter. He also points out that 2 John and 3 John are disputed. Finally, he goes back and points out that Revelation (the Apocalypse of John) are rejected by some, while others include it as canonical. In summary, Eusebius’s account gives us a clear picture that the New Testament canon was not completely formed by 325 AD.

Over the next 75 years the process was completed. St. Athanasius’ 39th Easter letter lists the 27 New Testament books and 40 of the 46 Old Testament books that would be in the Catholic Canon (Baruch was included, the other 6 deuterocanonical books are admitted there use as devotional reading. The Council in Rome in 382 led by Pope Damasus, along with St. Jerome, listed the 46 books of the OT and 27 NT that are in the Catholic Bible today. While there is some historical disputes as to what was actually in Pope Damasus’s Decree, as most of the details of Pope Damasus and the Synod in Rome in 382 comes from a 6th century writing, although there are 4th and 5th century writings in the 6th century text, it is also clear that Jerome’s completed Latin Vulgate Translation consisted of all the books that are in the Catholic Canon today. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage, 393 and 397 AD, respectively are consistent with Rome in 382. St. Augustine’s Letters to those he was arguing against contain the same canon in the Catholic Church today as well. The Council of Trent, (1534 to 1565), in response to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc, reaffirmed the Catholic Canon of the 4th century. Thus, it is accurate to state that the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, protected and defended the orthodox Catholic faith and canonized the scriptures that were in conformity with apostolic tradition.

In closing, as one Catholic theologian put it, the relationship among the Church, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, is like a 3-legged chair/stool, you take 1 away, and the thing falls and groups begin to fall into various groups, all claiming the Bible as their authority. So, from the Catholic perspective, pitting the Church against Sacred Scripture and Sacred Scripture is a false dichotomy.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

CTrent,

Don't forget 2 Timothy 3:15:

and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

There is your sola scriptura. You cannot start with the verse after it, as that references this verse. The Scriptures say - explicitly - that they give the wisdom that leads to salvation. NOTHING else is needed. The Scripture says so.

This, with the fundamental differences over the fallibility of the pope, means we'll never agree. All the references you quote do not support your position, unless you read them through the explicit lenses of Catholicism - meaning, they support Catholic doctrine when they are read from the viewpoint of Catholic doctrine.

Catholics - many in this thread - are fond of saying that sola scriptura is self-referential and defeating; likewise is any reliance on the tradition and teachings ex-Scripture of the Catholic church. They have authority because the church gives them authority.

We're not going to agree, so from this point forward, I will just let it drop.

[stfassisi]

“”Don’t forget 2 Timothy 3:15:...There is your sola scriptura.””

Solo scripture is invented by modernist and historical Christianity proves this to be true

Are you going to tell us that God needed to wait 1500 plus years for Luther to interpret scripture and invent solo scripture,thus Christians were ignorant all of these years waiting for Mr Luther to tell them to “sin boldly” according to Luther and solo scripture?

Perhaps you should ask God why he did not infuse into man the knowledge of how to build a printing press 2000 years ago if He wanted solo scripture to be all that’s needed for salvation.

History tells us that Scripture was not given to individuals. We know that did not God hand out scrolls to everyone. God gave His Word to particular men and women, who shared it with the community at large. This was written down and shared with the future communities. The Bible is not ever shown as something given to each individual of the community.

Traditions of the Apostles came first, the Scriptures came next. God gave His Gospel orally first. The Apostles gave it to others orally first. The Scriptures didn’t come until AT LEAST ten years later, if we believe that an Aramaic version of Matthew was written in the early 40’s. Thus, the first ten years at least saw Christianity spread without any Gospel writings, any Epistles, etc. Later, when these same men of God wrote letters and the narratives of the Gospels, they naturally taught the SAME thing that they taught orally earlier to others. Thus, the oral teachings preceded the written ones, and the written ones did not overturn the oral ones. Nor does it say anywhere that oral teachings are encapsulated completely within the Scriptures. This is a Protestant assumption that is proven incorrect based on the writings of the first Christians.

