A compelling non-Catholic argument

[protestantman]

A person needs to have the guidance of an infallible teacher in order to do so - in order to know how to understand various confusing passages that are in the Bible.

The Holy Spirit does not normally guide individuals, though; He guides the Church as a whole. He can and does prod individuals in the right direction from time to time, but He expects us to look to the Church for guidance under ordinary circumstances. And yes, we should always pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance when we are reading the Scriptures, but having done so does not mean that every random thought that pops into our heads is coming from the Holy Spirit.

Not even the Pope is personally guided by the Holy Spirit, He, too, looks to the teachings of the Church.

Here jmcrae, I must say that you are absolutely wrong. The bible says that no one can gain spiritual truth without the Holy Spirit. Remember the Holy Spirit is in complete unison with the Father and the Son. So if the Pope is not personally guided by the Holy Spirit, then nothng he says is of any spiritual value. again I’ll post this scripture, as it is a point that cannot be argued.

6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written:
“No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him”— 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:
16"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"[d] But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

So catholics believe that ALL men have the ability to willingly turn from God?

Yes. Including the Pope. This has happened in the past. It is possible that there are Popes in Hell. The Pope cannot, however, ever cause his errors to become Doctrine in the Church. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from this ever happening. The teaching of the Church is infallible, and the Pope is rendered incapable of promulgating error, by the Holy Spirit.

 

[protestantman]

protestantman, you mentioned faith and works as two things people might see as contradicting. Not true, the Catholic and I believe the Orthodox have always held these two together.

The contradicions I speak of in protestantism are truly indeed contradicions.

Some denominations don’t believe in infant baptism, some do. There is no middle ground here. Either you do it or you don’t.

Some believe you can lose salvation, some say you can never lose it. Again no middle ground.

Some believe in the prescence in the Eucharist, some say it is just bread and water. No middle ground.

The Holy Spirit could not have possibly led each denomination to these doctrinces since they blatantly contradict eachother.

The Church has the Holy Spirit guiding it as Christ promised it would. No where does Christ even mention anything remotely similar to sola scriptura, but He does mention a Church with authority to bind and loose.

Haha One man blows on a bowl of soup to cool it down, and one blows on his hands to warm them up. Does blowing on something cool it or heat it? Remember Hot and Cold are oppsites, so no middle ground, you must choose one or the other. Since they contradict, then one must be false.

Your argument is of the same nature as this rediculous question. One must have absolute knowledge of God to undestand how two sides of a “no middle ground” argument are equally true. The Bible says that only the Spirit knows these things. So instead of trusting the scriptures, you say that one verse must be wrong, so that you do not have to examine your beliefs.

 

[jmcrae]

Here jmcrae, I must say that you are absolutely wrong. The bible says that no one can gain spiritual truth without the Holy Spirit. Remember the Holy Spirit is in complete unison with the Father and the Son. So if the Pope is not personally guided by the Holy Spirit, then nothng he says is of any spiritual value. again I’ll post this scripture, as it is a point that cannot be argued.

The Holy Spirit guides all of us through the Church. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself; He cannot teach you one thing, and me the opposite thing. We are not on individual journeys; we are journeying on the same journey.

***We ***do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age,

Notice “we”. Not “I.” He is not claiming personal guidance from the Holy Spirit, but rather, that the Holy Spirit is guiding the whole Church.

 

[protestantman]

Yes. Including the Pope. This has happened in the past. It is possible that there are Popes in Hell. The Pope cannot, however, ever cause his errors to become Doctrine in the Church. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from this ever happening. The teaching of the Church is infallible, and the Pope is rendered incapable of promulgating error, by the Holy Spirit.

If the Pope turns from God, then how could he continue to speak infalably?

 

[jmcrae]

Haha One man blows on a bowl of soup to cool it down, and one blows on his hands to warm them up. Does blowing on something cool it or heat it? Remember Hot and Cold are oppsites, so no middle ground, you must choose one or the other. Since they contradict, then one must be false.

Your argument is of the same nature as this rediculous question. One must have absolute knowledge of God to undestand how two sides of a “no middle ground” argument are equally true. The Bible says that only the Spirit knows these things. So instead of trusting the scriptures, you say that one verse must be wrong, so that you do not have to examine your beliefs.

He isn’t saying that any verse of the Bible is wrong (this is impossible) - he is saying that only one Protestant can be right, since they all teach different and opposite doctrines.

This is not about blowing on soup or hands to bring them to body temperature; if baptizing a baby sends it to Hell, then baptizing a baby cannot send it to Heaven; these are opposite things. One is true and the other is false. (Or else show how both can be true at the same time for the same baby.)

 

[Orionthehunter]

So catholics believe that ALL men have the ability to willingly turn from God?

