How do you defend Papal Infallibility?

[wisedom]

I think we have a different understanding of the meaning of teaching. It seems that you may have the idea that teaching always implies authority as it is given to ordained presbyters who are as the Sanhedrin to the High Priest, that is to the Bishop. In this capacity, a presbyter would be an authoritative voice of counsel to the bishop. I would never assume that sort of authority.

Teaching as it applies to the layperson in 1 John 2:27, Hebrews 5:12, and the Apostolic Constitutions has to do with upholding the doctrinal and moral norms of the Christian faith as **universally implied **by the Apostle Paul when he says that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. In its most basic form, the doctrine of the Christian faith is proclaimed in the Apostle’s Creed, and the most basic form of Christian morality is known by **the way of life **in the Didache.

Now admittedly, the issue of Papal infallibility would seem to be outside the doctrinal and moral norms of the Christian faith, and be more within the jurisdiction of the presbyters when giving counsel to the bishop.

it is sad that some immitate or emulate the hon. pharisees in respect of the hypocrisy, arrogance, pride, power-lust, etc., which Jesus condemned in no uncertain terms…these evil ones as Jesus would say, hold the key to the kingdom of heaven; they do not go in and they will not let others to go in too. much like the ‘dog in the manger’!’ they place on people’s backs heavy burdens and they will not lift their little finger to help them…

As I stated earlier, three criteria are needed in deciding whether an issue such as this is valid. Sacred scripture, apostolic tradition and practice, and the teaching authority of others.

I gave my personal views as a layperson according to the scriptures I cited, and apostolic traditions and practices that I cited. (I did not cite the teaching authorities of the Orthodox church for instance, as this has been discussed widely already on other threads)

So, in the matter of Papal Infallibility, I am giving my personal viewpoint according to the three criteria, and since this is an area of controversy within God’s church, I can not, and I would not speak authoritatively on this subject since I am not a presbyter, or in Roman Catholic structure of speaking, of the Magesterium.

Normally, when it comes to differences of doctrinal issues within the body of Christ, I try to remain silent. This issue affects the unity of the body of Christ, it offends the faith of the little ones, and it seems uncharitable to anathematize those who are not in agreement.
For these reasons, I am outspoken about this issue, my conscience can not do otherwise.

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[wisedom]

wisedom:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercytruth
I think we have a different understanding of the meaning of teaching. It seems that you may have the idea that teaching always implies authority as it is given to ordained presbyters who are as the Sanhedrin to the High Priest, that is to the Bishop. In this capacity, a presbyter would be an authoritative voice of counsel to the bishop. I would never assume that sort of authority.

Teaching as it applies to the layperson in 1 John 2:27, Hebrews 5:12, and the Apostolic Constitutions has to do with upholding the doctrinal and moral norms of the Christian faith as universally implied by the Apostle Paul when he says that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. In its most basic form, the doctrine of the Christian faith is proclaimed in the Apostle’s Creed, and the most basic form of Christian morality is known by the way of life in the Didache.

Now admittedly, the issue of Papal infallibility would seem to be outside the doctrinal and moral norms of the Christian faith, and be more within the jurisdiction of the presbyters when giving counsel to the bishop.

As I stated earlier, three criteria are needed in deciding whether an issue such as this is valid. Sacred scripture, apostolic tradition and practice, and the teaching authority of others.

I gave my personal views as a layperson according to the scriptures I cited, and apostolic traditions and practices that I cited. (I did not cite the teaching authorities of the Orthodox church for instance, as this has been discussed widely already on other threads)

So, in the matter of Papal Infallibility, I am giving my personal viewpoint according to the three criteria, and since this is an area of controversy within God’s church, I can not, and I would not speak authoritatively on this subject since I am not a presbyter, or in Roman Catholic structure of speaking, of the Magesterium.

Normally, when it comes to differences of doctrinal issues within the body of Christ, I try to remain silent. This issue affects the unity of the body of Christ, it offends the faith of the little ones, and it seems uncharitable to anathematize those who are not in agreement.
For these reasons, I am outspoken about this issue, my conscience can not do otherwise.

God’s peace be with you

micah

Note:

my following response had, in my previous message, been included in the post of MERCYTRUTH, an error which is regretted and my post is reproduced as under:

it is sad that some immitate or emulate the hon. pharisees in respect of the hypocrisy, arrogance, pride, power-lust, etc., which Jesus condemned in no uncertain terms…these evil ones as Jesus would say, hold the key to the kingdom of heaven; they do not go in and they will not let others to go in too. much like the ‘dog in the manger’!’; they place on people’s backs heavy burdens and they will not lift their little finger to help them…the Scripture may pl. be referred for an exhaustive discourse on HYPOCRISY!

