Bad Popes..Pulp Fiction...Yea though I walk

[CopticChristian]

Hi Coptic—

As for me being enigmatic, well, I do apologize to the extent that I’m not more forthcoming. There a several reasons for that; none of them sinister.

Hmm…I didn’t say anything about liberal Catholics. Maybe someone else did, but it wasn’t me.

Well, as far as my comment that I’ve seen some really hateful anti-Semitism from a few extreme traditional Catholics, I’ll see what I can come up with from recent memory without looking up websites. One thing I ran into a few weeks ago was this: someone here at CAF posted an article called “Catholics and Beer: A Love Story”. I read a few articles there, one of which was a reprint of an article from an SSPX magazine (“The Angelus”, I’m thinking). Some of holywar’s articles were SSPX-generated, some were not.

Abide,

This is what you posted previously…

This is true. And, though not wishing to get too off track, in the present day I haven’t seen among Lutherans the hateful anti-Jewish attacks that I still infrequently run into from some extreme traditionalist Catholics.

This is what you posted. I have no idea what you mean without explanation. “I infrequently run into”…what does this mean without explanation…I meet, I encounter, I have spoken to….It causes me to question “what you have seen” where did you see this?

Yesterday I was shopping and I ran into an old friend. Out of context, based on your past postings, I have no idea what this means and I ask you be clear about what you mean…here you explain this. I suggest that you clarify your communication as you did here as you post so that I and everyone else can understand where you infrequently run into whatever it is and how it is you are drawing your conclusions.

Hmm…I didn’t say anything about liberal Catholics. Maybe someone else did, but it wasn’t me.

Well, as far as my comment that I’ve seen some really hateful anti-Semitism from a few extreme traditional Catholics, I’ll see what I can come up with from recent memory without looking up websites.

I have no idea who these idiots really are, but they present themselves as traditional Catholics going by their other articles. They may be SSPX affiliated, but I couldn’t ascertain that.

Another thing I ran into a few weeks ago was a website called “holywar.org” I think. Fordham University’s website has the English translation of Chrysostom’s "

Your Hmm means you did not understand what it is you believe and have formulated in thought…recall I pointed out that there are Catholics that practice and those that do not…Traditional, Liberal, Conservative, and whatever label you put on them do not exist…Hmmm were you paying attention. I ask you not to formulate your thoughts as anything Catholic with a modifier. Those modifiers are inventions that do not aid in dialogue…for instance…

I talked to, I met, I shook hands with, I listened to a Catholic that says Abortion is a matter of reason…then the advice would be that either this Catholic does not know their Faith, knows their Faith and is opposed to following it or some other explanation…to add Traditional, Liberal, Convservative or whatever adjective does not aid the conversation. I ask you to dismiss your adjectives for clarity.

If your information is from a posting here, there is no way to know who or what someone believes without asking them. There are people that masquerade as “Traditional Catholics” whatever that is and post whatever they please. Websites are notorious for misinformation and you never know who is posting there or where the site originates from…

I posted a thread about Dispensationalists and yet some of what was said was attributed to me. I clarified that. I also discovered as Anna pointed out that the site has questionable origins. I never suggested that these were my opinions, that this was the opinion of any Christian in particular, I just said here is what I found and what do you think….I did not generalize or suggest that I “ran into Christians that say”….this would misleed people

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=671809

Look at my post #4 in response to someone that says that they know nothing of the Evangelical Free Church. I never said that I know someone, although you have stated that you go to an Evangelical Free Church, I never said I ran into someone…I just posted the statement of Faith and the reason for what I found to be true…just information…

Your explanation then is that you have not run into anyone. You have not talked to anyone. You have visited websites and without explanation have posted opinions from other websites and drawn conclusions.

My conclusion is that websites originate with people, postings originate with people, and the only way to know who these people are is to talk to them or ask them questions. My conclusion is that misinformation as to the source of what it is you believe is drawn from websites of uncertain origin…and you never ran into anyone…you would do well to clarify your thoughts as follows…

I visited the following websites. Here I find people claiming to be “Traditional” Catholics. Is there such a thing as Liberal, Convservative or Traditional Catholics? Here is what they post…since this is CAF does this information ring true with the CAF? Since this is the CAF and I suspect that the information here as found in the Library of sources and the postings I have read may be closer to the truth…can you help me understand if the information from these sites can be trusted or should I just ignore them?