Take the dogma of the divinity of Christ for example -that was believed before Bible canon

When did the Church declare that Jesus was God as dogma? At the council of Nicea in 325 AD. Nearly 300 years after Christ’s death, correct? Does that mean that the Church DID NOT already believe this? Of course it did! Jesus was worshiped during the liturgy. People prayed to Him during their daily prayers and through their actions. The Church already knew that Jesus was God - the Church defines that He was God infallibly based on the guidance of the Spirit ALREADY at work in the Church.

[bronxville]

“Why in heaven’s name would you want to go to purgatory? Is it not better for you to KNOW and to have the assurance that you are saved right here on earth? This is all so silly. Jesus has paid the price for your sins, past, present, and future. Why can’t Catholics see that? You do not have to wait until the grave to find out if you are going to hell or heaven. There IS no purgatory.”

The Church believes that Purgatory is a place to clean up the effects of “Venial Sin” (not Mortal Sin which if unrepented, leads to eternal punishment in hell). It’s where one goes to get cleaned up before joining the wedding banquet of the Lord - so he wouldn’t be thrown out (Mat 22:12). For nothing unclean can enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27).

For example, I pull a nail out of the wall (sin) but there’s still a dent in the wall, that’s the EFFECT of sin. Purgatory is the process of straightening out the dent from the effect of sin. Catholics, on an ongoing basis, straighten out their dents on earth, by routinely going to Confession, making restitution, e.g., asking forgiveness of the person one didn’t treat as onesself; making satisfaction (doing); e.g., prayers, good deeds, offering up suffering, spreading His Word, etc. Jesus is a merciful and loving God but He is also a just God.

The Apostle Paul had turned his life over to Jesus authentically. Although Jesus restored his vision after he was blinded, Paul nevertheless had a very painful number of years (2 Cor 24-30). He said “I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body that is the church” (1 Col 24) Evangelicals believe Jesus washes us clean in “one sweeping motion” never to be dirty again. Catholics believe there is “one sweeping motion” but afterward the “washing clean” process continues for the rest of our lives and we must “endure to the end.” (Mk 13:13, James 1:2, Mt 10:22, Mt 24:13)

BTW, how will you justify calling His mother a “moon goddess” when you meet Him? Did you call your own mother names?

[Marysecretary]

I know she is the Mother of my Lord Jesus but I don’t put her on a pedestal like you people do. She waw a sinner saved by grace, like we are.

I know you believe in purgatory but I think Mr. Rogers explained it pretty well that it can’t really exist. I thank God that born again believers will go to be with Him without having to think about hell or purgatory. God’s grace never leaves His children.

Jesus cleanses us from all sin when we repent and confess our sins and faults to Him and Him alone. It’s a repeated process. It’s not a one time cleansing. Being born again is a one-time experience, but the cleansing goes on all of our lives as we repent and confess. I really pray you will see that you can be saved here and now and know it here and now.

[bdeaner]

Who are you trying to mislead here??? Non Catholics know that babies don't go to hell, or limbo...

Babies going to hell is an implication of Protestant soteriology, especialy Calvinist soteriology. A baby cannot be "born again" according to most Protestant standards. Being 'born again' requires a conscious decision. Babies can't even talk, let alone consciously accept Jesus as it's Lord and savior.

[Mr Rogers]

I found this in the 1660 Baptist Confession of Faith. I remain without an opinion on the subject.

“X. That all Children dying in Infancy, having not actually transgressed against the Law of God in their own persons, are only subject to the first death, which comes upon them by the sin of the first Adam, from whence they shall be all raised by the second Adam; and not that any one of them (dying in that estate) shall suffer for Adams sin, eternal punishment in Hell. (which is the second death) for of such belongs the Kingdome of Heaven, 1 Cor. 15. 22. Mat. 19. 14. not daring to conclude with that uncharitable opinion of others, who though they plead much for the bringing of children into the visible Church here on earth by Baptism, yet nevertheless by their Doctrine that Christ dyed but far some, shut a great part of them out of the Kingdome of Heaven for ever.”

[PugetSoundSoldier]

So the refutation of sola scriptura is a plea to tradition and time. God spent a few thousand years before sending His Son to die to save His people. Remember, a thousand years are but a day to God! And apparently it took God 1500 years to try to correct the Catholic church about its fallen ways...

Yet I see nothing about the refutation of the Scriptural claim in 2 Timothy 3:15. It is undeniable - the Scriptures are complete for salvation, nothing more is needed. That is what the verse says.

