R
rwoehmke
Guest
How about recent teaching on the death penalty, the index of forbidden books, what constitutes usury, slaves should obey their masters, democratic government being questionable, limbo?
- Status
E
elvisman
Guest
**Are you saying that we should believe only those things that are explicitly taught in Scripture?
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
No, I’m saying the magisterium has no right to demand people believe something that cannot be explicitly understood from Scripture.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The recent position on the death penalty (to which you refer, i think) is the judgment of the prudential order that the circumstances of society allow us to punish crimes and protect society sufficiently without the death penalty. But that is not a teaching, but a judgment with which Catholics may disagree.
The index was a work of the temporal authority; discipline, not doctrine.
Yes, what constitutes usury is (currently) a non-infallible teaching.
Scripture states that ‘slaves’ (or a better translation is ‘servants’) should obey their masters; but this does not include any obedience to sin, nor does it refer to the type of severe slavery that is intrinsically evil.
Limbo as a third final destination was (in my opinion) a non-infallible teaching of the Church that is in the process of being reformed.
D
DCNBILL
Guest
This statement demonstrates a misunderstanding of what the magisterium is. The magisterium is the teaching body of the Church not the “demanding that people believe something” body of the Church. There are certain beliefs that one should have in order to call ones self Catholic (see the Creeds), if one does not want to call ones self a Cathloic one does not have to believe in these things. If one wants to call ones self a Catholic one must believe these things. All else would be for the greater honor and glory of God.
To whom much has been given, much will be expected.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
I think you are way oversimplifying this. As a Catholic you are being told that if you do not accept the dogmas set forth by the magisterium, you are a heretic that resists the will of God. This is a case of men usurping God’s authority and it’s wrong.
E
elvisman
Guest
You are dead wrong.
The Holy Trinity is not explicitly named in Scripture - but ut is believed by every single true Christian.
The list of books that make up the Bible are not explicitly named in Scripture. The canon came from the Church, led by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) and short of six few books that prideful, rebellious men threw out some 1500 years later - it is the very canon YOU adhere to.
This is too easy . . .
K
kepha1
Guest
Prove, from Scripture alone, that human cloning is immoral. I could produce other immoral acts that affect our salvation, such as in vitro fertilization and contraception, but Protestants are morally compromised on these, and other issues, in their teachings.
But to keep it simple, prove by Scripture, that human cloning is immoral.
You can’t. Thus your statement falls flat on it’s face. So does sola scriptura. Scripture alone as the sole rule of faith is freeze dried authority that didn’t work in Nominalist 16th century and even less in todays world.
John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.
John 16:12 - Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn’t bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church’s infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God’s Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-IV
K
kepha1
Guest
Lots of Catholics don’t accept the dogmas of the Church because they don’t understand them or they have been poisoned by false teachers. That does not make them heretics seeking to usurp God’s authority, it makes them deceived, and that’s wrong. People don’t leave the Catholic Church over dogmas, they leave because of emotional issues, and dogmas and doctrines are just an excuse.
When Protestants do not accept the dogmas of their particular church, division follows, or they church hop until they find one that feels good. I’ve seen this personally. Only the Church can declare a teaching or person to be in heresy, and it is usually reserved for theologians or bishops, and they are given YEARS to recant or change their errors.
I don’t think it’s fair that you re-invent what Church authority is, and then argue that it is wrong. That is called a straw man argument.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
What I said was (and ironically you quoted it), “explicitly understood from Scripture.” Maybe you are unable to understand the trinity from Scripture without it being explicitly “named,” but most Christians are able to understand it without the help of a magisterium. Even Tertullian (he’s the guy that coined the term trinity) defended the Godhead from Scripture.You are dead wrong.
The Holy Trinity is not explicitly named in Scripture - but ut is believed by every single true Christian.
The list of books that make up the Bible are not explicitly named in Scripture. The canon came from the Church, led by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) and short of six few books that prideful, rebellious men threw out some 1500 years later - it is the very canon YOU adhere to.
This is too easy . . .
“But Scripture is not in such danger that you need to come to its help with your reasoning, lest it should seem inconsistent with itself. It is quite right both when it lays down that there is one God and when it shows that there are two, Father and Son, and it is self-sufficient.” (Against Praxeas 18)
I’m glad you brought up the canon, which is your canon, not mine. I adhere to truth not a magisterium. I am sure you agree with this following statement:
“These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, 2:7, 1870)
So let me ask you, which version of that canon is the inerrant one? Which one can I read that is free of error? I assume it is the one you use so this should be easy for you.
E
elvisman
Guest
from Scripture.” Maybe you are unable to understand the trinity from Scripture without it being explicitly “named,” but most Christians are able to understand it without the help of a magisterium. Even Tertullian (he’s the guy that coined the term trinity) defended the Godhead from Scripture.“But Scripture is not in such danger that you need to come to its help with your reasoning, lest it should seem inconsistent with itself. It is quite right both when it lays down that there is one God and when it shows that there are two, Father and Son, and it is self-sufficient.” (Against Praxeas 18).Good** - you seem to be learning. **
To recap, we have learned that the Scriptures implicitly teach about the Holy Trinity - and the Church declares it doctrine.