This may find you having better dialogue and less misunderstood. This is CAF, bring questions or information with documented resources.

 

[JonNC]

Absolutely Jon, that was my point.

Radical is looking for evidence of impeccability to “prove” infallible teaching. The Pope still goes to confession. You won’t find an impeccable Christian leader - in Catholicism or Protestantism. So, by Radical’s standards, what are we left with? Fallible scripture and fallible teachers. What value is the Gospel if no one can infallibly discern the good news? It’s terrible theology that leaves us with an unreasonable God and no way to understand His message.

I agree, Stew. If we look to the persons in leadership, we will find nothing but sinners. And that doesn’t mean that the Spirit can’t work through them for good. For instance, Lutherans completely reject Luther’s rants about the Jews new the end of his life, but that doesn’t diminish some of the wonderful things he did write - “A Mighty Fortress” for example.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

…If we look to the persons in leadership, we will find nothing but sinners. And that doesn’t mean that the Spirit can’t work through them for good…

Jon, looks like we’re on the same page…

 

[Radical]

Well, conversations between family members are not the stuff on which the salvation of our souls or our relationship with God depends!

…but they are quite often the stuff on which life and death…or at least health and safety depend.

If, on the other hand, if the Bible is fallible then we cannot even know that God said ‘thou shalt not steal’. It would be the easiest error in the world to put a ‘not’ in there when it was actually meant to be ‘thou SHALT steal’.

well, that particular command is written on the hearts of non-believers as well and does not rest on a single verse.

And we would never know, by your logic, because the Bible is fallible. Could mean a huge and significant chunk of our very common Judeo-Christian morality, our attitude towards theft, is COMPLETELY off-base and contrary to God’s command!

Do you honestly believe God would permit such monstrous error?

it seems that you are confusing “fallible” with “completely devoid of any reliability”…that is artificial and wrong.

So - how do you know Jesus actually said ‘suffer the children to come unto me, and hinder them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven made’? Or ‘if you would be perfect, sell all you possess and come follow me’? Because His actual words could just as easily have been ‘do NOT suffer the children to come to me, and DO forbid them, for of NO such is the Kingdom of Heaven made’.

'just as easily"? Seriously? So, b/c your mom was fallible, if she had said “Don’t run into traffic!” she could have “just as easily” meant “Run into traffic”…that would be a ridiculous claim to make in that instance, so how is it reasonable when applied to Christ’s words?

…Or ‘if you would be perfect, sell HALF of what you possess and come follow me.’ It takes only the tiniest error for the text of a verse to be entirely changed!

rarely do things rest on a single verse

So I would suggest it is really not the text or translations that are errant. We know this because comparisons can be made between the texts we have, from the earliest to the most modern, including recently-uncovered ones such as parts of the OT among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The consistency, for such an old and oft-translated text, is remarkable, especially in comparison with any other text of similar age.

yes, the consistency is remarkable, but it isn’t exact…you have dodged the fact that variations exist amongst the various early texts…and of course, you never really answered my questions, did you?
Inerrant" means w/o any error…it doesn’t mean mostly w/o error…and it doesn’t mean w/o any significant error. It means w/o error. As such, I would suggest that you have but two options. The first is to come up with a good and honest answer to these questions:

First, I think you are fooling yourself if you think your bible is w/o error…tell me, which Greek manuscript (which differs from all the other Greek manuscripts) is the one that is w/o error?..or is it that the Catholic translators picked exactly the error free transcript to work from for each and every verse? …or is it that some early latin version is w/o any error?

the second is to stop pretending and admit that you are distorting the meaning of 'inerrant" or “infallible” or you could adopt a more appropriate term to describe what you believe about the bible.

