Do you believe everything the Catholic Church teaches?

[Theodred]

petra:

Your comment is embedded with an assumption. You are assuming a specific interpretation of Matt 16:18, which is the most common verse used to establish the Church’s infallibility.

No… actually I’m primarily referring to Saint Paul:

1 Cor 12:12-14 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many.

Eph 5:23: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Col 1:24: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church…

Rom 12:5 …so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Saint Paul emphatically states that the Church is the Body of Christ, intimately continuing in existence with the head. Just as my hand is to my person, so is each individual of the Church to Christ. Just as my body is me, so the Church is Christ. It is a continuing of the Incarnation of Christ, and it is in this way that Jesus fulfills His words lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age (Matt 28:20).

petra:

Of the 2 options, I prefer an absolute source to absolute knowledge.

Petra, I don’t think you realize what you are rejecting when you reject this “absolute knowledge”.

Knowledge is, generally speaking, the union between the intellect and an intelligible object. Knowledge also always entails a judgment regarding the intelligible object of cognition. Knowledge either conforms to reality or does not. “I know that your socks are on your feet” is meaningless knowledge if in fact your socks are not on your feet. Knowledge is either true or false. What conforms to reality is considered true. Now, the truth of our knowledge is determined by what is evident to us. Truth requires evidence. There are as many kinds of knowledge, therefore, as there are kinds of evidence that demonstrate whether knowledge is true or false.

There is self-evident knowledge, such as the whole is greater than one of its parts. There is knowledge that is not self-evident, but can be deduced as true based on various self-evident propositions (reasoned knowledge). There is knowledge that is neither self-evident nor deducible from premises, but the intellect is forced to assent to it because to not do so would be to reject some other universally recognized truth. The last kind of knowledge may not be self-evident or deducible or inferable, but is knowledge that is based on grave authority. I know to eat healthy foods, not because I personally have studied the affects of fatty foods, but because nutritionists tell me that fatty foods aren’t good for me. This last kind of knowledge is what we call faith.

Obviously there are many different kinds of faith, and sometimes faith knowledge can be quite wrong. Sometimes the grave authority is wrong. When we place our faith on human authority, we have human and fallible faith. If, however, our authority is divine then by necessity our faith is both divine and infallible, for the divine is infallible. Knowledge about the divine can only have one source, God. Its source has to be God, because by God’s very nature He is radically other than His creation. All we can know about God from the light of natural reason is what God is not. Anything positive about God can not come from the light of natural reason, so, therefore, any positive knowledge about God must come from God, Himself.

Now, you are saying you are rejecting “absolute knowledge” for the “absolute source”. First of all when you reject “knowledge” what you are really rejecting is faith. Secondly, the absolute source of our knowledge of God is not Scripture, but God! Scripture is one of three vehicles that presents to us the object of faith. Don’t forget that all knowledge is the union of the intellect to an intelligible object of cognition.

continued…

 

[Theodred]

What is the object of our faith?

God.

How do we learn about God if by the light of natural human reason I can know nothing positive about God?

Well, God has to present Himself to us, and He does this by Divine Revelation. The bible holds the answers to our question.

SCRIPTURE 2 Tim 3:16 Allscripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…

TRADITION 1 Cor 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. And… 2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH (MAGISTERIUM) Jn 14:16-18 …and I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. And…Jn 16:12-13 I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. And… Lk 22:31-32 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

petra:

But to reach this conclusion, you must accept the Church’s “infallible” interpretatoin of the verse. In other words, you must assume a specific conclusion in order to reach the same conclusion. It is classic circular reasoning.

Quite the contrary. I’m allowing Scripture to interpret itself.

In light of the passages from Sacred Scripture that I offer above, it is clear that Jesus did not leave His disciples without guidance. Please go back and re-read all the passages I quoted above, going back to the first post. You see how Jesus has provided for His Church?