 

[wisedom]

You asked me a question, and I answered it. This was your question:

**I’m familiar with the passages you quote. None talk about a “mature” Christian, nor any Christian that one might deem mature or immature, needing no teacher **

Just to re-iterate, I John 2:27 says that we have no need of a teacher if we have the unction of the Holy Spirit.

This is supported by Hebrews 5:12: **Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again **the basic elements of the utterances of God."

All of this is confirmed by our Lord Jesus Christ in John 6:45, who says God is our teacher, as per Isaiah 54:13.

God will teach anyone, if they are willing to hear and learn.

So, God has taught me, and it has everything to do with why I do not defend Papal infallibility. If you disagree, that’s fine with me, but my God is teaching me otherwise,
and I am not alone in this understanding.

End of discussion.

God’s peace be with you,

micah

reply…

Those who believe that our heart is God’s temple have no need to fear anyone…it is those who do not experience the presence of God in themselves, who doubt God’s speaking to us through Scripture or even directly…(intuitively)…
As St Paul states: IF GOD BE FOR US, WHO CAN BE AGAINST US?

note… i am proud to say that i am wedded to the WORD and believe in stating the TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH, for JESUS IS THE TRUTH, and i am disgusted that the jokers of this site should ban me and others who speak up for the TRUTH - the CROSS-, on false grounds for it is not I that is denigrating the church or priesthood, but the teachers of the law, elders, pharisees and the like!

as one poster put it on a different thread: each of us has a/our personal path to God…and this for me is very illuminating…

 

[wisedom]

As I said previously, I wasn’t making my point about Laodicea, but relativism.

16: So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

iow, to a relativist, truth is not objectively true, it depends on one’s own prevailing view of what’s truth and what is true for them at the time.

Once a Christian becomes a “mature” Christian, they no longer need teachers? Where did this idea come from?

***Jn 6:***45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God. That does NOT translate to, teachers are not needed.

of course you of the hierarchy do need teachers esp. wisdom from the laity!

you have to learn to be humble, to lack hypocrisy, to be free from greed, covetousness, judgement of others and of course purity, which does not include sexual assault of holy innocents!

 

[Gorgias]

Teaching as it applies to the layperson in 1 John 2:27, Hebrews 5:12, and the Apostolic Constitutions has to do with upholding the doctrinal and moral norms of the Christian faith as **universally implied **by the Apostle Paul when he says that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Hmm… in 1 John 2:27, though, that’s not what he’s talking about when he’s talking about ‘teaching’. Rather, he’s talking about the teachings of a rival, breakaway group (commonly thought to be either Docetists or Gnostics). In this context, then, what John’s telling the faithful isn’t “you don’t need instruction”, but rather, “the group that’s telling you that you’re deficient as a Christian, without their teaching, is wrong”. So, taking it out of context leads to problematic interpretations.

When you say “Apostolic Constitutions”, are you talking about the fourth century document that contains a reworking of the text of the Didascalia Apostolorum, the text of the Didache, and some other original material?

In its most basic form, the doctrine of the Christian faith is proclaimed in the Apostle’s Creed

Which is an example of the teaching authority of the Pope in concert with the bishops…

and the most basic form of Christian morality is known by **the way of life **in the Didache.

… as it existed in the 1st or 2nd century.

Now admittedly, the issue of Papal infallibility would seem to be outside the doctrinal and moral norms of the Christian faith, and be more within the jurisdiction of the presbyters when giving counsel to the bishop.

Hmm… except that, wouldn’t it fall directly within the sphere of the teaching of Christ, when he told Peter (/apostles) that they had the authority of binding and loosing? That would seem to fit within the ‘doctrinal norms of the Christian faith’, wouldn’t it?

I gave my personal views as a layperson according to the scriptures I cited

Hmm… but isn’t it the case that “there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation”? In this context (2 Peter 1), Peter’s talking about the teachings that he received directly from Christ and is passing on to Christians.

[qutoe]So, in the matter of Papal Infallibility, I am giving my personal viewpoint according to the three criteria, and since this is an area of controversy within God’s church, I can not, and I would not speak authoritatively on this subject since I am not a presbyter, or in Roman Catholic structure of speaking, of the Magesterium.

OK; I get what you’re saying. However, you’re saying that you defer to the proper authority – yet, you’re saying that you will not hold to the standards that this authority proclaims? I don’t understand that…

Peace,

G.

