The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

"You’ve been after me on that for years."

I have in fact never asked that, but do concede that it has been asked of you. I didn't remember your answer or non-answer. It is an important question to establish your credibility in these discussion and one of the tests is established in Scripture.

"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." - Romans 10:9

"Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit." - 1 Corinthians 12:3

I can't imagine why you are reluctant or embarrassed to proclaim Jesus is Lord. Anyone who loves Him would be willing to shout it from the 50 yard line in the Super Bowl. Do you love Him?

Peace be with you.

"we are saved NOT by righteous deeds"

I have never said that we are saved by deeds or works. What I have said is that good works are evidence of our love and that where they are absent so too is Salvation.

I disagree that we cannot love God above all else. I have known those that I believe have and when the lives of the saints and martyrs are examined there is ample evidence that one can. I can't say that it is easy or common, but it is not impossible and is certainly something we should strive to do.

Faith does not save. Faith can lead you to love, but only love can save.

Peace be with you.

Aren;t both are important?

“Regarding the debate about faith and works: It’s like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most important.”

~C.S. Lewis

On the contrary, it is highly questionable. St. Athanasius lived and taught in a time BEFORE a Canon of Scripture and relied 100% on the Traditions of the Church to develop the Creeds and that later served as the test for Canonicity.

As has been explained NUMEROUS times on these threads, there was NO question about what was Holy Scripture that was Divinely-inspired through the Apostles as well as those who were chosen by God for His revelation. That a "canon" happened later had NOTHING whatsoever to do with what was held, studied, circulated and obeyed AS God-breathed Holy Scripture. In Athanasius' day, the Traditions of the church WERE the truths found in Scripture. Why else did he repeatedly appeal to them? Another salient point, Athanasius was NOT infallible and just because I quote some of his or other ECF's writings doesn't mean I accept ALL of them. Even your own magesterium picks and chooses which ECS's teachings they allow - some even were later declared heretics, but it still doesn't stop them from being "useful".

The term "Roman Catholic" is a fabrication of the Reformation, However Rome has always been the seat of the successors to St. Peter the first Pope and the See of the Catholic Church.

The fabrication is all y'all's. That myth especially!

"As has been explained NUMEROUS times on these threads, there was NO question about what was Holy Scripture that was Divinely-inspired through the Apostles as well as those who were chosen by God for His revelation."

I accept that you believe that, but that does not meant it is true. With all due respect it has not been demonstrated, it has only been claimed.

Peace be with you The Bible Canon was preceded by several hundred years in which the authenticity of any of the hundreds of works that claimed to be inspired and inerrant was at best dubious. Many works were clearly forged and other, although the works of actual Apostles and eye witness Disciples were not found to be inerrant. The Early Church Fathers first relied exclusively upon their own authority and the authority of the genealogy of their Tradition and then, from the Tradition produced the Creeds that survive to this day. From the Traditions and in compliance with the Creeds the Canon was issued.

The Canon was not universally accepted and many of the members of the Church, not the least of which is St. Augustine who said; ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6)

Where does Jesus ever say specifically anything about Sola Scriptura?

Have you missed all the times He appealed to Scripture when rebuking Satan, the religious leaders, the disciples? Do a word search for "it is written", you'll see how many times our Lord prefaced His words with such. It's found 26 times with the search in the Gospels http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=it%20is%20written&version1=9&searchtype=phrase&bookset=4. He also many times spoke of "Moses and the Prophets" as speaking about Himself - that meant Scripture. He said in John 5:39, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." In fact, Jesus' ministry was a constant appeal to the Scriptures because He came for the Jews chiefly (the lost sheep of the house of Israel) and the Gentiles would not have been swayed by an appeal to the Jewish Scriptures. We KNOW that Jesus is the Messiah because He fulfilled over three-hundred prophecies in the Old Testament that pointed to Him being the promised Messiah.

