daniel1212 : i have already answered it this vain argument, only to see it repeated
You will probably see it repeated many times even after I read and responded to what you wrote. Remember, I do not read ahead and respond when I get around to a particular post, usually about one week after it is posted, because there is one of me and many of you posting, and I don't skip serious posts. Why you will still see this argument repeated? Because your point, that you are at liberty accepting A but not B from the Church is, of course, valid, but I am not making that point at all.
It would indeed be wrong, -- completely un-Christian -- for me to thump the Catechism on the imaginary podium and shout, Obey the Living Magisterium! If I cite the Magisterium at all -- at times I do, typically, the Catechism, -- that is to explain what the Catholic Church really teaches. I do not expect anyone to obey the Church just because you have resolved to obey the Bible.
I do, however, have every right to point out how the Protestant doctrines stand in stark contrast to the Bible at least on the subject of Faith Alone and Bible Alone, and the rejection of the properly offered Sacraments of the Church. This is simply asking for consistency. If you did not profess obedience to the Bible I would not be making biblical points at all, just like I would not argue scripture with a Buddhist.
The hostile attitude to the historical wintess of the Church is of course not a logical contradiction to the belief in the same witness when it happens to be recorded in canonical scripture. It is simply something worth asking: what is it in the Scripture, beside the fact that the Church had canonized it, that makes it so distinct from things the Church also believed at the same time she canonized the scripture?
To your points.
1. Historical lineage does not make one an authentic Jew, spiritually speaking, as certain Jews presumed it did, (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:39,44; and their office required it), or a true Christian or church. Rather it is manifest Scriptural faith
True. Neither does historical lineage alone ensure validity of Apostolic succession. Both the Lutherans and the Anglicans lost it despite canonical provenance of their priests, due to the doctrinal errors of theirs.
unlike the church at Rome, the law was explicitly stated to have been committed to the Jews, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and yet they were manifestly not assuredly infallible in faith and morals
This goes to the disctintion between the non-salvific nature of the works of Jewish law, the part on which, hopefully we all agree, and the absolute nature of the teaching of Jesus Christ. The Jewish law was given to the Jews and not binding on the Gentiles; as the Church discovered, once a Jew becoems Christian the Law of Moses was no longer binding on him either. The Jewish lawmaking authority was temporal, the authority of the Church eternal (Mt 16:18-19). So no parallel can be drawn between the rule of the Rabbis and the Church.
3. Scripture being the supreme transcendent assuredly infallible objective authority [similar point is made in 4 and the same answer applies]
It is. The Magisterium that rules against the scripture, were it to ever happen, would not be guided by the Holy Ghost and will ispo facto cease to be the Magisterium of the Church.
5. The authenticity of Rome's AIM is based upon her own declaration that she is assuredly infallible
Yes. There are levels of speech uttered by the Magisterium, like there are levels of any speech. The Magisterium should be the judge of when the Magisterium intends to make an infallible statement and when it is ordinary teaching. This is just logical that the speaker is the judge of the intent of his speech.
6
This agins rests ont he idea that there is a direct analogy between the Jewish rabbinate and the Church. That premise is false.
the Divinely inspired writings were essentially progressively recognized as such due to their qualities and effects
Indeed, and that was the collective work of the Church.
7. ...immoral, impenitent Popes
we don't know about "impenitent", neither you or I were their confessors. St. Peter himself was not exactly infallible in his ordinary life. The issue is not that we had bad popes, -- we certainly did, -- but the teaching the Magisterium produced, perhaps, despite these very popes. Let us not forget that the infallible magisterial teaching is not a day-to-day governance of the Church. Bad popes generally left no lasting legacy.
Very good.
Let us not forget that the infallible magisterial teaching is not a day-to-day governance of the Church. Bad popes generally left no lasting legacy.
They influenced the general actions and perceptions of the Church - the (now) waning liberal influence for example which came out of the 1950s and 1960s.
Annalex:If you don't believe the Church in her historical knowledge, why do you believe the Gospel?
daniel1212 : i have already answered it this vain argument, only to see it repeated
You will probably see it repeated many times even after I read and responded to what you wrote. Remember, I do not read ahead and respond when I get around to a particular post, usually about one week after it is posted, because there is one of me and many of you posting, and I don't skip serious posts.
