A compelling non-Catholic argument

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3419920]I Corinthians 2 teaches us that the Church (not the individual) is led by the Holy Spirit, and that we must listen to the Church in order to be able to hear the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides individuals insofar as they allow themselves to be guided by the Church.

I’m confused here. First you say the individual is not led by the HS and then you say he is. Which is it?

But, if individuals could be guided by the Holy Spirit without being in accord with the Church, then why would St. Paul, a representative of the Church, bother to write to them and correct their errors? If he thought that the Holy Spirit could do it directly.

Not sure i understand you here. When was alive and establishing the churches was he in accord with the “church”? What church was guiding him?

 

[Teflon93]

Are you saying here that the Pharisees did not teach error? If that is what you mean that would run counter to what we find in Matthew 15:1-14. The Pharisees taught a lot of error.

Actually, Christ commanded listening to what the Pharisees said (their teaching was sound), but not doing as they did.

The trouble with the Pharisees was their lack of charity, not their lack of knowledge.

 

[Teflon93]

Is there anyone in the catholic church that knows all the teachings of the catholic church for the past 2000 years? Do you?

Yes. Read the Catechism. Read the Bible (all of it). Attend Mass. Go to Confession.

What else do you think you need to know?

 

[protestantman]

Yes you do. You assume that your understanding of Scripture is Truth. As you can see, this prism of assumption impacts your very interpretation of Scripture. If you are right, it is good. If you are wrong, the consequences may be grave.

So you still judge my motives? What drives my faith? What are my intentions when I pray? Can you answer these questions? If not, than you cannot answer as you have above. By the way, none of you seem to truly understand what I believe. When I attempt to explain, your preconcieved notions of my faith are aparent in your responses. Your assumption that I assume that my understanding of Scripture, is False.

Sometimes reference to church is the assembly of believers but sometimes it is the Rock. Depends upon context. To get the correct interpretation, you must be sure to have the correct context. To what are you referring to above?

The Bible does not specifically refer to the assembly of believers as THE CHURCH. Where do you get that interpritation?

But your implication was that Authority is a new invention. It is embedded in Scripture as we have been discussing about 1 Cor.

Again you are wrong. This is not my implication.

How do you know that the clarification is from the Holy Spirit

Through prayer and meditation of the word. I have been a Christian for a long time, and as one of Gods sheep, I know his voice.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3421110]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Are you saying here that the Pharisees did not teach error? If that is what you mean that would run counter to what we find in Matthew 15:1-14. The Pharisees taught a lot of error.

jmcrae
They didn’t teach error in their official proclamations (since all they really did there was repeat the teachings of Moses).

However, in their private advices to the people, they led them astray by trying to get away with as least as possible according to the letter of the law, rather than looking behind the law to the reason for its existence, and interpreting it and following it in light of what it is supposed to accomplish.

This is why I say that the problem with the Pharisees was not that they were too legalistic, but rather, that they weren’t legalistic enough - they only wanted to do the bare minimum.

Let me encourage you to read this from Matthew 15.

Then some Pharisees and scribes *came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
2 “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.
”3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 “For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.
’5 “But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,
”6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7 “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
8 ‘This people honors Me with their lips,But their heart is far away from Me.
9 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’

Is Jesus rebuking the Pharisees here for teaching falsely about the commandments of God?

 

[jmcrae]

I’m confused here. First you say the individual is not led by the HS and then you say he is. Which is it?

When an individual is incorporated into the Catholic Church, he receives the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, and he is led and guided by the Holy Spirit, insofar as he is faithful to the Church.

But an individual who is outside of the Church due to rebellion against it does not have the Holy Spirit.

Not sure i understand you here. When was alive and establishing the churches was he in accord with the “church”?

Absolutely. He was considered an Apostle, and he was teaching and evangelizing on behalf of the Church; not of his own accord.

What church was guiding him?

Christ’s Church, which was founded upon Peter. The Apostles taught him everything he needed to know, and commanded him what to do. He wasn’t a “lone ranger” off on his own, doin’ his own thang, so to speak - he was under the authority of the Church, and in full communion with the Apostles.