 

[mercytruth]

Hmm… in 1 John 2:27, though, that’s not what he’s talking about when he’s talking about ‘teaching’. Rather, he’s talking about the teachings of a rival, breakaway group (commonly thought to be either Docetists or Gnostics). In this context, then, what John’s telling the faithful isn’t “you don’t need instruction”, but rather, “the group that’s telling you that you’re deficient as a Christian, without their teaching, is wrong”. So, taking it out of context leads to problematic interpretations.

When you say “Apostolic Constitutions”, are you talking about the fourth century document that contains a reworking of the text of the Didascalia Apostolorum, the text of the Didache, and some other original material?

Which is an example of the teaching authority of the Pope in concert with the bishops…

… as it existed in the 1st or 2nd century.

Hmm… except that, wouldn’t it fall directly within the sphere of the teaching of Christ, when he told Peter (/apostles) that they had the authority of binding and loosing? That would seem to fit within the ‘doctrinal norms of the Christian faith’, wouldn’t it?

Hmm… but isn’t it the case that “there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation”? In this context (2 Peter 1), Peter’s talking about the teachings that he received directly from Christ and is passing on to Christians.

[qutoe]So, in the matter of Papal Infallibility, I am giving my personal viewpoint according to the three criteria, and since this is an area of controversy within God’s church, I can not, and I would not speak authoritatively on this subject since I am not a presbyter, or in Roman Catholic structure of speaking, of the Magesterium.

OK; I get what you’re saying. However, you’re saying that you defer to the proper authority – yet, you’re saying that you will not hold to the standards that this authority proclaims? I don’t understand that…

Peace,

G.

As far as the Apostolic Constitutions, there is enough internal evidence to suggest that significant parts of the Apostolic Constitutons predate the 4th century, the Didache within it would be one such indicator…

There are Christian moral standards and there are doctrinal teachings. My issue is with a doctrinal teaching that runs contrary to the moral standards of the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Your interpretation of 1 John 2:27 is strictly your interpretation as it can not be supported by any other scripture. The clear understanding of 1 John 2:27 is supported by Hebrews 5:12, by John 6:45 and Isaiah 54:13, and by Book VIII, Section 4, of the Constitutions of the Apostles. Anyone who is being taught by God by the unction of His Holy Spirit will have great peace. I have great peace in knowing that I am taught of God as long as I am humble before him, listen and obey His word, and the early apostolic traditions of the church.

For some unknown reason, it was not until this very week that I became aware of these scriptures. They are of great significance to me as they represent the calling that God gave to me 40 years ago. At that time, I greatly desired to understand the sacred scriptures, but I had no one to teach me.

I cried out to God and said, "How am I to understand the Bible if I have no one to teach me?

At that moment, God spoke in my heart, “Man will no longer deceive you, but I will teach you.” Many times over the years I wondered if I was delusional in thinking that God had spoken in my heart, and that it was He who was speaking scriptures within my heart in the night. Now, the words of Jesus Christ as quoted by Isaiah 54:13 reverberate loudly in my soul, "They shall all be taught of God, and great will be the peace of His children."

Truly, God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[mercytruth]

Hmm… in 1 John 2:27, though, that’s not what he’s talking about when he’s talking about ‘teaching’. Rather, he’s talking about the teachings of a rival, breakaway group (commonly thought to be either Docetists or Gnostics). In this context, then, what John’s telling the faithful isn’t “you don’t need instruction”, but rather, “the group that’s telling you that you’re deficient as a Christian, without their teaching, is wrong”. So, taking it out of context leads to problematic interpretations.

When you say “Apostolic Constitutions”, are you talking about the fourth century document that contains a reworking of the text of the Didascalia Apostolorum, the text of the Didache, and some other original material?

Which is an example of the teaching authority of the Pope in concert with the bishops…

… as it existed in the 1st or 2nd century.

Hmm… except that, wouldn’t it fall directly within the sphere of the teaching of Christ, when he told Peter (/apostles) that they had the authority of binding and loosing? That would seem to fit within the ‘doctrinal norms of the Christian faith’, wouldn’t it?

Hmm… but isn’t it the case that “there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation”? In this context (2 Peter 1), Peter’s talking about the teachings that he received directly from Christ and is passing on to Christians.

[qutoe]So, in the matter of Papal Infallibility, I am giving my personal viewpoint according to the three criteria, and since this is an area of controversy within God’s church, I can not, and I would not speak authoritatively on this subject since I am not a presbyter, or in Roman Catholic structure of speaking, of the Magesterium.