Mine are indeed serious, I do respond methodologically likewise, but prefer to wait posting till i have finished my responses coming from one party. And the answer to the above is again below.
Why you will still see this argument repeated? Because your point, that you are at liberty accepting A but not B from the Church is, of course, valid, but I am not making that point at all.
Likewise in my responses, but you are unable to accept A and B from Scripture if you obey the requirement that you do not question the church.
It would indeed be wrong, -- completely un-Christian -- for me to thump the Catechism on the imaginary podium and shout, Obey the Living Magisterium! If I cite the Magisterium at all -- at times I do, typically, the Catechism, -- that is to explain what the Catholic Church really teaches.
Yet the Catechism is only infallible where it restates truths that have already been defined by the Magisterium, and though it also contains non-infallible teaching from the ordinary magisterium, and while it may define something many RC theologians might disagree with, such as "To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth" (1994 CCC 2483), which the 97 version stops after “error,” and some things may change, yet its teaching still requires an assent of the will and intellect.
I do not expect anyone to obey the Church just because you have resolved to obey the Bible.
Whereas we can, by appealing to “manifestation of the truth,” and while Roman Catholics apologists condemn the PI method as relying upon fallible human reasoning if the conclusions conflict with Rome, they allow themselves to engage in PI when responding to evangelicals if it backs up Rome's claim, and also teach things that were not in unanimous consent of the fathers, as is required of Rome but liberally defined, yet the perceived conflation of the apologists rendering involves the very thing which is supposed to invalidate PI in interpretation of the Bible (which 2Pt. 1:20 does not refer to, nor is the AIM inspired like the prophetic writers).
I do, however, have every right to point out how the Protestant doctrines stand in stark contrast to the Bible at least on the subject of Faith Alone and Bible Alone, and the rejection of the properly offered Sacraments of the Church. This is simply asking for consistency. If you did not profess obedience to the Bible I would not be making biblical points at all, just like I would not argue scripture with a Buddhist.
There is no problem with asking us to be consistent with Scripture, but as for your consistency, you cannot accept the Scripture as the supreme doctrinal authority on faith and morals or allow that such truth can be ascertained by it, as that power uniquely belongs to Rome's AIM, but you appeal to it as if it were able to in condescension to Protestants, in order to convince them that they cannot have assurance of Truth by it, but need to implicitly submit to Rome.
The hostile attitude to the historical witness of the Church is of course not a logical contradiction to the belief in the same witness when it happens to be recorded in canonical scripture.
You have not referenced what you are responding to, but i surmise you are attempting to invalidate the “stewardship of Scripture equals infallible magisterium” logic, which is refuted by Scripture (i.e. the Jews had no AIM), and is therefore not a valid deduction.
It is simply something worth asking: what is it in the Scripture, beside the fact that the Church had canonized it, that makes it so distinct from things the Church also believed at the same time she canonized the scripture?
You mean in 1546 when it first infallibly finalized according to Rome (this has been documernted in previous debates here)? If that is the case, and it includes teachings and practices that were established then, it would include prayers to the departed, purgatory, indulgences and the Treasury of Merit, the secular power of the pope,.. but as these were not something that were either not present or not settled doctrines in the early church circa 325, and as more would come as a result of development of doctrine, and which owe themselves to Rome's AIM over warrant of Scripture, then your question should have been, what is so distinct about basis for the claims of Rome versus what the Scriptures reveal?
To your points.
1. Historical lineage does not make one an authentic Jew, spiritually speaking, as certain Jews presumed it did, (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:39,44; and their office required it), or a true Christian or church. Rather it is manifest Scriptural faith
True. Neither does historical lineage alone ensure validity of Apostolic succession. Both the Lutherans and the Anglicans lost it despite canonical provenance of their priests, due to the doctrinal errors of theirs.
