Doesn't your relationship with God matter more than your denomination?

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

Maybe I should agree that the church can not err, by God’s graces only, and that any utterance apart from that is man speaking, and not under the “guarantee”. So for example when the church at Pergamos (?) erred in having doctrine of Balaam , and that of Nicolait…

Hi Ben,

Yes, they would not have been part of the guarantee. If you know your Greek, then you know that Jesus only grants the guarantee to one Apostle individually, the rest He grants the power to collectively.

So in the case of the Assumption, was it men or leaders speaking as men (doctrines of men), outside the guarantee?

If such is the case, then you yourself cast doubt on the Council of Jerusalem. How were the Judaizers to know whether the Apostles at that council were speaking as men outside the guarantee, or as Apostles speaking with the guarantee? Nowhere does Jesus say that we, the sheep can pick and choose. But you have picked and chosen, ergo you have granted the power to bind and loose unto yourself.

If so the promise of the guarantee was kept by those opposing such doctrine, and those resisting it for millennia (did not even a much earlier pope condemn spurious writings about her Assumption), resisting the binding of the “story” .

Nope. Faulty reasoning on your part again. Pope Gelasius condemned one writing about the Assumption of Mary as being spurious. He in no way condemned the belief in the Assumption at all, just that one spurious writing. By your logic, if one were to condemn a spurious writing about Jesus, that would mean the one who did the condemning didn’t believe in Jesus.

Again, how can one tell ?

Easily. Jesus said whatever you bind, shall be bound. He leaves no room for you, or the Ebionites, to mitigate the teaching.

Since it is so hard for you to tell, why do you think Jesus gave that power if no one can tell if it is being exercised in the correct manner? Think about it. Could the Ebionites not tell when the Apostles had exercised it? No Ben, to support your desire to submit to no one but yourself, you try to twist and water down Jesus’ teaching, to your peril.

Would you really just say we can not, except that it must be right by promise, with no guidelines coming from our own reborn spirits in Christ…a sort of invisible auto pilot ?

Nope. I believe it is quite easy to tell. I believe Christ’s guarantee.

Tomorrow Mary could be decreed an eternal creature, and it would be binding.

There is as much chance of that as them finding the tomb of Jesus’ wife.

So if you were in Pergamos…,

Wrong again. Those bishops did not have the power to bind, as explained above. They could only bind in unison with the head of the Church.

I am actually being very apostolic, doing even as St. Peter did. (He finally submitted to divine revelation to his inner man, even though it went against much of God ordained authority)

Wrong again. Show me in Scripture, or in any tradition, that the Pharisees ever taught from the Chair of Moses that Jesus was not the Messiah. The Pharisees had Divine Authority, only when they taught from Moses’ seat. That is why Jesus taught to do as they taught, when they taught from Moses’ seat. So another statement of yours is proven to be wrong. I will agree you are being partially like people in Apostolic times, but not st. Peter. The Ebionites granted to themselves the power to bind and loose, in opposition to the Apostles They only submitted to themselves. Many of your comments over the years prove that you also have granted unto yourself the power to bind and loose. You also only submit to yourself.

It is not the infallible church against a fallible believers conscience as you frame it.

Actually, it is exactly as I frame it.

It is a cooperation within an economy of (name removed by moderator)ut: from parents, and teachers, and spiritual leaders, and Writ, and History, all being processed, guided by the Spirit, in the spirit of a man. You know this, and I put it forth that it is the basis for your convictions as posted, as well as mine.

I can not in good conscience go against what God has wrought in me as He has in you . This divine communion of spirits ( a person and his Maker)) is just as authoritative as our parents, and pastors and history alike.

When Moses came down from the Mountain, if I truly believed there was nothing wrong with adultery, should I in good conscience continue in the act of adultery? Should not the Ebionites have realized that their was something wrong with their consciences, when they ignored the ruling of the Church?

What does Jesus say to do, it the Church rules against our consciences?

It can be just as wrong, or a sin against such a Godly bestowed spiritual reality, to buck against His authoritative guidance, by disdaining something good that is from Him, or by condoning something of man and not of God…(There is a point where you do not get credits by simply “following orders”).
Not either or again.

Ben, I do not understand why you refuse to answer this question. I will ask it one more time. What living authority has the power to bind and loose you, in matters of faith and morals, such that you will submit to it, even if you think they are wrong?

