Church still attracting converts: CHN at record levels

The Wanderer ^ | 10/10/02 | Paul Likoudis

[tiki]

Many of the leaders have betrayed Catholics and not only us but God, but the religion stays the same. God never changes. Men are frail, sinful creatures and will never be perfected, except when they are perfected in Christ. I know we expect our leaders to all be good but it isn't going to happen this side of heaven. We can't let sinful men lead us away from Christ and eternal life.

[LibertyGirl77]

***Catholics view “behold thy mother” as Jesus commissioning His mother to be the Mother of all Christians, and by giving her to John who personifies the Christian people, He commands us to accept her as our own mother. ***

That's reading an awful lot into four simple words.

[Desdemona]

***Catholics view “behold thy mother” as Jesus commissioning His mother to be the Mother of all Christians, and by giving her to John who personifies the Christian people, He commands us to accept her as our own mother. ***

That's reading an awful lot into four simple words.

Why do you believe these words to be simple? Christ's language is always simple, but the meaning is very deep.

[pseudo-justin]

Obviously, Scott Hahn had to go through a tremendous change in his way of thinking in order to convert to Catholicism. But he never tells us how he came to that new way of thinking, or how we can, or even why we should think that way, too. Instead, he just presents the same arguments from his new Catholic perspective and expectes Protestants to just "get it." But we don't get it.

see my reply to xzins in post #20 on this thread. it looks like we have finally come to some sort of agreement, namely, that there are extra-scriptural principles that inherently affect one's reading of scripture, and to the conclusions one will come to when reading scripture. these extra-scriptural principles, if true, lead to a true understanding of scripture, and, if false, lead to a false understanding of scripture. that there are extra-scriptural factors that affect one's reading of scripture is trivially obvious, but the principle of 'sola scriptura' does not account for these and thus leads its practitioner into crisis

[OLD REGGIE]

Apoc21:14 "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

Which twelve? Can you name them?

[LibertyGirl77]

***Do you think she might be concerned for you?***

Probably not. As a resident of Heaven, she knows how the story ends. She knows she needn't worry about me. Worry and fear are unnecessary feelings in Heaven.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Didn't Tom Sawyer answer this question: David and Goliath:)

I always thought that was the funniest part in that book.

Becky

[LibertyGirl77]

***that there are extra-scriptural factors that affect one's reading of scripture is trivially obvious, but the principle of 'sola scriptura' does not account for these and thus leads its practitioner into crisis***

The principle of sola scriptura IS one of those extra-scriptural principles that affects how we read the text. It's not a crisis -- it's just the the lens through which a Protestant views the Bible.

[Tantumergo]

"The bible does not contain the word "Pope""

Which Bible do you read? - the word "Pope" appears everywhere!! But most pertinently it occurs in the passage of scripture which Jesus took as the context for His institution of Peter as the first Pope of the new Davidic Kingdom - "Pope" means "Father". I think you will find the concept of fatherhood sprinkled rather liberally throughout scripture.

Is 22,20 "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a FATHER (POPE) to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda.
22 And I will lay the KEY of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open."

Just as Eliacim was appointed the Prime Minister of the old Davidic Kingdom, received the keys and so became a Father to his people, Peter is appointed by Christ as the Prime Minister of the new Davidic Kingdom, receives the keys and becomes a Father to Christ's people. The Prime Minister is the "Vicar" of the King:

Matt 16,17 "And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the KEYS of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

[OLD REGGIE]

Don't you take the Bible seriously when Elizabeth, the angel, and even Mary uses the word "Blessed"?

Think about it. It's right there in the Bible.

Matthew 5:
[1] Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down his disciples came to him.
[2] And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

[3] "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
[4] "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
[5] "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
[6] "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
[7] "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
[8] "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
[9] "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
[10] "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
[11] "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
==================================================================================

And so are many others.

"Think about it. It's right there in the Bible."

[SoothingDave]

Yes, the Beatitudes do model Christian behavior, in exactly the same way Mary does. Are you trying to make some point?

SD

[SoothingDave]

She knows she needn't worry about me. Worry and fear are unnecessary feelings in Heaven.

Notwithstanding whether "concern" is always a negative ("worry and fear") feeling, the point is that Mary and the saints want to know you. Like family. They would never say "Jesus never told me to get to know you."

SD

[SoothingDave]

The principle of sola scriptura IS one of those extra-scriptural principles that affects how we read the text.

Are you sure you mean this? Most "Bible" Christians insist that Sola Scriptura is Biblical, not "extra-Scriptural."

It's not a crisis -- it's just the the lens through which a Protestant views the Bible.

The results of using that lens are crisis. For it leads the individual Christians always into disagreement.

SD

[pseudo-justin]

But all he gave were arguments....not proof.

In a later reply, you say that the difference between an argument an a proof is the "open-and -shut" character of a proof. Proof leaves no possibility of the opposite conclusion's being true, I take it. But how does this change what I was saying earlier, that in order to follow a proof, one needs to be a practitioner of a tradition of exegesis that cultivates the capacity to see the "open-and-shut" character of a proof? You say that you are no longer an apprentice, because now you are a pastor. But neither the Pope nor any good Bishop of the Catholic Church would say such a thing. You never graduate from a state of apprenticeship in understanding Scripture. Even the Pope is still an apprentice in reading Scripture aright, an apprentice of the saints, popes, councils, etc. who have gone before. Even the Bishops of the Catholic Church consider themselves beholden to other Christians who have gone before. You do not so consider yourself. You have "graduated" and are now no longer an apprentice in a tradition, you need no further instruction. I guess you know it all. I am not saying this to be rude or nasty, but it is an implication of your self-understanding. This leads to the second point. You say:

We consider them decisively authoritative OVER the church. You consider the Church decisively authoritative OVER the scripture.