And they say they same for Rome, but Rome's clams are effectively based upon her own infallible declaration that she cannot be wrong, while the early church persuaded souls by manifestations the truth, by holiness and doctrines which were Scripturally substantiated and Divinely attested to, and grew by such, not by the power of the sword or forgeries which Rome owes much to for the growth of her papal power, and a magisterium that is assuredly infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallible declared formula, which fosters people bound by trust in her. In contrast, the evangelical church can only depend upon God and His Scriptures and the regenerative effects of its gospel to sustain it and grow.
unlike the church at Rome, the law was explicitly stated to have been committed to the Jews, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and yet they were manifestly not assuredly infallible in faith and morals
This goes to the disctintion between the non-salvific nature of the works of Jewish law, the part on which, hopefully we all agree, and the absolute nature of the teaching of Jesus Christ. The Jewish law was given to the Jews and not binding on the Gentiles; as the Church discovered, once a Jew becoems Christian the Law of Moses was no longer binding on him either. The Jewish lawmaking authority was temporal, the authority of the Church eternal (Mt 16:18-19). So no parallel can be drawn between the rule of the Rabbis and the Church.
The issue is the principle of authority, and your distinctions are irrelevant here (though the Jewish magisterium was establishing moral law which condemned the Gentiles as well (Rm. 3:19), and they lost there authority due to their impenitence and rejection of God's Prophet, which also indicts Rome), as there certainly is a parallel for Rome's claims, thus your own apologists invoke it:
“Since Jesus recognized the authority of the Old Testament magisterium when it spoke ex cathedra (with the authority of Moses), we recognize that the New Testament magisterium of the Church, which speaks with the authority not of Moses but of Jesus Christ himself.” (Catholic Answers)
The Papacy itself did not start with the Catholic Church. It goes all the way back to Adam ...At the time of Jesus, the Prime Ministry in place was the CHAIR OF MOSES. The High Priest and the Pharisees were the Magisterium. What the Mosaic "pope" taught had to be obeyed (Mt 23:2-3)..The old chair of authority was established under Moses. The new chair of authority was established under Peter. Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM, L.Th. - 5/20/2007
The principle of a continuing magisterium is sound, but the historical constant is that they did not have a Roman Catholic formulaic assured infallibility. Although the magisterium was important, without an Jewish AIM writings were established as Scripture, and God preserved the faith using prophets whose authority did not depend magisterial sanction for their authority, but upon Scriptural conformity and Divine attestation. Likewise Jesus authority, and thus when it was challenged or in establishing it and His teaching, He invoked John the Baptist, (Mk. 11:28-30) and the Scriptures and His own works. (Mt. 22:42-45; Jn. 5:33-36,39; Lk. 24:27,44) In like manner the apostles for their authority and preaching . (Acts 10:37-43; 17:2; 28:23; Rm. 1:2; 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12) And upon this basis is all authority manifest, in proportion to its claims, not pedigree or high sounding claims. (cf. 1Cor. 4:18-21)
3. Scripture being the supreme transcendent assuredly infallible objective authority [similar point is made in 4 and the same answer applies]
It is. The Magisterium that rules against the scripture, were it to ever happen, would not be guided by the Holy Ghost and will ispo facto cease to be the Magisterium of the Church.
You cannot claim to defined both the exten of Scripture and its meaning and claim to be subject to it. Rather, this can never happen because the magisterium is ispo facto infallible when speaking in accordance with its criteria, which is not that it must be shown to be Scripturally substantiated, but it claim to be so the it ispo facto is,m and any contention is ispo facto fallible. Moreover, “infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma,” and The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility” unless they were previously defined as such. — New Catholic Encyclopedia, Infallibility. Of course, such requires interpretation and ciould seem to contradict other statements.
5. The authenticity of Rome's AIM is based upon her own declaration that she is assuredly infallible
Yes. There are levels of speech uttered by the Magisterium, like there are levels of any speech. The Magisterium should be the judge of when the Magisterium intends to make an infallible statement and when it is ordinary teaching. This is just logical that the speaker is the judge of the intent of his speech.
6. This agins rests ont he idea that there is a direct analogy between the Jewish rabbinate and the Church.
The magisterial principle is constant, irregardless that the Jewish one ceased, just as Christ fulfilled the Old Testament and the church is the Temple.
That premise is false.
Who says? Has this been officially defined or does this rest upon your PI? Why should you be believed over other Roman Catholic apologists such as who say, “Matthew 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you (Moses chair was a prefigurement of the chair of St. Peter.)”
the Divinely inspired writings were essentially progressively recognized as such due to their qualities and effects
Indeed, and that was the collective work of the Church.