See the Ebionites were okay in submitting, as long as the Apostles interpretation coincided with theirs. (Sounds amazingly like the Reformers, and you). But you said what the Ebionites did was wrong. And you have also already said that their consciences were wrong. What guide does Jesus give us to tell us that our consciences are wrong?

 

[benhur]

There is as much chance of that as them finding the tomb of Jesus’ wife.

Hi D,

Why ?

Blessings

Is it so far fetched that Mary be declared eternal, only because she has not been decreed infallibly to be, “Mary is Mediatrix of All Grace” yet ?

What is the criteria for binding “whatever”, besides that it is ok to be bound in heaven ?

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

Why ?

Blessings

Is it so far fetched that Mary be declared eternal, only because she has not been decreed infallibly to be, “Mary is Mediatrix of All Grace” yet ?

What is the criteria for binding “whatever”, besides that it is ok to be bound in heaven ?

Hi Ben,

Because she is created, which means she cannot be eternal. So it is very far fetched. So yes, there is much higher chance of them finding the tomb of Jesus’ wife.

Again, Ben, what living authority has the power to bind and loose you, in matters of faith and morals, such that you will submit to it, even if you think they are wrong?

So far it only seems that it is you.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,

Because she is created, which means she cannot be eternal. So it is very far fetched. So yes, there is much higher chance of them finding the tomb of Jesus’ wife.

Again, Ben, what living authority has the power to bind and loose you, in matters of faith and morals, such that you will submit to it, even if you think they are wrong?

So far it only seems that it is you.

Hi D,

How do you know she is created ?

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

How do you know she is created ?

Blessings

She had human parents.

How do you know she was a Virgin when she gave birth to Jesus?

 

[benhur]

She had human parents.

How do you know she was a Virgin when she gave birth to Jesus?

Again how do you know she had human parents? How does the church know this ?

 

[Duane1966]

Again how do you know she had human parents? How does the church know this ?

Because the Church knew who her parents were.

Why do you believe she was a Virgin when giving birth to Jesus?

I don’t think we are getting anywhere with this conversation.

 

[benhur]

Because the Church knew who her parents were.

Why do you believe she was a Virgin when giving birth to Jesus?

I don’t think we are getting anywhere with this conversation.

Hi D

I believe I have answered before (post #240), but will answer again, and in part, also deals with “binding/loosing”.

"I would not belittle any of our God ordained (name removed by moderator)uts (parents,pastors,History, Writ etc) , nor God’s ability to illumine, to shepherd, even the basest of spirits/souls, to green pastures of assurance , as He sees fit.

For John in his epistle says we little children have an unction, from the Holy Ghost and know all things, yet Paul says we see thru a glass darkly now but will see things much more clearly.

So by faith we both accept (by the reasons listed above) a virgin birth thru Mary of our Lord and Savior".

So by faith, the gift of God, we both believe in the virgin birth. That faith came by hearing first, the Word of God on the matter. That Word carried first by the church and it’s apostles and their writings, reaffirmed in council, and finally coming down to us, thru same Writ and present day teachers , and pastors/presbyters, and parents etc., they speaking and we hearing by unction from the Holy Ghost, just as the first binders.

As to pursuing why we believe not in other things (that Mary is eternal ,etc), it was only to show that there is a criteria that must be met first, as the virgin part did. That there are conditions that must be met. I think the CC church would agree to that.

I think a position is stronger when one can show that conditions are met (in order to avoid error), and not by presupposing that we just can’t be wrong.

Blessings

 

[Peter_J]

…
the latest would have been when the Father asked my wife if I found a place to go to church yet.

There’s an old saying, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. I think most RC priests would be only too happy that you were willing to come to mass with your wife and didn’t expect her to go to a Protestant church with you.

But then, I’ve had many different experiences (but mostly on the Internet) with Catholics who seem to like hurting the Catholic Church.

 

[Duane1966]

I think a position is stronger when one can show that conditions are met (in order to avoid error), and not by presupposing that we just can’t be wrong.

Blessings

Hi Ben,

The conditions Jesus established in His own words for the Church on binding and loosing, were they met by the Church for any of her dogmas? What exactly did Jesus say?

Convince me, on why anyone should think the Church could err on the Immaculate Conception, or the Assumption, but not on the books that belong in the New Testament?

