Posted on 06/13/2012 2:59:02 PM PDT by Gamecock
In my experience with those who wrestle with conversion to Roman Catholicism—at least those who have professed faith in the gospel, the driving theological issue is authority. How can I be certain that what I believe is true? The gospel of free grace through the justification of sinners in Christ alone moves to the back seat. Instead of the horse, it becomes the cart. Adjustments are made in their understanding of the gospel after accepting Rome’s arguments against sola scriptura. I address these remarks to friends struggling with that issue.
Reformation Christians can agree with Augustine when he said that he would never have known the truth of God’s Word apart from the catholic church. As the minister of salvation, the church is the context and means through which we come to faith and are kept in the faith to the end. When Philip found an Ethiopian treasury secretary returning from Jerusalem reading Isaiah 53, he inquired, “Do you understand what you are reading?” “How can I,” the official replied, “unless someone guides me?” (Ac 8:30-31). Explaining the passage in the light of its fulfillment in Christ, Philip baptized the man who then “went on his way rejoicing” (v 39).
Philip did not have to be infallible; he only had to communicate with sufficient truth and clarity the infallible Word.
For many, this kind of certainty, based on a text, is not adequate. We have to know—really know—that what we believe is an infallible interpretation of an ultimate authority. The churches of the Reformation confess that even though some passages are more difficult to understand, the basic narratives, doctrines and commands of Scripture—especially the message of Christ as that unfolds from Genesis to Revelation—is so clearly evident that even the unlearned can grasp it.
For the Reformers, sola scriptura did not mean that the church and its official summaries of Scripture (creeds, confessions, catechisms, and decisions in wider assemblies) had no authority. Rather, it meant that their ministerial authority was dependent entirely on the magisterial authority of Scripture. Scripture is the master; the church is the minister.
The following theses summarize some of the issues that people should wrestle with before embracing a Roman Catholic perspective on authority.
1. The Reformers did not separate sola scriptura (by Scripture alone) from solo Christo (Christ alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), sola fide (through faith alone). As Herman Bavinck said, “Faith in Scripture rises or falls with faith in Christ.” Revealed from heaven, the gospel message itself (Christ as the central content of Scripture) is as much the basis for the Bible’s authority as the fact that it comes from the Father through the inspiration of the Spirit. Jesus Christ, raised on the third day, certified his divine authority. Furthermore, he credited the Old Testament writings as “scripture,” equating the words of the prophets with the very word of God himself and commissioned his apostles to speak authoritatively in his name. Their words are his words; those who receive them also receive the Son and the Father. So Scripture is the authoritative Word of God because it comes from the unerring Father, concerning the Son, in the power of the Spirit. Neither the authority of the Bible nor that of the church can stand apart from the truth of Christ as he is clothed in his gospel.2. Every covenant is contained in a canon (like a constitution). The biblical canon is the norm for the history of God’s saving purposes in Christ under the old and new covenants. The Old Testament canon closed with the end of the prophetic era, so that Jesus could mark a sharp division between Scripture and the traditions of the rabbis (Mk 7:8). The New Testament canon was closed at the end of the apostolic era, so that even during that era the Apostle Paul could warn the Corinthians against the “super-apostles” by urging, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Co 4:6). While the apostles were living, the churches were to “maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you” (1 Co 11:2), “…either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Th 2:15). There were indeed written and unwritten traditions in the apostolic church, but only those that eventually found their way by the Spirit’s guidance into the New Testament are now for us the apostolic canon. The apostles (extraordinary ministers) laid the foundation and after them workers (ordinary ministers) build on that foundation (1 Co 3:10). The apostles could appeal to their own eye-witness, direct, and immediate vocation given to them by Christ, while they instructed ordinary pastors (like Timothy) to deliver to others what they had received from the apostles. As Calvin noted, Rome and the Anabaptists were ironically similar in that they affirmed a continuing apostolic office. In this way, both in effect made God’s Word subordinate to the supposedly inspired prophets and teachers of today.
3. Just as the extraordinary office of prophets and apostles is qualitatively distinct from that of ordinary ministers, the constitution (Scripture) is qualitatively distinct from the Spirit-illumined but non-inspired courts (tradition) that interpret it. Thus, Scripture is magisterial in its authority, while the church’s tradition of interpretation is ministerial.