 

[protestantman]

You are proving our point. Paul was a man with fallible impulses, reasoning, etc. But he what he was saying was not from him but from Christ. This is exactly what the Catholic Church does.

I am also proving my point just as much. Although Paul never stated that his teaching was infallible, the Pope chooses to do the opposite. Why did Paul come with fear and trembling?

Bolded: How has it changed? The Catholic Church knows of no way.

The clarification of this doctrine has changed. This is according to other catholics here.

Underlined: Do you not think it might be because in your fallible nature, you have not discerned the contradiction?

Absolutely. THe road to truth will not end until I am face to face with Christ.

Purple Color: We are trying to discover if it is our obstacles to understand what you are saying or to expose to you that you have a contradiction.

Well so far your remarks point to a missunderstanding of my context.

We have done so and I believe that you have not properly interpreted expecially since you seem to ignore the points that I’ve raised.

I have not ignored points, I am answering many posts in a short amount of time, so it is difficult to address every point.

You think it fallible only because you reject the infallibility of the Church on matters of Teaching and reject it as a teaching institution. Please keep in mind that by your own admission you may be fallibly misinterpreting which means that you may hold this position in error.

Here you are correct. I would not disagree with a word.

But, he was claiming that by his office in the Church that he had this guidance. Since he is admonishing the faithful, it is clear that he doesn’t believe they hold this guidance to which they can absolutely cling. They are told to look to him (the Church ). Here is a great example of Church not being the collection of believers as Truth is not a democracy but God Himself.

That is an arguable interpretation. Note that he said we (most likely meaning the Apostles), and not the church.

Your colored section is correct but it does not negate that the Spiritual Man is subject to the Church’s as Paul points out in this very Chapter.

Where does it say that a spiritual man is subject to the Church. I believe verse 15 says the opposite.
15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:

I know that your obstacle is related to your interpretation that the Church is an insitution of man. But as I said above, "Please keep in mind that by your own admission you may be fallibly misinterpreting which means that you may hold this position in error. "

 

[jmcrae]

What exactly did the "Apostles defined with clarity what one must believe in order to be considered a “Christian”?

It’s called The Apostles’ Creed.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3421179]
Quote:justasking4
Not sure i understand you here. When was alive and establishing the churches was he in accord with the “church”?

jmcrae
Absolutely. He was considered an Apostle, and he was teaching and evangelizing on behalf of the Church; not of his own accord.

Was he referring to any church authority above him for his authority to do what he was doing?

Quote:justasking4
What church was guiding him?

jmcrae
Christ’s Church, which was founded upon Peter. The Apostles taught him everything he needed to know, and commanded him what to do.

This is not entirely correct. Paul got the message of the gospel directly from Christ and not any man.
Is there any reference in Paul’ letters that he appeals or mentions that Peter himself is the foundation of the church?

He wasn’t a “lone ranger” off on his own, doin’ his own thang, so to speak - he was under the authority of the Church, and in full communion with the Apostles.

Paul was part of the leadership of the church and was not really “under” any man. He always derived his authority directly from Christ and not the other apostles.

 

[protestantman]

Hi P-man -

I think you have to differentiate between the Holy Spirit and the human in which He dwells. (1 Cor 6:12-20)

The Spirit is infallable, the human isn’t.

The Bible tells us that we are ALL sinners, so there isn’t a scenario where there is perfect Spirit dwelling in perfect man. Paul admonishes us in the above passage to practice morality. That admonishion is an admission of imperfection, otherwise he wouldn’t need to have said it.

Is the Pope infallible? Yes, of course he is. But you are looking at this wrongly.

The Pope is the chief PASTOR of the Catholic Church, as well as administrator. Does your church have a pastor? I assume so. Is he fallible? Again I assume so. Does he produce good or bad fruit? I assume that it is good, otherwise you wouldn’t accept him as pastor. Has he sinned? Anyone who says that they do not sin deceives themselves (1 John 1:8). Is the Holy Spirit working in your pastor?

