Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[benhur]

But rcwitness’s post didn’t say “the mind of the Pope”. It said “the mind of Christ”.

Agree.not only His mind but the Holy Spirit,even Christ Himself is in us, certainly not orphaned if we have no pope, nor priestless if we have no priest or ignorant if we had no magisterium. Yet we are a body and have offices and teachers and elders but in my opinion in a different paradigm fro CC…blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Agree.not only His mind but the Holy Spirit,even Christ Himself is in us, certainly not orphaned if we have no pope, nor priestless if we have no priest or ignorant if we had no magisterium. Yet we are a body and have offices and teachers and elders but in my opinion in a different paradigm fro CC…blessings

But we are all but members of His mystical Body. None is a complete representation of Him, even the Bishop of Rome. The Spiritual man is able to be correct in all things. This doesn’t justify the proposition that the Church is not able to proclaim Infallibility through the office Christ shares His keys with.

It is on account of disputes and conflicting interpretations that the Church has authority to bind and loose. If a man rejects the Spirit, who cannot be seen, he has the Church which is able to Confirm a visible/audible judgement. Ultimately, and over time, the laws pertaining to an Infallible pronouncement were developed into the law, which was founded by Jesus when He gave Peter the Keys and the Bishops who agreed together.

Now if we say that the Church verdict is subject to each members personal judgment, then the Church has no binding authority.

But I agree that the individual Christian is able to rely on the Spirit to keep him from error and to understand what has been delivered to him.

 

[Peter_J]

Agree.not only His mind but the Holy Spirit,even Christ Himself is in us, certainly not orphaned if we have no pope, nor priestless if we have no priest or ignorant if we had no magisterium. Yet we are a body and have offices and teachers and elders but in my opinion in a different paradigm fro CC…blessings

That makes sense, of course; but the way I see it, if the Orthodox (for example) were correct in their claim to be the one true church, then the Patriarch of Constantinople would be the Pope.

 

[benhur]

That makes sense, of course; but the way I see it, if the Orthodox (for example) were correct in their claim to be the one true church, then the Patriarch of Constantinople would be the Pope.

OK, from a catholic perspective where you can have only one pope/patriarch. I thought O’s acknowledge(d) other patriarchs, and every bishop is a pope . Not sure.

 

[benhur]

But we are all but members of His mystical Body. None is a complete representation of Him, even the Bishop of Rome. The Spiritual man is able to be correct in all things. This doesn’t justify the proposition that the Church is not able to proclaim Infallibility through the office Christ shares His keys with.

Hi rc,

Agree except with the underlined. You go just one office to far.

It is on account of disputes and conflicting interpretations that the Church has authority to bind and loose. If a man rejects the Spirit, who cannot be seen, he has the Church which is able to Confirm a visible/audible judgement. Ultimately, and over time, the laws pertaining to an Infallible pronouncement were developed into the law, which was founded by Jesus when He gave Peter the Keys and the Bishops who agreed together.

Agreed, so long as one understands the other apostles also had keys. Also beyond Peter (successor) is a whole other issue.

Now if we say that the Church verdict is subject to each members personal judgment, then the Church has no binding authority.

The Church can decree/verdict, but again those “deciding” put in their two cents/personal judgement. Truth (truthful decree) is binding irregardless of ones personal judgement and obedience to it.

But I agree that the individual Christian is able to rely on the Spirit to keep him from error and to understand what has been delivered to him

Amen

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi benhur

I do not perceive any adverse attitude in your posts.

I agree with you in that there should be some humility. Simply because one is a member of the Church that Jesus established does not justify pride. Ask the apostles!
Pride is a common weakness in all humans.

A simple Google search reveal a whole cottage industry of anti-Catholic vitriol.

Tighten your seat-belt - with the world growing more secular, faith communities, such as Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, will be attacked for holding on to their beliefs.

As unpleasant as it may appear, it has already served to bind Christianity closer in several issues.

Historically one can see the need for an infallible authority.
As the person to whom God made His revelations, Moses had to be an infallible authority to record the Message and establish an initial canon of Scripture.
Moses was succeeded by others as shown in sacred Scripture.

That requirement still exists in the order of the New Covenant.
That role (as stated in Scripture) is dealt with in the office of Peter.

Regards
d

Hi d,

Thanks for post. On the last, yes, an infallible source of authority, beginning with God’s Word, and as carried by His Church. We just differ on how that is done, or on that one final office (pope).