OK; I get what you’re saying. However, you’re saying that you defer to the proper authority – yet, you’re saying that you will not hold to the standards that this authority proclaims? I don’t understand that…

Peace,

G.

As far as the Apostolic Constitutions, there is enough internal evidence to suggest that significant parts of the Apostolic Constitutons predate the 4th century, the Didache within it would be one such indicator…

Prophecy is a different category of revelation than the **Way of Life **in the Didache and the teachings of Jesus Christ on the Sermon on the Mount.

There are Christian moral standards and there are doctrinal teachings. My issue is with a doctrinal teaching that runs contrary to the moral standards of the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Your interpretation of 1 John 2:27 is strictly your interpretation as it can not be supported by any other scripture. The clear understanding of 1 John 2:27 is supported by Hebrews 5:12, by John 6:45 and Isaiah 54:13, and by Book VIII, Section 4, of the Constitutions of the Apostles. Anyone who is being taught by God by the unction of His Holy Spirit will have great peace. I have great peace in knowing that I am taught of God as long as I am humble before him, listen and obey His word, and the early apostolic traditions of the church.

For some unknown reason, it was not until this very week that I became aware of these scriptures. They are of great significance to me as they represent the calling that God gave to me 40 years ago. At that time, I greatly desired to understand the sacred scriptures, but I had no one to teach me.

I cried out to God and said, "How am I to understand the Bible if I have no one to teach me?

At that moment, God spoke in my heart, “Man will no longer deceive you, but I will teach you.” Many times over the years I wondered if I was delusional in thinking that God had spoken in my heart, and that it was He who was speaking scriptures within my heart in the night. Now, the words of Jesus Christ as quoted by Isaiah 54:13 reverberate loudly in my soul, "They shall all be taught of God, and great will be the peace of His children."

Truly, God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[wisedom]

I understand that fallible means ‘capable of making mistakes’.

I also understand that the discussion of heliocentrism isn’t within the scope of “matters of faith and morals”, which is the extent of the context of papal infallibility…

it is only proper that pop. would focus on matters within his jurisdiction and not extend his reign on laws relating to other fields or disciplines, make absolutely wrong deductions/conclusions, and claim the lives of thousands for no fault of theirs, but of the former!

 

[wisedom]

As I said previously, I wasn’t making my point about Laodicea, but relativism.

16: So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

iow, to a relativist, truth is not objectively true, it depends on one’s own prevailing view of what’s truth and what is true for them at the time.

Once a Christian becomes a “mature” Christian, they no longer need teachers? Where did this idea come

***Jn 6:***45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God. That does NOT translate to, teachers are not needed.

you and i all need teachers, for life is an ongoing lesson; the more we learn, the more we will want to learn, unless you think that you have learnt all that there is to know, to qualify you to teach the WORD, who is JESUS himself to some of God’s children who surely could know more about God than you!..I may add that, with regard to the Will of God in their life, they are not in need of a third party like you!
we are asked not to have blind faith in a teacher and to DISCERN by the Spirit, whether what he says conforms to God’s Word, as made clear to us by the Spirit!
don’t put words into our mouths, when it is you that interprets that ‘teachers are not needed’!..in respect of what we know, there is no need of a teacher and vice versa!

the teacher must also not brain-wash the pupil to believe in any immaterial propoganda, on the grounds that he had an expressed or implied authority to do so!!

Q E D

 

[wisedom]

correct exegesis is using scripture in the correct context. Rev. 3:16 is not speaking about moral relativism. Find another scripture, like "woe unto to them that call evil good, and good evil"

a mature christian will be taught by god and great will be the peace of his children. This idea is from isaiah 54:13 and is quoted by jesus christ in john 6:44-45. And re-iterated by the apostle john in 1 john 2:27 and reaffirmed in the constitutions of the apostles, book vii, section iv.

Truth begins in the head and heart until it sinks into the heart and is obeyed through the human will saying yes to god’s will as it is united with the unction of the holy spirit.

I can assure you that we would not be having this discussion if all of professing christianity, and if all of the catholic church were actually living out the **way of life **as put forth in the didache.

To put it more strongly, ‘doctrines’ can be use like the fences that the pharisees built around the law to keep the jewish people ritually clean. If our focus is on the nit-pick details of obtruse doctrines which are put forth as a remedy for securing the purity of faith, we are missing the mark. Our christian/catholic faith is ultimately a submission to the will of god in humility and trust to the teachings of jesus christ as simplified by **the way of life **written in the **didache **empowered by the unction of the holy spirit.