4. To accept these theses is to embrace sola scriptura, as the Reformation understood it.
5. This is precisely the view that we find in the church fathers. First, it is clear enough from their descriptions (e.g., the account in Eusebius) that the fathers did not create the canon but received and acknowledged it. (Even Peter acknowledged Paul’s writings as “Scripture” in 2 Peter 3:16, even though Paul clearly says in Galatians that he did not receive his gospel from or seek first the approval of any of the apostles, since he received it directly from Christ.) The criteria they followed indicates this: To be recognized as “Scripture,” a purported book had to be well-attested as coming from the apostolic circle. Those texts that already had the widest and earliest acceptance in public worship were easily recognized by the time Athanasius drew up the first list of all 27 NT books in 367. Before this even, many of these books were being quoted as normative scripture by Clement of Rome, Origin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others. Of his list, Athanasius said that “holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (NPNF2, 4:23). Also in the 4th century Basil of Caesarea instructed, “Believe those things which are written; the things which are not written, seek not…It is a manifest defection from the faith, a proof of arrogance, either to reject anything of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not” (“On the Holy Spirit,” NPNF2, 8:41). Second, although the fathers also acknowledge tradition as a ministerially authoritative interpreter, they consistently yield ultimate obedience to Scripture. For example, Augustine explains that the Nicene Creed is binding because it summarizes the clear teaching of Scripture (On the Nicene Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens, 1).
6. Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the early Christian community in Rome was not unified under a single head. (Paul, for example, reminded Timothy of the gift he was given when the presbytery laid its hands on him in his ordination: 1 Tim 4:14). In fact, in the Roman Catholic-Anglican dialogue the Vatican acknowledged that “the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy” and that they contain “no explicit record of a transmission of Peter’s leadership” (“Authority in the Church” II, ARCIC, para 2, 6). So one has to accept papal authority exclusively on the basis of subsequent (post-apostolic) claims of the Roman bishop, without scriptural warrant. There is no historical succession from Peter to the bishops of Rome. First, as Jerome observed in the 4th-century, “Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders,” and Jerome goes so far as to suggest that the introduction of bishops as a separate order above the presbyters was “more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord” (cited in the Second Helvetic Confession, Ch 18). Interestingly, even the current pope acknowledges that presbyter and episcipos were used interchangeably in the New Testament and in the earliest churches (Called to Communion, 122-123).
7. Ancient Christian leaders of the East gave special honor to the bishop of Rome, but considered any claim of one bishop’s supremacy to be an act of schism. Even in the West such a privilege was rejected by Gregory the Great in the sixth century. He expressed offense at being addressed by a bishop as “universal pope”: “a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest” (Gregory I, Letters; tr. NPNF 2 ser.XII. i. 75-76; ii. 170, 171, 179, 166, 169, 222, 225).
8. Nevertheless, building on the claims of Roman bishops Leo I and Galsius in the 5th century, later bishops of Rome did claim precisely this “proud address.” Declaring themselves Christ’s replacement on earth, they claimed sovereignty (“plenitude of power”) over the world “to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms.” At the Council of Reims (1049) the Latin Church claimed for the pope the title “pontifex universalis“—precisely the title identified by Gregory as identifying one who “in his self-exaltation [is] Antichrist’s precursor….” Is Pope Gregory the Great correct, or are his successors?
9. Papal pretensions contributed to the Great Schism in 1054, when the churches of the East formally excommunicated the Church of Rome, and the pope reacted in kind.
10. The Avignon Papacy (1309-76) relocated the throne to France and was followed by the Western Schism (1378-1417), with three rival popes excommunicating each other and their sees. No less than the current Pope wrote, before his enthronement, “For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form–the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution” (Principles of Catholic Theology, 196).
11. Medieval debates erupted over whether Scripture, popes or councils had the final say. Great theologians like Duns Scotus and Pierre D’Ailly favored sola scriptura. Papalists argued that councils had often erred and contradicted themselves, so you have to have a single voice to arbitrate the infallible truth. Conciliarists had no trouble pointing out historical examples of popes contradicting each other, leading various schisms, and not even troubling to keep their unbelief and reckless immorality private. Only at the Council of Trent was the papalist party officially affirmed in this dispute.
12. Papal claims were only strengthened in reaction to the Reformation, all the way to the promulgation of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870. At that Council, Pope Pius IX could even respond to modern challenges to his authority by declaring, “I am tradition.”
