If the Bible is a 'Catholic book', are Protestants, by default, under Catholc authority whether they reject the Catholic Church or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustaServant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
alwayswill said:
nope; being 100% correct does not mean infallible: it means inerrant

I believe the Canonization of the 27 books of the NT was an inerrant decision, not an infallible act.
Click to expand...
That is nothing more, and nothing less than the Catholic definition of infallibility.

So, you believe in the Catholic view of infallibility, alwayswill. 👍
 
PRmerger said:
That is nothing more, and nothing less than the Catholic definition of infallibility.

So, you believe in the Catholic view of infallibility, alwayswill. 👍
Click to expand...
Nope:
everything that is infallible (incapable of error) is also inerrant (contains no error)
but NOT everything that is inerrant (contains no error) is also infallible (incapable of error)

I can inerrantly program computer code without error (and often do)
I cannot infallibly program computer code without error (and never will)
 
alwayswill said:
Nope:
everything that is infallible (incapable of error) is also inerrant (contains no error)
but NOT everything that is inerrant (contains no error) is also infallible (incapable of error)

I can inerrantly program computer code without error (and often do)
I cannot infallibly program computer code without error (and never will)
Click to expand...
Why don’t you give what you think is the Catholic definition of infallibility, and then we can chat.
 
PRmerger said:
Why don’t you give what you think is the Catholic definition of infallibility, and then we can chat.
Click to expand...
I have no idea:
I can provide a dozen of Web-dictionary definitions of the word infallible and none of them may agree the the Catholic definition.

Most dictionaries have something like this
infallible (incapable of error)
inerrant (contains no error)

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infallible
Full Definition of infallible
1 : incapable of error : unerring
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals
 
alwayswill said:
I have no idea:
Click to expand...
Then you should know that what you have agreed to regarding the canon of the NT is nothing more, and nothing less, than an acknowledgement that the CC was given the charism of infallibility.
 
JonNC said:
With the following caveat, and at the expense of a ninja accusation, I would agree. The caveat is an acceptance that the term Catholic Church includes more than those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Click to expand...
No, Jon.

There is no such thing a subgroup of Catholics who are permitted to depart from communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Just like there’s no such thing as Lutherans who believe in the inspiration of Scripture, and then another group of folks who can call themselves Lutherans who believe that only the Pauline epistles are theopneustos.

If you’re Lutheran, you have to believe that all of Scripture is theopneustos.

If you’re Catholic, you have to believe in the successor of Peter: Pope Francis, as the vicar of Christ and the head of your church.
 
PRmerger said:
No, Jon.

There is no such thing a subgroup of Catholics who are permitted to depart from communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Just like there’s no such thing as Lutherans who believe in the inspiration of Scripture, and then another group of folks who can call themselves Lutherans who believe that only the Pauline epistles are theopneustos.

If you’re Lutheran, you have to believe that all of Scripture is theopneustos.

If you’re Catholic, you have to believe in the successor of Peter: Pope Francis, as the vicar of Christ and the head of your church.
Click to expand...
That’s not what Justa said. Read his post that I responded to.

Jon
 
JustaServant said:
I know we don’t need yet another Sola Scriptura thread. But this subject came up on the Karl Barth thread, and I’d like to hear what others think about this.

This would include ALL Protestants from those closest to the CC, like Episcopal and Lutheran, to the most anti-Catholic fundamentalist.
Click to expand...
I always wondered why the KJV onlyists were so adamant that they don’t need the authority of the Catholic Church, but use a bible that is authorised because it was authorised by the Church of England. Really confusing. But vicariously, since the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible, they would, at least in part, be accepting the authority of the Catholic Church.
 
JonNC said:
That’s not what Justa said. Read his post that I responded to.

Jon
Click to expand...
I’m not following your point here.

It is an untenable position to assert that you can be a Catholic but not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Just like you can’t be a Lutheran and say, “But I don’t believe that the 4 Gospels are theopneustos. Just the Pauline epistles”.
 
alwayswill said:
Who “knew” that 3 John and Hebrews and Mark was theopneustos but that Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas and epistles of Clement were not?"

A: “Catholic Bishops led by the Holy Spirit”
is not entirely correct
bishops are part of The Sheep; but The Sheep consist of much more than the just the Catholic Bishops.

correct?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are saying here, always? Would you mind explicating?
 
