Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why.....
The number of people who have left the Catholic church is huge.
We all have heard stories about why people leave. Parents share stories about their children. Academics talk about their students. Everyone has a friend who has left.
While personal experience can be helpful, social science research forces us to look beyond our circle of acquaintances to see what is going on in the whole church.
The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life has put hard numbers on the anecdotal evidence: One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.
Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why. But the U.S. bishops have never devoted any time at their national meetings to discussing the exodus. Nor have they spent a dime trying to find out why it is happening.
Thankfully, although the U.S. bishops have not supported research on people who have left the church, the Pew Center has.
Pew’s data shows that those leaving the church are not homogenous. They can be divided into two major groups: those who become unaffiliated and those who become Protestant. Almost half of those leaving the church become unaffiliated and almost half become Protestant. Only about 10 percent of ex-Catholics join non-Christian religions. This article will focus on Catholics who have become Protestant. I am not saying that those who become unaffiliated are not important; I am leaving that discussion to another time.
Why do people leave the Catholic church to become Protestant? Liberal Catholics will tell you that Catholics are leaving because they disagree with the church’s teaching on birth control, women priests, divorce, the bishops’ interference in American politics, etc. Conservatives blame Vatican II, liberal priests and nuns, a permissive culture and the church’s social justice agenda.
One of the reasons there is such disagreement is that we tend to think that everyone leaves for the same reason our friends, relatives and acquaintances have left. We fail to recognize that different people leave for different reasons. People who leave to join Protestant churches do so for different reasons than those who become unaffiliated. People who become evangelicals are different from Catholics who become members of mainline churches.
Spiritual needs
The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are that their “spiritual needs were not being met” in the Catholic church (71 percent) and they “found a religion they like more” (70 percent). Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith.
In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service. And before conservatives blame the new liturgy, only 11 percent of those leaving complained that Catholicism had drifted too far from traditional practices such as the Latin Mass.
Dissatisfaction with how the church deals with spiritual needs and worship services dwarfs any disagreements over specific doctrines. While half of those who became Protestants say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teaching, specific questions get much lower responses. Only 23 percent said they left because of the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality; only 23 percent because of the church’s teaching on divorce; only 21 percent because of the rule that priests cannot marry; only 16 percent because of the church’s teaching on birth control; only 16 percent because of the way the church treats women; only 11 percent because they were unhappy with the teachings on poverty, war and the death penalty.
The data shows that disagreement over specific doctrines is not the main reason Catholics become Protestants. We also have lots of survey data showing that many Catholics who stay disagree with specific church teachings. Despite what theologians and bishops think, doctrine is not that important either to those who become Protestant or to those who stay Catholic.
People are not becoming Protestants because they disagree with specific Catholic teachings; people are leaving because the church does not meet their spiritual needs and they find Protestant worship service better.
Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic. While 42 percent of Catholics who stay attend services weekly, 63 percent of Catholics who become Protestants go to church every week. That is a 21 percentage-point difference.
Catholics who became Protestant also claim to have a stronger faith now than when they were children or teenagers. Seventy-one percent say their faith is “very strong,” while only 35 percent and 22 percent reported that their faith was very strong when they were children and teenagers, respectively. On the other hand, only 46 percent of those who are still Catholic report their faith as “very strong” today as an adult.
Thus, both as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic. We are losing the best, not the worst.
Some of the common explanations of why people leave do not pan out in the data. For example, only 21 percent of those becoming Protestant mention the sex abuse scandal as a reason for leaving. Only 3 percent say they left because they became separated or divorced.
Becoming Protestant
If you believed liberals, most Catholics who leave the church would be joining mainline churches, like the Episcopal church. In fact, almost two-thirds of former Catholics who join a Protestant church join an evangelical church. Catholics who become evangelicals and Catholics who join mainline churches are two very distinct groups. We need to take a closer look at why each leaves the church.
