Posted on 04/16/2014 5:37:55 AM PDT by Salvation
Featured Term (selected at random:
ROSMINIANISM
A system of philosophy formulated by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (1797-1855), founder of the Institute of Charity. Encouraged by Popes Pius VII, Gregory XVI, and Pius IX, he undertook a renewal of Italian philosophy, ostensibly following St. Thomas Aquinas. But the influence of Descartes, Kant, and Hegel shifted his thinking. He came to hold that the human mind is born with the idea of "being." In time it analyzes this basic idea to discover in it many other ideas, which are identical with those in the mind of God. Rosmini also taught that reason can explain the Trinity and that original sin is only a physical infection of the body. After his death forty of his propositions were condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1887 and 1888.
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
Catholic Word of the Day Ping!
If you aren’t on this Catholic Word of the Day Ping list and would like to be, please send me a FReepmail.
I doubt that heresies will ever stop emerging. We were warned about false prophets.
Though i do not agree with such a man as Rosmini, a fundamental issue is that of what the supreme infallible authoritative source by which Truth and error is determined and judged by is.
It has been asserted that the (one true infallible) Catholic Church is that standard, and does not need any external authority to validate it any more than God does.
But this must have a basis, and thus I have asked what the RC basis is for assurance that Rome is the one true and infallible church, to which one answer is that since the promise of Jn. 14:26* (among others i am sure) was made to the entire Church thru Apostolic succession, then therefore it is the Church Catholic (or i presume more precisely, the infallible Roman Catholic church), that is this one true and infallible church (even though the infallible part is conditional).
But this meaning of Jn. 14:26 is an interpretive assertion which itself must have a basis. It seems some RCs argue that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation and Scripture (for the RCC contends it is) means such are the infallible authorities on what it is and means (and thus on what Jn. 14:26 means), therefore dissent to it is necessarily rebellion against God (and so Prots are censured).
What is your take on the above, if you or others care to comment?
* But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)
Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to all believers, not just some elite.
That verse in no way promised infallibility to any church organization. The Catholic church is not mentioned by name in the Bible that it claims it wrote, nor are there any instructions given concerning apostolic succession.
The claims are like that of any group claiming special revelation, that they alone have divine truth, thus making anyone claiming to be the sole repository of truth a cult.
It would be surprising for you to have read or understand the ongoing debate on this and the depth of it among some of the pinged, of which you were not.
But you can have your opinion as well. So do you deny that the pope or bishops in union with the pope are infallible when universally defining a matter on faith and morals? Which is what my reference to the conditional infallibility of the church was about, but which your reaction seemed to deny.
And what else that i wrote do you object to? And what is your basis for assurance that Rome is the one true and infallible church?
It has been asserted that the (one true infallible) Catholic Church is that standard, and does not need any external authority to validate it any more than God does.
That was me, in a private mail (we had a good thread locked and continued privately).
I only have a few minutes today, it's Ann + Alex's wedding anniversary number twenty.
The brief answer is: it is a matter of faith. Like any faith, it has a basis in history and is conforms with the Holy Scripture. But ultimately, I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by the same mechanism by which I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ eternally begotten from the Father, and the rest of the Creed. That mechanism is the gift of faith that I received at confirmation.
Thus you were pinged, though it seems timing was bad.
I only have a few minutes today, it's Ann + Alex's wedding anniversary number twenty.
Now the mystery is solved as to what meaneth ann-alex. Congrats.
The brief answer is: it is a matter of faith. Like any faith, it has a basis in history and is conforms with the Holy Scripture. But ultimately, I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by the same mechanism by which I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ eternally begotten from the Father, and the rest of the Creed. That mechanism is the gift of faith that I received at confirmation.
A sincere reply, thanks, but it is a given that salvific faith, if it salvific, is a gift of God, and a Mormon will claim the same basis for his assurance of the LDS being the OTC. But faith has an instrumental means, for "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)
Once what the word of God is has been established, then truth claims will be based upon that. But upon what basis is the Word of God established as being so, and it as testifying to Rome being the one true church?
Thus it seems to go back to the premise that even on the basis of historicity and writings merely being reliable historical documents then Rome is shown to be the historical steward of Divine Truth, which renders her to be the assuredly correct authority on it (not merely a church with a history), and thus her interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition is correct in any conflict, and upon that premise of assured veracity then you have assurance of Truth.