You see Ben, the exact same criteria that the Church used for deciding the canon of the New Testament, *which you agree with, *is the same for all her dogmas. It is you that are inconsistent.

Please, tell me, I beg of you, answer this question. What living authority has the power to bind and loose you on matters of faith and morals, such that you will submit to them even when you strongly disagree?

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,

The conditions Jesus established in His own words for the Church on binding and loosing, were they met by the Church for any of her dogmas? What exactly did Jesus say?

Convince me, on why anyone should think the Church could err on the Immaculate Conception, or the Assumption, but not on the books that belong in the New Testament?

You see Ben, the exact same criteria that the Church used for deciding the canon of the New Testament, *which you agree with, *is the same for all her dogmas. It is you that are inconsistent.

Please, tell me, I beg of you, answer this question. What living authority has the power to bind and loose you on matters of faith and morals, such that you will submit to them even when you strongly disagree?

Hi D,

Not sure inconsistent is the word I would use for you, though it aptly applies to me from your vantage point…and for sure one of us is…I d use the words “less stringent” or more flexible because for sure those two ideas have benn mused over for milennia. I would add that for almost that same amount of time either of our beliefs were considered ok within confines of CC. Another words my present view would have at least been consistent with almost two thousand years of Catholic binding.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Please, tell me, I beg of you, answer this question. What living authority has the power to bind and loose you on matters of faith and morals, such that you will submit to them even when you strongly disagree?

Hi D,

Speaking only in a general sense of binding, I have answered that first was parents, then teachers, pastors, presbyters, as to visible authority.

But I am wondering , what is there to bind and loose, that has not already been done ? When was the last time the CC came out with an infallible binding, before my lifetime ?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Convince me, on why anyone should think the Church could err on the Immaculate Conception, or the Assumption, but not on the books that belong in the New Testament?

Hi D,

You know any logic to show even the possibility of error is futile against the once right always right mindset, against the teaching of infallibility of the CC.

Marion doctrine is not over, just as further division amongst P churches. Sooner or later she will be granted co source of* all* graces. *All *means all ,as whatever means whatever.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

Not sure inconsistent is the word I would use for you, though it aptly applies to me from your vantage point…and for sure one of us is…I d use the words “less stringent” or more flexible because for sure those two ideas have benn mused over for milennia. I would add that for almost that same amount of time either of our beliefs were considered ok within confines of CC. Another words my present view would have at least been consistent with almost two thousand years of Catholic binding.

Hi Ben,

Thank you, thank you, thank you. The part that I highlighted made me laugh so hard tears were in my eyes. Again thank you.

Ben, you miss out on the most salient part, the part where you are most inconsistent with two thousand years of Catholic binding. Submission to the Church. For two thousand years, Catholics have always been willing to submit their wills to the Church.

If you were to take me, and transport me back in time, to any previous century of the Catholic Church, I would still fit in. The Catholic Church for the last two thousand years has believed she has Divine Authority to bind or loose me. And I believe she has.

If we were to do the same with you, nothing would change. No matter what century we put you in, you would not fit in with the Catholic Church, because you do not feel she has that Divine Authority.

If the Assumption and Immaculate Conception are true, why should it matter when the Church defined it? Truth should have no expiration date. Can you truly say, you would accept the Assumption, if the Council of Nicaea had defined it?

Speaking only in a general sense of binding, I have answered that first was parents, then teachers, pastors, presbyters, as to visible authority.

Let’s see how much you really believe what you say. If tomorrow your pastor said that Mary was Assumed into Heaven, just like the Catholic Church teaches, and you must hold it as an article of faith, would you? If you say no, then that pastor can only bind you, ***when he agrees with your interpretations. ***

You know any logic to show even the possibility of error is futile against the once right always right mindset, against the teaching of infallibility of the CC.

I would welcome logic. I am just asking you to show me why I should believe the Catholic Church when she tells me the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant? You always try to use the ORAR argument. But if she is wrong on the Assumption, the odds that she was also wrong about Scriptures being inerrant, just went up. Any mathematician will tell you that.

See the dilemma you put me in? If I accept that she could be wrong on her latter teachings, I must accept that she also could have been wrong on her earlier teachings.

Please Ben, help me out here. What principled reason should I have to believe the Catholic Church when she says Scripture is inerrant, but disbelieve her on the Assumption?

 

[Darryl_B]

Hi D,

You know any logic to show even the possibility of error is futile against the once right always right mindset, against the teaching of infallibility of the CC.