PRmerger said:
Not sure what you are saying here, always? Would you mind explicating?
Click to expand...
the question was
Who “knew” that 3 John and Hebrews and Mark was theopneustos but that Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas and epistles of Clement were not?"

The answer provided was:
“Catholic Bishops led by the Holy Spirit”

I am making the point it was not just exclusively Catholic Bishops who knew
but also The Sheep led by the Holy Spirit knew
 
alwayswill said:
the question was
Who “knew” that 3 John and Hebrews and Mark was theopneustos but that Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas and epistles of Clement were not?"

The answer provided was:
“Catholic Bishops led by the Holy Spirit”

I am making the point it was not just exclusively Catholic Bishops who knew
but also The Sheep led by the Holy Spirit knew
Click to expand...
So you are acknowledging the validity of Sacred Tradition?

Yes?
 
adamhovey1988 said:
I always wondered why the KJV onlyists were so adamant that they don’t need the authority of the Catholic Church, but use a bible that is authorised because it was authorised by the Church of England. Really confusing. But vicariously, since the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible, they would, at least in part, be accepting the authority of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Correct.
Being evangelical for nearly two decades gave me a healthy respect for Scripture. And an insight into the structure of the Protestant denominations/groups I was a part of.
Splits, divisions and unbelief in the denominations were the result of* moving away *from Scripture, not toward it. Why? Because those parameters were set by a very Catholic book called the Bible.
 
PRmerger said:
So you are acknowledging the validity of Sacred Tradition?

Yes?
Click to expand...
Please clarify at what point does a well-known undisputed fact becomes Scared Tradition

Romans 16:22 I, Tetris, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord.

When Paul dictated the Letter of Romans to Tetris, was that Scared Tradition?

When Tetris give the letter to Trusted Traveler going to Rome and says: deliver this letter from Paul to the Church in Rome. Is that Scared Tradition?

When Trusted Traveler gives the letter to the Church in Rome and says I have this letter from Paul for you. Is that Scared Tradition?

When they read the letter in Church and Christian Man tells his 10 friends and family: I just heard Paul’s Letter to us. Is that Scared Tradition? And then they tell their 10 friends and family…
 
alwayswill said:
Please clarify at what point does a well-known undisputed fact becomes Scared Tradition

Romans 16:22 I, Tetris, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord.

When Paul dictated the Letter of Romans to Tetris, was that Scared Tradition?

When Tetris give the letter to Trusted Traveler going to Rome and says: deliver this letter from Paul to the Church in Rome. Is that Scared Tradition?

When Trusted Traveler gives the letter to the Church in Rome and says I have this letter from Paul for you. Is that Scared Tradition?

When they read the letter in Church and Christian Man tells his 10 friends and family: I just heard Paul’s Letter to us. Is that Scared Tradition? And then they tell their 10 friends and family…
Click to expand...
Before I answer the above, you should answer my question first, right?

When you say that the Sheep just “knew” what was theopneustos, this means that they received the Word of God from some source OTHER than the Bible.

That source is what the CC calls Sacred Tradition.

So could you please acknowledge that you are a believer that Sacred Tradition is a viable means to transmit the Word of God?
 
PRmerger said:
Before I answer the above, you should answer my question first, right?

When you say that the Sheep just “knew” what was theopneustos, this means that they received the Word of God from some source OTHER than the Bible.

That source is what the CC calls Sacred Tradition.

So could you please acknowledge that you are a believer that Sacred Tradition is a viable means to transmit the Word of God?
Click to expand...
I don’t consider historical facts, word of mouth transmission; or saints being led by the Holy Spirit to be Sacred Tradition
 
alwayswill said:
I don’t consider historical facts,** word of mouth transmission**; or saints being led by the Holy Spirit to be Sacred Tradition
Click to expand...
Word of mouth transmission is exactly the definition of Sacred Tradition, always.

(Word of mouth transmission, guided by the Holy Spirit).

I feel as if you keep rejecting what you think is a Catholic thing while actually embracing what really is the Catholic thing.
 
alwayswill said:
you are hard to follow, Jon

Can you just use universal instead of Catholic when you mean universal?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry. From a Lutheran perspective, the Church is the congregation of believers, where the word is leached and the Sacraments administered. So, the Church Catholic is universal, divisions notwithstanding.
Does that help?

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top