R
rcwitness
Guest
Yes, I will gladly. But can you directly answer post 100 as well?
Did Luther claim for himself that infallibility, which he would not allow to the Church of Christ?
- Status
Yes, I will gladly. But can you directly answer post 100 as well?
A
alwayswill
Guest
answering the questions above as directly as possibleNow my friend…
This thread is also about whether Luther, and subsequently many Protestants, Teach a certain and without possibility of error, Doctrine that the Catholic Church (strengthened through the Bishop of Rome) in fact officially Teaches some error, and does not posses the keys of the Kingdom.
Do you believe and spread this teaching? If so, are you absolutely certain, without the possibility of error, it is Truth, and have the authority to teach believers in Christian this?
Yes: I believe the Catholic Church teaches error
Yes : I believe the the Catholic Church does NOT exclusively process the keys to the Kingdom
Yes I believe and teach that.
Yes :it is possible I am in error
But “unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. …”
Know this:
I have been wrong in the past and have changed from being a a full fledged Arminian to fully embracing Reformed Theology… I was convinced by Scripture and plain reason.
RCwitness;
are you absolutely certain, without the possibility of error, you are correctly understanding the teaching of the Catholic Church?
Do agree more with the more conservative or the more liberal interpretations of the teaching of the Catholic Church
R
rcwitness
Guest
Canon Law keeps the Church in the lawful boundaries of official decisions and their announcments.
What you need to consider, is that the Church does hold Scripture as the highest Rule of faith! Yet this rule needs to be interpreted and Taught to the faithful. The Magisterium is this office, or authoritative entity within the Church. Without this aspect of the Church, which is founded through the Apostles Tradition and Scripture, the Scriptures are abused and it’s result is perpetual division over what groups of Christians believe and practice.
I believe, but am far from an expert in CL, that canon law contains infallible decrees but also fallible customs and practices. We can’t really equate all of CL to infallible decrees. It’s a different aspect. Maybe a Canon Law expert could help both of us explain that.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Thank you! Now do you teach this along with everything when you teach? Are they aware that you believe that you could be wrong about your interpretations and that the Catholic Church may in fact be correctly following Scripture?
A
alwayswill
Guest
yes: I often say my teaching is correct if I agree with the whole council of Scripture and I am in error if I contradict Scripture
RCwitness;
are you absolutely certain, without the possibility of error, you are correctly understanding the teachings of the Catholic Church?
Do agree more with the more conservative or the more liberal interpretations of the teachings of the Catholic Church
R
rcwitness
Guest
No, but then again, I don’t Teach what I don’t know is in line with the Church. I don’t separate myself from her Communion, and leadership. I seek her counsel and Sacraments. I submit to her discipline and direction. I participate with my Parish in Communion with the Bishops.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Again, this is a bit evasive. Do you admit that you are fallible, and your stance against the Catholic faith could be wrong, and that the Catholic Church may be correctly interpreting Scripture and maybe have infallible Teaching?
A
alwayswill
Guest
you’re soooo close
**From Catholic.com
**“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
archived here
web.archive.org/web/20100330002353/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
**From NEWADVENT.org **Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)
The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.” Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. …"
G
goout
Guest
Seems like a straw man.
The Church is not a subject of either liberal or conservative interpretations.
Individuals, or groups of individuals, may put such spins on teachings, but the Church is not subject to them. “Agreement” doesn’t have much meaning for a mature Christian.
This is probably the key idea that modern society has lost:
the Church is not a group of individuals vying for primacy of opinion and interpretation, the Church is a community. The Church does not revolve around the firestorms of personalities. That idea is long lost in the age of thousands of individualist denominations following the latest “truth”. For many people the Church is like any other democratic election cycle.
This is a patently false idea at odds with the Gospel.
Big difference between a group of individuals and the Christian community.