[bdeaner]

I don’t put her on a pedestal like you people do.

Jesus did. Or would you suggest Christ did not obey the Fourth Commandment? WWJD?

[bronxville]

“I know she is the Mother of my Lord Jesus but I don’t put her on a pedestal like you people do. She waw a sinner saved by grace, like we are.”

You haven’t answered the question. Why do you feel a need to libel His Mothers good name by calling her a “moon goddess”? I’m assuming you HONORED your own mother which leaves me puzzled as to why you would dishonor Jesus’ mother?

The Blessed Mother herself knew she needed a Savior. She was saved by her son...

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the lowly state of his maidservant;
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. Luke 1:46-49

Now that’s - Pure humility. Pure beauty. Pure love.

The Vatican wrote about goddess’ and the New Age movment in a position paper about 6 yrs ago - here’s a synopsis in case you didn’t read about it:

“Promotes a world government:

There is the temptation to overcome not only undue division, but even any real difference and distinction... at the risk of submitting to a global network which assumes quasi-transcendental authority.

For New Agers, the Earth’s executive agent is the human race as a whole, and the harmony and understanding required for responsible governance is increasingly understood to be a global government, with a global ethical framework.

The warmth of Mother Earth (the Greek goddess Gaia), whose divinity pervades the whole of creation, is held to bridge the gap between creation and the transcendent Father-God of Judaism and Christianity, and removes the prospect of being judged by such a Being.”

Some of the traditions which flow into New Age are: ancient Egyptian occult practices, Cabbalism, early Christian gnosticism, Sufism, the lore of the Druids, Celtic Christianity, medieval alchemy, Renaissance hermeticism, Zen Buddhism, Yoga, and so on.

Here is what is “new” about New Age. It is a “syncretism of esoteric and secular elements”. They link into a widely-held perception that the time is ripe for a fundamental change in individuals, in society and in the world.

The rejection of modernity underlying this desire for change (paradigm shift) is not new, but can be described as “a modern revival of pagan religions with a mixture of influences from both eastern religions and also from modern psychology, philosophy, science, and the counterculture that developed in the 1950s and 1960s.”

Revival of pagan religions

“In these contexts, the term “paradigm shift” is often used. This notion was made popular by Thomas Kuhn, an American historian of science, who saw a paradigm as “the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by the members of a given community.” When there is a shift from one paradigm to another, it is a question of wholesale transformation of perspective rather than one of gradual development. It really is a revolution, and Kuhn emphasised that competing paradigms are incommensurable and cannot co-exist.”

Opposed to Christian doctrine

An adequate Christian discernment of New Age thought and practice cannot fail to recognize that, like second and third century gnosticism, it represents something of a compendium of positions that the Church has identified as heterodox (opposed to the Christian doctrine).

Opposed to Christian doctrine

“When the understanding of the content of Christian faith is weak, some mistakenly hold that the Christian religion does not inspire a profound spirituality, and so they seek elsewhere.”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

Here’s a synoptic version:
http://www.michaeljournal.org/newage.htm

The only institution standing in the way is the Catholic Church hence the constant bashing.

I came across these gnostics recently. They opened their first “church” in London and not surprisingly called themselves - “Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. I don’t know much about these heretics or how well they doing but here’s the site:
http://arian-catholic.org/

Here’s their forum - only stayed a few minutes but I got a distinct flavor of muslims - probably sufi with a mix - of probably unitarians.....
http://forum.arian-catholic.org/

PS: I haven’t read Mr Rogers post (time limitation), I’m not surprised of it’s excellence. I’m also not surprised that you agree with it. I mean, I agree with bdeaner, and the other Catholic posters here. No surprises there either. :)

[bdeaner]

It is undeniable - the Scriptures are complete for salvation, nothing more is needed. That is what the verse says.

The verse doesn't say the Scriptures are sufficient for salvation. Arguably, the verse doesn't even say scripture is necessary for salvation. Helpful, yes, but not sufficent nor even necessary.

Again, we need to look to the WHOLE of Scripture to decide an issue, and looking to 2 Timothy 3:15 is hardly the whole of scripture, and is far from sealing the deal on Sola Scriptura.