Not sure Jews regard(ed) their kings and judges and prophets and leaders as "infallible’’. But yes when they spoke God’s word , and things happen as foretold etc…

The new covenant is different and better, beginning with that finally though unsuccessful in old, we are all now priests. It also says neighbor need not teach his neighbor , for He shall be in us and teach us , and we will now have a new heart that desires His “law”. Therefore i would submit that elders and priests and leadership have a different paradigm than in old covenant,forgoing a singular head office,for Christ is the head, first working thru the apostles and prophets and teachers and councils and their successors.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I asked much the same question as in my post #670 to you, to a Mormon who claimed to get divine revelation in her mind, and she answered in a similar way as you did. She got her certainty by divine illumination from the Spirit, as I take it you seem to indicate you do, yet you both get such dissimilar inspiration from the same Spirit! (Or is it the same spirit?) Anyway, that is what I mean my illumination is not equally distributed. (I don’t know what you mean by “beyond salvation.”)

But, you seem to define illumination as “faith.” Is that right? That’s not how I think of it.

Hi M,

Illumination and faith are different. Once illumined, one must then believe .But I suppose it is simultaneous also.I mean the Father showed Peter that Jesus was the Christ, and then proclaimed in faith as such , that Christ is Messiah.

“There is a way that seems right to a man , but they are the ways of death”. Everyone believes something and illumination has two sources. But divine illumination is divine illumination. The Spirit bears witness in us that we have been made sons of God (illumined, born again, etc , and many other good things).

Beyond salvation means that there is life birthing illumination,which is the same for all The Spirit convicts of sin, judgement and righteousness (of Christ) the same for all. Just as what Peter received on answering who is Jesus , we also receive same light. Now as we grow in faith and maturity , we tackle old darkness’s with new light , and that varies with each one of us.

Blessings

 

[commenter]

Hi M,

Illumination and faith are different. Once illumined, one must then believe .But I suppose it is simultaneous also.I mean the Father showed Peter that Jesus was the Christ, and then proclaimed in faith as such , that Christ is Messiah.

“There is a way that seems right to a man , but they are the ways of death”. Everyone believes something and illumination has two sources. But divine illumination is divine illumination. The Spirit bears witness in us that we have been made sons of God (illumined, born again, etc , and many other good things).

Beyond salvation means that there is life birthing illumination,which is the same for all The Spirit convicts of sin, judgement and righteousness (of Christ) the same for all. Just as what Peter received on answering who is Jesus , we also receive same light. Now as we grow in faith and maturity , we tackle old darkness’s with new light , and that varies with each one of us.

Blessings

Every illumination is defended by bible quotes. The problem is there are at least 3 sources: the Holy Spirit; an evil spirit; and, probably the most common, just my own personal desire, to satisfy my need for an **illumination now. **

History shows all 3 of those types of illuminations can be backed up by Bible quotes. All 3 of them** feel** genuine, feel like the light. Keep in mind bible quotes have justified every possible contradictory, positive or destructive, good or bad impulse for 2000 years. Every nonsense illumination is also alleged to be consistent with tradition too.

How do I know which types of illumination are reliable, either directly for myself or which illuminations to others might be reliably considered as a guide for myself? The answer is the Magisterium. The Magisterium is not a standalone, it interprets Scripture and Tradition. It judges whether a given illumination is supernatural, and meant for guidance of everyone (public revelation). It judges whether a given illumination has potential supernatural aspects, and safe for consideration as consistent with the Truth (approved private revelation) but only as anyone feels called to a given private revelation. I personally feel called to be guided by the revelation to St. Faustina. It adds nothing to the Truth, but encourages me personally to live the Truth (i. e. Public Revelation, especially the Sermon on the Mount).

The Magisterium judges whether a well meaning illumination has no basis for public revelation (the Gospel of Thomas, for instance) nor for private revelation either (Garabandal “revelations”). That in no way means they are necessarily false or evil, though it is possible in rare cases an illumination is from the evil spirit. In most cases it is simply decent people becoming over eager.

It does not mean God is bound by the Magisterium - He can illumine wherever and however He wants! It just means that such illuminations as are passed through this screening, the screening is reliable. God can touch the hearts of individuals, open the eyes in other ways we don’t know about.

 

[Peter_J]

OK, from a catholic perspective where you can have only one pope/patriarch. I thought O’s acknowledge(d) other patriarchs, and every bishop is a pope . Not sure.