13. Though inspired by God, Scripture cannot be sufficient. It is a dark, obscure, and mysterious book (rendered more so by Rome’s allegorizing exegesis). An infallible canon needs an infallible interpreter. This has been Rome’s argument. The insufficiency of Scripture rests on its lack of clarity. True it is that the Bible is a collection of texts spread across many centuries, brimming with a variety of histories, poetry, doctrines, apocalyptic, and laws. However, wherever it has been translated in the vernacular and disseminated widely, barely literate people have been able to understand its central message. Contrast this with the libraries full of decreetals and encyclicals, councilor decisions and counter-decisions, bulls and promulgations. Any student of church history recognizes that in this case the teacher is often far more obscure than the text. It’s no wonder that Rome defines faith as fides implicita: taking the church’s word for it. For Rome, faith is not trust in Jesus Christ according to the gospel, but yielding assent and obedience unreservedly simply to everything the church teaches as necessary to salvation. There are many hazards associated with embracing an infallible text without an infallible interpreter. However, the alternative is not greater certainty and clarity about the subject matter, but a sacrifice of the intellect and an abandonment of one’s personal responsibility for one’s commitments to the decisions and acts of others.
14. Those of us who remain Reformed must examine the Scriptures and the relevant arguments before concluding that Rome’s claims are not justified and its teaching is at variance with crucial biblical doctrines. A Protestant friend in the midst of being swayed by Rome’s arguments exclaims, “That’s exactly why I can’t be a Protestant anymore. Without an infallible magisterium everyone believes whatever he chooses.” At this point, it’s important to distinguish between a radical individualism (believing whatever one chooses) and a personal commitment in view of one’s ultimate authority. My friend may be under the illusion that his or her decision is different from that, but it’s not. In the very act of making the decision to transfer ultimate authority from Scripture to the magisterium, he or she is weighing various biblical passages and theological arguments. The goal (shifting the burden of responsibility from oneself to the church) is contradicted by the method. At this point, one cannot simply surrender to a Reformed church or a Roman church; they must make a decision after careful personal study. We’re both in the same shoes.
15. Most crucially, Rome’s ambitious claims are tested by its faithfulness to the gospel. If an apostle could pronounce his anathema on anyone—including himself or an angel from heaven—who taught a gospel different from the one he brought to them (Gal 1:8-9), then surely any minister or church body after the apostles is under that threat. First, Paul was not assuming that the true church is beyond the possibility of error. Second, he placed himself under the authority of that Word. Just read the condemnations from the Council of Trent below. Do they square with the clear and obvious teaching of Scripture? If they do not, then the choice to be made is between the infallible writings of the apostles and those after the apostles and since who claim to be the church’s infallible teachers.
As I have pointed out in previous posts, the frustration with the state of contemporary Protestantism is understandable. I feel it every day. Yet those who imagine that they will escape the struggle between the “already” and the “not yet,” the certainty of a promise and the certainty of possession, the infallibility of God’s Word and the fallibility of its appointed teachers, are bound to be disappointed wherever they land. As Calvin counseled on the matter, Scripture alone is sufficient; “better to limp along this path than to dash with all speed outside it.”
Are you kidding me? I reject the Apocryphal books because they contain obvious errors. Please show me where in my post you found my rejection of the New Testament.
Um, perhaps because the Catholic church does not allow you the privilege.
That aside, the problem is that Scripture that is clearly and plainly stated and teaches facts, does not NEED to be *interpreted*. The problem arises when someone takes a clear passage of Scripture and tries to make it say something it doesn't by reading into it, or starting with preconceived notions/traditions and forcing Scripture to conform to their beliefs instead of conforming their beliefs to conform to Scripture.
Amen, sister.
That's because to them it IS. They call it *the Faith*.
The Biblical definition of *faith is
Hebrews 11:1-2 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
Very true, Jesus Christ is the message of scripture. From the beginning to the end; from the Word at creation to the Lamb of God 'Who taketh away the sins of the world' whose kingdom shall have no end.
GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT inspired WORD IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY
JESUS, THE WORD, IS THE WAY AND THE ONE TRUTH!
HarleyD:
First off, let me say that as compared to some of the other Protestants on FR, you are at least willing to engage in the Theological Tradition of the Church down thru the centuries. I mean that in all honesty and You and I have been here long enough to know tha I don’t mince words.
Now, I think there is some misunderstanding here. The Council of Trent defined more defintively the Catholic position of Justification. The Christian Doctrine of the Atonement, while related to the Doctrine of Justification is distinct from it.