 

[Radical]

Radical is looking for evidence of impeccability to “prove” infallible teaching.

impeccability wouldn’t prove infallibility…but it sure would be much more compatible than sinfulness…as I said before: In virtually every instance God selected a righteous individual to be his spokesman….the exceptions being rare and very short lived. The clear trend being that God selected righteous individuals to speak on his behalf….and the creation of an infallible office doesn’t have any precedent. What have I missed?

…you don’t have any answer, do you?

So, by Radical’s standards, what are we left with? Fallible scripture and fallible teachers. What value is the Gospel if no one can infallibly discern the good news? It’s terrible theology that leaves us with an unreasonable God and no way to understand His message.

it seems to me that we are left with but three options…unless Stewstew03 can answer some questions. What office between Abraham and Christ served to provide an infallible interpretation of God’s message? What office between Abraham and Christ served to infallibly define the canon of scripture? I don’t think Stewstew03 has any good answers to these questions either…so it is either a) God messed up; or b) stewstew03’ messed up in describing what makes good theology and a reasonable God or c) something has dramatically changed now that we have the Holy Spirit and that, with the Holy Spirit we now need more help than the Israelites needed. From over here it seems pretty obvious that (b) is the clear winner.

 

[LilyM]

…but they are quite often the stuff on which life and death…or at least health and safety depend.

well, that particular command is written on the hearts of non-believers as well and does not rest on a single verse.

it seems that you are confusing “fallible” with “completely devoid of any reliability”…that is artificial and wrong.

'just as easily"? Seriously? So, b/c your mom was fallible, if she had said “Don’t run into traffic!” she could have “just as easily” meant “Run into traffic”…that would be a ridiculous claim to make in that instance, so how is it reasonable when applied to Christ’s words?

rarely do things rest on a single verse

yes, the consistency is remarkable, but it isn’t exact…you have dodged the fact that variations exist amongst the various early texts…and of course, you never really answered
my questions, did you?
Inerrant" means w/o any error…it doesn’t mean mostly w/o error…and it doesn’t mean w/o any significant error. It means w/o error. As such, I would suggest that you have but two options. The first is to come up with a good and honest answer to these questions:

First, I think you are fooling yourself if you think your bible is w/o error…tell me,
which Greek manuscript (which differs from all the other Greek manuscripts) is the one that is w/o error?..or is it that the Catholic translators picked exactly the error free transcript to work from for each and every verse? …or is it that some early latin version is w/o any error?

the second is to stop pretending and admit that you are distorting the meaning of 'inerrant"
or “infallible” or you could adopt a more appropriate term to describe what you believe about the bible.

Sweetheart, you fail to understand my point. If the Bible is in real error then we do NOT know that ALL the biblical verses supporting the idea of giving away all of one’s possessions or extolling poverty were not wrong from the very origin of the New Testament. It’s not a question of Jesus giving a nonsensical message like ‘run into traffic’ - indeed, to say ‘give away half your possessions’ is much more sensible and believable.

It is just as easy to change or insert a few or even a hundred verses as one verse, for
anyone with a bee in their bonnet about a particular issue.

And the original writers may have been the ones with the agenda. They may, for instance, have made up from whole cloth the idea that Jesus was God - certainly non-Christians see no compelling evidence in scripture that He claimed divinity for Himself.

Would we know of they hadn’t done so? Of course not. The New Testament was written decades after Jesus’ life and death - few people would still be alive who even knew Him who could contradict such claims if untrue. There is in fact absolutely no independent evidence that He existed at all! No Jewish or Roman records of His life, trial, execution. Nothing. Only the word of His followers.

So can you answer my question - why on earth, if you think the Bible is liable to error, would you rely on it in any way? Because other people do? Just as many believe in the
Quran which says very different things about Jesus, why not believe it? Because you personallu find it convincig? The Book of Mormon was similarly supported by many followers of Joseph Smith who counted him a prophet of God - why not believe that instead?

