S
Semangelof
Guest
No, that truth did not set us free. It led to murder and terror.
- Status
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Some of it were certainly necessary. Also, murder implies killing of innocents. If the said people were guilty of promoting heresy when warned, then there is nothing wrong with the death penalty.
It really depends on the perspective. If Catholics were indeed the true Church, they were right in trying to to quench error.
Anyway, it is also worth mentioning that you don’t assent to acts. You assent to teachings. Terror and “murder” are acts. So you might not like the way the Church handled a particular heresy but that does not mean you should therefore abandon it. That is like saying I don’t like Physics because my Physics teacher is pro-abortion.
S
Semangelof
Guest
Would you kill me if you had the power? My other question is are you representative of the catholic church?
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Why would I kill you?
If you are thinking along the lines of “I am a heretic”, I do not think you qualify as one. You just adopted what was passed down to you. You could have been a bit more reasonable in deciding whether to take what was passed down but one does not become a heretic for not doing so.
The ones that should have fallen to the inquisition should have been the likes of Luther or Calvin. They would have either been kept in confinement or given the death penalty, in either case, preventing the great catastrophe that they created in Christianity. They would indeed be guilty of being heretics as well.
But as for you, even if I was part of the inquisition, I would not go after you
Rather, if anything, I would think the inquisition would use that power and means to polarize the perception of the public against arbitrary assent and to make sure Catholics priests or Bishops who stray from the faith are warned and promptly removed from office. In other words, the primary goal of the inquisition is the purity of the faith. Not the death of anyone. The causing of death was always seen as a side-effect to preserve purity and perhaps a punishment for the sin of misleading others. I have heard a modern historian point out how Hitler would not have been able to cause any trouble, had the inquisition been around. He would have been seen as an apostate and would have been promptly dealt with. But in today’s world, deaths are not necessary and imprisonment for life or till recanted would be a better solution of those Catholics who stubbornly stray from the faith and mislead others.As for whether I am representative of all Catholics, I cannot say. I try my best to be Catholic. That is all I can do. Others would have certainly succeeded more than me but that is not my concern and neither should it be yours, yes? Unless you of course want to correct me and advise me on a matter that I can improve on being more Catholic (which I would welcome!)
Our concern should be in following the truth, as much as it has been made known to us through the providence of God.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Some teachings are given infallibly so we can have assurance that this is divinely revealed.
While we must give religious assent to even teachings that have not been dogmatically (that is, infallibly) proclaimed, we do not have the assurance that this is divinely revealed. Rather, these teachings are “an authentic expression of the ordinary magisterium of the Roman pontiff or of the college of bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect.** They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or to propose against dangerous opinions that can lead to error. **”–Cardinal Ratzinger
P
Philthy
Guest
No one actually!:
Koineman:
Koineman:
You are correct - it isn’t a quote, and I apologize. I thought it was a quote, but I searched the thread also and no such statement exists anywhere. It is apparently an unintentional paraphrase from posts 22 and 49. Here’s an actual quote, with my comments added in italicized blue:
I think I simply combined two ideas from these comments:
- that making an infallible statement is useless if even the potentially fallible statements must be equally followed
- that infallible statements aren’t necessarily recognized as such by many Catholics
P
PRmerger
Guest
Truer words were never spoken here on the CAFs! :sad_yes:
This, too, is true.
But you need not leave Peter because of Judas.
Go the to Church that Christ established, and then conform your beliefs to that Body.
Do not seek a church that conforms to your own palate and tastes–for that is the epitome of creating a god in one’s own image.
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
Hmm, OK?
No dictating going on here! The only mind-set is fidelity to the facts with solid discussion and reasoning based on them. Certainly you don’t have a problem with that?
In your response there seems to be some, at least implicit, affirmations: (1) the burden of proof is on the historically newer claim, and so (2) it makes a difference which position came first.
In all honest I can’t think of one credible authority in academia in patristics or the history of doctrine who claims that the fathers or the Ecumenical Councils or the ordinary life of the church taught, practiced, or recognized anything but STC prior to the Reformation.