God’s peace be with you

micah

mission success!

 

[wisedom]

Let him that teaches, although he be one of the laity, yet, if **he be skilful in the word **and grave in his manners, teach; for they shall be all taught of God. John 6:45

(The Constitutions of the Apostles, Book VII, Section IV.)

The gist of this quotation is that it refers back to Isaiah 54:13 and to the teaching of Jesus Christ which he gave to his disciples (who were mature and skilful in their Jewish scriptures). In other words, they had been listening and learning from their heavenly Father, and the heavenly Father was drawing them to his Son Jesus Christ.

When we are drawn to Jesus Christ, we are granted the gift or unction of the teaching of the Holy Spirit of which 1 John 2:27 speaks. The law of Moses and the prophets joined with the teachings of Jesus Christ are summed up in the way of life as written in the Didache. In other words, as laity, as we become mature in the basic teachings of the Didache we have the unction of the Holy Spirit and need not a teacher.

A teacher is needed to instruct us as catechumens of the faith,and lead us to the sanctifying waters of baptism and the anointing of the Holy Spirit. If one was to read the Didache, it was an instruction manual for catechumens leading up to the waters of baptism.

God’s peace be with you

micah

it is a gift on your part to find or locate the appropriate Scripture to counter an attack and we can be sure that the WORD would prevail!..eternally!

 

[wisedom]

What is it you’re defending?

• That you’ve graduated from the catechuman stage and don’t need teachers anymore?
• that all you need is the didache

This is all off topic.

You should start a new thread if you want to talk about those issues

so why do you doubt the presence of GOD in the humble and the poor?

 

[wisedom]

OK; I get what you’re saying. However, you’re saying that you defer to the proper authority – yet, you’re saying that you will not hold to the standards that this authority proclaims? I don’t understand that…

Peace,

G.

As far as the Apostolic Constitutions, there is enough internal evidence to suggest that significant parts of the Apostolic Constitutons predate the 4th century, the Didache within it would be one such indicator…

Prophecy is a different category of revelation than the **Way of Life **in the Didache and the teachings of Jesus Christ on the Sermon on the Mount.

There are Christian moral standards and there are doctrinal teachings. My issue is with a doctrinal teaching that runs contrary to the moral standards of the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Your interpretation of 1 John 2:27 is strictly your interpretation as it can not be supported by any other scripture. The clear understanding of 1 John 2:27 is supported by Hebrews 5:12, by John 6:45 and Isaiah 54:13, and by Book VIII, Section 4, of the Constitutions of the Apostles. Anyone who is being taught by God by the unction of His Holy Spirit will have great peace. I have great peace in knowing that I am taught of God as long as I am humble before him, listen and obey His word, and the early apostolic traditions of the church.

For some unknown reason, it was not until this very week that I became aware of these scriptures. They are of great significance to me as they represent the calling that God gave to me 40 years ago. At that time, I greatly desired to understand the sacred scriptures, but I had no one to teach me.

I cried out to God and said, "How am I to understand the Bible if I have no one to teach me?

At that moment, God spoke in my heart, “Man will no longer deceive you, but I will teach you.” Many times over the years I wondered if I was delusional in thinking that God had spoken in my heart, and that it was He who was speaking scriptures within my heart in the night. Now, the words of Jesus Christ as quoted by Isaiah 54:13 reverberate loudly in my soul, "They shall all be taught of God, and great will be the peace of His children."

Truly, God’s peace be with you

micah

an inspiring response to the hon. gorgias!

 

[Gorgias]

As far as the Apostolic Constitutions, there is enough internal evidence to suggest that significant parts of the Apostolic Constitutons predate the 4th century, the Didache within it would be one such indicator…

Hmm… you seem to place priority on the “predating the 4th century” issue. Why is that? Are the only teachings that are valid, ones that predate the 4th century? Where is the justification for such a claim?

Prophecy is a different category of revelation than the **Way of Life **in the Didache and the teachings of Jesus Christ on the Sermon on the Mount.

Yet, in the context of 1 Peter, he’s using the term ‘prophecy’ to speak about the teachings of Christ, as found in Scripture.

Your interpretation of 1 John 2:27 is strictly your interpretation as it can not be supported by any other scripture.

Hmm… I have two responses that I’d ask you to address:

First, the appeal to “strictly your interpretation as it can not be supported by any other Scripture.” This, in itself, is a heuristic for interpretation, which itself requires justification! Where is it justified that only Scripture may be used to interpret Scripture?