As for my mother - I’m not talking about what she says being wrong in any way, but about how accurately I and others can recall and relay it. I cannot count the number of times I have misheard and misunderstood her. She says ‘go close the door’, I hear ‘I’ll go close
the door’, or the other way around. Or I simply forget that she said anything about the door at all, and don’t close it, much to her chagrin when we by home

Even with my father and four sisters also there with her, we don’t always accurately hear and remember her. Sometimes we ALL have the same mistaken recall of her words, which is only corrected by her repeating herself.

Do you really think God relies on such a frail and useless thing as what we humans laughingly call ‘memory’, and should really be called ‘forgettery’? Not to mention the problems we have with interpretation even when we do agree on the words of the text.

Of course not. He uses the Spirit to ensure that His word is transmitted accurately. Now scribal and translational differences don’t matter a bit. Inerrancy is about the MESSAGE being truly transmitted, not the jots and tittles being in the right places.

The message (or messages, many passages have multiple layers of meaning) IS truly and
inerrantly transmitted regardless of differences in translation. We possess, in the Catholic Church which is as Spirit-guided today as on the day Christ founded it upon St Peter, the day St Paul first put pen to paper or the day the Canon as determined back in the 4th century, our sure guide to understanding scripture.

And why should

 

[stewstew03]

In virtually every instance God selected a righteous individual to be his spokesman….The clear trend being that God selected righteous individuals to speak on his behalf….

Radical, I’ve asked this question before and can make the same charge that “you don’t have an answer” - who is God’s spokesperson today?

I’m not looking for circular logic such as “God’s spokesperson is the one who God has granted his Spirit.” Can you name someone so that I can seek that person out as a potential spiritual guide, or is it a secret that is only revealed to “the elect?”

What office between Abraham and Christ served to provide an infallible interpretation of God’s message? What office between Abraham and Christ served to infallibly define the canon of scripture?

You mean like high priests and elders?

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 23:1-3[/BIBLEDRB]

What exactly are you asking me? I was operating under the assumption that you understood the distinction between the Old Covenant and New Covenant.

 

[Radical]

Radical, I’ve asked this question before and can make the same charge that “you don’t have an answer” - who is God’s spokesperson today?

there is no one that is in a class by himself (ie someone who possesses the gift of infallibility)…which is the same situation as before the first coming of Christ (except for a prophet here and there)…please keep in mind that the apostles (and the OT prophets) were validated by signs and wonders…no one still has that ability/mark.

You mean like high priests and elders?

no, I mean an office that possessed the gift of infallibility…where would you get the idea that anyone or any group possessed a set of infallible scriptures and infallible traditions when Christ first came?

What exactly are you asking me? I was operating under the assumption that you understood the distinction between the Old Covenant and New Covenant.

I do…but your side had tried to argue from the Davidic line and the seat of Moses to support your understanding of the Papal office…remember I am the guy saying that what you allege is unlikely b/c it differs so dramatically from what God had done in the past. You have no precedent, you have no express statement from an apostle or from Christ establishing this allegedly infallible office…you have your traditions and a line of Popes that simply doesn’t appear to enjoy any special dispensation from God (witness the bad Popes in particular coupled with the reasonable assumption that a special empowering/envolvment of the Holy Spirit for infallibility would have trickle down effects wrt heightened righteousness)

 

[stewstew03]

there is no one that is in a class by himself (ie someone who possesses the gift of infallibility)…which is the same situation as before the first coming of Christ (except for a prophet here and there)…please keep in mind that the apostles (and the OT prophets) were validated by signs and wonders…no one still has that ability/mark.

So your answer is… no righteous individuals speak on God’s behalf today?

no, I mean an office that possessed the gift of infallibility…where would you get the idea that anyone or any group possessed a set of infallible scriptures and infallible traditions when Christ first came?

Question for you Radical: Did the Apostles commit errors when they spoke on faith and morals?

(NB - my earlier assertion regarding “infallible scriptures” was based on an assumption of your protestant beliefs. The webmaster for CAF should think about forcing protestants to indicate which sect they belong to if we’re going to have any meaningful discussion here. As Catholics, we’re constantly chasing a moving target, not knowing which “Protestants” subscribe, if at all, to any particular confession or creed; the exceptions are Lutherans and Anglicans, who seem to be the only protestants who will identify themselves).