Fifty-four percent of both groups say that they just gradually drifted away from Catholicism. Both groups also had almost equal numbers (82 percent evangelicals, 80 percent mainline) saying they joined their new church because they enjoyed the worship service. But compared to those who became mainline Protestants, a higher percentage of those becoming evangelicals said they left because their spiritual needs were not being met (78 percent versus 57 percent) and that they had stopped believing in Catholic teaching (62 percent versus 20 percent). They also cited the church’s teaching on the Bible (55 percent versus 16 percent) more frequently as a reason for leaving. Forty-six percent of these new evangelicals felt the Catholic church did not view the Bible literally enough. Thus, for those leaving to become evangelicals, spiritual sustenance, worship services and the Bible were key. Only 11 percent were unhappy with the church’s teachings on poverty, war, and the death penalty Ñ the same percentage as said they were unhappy with the church’s treatment of women. Contrary to what conservatives say, ex-Catholics are not flocking to the evangelicals because they think the Catholic church is politically too liberal. They are leaving to get spiritual nourishment from worship services and the Bible.
Looking at the responses of those who join mainline churches also provides some surprising results. For example, few (20 percent) say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings. However, when specific issues were mentioned in the questionnaire, more of those joining mainline churches agreed that these issues influenced their decision to leave the Catholic church. Thirty-one percent cited unhappiness with the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality, women, and divorce and remarriage, and 26 percent mentioned birth control as a reason for leaving. Although these numbers are higher than for Catholics who become evangelicals, they are still dwarfed by the number (57 percent) who said their spiritual needs were not met in the Catholic church.
Thus, those becoming evangelicals were more generically unhappy than specifically unhappy with church teaching, while those who became mainline Protestant tended to be more specifically unhappy than generically unhappy with church teaching. The unhappiness with the church’s teaching on poverty, war and the death penalty was equally low for both groups (11 percent for evangelicals; 10 percent for mainline).
What stands out in the data on Catholics who join mainline churches is that they tend to cite personal or familiar reasons for leaving more frequently than do those who become evangelicals. Forty-four percent of the Catholics who join mainline churches say that they married someone of the faith they joined, a number that trumps all doctrinal issues. Only 22 percent of those who join the evangelicals cite this reason.
Perhaps after marrying a mainline Christian and attending his or her church’s services, the Catholic found the mainline services more fulfilling than the Catholic service. And even if they were equally attractive, perhaps the exclusion of the Protestant spouse from Catholic Communion makes the more welcoming mainline church attractive to an ecumenical couple.
Those joining mainline communities also were more likely to cite dissatisfaction of the Catholic clergy (39 percent) than were those who became evangelical (23 percent). Those who join mainline churches are looking for a less clerically dominated church.
Lessons from the data
There are many lessons that we can learn from the Pew data, but I will focus on only three.
First, those who are leaving the church for Protestant churches are more interested in spiritual nourishment than doctrinal issues. Tinkering with the wording of the creed at Mass is not going to help. No one except the Vatican and the bishops cares whether Jesus is “one in being” with the Father or “consubstantial” with the Father. That the hierarchy thinks this is important shows how out of it they are.
While the hierarchy worries about literal translations of the Latin text, people are longing for liturgies that touch the heart and emotions. More creativity with the liturgy is needed, and that means more flexibility must be allowed. If you build it, they will come; if you do not, they will find it elsewhere. The changes that will go into effect this Advent will make matters worse, not better.
Second, thanks to Pope Pius XII, Catholic scripture scholars have had decades to produce the best thinking on scripture in the world. That Catholics are leaving to join evangelical churches because of the church teaching on the Bible is a disgrace. Too few homilists explain the scriptures to their people. Few Catholics read the Bible.
The church needs a massive Bible education program. The church needs to acknowledge that understanding the Bible is more important than memorizing the catechism. If we could get Catholics to read the Sunday scripture readings each week before they come to Mass, it would be revolutionary. If you do not read and pray the scriptures, you are not an adult Christian. Catholics who become evangelicals understand this.
Finally, the Pew data shows that two-thirds of Catholics who become Protestants do so before they reach the age of 24. The church must make a preferential option for teenagers and young adults or it will continue to bleed. Programs and liturgies that cater to their needs must take precedence over the complaints of fuddy-duddies and rubrical purists.
Current religious education programs and teen groups appear to have little effect on keeping these folks Catholic, according to the Pew data, although those who attend a Catholic high school do appear to stay at a higher rate. More research is needed to find out what works and what does not.
The Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Only if we acknowledge the exodus and understand it will we be in a position to do something about it.
Sorry, I am not trying to be cross-threaded with you...