As far as the "big guns" - and Athanasius was from the Alexandrian area and is considered a Church Father of the Greek Orthodox Church and a major patristic witness to the New Testament - let me simply say that the champions of faith all throughout the history of the Christian faith are shared by all of the Body of Christ, but NONE of them are infallible. ONLY the Bible is the infallible, Divinely-inspired word of God. All these men and women of the faith do is open a window into how they thought in their day, what trials they endured and they confirm the same faithful witness of Scripture to us today. Men such as Athanasius built their treatises, tracts and theological writings upon their knowledge of Scripture - much of it memorized, though they had access to an "exemplar" (copy of the books of Scripture). Athanasius' "training and immersion in Scripture became the decisive element that shaped his writings, wherein biblical quotations along with their interpretation and elucidation constitute a significant component of their overall content." (The Text of the Apostolos in Athanasius of Alexandria By Gerald J. Donker). This link gives you online access to that book about Athanasius: http://books.google.com/books?id=dDN8sbv1IDEC&pg=PA12&dq=Athanasius+Scripture&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NITRT_qMF4Oy8QTO8qzqAw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Athanasius%20Scripture&f=false. Though he is far from the only church father who placed significant importance on the Holy Scripture as THE authority for truth claims, he DOES say quite a bit about the subject, so I reject the idea that he needs to be cherry-picked to find "usable" confirmation about the Bible and its place in theirs and our lives.

I am curious why, if Catholics' own catechism expresses support for the belief in the Divinely-inspired, infallible Holy Scriptures, it comes across here that so many sound like they do not accept that doctrine? I recognize that Catholics are taught that, as you said, "the Church has claimed, that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Bishops guide the Church with the support of the teachings handed down from the Apostles and with the support of the Holy Words of Scripture.". So why is there such a battle over the sufficiency of Scripture? Do you think God omitted critical truths in His revelation? I totally get it that they think nothing the magesterium teaches or ever has taught goes against Holy Scripture, but this just does not seem to hold true on these forums. Instead, it goes into a tug-of-war between "tradition" and Scripture and that could not happen if, indeed, tradition is confirmed with Scripture.

I have never said that we are saved by deeds or works.

yet the post I was responding to said:

If we do not love God above all and do not love our neighbor as ourselves we will not be saved.

It certainly SOUNDS like you are saying we are saved by our own actions. My contention is simply that we do nothing to save ourselves but receive the gift of eternal life through faith. I heartily agree that a genuine faith brings forth fruits "meet for repentance". If we have saving faith, we WILL be internally changed by the Spirit nature within us and we cannot help but be conformed to the holiness of Christ - granted, some quicker than others. But that is a far cry from saying that we MUST do such and such or NOT do such and such in order to be saved.

As to loving God, we cannot know another heart and you can only presume someone loves God above anything else since you don't see their heart. My point WRT that is simply that it is ONLY through the indwelling Holy Spirit that we have the ability TO love God and others in the manner He desires. Once the Holy Spirit indwells a believer at conversion, He doesn't leave (you can't kick Him out either). Jesus said he would LOSE nothing but raise us up with Him. He will not cast us away, lose us, be snatched from His hand nor any other way to stop being His.

I can already predict the OSAS argument is next. Let me just leave you with this thought...if we ARE saved by grace through faith and not by our works/deeds (as Ephesians 2:8,9 says) and we are STILL alive here - not in heaven yet, then we haven't taken possession of the gift's heaven component yet. Scripture says we are "positionally" seated with him in the heavenlies already - meaning we are counted as the redeemed - just not physically there in a resurrected body and spirit until we die or are taken up. Then...when we say we are saved, aren't we really talking about staying/keeping saved? We aren't swiped up to heaven the second we come to faith, God leaves us here for His purpose, but it is not for the purpose of meriting heaven because it is not by our merits that we are saved. So, this is how I can look at the salvation doctrine and believe that, as St. John says, KNOW I HAVE eternal life (I John 5:13). I'm not affirming this because I think I am worthy, nor do I believe I will never goof up and do something wrong the rest of my life. Instead it is based upon the mercy and grace of God all the way. It is because of HIM that we will endure in faith, stay steadfast, never reject Him and be delivered to heaven for eternity.

Sorry for the verbosity. It's getting late and I'll be signing off. I hope you have a peaceful night and a great weekend.