How does the Holy Spirit work in someone who is living in sin? Well, that’s up to the Spirit, now isn’t it. Everyone is in sin, everyone. What is the fruit they produce? As far as the Pope is concerned, have you ever really looked at the fruit he produces?

Read one piece of fruit, the encyclical Deus Caritas Est. See what he produces as fruit and then decide.

Of course when a person turns from God there is a consequence. But the Spirit can work in whomever He pleases. Moses was a murderer. Paul (Saul) persecuted Christians. Peter turned away from Christ just when He needed him most. But we all know that God worked through these men, as sinful as they were.

Subrosa

Moses was a murderer? Not sure I am following this one.

Saul did not teach while he was persecuting Christians. Thus this point has nothing to do with the question. Saul turned from his sin and thus his name was changed to Paul. After this he no longer persecuted christians.

Again, this was before he began his teachings. He was not yet an Apostle either. So again, this is irrelevant to the question.

 

[jmcrae]

Paul was part of the leadership of the church and was not really “under” any man. He always derived his authority directly from Christ and not the other apostles.

The Apostles, under the leadership of Peter, held authority together. They weren’t all off in all different directions, preaching different gospels. They were all teaching exactly the same things.

The authority of the Church obviously comes from Christ; it is Christ who founded it.

 

[jmcrae]

Moses was a murderer? Not sure I am following this one.

The reason that Moses was banished from Egypt is that he murdered an overseer of the slaves. (Do you people not watch Prince of Egypt, or Veggie Tales? )

 

[Orionthehunter]

Protestantman: So you still judge my motives? What drives my faith? What are my intentions when I pray? Can you answer these questions? If not, than you cannot answer as you have above. By the way, none of you seem to truly understand what I believe. When I attempt to explain, your preconcieved notions of my faith are aparent in your responses. Your assumption that I assume that my understanding of Scripture, is False.

You are totally missing my point. I am not judging your motives or your faith. I know that your motives and intentions are all meritorious.

I’m just taking issue with the idea that you view things without being impacted by a prism that is in some regards your own creation. This is something that we all do and we must understand it in self-knowlege.

You are not a clean slate. No matter the situation you bring your assumptions, prejudices, knowledge and experiences to everything you do. I do it too.
To the extent your assumptions are correct, you will have a clearer capacity to see clearly. To the extent your assumptions are incorrect, the “sludge” impedes your vision. To the extent your prejudices (context is not that this word is de facto a negative) are correct, they aid you in seeing clearly. To the extent they are false, they are an impediment. The same applies to experiences and knowledge.

From Protestantman: The Bible does not specifically refer to the assembly of believers as THE CHURCH. Where do you get that interpritation?

I guess I took this as your view.

The Church is anyone who believes in the Bible. The church is not a teaching institution, it is a fellowship of believers. The Bible is the source for teaching.

From Protestantman: Again you are wrong. This is not my implication.

I accept that was not your intention. However, when you assert that the Church’s claim of Authority because of change, there appears to be an implication that is new and thus man-made as you assert.

From Protestantman: Through prayer and meditation of the word. I have been a Christian for a long time, and as one of Gods sheep, I know his voice.

We all pray that we recognize not only His voice but what he is saying. As I tried to say above, our assumptions, experiences etc. are all impediments that affect you and me both in properly interpreting what He is saying. For this reason, we can never be absolutely sure that we hear Him correctly which means you can never be sure that your interpretation is infallible. Just as you misunderstood what I was saying at the top, you and I both may believe something is “infallible” when our own “sludge” created an impediment.

 

[protestantman]

They didn’t teach error in their official proclamations (since all they really did there was repeat the teachings of Moses).

However, in their private advices to the people, they led them astray by trying to get away with as least as possible according to the letter of the law, rather than looking behind the law to the reason for its existence, and interpreting it and following it in light of what it is supposed to accomplish.

This is why I say that the problem with the Pharisees was not that they were too legalistic, but rather, that they weren’t legalistic enough - they only wanted to do the bare minimum.