The Church is His body. The Holy Spirit has been sent to guide us into all truth. The only thing missing is the “how?” Well, there is simply no way to ignore Matt 16:18-19 as being a clear reference as to how this guidance will take place through the Church’s teaching authority. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Or…Matt 18:17-18 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Our Blessed Lord giving the keys of authority to first Peter, and then to the other Apostles isn’t a matter of interpretation… it’s a matter of the plain meaning of the text.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching authority (and also your rejection of faith) doesn’t make any sense when held up to what we find in Scripture.

 

[Malachi4U]

When it comes to Faith and Morals, well, the catholic Church is 100% correct. Now if the Church teaches things outside Faith and Morals then she may not be right like. That’s why the she should stick to what Jesus gave her, Faith and Morals. Other things can only be taken as opinions.

 

[petra]

Hi David,
Théodred:

No… actually I’m primarily referring to Saint Paul: 1 Cor 12:12-14, Eph 5:23, Col 1:24, Rom 12:5, Matt 28:20).

Your initial response to me has 2 parts. You point out correctly that Christ is the Head of the Church. Scripture speaks plainly of that. But scripture does not indicate that Headship and Lordship render the subjects of that headship perfect. It is a relationship of a perfect Lord with imperfect subjects. He is the Creator, we are the creation. Your circular reasoning still stands. You assume that Church’s infallibility to interpret scripture in order to obtain the meaning of Matt. 16:18 that the Church can infallibly interpret scripture.

Petra, I don’t think you realize what you are rejecting when you reject this “absolute knowledge”. . . . Anything positive about God can not come from the light of natural reason, so, therefore, any positive knowledge about God must come from God, Himself. Now, you are saying you are rejecting “absolute knowledge” for the “absolute source”. First of all when you reject “knowledge” what you are really rejecting is faith. Secondly, the absolute source of our knowledge of God is not Scripture, but God! Scripture is one of three vehicles that presents to us the object of faith.

Of course the absolute source of truth is God. That is a strawman. Surely you must know I agree with that. But to refocus the conversation, we are discussing which modes or vehicles He has chosen to convey that truth to us. Let me again make it clear that the issue here is not determining which vehicles are beneficial for conveying truth, but which vehicles are perfect and which are the ultimate and perfect absolute. It is extremely easy to establish several vehicles that are very helpful. The Holy Spirit indwells us and gives us understanding, especially as we pray to understand (Ps. 119:18). But of course, we are sinners and may not always hear Him correctly. The Church is also very helpful with its long history of study and development of theology. But the Church is comprised of people, which are not perfect. And the Church as an institution has not been consistent in its teachings and practice in faith and morals. God is guiding us individually and He is guiding the Church. But that doesn’t make individuals nor the Church perfect.

Again, I’m not completely discounting tradition and the Church’s role. But it is God’s method to codify His truth in a unchanging form. Hebrew tradition was helpful in developing their religion. And, indeed, before Moses, tradition was the primary vehicle of conveying knowledge of the living God. But sole reliance upon tradition was temporary situation – until His truth could be codified into scriptures. We see a similar pattern in the Church era. Early on, tradition is the only means of conveying the gospel. But it is God’s method to codify that truth into scriptures. Scripture is His normal method for conveying truth about Himself and our spirituality that we can not obtain on our own through our own life experiences. Another indicator of the relative authority between scripture and religion/tradition is the fact that Jesus didn’t not quote tradition when He was tempted by the devil. He quoted scripture. This is a powerful evidence of the primacy of God’s codified Word.

I’m not rejecting faith at all. Let me again clarify the discussion . . .You are asserting that the Catholic Church is the absolute and perfect source of truth. Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium are vehicles of that and, therefore, subordinate to the highest authority, the Church.

What I am saying is scripture is the absolute and perfect source, and the Church (which includes tradition and the Magisterium) is a vehicle to understanding scripture. Prayer is also a vehicle for understanding scripture, as we need the Holy Spirit’s help. You have the cart before the horse.