"Though he is far from the only church father who placed significant importance on the Holy Scripture as THE authority for truth claims, he DOES say quite a bit about the subject..."

Perhaps you should actually read the body of his work instead of carefully edited snippets plucked from the Internet. When you look for what he wrote about Scripture you find that his position is identical to that of the Catholic Church today. And when you examine what he wrote on tradition you find He also placed a great deal of importance on Holy Tradition as today's Churh still does.

You see, Tradition and Scripture are not an either / or proposition as Protestantism insists, but rather a both / and proposition because together they comprise the Deposit of Faith. Creating and then attacking the straw man that Catholics reject Scripture because we embrace Tradition because Protestantism does the opposite is a fallacy that gets harder to ignore on a daily basis. Let us agree to disagree where our doctrines differ, but I really tire of arguing against allegations of what you think or want the Church to be.

May the Blessings of our Lord be upon you.

Let me just refer you and anyone else who is interested in the formation of the canon of the New Testament Scripture to: http://www.the-highway.com/ntcanon_Warfield.html. It starts with:

But the Old Testament books were not the only ones which the apostles (by Christ’s own appointment the authoritative founders of the church) imposed upon the infant churches, as their authoritative rule of faith and practice. No more authority dwelt in the prophets of the old covenant than in themselves, the apostles, who had been “made sufficient as ministers of a new covenant “; for (as one of themselves argued) “if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory.” Accordingly not only was the gospel they delivered, in their own estimation, itself a divine revelation, but it was also preached “in the Holy Ghost” (I Pet. i. 12); not merely the matter of it, but the very words in which it was clothed were “of the Holy Spirit” (I Cor. ii. 13). Their own commands were, therefore, of divine authority (I Thess. iv. 2), and their writings were the depository of these commands (II Thess. ii. 15). “If any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle,” says Paul to one church (II Thess. iii. 14), “note that man, that ye have no company with him.” To another he makes it the test of a Spirit-led man to recognize that what he was writing to them was “the commandments of the Lord” (I Cor. xiv. 37). Inevitably, such writings, making so awful a claim on their acceptance, were received by the infant churches as of a quality equal to that of the old “Bible “; placed alongside of its older books as an additional part of the one law of God; and read as such in their meetings for worship — a practice which moreover was required by the apostles (I Thess. v. 27; Col. iv. 16; Rev. 1. 3). In the apprehension, therefore, of the earliest churches, the “Scriptures” were not a closed but an increasing “canon.” Such they had been from the beginning, as they gradually grew in number from Moses to Malachi; and such they were to continue as long as there should remain among the churches “men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

We say that this immediate placing of the new books — given the church under the seal of apostolic authority — among the Scriptures already established as such, was inevitable. It is also historically evinced from the very beginning. Thus the apostle Peter, writing in A.D. 68, speaks of Paul’s numerous letters not in contrast with the Scriptures, but as among the Scriptures and in contrast with “the other Scriptures” (II Pet. iii. 16) — that is, of course, those of the Old Testament. In like manner the apostle Paul combines, as if it were the most natural thing in the world, the book of Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Luke under the common head of “Scripture” (I Tim. v. 18): “For the Scripture saith, ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn’ [Deut. xxv. 4]; and, ‘The laborer is worthy of his hire’” (Luke x. 7). The line of such quotations is never broken in Christian literature. Polycarp (c. 12) in A.D. 115 unites the Psalms and Ephesians in exactly similar manner: “In the sacred books, . . . as it is said in these Scriptures, ‘Be ye angry and sin not,’ and ‘Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.’” So, a few years later, the so-called second letter of Clement, after quoting Isaiah, adds (ii. 4): “And another Scripture, however, says, ‘I came not to call the righteous, but sinners’” — quoting from Matthew, a book which Barnabas (circa 97-106 A.D.) had already adduced as Scripture. After this such quotations are common.

What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival “canon” of “new books” which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally” Scripture “ with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.

I hope the entire article is read because it demonstrates that this is hardly a truth that has only been "claimed".

When you look for what he wrote about Scripture you find that his position is identical to that of the Catholic Church today. And when you examine what he wrote on tradition you find He also placed a great deal of importance on Holy Tradition as today's Churh still does.