Secondly, this is not “strictly my interpretation” – you can find many who speak to the fact that John’s letter is directed toward his flock, following the departure of the ‘heretics’. Augustine dedicated part of a sermon to it:

All heretics, all schismatics went out from us, that is, they go out from the Church…

Let us ask the heretics: where do you find a heretic that denies that Jesus is the Christ? See now, my beloved, a great mystery. Mark what the Lord God may have inspired us withal, and what I would fain work into your minds. Behold, they went out from us, and turned Donatists

(Augustine is using John’s example of heretics in his own day to compare to the situation of heretics in Augustine’s day!)

But, what does Augustine say about 1 John 2:27?

And you have no need that any man teach you, because His unction teaches you concerning all things. 1 John 2:27 Then to what purpose is it that we, my brethren, teach you? If His unction teaches you concerning all things, it seems we labor without a cause. And what mean we, to cry out as we do? Let us leave you to His unction, and let His unction teach you. But this is putting the question only to myself: I put it also to that same apostle: let him deign to hear a babe that asks of him: to John himself I say, Had those the unction to whom you were speaking? You have said, His unction teaches you concerning all things. To what purpose have you written an Epistle like this? What teaching did you give them? What instruction? What edification? See here now, brethren, see a mighty mystery. The sound of our words strikes the ears, the Master is within. Do not suppose that any man learns ought from man. We can admonish by the sound of our voice; if there be not One within that shall teach, vain is the noise we make. Aye, brethren, have ye a mind to know it? Have ye not all heard this present discourse? And yet how many will go from this place untaught! I, for my part, have spoken to all; but they to whom that Unction within speaks not, they whom the Holy Ghost within teaches not, those go back untaught. The teachings of the master from without are a sort of aids and admonitions. He that teaches the hearts, has His chair in heaven.

The understanding of Augustine is that there is need of teaching, and that the teaching of human teachers is the aid that the Spirit uses to teach the hearts of believers! So, Augustine is denying your case, too!

I have great peace in knowing that I am taught of God as long as I am humble before him, listen and obey His word, and the early apostolic traditions of the church.

Hmm… so, again, here’s the “early apostolic traditions” heuristic. Can you justify it, though? And, of course, you’ll have to justify it in a way that excludes Augustine, since his teaching conflicts with your understanding…!

For some unknown reason, it was not until this very week that I became aware of these scriptures. They are of great significance to me as they represent the calling that God gave to me 40 years ago. At that time, I greatly desired to understand the sacred scriptures, but I had no one to teach me.

Hmm. So… you had the unction, but for 40 years, it didn’t teach you? Doesn’t that contradict your case?

Peace,

G.

 

[mercytruth]

Hmm… you seem to place priority on the “predating the 4th century” issue. Why is that? Are the only teachings that are valid, ones that predate the 4th century? Where is the justification for such a claim?

Yet, in the context of 1 Peter, he’s using the term ‘prophecy’ to speak about the teachings of Christ, as found in Scripture.

Hmm… I have two responses that I’d ask you to address:

First, the appeal to “strictly your interpretation as it can not be supported by any other Scripture.” This, in itself, is a heuristic for interpretation, which itself requires justification! Where is it justified that only Scripture may be used to interpret Scripture?

Secondly, this is not “strictly my interpretation” – you can find many who speak to the fact that John’s letter is directed toward his flock, following the departure of the ‘heretics’. Augustine dedicated part of a sermon to it:

(Augustine is using John’s example of heretics in his own day to compare to the situation of heretics in Augustine’s day!)

But, what does Augustine say about 1 John 2:27?

The understanding of Augustine is that there is need of teaching, and that the teaching of human teachers is the aid that the Spirit uses to teach the hearts of believers! So, Augustine is denying your case, too!

Hmm… so, again, here’s the “early apostolic traditions” heuristic. Can you justify it, though? And, of course, you’ll have to justify it in a way that excludes Augustine, since his teaching conflicts with your understanding…!

Hmm. So… you had the unction, but for 40 years, it didn’t teach you? Doesn’t that contradict your case?

Peace,

G.

The unction of the Holy Spirit I received the very next day. This unction of the Holy Spirit compelled me to read and study the sacred scriptures for the next 14 years.

The unction of the Holy Spirit compelled me to purchase the full set of the volumes of Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, knowing that temporal kingdoms had combined with the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ since Constantine, and thus, the teachings of Jesus Christ were compromised.

The unction of the Holy Spirit compelled me to read Eusebius, History of the Church, Josephus, and other pre-Nicene documents in order to re-capture the the apostolic origins of the Christian faith.