And Old Testament writings where recognized by the Jews, thus it was wrong to disagree with them and thus you have no church, though since the one who vainly attempts to use this logic defines itself as uniquely the one who collected the Scriptures, based upon her self-authenticating infallible interpretation of what constitutes authenticity, then anything can be “proved.”
7. ...immoral, impenitent Popes
we don't know about "impenitent", neither you or I were their confessors. St. Peter himself was not exactly infallible in his ordinary life. The issue is not that we had bad popes, -- we certainly did, -- but the teaching the Magisterium produced, perhaps, despite these very popes. Let us not forget that the infallible magisterial teaching is not a day-to-day governance of the Church. Bad popes generally left no lasting legacy.
Yes, and so Hitler also *may* be in Heaven, but besides your special pleading your response ignores the issue, which is not that bad leaders do not invalidate an office, though its holders can be replaced, but that an unbeliever could not be a successor to Peter, as one cannot even be a true member of the church who was an unbeliever, and a successor for Judas even had to be personal disciple of Christ. And as impenitent adulterers, fornicators, extortioners, etc, are to be put away out of the church and are damned, (1Cor. 5:11-13; 6:9,10; Rv. 21:27) they cannot lay claim to saving faith. They may “profess that they know God; but in works they deny him...” More than one pope fit this description, but just one will suffice, which is,
Pope Alexander, who lived during the time of Martin Luther.
He was born Rodrigo Borgia near Valencia, Spain, the nephew of Callixtus, who made him a cardinal at the age of twenty-five (1456) and vice-chancellor of the Holy See (1457). As vice-chancellor, he amassed great wealth, lived an openly promiscuous life, and fathered seven children, both as a cardinal and the pope. Pius II, who had succeeded Callixtus and continued to support the rise in the church hierarchy of Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, had to warn the young cardinal to refrain from his practice of participating in orgies. It was, as Pius expressed it, "unseemly."
While a cardinal, he took as his mistress Vannozza de Catanei who bore him four children, including Cesare (born 1475) and Lucrezia (born, 1480). By the time he became pope in 1492, he had cast off Vannozza and acquired as a mistress the young Guilia Farenese, who was probably the mother of two or three additional children sired by Alexander. Before Vannozza, Rodrigo had fathered at least two children by one or more women whose names are lost to history.
Pope Innocent VIII died, and a political struggle ensued for the papacy. The bargaining was fierce, and when the votes were finally counted, Rodrigo Borgia, with the purchase of the vote of a ninety-six-year-old cardinal who no longer had all of his faculties, was elected. One of the six cardinals who could not be bought was Giuliano della Rovere, was to remain an enemy of the Borgias, and eventually would succeed Alexander VI as Pope Julius II, noted patron of Michelangelo, the "Warrior Pope."
But Rodrigo, now Alexander VI, had learned something from his predecessor, the misnamed Innocent VIII, who was the first pope to acknowledge openly his illegitimate children, loading them with riches and titles. Alexander took advantage of the precedent.
After a strong beginning as pope, reforming the Curia and forbidding simony --- which is, of course, the means by which he had purchased the papacy --- Alexander concentrated his efforts on his primary interests. These were, like Innocent VIII, the acquisition of gold, the pursuit of women, and the interests of his family. However, Alexander made his predecessor look like a rank amateur...
By 1500, Alexander's behavior --- with Cesare as a dominating influence --- became even more outrageous. Licentiousness and murder were the order of the day for both father and son.... [it gets no better)
There was in him, and in full measure, all vices both of flesh and spirit ...There was in him no religion, no keeping of his word. He promised all things liberally, but bound himself to nothing that was not useful to himself. He had no care for justice, since in his days Rome was a den of thieves and murderers. Nevertheless, his sins meeting with no punishment in this world, he was to the last of his days most prosperous. In one word, he was more evil and more lucky than, perhaps, any other pope for many ages before." --- Francesco Guicciardini (as reported in Chamberlain) - http://www.csus.edu/indiv/c/craftg/Hist127/ALEXANDER%20VI.pdf