Our Sunday Visitors Catholic Enclyopedia (1998, p. 112) states regarding Atonement “ The Christian Doctrine that CHrist’s passion, death and resurrection, infinite satisfaction is made to God for the sins of humanity. Through this satisfaction, we are reconciled to God. Christ atonement consists, no primarily to the intensity of of the suffering he endured, but in the perfectly obedient and LOVING [emphasis mine] acceptance of the will of the Father which He displayed in embracing this suffering for our sake. Christ’s perfect obedience atones for the disobedience of Adam and wins for us the Grace of obedient discipleship and divinizing sanctification.......In the History of Christian Doctrine, a variety of theological explanationss have been developed to account for the mystery of atonement. Theories that emphasize the love and obedience of Christ in suffering for our sake are preferable to those theories [either penal or substitutional] that center on the appeasement of Divine wrath or the ransom paid to Satan.”
So as I stated earlier, the Catholic understanding of the atonement is rooted in the Christus Victor Theory-Recapitulation [St. Justine Martyr, St. Irenaus from the 2nd century] and the Satisfaction Theory. The Christ Victor-Recapitulation idea is very important in the Eastern Orthodox Church and many later Church Fathers also used this theory [St. Athanasius, St. Augustine and St. Clement of Alexandria]. Theosis, which is what happens to humanity because of Grace is rooted in Recapitulation theory of atonement, very important in the Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, is also part of the Catholic Church.
Satisfaction, most fully developed by St. Anselm is also acceptable as the Definition I cited cleary states. So the Catholic CHurch in terms of the atonement would combine aspects of the Christus Victor-Recapitulatio and Satisfaction theories. On the other hand, the Ransom theory paid to the Devil and Penal Subsitution are not acceptable from the Catholic perspective.
Justification, the process by which a sinner is made righeous, pure and Holy before God is what the Council of Trent defined against Luther’s Doctrine and Calvins Doctrine.
Now, the Catholic Doctrine of Justification is entirely consistent with the Theories of the Atonement that I cited above and while they are correlated with each other, there are still Distinct Doctrines. On that point, I think you would agree or at least you will see that In Catholic Theology those are Dictinct but Related Doctrines.
A comparison of England with Spain, or Scotland with Portugal, or the United States with Mexico and Peru or Brazil, proves the advantages of living variety over dead uniformity.
Nor should we overlook the important fact, that the differences which divide the various Protestant denominations are not fundamental, and that the articles of faith in which they agree are more numerous than those in which they disagree. All accept the inspired Scriptures as the supreme rule of faith and practice, salvation by grace, and we may say every article of the Apostles’ Creed; while in their views of practical Christianity they unanimously teach that our duties are comprehended in the royal law of love to God and to our fellow-men, and that true piety and virtue consist in the imitation of the example of Christ, the Lord and Saviour of all.
Thank God for what the good article by Philip Schaff testfies to, to which can be added,
While iniquity was always a significant part of America, it was generally held as shameful and overall resisted by Church and State in Protestant America. Early on, in a pamphlet for Europeans titled Information to Those Who Would Remove to America (1754), Benjamin Franklin wrote, in part:
“ ...serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested His approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness by which the different sects treat each other, and by the remarkable prosperity with which He has been please to favor the whole country. - ohn Gould Curtis, American history told by contemporaries .... Volume 3, p. 26
So, just to be clear about this, what is being said here is that the Catholic position is that it's Christ's SUFFERING which atones for our sins, correct?
Wow indeed. So if it is not in the Bible, you don't believe it?
1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
2) Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
3) Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
4) Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? Where did the table of contents come from?
5) Where is the concept of ‘Trinity” explained?
6) Where is the concept of ‘Sola Scriptura’ explained?
Just for starters.
The answer to all of those questions is easily answered by Christ’s example of referring to scripture which had been handed down. The New Testament books were written by those closest to Christ and have never proven to be in error unlike the books of the Apocrypha. I would suggest you read the posts by daniel1212 on the canon. As for Sola Scriptura, it’s becoming more clear as time goes on that no other authority can be trusted especially the RCC, Mormons, Muslims, et el.
To be more precise, RCs do not have the right to interpret Scripture according to their judgment if it conflicts with RC teaching, but within those boundaries (and Rome has infallibly defined very few verses, if at all) they have a great deal of liberty to interpret and wrest Scripture to support Rome, as they understand her.
And which (as recently seen in the case of Lumen Gentium) can vary somewhat from RC to RC, as well as the degree of extrapolation they must engage in when trying force Scripture to support traditions of men which do not depend upon Scriptural warrant.
“If you have the right to interpret Scripture according to your judgment why do I not have the same right?”
Hope you don’t mind, but I’d like to take a shot at answering your question. First, so you know where I’m coming from, I am Reformed and Baptist. But I also have some familiarity with and respect for the Fathers, as well as Augustine, Aquinas, etc. Truth is wherever you find it.