This statement could quite well as easy be read into a mirror, but replacing “the CC” with “insert own name”.

Separation of the Catholic Church from Jesus Christ leaves the Catholic Church vulnerable. That is true. However it is not true because the Catholic Church is not separated from Jesus Christ. It is not an entity left to it’s own devices, it is an instrument of Jesus Christ’s love in the world.

Jesus Christ ascends into heaven. The Apostles look at each other in wonder for a moment and then exclaim to each other. “Oh great, He has gone, we are on our own, now what are we going to do?” Look in the mirror, and proclaim “I am my own authority”. Split up go our own ways, but don’t forget to take the mirror, otherwise we will forget our authority.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi D,

Yes pretty much, just as you agree with Cc…actually it was ok for them to follow their conscience. Just that consciences were wrong.

Again, it matters not the dynamics of ebionites and P’s…for it is mute point compared to the CC dynamic that all others can only be wrong when contending a point of difference with CC

Hey ben, I just wanted to comment on your thoughts here. You don’t need to reply, I know I’m jumping in arbitrarily here.

I think the bolded takes a lot of dicernment. That is, the way we understand what “a point of difference” is, and whether it is an official Teaching of the Church, or a matter that some of the members of leadership are falsely believing and/or practicing, is very significant.

The Catholic Church knows and has stated that men on both sides of the reformation division were to be blamed for wrongness.

There is a lawful means for the Church to declare something as “binding” or “infallible” or “official”. The Bishop of Rome is able to act singular, or the College of Bishops acting together, and meeting lawful criteria, in order for a decree to have Universal authority.

Outside an official, universal decree by those authorities, anyone can be right and anyone can be wrong. Of course that doesn’t mean it’s a guessing game, or that there isn’t sufficient tradition, or Scripture, or personal conscience available to do the right thing.

Conscience is never “wrong” so to speak. It can be neglected or “seared”, but I think the concept of conscience, is that it is the natural knowledge of right and wrong, a gift from being created in God’s image and made to be His Children.

So, it’s not so simple as to say “… all others can only be wrong…”. The fact that the Church states in the Catechism, that men from both sides were wrong, during the reformation, is evidence that it is not so cut and dry as some might think.

What matters, is that we take Church Teaching, and study what it means in light of love and everything else from the faith that we have learned.

A relationship with the Church, is inseparable with our relationship with God. As for “a denomination”… each denomination should be united to the Whole through lawful Holy Communion.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,

Thank you, thank you, thank you. The part that I highlighted made me laugh so hard tears were in my eyes. Again thank you.

Hi D

Your welcome, and no extra charge for the medicine that is laughter.

Ben, you miss out on the most salient part, the part where you are most inconsistent with two thousand years of Catholic binding. Submission to the Church. For two thousand years, Catholics have always been willing to submit their wills to the Church.

So just being submissive is more salient than the truth on the matter ?

If you were to take me, and transport me back in time, to any previous century of the Catholic Church, I would still fit in.

That was my point. That I would fit in on this point for almost anytime in 2000 years.

The bigger question is would those of first church fit in our churches of today ?

If we were to do the same with you, nothing would change. No matter what century we put you in, you would not fit in with the Catholic Church, because you do not feel she has that Divine Authority.

Correct, in that I would not have today’s mindset that the church/bishop in Rome has infallible divine authority over all the other churches. Incorrect in that I would not fit in, for the church at the beginning did not say St. Peter was infallible, and the "head’ of the church (leader yes), over the other apostles, the other churches , even over all councils…

If the Assumption and Immaculate Conception are true, why should it matter when the Church defined it?

Because the apostles laid the foundation, left us with a body of faith, and were contemporaries of Mary and her "end’, and make no historical mention of it . You really think that 2000 years later we have a better handle on the matter than those who were contemporary to her , and responsible for such binding ?

Truth should have no expiration date.

So said error.

Can you truly say, you would accept the Assumption, if the Council of Nicaea had defined it?

Yes, for they would have had same criteria on Mary as the other decrees, statements of faith, but they didn’t.

Let’s see how much you really believe what you say. If tomorrow your pastor said that Mary was Assumed into Heaven, just like the Catholic Church teaches, and you must hold it as an article of faith, would you? If you say no, then that pastor can only bind you, ***when he agrees with your interpretations. ***

Correct. it is not apostolic.