But, alright . . .
So the issue in this part of the discussion is whether the teaching, practice, and recognition of STC as the means to hand on God’s word is the position of the undivided Church East and West prior to the Reformation.
Well, you don’t want to refer to the fathers to resolve this–and, truthfully, it wouldn’t be a good idea for one who holds your position to attempt it. And you seem to eschew gathering data regarding what is taught and portrayed by the NT authors taken as a whole on the subject.
OK then, you might consult the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided church as evidence of the practice and teaching and recognition of STC in this period. It’s there. It’s in later ones too.
Also, I don’t know how familiar you are with history, especially the history of doctrine, but I would suggest as a basic primer Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. 5 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971. In particular read vols 1 and 2 about the consensus in the undivided church about how God’s word is handed on: there is no other process recognized and practiced and taught than STC. This continued into the Middle Ages as vol 3 makes clear; and was one of the issues at the heart of the Reformation debates as vol 4 shows. Pelikan is not RC.
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines. 5th edition. New York: Continuum, 1977 which covers up through the 5th c reaches the same conclusion. He’s not Catholic either.
You might find this Evangelical article on the fathers interesting.
I would also point out that SS, as with Reformation theology in general, has been rejected by the EOC–e.g., Synod of Jerusalem (1672 AD), the Longer Russian Catechism (1830)–as unpatristic and unbiblical.
What example can you give of SS taught, practiced, and recognized by the Church prior to the Reformation?
Waldensianism (12th c in the West)–rejected, not recognized. John Wycliffe (14th c, West)–ditto. Hussites (14-15th c, West)–ditto. Protestant Reformation (16th c, West)–ditto…by the CC East and West and the EOC. In every case they knew their movements were dissenting from the preexisting position in the Church regarding STC handing on God’s word.
So as the conversation now stands, it IS incumbent upon YOU to make good on the claims of the Reformation protest against this preexisting position and show why the evidence of positive theology rationally compels one to abandon STC in favor of SS.
F
Filioque
Guest
I’m just wondering. Since the Bible does not refer to itself as the Infallible word of God, and does not contain a list of what books and how many chapters each book has (let’s not forget that some of the earier texts that still exist have fewer, and more verses than the NT we accept as canonical today) what is the Criteria for the Bible being infallible?
Since no Canon is given to us by the Bible, and there was not a universal agreement until the Church guided by the Holy Ghost determined what the canon would be, and since there are Oriental Churches, (Ethiopian Orthodox comes to mind) who hold 3rd and 4th book of Maccabees to be canonical,would a Protestant having asserted his own right to private interpretation be seen as acceptible if he included those texts like 3 and 4 Maccabees, the Shepard of Hermas etc, which individual communities of the Early Church accepted before the finalization and confimation of the Canon was made, be acceptable? After all if we ignore the authority that the Leaders of the Church are given in the text of the NT by our own usurping of the right to private interpretation, and deny it to the Church, then is it really that bad if we decide that some verses which have been accepted as instructional regarding obedience due to the leaders of the Church and their decisions are not essential to what we determine the Faith to be, who has the right to determine it is not the Holy Ghost who is telling me that because I made a split second decision for Christ?
Well if my sould did not depend on assenting to what Jesus taught, I guess I could have lots of fun deciding how I wanted to interpret the Scriptures and form my own truth.
Since no Canon is given to us by the Bible, and there was not a universal agreement until the Church guided by the Holy Ghost determined what the canon would be, and since there are Oriental Churches, (Ethiopian Orthodox comes to mind) who hold 3rd and 4th book of Maccabees to be canonical,would a Protestant having asserted his own right to private interpretation be seen as acceptible if he included those texts like 3 and 4 Maccabees, the Shepard of Hermas etc, which individual communities of the Early Church accepted before the finalization and confimation of the Canon was made, be acceptable? After all if we ignore the authority that the Leaders of the Church are given in the text of the NT by our own usurping of the right to private interpretation, and deny it to the Church, then is it really that bad if we decide that some verses which have been accepted as instructional regarding obedience due to the leaders of the Church and their decisions are not essential to what we determine the Faith to be, who has the right to determine it is not the Holy Ghost who is telling me that because I made a split second decision for Christ?