Well let me elaborate a bit more. Traditionally, in the undivided church, Rome ranked first and Constantinople second. So if Rome schism from Constantinople, and not the other way around, then Constantinople subsequently ranked first.

 

[dawid]

Hi behur

OK, from a catholic perspective where you can have only one pope/patriarch. I thought O’s acknowledge(d) other patriarchs, and every bishop is a pope . Not sure.

I see where you are confused!

Each bishop is a father (as per Scriptural record) to his diocese and at one stage they were therefore called popes. Effectively that is what they are. Later the custom changed to calling only the bishop of Rome the pope.

Each rite within the Church has its own patriarch.
(see the list of them in the Chaldean rite. Btw Thomas founded that and many other eastern rites even as far as India where he established the Syro-Malabar and -Malankar rites which are still present there)

Each rite has its own bishops.

Now the fun part! The bishop of Rome is the patriarch of the Latin-rite Church - so if the Chaldean patriarch became the bishop of Rome, he would effectively then become the Latin-rite patriarch!

Regards
d

 

[dawid]

Hi benhur

On the last, yes, an infallible source of authority, beginning with God’s Word, and as carried by His Church. We just differ on how that is done, or on that one final office (pope).

We can agree that there has to be an infallible authority to discern the will of God as in the example of Moses and his successors.

Jesus referred to the authority vested in the chair of Moses on which the rabbis sat.
They had the equivalent of a magisterium for resolving matters of diverse interpretations.

Jesus installed Simon bar Jonah (whose name he changed to Kephas/Peter) as God did in significant role-players.
This was accepted by the apostles and their successors. The history of the early Church bears this out.

It in the 11th century when the schism with Constantinople took place. This had more to do with politics than theology. The consequence is that the various patriarchs refused to defer to each other and their theology seems to have stood still at that time.

The protestant rebellion and reformation was sparked by Church corruption, but exploited by secular rulers who preferred compliant religious leaders who owed them patronage. I would recommend that you read “*The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society *” by the historian Brad S. Gregory to gain some insight.
amazon.com/Unintended-Reformation-Religious-Revolution-Secularized/dp/0674045637

Not sure Jews regard(ed) their kings and judges and prophets and leaders as "infallible’’. But yes when they spoke God’s word , and things happen as foretold etc…

Scripture (particularly from a Jewish point of view) considers the genealogy important (see Matthew).
However infallibility is not impeccability.
Scripture gives us examples of judges, kings, prophets, etc in the Jewish genealogy,that did evil. However the evildoers were unable to undo the Covenantal promise.
They somehow, through Providence did not make any declarations on faith while in their positions of infallible authority! You may see who is in control there!
The faithful leaders’ words and instructions survived.
Jesus’ genealogy includes some shady characters showing that God is able to draw straight lines using our imperfect human scribbles.

PS You may find this “intervention” situation interesting:
“What about when Pope Sixtus V issued a botched revision of the Latin Vulgate Bible. This edition was so filled with errors, omissions and deformities of the text, that it was hastily recalled after his death by embarrassed Roman cardinals. But the damage was done. Sixtus V had formally taught that the defective edition was to be the only Bible used for the entire Church. If that isn’t a perfect example of a pope fulfilling all the necessary ingredients for teaching ‘infallibly’, nothing else in papal history is. The pope clearly taught error.” (Madrid, p. 242, Pope Fiction)
For the answer see:
catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-infallibility.html

The new covenant is different and better, beginning with that finally though unsuccessful in old, we are all now priests. It also says neighbor need not teach his neighbor , for He shall be in us and teach us , and we will now have a new heart that desires His “law”. Therefore i would submit that elders and priests and leadership have a different paradigm than in old covenant,forgoing a singular head office,for Christ is the head, first working thru the apostles and prophets and teachers and councils and their successors.

The New Covenant is the consequence of the preceding Covenants, only it is the act of redemption of mankind and includes all nations.
Indeed we are all priests now. However your interpretation of the authority of the general priesthood falls short.
There is also the ministerial priesthood in which the bishops have certain authority and responsibility (as defined initially in Scripture).
You may research this aspect in the works of the early Church fathers.

This was the status quo until the schism of the tenth century and the protestant rebellion for the reasons that I outlined above.

In the New Covenant, there is only one High Priest - the Christ Himself.
The Sacrifice of Calvary is once for all with the Christ as the High Priest and the Lamb of God.
The ministerial priesthood is only there in persona Christi as commanded by Jesus at the Last Supper.