 

[chrisb]

Peace be with you all,

You all appear to be engaged in a very fruitful dialog on this subject so I will not try to muscle my way in here and distract you but allow me to suggest that “consensus of the elders of our faith” serve to weed out error and extreme interpretation. When one references this with historical opinion one arrives at a consistent and historically valid foundation which I find very reassuring. Is it 100%? No, but I think, in all fairness, that it arrives at the safest opinion. I don’t think that there is any sure method to discerning God’s Will except with Holy Revelation, Tradition and Learned Interpretation. Every other attempt yields enough variance in opinion that I personally find it questionable.

Just my 2 cent and one of key reasons I am reconciling with the Catholic Church.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[petra]

Théodred:

What is the object of our faith? God. How do we learn about God if by the light of natural human reason I can know nothing positive about God? Well, God has to present Himself to us, and He does this by Divine Revelation. The bible holds the answers to our question.

Absolutely. This is in agreement with what I’ve been saying.

SCRIPTURE 2 Tim 3:16
TRADITION 1 Cor 11:2 and… 2 Thess 2:15
THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH (MAGISTERIUM) Jn 14:16-18 …and I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, . . . you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. And…Jn 16:12-13 . . .When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. And… Lk 22:31-32 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

In light of the passages from Sacred Scripture that I offer above, it is clear that Jesus did not leave His disciples without guidance. Please go back and re-read all the passages I quoted above, going back to the first post. You see how Jesus has provided for His Church?

I certainly agree that scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. I recognize the value and role of tradition in our understanding of God. This was particularly important before God’s Word for the Church was codified. No disagreement there. I also see value in the Magisterium’s role as a guide and earthly tutor. But you have not provided any evidence that the Church is the supreme perfect absolute, which has scripture under its umbrella. Interestingly, the scriptures you quoted under the heading Magisterium plainly pertain to individual believers. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit was a significant gift to individuals to guide them and keep their faith intact. I would be frightened to minimize this. This is incredibly powerful information. Be careful with what you are attempting to replace this with.

The Church is His body. The Holy Spirit has been sent to guide us into all truth. The only thing missing is the “how?” Well, there is simply no way to ignore Matt 16:18-19 as being a clear reference as to how this guidance will take place through the Church’s teaching authority. . . Or…Matt 18:17-18. Our Blessed Lord giving the keys of authority to first Peter, and then to the other Apostles isn’t a matter of interpretation… it’s a matter of the plain meaning of the text.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching authority (and also your rejection of faith) doesn’t make any sense when held up to what we find in Scripture.

As to the question of “how” we find truth, it is God’s pattern to codify revelation into scriptures. When He does this, scriptures take the front seat in authority. So powerful is its authority, Christ used it as an offensive weapon when tempted by the devil. Of our spiritual armor (which protects us from the deception of the devil), the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God is also the only offensive weapon. The topic of Eph. 13-20 is that of protecting the believer from the schemes of the devil. Again, I don’t doubt the helpfulness in the Church and the wisdom of the early church fathers. But it is interesting that the Word of God is mentioned specifically and the authority of the Church is not. And, as many of the scriptures you quoted above indicate, the Holy Spirit is extremely instrumental in guiding us individually in truth.

I believe that the meaning of scripture is fixed, and multiple conflicting interpretations are not possible. This is clearly a passage around which there has been controversy and different interpretations. Yes, the Lord clearly gave authority to Peter and the Apostles, but what kind of authority?

1. The authority to evangelize, heal people, and cast out demons?
2. The authority to write inspired scriptures?
3. The authority to administer discipline to believers that are in sin?
4. Were they given the authority to invent ecclesiastical rules with penalties of damnation?
5. Does it indicate the Church’s authority is elevated above scripture?

The scriptures you cite above do not plainly indicate the last two. I have not seen any scripture that even indirectly supports the Magisterium as the ultimate and perfect source of truth. I am not rejecting faith at all. I am saying the object of our faith is supremely important. It is a given that your faith and mine is in God. But the relevant question is the perfection and supremacy of the vehicle.

Peace.