You have no precedent, you have no express statement from an apostle or from Christ establishing this allegedly infallible office…

[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[LilyM]

there is no one that is in a class by himself (ie someone who possesses the gift of infallibility)…which is the same situation as before the first coming of Christ (except for a prophet here and there)…please keep in mind that the apostles (and the OT prophets) were validated by signs and wonders…no one still has that ability/mark.

no, I mean an office that possessed the gift of infallibility…where would you get the idea that anyone or any group possessed a set of infallible scriptures and infallible traditions when Christ first came?

I do…but your side had tried to argue from the Davidic line and the seat of Moses to support your understanding of the Papal office…remember I am the guy saying that what you allege is unlikely b/c it differs so dramatically from what God had done in the past. You have no precedent, you have no express statement from an apostle or from Christ establishing this allegedly infallible office…you have your traditions and a line of Popes that simply doesn’t appear to enjoy any special dispensation from God (witness the bad
Popes in particular coupled with the reasonable assumption that a special empowering/envolvment of the Holy Spirit for infallibility would have trickle down effects wrt heightened righteousness)

It’s not ‘our side’ making these assertions. CHRIST told the Apostles to obey the scribes and Pharisees who ‘sit in the seat of Moses’, but not to follow their example of personal sin.

So - who do you say sits in the seat of Moses today, since Christ did not do away with it but reaffirmed it? Who must you obey due to their authoritative position?

 

[Radical]

Sweetheart,

darlin’

…you fail to understand my point.

I understand it…I just don’t think it follows from what has been said

If the Bible is in real error …

all that has been said is that manuscripts differ…do you deny this? So far you haven’t. Do we have an absolutely true copy of 1 Cor written word for word, jot for jot as Paul wrote it? If yes, then which manuscript is it…if no, then did Paul make mistakes that were corrected by copyists or is it that the copyists introduced error? These are the mistakes that we have mentioned so far…is that real error by your definition?

It is just as easy to change or insert a few or even a hundred verses as one verse, for anyone with a bee in their bonnet about a particular issue.

it isn’t about speculating wildly about what could happen…it is about what likely happened. You seem to entertain two possibilities…it is either the Vatican has every thing right or we can’t be sure that Jesus even lived…let alone that he rose from the dead. You may be afraid of life w/o an infallible Pope, but that doesn’t mean God established such an office or that we can’t know a thing w/o it. Your needs or fears don’t determine how God worked

And the original writers may have been the ones with the agenda. They may, for instance, have made up from whole cloth the idea that Jesus was God - certainly non-Christians see no compelling evidence in scripture that He claimed divinity for Himself.

and?

There is in fact absolutely no independent evidence that He existed at all! No Jewish or Roman records of His life, trial, execution. Nothing. Only the word of His followers.

you are wrong about the independent evidence

So can you answer my question - why on earth, if you think the Bible is liable to error, would you rely on it in any way?

b/c I view it as a reliable record of faith and events…much more reliable than the CC. By comparison the scriptures are prestine

Do you really think God relies on such a frail and useless thing as what we humans laughingly call ‘memory’, and should really be called ‘forgettery’? Not to mention the problems we have with interpretation even when we do agree on the words of the text.

yeah…I do believe that God has chosen to work through fallible humans…it is unavoidable…you just wrote about how you make mistakes with what your mom said and did…then you would also have made mistakes about what you heard your Church teach, (unless you believe that God gave you the gift of infallibility when considering Catholic teachings so that God didn’t have to rely on a “frail and useless thing” such as your memory for your salvation)

Inerrancy is about the MESSAGE being truly transmitted, not the jots and tittles being in the right places. The message (or messages, many passages have multiple layers of meaning) IS truly and inerrantly transmitted regardless of differences in translation.

so it is inerrant in the message only? …we might agree on that…depending on how the details of your claim would pan out, but I wouldn’t call that inerrant.