Yes, 2 Tim. 3:17 says that the man of God is "perfect, furnished to every good work." This verse means only that the man of God is fully supplied with Scripture; it is not a guarantee that he automatically knows how to interpret it properly. Even if you want to argue that Scripture is sufficient for salvation, at best it would amount to material sufficiency.

"Material sufficiency" would mean that the Bible in some way contains all the truths that are necessary for the believer to know (a tough sell in itself); in other words, the "materials" would thus be all present or at least implied. "Formal sufficiency," on the other hand, would mean that the Bible would not only contain all the truths that are necessary, but that it would also present those truths in a perfectly clear and complete and readily understandable fashion. In other words, these truths would be in a useable "form," and consequently there would be no need for Sacred Tradition to clarify and complete them or for an infallible teaching authority to interpret correctly or "rightly divide" God's word.

Since the Catholic Church holds that the Bible is not sufficient in itself, it naturally teaches that the Bible needs an interpreter. The reason the Catholic Church so teaches is twofold: first, because Christ established a living Church to teach with His authority. He did not simply give His disciples a Bible, whole and entire, and tell them to go out and make copies of it for mass distribution and allow people to come to whatever interpretation they may. Second, the Bible itself states that it needs an interpreter.

Regarding the second point, we read in 2 Peter 3:16 that in St. Paul's epistes there are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

In this one verse we note three very important things about the Bible and its interpretation:

a) the Bible contains passages which are not readily understandable or clear, a fact which demonstrates the need for an authoritative and infallible teacher to make the passages clear and understandable;

b) it is not only possible that people could "wrest" or distort the meaning of Scripture, but this was, in fact, being done from the very earliest days of the Church;

c) to distort the meaning of Scripture can result in one's "destruction," a disastrous fate indeed.

It is obvious from these considerations that St. Peter did not believe the Bible to be the sole rule of faith. But there is more.

In Acts 8:26-40, we read the account of the deacon St. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. In this scenario, the Holy Spirit leads Philip to approach the Ethiopian. When Philip learns that the Ethiopian is reading from the prophet Isaias, he asks him a very telling question: "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?" Even more telling is the answer given by the Ethiopian: "And how can I, unless some man show me?"

Whereas this St. Philip (known as "the Evangelist") is not one of the twelve Apostles, he was nonetheless someone who was commissioned by the Apostles (cf. Acts 6:6) and who preaches the Gospel with authority (cf. Acts 8:4-8). Consequently, his preaching would reflect legitimate Apostolic teaching. The point here is that the Ethiopian's statement verifies the fact that the Bible is notsufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine, and people who hear the Word do need an authority to instruct them properly so that they may understand what the Bible says. If the Bible were indeed sufficient of itself, then the eunuch would not have been ignorant of the meaning of the passage from Isaias.

There is also 2 Peter 1:20, which states that "no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." Here we see the Bible itself stating in no uncertain terms that its prophecies are not a matter for which the individual is to arrive at his own interpretation. It is also most telling that this verse is preceded by a secton on the Apostolic witness (verses 12-18) and followed by a secton on fale teachers (Chapter 2, verses 1-10). St. Peter is obviously contrasting genuine, Apostolic teaching with false prophets and false teachers, and he makes reference to private interpretation as the pivotal point between the two. The clear implication is that private interpretation is one pathway whereby an individual turns from authentic teaching and begins to follow erroneous teaching.

[bronxville]

“Jesus did. Or would you suggest Christ did not obey the Fourth Commandment? WWJD?”

Yes, on target...

[bronxville]

I see I forgot ot add on why I posted the arians - they’re also part of the - goddess movement. They’ll get some people who’ll think it’s an authentic Catholic Church...we need to do something about securing the word “Catholic”.

[bdeaner]

Let's not forget, the Catholic scripture is the LXX...And it was written by man...

If the LXX was good enough for Jesus and his disciples, it's good enough for us.

[bronxville]

Another excellent post. Will try and catch up on all later - thanks for pinging me. :)

“Since the Catholic Church holds that the Bible is not sufficient in itself, it naturally teaches that the Bible needs an interpreter.”

This caught me eye when scanning. Why do Protestants pay for Pastors? To preach, right? So how can he preach each parishioners interpretation? He obviously doesn’t - he preaches his own interpretation and if the parishioner doesn’t like the way he interprets - s/he go to another Church. And if one can’t find one that satisfies they open another church...?