It is just simply false to say that Catholics think of the Church as authoritative over Scripture. The Church is not authoritative over the Scripture (I'll take up the canonicity question below). It is authoritative over ME and MY UNDERSTANDING of Scripture. There is a tremendous difference. Without recognizing such a distinction between Scripture in itself and me and my understanding of Scripture, I would need to hold the following: Scripture means exactly what I think it means and nothing more and nothing less. Now, I do not know about you, but I find Scripture in itself to be rich, complex, baffling and an opening to an infinite mystery to us. I am not so self-overestimating of my current cognitive condition that I think the following to be true: If Scripture seems to me to say that A, then necessarily, Scripture says that A, and if it does not seem to me that Scripture says that A, then Scripture does not say that A. Rather, I honestly admit that there is, and always will be so long as I am in this body, more to understand of what Scripture is saying than I realize at any one point. I also admit that what I shall discover in the future can drastically alter how I think of the Scripture I currently think I understand. Finally, I do not think of myself as having some guarantee of tracking the Scriptural truth with perfect accuracy. If all believers had such a guarantee, why do some believers sometimes make mistakes in understanding Scripture. So the Church is authoritative over me and my understanding of Scripture, and not over Scripture itself. Rather, the Church uses Scripture to correct my and my understanding of Scripture,and the Church is in a position to do so because it has, prior to me, a right understanding of Scripture. That right understanding is embodied in the sacred tradition, which we believe also proceeds from the VERBUM DEI -- Jesus Christ. The Church uses Scripture to correct me, and correct my fellow believers. But the Church does not, and cannot, correct Scripture. That would be stupid.

Some Catholics may want to argue that the Church is authoritative over Scripture because the Church drew up the canon. But the Church's drawing up of the canon is the cause of my knowledge of the canon, it is not the cause of the texts of the canon being inspired. The Church selected those texts because they are inspired, it is not that they are inspired because the Church says so. However, when it comes to my knowledge of which texts are canonical, I know that theese texts are inspired because the Church says so. God is the cause of the inspiration, the Church is the cause of my knowledge that these are the inspired texts. That the Church is the cause of my knowledge does not imply that the Church has authority over the Scriptures, but only that it has authority over me and my understanding. I heed to this authority over me and my understanding for a cumulation of reasons. Here are two. First,I believe it to be the revealed truth that I should do so, and that in doing so, I shall come to know all the things I do not yet know, but want to know, especially about how to read Scripture aright, what Scripture really means in its infinite depths. Second, without heeding to this authority, I will end up, like Protestants, with a whole bundle of false dichotomies: either Scripture or tradition, either follow Christ or follow the Church, either faith or works, either justification or sanctification, either the Church is auhtoritative over Scripture or the Scriptures are authoritative over the Church. What I do, instead, is simulataneously affirm that these three -- Scripure, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterium -- are inseparble, mutually requiring each other for the sake of the perfect transmission of the whole VERBUM DEI to the human race, and therefore to me. Tear these three apart and the result is a never ending conflict about the very foundations of Christianity. This is what Protestants look like. There is disagreement in the Catholic Church about different doctrines, but it is disagreement constrained by and argued out in terms of shared standards (except in recent years when the Protestant mentality has taken root in teh Church and so damaged its unity). In Protestantism , there are shared beliefs, but the foundations themselves are permanently in question -- shot through with dilemma after dilemma where there need be no dilemma at all.

[Tantumergo]

"The scriptures (apostolic writings), on the other hand, have independent histories that can be traced.

I can demonstrate to you the histories of the apostle's writings."

Fine, please do - it would be interesting to see how far back you can go.

"And then it's a matter of who should be in charge: the apostles' proclamation or the people who interpret the apostles' proclamation."

How can the Apostles' proclamation be in charge - surely it was the Apostles who were in charge? They themselves would have been the people who interpreted their proclamation up until their deaths.

The critical question is whether they handed on the job of interpreting their proclamation to people who succeeded them or not.

P.S. On a serious tangent for the moment - I am doing a paper on Hebrews and as you no doubt know, the question of authorship is widely contested. I have heard that a major NT scholar has recently changed his position and now accepts Pauline authorship, but cannot find his justification for it. Do any of you chaps have any links or know of "conclusive proofs" for Paul's authorship?

[LibertyGirl77]

***the point is that Mary and the saints want to know you.***

We will know each other . . . in Heaven.

[OLD REGGIE]

"...They may have tossed a greater or lesser amount of tradition overboard, but clearly their roots are in Catholicism. "

Some of us wouldn't agree with this. Catholicisms roots are in the early Church. Protestantisms roots are in the early Church. Their paths diverged at various points in history, not all at once.

[Desdemona]

I have heard that a major NT scholar has recently changed his position and now accepts Pauline authorship, but cannot find his justification for it. Do any of you chaps have any links or know of "conclusive proofs" for Paul's authorship?

I don't have an answer, but if you do find one, please post it. Most interesting.

[pegleg]

Some of us wouldn't agree with this. Catholicisms roots are in the early Church. Protestantisms roots are in the early Church. Their paths diverged at various points in history, not all at once.

So when did these paths diverge and what is your source for this statement?

[LibertyGirl77]

***Are you sure you mean this? Most "Bible" Christians insist that Sola Scriptura is Biblical, not "extra-Scriptural."***

Well, "most" doesn't mean "all." I fully realize that I read the Word in the context of my faith. If someone were to convince me successfully that the Catholic Church was the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, then I would have to change my context. No one has convinced me yet.

***The results of using that lens are crisis. For it leads the individual Christians always into disagreement.***

"Always" is an exaggeration. And even in the Bible, the individual Christians disagreed often. Even Paul and Peter disagreed with one another.