Well if my sould did not depend on assenting to what Jesus taught, I guess I could have lots of fun deciding how I wanted to interpret the Scriptures and form my own truth.
P
Philthy
Guest
Absolutely. Note, however, that my reference to pride was specifically in relation to the desire to “make my own rules”.
Paul expected them to respect his authority in preaching the Gospel. He never said they should place their personal interpretation of Scripture over his authority as you indirectly assert. I believe he was using a bit of hyperbole since no other Apostle would preach a false gospel. His preaching - by virtue of his office of Apostle, willed by the Father, established by the Son and protected by the Holy Spirit - is protected from teaching error in matters of faith and morality.
It helps the development of Truth over the course of the era of the Church as it applies to the increasingly complicated world. It establishes areas where the “rehashing” of doctrine is no longer considered. Examples? Canon of Scripture, Trinity, Real Presence, Baptism etc. And it provides evidence to anyone who wishes to see that the Church, guided by the HS does not reverse it’s position through the centuries on these doctrine. **This helps reveal the Church for what it is.
**
Correct.
I don’t think I said that. The authority of the Church is better recognized - over the course of history - by it’s unwavering proclamation of an infallible truth.
They are both true: we obey the Church because It has divine authority; we recognize the divine authority and protection given to the Church by virtue of its unwavering proclamation of the Truth over the course of history.
Really? Is that a divinely revealed truth or one you simply made up to explain that which you don’t understand? Honestly - who gets to decide when enough “detail” exists for it to be something we “need” to know. Me? You? Can the opinion of what is “enough” change over the course of time (like it has with many doctrine among the SS communities)?
Of course we can, but that doesn’t mean it is the fullness of Truth regarding the “breaking of the bread”. You are ignoring lots of information related to the “breaking of the bread” in issuing this minimalist reduction. John 6, 1 Cor 10, Acts 2:42, and the entire history of the early Church. In my mind - and to return to the main point of infallible teaching - your inability to follow the original gospel that Paul, John and others “preached” and to instead of chosen another gospel (the breaking of the bread is ONLY a memorial) is evidence of your fallibility; whereas Catholics can look back in time and see this teaching as the naturally incomprehensible divinely revealed supernatural truth for what it is and the Church as God’s instrument - together with Scripture - for revealing it.
Blessings!
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Exactly.
To disobey because you think you are correct is to stand in the tradition of Korah.
And we know what happened to Korah, yes? (See Jude 11, Numbers 16)
Incidentally, if we tell our children to obey us as parents, even if we are not infallible, how much more should we obey His Body, the Catholic Church, which has indeed been given the charism of infallibility.
Also, why in the world would anyone follow a church does not claim infallibility? That means, given that they are fallible, that they are going to be wrong at some point. Going. To. Be. Wrong.
K
Koineman
Guest
On my own I wouldn’t mind, but in a forum like this? We’d get nowhere. I’ve seen it happen before: One side quotes a church father that allegedly supports his view, and then the other side fires back a contradictory quote and/or claims that the particular church father is being taken out of context, etc. So saying merely that I “don’t want to refer to the fathers” is oversimplifying, misrepresentative, and ignoring this explanation of mine, which I have already given in another post.
I doubt that seriously. But in regard to the tone of this comment, I suggest you read and meditate on 1 Cor. 13.
Really? Why, then, did I quote/make reference to NT writings elsewhere in this thread. I really have no idea where you’re getting this from.
Well, first of all, SS does not speak against STC, at least not in one sense. SS does not militate against tradition or the church. Anyone who uses SS to justify abandonment of church and tradition either doesn’t understand it or is distorting it. SS says that tradition and the church are not infallible, and that the only infallible rule is Scripture, which means that both the Church and tradition are subject to Scripture. So it does acknowledge all three (STC), but not the T and C in the way that the RCC defines them.