The message (or messages, many passages have multiple layers of meaning) IS truly and inerrantly transmitted regardless of differences in translation. We possess, in the Catholic Church which is as Spirit-guided today as on the day Christ founded it upon St Peter,…

and this is where the details would cause us to differ. WRT a good bit of the NT we can have a good deal of confidence, based on the manuscript evidence, that what we have is very true to the original…and we can have a good bit of confidence that the original goes back to the last half of the first century. You have nothing close to offer for so much of the tradition of the CC . As such, we look for something to indicate that the CC might have some sort of special gift that protected its doctrine from corruption. When we look at the CC, however, we see the claim of infallibility and we also see what is very ordinary (ie the sinful bad Popes) and nothing that puts it apart from the rest of the Christians. There is nothing that objectively distinguishes the Pope (by kind) from the rest of Christian leadership…it was distinguished (by degree) when the bad Popes reigned.

 

[Radical]

It’s not ‘our side’ making these assertions. CHRIST told the Apostles to obey the scribes and Pharisees who ‘sit in the seat of Moses’, but not to follow their example of personal sin.

Christ also said that their traditions were corrupt…if you are trying to say the Popes stepped into the seat of Moses which the Pharisees vacated…then I think that you are wrong, but why would I bother to argue the point as it would be a tacit admission that the Papal traditoons are also corrupt.

So - who do you say sits in the seat of Moses today,

nobody

…since Christ did not do away with it but reaffirmed it?

he did away with the old covenant…and that seat was part of it.

Who must you obey due to their authoritative position?

my leaders…secular included as per Romans 13:1-3 …and the Prime Minister of Canada isn’t infallible either

 

[pablope]

Part one…

look at the NT and see what it says about what the HS will do and what fruit (in men) that will yield

1. scriptures clearly teach that righteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is with that person and that unrighteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is not with that person

 

[pablope]

Part Two…

*So…how do you know what the Holy Spirit does or does not want to do? *

Well…how would you know what God’s wants? In your interpretation of Scripture…I presume…so do you know your interpretation is the correct one, the truth?

Did you follow example of St. Paul…in Gal 2…2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Have you submitted your gospel to an authority for approval, like St. Paul?

What have I missed?/

You only believe in your correctness…and Catholics are in error always…your deeply ingrained presuppositions.

And I think…believing so much in yourself…

c)Why not attach to the bishopric closest to where Christ died and where Peter allegedly received the office and first led? If a Pope died outside of Rome, then on the basis of how it supposedly worked in the first case, wouldn’t it follow that the office would attach to the bishopric closest to where that Pope died?

Why? Don’t you think that is God’s will? Peter was about to leave Rome…but was told by a divine messanger to go back…Peter understood he was to stay in Rome…and be martyred there.

Besides…Rome, being the capital of the Empire…would be used by God, be the instrument to spread Christianity to the known world at that time.

I just don’t see how your claim is likely to be true.

Only according to Radical…

[/QUOTE]

 

[pablope]

remember I am the guy saying that what you allege is unlikely b/c it differs so dramatically from what God had done in the past.

)

And how do you know all that God has done in the past? Does the Bible record all that God has done in the past? If He is bound by the past…then He is not God, correct?

 

[stewstew03]

all that has been said is that manuscripts differ…do you deny this? So far you haven’t. Do we have an absolutely true copy of 1 Cor written word for word, jot for jot as Paul wrote it? If yes, then which manuscript is it…if no, then did Paul make mistakes that were corrected by copyists or is it that the copyists introduced error? These are the mistakes that we have mentioned so far…is that real error by your definition?

Happy to see that you’re not a sola scriptura proponent…

You may be afraid of life w/o an infallible Pope, but that doesn’t mean God established such an office or that we can’t know a thing w/o it. Your needs or fears don’t determine how God worked

I don’t think anyone is “afraid of life without an infallible Pope.” Resorting to insults won’t advance the dialogue…

b/c I view it as a reliable record of faith and events…much more reliable than the CC. By comparison the scriptures are prestine

In what way is the Church unreliable on faith and “events”? And how do you know the scriptures are pristine? Did you have a teacher tell you they were pristine? How do you know that teacher wasn’t lying to you?