What Athanasius called "Tradition" and what the Roman Catholic Church of today calls tradition are NOT one and the same. Tradition in Athanasius' day did not include many of the "salvific" ones the Catholic Church has created since his time, but his were the truths of the Christian faith handed down from the Apostles and certainly reinforced BY Scripture. Why do you think God bothered to have it all written down if not to give us a sure way to know his revealed truths? He did the same thing with the Old Testament Scriptures and it sure worked for thousands of years longer than the New Testament has been around. Jesus said "it is written" so many times because it is AUTHORITY from HIM to all of us.

We will have to agree to disagree but don't expect me to hush up when I'm accused of creating "straw men" instead of legitimate points. The allegations I make about the Catholic Church are real and I am hardly the only one who has brought them to the fore.

If all someone wants to do is come on these forums and presume to halt all discussions with a wave of the hand and a terse, "We are the One, True Church and we are right about everything we say", then I wouldn't waste my time if I were them. I think many of us are past the point where such bluster makes any impact.

"I think many of us are past the point where such bluster makes any impact"

I agree bb and it's why 1 John 5:13 is so important for believers to understand.

No matter the semantics that Catholics play with "works" being obeying the Mosaic Law or Spiritual and Corporeal Works of Mercy, the Scripture is clear - we are saved NOT by righteous deeds, NOR works of the law, NOR any of our own righteousnesses BUT by the grace of God through faith. Anytime anyone starts adding what "we" must do to merit being saved - OR staying saved - it stops being the Gospel and becomes an accursed message.

Indeed, here Paul does not specify what kind of works.

Ephesians 2:8-9 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.

The Law was put in charge to lead us to Christ, not as a means of salvation. It never was as a means of salvation so if the works of the Law were incapable of saving, no other added works could save or God would have given them in the first place so that we could have been saved without Jesus needing to die.

Galatians 2:20-21 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Galatians 3:24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

Catholics are the ones slapping the label of *Roman Catholic* on themselves and the sign boards of their churches.

I lived in an area where there were a lot of Ukrainian Catholics and the Catholics in that area were careful to specify Roman or Ukrainian.

Neither considered the other legit.

So much for unity within Catholicism.

Jvette, its called substantiation, otherwise it would just be my assertions or opinions. It something i learned when writing encyclopedia articles as this . And this is a public forum where others are engaged.

Catholics are not automatons or robots or mindless boobs, some do in fact dissent and the Church tries to teach them and also learn from them.

I was not suggesting that, as the diverse variety of Roman Catholics and countless societies and fraternals, as well the liberty they have to interpret the Bible to support Rome testify otherwise, yet infallible teachings do call for full assent of faith (or for firm and definitive assent for level 2 infallible teachings, as some divide them)

And as concerns non-infallible teaching (there is more than one level) on faith or morals:

Can. 752. “While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.” — http://www.ewtn.com/library/canonlaw/adtucans.htm

And also what level a teaching falls under (and thus how many infallible decrees there are), and whether laity can dissent or how much from non-infallible teachings such as encyclicals (or parts thereof), and how, and what degree of assurance the stamps provide, are open to interpretation.

..the definitions of dogmatic facts demand real internal assent; though about the nature of the assent and its relation to faith theologians are not unanimous. Some theologians hold that definitions of dogmatic facts, and especially of dogmatic facts in the wider acceptation of the term, are believed by Divine faith...http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05092a.htm

Regarding articles of faith

Catholic Encyclopedia: Not every revealed truth is an article of faith, nor are theologians agreed on what constitutes any truth an article of faith. Some would limit these articles to the contents of the Apostles' Creed. Others say that every truth defined by the Church, or in any other manner explicitly proposed for our belief, is an article of faith. De Lugo describes them as the principal or primary truths which are the basis of other revealed truths or principles. In the Catechism of the Council of Trent (p. 1, c. 1, q. 4), the truths of the Apostles' Creed are called "articles" by a sort of simile frequently used by our forefathers; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01755d.htm

Despite the polemical rejection by Roman Catholic apologist of human reasoning to gain assurance of Truth by prayerfully examining evidence, the Roman Catholic himself is allowed to do so in making a (fallible human) decision to submit to Rome, and thus give implicit assent of faith to her infallible decrees.