I prefer to go straight to the source: Scripture itself. Regarding the sufficiency of Scripture, 2 Tim. 3:16-17 makes this all too clear. Since Scripture makes the man of God complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work, nothing else is needed in terms of revelation. That is clearly the concept of sufficiency. If something else were needed, then the phrase thoroughly equipped for every good work is not true.
Nowhere that I know of did Christ or the apostles speak of either tradition or the church as having authority equal to the word of God, such that new revelation, in addition to Scripture and considered to be infallible, could proceed from them.
The idea that one should submit unconditionally to church teaching, without testing it in any way, is actually contrary to Scripture. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Paul expected his Galatian audience to test any preaching that purported to be the gospel and reject it, even if it came from him or an angel. The gospel itself, then, was expected to be the rule by which other preaching was to be tested. Paul was not speaking hyperbolically here. He wasn’t exaggerating. He took the gospel very, very seriously. This was the man who wrote elsewhere, Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel. He indicated in another place that the gospel was entrusted to him by God, and he valued the stewardship of the gospel that had been given him to such a degree that he even wrote that his reward was simply preaching the gospel free of charge.
In addition, the Bereans were commended for testing what the apostles taught using Scripture. If it was wrong for them to do this, then the text would not refer to this act as noble.
K
Koineman
Guest
But why is that necessary? You already submit to the RCC because you believe firmly that she speaks for God, and that her teachings must be assented to. Are you more likely to believe an RCC teaching that is declared infallibly than one that is not?
And that, of course, brings up my OP: How does one know when a teaching is infallible if there is no infallibly declared list of infallible teachings?
Why, sure you do. You already believe that the RCC alone has the authority to interpret Scripture, teach, etc., so that is your assurance.
K
Koineman
Guest
I’ve already explained this. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 says that Scripture makes the man of God thoroughly equipped for every good work, and complete. If something by itself makes you fully equipped and complete, there is no need for anything else. That is sufficiency.
K
Koineman
Guest
I asked first. Why not just answer it?
T
Tomster
Guest
I ask you, as a professed Protestant, what good are good works? What need of them have you? According to Protestant theology all you need is faith? Yes/No?
G
guanophore
Guest
I think you have misunderstood the teaching of the Apostles that is embraced by the Catholic Church. We are taught by the Apostles that Jesus is Head of His One Body, the Church. We are taught by Jesus that obedience to the Church is obedience to Christ.
Luke 10:16
hoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."
Those who love Jesus will give Him their obedience.
John 14:15
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”
John 14:23-24
"Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me.
Jesus’ words are infallibly preserved by the Holy Spirit in His Church.
We assent unconditionally just as Peter did:
John 6:68-69
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
We can trust that, though we may not understand everything, He has the words of eternal life.
Now your comment of “testing authority” really is a matter of comparing your own private interpretation of the scriptures to what God has revealed to His One Body, the Church. What you are saying is that, if your personal interpretation is different, then you will rely upon your own perceptions instead, and reject the Church.
For the record, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”.
What has been inspired is a product of the Catholic Church (the New Testament/Bible). The Church is the servant of the Word of God. The Scriptures came out of the Church, the Church did not come out of the Scripture. The Church was founded by Christ, who breathed upon His Apostles, infilling them with the Holy Spirit. Jesus gave the authority to His Church to interpret the Scriptures.
It is not a matter of which one is “over” the other. The two are meant to work seamlessly together as equal strands of His revelation. The Scriptures were never meant to be separated form the Sacred Tradition that produced them.
K
Koineman
Guest
I don’t need to. The existence of various interpretations does not prove that the text cannot be clearly grasped. People can see a text clearly for what it says but then reject it because it differs from their pet theory or beliefs.
Let’s apply this to the RCC. Do all Catholics agree about the number of infallible teachings of the RCC?
Then why do Catholics still disagree?
- Status