Assuming they are pristine, how do you know you are interpreting them infallibly?

yeah…I do believe that God has chosen to work through fallible humans…

Good. Then we agree that God can work through fallible Popes.

…(unless you believe that God gave you the gift of infallibility when considering Catholic teachings so that God didn’t have to rely on a “frail and useless thing” such as your memory for your salvation)

I’m also assuming God did not give you the gift of infallibility when considering Catholic teachings.

The point is, as Catholics we acknowledge that we are totally and completely fallible. And we also believe that God acts reasonably. It would be rather unreasonable for God to have revealed the good news to mankind without leaving him a way to discern truth from fiction.

so it is inerrant in the message only?

“Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”
CCC 107

You have nothing close to offer for so much of the tradition of the CC.As such, we look for something to indicate that the CC might have some sort of special gift that protected its doctrine from corruption.

Jesus created a leadership position in His Church:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 16:18-19[/BIBLEDRB]

The “keys” are symbolically worn “upon the shoulder” of the officeholder in the Davidic Kingdom:

[BIBLEDRB]Isaiah 22:20-22[/BIBLEDRB]

and Jesus promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in truth:

[BIBLEDRB]John 14:16-17[/BIBLEDRB]

Peter, a fallible human being who denied Christ three times, nevertheless invoked the Holy Spirit and made a “papal declaration” at the Council of Jerusalem on the issue of circumcision:

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 15:28[/BIBLEDRB]

When we look at the CC, however, we see the claim of infallibility and we also see what is very ordinary (ie the sinful bad Popes) and nothing that puts it apart from the rest of the Christians. There is nothing that objectively distinguishes the Pope (by kind) from the rest of Christian leadership…it was distinguished (by degree) when the bad Popes reigned.

But you’ve already acknowledged, supra, that God has chosen to work through fallible human beings. You’ve also acknowledged (in a previous post) that impeccability doesn’t prove, ipso facto, infallibility. Basically, your argument seems to be that Catholicism, in general, is a farce because the Church has had some terrible teachers (i.e., Popes). But then, you acknowledge that there is no perfect Christian teacher that we can look to for guidance and truth - only a “reliable” book that you acknowledge is fallible. Is that about right?

 

[Radical]

Happy to see that you’re not a sola scriptura proponent…

I guess that you missed that I view scripture as reliable and tradition as less than reliable

Resorting to insults won’t advance the dialogue…

trying to find a way to be insulted won’t help either

In what way is the Church unreliable on faith and “events”?

the Marian dogmas are a good example.

And how do you know the scriptures are pristine?

see the post that you are addressing

assuming they are pristine, how do you know you are interpreting them infallibly?

I don’t believe that I have that gift…and that isn’t something that I fear

Good. Then we agree that God can work through fallible Popes.

correct

I’m also assuming God did not give you the gift of infallibility when considering Catholic teachings.

I don’t believe so…but then that is my fallible assessment

The point is, as Catholics we acknowledge that we are totally and completely fallible. And we also believe that God acts reasonably. It would be rather unreasonable for God to have revealed the good news to mankind without leaving him a way to discern truth from fiction.

we discern truth from fiction all the time w/o any need to resort to an infallible judge

“Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”
CCC 107

that sounds very Protestant.

Jesus created a leadership position in His Church…Matthew 16:18-19

perhaps…but no mention of infallibility

The “keys” are symbolically worn “upon the shoulder” of the officeholder in the Davidic Kingdom:…Isaiah 22:20-22

Matt 16 may be a reference to Isaiah 22…but it isn’t all that certain…but again, neither passage mentions infallibility or succession in the manner claimed by the CC (for the Papacy). BTW, assuming Matt 16 is tied to Isaiah 22, what happened when the officeholder of the OT period failed to perform or was an embarassment to the office…was he removed from office or did every one just ignore the fact?