As I said before, “just following orders” goes just so far, and then it becomes a sin in itself, as much of a sin as disobedience to an apostolic teaching

I would welcome logic. I am just asking you to show me why I should believe the Catholic Church when she tells me the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant?

Well, why should early Christians have believed in a Jewish Messiah, and their Writ, when they crucified whom was prophesied ?

You always try to use the ORAR argument.

Yes…it fits somewhat.

But if she is wrong on the Assumption, the odds that she was also wrong about Scriptures being inerrant, just went up. Any mathematician will tell you that.

Look, any mathematician knows the probability for error increases on eyewitness observation and conclusions the further away you get from the “incident”.

Don’t think it is coincidence that these two doctrines came on the heels when the church dogmatized the pope’s infallibility.

See the dilemma you put me in? If I accept that she could be wrong on her latter teachings, I must accept that she also could have been wrong on her earlier teachings.

Perfect. Then one can see that they are not orphaned, and have an unction from the Holy One, that even Christ in you illumines every matter. You will be like Peter when every authority seemingly challenged where he needed to go, and only divine revelation led him properly to his thoughts on the matter, sifting the good ,bad , and ugly of all the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Please Ben, help me out here. What principled reason should I have to believe the Catholic Church when she says Scripture is inerrant, but disbelieve her on the Assumption?

Well, she dealt with them with different criteria.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

This statement could quite well as easy be read into a mirror, but replacing “the CC” with “insert own name”.

Hi DB,

Not exactly, unless self says it is over all others, and that infallibly…

But yes, some reformers fell into the same trap.

I think most folk in my camp would say self acknowledges the possibility of another “self” challenging properly, kind of like iron sharpening iron.

I think we also acknowledge another self coming to the same “conclusions”, and appreciate each other more, and divine inspiration more, seeing kindred unction /charism, and thereby becoming a stronger "cord’’ in testifying Truth.

Jesus Christ ascends into heaven. The Apostles look at each other in wonder for a moment and then exclaim to each other. “Oh great, He has gone, we are on our own, now what are we going to do?” Look in the mirror, and proclaim “I am my own authority”. Split up go our own ways, but don’t forget to take the mirror, otherwise we will forget our authority.

Correct. They waited , and were then filled with the Spirit, and Christ was in them. This not because they were apostles , for even the gentiles had same infilling. As Job says, “God puts understanding in a man” and I would add irrespective of persons.

There is a place where denying that dynamic of self and the Holy Ghost in the name of submissive piety is a sin as much as abusing our priesthood and denying any other authority.

Blessings

 

[SyCarl]

Hi Ben,
If the Assumption and Immaculate Conception are true, why should it matter when the Church defined it? Truth should have no expiration date. Can you truly say, you would accept the Assumption, if the Council of Nicaea had defined it?

I am sorry to break into this discussion but timing makes a huge difference. If the Immaculate Conception is true, is it a necessary truth?

God does not change so if it is necessary it must have been necessary from the beginning. If that is the case, the Church must have failed those who died before the dogma was defined by not telling them it was necessary. Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux come to mind. They both denied the Immaculate Conception as it was defined. Aquinas believed that Mary was born without the taint of original sin but denied she was free from it from the moment of conception which is what the definition says. If it was not necessary why define it?

I have heard it said that those living before the definition are fine because it only becomes necessary to believe it once it is defined. This would mean God changing what it is necessary to believe. If it is not necessary to believe it until it is defined, why define it at all?

 

[Darryl_B]

Hi DB,

Not exactly, unless self says it is over all others, and that infallibly…

But yes, some reformers fell into the same trap.

I think most folk in my camp would say self acknowledges the possibility of another “self” challenging properly, kind of like iron sharpening iron.

I think we also acknowledge another self coming to the same “conclusions”, and appreciate each other more, and divine inspiration more, seeing kindred unction /charism, and thereby becoming a stronger "cord’’ in testifying Truth.
Correct. They waited , and were then filled with the Spirit, and Christ was in them. This not because they were apostles , for even the gentiles had same infilling. As Job says, “God puts understanding in a man” and I would add irrespective of persons.

There is a place where denying that dynamic of self and the Holy Ghost in the name of submissive piety is a sin as much as abusing our priesthood and denying any other authority.

Blessings

And you just did it again. You have a big mirror.