 

[chrisb]

Peace be with you Petra,

You all seem like you are all really touching on some great stuff but it appears that you are all missing that methods of exegesis for the Old Testament didn’t materialize post-Church era but was taught by the Apostles to the converted as a means of understanding the Old Testament and it’s “pointing to Jesus Christ” as the Messiah. This suggests a “right” method of exegesis for the Old Testament that is not necessarily self evident but taught by the Apostles. This is largely why even today many Rabbinic Jews disagree with Christianity, because they reject our method of exegesis which point to Jesus Christ as the Messiah. By their method of exegesis, Old Testament Scripture fails to point to Jesus as the Messiah and thus they await another. What I am attempting to suggest is that the early Christian Church shared a method of exegesis for the Old Testament and thus it is reasonable to conclude that they shared a method of exegesis for the New Testament. In fact, it was this method of exegesis that allowed Church leaders to recognize “inspired” texts from “uninspired” texts. The fact was that the “uninspired” text failed to reflect the “taught” or “shared” Apostolic method of exegesis. This is what the Catholic Church argues as tradition and why it is often argued that tradition of the Church (i.e. method of exegesis) predates the New Testament writings.

Just another 2 cents.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Theodred]

petra,

And the Church as an institution has not been consistent in its teachings and practice in faith and morals.

Can you demonstrate this?

God is guiding us individually and He is guiding the Church. But that doesn’t make individuals nor the Church perfect.

I have said neither. Nor has the Church taught either she or any individual in the Church is perfect. The Church teaches that she will not be perfected until the end of time (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1042).

Scripture is His normal method for conveying truth about Himself and our spirituality that we can not obtain on our own through our own life experiences.

That is not true. God’s primary method of revealing Himself is by entering into covenant relationships with the people He calls. The Scripture indicates this very clearly throughout the whole of the Old Testament, and in the New Testament when Jesus says he has come to establish a new covenant. If the written word was the “normal method” for God to “convey truth about Himself”, don’t you think it somewhat odd that when God became man He didn’t write a single word on paper?

Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium are vehicles of that and, therefore, subordinate to the highest authority, the Church.

I’m not sure you understand the difference between Church and Magisterium. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church’s pastors, the bishops. The Church is all the People of God united by one faith, one baptism, one Lord of all. The Church is greater than the Magisterium simply because no part can be equal to or greater than the whole.

I suspect what you mean to say is that you believe I’m saying that Church is teaching that Scripture and Tradition are subordinate to the Magisterium. This, however, is a grave misunderstanding of what I’m saying and what the Church teaches. Please see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 95:

It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

What I am saying is scripture is the absolute and perfect source, and the Church (which includes tradition and the Magisterium) is a vehicle to understanding scripture.

Yes, I’m aware that you are saying this, but in light of what Scripture, itself, attests, this makes no sense. Scripture tells us that God provided a sure means to lead us to all truth, and that sure means was not Scripture. That sure means is the Holy Spirit.

To separate Scripture from both the Church and Tradition is to separate Scripture from that sure means. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Scripture will lead us to all truth. Rather, it says the Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth. You admit that the Holy Spirit indwells in each member of Christ’s body, and that the keys of authority were given to Saint Peter and the other Apostles.

Jesus did not write a book, He entered into a covenant relationship with His Church. His Church wrote the New Testament, just as Israel wrote the Old Testament. How did God inspire the Scriptures? He inspired the Scriptures because the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church.

 

[Theodred]

But you have not provided any evidence that the Church is the supreme perfect absolute, which has scripture under its umbrella.

You keep saying that you agree that the Holy Spirit dwells in us. But then you turn around and say something like this. You do understand that the “us” is the Church, right? It is the same “us” that wrote the Scriptures, and the same “us” that read the Scriptures today.

As I said, I’m not saying the Church or anyone in the Church is perfect.

 

[Theodred]

petra,

As to the question of “how” we find truth, it is God’s pattern to codify revelation into scriptures. When He does this, scriptures take the front seat in authority.