The unction of the Holy Spirit compelled me to try to learn and read Greek and Hebrew.

The unction of the Holy Spirit compelled me to understand the Jewish roots of our Christian faith.

The unction of the Holy Spirit is making me a disciple of Jesus Christ, and not a disciple of the Curia.

The Holy Spirit has been my teacher all the while, I absolutely give no credit to myself as I am only a high school graduate.

I am so glad that Pope Paul VI said that it was ‘providential’ that the temporal power of the Roman Catholic Church ended on September 20, 1870 as he comemorated that date in 1970.

**On the 100th anniversary of the capture of Rome, Pope Paul VI sent Cardinal Angelo Dell’Acqua, his vicar for Rome, to Porta Pia to celebrate the “providential” significance of the loss of temporal power. **

zenit.org/article-30464?l=english

So it is no coincidence that the Papacy would react with its loss of temporal power in 1870 by enacting Papal Infallibility in 1870.

I have nothing more to discuss with you, God has taught me, and His peace remains with me.

And may His peace be with you

micah

 

[Gorgias]

The unction of the Holy Spirit I received the very next day. This unction of the Holy Spirit compelled me to read and study the sacred scriptures for the next 14 years.

Hmm. By “the unction of the Holy Spirit”, you mean the oil of baptism or confirmation, right? Or do you mean some sort of spiritual unction that you feel you didn’t receive sacramentally?

knowing that temporal kingdoms had combined with the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ since Constantine, and thus, the teachings of Jesus Christ were compromised.

Hmm. Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church; yet, you seem to be saying that they have, ever since the 300s?

I have nothing more to discuss with you

Well, I have to admit that I’m disappointed that you’re unwilling to share direct answers to my particular questions. But, if you don’t have the answers, either because you don’t have Scripture to back you up or are only going on the basis of personal revelations, I can understand why you would want to avoid discussing the issues. Thanks for helping me understand what you’re saying, and on what basis, though!

And may His peace be with you

May you find God’s peace, Micah… and may you find it in the Church he instituted on earth…

 

[epan]

I was trying to muddle through this one, the other day. What I found was a series of conflicting views over time, as to when the pope is infallible, and when he is not.

I have read a statement just recently, by an avowed catholic in a thread here, that the pope was simply unqualified to make a particular moral judgement that he made. The reference was to the condemnation by JP2 of the Iraq invasion (OIF1). I was surprised to read that. My sense was that any moral pronouncement by the pope is taken at face value by the faithful.

Apparently, there is a more critical process at work. I posed this question differently in another thread. I don’t want to be disrespectful, and such a directly worded question could be seen that way. But I do wonder… How does a Catholic know, when the Church is right, and when it is wrong? Surely, the actions of individuals on behalf of the Church have not always been “right” through history. This is to be expected with such a large institution, having endured for so long.

When does a well formed conscience come into play for a Catholic seeking guidance from his or her Church? When is individual interpretation allowed or encouraged, and when is it discouraged?

 

[mercytruth]

Hmm. By “the unction of the Holy Spirit”, you mean the oil of baptism or confirmation, right? Or do you mean some sort of spiritual unction that you feel you didn’t receive sacramentally?

Hmm. Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church; yet, you seem to be saying that they have, ever since the 300s?

Well, I have to admit that I’m disappointed that you’re unwilling to share direct answers to my particular questions. But, if you don’t have the answers, either because you don’t have Scripture to back you up or are only going on the basis of personal revelations, I can understand why you would want to avoid discussing the issues. Thanks for helping me understand what you’re saying, and on what basis, though!

May you find God’s peace, Micah… and may you find it in the Church he instituted on earth…

I had to pull back from your inquistion. Never once have I interrogated you on your spirituality. Never once have I questioned the legitimacy of the revelation of your own faith. Never once have I questioned the grace of the Holy Spirit within you.

There is something very unhealthy about the Roman Papacy that when it loses its temporal power in 1870, it had to maintain control, it had to continue to exert its power over souls by proclaiming its universal infallibility in 1870.

There is something very wrong when it anathematizes those who do not submit to this sort of control. This is what is contrary to the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, and this is what you are defending by your inquisitions.

I returned to the Roman Catholic church for two principal reasons. The apologies of Pope John Paul II, and the holy Eucharist.

In addition, I have found that despite the abuse of power by the Roman papacy over the centuries, there have always been prophetic saints, saints who have lived holy, sacrificial lives for Jesus Christ…much like the prophets of Israel. This is what Jesus meant when he said that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Jesus was not referring to the walls of the Vatican that were breached on September 20, 1870, nor the Temple walls of Jerusalem that were breached in 70 AD.