…and Jesus promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in truth…

correct:

Peter, a fallible human being who denied Christ three times, nevertheless invoked the Holy Spirit and made a “papal declaration” at the Council of Jerusalem on the issue of circumcision…Acts 15:28

I have gotta call you on this fudging of Acts 15.

first, Simon provided a description of what God did amongst the Gentiles v.14.and not any “papal declaration”

second, it is James that renders his (not Simon’s) judgment v.19 as to what should be done.

and third, the judgment is made by and on behalf of all and viewed as being inspired by the HS…v.28

But you’ve already acknowledged, supra, that God has chosen to work through fallible human beings. You’ve also acknowledged (in a previous post) that impeccability doesn’t prove, ipso facto, infallibility.

correct

Basically, your argument seems to be that Catholicism, in general, is a farce because the Church has had some terrible teachers (i.e., Popes).

no, it is that the claim to infallibility seems very unlikely given that:

a) it is supported only by very poor and forced interpretations of scripture (see your claim to a papal declaration in Acts 15 above)

b) it lacks any good and proper precedent; and

c) when one looks for any supporting evidence of the presence of the HS (a thing necessary for infallibility) one then sees the bad Popes (who did not live by the Spirit)

But then, you acknowledge that there is no perfect Christian teacher that we can look to for guidance and truth…

correct

• only a “reliable” book that you acknowledge is fallible.

the book we have contains mistakes…can you deny this?

Is that about right?

you kinda left God out of the equation and I wouldn’t

 

[stewstew03]

the Marian dogmas are a good example.

We could get into Marian dogmas on another thread if you like…

I have gotta call you on this fudging of Acts 15.

Now, why would anyone accept your fallible interpretation of a fallible document?

c) when one looks for any supporting evidence of the presence of the HS (a thing necessary for infallibility) one then sees the bad Popes (who did not live by the Spirit)

But if, as you acknowledge, God uses fallible Popes to accomplish His will, what exactly do you mean by “supporting evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit?” It’s already been explained that the Holy Spirit prevented bad Popes from teaching bad faith and bad morals. This is all the evidence you need.

the book we have contains mistakes…can you deny this?

I’ve answered this.

you kinda left God out of the equation and I wouldn’t

Explain your equation to me…

 

[Radical]

We could get into Marian dogmas on another thread if you like…

been there, done that

Now, why would anyone accept your fallible interpretation of a fallible document?

b/c I reported what the passage said and you reported what you wanted the passage to say

But if, as you acknowledge, God uses fallible Popes to accomplish His will, what exactly do you mean by “supporting evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit?”

I mean something that isn’t a forced interpretation of scripture or a self-serving declaration…something that is consistent with the claim and can be actually seen by all

It’s already been explained that the Holy Spirit prevented bad Popes from teaching bad faith and bad morals.

that is the sort of self-serving declaration that I had in mind…there has been no good explanation as to why a bad Pope would be motivated to change doctrine and antagonize people (in that regard) as opposed to concentrating on what he actually cared about. What declarations regarding faith and morals did these Popes actually make…(their actions spoke louder than words, but what words did they write and say?)

This is all the evidence you need.

some evidence would be nice…

 

[LilyM]

been there, done that

b/c I reported what the passage said and you reported what you wanted the passage to say

No, you both reported what you THINK the passage says.

Given that, according to you,

a) both of you are equally fallible and
b) the passage itself may in fact be a mistaken (ie wrong) attempt to record what God actually WANTED to say,

I really don’t know why you should care anyway.

Let’s look at the evidence:

First 1500 years of Christianity:

Belief in infallible Apoatolic authority. Heresies exist, but are dealt with and roundly condemned. One major schism over the issue of Papal Authority between Eastern and Western Christians. Basic agreement on most issues.

Last 500 years of Christianity:

In non-Apostolic Churches (ie those that are neither Catholic nor Orthodox and do not believe in an infallible authority or inerrant scripture) - frankly utter chaos.

Blind leading the blind.

Tens of thousands of competing sects with no agreement among them on even the fundamentals.

Tolerance of all sorts of ungodliness that is fairly clearly condemned in scripture and by tradition - homosexuality, remarriage after divorce, abortion and contraception (which every Christian sect condemned at least until 1930, so what gives?)

I can see the fruits of your sort of thinking. It ain’t pretty.