As I’ve already explained, God’s normal method of revealing Himself isn’t Scripture, it is entering into covenant relationships. Scriptures can not, then, take a front seat to the actual relationship between God and man. The problem with your thinking, petra, is that you are subordinating human beings to a written word. Is it Scripture that is served by man, or does Scripture serve man? Scripture serves man by teaching him how to find salvation. The source of this salvation is not Scripture, but God and His grace.

I believe that the meaning of scripture is fixed, and multiple conflicting interpretations are not possible.

So either you or a two thousand year old institution with countless saints is wrong. Hm

The authority to evangelize, heal people, and cast out demons?

Obviously, yes.

The authority to write inspired scriptures?

Since you are reading the Scriptures written by seven Apostles, they obviously did.

The authority to administer discipline to believers that are in sin?

Have you ever read Matt 18:15-17 (especially verse 17)? Obviously, yes.

Were they given the authority to invent ecclesiastical rules with penalties of damnation?

Do you really think that the Church believes it has the power to damn people? You obviously don’t know that much about the Church’s ecclesiastical laws.

Does it indicate the Church’s authority is elevated above scripture?

As I’ve shown by providing a quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic, para 95, the Church does not teach that the Magisterium is elevated above Sacred Scripture. You are suffering under a missconception.

I have not seen any scripture that even indirectly supports the Magisterium as the ultimate and perfect source of truth.

I really don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth, especially after I so emphatically stated that only God was the perfect source of divine truth.

 

[William_Putnam]

StephiePea:

I’m a new convert, and I have met many Catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe. What do you struggle with in the Church?

They are generally called “Cafeteria Catholics.”

I call them in need to seriously evaluate their own faith, and perhaps, visit the confessional.

For what it is worth…

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

*Give me that REAL old time religion!
The CATHOLIC CHURCH, 2,000 years of history! *

 

[petra]

chrisb:

You all seem like you are all really touching on some great stuff but it appears that you are all missing that methods of exegesis for the Old Testament didn’t materialize post-Church era but was taught by the Apostles to the converted as a means of understanding the Old Testament and it’s “pointing to Jesus Christ” as the Messiah. This suggests a “right” method of exegesis for the Old Testament that is not necessarily self evident but taught by the Apostles. This is largely why even today many Rabbinic Jews disagree with Christianity, because they reject our method of exegesis which point to Jesus Christ as the Messiah. By their method of exegesis, Old Testament Scripture fails to point to Jesus as the Messiah and thus they await another. What I am attempting to suggest is that the early Christian Church shared a method of exegesis for the Old Testament and thus it is reasonable to conclude that they shared a method of exegesis for the New Testament. In fact, it was this method of exegesis that allowed Church leaders to recognize “inspired” texts from “uninspired” texts. The fact was that the “uninspired” text failed to reflect the “taught” or “shared” Apostolic method of exegesis. This is what the Catholic Church argues as tradition and why it is often argued that tradition of the Church (i.e. method of exegesis) predates the New Testament writings.

That is very interesting! Thank you. The role of tradition was certainly central prior to the scriptures being identified.

 

[petra]

Théodred:

Can you demonstrate [inconsistencies]?

Here is one example: The Church used to teach that for certain serious sins (murder and adultery) only one forgiveness through the sacrament of penance was allowed. If someone committed the sin again after that, no absolution could be given and they were damned. Today, the Church teaches that the only sin that cannot be forgiven is unrepentance.

Nor has the Church taught either she or any individual in the Church is perfect. The Church teaches that she will not be perfected until the end of time (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1042).

The Church teaches that is is infallible (perfect) with regard to its teachings in faith and morals.

God’s primary method of revealing Himself is by entering into covenant relationships with the people He calls. The Scripture indicates this very clearly throughout the whole of the Old Testament, and in the New Testament when Jesus says he has come to establish a new covenant.

But how are people to know what that covenant is without revelation? The covenant relationship is the result of our response to His revelation.

