Replies

Most orthodox Protestants would agree that the Church was instituted by Christ with the Apostles placed in charge after his accension. Protestants would of course disagree in the artificial succession of apostleship because their is no scriptural support for such a notion. Of course the Church is the Body of Christ, the pillar and foundation of truth, guided by the Holy Spirit for which Satan has no authority over.

Yes, the Church is a teaching authority. You assert that it is necessary for their to be one Church but you do not define what that means. You give no scriptural evidence to support whatever your definition of “One Church”.

Scripture certainly teaches itself if Scripture is allowed to interpret Scripture. But Romanism is really Thomism. It’s built on speculative philosophies that tries to unite two spheres, a nature sphere and a grace sphere, and to unite those two spheres Aquinas artificially placed all authority in the institutional Church. It’s starting point has no basis in Scripture.

All human edifices rely on speculative philosophies which have no basis in GOD SPEAKING which should be the only basis on which to build doctrine.

Thanks for the discussion.

Protestants would of course disagree in the artificial succession of apostleship because their is no scriptural support for such a notion.

I'm not sure I understand if you mean no scriptural support for succession after Acts? I think it's obvious scripture supports apostolic succession in Acts, but maybe that's what you disagree with?

You assert that it is necessary for their to be one Church but you do not define what that means. You give no scriptural evidence to support whatever your definition of “One Church”.

The scripture I cited before was "pillar and foundation..." and "gates of hell.." I would add: "I will build my 'Church…", "a kingdom divided against itself…", "one flock, one shepherd…" as well as being one with Christ. As we see it, it is obvious in scripture that Jesus instituted His Church and that it be one church.

He says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, Christ granted teaching authority to the apostles who ordained their successors and Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority. (Acts 1:22).

Whether one believes this about the Catholic Church or not, it is evident the variation in beliefs among non-Catholic Christians is too wide to be considered "one."

All human edifices rely on speculative philosophies which have no basis in GOD SPEAKING which should be the only basis on which to build doctrine.

I'm afraid this logic goes round in circles without some authority. You are left with individual human edifices which differ in all manner as to what God's speaking says even in who God is. They cannot agree on what is Truth enough to function as one church. Jesus did not create a dysfunctional church.

But Romanism is really Thomism. It’s built on speculative philosophies that tries to unite two spheres, a nature sphere and a grace sphere, and to unite those two spheres Aquinas artificially placed all authority in the institutional Church.

You're right and you're wrong. :)

The "one holy and apostolic Church" with teaching authority predates St. Thomas. He did try to apply reason to religion. This is best seen in the context of the West, the East saw no need for it. Thomas did yeoman's work in reason applied to religion; however, even he saw that this approach has its limits.

St. Thomas influenced logic, reason, philosophy and Western approaches using these tools concerning the sphere of religion. However, to describe the Catholic Church as Thomism is, IMHO, neglectful of the other doctors of the Church such as St. John OTC, St. Teresa of Avila, Saint Therese of the Child Jesus. If you were to combine these two approaches, then, I believe, you would come closer to understanding the Church than by studying St. Thomas alone.

Thanks very much for your reply.

A postscript to Thomism:

The approach of St. Thomas Acquinas is better described in general as Scholasticism. Pope Benedict has spoken and written a great deal about the combination of scholasticism and monasticism, or Faith and Reason. Below is a quote from a General Audience last year.

In the incipit of the Encyclical Fides et Ratio, the Servant of God John Paul II wrote: "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth". Faith is open to the effort of understanding by reason; reason, in turn, recognizes that faith does not mortify her but on the contrary impels her towards vaster and loftier horizons. The eternal lesson of monastic theology fits in here. Faith and reason, in reciprocal dialogue, are vibrant with joy when they are both inspired by the search for intimate union with God. When love enlivens the prayerful dimension of theology, knowledge, acquired by reason, is broadened. Truth is sought with humility, received with wonder and gratitude: in a word, knowledge only grows if one loves truth. Love becomes intelligence and authentic theology wisdom of the heart, which directs and sustains the faith and life of believers.

The Encyclical by Pope John Paul II referred to is a long read, it's meant to cover the subject. IMHO, it's well worth reading as a comprehensive argument in today's world. It's online here:Faith and Reason.

All human edifices rely on speculative philosophies which have no basis in GOD SPEAKING which should be the only basis on which to build doctrine.

Thanks for the discussion.

INDEED! ZUI4DUO1!