Regards
d

 

[mackbrislawn]

Hi M,

Agreed illumination, faith , is not equally distributed beyond salvation .

Blessings

benhur, here is where it seems illumination is equated with faith.

 

[benhur]

Well let me elaborate a bit more. Traditionally, in the undivided church, Rome ranked first and Constantinople second. So if Rome schism from Constantinople, and not the other way around, then Constantinople subsequently ranked first.

Hi Peter,

It is the CC tradition that she has ranked first from the “undivided” times. I think they were undivided times specifically because there was no such proclaimed supremacy. Sorts of division came when she did, to this day.

I think I get your pitch , that hey , somebody is gonna claim supremacy/first, so let’s no be hypocritical of Rome to make such claims, when we would also , if we could. …That is possible, just like some say Lutherans and P’s do some of the very same things that they dislike CC for doing or having done.

Sometimes I wonder how did Rome become the center for the church ? Seems counter intuitive to the humility of Christ’s path. He entered the world very abased, from lowly Bethlehem /Nazareth. He never had a “headquarters”. He honored Jerusalem , but that was center of OT covenant thru a nation. We are no longer a nation dispensation , but now thru a body of believers, the church age, looking for a kingdom to come.The worldly glory of ancient Rome and the church hierarchical permanence there in that city represents to me the opposite of our sojourning, pilgrimage, and ambassadorship of a kingdom to come. Today the Vatican is anything but lowly and abased as our founders…Just some thoughts.

However I do understand some of the practical reasons for its patriarchy to the area , especially after the fall of the Empire .

Blessings

 

[benhur]

benhur, here is where it seems illumination is equated with faith.

Hi m,

Not sure. I mean the seven gifts, or nine , of the Spirit are not equally distributed also but that does not mean the gifts are equated with each other.

 

[benhur]

Every illumination is defended by bible quotes. The problem is there are at least 3 sources: the Holy Spirit; an evil spirit; and, probably the most common, just my own personal desire, to satisfy my need for an **illumination now. **

History shows all 3 of those types of illuminations can be backed up by Bible quotes. All 3 of them** feel** genuine, feel like the light. Keep in mind bible quotes have justified every possible contradictory, positive or destructive, good or bad impulse for 2000 years. Every nonsense illumination is also alleged to be consistent with tradition too.

How do I know which types of illumination are reliable, either directly for myself or which illuminations to others might be reliably considered as a guide for myself? The answer is the Magisterium. The Magisterium is not a standalone, it interprets Scripture and Tradition. It judges whether a given illumination is supernatural, and meant for guidance of everyone (public revelation). It judges whether a given illumination has potential supernatural aspects, and safe for consideration as consistent with the Truth (approved private revelation) but only as anyone feels called to a given private revelation. I personally feel called to be guided by the revelation to St. Faustina. It adds nothing to the Truth, but encourages me personally to live the Truth (i. e. Public Revelation, especially the Sermon on the Mount).

The Magisterium judges whether a well meaning illumination has no basis for public revelation (the Gospel of Thomas, for instance) nor for private revelation either (Garabandal “revelations”). That in no way means they are necessarily false or evil, though it is possible in rare cases an illumination is from the evil spirit. In most cases it is simply decent people becoming over eager.

It does not mean God is bound by the Magisterium - He can illumine wherever and however He wants! It just means that such illuminations as are passed through this screening, the screening is reliable. God can touch the hearts of individuals, open the eyes in other ways we don’t know about.

Hi c,

Your good post deserves more thought but suffice it to say I mostly agree. I might just equate magisterium with the Body, or the Church. But formal, central, judging has at times failed God’s chosen. Peter went against the magisterium, the "screening’ of His time in pronouncing Christ as Messiah.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi c,

Your good post deserves more thought but suffice it to say I mostly agree. I might just equate magisterium with the Body, or the Church. But formal, central, judging has at times failed God’s chosen. Peter went against the magisterium, the "screening’ of His time in pronouncing Christ as Messiah.

I am confused what you mean by this, ben. What did Peter do?

 

[Peter_J]

I think I get your pitch , that hey , somebody is gonna claim supremacy/first, so let’s no be hypocritical of Rome to make such claims, when we would also , if we could.

No, I didn’t say that. (But we can talk about it if you want.)

 

[dawid]

It is the CC tradition that she has ranked first from the “undivided” times. I think they were undivided times specifically because there was no such proclaimed supremacy. Sorts of division came when she did, to this day.