And approved Catholic teaching (on one hand) contends that he needs not examine the warrant for Catholic teaching in order to see whether submission is warranted, or engage in objective seeking of truth if Rome has provided it.

► "Once he does so [enters the Roman church], he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason, like a lantern, at the door.

Therein he will learn many other truths that he never could have found out with reason alone, truths superior, but not contrary, to reason. These truths he can never repudiate without sinning against reason, first, because reason brought him to this pass where he must believe without the immediate help of reason.” — CHAPTER XIX.

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."

“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit...

Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense? — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm)

► "The use of private judgment, on the other hand, in the sense of an inquiry into the 'motives of credibility,' and a study of the evidences for the Faith, to enable you to find out which is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ -- this is permissible, and not only permissible, but strictly necessary for all outside the Fold who wish to save their souls. But mark well: 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. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation?

"Your private judgment has led you into the Palace of Truth, and it leaves you there, for its task is done; the mind is at rest, the soul is satisfied, the whole being reposes in the enjoyment of Truth itself, who can neither deceive nor be deceived....

“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”

“...outside the pale of Rome there is not a scrap of additional truth of Revelation to be found.”

“He willingly submits his judgment on questions the most momentous that can occupy the mind of man-----questions of religion-----to an authority located in Rome.”

“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”

“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”

“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.”

“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, "I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?"

“..our act of confidence and of blind obedience is highly honoring to Almighty God,..”

—“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]

Nor does assurance for doctrines of Rome rest upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, but upon the premise of the assured infallibility of Rome, which she has infallibly defined herself to have, when speaking according to her infallibly defined scope and subject-based criteria.

The following statement by Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating regarding the teaching of the Assumption of Mary is an illustration of this very point.

►“Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

► VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906: It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.

► The church is infallible...the church, as a visible, organized society, is the immediate recipient of a certain divine revelation, and the medium of it transmission. This divine revelation must be accepted and believed with a firm assent, excluding all doubt, by each individual....Each individual must receive the faith and the law from the church, of which he is a member by baptism, with unquestioning submission of the intellect and the will. Catholic world, Volume 13, bBy Paulist Fathers, p. 580

► “Divine authority requires absolute obedience...As Adam fell away and dragged with him the whole human race by a sin of disobedience, so man must return to God through absolute obedience to the Divine authority vested in the church.” This Is the Faith, by Francis J. Ripley, p. 121. http://books.google.com/books?id=GFaVi8blR2IC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=absolute+obedience+required+by+catholic+church&source=bl&ots=Hkpo6rzsZD&sig=k_LFETgavPGDr4578g7UhkQd3Ys&hl=en&ei=DmHOTunGGuHt0gGF0ZDxDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=absolute%20obedience%20required%20by%20catholic%20church&f=false

► “We now declare and expressly enjoin that all without exception are bound by an obligation of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whether already issued or to be issued hereafter, exactly as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which are no matters of doctrine and approved by the Pope; nor can anyone who by word or writing attacks the said decrees avoid the note both of disobedience and rashness or be therefore without grave fault. Praestantia Scripturae, Pope St.Pius X [http://catholicfaithdefenders.com/genesis-myth-or-historical.html]

For those in Catholic religious orders men such as Alphonsus De Liguori believed in implicit assent to superiors:

► St. Ignatius once said that should the Pope command him to undertake a voyage by sea in a ship without a mast, without oars or sails, he would blindly obey the precept. And when he was told that it would be imprudent to expose his life to danger, he answered that

prudence is necessary in Superiors; but in subjects the perfection of prudence is to obey without prudence. This doctrine is conformable to Holy Scripture: Behold, says the Lord, as clay is in the potter s hands.' Religious must leave themselves in the hands of the Superior to be moulded as she wills. — St. Alphonsus De Liguori, True Spouse of Christ, p. 68 http://wallmell.webs.com/LiguoriTrueSpouseChristVol1.pdf