With that in mind, I’d like to probe your thoughts a bit, because I have always been fascinated by this authority question dividing so-called Protestants from Catholics, because it messes with my head like an Escher diagram.
The puzzle begins like this. You say there is a prohibition on private judgment in interpreting Scripture. I don’t have a textual basis for that (we can discuss 2 Peter 1:20 later if you like), but assuming it is so for the sake of argument, how can you comply with your own principle of non-private judgment?
Here’s the syllogism:
Minor Premise: God, being God, would be able and willing to make truth knowable to us to a reasonable level of certainty
Major Premise: Private judgment doesn’t produce reasonable certainty because reasonable people can arrive at significantly different conclusions using the same text
Therefore, private judgment cannot be God’s chosen path to reasonably certain truth.
From this syllogism, you get the motivation to look for something other than private judgment as a way to discover God’s truth, and you posit in it’s place an infallible interpreter, the Church.
Now here’s where Escher comes in. At first glance, the structure of the syllogism appears inarguable. So, for the sake of argument, let us assume it is correct. Now what? Now we must look for that alternate means of finding God’s truth, and we must find it without the use of private judgment, else we have introduced, according to the syllogism, a fatal uncertainty.
So by what means may we know truth? Through the Church, you say. But how do I know anything about the Church? So you present me with an array of facts about the history of the Church. Fine. Now what do I do? Sit passively staring at those facts like an unprogrammed automaton? No, I have to decide if I believe those facts as presented, along with an army of theological inferences that follow close behind. How do I do that? Because I am not yet in the fold. I am only standing at the door, looking in. To step in, I must judge those facts. No one else can do that for me. It happens in me. It is my private judgment, the very thing I am, under the syllogism, forbidden to do.
So I go back to the syllogism, because it is preventing me from finding my infallible interpreter. For if I use my private judgment to decide that the Church is that infallible interpreter, then I cannot be reasonable certain that my judgment is correct. In fact, if my major premise is correct, I cannot verify anything to be correct, even my major premise. And if I cannot rely on my major premise being correct, then my conclusion that an alternative to private judgment must be found cannot be verified as correct either.
You see how the system implodes on itself.
So, if you have a solution, I will listen patiently. And I will use my private judgment to determine if you are correct. Because happily, under my epistemology, I am allowed to do that. Indeed, I appear to have no other choice.
Then try answeing them, one by one. Be specific.
If you believe what you believe, you should have the answers.
I bet you won't do it. Because you can't.
Nope. Not ignoring. Simply pointing out the inconsistency. Catholics would like to take John 6:50+ and interpret these in a very literal sense although there could be many contextual differences especially since this was told to the Jews who would find the understanding difficult. Yet, as you demostrated, Catholics simply choose to ignore the ONLY obvious interpretation of John 6:40+ in favor of some made up Church belief.
I would suggest that the Church (and many Protestants for that matter) simply are not reading the verses for what they state. Doctrines are made up. Not studied.
Answer these questions.
1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
2) Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
3) Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
4) Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? Where did the table of contents come from?
5) Where in the Bible is the concept of ‘Trinity” explained?
6) Where in the Bible is the concept of ‘Sola Scriptura’ explained?
Just for starters.
Read “Rome Sweet Home” by Scott Hahn
A Trestise on the Presdistination of the Saints
1Sa 3:7 Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, and the word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him.
1Sa 3:8 And the LORD called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli and said, "Here I am, for you called me." Then Eli perceived that the LORD was calling the young man.
1Sa 3:9 Therefore Eli said to Samuel, "Go, lie down, and if he calls you, you shall say, 'Speak, LORD, for your servant hears.'" So Samuel went and lay down in his place.
1Sa 3:10 And the LORD came and stood, calling as at other times, "Samuel! Samuel!" And Samuel said, "Speak, for your servant hears."
1Sa 3:11 Then the LORD said to Samuel, "Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel at which the two ears of everyone who hears it will tingle.
1Sa 3:12 On that day I will fulfill against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. 1Sa 3:13 And I declare to him that I am about to punish his house forever, for the iniquity that he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them.
1Sa 3:14 Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever."
....
1Sa 3:18 So Samuel told him everything and hid nothing from him. And he said, "It is the LORD. Let him do what seems good to him."
1Sa 3:19 And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground.
1Sa 3:20 And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established as a prophet of the LORD.
As Augustine rightfully determined, we are saved to believe so that we might do good works.
From their own brethren:
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs...
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation.(http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html)
Also see 871 of 904
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.