R
RyanL
Guest
I’ve heard William Lane Craig deny transubstantiation, and he gave his reason. I’d say that’s critical of the Catholic position.
God Bless,
RyanL
- Status
God Bless,
RyanL
M
MrS
Guest
One time I did… and they were “doctored” and mis-represented…
'fool me once…shame on you…"
T
Tomster
Guest
Not only is it hard to convey the correct emotion through the written word it is hard to convey the correct interpretation of the Written Word. Thank goodness for the infallible magisterium of the Church!
M
MrS
Guest
…
R
Reformed1
Guest
If it existed (infallible magisterium) it would be handy wouldn’t it?
But if it exists and it only rules on a few issues or at least infallibly rules on a few issues, what good is it really?
R
runandsew
Guest
Well, the Catholic Church is still around after 2000 years.
So, my guess is that it does some good.
R
Reformed1
Guest
Judaism outdates even the 2,000 year mark and last I heard, they didn’t claim infallibility.
Seriously though, it is my understanding that only a handful of your beliefs have been infallibly defined. Is this correct?
If it is, how is it helpful to have an infallible magisterium that never infallibly delcares anything?
Also, how do you know for sure what is and what isn’t an infallible teaching?
M
MrS
Guest
The protection of the Holy Spirit (grace of infallibility to the Catholic Magisterium) comes into action when the ugly head of satan appears to attack the Truth.
You are correct… the Catholic Church has only seen fit to declare doctrine a handful of times… and will again if necessary for the benefit of all of mankind.
Each of the doctrines of Truth are not begun, not invented, not started… each is declared True and since Truth is unchanging and eternal… those doctrines state what is True for all men, in all ages, for all time… and that includes you.
Like it or not… if you claim to be christian, you are required to believe (not necessarily understand) these truths. You do not have the right to reject Truth without consequences.
T
Tomster
Guest
Christ’s teaching body must teach without error, for He set a terrible penalty upon lack of belief: “He who does not believe shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16) If one must either accept the doctrine of Christ or suffer damnation, that doctrine, unpolluted by false interpretation, must always be available. But if the authentic custodian of this doctrine should fall into error from time to time, men could never be sure they were receiving the real doctrine they are so heavily charged to believe. Furthermore, since revelation contains mysteries, which elude the understanding, and imposes precepts of conduct hard on human nature, the danger of doctrinal corruption is ever present. Modern philosophy, asserting that “truths” are only changing expressions of the aspirations of a given age, sees no problem here. But Christ says without compromise; “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Mark 13:31) Forseeing the danger to the purity of His doctrine, He forestalled it by promising that the Teaching Church would be safe from error. This infallibility does not mean that the Church will never make mistakes of policy or that individual bishops will never teach false doctrine, but that the sacres magistery cannot err when it acts in its official capacity as expounder of Christ’s doctrine.
The infallibility of the Church is clear from many sources: a) from the identification Christ makes between Himself and the Apostles - “He who hears you hears me”; b) from the assurance He gave them of success in their teaching - “I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world”; c) from His promise to send them the Holy Ghost - “I will ask the Father and he will give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever, the Spirit of truth.” (John 14:16-17) Because the Church is free from error, St. Paul calls it “the Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15) In summary, “the doctrine of faith, which God has revealed, has not been proposed to the human intelligence to be perfected like a philosophic system, but as a divine deposit has been entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly set forth.” (1st Vatican Council)
B
BrianH
Guest
That is a wonderful question. One of the things I find disconcerting about the Catholic view is that the requirements for salvation would be different in 100 AD than 2007. Because there is not a Catechism of the 2nd century or councils, we are debating ghosts of events long since gone.
We have the Bible but we are told there is more, but that MORE is rather hard to define.
T
Tomster
Guest
The concern of the Church is that its teaching be a faithful image of the Apostolic faith. The primitive catechesis was simple. It told the story of Christ’s life, gave an explanation of Christian morality and the rites of baptism, confirmation, and the Eucharist, taught the doctrines of the Trinity, salvation by Christ, the need of penance and faith in Christ, the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment. The Apostolic Church deemed this instruction enough to insure the Christian living and salvation of the new converts.
Since the Church today teaches many more dogmas, the question of the development of dogma arises. There is no development in the sense that the Church adds to the deposit of faith. Nor do the contents of dogmas change with the advance of learning, so that modern man must have a concept of God, revelation, redemption, the Incarnation, and the like which is different from that of medieval or ancient man. For the 1st Vatican Council condemns anyone who says that “on account of the progress of science a meaning must be given to the dogmas of the Church other than that which the Church has understood and understands.” The reason for the unchangeable character of dogmas lies in their divine origin: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Mark 13:31)
H
heisenburg
Guest
Call me simple… and call my explaination simple…
There is NO teaching either today or in the past in Faith or Morals by the magisterium that is False… Some diciplines may have changed, but that is merely the HOW of worship…
So, all teachings that were taught by those in 100 AD that dealt with faith and morals still exist today… no change… period…
If it had, that would mean that the gates of hell prevailed…
Not meant to be rude, jsut short on time and wanted to get that out…
In Christ
There is NO teaching either today or in the past in Faith or Morals by the magisterium that is False… Some diciplines may have changed, but that is merely the HOW of worship…
So, all teachings that were taught by those in 100 AD that dealt with faith and morals still exist today… no change… period…
If it had, that would mean that the gates of hell prevailed…
Not meant to be rude, jsut short on time and wanted to get that out…
In Christ
D
deb1
Guest
I’m sorry BrianH, I don’t see how you come to this conclusion. How does the Catholic view of salvation differ from the view of the church in 100 A.D? I don’t think that it does. I’m afraid though that I might derail the thread with this question, so could you start a new thread? This would be an interesting topic.
R
Redbandito
Guest
I have. I listened to both Pat Madrid and Robert Sungenis slaughter him. James is a great debater. He knows how to score points. Yet, this does not mean he is convincing. His arguments never really advance his point. In fact, James has actually had to settle for trying to bring Catholics down to his level. In other words, he doesn’t believe he has the fullness of truth, thus he wants to prove nobody else can either. It’s sad really.
R
Reformed1
Guest
He may have been referring to the fact that the RCC has added to what is necessary for salvation (not sure I said that right). For example, the RCC of 1200 did not need to believe in papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary.I’m sorry BrianH, I don’t see how you come to this conclusion. How does the Catholic view of salvation differ from the view of the church in 100 A.D? I don’t think that it does. I’m afraid though that I might derail the thread with this question, so could you start a new thread? This would be an interesting topic.
R
Reformed1
Guest
Which debate did Madrid “slaughter” him?
R
Redbandito
Guest
Dr. Hahn doesn’t debate. He fails to see the fruit in it. That’s firsthand.
R
Redbandito
Guest
How could they be? Protestantism by it’s very nature is “anti-Catholic.” It’s very existence depends on Catholicism being wrong, hence the name PROTESTantism. It is a protest of the Catholic Church, and therefore is inherently “anti-Catholic.” That does not mean that all Protestants are uncharitable. But they are all anti-Catholic, objectively speaking.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Please remain on topic as per the forum rules.
This thread has been pruned of all off topic posts and some have been edited.
This thread has been pruned of all off topic posts and some have been edited.
- Status