Here is your quote:
You. can not, at least while maintaining any kind of intellectual integrity, claim your "second birth" is in any sense literal, while also denying my assertion consuming the bread and wine is literally consuming the Body and Blood, without cutting off the interpretational limb you're standing on. src
My first reaction to this quote is that it is comparative: One cannot claim a literal second birth without accepting literal body and blood, lest one cannot maintain the integrity of the fact. I am taking it literally (I am a fundamentalist after all). The obvious reply follows: I do not take the born again experience to be literal, ergo your statement is invalid... As I basically transmitted previously.
The only other thing I can see in this statement is a tangential comparative of the two experiences (*not* the literal sense), perhaps... But I suppose you would have fleshed that out in your definition, had that been what you were driving at...
Outside of that, I can assure you I am not feigning obtuseness - It must be the real thing. So maybe you'd be better served to haul out your crayons and draw me a picture. ; )
Please note: the book of 2 Peter has no words of conciliation for apostates, as I believe many of them are.
That is a false premise and not at all the one I made. My statement is that no one on FR converts anyone, that is done exclusively by the Holy Spirit. All we can hope to do is to prepare the soil and plant some seeds through our words and our example.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
Why is your first reaction to make one contingent on the other? I said no such thing. Is it any wonder I question your integrity?
I maintain you have no scriptural basis to claim "being born again" is a valid work of God, while maintaining receiving the Eucharist is merely a kind of memorial.
In a very real sense, it is a fallacy, at least in the same genus, as the unforgivable sin... if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out?
Paradoxically, the very text which is used to condemn private interpretation has not been infallibly defined, and is erroneously invoked as condemning the use of fallible human understanding in interpreting Scripture.
The approved notes to the official Roman Catholic Bible states on 2Pt. 1:20,21 ("For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." ) , often cited “against private interpretation, these verses in context are directed against the false teachers of 2 Pt 2 and clever tales (2 Pt 1:16). The prophetic word in scripture comes admittedly through human beings (2 Pt 1:21), but moved by the holy Spirit, not from their own interpretation, and is a matter of what the author and Spirit intended, not the personal interpretation of false teachers.”
Which is close, except that the full meaning is what the Divine author intended, while the human ones who penned it may have intended it in a more limited sense, and wonder at its meaning.
2Pt. 1:20 is referring to the manner by which prophecy is given, in contrast to “cunningly devised fables,” (2Pt. 1:16) as prophecy was not a product of the imagination of men, but of holy men of God speaking as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2Pt. 1:21) Therefore they were "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. " (1 Peter 1:11)
While prophecy was a mystery to men who wrote it, at least insofar as its prophetic meaning (many were written to describe present circumstances, but were prophetic in their fuller future application), other writing was not necessarily a mystery to men who wrote it, but they too wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, for all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. (2Tim. 3:16)
And searching therein we also see that it does not condemn "private interpretation," in the sense of making judgments and discerning truth based upon evidence, use of reason, and examination of the Scriptures, as this is appealed to and affirmed in Scripture, even if it conflicts with those who sit in authority, as that is how the Lord Jesus gained followers and the church began.
RCs cannot deny this, as they appeal to fallible human reasoning in seeking to persuade souls to assent to Rome as to Christ*. But once they have then their premise is that such use of reason in order to discover religious truth is no longer necessary, as an infallible Church gives him the Word of God and interprets it in the true and only sense. That is, "having once found the true Church, private judgment of this kind ceases; having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all." “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means")
Thus, even though the claims of Christ and the apostles were established upon Scripture (the law, the prophets, and wisdom books, which were established as being Divine without an assuredly infallible magisterium) in text and in power, it being the supreme transcendent standard for Truth, and even though the Catholic will condescend to appealing to Scripture as if it were the supreme authority, his goal is to bring one to submit to the church of Rome as the supreme, assuredly infallible authority, which she has infallibly defined herself to be. And assurance of the veracity of her pronouncements is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation.
However, while many Roman Catholics seem to broadly condemn any interpretation of Scripture apart from what Rome provides, relative little of Scripture has been infallibly defined by her, and approved commentaries can vary in their interpretation of texts, and within the parameters of Catholic teaching the Catholic has extensive liberty to interpret Scriptures in seeking to support their church (which itself involves some interpretation), even though these interpretations may contradict each other.