If the written word was the “normal method” for God to “convey truth about Himself”, don’t you think it somewhat odd that when God became man He didn’t write a single word on paper?

I would presume it was because He was busy living a remarkable life. He is the living Word. The Lord – living, moving, teaching, and loving – is the Word made flesh. He, God, came to walk among us in our realm of space and time. If He spent His precious time writing, that would detract from the importance of His mission. It makes sense to me that He allowed the documentation of His life to be handled by His followers.

I’m not sure you understand the difference between Church and Magisterium. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church’s pastors, the bishops. The Church is all the People of God united by one faith, one baptism, one Lord of all. The Church is greater than the Magisterium simply because no part can be equal to or greater than the whole.

I do understand the difference. I thought we were talking about the Church’s teaching authority. That’s the Magisterium, right?

Regarding your other responses, I understand that the Church teaches that scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium are equals. But the Church also teaches that the Magisterium is the final authority on the interpretation of scripture. As a matter of fact, it has authority over tradition, too. There are many differences in theology among the saints and doctors of the Church. When they are in agreement, the Magisterium calls that tradition. When they are in disagreement, the Magisterium says those individuals were wrong on those matters. Sounds like the Magisterium is the boss.

 

[dcdurel]

petra:

Here is one example: The Church used to teach that for certain serious sins (murder and adultery) only one forgiveness through the sacrament of penance was allowed. If someone committed the sin again after that, no absolution could be given and they were damned. Today, the Church teaches that the only sin that cannot be forgiven is unrepentance.

I don’t recall the Pope teaching that murder or adultery can only be forgiven once. I recall certain Catholics believed that, but I never recall that belief was considered as part of God’s word, that is, either apostolic Tradition or scripture, and since the it was neither apostolic Tradition or Scripture, and the Pope never taught it, it cannot be Catholic Church teaching.

Thus, the Church teaches that it is infallible (perfect) with regard to its teachings in faith and morals. And it always has been infallible.

I have noticed my whole life, that since anti-Catholics can never finda a single Church teaching that is wrong, or in error, they have to stretch and claim every belief by every Catholic in the past was Church teaching, and when it is shown to be in error, they claim to have found an error in Church teaching. Of course all the beliefs of Catholics are not the truth. Only what Jesus and the Holy Spirit handed down is the truth, and when that is unclear, the truth is the Church’s interpretation of this revelation.
Thus the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”

But, that is exactly why Jesus set up a teaching authority and made Peter first in that authority. With that authority we can know what the Church teaches and thus know what the word of God is. Otherwise we would be like the Protestants, always claiming their personal interpretation of the bible is correct and everyone else is wrong. Thus the Gospel for them becomes their personal interpretation of salvation history. In the end, for them there are millions of different Gospels for each of the millions of people in the world, and each based upon each person’s personal interpretation of salvation history, (scripture)

 

[petra]

Théodred:

As I’ve already explained, God’s normal method of revealing Himself isn’t Scripture, it is entering into covenant relationships. Scriptures can not, then, take a front seat to the actual relationship between God and man. The problem with your thinking, petra, is that you are subordinating human beings to a written word. Is it Scripture that is served by man, or does Scripture serve man? Scripture serves man by teaching him how to find salvation. The source of this salvation is not Scripture, but God and His grace.

And as I’ve explained above, we cannot know of that convenant without revelation. There were special individuals throughout time that had angelic or personal visitations from God, enabling them to know of the covenant. Adam and Eve, Abraham . . . the disciples definitely had a personal visitation from God . . . but for most of us in history, the scriptures explain the covenant. Then we respond to that. I’m not clear about what you mean about man serving scripture. I’m just saying God is the source of truth. He is truth. The normal means of conveying that truth is through scripture.

So either you or a two thousand year old institution with countless saints is wrong. Hm

Are those countless saints in agreement? Nope. They differ on some essential dogmas. The Church itself has evolved quite substantially. I have no interest in advancing opinions. I’m just interested in the truth. And I pray fervently that the Holy Spirit guide me. For the record, I believe most of what the Church teaches is true.