Is the pope a man?

Yes the Pope is a man and he can choose to turn from God. However, the Church teaches that he is given special graces to fend off Satan to make this unlikely. However, if he were ever to do so, he would be excommunicated. There is a process under which the Magisterium does this. I looked for it on the internet but can’t find it. Hard to find since it has yet to have been done.

In anticipation of your next point, the evidence that we have of that no Pope has ever taught incorrectly is that no infallible teaching of a Pope has been declared to not be consistent with prior teachings.

The evidence of these special graces is that even Pope’s known to have been serious sinners in their private matters never issued an teaching “in the Chair of Peter” that hasn’t stood the test of time as being consistent with all previous and subsequent teachings.

If the Pope turns from God, then how could he continue to speak infalably?

The special graces that I mentioned above. This is where the distinction from infallibility and impeccability comes into play. We don’t think that the “ex cathedra” or “in the Chair of Peter” Doctrines or Dogmas have anything to do with the Holiness of the Pope but the from the perfectness of the Holy Spirit.

I know this concept is hard to grasp and I may be doing a bad job of explaining it. It first begins with Faith. God can and does things in ways that we can’t fully understand. We just take Him very seriously when Christ said He is building His Church on Peter upon which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail and Paul said it is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

From Just4asking: How would a catholic know if he is “perfectly unified with the Holy Church”? What does he need to know to be in this condition?

I think the term you are looking for is “full communion.” If this is what you are looking for, it means that we assent to the Church’s authority as the ordained holder of the Full Deposit of Faith and that we have no grave sin on our soul.

From Just4asking: Do you agree then with the pope that protestant churches are not really churches but “ecclesiastical communities”?

This is not a view of the Pope. The Catholic Church believes that it is the Church of Christ. Any Christian community outside the one Church is not a church.

From Just4asking: Do you agree then that a protestant pastor-teacher can interpret some things correctly without the guidance of the pope and magesterium?

Of course. There is much in the teachings throughout all the Christian denominations that we acknowledge have Truth in them. We just believe it is not complete.

Furthermore, the only parts of Scripture that the Church “interprets” directly are those that speak to Doctrine or Dogma.

The Church interprets indirectly only in the negative most of the rest Scripture. What I mean by “in the negative” is if the interpretation conflicts with a declared interpretation, the interpretation is incorrect. For example, if someone interprets a verse to claim that Jesus is not God, this is incorrect.

 

[justasking4]

Orionthehunter;3398401]
Quote:
Originally Posted by protestantman
So catholics believe that ALL men have the ability to willingly turn from God?

Quote:
Originally Posted by protestantman
Is the pope a man?

Orionthehunter
Yes the Pope is a man and he can choose to turn from God. However, the Church teaches that he is given special graces to fend off Satan to make this unlikely. However, if he were ever to do so, he would be excommunicated. There is a process under which the Magisterium does this. I looked for it on the internet but can’t find it. Hard to find since it has yet to have been done.

In anticipation of your next point, the evidence that we have of that no Pope has ever taught incorrectly is that no infallible teaching of a Pope has been declared to not be consistent with prior teachings.

The evidence of these special graces is that even Pope’s known to have been serious sinners in their private matters never issued an teaching “in the Chair of Peter” that hasn’t stood the test of time as being consistent with all previous and subsequent teachings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by protestantman
If the Pope turns from God, then how could he continue to speak infalably?

The special graces that I mentioned above. This is where the distinction from infallibility and impeccability comes into play. We don’t think that the “ex cathedra” or “in the Chair of Peter” Doctrines or Dogmas have anything to do with the Holiness of the Pope but the from the perfectness of the Holy Spirit.

I know this concept is hard to grasp and I may be doing a bad job of explaining it. It first begins with Faith. God can and does things in ways that we can’t fully understand. We just take Him very seriously when Christ said He is building His Church on Peter upon which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail and Paul said it is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

If what you say is true i.e. “the Church teaches that he is given special graces to fend off Satan to make this unlikely” then what of these examples of bad popes–???

The Bad Popes is a 1986 book by E. R. Chamberlin documenting the lives of eight of the most controversial popes (papal years in parentheses):
Pope Stephen VI (896-897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber[1]
Pope John XII (937-964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032-1044,1045,1047-1048), who “sold” the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), who is lampooned in Dante’s Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378-1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), a Borja, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513-1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), also a Medici, whose power-politiking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

How could this be if the popes were protected?

 

[zemi]

If what you say is true i.e. “the Church teaches that he is given special graces to fend off Satan to make this unlikely” then what of these examples of bad popes–???