Therefore it is not any interpretation that the Roman Catholic is (supposed to be) condemning as “private interpretation,” but any interpretation that contradicts Roman Catholic teaching, even if the teaching or the text has not been infallibly defined (though determining this status involves interpretation), and regardless of whether the text at issue is used to support that teaching or not.
And again, this is based upon Rome infallibly defining herself as the supreme assuredly infallible authority on earth (while other Catholic churches contradict her), though Scripturally, this was not necessary for the providence and preservation of Truth and the supernatural establishment of writings as Scripture by the time of Christ, and it was against such overly presumptuous authority that the church began in dissent from, but which upheld a magisterium that looked to the Scriptures as the supreme material standard for obedience and testing truth claims, which they are abundantly evidenced to be.
And by which we see the teaching authority of the church is established, but not with assured formulaic infallibility, but as dependent upon Scriptural warrant, and in which truth claims are established upon conformity with it in text and in power, and enabling correction (by those whom God raise up) of those who presume more than what is written, for thus the church was established and by is preserved as the body of Christ.
Supplementary post here.
*What is infallibly proclaimed through solemn definitions or its ordinary and universal teaching requires “full assent of faith” (you must fully believe it with divine or ecclesiastical faith), while much of what Roman Catholics believe and practice is non-infallible (allowing for the possibility of error, if not critically salvific), and requires religious submission of the mind and will (you are to submit to it, and while some private questioning may be possible, it is to be done with a mind submissive to correction in loyalty to Rome, as explained in Donum Veritatis.)
Well then. That fits right in with what boatbums said which generated you comment that “No one on Free Republic converts anyone” doesn’t it? After all, she simply said “a few will come to Free Republic and read these dialogs for themselves and the truth of the gospel shines through to those who sincerely seek it”. Seems to me that what she said we were doing is something along the lines of “prepare the soil and plant some seeds through our words and our example”. I guess I’m not sure than why you thought to tell her we don’t convert anyone.
This is not a paradox, nor is it cited erroneously. You are free to understand the Scripture by your own lights, with a decent respect for the opinions of your peers, excepting where it HAS been infallibly defined by the Church.
Your objection has no more merit than faulting a soldier for "murder" on the battlefield.
Because no one will convert anyone and the self-rightous efforts to coerce, badger, harangue, insult and ridicule anyone into a conversion. But as you and numerous other posters have so aptly demonstrated a lack of benignity will harden hearts and present obstacles to the Holy Spirit and conversion. This tactic is clearly counter to what we have been taught.
"Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory."
"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all."
"Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity."
"Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." - Colossians 3:1-17
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
Apologies...
Upon review, I see your point and can put forward no substantive objection to it.
Thanks and grace to you.
Actually, that type would be more of an exception, as what i see being fostered is faith that the power of Rome and one’s own good deeds outweighing the bad ones will gain even the most nominal Catholics eternal life in the mercy of God, and thus Catholics typically are equal to institutionalized mainline Protestants in works, in contrast to evangelicals.
Moreover, the kind of faith that appropriates justification is one out of a poor and contrite heart that will effect the “obedience of faith” toward its Object, the Lord Jesus, and thus did Reformers preach so: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Reformation_faith_works.html
I am sorry, but upon returning to the quote, I still see that same comparative... But be that as it may, I now have a different phrase to dissect:
I maintain you have no scriptural basis to claim "being born again" is a valid work of God, while maintaining receiving the Eucharist is merely a kind of memorial.
I would take exception to the second part - While it absolutely IS a memorial ("[...] This do in remembrance of me...", etc.) I think that the arguments hereon have cornered most Protestants into that position (or seeming position)... and the term 'merely' is an unfortunate choice. Most Protestants take the admonition to be in the right frame of mind (and soul) before participating in the Communion just as seriously as you do... So there is nothing 'mere' about it.
Where there is contention in the grander scheme is in labeling the Eucharist as a sacrament: While Protestants come very close to accepting it as such in practice, I believe it is the insistence upon a priest presiding over it that is unpalatable. The Protestant position that we are all a priesthood (each individually) necessarily and thankfully omits this cumbersome need - and most of the bells and whistles it would entail. It is not against the Protestant mindset to have a Communion "wherever two or more of you are gathered in His Name," even though the normative process would be officiated by a pastor in a church, with a simple and predictable ceremony. So while we may seem to play it fast and loose in comparison to the Roman Eucharist, I think it unkind to suggest that it is without solemnity to the Protestant.
