V
vern_humphrey
Guest
That is absolutely false. The actual quote is posted below so all can read it.
Vern Humphrey:
- Status
Vern Humphrey:
S
st_felicity
Guest
Whatever you say michaelp–I forgot you were your own bishop…
YES–bogus is a good word for it.
S
st_felicity
Guest
Whatever you say michaelp–I forgot you were your own bishop…
YES–bogus is a good word for it.
Why does this U2 song keep coming to mind when I think of michaelp…?
***I have spoke with the tongue of angels
I have held the hand of a devil
It was warm in the night
I was cold as a stone
But I still haven’t found what I’m looking for
M
michaelp
Guest
It is the only term that I know to use. If I were to use Catholic, this would assume that I don’t seem myself as a Catholic. To put the word Roman in front of it qualifies what type of Catholic you are. This is common among Protestant historians.
But for you Vern, I will try to remember!
Exactly, all of which need to be interpreted. Do you think that there is universal agreement about everything that the Catholic church teaches? If not, why are there so many different interpretations?
But if there is a question concerning the interpretation of an “infallible” teaching, they cannot speak with infallibility since they would be speaking alone. Therefore, unless the person can pose this question to the Pope or call a council, he or she is out of luck when if comes to getting an infallible answer–authoritative, yes (we have that as well); infallible, no.
Who cannot speak infallibly alone. It is the same thing with Evangelicals. When there is a question about the interpretation of the Scripture, go to to the Bishop/Pastor. Authoritative, yes; infallible, no. Same as you.
Vern, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
Vern, it is unecessary to accuse me of willful deception. I am very serious. Unless you are infallible, give me the benifit of the doubt. People can disagree with you and not be accused of willfull ignorance, can’t they.
No but it is lived out by the intergration of the beliefs by laymen. And there are many differening interpretations as to how this is done.
How about this one concerning Evangelicals:
“If someone who claims to be Evangelical gives you information that is not in accord with the teachings of Scripture, that person is not speaking for God”?
Would that work?
Thanks again for you time.
Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
No, this won’t work since you have three:
- You (subjective interpretation of bishopes and Scripture)
- bishops (objective interpretation of Tradition and Scripture)
- Scripture (objective interpretation of God)
- Individual (subjective interpretation of Scripture)
- Scripture (objective interpretation of God).
But, again, this serves to show that we are really in the same place.
M
michaelp
Guest
I don’t understand. His quote proves my point exactly. Even if he recants this quote it is still true. Why do Catholics disagree? Because someone is looking at it wrongly. Why do Protestants disagree? Because someone is looking at it wrongly.
Why? Because we are “less than perfect.”
Oh, well. This is beating a dead horse. Let’s just agree to disagree, eh?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Michael, quit pretending that Catholic doctrine is established by debates among lay persons.
If the Catholic Bishops are not in accord, the Church has no doctrine on that matter. It’s that simple.
No. You can play silly buggers all you like, but Catholic doctrine is not established by lay persons.
If you have a problem with an issue of Catholic doctrine, the Bishop will tell you what the teaching of the Bishops is, world-wide. If there is no consensus, he will tell you that.
Honest disagreement is one thing. Misrepresenting my words and continually misrepresenting the doctrine and constitution of the Church is another thing.
Once more, Catholic doctrine is not established by debates amongst the laity.
How about this one:
“If someone who claims to be sincere repeatedly mischaracterizes your words and gives you information about the Catholic Church that is not in accord with the Doctrine and Constitutions of the Church, that person is not being honest”?
M
michaelp
Guest
Well, that is OK. I understand. I think that we have had a good conversation with each other and I appreciate your patience. Remember, good conversations and learning do not have to end with the conversion of either side. God is glorified in our learning and using our mind in honesty and graciousness.
Thanks again for the conversation. I will pull out unless there is something new that comes up. Thank you again.
sorry Magdalen for highjacking, but thanks for letting us go.
In short, I do think that Catholic do attack the wrong sola Scriptura and need to be more educated so that they are not attacking strawmen.
Evangelicals have a high respect for the authority of tradition, but do not think that it is infallible. Therefore, sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the final and only infallible authority in all matters of faith and practice.
May God bless you all.
Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
One last thing . . . GREAT choice of a song. U2 is the all-time best band. This is an infallible statement
. But that is another thread!
M
michaelp
Guest
vern humphrey:
Michael
Thanks Vern. If nothing else, you have passion and stamina. I appreciate that. Keep it up.
Michael
S
st_felicity
Guest
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_7.gifwhoa…getting hot in here…my arguements arent working–Oh–those “RC’s” have me nailed again smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_25.gif my “let’s agree to disagree” is next…" then…
michaelp’s last resort–
If it’s too hot…get outta the kitchen-- smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/995v.gif
What new thread will you start next?
michaelp’s last resort–
If it’s too hot…get outta the kitchen-- smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/995v.gif
What new thread will you start next?
S
st_felicity
Guest
This is laughable–the “honesty” part, I mean.
Don’t worry–I’m not holding my breath for your conversion…
You would know all about those strawmen smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_1_212.gif
I’m glad some do.
And that is ex cathedra from Bishop michaelp–so put that in your prayerbook and smoke it.
S
st_felicity
Guest
See—he’s infallable too!One last thing . . . GREAT choice of a song. U2 is the all-time best band. This is an infallible statement
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
PastorMichaelPatton:
&
ORANGES
False analogy: The Bishops interpret. The Scriptures do not.
When Catholics submit to the Magisterium, they subscribe to one teaching.
When Protestants submit to the Scriptures, they subscribe to a delusion. Why? Because you cannot submit to a book.
You can submit to a reading of a book.
You can submit to an understanding of a book.
You can submit to an interpretation of a book.
You can submit to a whole-body experience of a book which some might (presumptuously) claim to be a revelation.
But you cannot submit to a book.
The very notion that Protestants submit to one thing called the Scriptures is a deception. Protestants, being human beings, submit to teaching. Catholics, being human beings submit to teaching.
Teaching varies among Protestants because there are no checks and balances to that variance.
Teaching does not vary among Catholics because there are checks and balances to that variance. Those checks and balances reside in the Magisterium.
What the Magisterium gives is unswerving reliability. That is something that a person lurking on this board can take to the bank. A person lurking on this board can trust the Catholic Church’s teaching. Why? Because the Catholic Church doesn’t say one thing one day and then say a different thing the next day. While, with all due respect, the Protestant churches say numerous things, many of which differ from one another, and many of which change over time.
Pastor Michael Patton: if you would consider going back to first-year English and reviewing parallel structure, your writing wouldn’t be as prone to logical error as it has shown itself to be here. Essentially your attempt to trip up the Catholic Church in a double standard fails because it is built on the shakey foundation of faulty parallelism.
I have spoken to you about faulty parallelism before, but you acknowledged neither my post nor the correction I offered as to how to set up a parallel structure. Pity.
PastorMichaelPatton:
http://flash.artie.com/20011115/arg-sneak.gif
APPLES
&
ORANGES
False analogy: The Bishops interpret. The Scriptures do not.
When Catholics submit to the Magisterium, they subscribe to one teaching.
When Protestants submit to the Scriptures, they subscribe to a delusion. Why? Because you cannot submit to a book.
You can submit to a reading of a book.
You can submit to an understanding of a book.
You can submit to an interpretation of a book.
You can submit to a whole-body experience of a book which some might (presumptuously) claim to be a revelation.
But you cannot submit to a book.
The very notion that Protestants submit to one thing called the Scriptures is a deception. Protestants, being human beings, submit to teaching. Catholics, being human beings submit to teaching.
Teaching varies among Protestants because there are no checks and balances to that variance.
Teaching does not vary among Catholics because there are checks and balances to that variance. Those checks and balances reside in the Magisterium.
What the Magisterium gives is unswerving reliability. That is something that a person lurking on this board can take to the bank. A person lurking on this board can trust the Catholic Church’s teaching. Why? Because the Catholic Church doesn’t say one thing one day and then say a different thing the next day. While, with all due respect, the Protestant churches say numerous things, many of which differ from one another, and many of which change over time.
Pastor Michael Patton: if you would consider going back to first-year English and reviewing parallel structure, your writing wouldn’t be as prone to logical error as it has shown itself to be here. Essentially your attempt to trip up the Catholic Church in a double standard fails because it is built on the shakey foundation of faulty parallelism.
I have spoken to you about faulty parallelism before, but you acknowledged neither my post nor the correction I offered as to how to set up a parallel structure. Pity.
PastorMichaelPatton:
You talk the talk. Can you walk the walk?
http://flash.artie.com/20011115/arg-sneak.gif
T
teajay
Guest
Michael
Can you help explain to me how authority and jurisdiction are viewed within the Evangelical community? This might be more appropriate to put in a separate thread, but I might post it here in the meantime.
I don’t want a technical legal discussion, just a general impression.
My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines authority in a number of ways, including “the power or right to enforce obedience” and “an influence exerted on opinion because of recognized knowledge or expertise”. I am more interested in the former, more binding kind. The scope of that power is it’s jurisdiction.
From my view, the Catholic Church has authority and jurisdiction on all matters of faith and morals. That includes an ability to interpret and apply Scripture. It is a capacity that is akin to the courts power to interpret and apply the Constitution and other binding legal documents.
It has within it a hierarchy. So the higher up you go, the more binding and authoritative the views are. Non-clergy must obey a priest or higher and a priest must obey a bishop or higher etc. in all cases except where there is a clear conflict between the advice of a higher authority and a lower one. For example, where a priest says something that clearly conflicts with what a bishop has said, or a bishop defies what a council of bishops has said, there is no compulsion to obey that individual.
This is like if a local court gave you an order, you couldn’t simply disobey it because you had a different interpretation of the law (even though the law, particular statute law, is of a higher authority than the court). But you could disobey it if you were subject to an order of a higher court and by obeying the lower one you would defy the higher one (an unlikely scenario, I know).
That is how order is maintained within the Church. It doesn’t always work perfectly, but works less imperfectly than any of the viable competing systems.
In your church, I imagine that the Bible is the supreme authority. The church has authority, but that it’s authority is subordinate to the Bible itself. But what about where the individual feels that the church conflicts with the Bible? Where it seems impossible to harmonize the two? Given that the Bible is so broad, and complex and at times ambiguous, doesn’t that make the authority of the individual broader and more complete than that of the church itself? In other words, in practice the church has no inherent authority at all (only that authority which it’s members give it through mutual consent).
In other words, a church is a group of like-minded members, whose uniformity of belief it not the product of any binding authority but of some sort of intellectual consensus? Not to be disrespectful or anything, but more like a club than a kingdom?
Can you help explain to me how authority and jurisdiction are viewed within the Evangelical community? This might be more appropriate to put in a separate thread, but I might post it here in the meantime.
I don’t want a technical legal discussion, just a general impression.
My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines authority in a number of ways, including “the power or right to enforce obedience” and “an influence exerted on opinion because of recognized knowledge or expertise”. I am more interested in the former, more binding kind. The scope of that power is it’s jurisdiction.
From my view, the Catholic Church has authority and jurisdiction on all matters of faith and morals. That includes an ability to interpret and apply Scripture. It is a capacity that is akin to the courts power to interpret and apply the Constitution and other binding legal documents.
It has within it a hierarchy. So the higher up you go, the more binding and authoritative the views are. Non-clergy must obey a priest or higher and a priest must obey a bishop or higher etc. in all cases except where there is a clear conflict between the advice of a higher authority and a lower one. For example, where a priest says something that clearly conflicts with what a bishop has said, or a bishop defies what a council of bishops has said, there is no compulsion to obey that individual.
This is like if a local court gave you an order, you couldn’t simply disobey it because you had a different interpretation of the law (even though the law, particular statute law, is of a higher authority than the court). But you could disobey it if you were subject to an order of a higher court and by obeying the lower one you would defy the higher one (an unlikely scenario, I know).
That is how order is maintained within the Church. It doesn’t always work perfectly, but works less imperfectly than any of the viable competing systems.
In your church, I imagine that the Bible is the supreme authority. The church has authority, but that it’s authority is subordinate to the Bible itself. But what about where the individual feels that the church conflicts with the Bible? Where it seems impossible to harmonize the two? Given that the Bible is so broad, and complex and at times ambiguous, doesn’t that make the authority of the individual broader and more complete than that of the church itself? In other words, in practice the church has no inherent authority at all (only that authority which it’s members give it through mutual consent).
In other words, a church is a group of like-minded members, whose uniformity of belief it not the product of any binding authority but of some sort of intellectual consensus? Not to be disrespectful or anything, but more like a club than a kingdom?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
PastorMichaelPatton:
PastorMichaelPatton:
a) never demonstrated that the Magisterium must be interpreted and
b) never swerved from the illogical of claiming that it can be interpreted and
c) never flinched when we corrected you on this point so many times now that it defies comprehension.
PastorMichaelPatton:
PastorMichaelPatton:
PastorMichaelPatton:
:ehh:
PastorMichaelPatton:
I would not call this humble. Incomprehensible perhaps. Particularly as you have
a) never demonstrated that the Magisterium must be interpreted and
b) never swerved from the illogical of claiming that it can be interpreted and
c) never flinched when we corrected you on this point so many times now that it defies comprehension.
PastorMichaelPatton:
No.
PastorMichaelPatton:
Magisterial authority has various interpretations but not varying interpretations. That is, it has many interpretations, but each interpretation is constant and does not change according to the speaker.
PastorMichaelPatton:
Equivocation: Evangelical Protestants exist under a supposed submission to the Scriptural authority that has varying interpretations of certain issues. That is, not only do they have many interpretations, but also each interpretation changes according to the speaker.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
vern humphrey:
The idea that the authority of the Church could wave a wand and canonise any old books it felt like canonising, seems to be what is lurking behind the idea that but for the Church’s authority, we could not possibly know which books were canonical. It was not so. ##
To a great degree, the excluded books have excluded themselves. If Catholics knew the OT and NT Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha, this would be much plainer than it is, for they would then be better able to taste & compare the books for themselves.
All the authority of the Church does, is to sanction long-continued custom; the Church can only recognise canonicity, not confer it. The books that were canonised by Christians, were those that had stood the test of time and usage - that had been read and had been found both edifying and in conformity to the faith of the Churches. God is well able to authenticate His own work.The idea that the authority of the Church could wave a wand and canonise any old books it felt like canonising, seems to be what is lurking behind the idea that but for the Church’s authority, we could not possibly know which books were canonical. It was not so. ##
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
Now THERE’S an insulting remark!
What makes you think we DON’T know the Deutrocanonical books and the Pseudegraphia?
Gottle of GeerAll the authority of the Church does said:
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
vern humphrey said:
Maybe Mr or Ms of-Geer believes in magic, Vern.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Ani Ibi:
Don’t you just love it when someone comes up with dreck like this, and then tells us we don’t now about the Deutrocanonical books or the Psudegraphia?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gifMaybe Mr or Ms of-Geer believes in magic, Vern.
- Status