Do you really think that the Church believes it has the power to damn people? You obviously don’t know that much about the Church’s ecclesiastical laws.

(I’m sure you gathered that I was in agreement with the first 3 types of authority Christ gave the apostles) Regarding the 4th, the Church certainly has and does make laws that only Catholics are bound by. Missing mass on a holy day of obligation is a grave matter and a mortal sin if the other factors are present. Holy days are established and abolished at the discretion of the Church. It’s my understanding that a diocese has discretion to cancel some holy days. So it could be a mortal sin for someone to miss mass in one city and not in another. I recognize the fact that the Church says it has the authority to bind and loose and can make rules that have a penalty of mortal sin. The Church would likely say it is the individual who damns himself, and not the Church. I’ve discussed this topic in depth in the past. I certainly believe attending mass is something we all should do as much as possible. But Christ never gave the Church authority to set up a quagmire of rules that rivals the Pharisees.

I really don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth, especially after I so emphatically stated that only God was the perfect source of divine truth.

I certainly never intended to put words in your mouth. Wherever you feel I did that, please accept my apologies.

I’ve enjoyed discussing this with you. I’m able to pop into this forum between semester breaks (I teach at a community college). But it’s down to the wire and class starts again next week. Perhaps we can talk again in the future.

 

[petra]

dcdurel:

I don’t recall the Pope teaching that murder or adultery can only be forgiven once. I recall certain Catholics believed that, but I never recall that belief was considered as part of God’s word, that is, either apostolic Tradition or scripture, and since the it was neither apostolic Tradition or Scripture, and the Pope never taught it, it cannot be Catholic Church teaching.

Thus, the Church teaches that it is infallible (perfect) with regard to its teachings in faith and morals. And it always has been infallible.

I have noticed my whole life, that since anti-Catholics can never finda a single Church teaching that is wrong, or in error, they have to stretch and claim every belief by every Catholic in the past was Church teaching, and when it is shown to be in error, they claim to have found an error in Church teaching. Of course all the beliefs of Catholics are not the truth. Only what Jesus and the Holy Spirit handed down is the truth, and when that is unclear, the truth is the Church’s interpretation of this revelation.
Thus the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”

Tertullian wrote about this teaching and practice in the 2nd century. It was not just the belief of an individual Catholic.

Your comment that “all the beliefs of Catholics are not the truth” is interesting. How do you know what fits in that category?

But, that is exactly why Jesus set up a teaching authority and made Peter first in that authority. With that authority we can know what the Church teaches and thus know what the word of God is. Otherwise we would be like the Protestants, always claiming their personal interpretation of the bible is correct and everyone else is wrong. Thus the Gospel for them becomes their personal interpretation of salvation history. In the end, for them there are millions of different Gospels for each of the millions of people in the world, and each based upon each person’s personal interpretation of salvation history, (scripture)

Protestants (most of them) have it wrong because they place no value in tradition, which is a big reason they are so fragmented. There certainly is a role for tradition. My current view is basically Catholic, except I believe that only scripture is perfect. Personal perceptions of the Holy Spirit’s leading, tradition, and the Church are extremely helpful, but not infallible for reasons I’ve described previously.

 

[FranL]

It is a core belief of our faith that the teaching office of the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit of God and is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

If you don’t believe that, you are not a member of the Church.

If I didn’t believe that I don’t see any reason to want to be a member of the Church.

If I couldn’t find a church that I believed had that authority I would belong to no church.

Credo!

• FranL

 

[Theodred]

petra,

The normal means of conveying that truth is through scripture.

No it is not. I don’t know of a way to explain this that is any more plain than I already have. The normal way for God to convey truth is through entering into a covenant relationship with a people. First was Israel in the Old Testament, and now with the Church. Scripture is a testament of these covenant relationships. They are inspired because God was really present to the writers on account of the covenant relationship already established.

You are putting the cart before the horse. The Church is the new covenant relationship with God. The New Testament is the Church’s testament to this new covenant.