I will continue to be a reluctant Catholic who seeks out holy men and women of God, within the Catholic church. Servants and shepherds of God who have learned of him, and are meek and lowly of heart.

God be merciful to us sinners,

micah

 

[Gorgias]

I had to pull back from your inquistion. Never once have I interrogated you on your spirituality. Never once have I questioned the legitimacy of the revelation of your own faith. Never once have I questioned the grace of the Holy Spirit within you.

OK. I don’t know that I’d call it “inquisition”, though: I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from. on the face of it, you’re making certain statements, which seem not to square with Catholic concepts; I was hoping to see your justifications for them. Unless I’m misunderstanding, you weren’t providing justifications, but re-statements of the assertions.

If you’re claiming that personal revelation trumps everything else, then I think it would be necessary to be able to demonstrate that Scripture or Tradition say that this is the case. Don’t you think?

There is something very unhealthy about the Roman Papacy that when it loses its temporal power in 1870, it had to maintain control, it had to continue to exert its power over souls by proclaiming its universal infallibility in 1870.

Hmm. Did the Catholic Church’s ‘control’ exert itself only in the temporal sphere? That is, you seem to be claiming that, once it “loses temporal power”, it attempts to claim spiritual power. Yet, I would think that it already had laid claim to spiritual authority, far earlier than 1870. In fact, I think one could make a reasonable argument that the Church, facing the rising tide of rationalism, wanted to ensure that rationalism didn’t encroach on the Church’s pre-existing claim to spiritual authority (which was backed by Scripture and Tradition for 1800 years).

There is something very wrong when it anathematizes those who do not submit to this sort of control.

Hmm. Perhaps our understandings of ‘anathema’ differ. I would say that ‘anathema’ means roughly what ‘excommunication’ means, when it’s properly understood – it’s a recognition that, if you believe or act in certain ways, then you’re outside the communion of the Church. It’s not a punishment, but an acknowledgement of fact. It’s not a permanent exile, but a ‘wake-up call’, meant to catalyze a person to return to the fold.

When a football ref blows the whistle because the ball-carrier steps out of bounds, he’s simply making a statement about a state of affairs; the same thing holds for ‘anathema’.

This is what is contrary to the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ

Hmm. But, even Jesus spoke about ‘wailing and gnashing of teeth’ for those who separated themselves from the kingdom of God by their actions, and about separating sheep from goats when it came to an objective accounting of people’s actions. Jesus was also willing – as the Church is willing – to accept people back into the fold when they came to recognize their faults. How is the notion of anathema contrary to these teachings?

In addition, I have found that despite the abuse of power by the Roman papacy over the centuries

“Abuse of power” – expressed without qualification, btw – doesn’t fall within the sphere of infallibility. The only thing we say that falls under that umbrella are statements meant as infallible and in the sphere of faith and morals. Is there something that you’re thinking of that falls within this definition, and which is an ‘abuse’?

God be merciful to us sinners,

Amen!

G.

 

[wisedom]

I was trying to muddle through this one, the other day. What I found was a series of conflicting views over time, as to when the pope is infallible, and when he is not.

I have read a statement just recently, by an avowed catholic in a thread here, that the pope was simply unqualified to make a particular moral judgement that he made. The reference was to the condemnation by JP2 of the Iraq invasion (OIF1). I was surprised to read that. My sense was that any moral pronouncement by the pope is taken at face value by the faithful.

Apparently, there is a more critical process at work. I posed this question differently in another thread. I don’t want to be disrespectful, and such a directly worded question could be seen that way. But I do wonder… How does a Catholic know, when the Church is right, and when it is wrong? Surely, the actions of individuals on behalf of the Church have not always been “right” through history. This is to be expected with such a large institution, having endured for so long.

When does a well formed conscience come into play for a Catholic seeking guidance from his or her Church? When is individual interpretation allowed or encouraged, and when is it discouraged?

to be brief now:
from a leading indian fortnightly, i understand that the venerable world-war 2 pope, failed to voice his opinion, condemning the German holocaust…the theologian goes on to add that the said pope actually colluded with the hitlerian regime, obviously because God’s chosen people were being brutally annihiliated…
it is despicable that God’s representative should have acted in a manner contrary to Jesus’ commandment!
as to our conscience, in conformity to or under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, i have already maintained in my first thread, that it CAN over-rule any wrong or conflicting or ambiguous statements from the magistrate’s office, in so far as it relates to the particular individual…