Then why did Jesus accuse them of making the Law a burden that no man can carry?

 

[protestantman]

Absolutely. He was considered an Apostle, and he was teaching and evangelizing on behalf of the Church; not of his own accord.

.

Not for 14 years.

 

[protestantman]

The reason that Moses was banished from Egypt is that he murdered an overseer of the slaves. (Do you people not watch Prince of Egypt, or Veggie Tales? )

Okay. It has been a little while since I had read that, thank you. Also note, that this was before he was called. Thus, along with the others it is irrelevant to the current question.

I LOVE VEGGIE TALES

 

[Teflon93]

So you still judge my motives? What drives my faith? What are my intentions when I pray? Can you answer these questions? If not, than you cannot answer as you have above. By the way, none of you seem to truly understand what I believe. When I attempt to explain, your preconcieved notions of my faith are aparent in your responses. Your assumption that I assume that my understanding of Scripture, is False.

How is pointing out you operate from assumptions questioning your motives?

Is it serendipity that your arguments thus far are no different than the other anti-Catholic arguments we see here day in, day out?

I haven’t seen anything novel yet. Same old, same old, and argued from the usual Protestant assumptions. If you live in the States, this is no surprise. Even atheists absorb Protestant assumptions from the culture around them.

Go to Rome or Moscow or Medina or Tel Aviv for an extended period of time and your assumptions will likely change.

 

[jmcrae]

Not for 14 years.

He was initiated into the Church the same day that he was struck blind. He didn’t join with the Apostles directly for 14 years, but he was certainly part of the Church, and being taught by the Church.

(Kind of like how I haven’t met the Pope yet, but I’ve been evangelizing for the Church for nearly seven years, now.)

 

[protestantman]

We all pray that we recognize not only His voice but what he is saying. As I tried to say above, our assumptions, experiences etc. are all impediments that affect you and me both in properly interpreting what He is saying. For this reason, we can never be absolutely sure that we hear Him correctly which means you can never be sure that your interpretation is infallible. Just as you misunderstood what I was saying at the top, you and I both may believe something is “infallible” when our own “sludge” created an impediment.

This is why Paul came to the Corinthisan with Fear and Trembling.
This is also why Paul made the claim that he did not even judge himself.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Protestantman: I am also proving my point just as much. Although Paul never stated that his teaching was infallible, the Pope chooses to do the opposite. Why did Paul come with fear and trembling?

1 Cor. 2:1-8 sure looks like he was speaking not of his own accord but from Christ (which means infallible)

When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God, I did not come with sublimity of words or of wisdom. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear and much trembling, and my message and my proclamation were not with persuasive (words of) wisdom, but with a demonstration of spirit and power, so that your faith might rest not on **human **wisdom but on the power of God. Yet we do speak a wisdom to those who are mature, but not a wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away. Rather, we speak God’s wisdom, mysterious, hidden, which God predetermined before the ages for our glory, and which none of the rulers of this age knew; for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

From Protestman: The clarification of this doctrine has changed. This is according to other catholics here.

You are misunderstanding Catholic vernacular. While our understanding may have grown, the Teaching has always been the same.

From Protestantman: Well so far your remarks point to a missunderstanding of my context.

Which is why we keep asking the question. How can we understand you if you won’t help us with our misunderstanding?

I have not ignored points, I am answering many posts in a short amount of time, so it is difficult to address every point.

from Protestantman: That is an arguable interpretation. Note that he said we (most likely meaning the Apostles), and not the church.

We don’t see a distinction in those ordained by God to speak for the Church and the Church itself. Keep in mind the principle of Apostolic Succession that we believe exists in our Bishops.

From Protestantman: Where does it say that a spiritual man is subject to the Church. I believe verse 15 says the opposite.
15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:

Again, if there is no distinction between the Church and Christ, there is no distinction between being subject to them both.

This is an example of each bringing a different prism/assumption to the discussion. If the Catholic Church is correct, it has profound implications on all of your interpretations.