A
alwayswill
Guest
yes, I admit I am fallible,
yes, I admit that my stance against the Catholic faith could be wrong,
yes, I admit that the Catholic Church may be correctly interpreting Scripture
yes, I admit that the Catholic Church may have infallible Teaching…
So here i stand with my the Scripture in my “hand” and I asked to be shown where it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
I plainly ask does God want those that have eternal life to know they have eternal life? 1John 5:13
i can keep going…
R
rcwitness
Guest
Yes. Your traditions are not guaranteed by the passages of Matthew in Scripture. Therefore, they are subject to error. We believe Peter, when Teaching the Church in faith and morals was infallible, and this promise extended to his successors. Matthew 18 is also not restricted to the Apostles themselves, but the continued Church throughout the ages.
A
alwayswill
Guest
Its not strawman because it is obvious that FAITHFUL Catholics hold conflicting interpretations of Church teaching with other FAITHFUL Catholics
With Catholicism: Catholics focus on the unified teachings of their authority (their Church): while ignoring the differing beliefs of its individual members.
With Protestantism: Catholics focus on the differing beliefs of its individual members; while ignoring the unified teachings of their authority (the Scriptures)
R
rcwitness
Guest
hopefully you at least convey this to those you teach.Why? I already have, but you reject her interpretation. Matthew 18 condemns those who reject the decision of the Church. Before that, Jesus gave that authority to Peter, primarily.
Of course. But not if you are implying the doctrine of Assurance of Salvation. We can and should be certain of our present condition before Him. If we have doubts, we need to confess and repent. Then we can have confidence again.
A
alwayswill
Guest
Your’e right: I reject that Matthew 18 is a proof text that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
as I scour through every page of Scripture find this to be true
That it is **NOT **absolutely necessary for salvation that any human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
and I may be wrong:
and you?
G
goout
Guest
Protestantism begs the focus by it’s nature. You give proper reverence to scripture, but there is no unified teaching authority. Do I owe my trust to Joel Osteen? Billy Graham? Jonesboro Baptists?
The Gospel was never given as a subject of individual opinion or political persuasion. If it were, Christ would have rolled up his blanket, went back to Nazareth, and built nice homes.
And the Church does not ignore the differing beliefs of it’s members.
A good pastor takes his flock where he finds them, including the Pope.
But, the integrity of the Church is not subject to the opinions of the faithful.
There’s a meaningful distinction there.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I promise to get back with a comprehensive post about your concerns.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
The problem is when you refer to the scriptures, there is no authoritative interpreter for protestantism. Even if we wanted to, there is no one source to defer to to get a better understanding of just what it is that you are supposedly unified on?
You, personally, went from Arminianism to OSAS, demonstrating that your own theology is not unwavering. Theoretically, next week you could return to Arminianism… So even if protestantism appointed someone to be that someone, how can we be certain he/she is certain about what is or isn’t ‘unified’ teaching?
Catholics in this forum are not attempting to slander protestantism…the fact of the matter is that there is no real certainty on unified protestant teaching… With the Catholic Church, either you believe her teachings or you are a protestant. So certainty exists, regardless of some of her rebellious pew sitters.
A
alwayswill
Guest
I’ll repeat this point again in a different way:
Are there FAITHFUL non-rebellious Catholics who believe they are in complete agreement with the teachings of the Catholic church ,
yet are in disagreement
with other FAITHFUL non-rebellious Catholics who believe they are in complete agreement with the teachings of the Catholic church?
Or is it your view that a unified teaching authority has produced unity of beliefs among the FAITHFUL non-rebellious members
R
rcwitness
Guest
Ha! You are funny… but yes, of course Catholics mis-understand Teachings. And to this there are many degrees. Just as I said there is an acceptable degree of non-Catholic submission to the Catholic Magisterium. For the genuine Catholic and Protestant, it is NOT to the degree of eternal damnation. Salvation is still attained. Suffering through Purgatory is likely, but salvation is attained.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
I think what is or isn’t considered faithfull in this conversation is a bit relative. Because, theoretically, if “alwayswill” were Catholic he would be in total conformity with church teachings, because he cares deeply about his faith.
If we define faithfull as Joe blow who attends Mass but his faith practice doesnt extend beyond that, then no, you could say pew sitters are not unified in their understanding.
Personally, that is not how i would define faithfull. That is paramount to the guy who buried his talents and handed them to the Lord upon his return.
- Status