I think I get your pitch , that hey , somebody is gonna claim supremacy/first, so let’s no be hypocritical of Rome to make such claims, when we would also , if we could. …That is possible, just like some say Lutherans and P’s do some of the very same things that they dislike CC for doing or having done.

Hi benhur

Here are a few of the early Church fathers who accepted the primacy of Peter and his successors.

Hermas AD 80
Ignatius of Antioch AD 110
Dionysius of Corinth AD 170
Irenaeus of Lyons AD 175, AD 189
Eusebius of Caesarea AD 190
Cyprian of Carthage AD 251

Some of the collections of these types of writings are here:
catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i
newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

This primacy is close to 2000 years now and not an innovation!

The acceptance by the early Church of the primacy of the See of Peter was due to their understanding that the authority was conferred by the Christ.
The early Church had first-hand knowledge of what Christ’s apostles learnt from His instructions.

Sometimes I wonder how did Rome become the center for the church ? Seems counter intuitive to the humility of Christ’s path. He entered the world very abased, from lowly Bethlehem /Nazareth. He never had a “headquarters”.

The Christ was and is the Head of the Church.
During His incarnation He showed humility in His servant-leadership - effectively He was the “headquarters”.
One of the tiles of the pope is “The servant of the servants of Christ”.

He honored Jerusalem , but that was center of OT covenant thru a nation. We are no longer a nation dispensation , but now thru a body of believers, the church age, looking for a kingdom to come.The worldly glory of ancient Rome and the church hierarchical permanence there in that city represents to me the opposite of our sojourning, pilgrimage, and ambassadorship of a kingdom to come. Today the Vatican is anything but lowly and abased as our founders…Just some thoughts.

Yours comment about the change from a national covenant to a universal (catholic) covenant is a good point.

The worldly Rome is the the analogy of the worldly disciples that Jesus mixed with (tax-collectors, pharisees, etc. (The Church is a hospital for the sick)

Jerusalem was also a political capitol and the Temple was itself adorned with gold and elaborate artwork.

In the same way the Vatican is adorned not for man’s glory, but for God’s.

The Vatican is actually outside the wall of the old city of Rome and it was there that Peter and Paul were martyred.

The artwork at the Vatican and all church buildings are gifts and remain there for human posterity.

There is an argument about the Vatican’s riches - you can find the rebuttal here: catholic.com/quickquestions/is-there-a-concise-way-to-respond-to-criticisms-of-the-churchs-wealth

Of the first 30 popes, only two were not martyred - hardly a position to desire.
During WW2, the pope was a target of the Nazi regime - not comfortable at all.
Currently the pope’s life would be a prize for a jihadi.

Regards
d

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi Peter,

It is the CC tradition that she has ranked first from the “undivided” times. I think they were undivided times specifically because there was no such proclaimed supremacy. Sorts of division came when she did, to this day.

I think I get your pitch , that hey , somebody is gonna claim supremacy/first, so let’s no be hypocritical of Rome to make such claims, when we would also , if we could. …That is possible, just like some say Lutherans and P’s do some of the very same things that they dislike CC for doing or having done.

Sometimes I wonder how did Rome become the center for the church ? Seems counter intuitive to the humility of Christ’s path. He entered the world very abased, from lowly Bethlehem /Nazareth. He never had a “headquarters”. He honored Jerusalem , but that was center of OT covenant thru a nation. We are no longer a nation dispensation , but now thru a body of believers, the church age, looking for a kingdom to come.The worldly glory of ancient Rome and the church hierarchical permanence there in that city represents to me the opposite of our sojourning, pilgrimage, and ambassadorship of a kingdom to come. Today the Vatican is anything but lowly and abased as our founders…Just some thoughts.

However I do understand some of the practical reasons for its patriarchy to the area , especially after the fall of the Empire .

Blessings

Hi Ben.

I think everything has a HQ. Even in our homes there’s one particular area that we spend most of our time in. Human nature.

And I’ve never been to the Vatican but I’ve heard that they barely make ends meet.

 

[Wannano]

Hi Ben.

I think everything has a HQ. Even in our homes there’s one particular area that we spend most of our time in. Human nature.

And I’ve never been to the Vatican but I’ve heard that they barely make ends meet.

An interesting read is a book by a Catholic author, Gerald Posner called God’s Bankers: A History of Money and Power at the Vatican.