I believe that the New Testament is an historically accurate account of life, teaching and resurrection of Christ. I do not think that a testimony of Joseph Smith has any basis in objective reality, certainly not comparable to the testimony of the Catholic Church.
premise that [Rome's] interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition is correct in any conflict
That would be because Christ told us so: in Matthew 16:18, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" and in John 14, that the Holy Ghost "may abide with you for ever" and "will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you". It is not complicated: I believe the testimony of the Church because I find it credible. I do not find the claims and theological pretenses of Mormonism or Protestantism credible.
“I do not find ...”
Huh? Private judgement?
:)
Peace,
SR
Mormonism certainly holds to absurd teachings, from her equating other works to Scripture to, making her ministers priests, to her doctrine of eternal progression, and even a heavenly mother.
Yet she operates out of the same sola ecclesia model as Rome, with the "church" effectively being the supreme infallible authority on what Truth is and means, and with a "living prophet" rather than a pope.
Certainly you can make a case for what Scripture, history and tradition teaches as supporting Rome, versus how Mormonism interprets them, but if objective examination of these evidences is your basis for assurance of the veracity of RC claims and teaching, than this is the same basis as evangelical type Christians have historically held to, and thus contend against both Rome and the LDS.
In doing so we find that both resort to the argument that their church is uniquely qualified to define what the evidences teach, and RCs esp. dismiss conclusions contrary to theirs as being invalid due to being the result of reliance upon fallible human reasoning, and being fallible, thus one needs an infallible magisterium.
Therefore, while you hold that the testimony of the Catholic Church overcomes Mormonism, it seems that the argument is that the testimony of the Catholic Church as being the historical instrument and steward of Scripture renders her to be the infallible authoritative authority on what Scripture and other evidences mean.
That would be because Christ told us so: in Matthew 16:18...and in John 14,
But such texts are interpretive, and (among other teachings) did not even enjoy the "unanimous consent of the fathers," and Scripture and even Catholic scholarship provide evidences against the early church corporately looking to Peter as its exalted supreme infallible head in Rome.
Thus again, unless your assurance rests upon Scriptural substantiation as establishing Rome as the OTC, it would seem your argument is that an infallible interpreter is necessary for assurance of Truth, and that Rome is that interpreter, or declarer, in the light of her historical instrumentality and stewardship of Divine revelation.
It is not complicated: I believe the testimony of the Church because I find it credible. I do not find the claims and theological pretenses of Mormonism or Protestantism credible.
And i do not see the NT as testifying to Peter being the rock, versus the alternative understanding, that "this rock" refers to the rock of this faith confessed by Peter that Christ build his Church, and thus upon Christ Himself, which your catechism allows for, which understanding some of the ancients concurred with.
And that the promise to teach all (Jn. 14:26) and to lead into all Truth is realized thru the Scriptures as being supreme and what is based and established upon it, and culminating in glory. (1Jn. 3:2)
But insofar as interpretations differs with Rome then RCs often assert that "the (Roman) Catholic church gave you the Bible, she knows what it means," and thus my questions as to the real basis for your assurance of Truth, and the reasoning behind it.
“Private” judgement for a RC means they can interpret the Scriptures various ways as long as they do not contradict RC teaching, which they can be seen doing in various ways.
Thus they can both wrest “certain” proof out of Scripture for RC traditions that are not seen officially done, while what constitutes official and even infallible teaching can differ among RCs.
“Thus they can both wrest “certain” proof out of Scripture for RC traditions that are not seen officially done, while what constitutes official and even infallible teaching can differ among RCs.”
You have fallen into Satan’s trap. He has muddied the waters sufficiently to lead you, and presumably many others, into misunderstanding those things.
The Lord quoted Scripture to refute the devil, and the latter was silenced. When you have an argument rather than ad hominem, and want to answer my questions, then get back to me.
“Beware of false prophets.”
It is not in any way private. Protestantism is a late invention without a historical justification; it is simply not the Church Jesus founded. The Protestant heresies are easy to see from the Holy Scripture. For example, your “sola fide” is directly contradicted by the scripture, and your notion that the Eucharist is a symbol rather than the body and blood of Christ necessary for salvation has no basis in scripture. It is simply theological charlatanism, condemned quite publicly and for publicly known reasons by the Holy Church.
But your decision to believe all of the above, is your private judgment telling you what you believe, is it not? If not, did someone else decide for you? You have no volition? You exercised no judgment whatsoever in becoming Catholic? Extraordinary!
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.