The Bad Popes is a 1986 book by E. R. Chamberlin documenting the lives of eight of the most controversial popes (papal years in parentheses):
Pope Stephen VI (896-897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber[1]
Pope John XII (937-964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032-1044,1045,1047-1048), who “sold” the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), who is lampooned in Dante’s Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378-1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), a Borja, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513-1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), also a Medici, whose power-politiking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

How could this be if the popes were protected?

Hm, I just wonder why that author didn’t write about Alexander VI or Sixtus IV if he was to describe the bad popes.

And “Borja” is incorrect. It should be “Borgia”.

The Popes are sinners just as me, you or the Apostle Peter. The Catholic position is that the passages in Is 22:20-22, Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18 refer to the infallibility of the Church’s teaching, not to individual members’ impeccability.

 

[ni8_shadow]

Is the Holy Spirit guiding those churches that have it right though? Is the Holy Spirit guiding those churches that believe you can lose your salvation, infant baptism or belief in the prescence in the Eucharist?

If by “those churches” you mean the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church…then yes.

 

[protestantman]

Hm, I just wonder why that author didn’t write about Alexander VI or Sixtus IV if he was to describe the bad popes.

And “Borja” is incorrect. It should be “Borgia”.

The Popes are sinners just as me, you or the Apostle Peter. The Catholic position is that the passages in Is 22:20-22, Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18 refer to the infallibility of the Church’s teaching, not to individual members’ impeccability.

If you truly understood Gods nature, you would understand that this is impossible. God would never allow anyone who has fallen into sin to speak truth. No one. If that were the case, then elect a mass murderer as pope. or a Rapist. This is rediculous. You are giving God characteristics that he cannot have. God took Moses life, because he got angry. It was a simple act that he commited, but because of the position and authority God gave him, the Punishment was severe. So God would sooner take the sinfull Pope’s life then to continue to let him speak the word of God unchecked. Christ is the head of the church. He is the only man that has ever and will ever be infallable. You are basing all your faith on one mans interpretation of Matthew 16:18. I base my faith on the entire word of God. When Christ said “on this rock” he could have been talking about himself. And for all the Aramaic Kephas fans, The scripture of Matthew was origionally written in Greek. This means that it was Petros and Petra before it was kephas. Regardless of whether or not Christ spoke Aramaic, it was still written in Greek. So the most acurate translation comes from the Greek meaning. If the churches interpretation of this scripture is in fact wrong, then what? And you cant say that it is an infallable teaching, because that argument is dependant on the answer to this one. Do you really believe that your interpretation is the ONLY one that is possible? The fact that you say that the Pope could turn from God and still maintain sound teaching, is absolutely unbiblical. I warn you that there is SEVERE consequences for altering scripture.

 

[protestantman]

I find it interesting that in any contradiction between my belief and yours, that you dont even except the possibility that you could be wrong. Would you call that proud? I would. Who are you to think you could know all the wisdom of God?

 

[ni8_shadow]

It is not that WE think we know the absolute truth…it is that we know that the Church instituted by Christ with binding authority knows and proclaims the truth…we just learn and believe…since the penalty for no tlistening “even to the Church…” is very bad.

 

[protestantman]

It is not that WE think we know the absolute truth…it is that we know that the Church instituted by Christ with binding authority knows and proclaims the truth…we just learn and believe…since the penalty for no tlistening “even to the Church…” is very bad.

Your salvation is not based on whether or no you believe the church. Your salvation is based on whether you believe in Christ.
Christ trumps the Church, because he is the head.

 

[wanner47]

Your salvation is not based on whether or no you believe the church. Your salvation is based on whether you believe in Christ.
Christ trumps the Church, because he is the head.

Christ doesn’t trump the Church. Christ IS the Church. You can’t believe in one and not the other.

 

[CentralFLJames]

You did not answer my questions about Judas, or Pharoh. They did not have a choice. The scripture is very clear on that. So where was their free will?
You obviously need to research the word Sovereign. Gods will is incapable of contradicting his divine nature.

If Pharaoh did not have a choice why did God send the plagues to get him to change his mind and release the Jews? Eventually Pharaoh changed his mind when his first born son was killed by God. Judas too had a choice. He chose to follow Jesus and then chose to betray him. He then chose to kill himself.

Are you suggesting here that you are infallible and in fact have taken God’s seat to judge and condemn these two men to eternal hell? I agree they seem to have committed some grave sins. But only God know for sure if He condemned them to hell or not. Or are you suggesting a new Protestant definition for the word “sovereign” that puts the power of judgement to the people in the pews in the same manner the revolution declared them infallible through a self teaching scripture?

James

 

[Kolbe300]

God would never allow anyone who has fallen into sin to speak truth. No one.

Huh? So a fallen sinner would not be physically capable of declaring that his only hope for salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ? If this were true no sinner could ever admit to being a sinner.

You are basing all your faith on one mans interpretation of Matthew 16:18.