The Church itself has evolved quite substantially.

You have stated now, at least four times, that the Church has changed, but you have not demonstrated how, or even what kinds of changes. I’ve already asked you to demonstrate what has changed in regards to the Church’s teachings regarding doctrines of faith and morals.

Regarding the 4th, the Church certainly has and does make laws that only Catholics are bound by. Missing mass on a holy day of obligation is a grave matter and a mortal sin if the other factors are present. Holy days are established and abolished at the discretion of the Church. It’s my understanding that a diocese has discretion to cancel some holy days. So it could be a mortal sin for someone to miss mass in one city and not in another.

Yes, this is true, but I fail to see how this is a negative thing. The Church is an institution, and like all institutions she has a necessity to regulate her own internal discipline. Without regulating internal discipline, the Church, like all institutions, would cease being an institution. Certainly you wouldn’t think it wrong for a country to have laws, or a labor union to have bylaws, or schools to have rules for students? As a teacher, I’m sure you appreciate the rule stipulating no cell phones in the classroom, especially during test times. I’m sure you wouldn’t question the usefulness of such a rule based solely on the fact that the rule regarding cell phones wasn’t a rule when the school was founded. “I’m not going to follow a rule about cell phones, because the schools original charter written in 1918 didn’t include any such rule regarding cell phones!” You would laugh at such an argument from one of your students.

The Church has many such laws called ecclesiastical or Canon Law. Like all laws, Canon Law organizes and manages internal discipline. Like all laws, Canon Laws are helps for the members of the Church.

Just as breaking the laws of the United States is wrong and punishable, so willfully breaking the laws of the Church would be wrong and punishable for her members. Willfully breaking the Church’s laws can be a matter for sin, and can be punishable to one degree or another. Whether or not breaking a Church law is a sin or a mortal sin depends upon evaluating matter, knowledge and consent, intention and various circumstances. It is a matter for the person and his or her confessor. Punishment (or censure, to use the jargon) can take on many different kinds depending on the subject (lay person, married, single, cleric, religious, etc.) and the offense (which Canon Law was broken). These are listed in the Code of Canon Law. None of these punishments, however, is damnation, nor can it be damnation. The most severe censure in Church law is excluding a person from receiving the sacraments until such time that that person conforms to the laws of the Church. This is not by any stretch of the imagination damnation, and in fact this is the censure that Jesus, Himself, commanded as the last recourse for those who refused to listen to the Church (Matt 18:17).

I recognize the fact that the Church says it has the authority to bind and loose and can make rules that have a penalty of mortal sin.

You see, this is where your misunderstanding is coming from. The Church’s authority to bind and loose applies to the teaching office of the Church (the Magisterium) in regards to doctrines of faith and morals, NOT discipline (Canon Law). What the Magisterium teaches regarding faith and morals can not, and does not change. How the pastors govern the Church (Canon Law) can and does change (in fact, it must). While there is some overlap between the two (the laws of the Church can not be contrary to the faith), they remain separate and distinct offices of the Church’s pastors.

In other words, you are lumping dogma and Canon Law together. Dogma is the doctrines of Christianity that deal with faith and morals. The hypostatic union of the divine and human in the person of Jesus Christ is a dogma of the faith. Another example of doctrine is that Sunday is the Lord’s Day on which Jesus Christ rose from the dead. This is not the same as the canon law stipulating our Sunday obligation.

 

[Theodred]

BTW

Breaking any legitimately established law, not just a Church law, would be matter for sin. This goes for the laws of your country, state, city, or school. If one of your students is breaking the no cell phone in the classroom rule, she would be commiting an action that is matter for sin.

 

[chrisb]

Peace be with you all,

Let me say that I have been following this thread from the beginning and I would like to commend both Petra and Theodred for maintaining such respect in this topic. It is freshing to follow a thread concerning such passionately held beliefs and yet maintaining such respect.

Kudos to both of you.

Peace, Love and Blessings,