On the finer point, the matter of transubstantiation, the previously mentioned commandment against the ingestion of blood and human flesh naturally precludes the Roman interpretation, and combined (again) with the supposed necessity that a priest must handle the consecration (and the host thereafter), the whole concept flies in the face of our own individual priesthood, and more importantly, Yeshua's eternal one.
So, to conclude, I don't see the dilemma. I think the problem may well be in your (y'all) preconceived notion wrt the definition of Communion according to Protestant thought. And again, to be fair, that definition is not perfectly defined, depending upon how authoritative a particular denomination might be wrt Communion.
Indeed Peter’s words show it is actually God’s spirit producing the prophecy even though an individual may be speaking or writing.
In order to establish the early church these gifts of the spirit were given yet as Paul said (Heb. 5:14) those who were mature spiritually would be able to discern both right and wrong.
But in no case was it “private interpretation” as the source was God’s spirit.
Daniel studied Jeremiah’s prophecy and was able to give a prohecy about the 70 weeks. (Dan. 9:1)
“And searching therein we also see that it does not condemn “private interpretation,” in the sense of making judgments and discerning truth based upon evidence, use of reason, and examination of the Scriptures, as this is appealed to and affirmed in Scripture, even if it conflicts with those who sit in authority, as that is how the Lord Jesus gained followers and the church began.”
This was what Daniel was doing even though the full outworking he neither understood or lived to see.
“However, your church does not claim inspiration — whereby a man is so moved by the Holy Spirit that what he utters or writes are the very words of God — but infallibly claims she is protected from error by the Holy Spirit whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined criteria, whereby she makes nebulous oral Tradition equal to Scripture;” (from suppl. post)
The distinction made between inspiration and claims of infallibility seems a false one. If the Pope can speak as a representitive of God and at the same time admitt he is speaking without the possibility of error and hence must be obeyed how is that effectively different from claiming divine inspirtion and conformiy to it?
Well said! One of the MAJOR reasons, I believe, God leaves us here after we have been born again is to be the witnesses to the unsaved to help lead them to saving faith.
Romans 10:13-15
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
And ironically, appealing to the authority of Scripture to give itself authority and then denying anyone else the right to appeal to Scripture as the final authority in all matters pertaining to faith and morals AND appealing to Scriptural authority to give itself authority OVER Scripture.
If Scirpture is the authority by which the RCC has its authority, then it cannot have more authority than the document (Or person) which gave it that authority. It cannot have authority over that which gave it authority because that which gives someone or something authority is the greater authority than the people to which it is given.
The whole discussion started with the *literal* second birth and somehow morphed into *literal physical*.
There is a literal second birth, but *literal* does not by default mean *physical*.
It is a literal event which happens to our spirit; in the spiritual realm. It does not demand a corresponding physical counterpart.
When we are saved, born again, if you will, we are transferred to the kingdom of the Son He loves and are seated with Him in the heavenly realms NOW. I am not there NOW in the physical as I am still here on earth, but spiritually I am seated there with Him as a matter of fact.
Ephesians 2:1-10 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Colossians 1:9-14 9 And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. 11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.
13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Your syllogism is flawed. Since the Church received its authority from God no higher authority is possible or necessary. Scripture itself is not God. Scripture, like the Holy Tradition and the Church draws its authority directly from God.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
You have it backward. The Church does not derive it's authority from Scripture; Scripture derives it's authority from the Church.
“Self righteous efforts”? “lack of benignity”? so when we see error and contradiction to scripture we should just be nicey, nicey and just not say anything? Look up righteous indignation. When Jesus saw error He didn’t just remain silent. Mark 3:5 “After looking around at them in anger, grieved by the hardness of their hearts”. He also took the time to make a whip of cords to chase the money changers from the Temple. Simply disagreeing with Catholics and pointing to scripture to support surely can’t be considered “Self righteious”.
” If the Pope can speak as a representative of God and at the same time admit he is speaking without the possibility of error and hence must be obeyed, how is that effectively different from claiming divine inspiration and conformity to it?”
In terms of required obedience it does seem to be a distinction without a difference, though besides the difference btwn the Divinely inspired word of God and a human document that is protected from liability to error, there is a diffidence in what is being obeyed, that of Scripture “making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.