No, Catholics base their faith on countless men who, over a 2000 year period, interpreted Matthew that way.

I base my faith on the entire word of God.

You base your faith on your interpretation of the entire word of God. Your interpretation just happens to be one of many.

Regardless of whether or not Christ spoke Aramaic, it was still written in Greek.

The actual word Jesus used doesn’t matter?

If the churches interpretation of this scripture is in fact wrong, then what?

If Jesus is the head of the Church, then it would mean Jesus is wrong. That is something I highly doubt. I’ll pose the same question to you: If your personal interpretation is wrong, then what?

Do you really believe that your interpretation is the ONLY one that is possible?

How could Catholics possibly believe that? There are countless biblical interpretations floating around out there. I think Catholics believe that the Church’s interpretation is the correct one rather than the only one. The history of Christianity has a tendency to support that claim.

The fact that you say that the Pope could turn from God and still maintain sound teaching, is absolutely unbiblical.

“Do as they say, not as they do.” I think I read that somewhere.

I warn you that there is SEVERE consequences for altering scripture.

If that isn’t true I don’t know what is! Amen to that!

Peace!

 

[pneuma07]

When Christ said “on this rock” he could have been talking about himself. … Do you really believe that your interpretation is the ONLY one that is possible? .

Hi Protestantman !

I agree with you. The interpretation you mention is possible. It appears it was introduced by St. Augustine.
Let’s read these words of his from Sermon 26 together:

"*The Gospel which has just been read touching the Lord Christ, who walked on the waters of the sea; and the Apostle Peter, who as he was walking, tottered through fear, and sinking in distrust, rose again by confession, gives us to understand that the sea is the present world, and the Apostle Peter the type of the One Church. For Peter in the order of Apostles first, and in the love of Christ most forward, answers oftentimes alone for all the rest. Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but My Father which is in heaven.” Then He added, “and I say unto you.” As if He had said, “Because you have said unto Me, ‘You are the Christ the Son of the living God;’ I also say unto you, ‘You are Peter.’” For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atemi
we can analyze this:

"For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.
(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VI, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).
…

For men who wished to be built upon men, said, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,” who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, “But I am of Christ.” And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.

1. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced “blessed,” bearing the figure of the Church, holding the chief place in the Apostleship, a very little while after that he had heard that he was “blessed,” a very little while after that he had heard that he was “Peter,” a very little while after that he had heard that he was to be “built upon the Rock,” displeased the Lord…
2. …Yet see this Peter, who was then our figure; now he trusts, and now he totters; now he confesses the Undying, and now he fears lest He should die. Wherefore? because the Church of Christ has both strong and weak ones; and cannot be without either strong or weak; whence the Apostle Paul says, “Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.” In that Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” he represents the strong: but in that he totters, and would not that Christ should suffer, in fearing death for Him, and not acknowledging the Life, he represents the weak ones of the Church. In that one Apostle then, that is, Peter, in the order of Apostles first and chiefest, in whom the Church was figured, both sorts were to be represented, that is, both the strong and weak; because the Church does not exist without them both."*

Now you have the context of this frequent quotation, and we can see that:

• in teaching that Christ is to be considered the Petra and Petros is so called from Christ, and built on Christ ( which is beautiful BTW, IMHO)
• in teaching that Peter is the type of the One Church (same as above, IMHO) …
  Augustine teaches us petrine primacy. Repeatedly and clearly.
  And teaches that it is a primacy in love. And that it is a very real primacy, not just a matter of place of honor. “Chief place” of New Advent translates “principatus”. This is a strong word for a primacy. It can look like “rule”.

Many people, quoting out of context the central passage, suppose and let suppose that this sermon by Augustine …disproves petrine primacy !

I hope, therefore, that this contextualization can be useful to understand several things.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I warn you that there is SEVERE consequences for altering scripture.

Indeed. There are everlasting consequences in hell for those who rebel against Jesus’ Church and His authority and His commandments (e.g. Eat my Body) and for those who alter scripture by removing sacred books from the bible and through teaching false doctrine.

James

 

[savedsinner]

If what you say is true i.e. “the Church teaches that he is given special graces to fend off Satan to make this unlikely” then what of these examples of bad popes–???

The Bad Popes is a 1986 book by E. R. Chamberlin documenting the lives of eight of the most controversial popes (papal years in parentheses):
Pope Stephen VI (896-897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber[1]
Pope John XII (937-964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032-1044,1045,1047-1048), who “sold” the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), who is lampooned in Dante’s Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378-1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), a Borja, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513-1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), also a Medici, whose power-politiking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

How could this be if the popes were protected?

They are protected from teaching errors in faith and morals when teaching from the chair, that is ex cathedra.

They are not protected from sinning.