► "Obey blindly , that is, without asking reasons. Be careful, then, never to examine the directions of your confessor....In a word, keep before your eyes this great rule, that in obeying your confessor you obey God. Force yourself then, to obey him in spite of all fears. And be persuaded that if you are not obedient to him it will be impossible for you to go on well; but if you obey him you are secure. But you say, if I am damned in consequence of obeying my confessor, who will rescue me from hell? What you say is impossible." St. Alphonsus De Liguori, True Spouse of Christ, p 352, Benziger Brothers, NY

On the other hand,

►Donum Veritatis allows that even if "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments," "some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian (privately, with submissive teachable spirit) "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching."

In so doing it makes a distinction between dissent as in public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church and the situation of conscientious personal difficulties with teaching, and asserts that the Church has always held that "nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will," while the Virgin Mary's "immediate and unhesitating assent of faith to the Word of God" is set forth as the example to follow in submitting to Catholic teaching. — http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

► Thomas Aquinas:"Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things. - St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church - Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104 http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/obediance.htm

► Religious obedience, therefore, does not involve that extinction of all individuality, so often alleged against convents and the Church; nor is it unlimited, for it is not possible either physically or morally that a man should give himself up absolutely to the guidance of another. — Catholic Encyclopedia>Religious Obedience; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11182a.htm

►Roman Catholic lay theologian Ronald L. Conte Jr.

...some dissent from non-infallible teachings is faithful dissent. Ordinary teachings allow for the possibility of error and so ordinary assent allows for the possibility of dissent. However, this dissent must be limited in extent, just as the fallibility is limited in extent. http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm

► ...internal assent is obligatory only on those who can give it consistently with the claims of objective truth on their conscience — this conscience, it is assumed, being directed by a spirit of generous loyalty to genuine Catholic principles. — Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

► Ratzinger: Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church" (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1.)

► CCC 1790: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed. " Catechism of the Catholic Church; http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm)

Aquinas, despite his willingness to have heretics executed, is understood as teaching that

“it is always a sin to violate conscience, even when conscience is in error,[83] and even when it contradicts the command of a bishop.”[84] www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/d/x/dxd22/Aquinas.htm#_edn84

► Anyone upon whom the ecclesiastical authority, in ignorance of the true facts, imposes a demand that offends against his clear conscience, should perish in excommunication rather than violate his conscience. (Thomas Aquinas, “IV Sentences,” discourse 38, question 2, article 4, quoted in Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980 p.1003)

► “...it does not seem possible that anyone could evade sin if his conscience in whatever way it might err judges something to be the precept of God, whether it be a matter of intrinsic evil or matters of indifference, and decides to the contrary while he still has that conscience. Taken as such, he wills not to observe the law of God, and thus sins mortally.” [83] — Disputed Questions on Truth, Question 17, article 4, response, McInerny, Thomas Aquinas: Selected Writings, p. 233.

On the contrary, it is highly questionable. St. Athanasius lived and taught in a time BEFORE a Canon of Scripture and relied 100% on the Traditions of the Church to develop the Creeds and that later served as the test for Canonicity.

Sorry, try as you might, you don't get to keep Athanasius...

It was already posted where Athanasius claimed that for tradition to be legitimate, it has to be backed up by scripture...

Your position is an epic fail, according to Athanasius...

Such a great quote, with the relevant words conveniently highlighted. Problem is, St. Athanasius is not supporting Sola Sriptura here, he is defending a decision of the council at Nicea which refuted the belief in Arianism.

Based on what??? Based on scripture, that's what...

“light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them, who have also become martyrs for the deity of Christ, to your zeal for learning, in turn.”

None of the speakers you refer to were 'inspired' by God, that is...Many of them were obviously inspired by man's wisdon; philosophy...

Want more?

More of nothing??? You didn't answer my question but posed some of your own...Is that your method of distraction???

“Regarding the debate about faith and works: It’s like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most important.”

~C.S. Lewis

Lewis was good at writing fiction stories, but understanding scripture, not so good...

He was very good at this too, for it is faith AND works.

Not one or the other.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery