L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Hello
Hope your doing well too
You did read my post didn’t you?
- Status
Hope your doing well too You did read my post didn’t you?
M
michaelp
Guest
Yes. Lisa, you are a very kind person. It is a pleasure to discuss with you since you never resort to ad hom (attacking) arguments. Those who do, display the inherent weakness of their arguments. But more than that, their own insecurity. This is taught in debate 101. There seem to be alot more of these people on this site these days.Hello
Michael
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
G
Genesis315
Guest
I posted on that thread an analogy that might help you.
M
Martin_Luther
Guest
Hello Everyone!
People have different views in Catholicism as well. I was reading a book by Father Raymond Brown where he said that the idea that the Roman Catholic Church has these traditions that were passed down from the early church is naive. There are differences in the material sufficiency vs. partim/partim viewpoint et al.
I think it is worth noting that it is unfair to assume that everyone who says they hold to Sola Scriptura is actually holding to the doctrine. A person may claim to be a Muslim, but if he denies the inerrancy of the Koran, and believes that Mohammed is a false prophet, no one would deny that such a person is not really a Muslim.
However, the problem has not been settled. If such is true, then we still have the problem of which authority to choose from. The Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Catholics, and many others deny Sola Scriptura and claim to give infallible certainty. There is greater unity within my denomination, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which openly holds to Sola Scriptura then there is between Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. They all deny Sola Scriptura, but in your words They can’t even figure out which ultimate authority to follow.
However, again, we have the exact same problem. As far as canon goes, the only certainty that the Catholic has for the canon is that the Church tells him. However, the question must eventually be asked as to why someone has infallible certainty that this is the one true church. Again, we are looking for certainty that Rome is true. Unless the Catholic has absolute certainty that Rome is the one true church which Christ founded, then there is no absolute certainty in the canon either because for the Catholic, the authority of the Canon is based in the Catholic Church.
However, this gets us back to the same point. Both Catholics and protestants have presuppositions, and merely going to canon or interpretational issues takes us in circles and avoids the issue. For the Protestant it is scripture alone, and for the Catholic, it is the Catholic Church’s interpetations of scripture and tradition. Hence, the Catholic is assuming that there is an additional God-Breathed revelation other than the scriptures and hence it is up to him to show exactly what is contained in that tradition, and that it is apostolic. That is the issue.
God Bless,
Martin Luther
People have different views in Catholicism as well. I was reading a book by Father Raymond Brown where he said that the idea that the Roman Catholic Church has these traditions that were passed down from the early church is naive. There are differences in the material sufficiency vs. partim/partim viewpoint et al.
I think it is worth noting that it is unfair to assume that everyone who says they hold to Sola Scriptura is actually holding to the doctrine. A person may claim to be a Muslim, but if he denies the inerrancy of the Koran, and believes that Mohammed is a false prophet, no one would deny that such a person is not really a Muslim.
However, the problem has not been settled. If such is true, then we still have the problem of which authority to choose from. The Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Catholics, and many others deny Sola Scriptura and claim to give infallible certainty. There is greater unity within my denomination, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which openly holds to Sola Scriptura then there is between Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. They all deny Sola Scriptura, but in your words They can’t even figure out which ultimate authority to follow.
This ignores that their entire basis for certianty in doctrine is their certainty in the Catholic Church. The question must then be about how they have infallible certainty that the Catholic Church is the infallible in it’s doctrinal decalarations on the basis of tradition. How do you know Rome is true apart from the Mormons Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who also deny Sola Scriptura? Now, I am not saying that the claim for the authority of Rome cannot be suppored with facts. However, to be consistent then we do not need facts, but certainty. Hence, the author has no certainty for the authority claims of Rome, and hence, no certainty in the doctrines he professes.
Many protestants such as Bruce M. Metzger and F.F. Bruce have written entire books on this subject. There is internal as well as external evidence. Language used as well as specific styles can be clues to it’s origin. We also have external evidence from both Christian and non-Christian sources. Now, let me be clear that the external evidence is not taken by protestants as authoritative, but all of this evidence is taken together to produce the protestant position on the canon. Anyone who is interested in this process, Dr. Daniel Wallace has a excellent examples under the articles entitled “Introduction, argument, and outline”: bible.org/author.asp?author_id=1. Granted, this is evidence and not certainty.
However, again, we have the exact same problem. As far as canon goes, the only certainty that the Catholic has for the canon is that the Church tells him. However, the question must eventually be asked as to why someone has infallible certainty that this is the one true church. Again, we are looking for certainty that Rome is true. Unless the Catholic has absolute certainty that Rome is the one true church which Christ founded, then there is no absolute certainty in the canon either because for the Catholic, the authority of the Canon is based in the Catholic Church.
However, this gets us back to the same point. Both Catholics and protestants have presuppositions, and merely going to canon or interpretational issues takes us in circles and avoids the issue. For the Protestant it is scripture alone, and for the Catholic, it is the Catholic Church’s interpetations of scripture and tradition. Hence, the Catholic is assuming that there is an additional God-Breathed revelation other than the scriptures and hence it is up to him to show exactly what is contained in that tradition, and that it is apostolic. That is the issue.
God Bless,
Martin Luther
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
He cites HIMSELF as a reference here!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
This is what I mean by playing the fool.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
M
michaelp
Guest
Very good point. I have asked this many times on this site. It is often ignored. Here (on this thread) you will probebly get attacked since you express it so well. But I completely agree.
Admitingly, there have been many Catholics on this site who have conceded that the best that they can do is moral certianty, not infallible certianty.
Great post!
. Granted, this is evidence and not certainty.
I actually work with Dan. There is not a better NT scholar around right now.
Exactly. Thanks for clarifying.
Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
vern humphrey:
bible.org/series.asp?series_id=93
It will help you to better see where I am coming from. BTW: I am sorry if I have offended you. I really don’t want you and I to have any antimosity for each other. Pray for me my friend.
Michael
Here you go Vern. I think that you might like it:
bible.org/series.asp?series_id=93
It will help you to better see where I am coming from. BTW: I am sorry if I have offended you. I really don’t want you and I to have any antimosity for each other. Pray for me my friend.
Michael
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I may have missed something here – where on this site does it say Catholics “interpret” the Magisterium?
Also, where is the imprimateur and the nihil obstat?
S
st_felicity
Guest
Do not marginalize my posts by assigning an emotion to them, or by implying that I am not firm in my facts. The posts speak for themselves–as do yours.
I am still waiting for you to quote an attack from me–there is no such animal. I consider a false accusation an attack. You are attempting to discredit me by claiming I’m name calling (ad hominum)–that is wrong, a sin, and I’m waiting to either see your proof, or see your retraction…
M
michaelp
Guest
vern humphrey:
Michael
It is a Protestant site so it does not have one. Actually if you listen to the first lesson, it will show you how I think that people who disagree with each other need to represent Christ. There is a lesson about the various traditions showing a short view of how Protestants view history and how Roman Catholics view history. All of it has to do with sola Scriptura, but it takes some time to get there.
Michael
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Then it is not an argument that somehow Catholics “interpret” the Magesterium? And we can agree that the claim that the Magesterium is “interpreted” is nonsensical?
Good!
Now, do not expect me to accept as authoritative any non-Catholic explanation of what Catholics believe. If we want to represent our different Christian traditions we must first of all agree that Christians of one church cannot dictate to another church what it’s beliefs are, nor condemn that church for beliefs that they do not hold, but which are only ascribed to them.
In other words, we must remember what Justin Martyr said about the philosopher Crescens.
G
Genesis315
Guest
I think your main question is how we can be certain of the Church’s infallibility, right?
Well, this comes down to apostolic succession. The apostles, since they knew Jesus, would have known that their councils were protected by the Holy Spirit from error. They would have passed this to their successors, etc., etc.
Also, look at the evidence. With all the sinners of the Church and even a few wicked popes, the deposit of faith has been preserved (haha, you may argue this, but that’s for another thread).
A great example is contraception. The Church did not change its teaching even though almost all other churches have caved since the 1930s (except maybe the Orthodox). Do you honestly think the pill (which causes abortions), condoms, diaphragms, andspermicide are part of God’s plan?
Any thoughts?
S
st_felicity
Guest
Michael–You are the one who publicly accused me in no uncertain terms of being “angry,” of allowing “rhetoric to turn to attack,” and of being “VERY uncharitable” in a single post. If “I am sorry if I have offended you” is an attempt at an apology for libeling me on the “public forum”–try again.
As for your reasoning behind your defensiveness–I think you should take it up with those posters. To bring it to me in a PM. where the other’s have no opportunity to respond, is known as “splitting” in the psychiatric field, and I’ll have no part in it. Take it up with them.
Further, your reasoning concerning Sola Scriptura, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the Infallibility of the Magesterium, et al. is a textbook of fallacies that assume a conclusion. For one who is a teacher, and a teacher of hermaneutics, this should be evident.
Lastly, I am posting this response to your PM, sans your comments, in the interest of maintaining a truthful dialogue. If you don’t want to talk to me anymore on the threads–don’t. But I will continue to call you on your false statements, and I will continue to pray for you.
Felicity
M
michaelp
Guest
THrough PMs Felicity and I have been discussing these issues. I should not have rebuked her in public.
Earier, I wrote this to Felicity:
God bless,
Michael
Earier, I wrote this to Felicity:
I am sorry for saying this. I should not have. Please forgive me.
I am apologizing for this as well.
God bless,
Michael
S
st_felicity
Guest
Thank you, Michael. You are forgiven.
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Okay,wonderful,I am glad everybody made up Michael, I have never taken a debating class but I will say ,that when I have gotten frustrated with Tlaloc(not comparing anyone)that I got emotional and passionate on the pro-life issue,and am pretty sure I would not have been considered charitable,but it didn’t make my position weak or show insecurity,I think it was a response of frustration because he just could not or would not see what I was saying.I got proofs and he would rationalize,ect. I am not referring to any other posters but myself,I am just saying that a certain response does not necessarily mean a weak position or insecurity.You can look at the Rational abortion support thread and see what I mean. God Bless and hijack over
Michael, I have never taken a debating class but I will say ,that when I have gotten frustrated with Tlaloc(not comparing anyone)that I got emotional and passionate on the pro-life issue,and am pretty sure I would not have been considered charitable,but it didn’t make my position weak or show insecurity,I think it was a response of frustration because he just could not or would not see what I was saying.I got proofs and he would rationalize,ect. I am not referring to any other posters but myself,I am just saying that a certain response does not necessarily mean a weak position or insecurity.You can look at the Rational abortion support thread and see what I mean. God Bless and hijack over
T
teajay
Guest
Martin Luther:
Martin Luther:
Martin Luther:
Martin Luther:
Catholics view the Catholic magisterium, the Bible and Sacred Tradition as their sources of authority, whereas Protestants view the Bible, reasonably interpreted, as being their supreme authority. When you compare like with like, you find remarkable uniformity and clarity in Catholic doctrine, with far less in Protestant doctrine. That doesn’t prove one is right and the other is wrong. But it is a relevant factor when determining which system is the surest foundation on which to base and grow your faith.
Martin Luther:
This issue is one of epistemology and is quite complex. It is not possible to adequately deal with this on this thread. I would submit, though, that there are not many options to choose from. A visible Church that spans history, that claims Petrine and general Apostolic authority and infallibility, and that still exists to this day. How many reasonably plausible alternatives are there?
I agree that people can’t know things with infallible certainty because we are all fallible. But I am recognising the Church partly as an intellectual act and partly as an act of faith. It’s infallibility doesn’t become mine, it merely forms the foundation on which I can base my faith.
CONTINUED
Hello!
Martin Luther:
Of course there are different views, but not different orthodoxies. Most Protestants acknowledge the existence of an orthodox interpretation of Catholic doctrine, especially when they criticize it! You often hear “Catholics believe…” but rarely “some Catholics, who might be right or wrong, believe…”. It’s not too difficult to find the Vatican’s view on most issues, and its even easier on those that are essential to salvation.
Martin Luther:
That is so true. It is something that I don’t believe enough people acknowledge. Any Catholic critique of Protestantism should really focus on mainstream protestant denominations, which would probably number in the hundreds. There are probably about ten or more distinctive variations of Protestant doctrine. As Catholics, we claim a uniformity in doctrine, so its only right that we narrow our focus to Protestant churches that make a real and rational attempt to adhere to the basic tenets of sola scriptura, rather than those ones that may not properly understand it.
Martin Luther:
Now this a false analogy because you are not comparing like with like. You have stated the Catholic view of authority so broadly that is encompasses non-Catholic organisations, and the Protestant view so narrowly that it coincides solely with your own local denomination.
Catholics view the Catholic magisterium, the Bible and Sacred Tradition as their sources of authority, whereas Protestants view the Bible, reasonably interpreted, as being their supreme authority. When you compare like with like, you find remarkable uniformity and clarity in Catholic doctrine, with far less in Protestant doctrine. That doesn’t prove one is right and the other is wrong. But it is a relevant factor when determining which system is the surest foundation on which to base and grow your faith.
Martin Luther:
In order to believe someone, or something, a claim, implicit or explicit, needs to be made. We can then assess the reasonableness of that claim and make a decision. Certain things will flow from that decision.
This issue is one of epistemology and is quite complex. It is not possible to adequately deal with this on this thread. I would submit, though, that there are not many options to choose from. A visible Church that spans history, that claims Petrine and general Apostolic authority and infallibility, and that still exists to this day. How many reasonably plausible alternatives are there?
I agree that people can’t know things with infallible certainty because we are all fallible. But I am recognising the Church partly as an intellectual act and partly as an act of faith. It’s infallibility doesn’t become mine, it merely forms the foundation on which I can base my faith.
CONTINUED
T
teajay
Guest
Martin Luther:
Martin Luther:
I don’t claim that my intellect, faith and reason are superior to anyones, including yours. I firmly believe I am correct though. I don’t think you are ignorant, or hard-hearted, or ill-informed, or unreasonable for believing the things you do.
I don’t know why so many people come to different conclusions if in fact there is a one true faith. Probably a variety of reasons. Some personal and some circumstantial. But I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I only post in response to you because I think you make some valid points, but also some that needed clarification.
Martin Luther:
I submit that the search for the identity of scripture is not the same as the search for the identity of the one true Church. They have unique aspects that mean that one is, intellectually and spiritually, a different kind of discovery process to the other. I’m not going to argue which is superior or not at this point, but I simply make the point that they are different and therefore cannot be so readily regarded as in some way equivalent.
Martin Luther:
Well you are quite correct in suggesting that neither Catholics nor Protestants can claim a monopoly on fact and reason. Each has come to their conclusions through different ways and each might be wrong. But I don’t see why this would cast a special onus upon Catholics to prove certain claims but not Protestants to prove their own claims. You also appear to have misinterpreted certain Catholic claims, most notably the idea that magisterial teachings are claimed to be “an additional God-Breathed revelation”. I don’t agree with that claim. I suspect many Protestant scholars wouldn’t either.
I don’t claim that my intellect, faith and reason are superior to anyones, including yours. I firmly believe I am correct though. I don’t think you are ignorant, or hard-hearted, or ill-informed, or unreasonable for believing the things you do.
I don’t know why so many people come to different conclusions if in fact there is a one true faith. Probably a variety of reasons. Some personal and some circumstantial. But I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I only post in response to you because I think you make some valid points, but also some that needed clarification.
Martin Luther:
You too
C
Contarini
Guest
But why do we need to be maximally certain? Do you live in the same universe I live in? In my universe, I see no reason whatever to believe that God has any interest in giving us maximal certainty. On the contrary, a large degree of uncertainty seems to be an important part of the probation which we all experience in this life. So I don’t see that this is a strong argument.
External to whom or what? To Scripture? I’m not sure what that means. (Or do you mean “external to us”?)
I don’t dispute that we accept the canon of Scripture on the basis of the Church’s testimony. I dispute that we need a doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in order to find her testimony reliable.
That remains to be proven. Why do we need infallibility to avoid relativism? Unless by relativism you simply mean the lack of absolute certainty. In which case I think it’s unavoidable, and the attempt to avoid it is a kind of hubris.
I didn’t dispute that it was useful. Lots of things would be useful. A bright angel with wings a hundred miles long descending from heaven every morning to announce God’s will in a voice of thunder would be very useful. Sinless Popes (or any other kind of church leaders) would be very useful. But that doesn’t make them necessary, and it certainly doesn’t make them real. I don’t see how narrowing the scope of possible options can possibly be necessary, as opposed to useful. Let’s say that with infallibility we have seven options, while without it we have 200. How can you prove that it is necessary to have seven rather than 200? It may more difficult to live with 200, but it’s as possible as to live with seven.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Does “departing from infallibility” mean rejecting infallibility or departing from a doctrine infallibly defined? If the former, I’m not sure how you can speak of departing “too much.” We either have infallibility or we don’t. Either way, I remain to be convinced of your claim t hat these dreadful consequences necessarily follow.
In Christ,
Edwin
- Status