“These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, 2:7, 1870)This is precisely what I said:
canon came from the Church, led by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) and short of six few books that prideful, rebellious men threw out some 1500 years later - it is the very canon YOU adhere to.
I’ll rephrase it for you:
**You adhere to the very canon declared by the Catholic Church - *except ***for the fact that you follow a man-made tradition that removed six books of the Old Testament.
**As a matter of fact, had it not been for his contemporaries, Luther would have removed Hebrews, James, Jude, and **Revelation as well.
**The Bible has 73 books. Ironically, the Deuterocanonicals, which Protestants reject, were books that were studied by Jesus and the Apostles. In short - Catholics study from the same OT that Jesus did. **
We know this because there are over 100 NT references to these books from the Septuagint. Here are a few for you to chew on:
Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
**Matt. 7:12 ****- Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of ****Tobit 4:15 ****- what you hate, do not do to others. **
**Luke 21:24 ****- Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18. **
**1 Cor. 2:16 ****- Paul’s question, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” references Wisdom 9:13. **
**1 Cor. 10:20 ****- what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7. **
**Matt. 7:16,20 ****- Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows ****Sirach 27:6 **- the fruit discloses the cultivation.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
You didn’t answer my question; which version of that canon is the inerrant one?
If you don’t know just say so.
E
elvisman
Guest
**The very same canon declared at the Council of Rome in 382 and reiterated at the Councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397. Same with the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1438. **
To answer the many heresies and Scriptural perversions brought on by the Protestant Revolt - in the 16th century, Trent solidified this canon and declared what had been taught since the beginning at the Council of Rome.
So, when you ask me which canon is inerrant - it is the canon of the Bible as proclaimed by the Catholic Church.
This is why Augustine was moved to remark, **"I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so”. **
Tell me - why do you accept the man-made tradition of excluding the Deuterocanonicals?
Secondly - if they were part of the Scriptures that Jesus studied and quoted from - by whose authority were they removed?
K
kepha1
Guest
Most Christians understand the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit thanks to the Magisterium at the Council of Nicae, (where most of the development took place with the Church using scriptures to counter the heretic Arius who was privately using scripture) Protestantism has borrowed wholesale from the Magisterium, which you deny. You also accept a New Testament, but deny the authority of the Magisterium that gave it to you. Your position is totally irrational.
TRINITY
Tertullian first used the Latin form, trinitas, but it’s first use of was around the time of the 12th Pope, St. Soter (166-175), and the 13th Pope, St. Eleutherius (175-189). Theophilus was bishop of Antioch, and use the Greek “trias”, which was Latinized into “*trinitas”*about A.D. 180. Common sense tells us the term was used before it was cemented in writing, but scriptures alone was not clear enough to stop Ariansim from infecting some 70-80% of third century bishops, as Arius used his private “scripture alone” to defend himself.
The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, but you cannot quote any verse or verses that adequately describes the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as it is accepted by most Christians without borrowing from the CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM which you blindly reject.
Nice quote, but Tertullian subjected himself to the Magisterium, and was not a sola scripturist. You don’t seem to understand how the Magisterium uses scripture in formulating.
(Against Praxeas 18) …“The Designation of the One God in the Prophetic Scriptures. Intended as a Protest Against Heathen Idolatry, It Does Not Preclude the Correlative Idea of the Son of God. The Son is in the Father…”
full context: Against Praxeas - Tertullian
WRONG. The books of YOUR bible were made canon by the CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM, which obviously, you reject out of ignorance.
No. You adhere to human opinions, specifically, Luther and Calvin.
The Church did not make the books of the bible inspired and inerrant. She proved them, where your system assumes inspiration.
I am not talking about translations, and I don’t think you are either. You read parts of the Dogmatic Constitution, but can’t see any of it. The Protestant deformers borrowed the Bible from the Catholic Church and adulterated it, and cherry picked doctrines such as the Trinity, and discarded what didn’t fit into their man made systems. Your assumption the books of the Bible were automatically accepted by the early church is historical revisionism.
I suspect the reason you cannot or will not answer my questions of several posts is that you are afraid of truth, and have put me on ignore.
T
tweetymom
Guest
Agreed Brian. All scripture is meant for all believers that make up the church. We who believe are Christ’s church.
K
kepha1
Guest
Succinctly said, tweetymom. Brian does what many Protestants do, they think the Magisterium is an oligarchy of power hungry control freaks that are a separate entity from the body of believers. Brian can say the Bible came from God but refuses to acknowledge who God gave the Bible to without re-writing history.
- If a person says, “There are no moral absolutes.” That person is in logical trouble because that very statement is a moral absolute. He is saying it is a moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes. This system self-destructs. It cannot be true regardless how popular it is in America today. What he is really saying is…there are no moral absolutes, except this one.
- “All generalizations are false”. This is a generalization in itself. It too self-destructs. What a person is really saying here is “all generalizations are false, except for this one.
- "Only doctrines explicitly understood from scripture can be accepted.” This concept is self-destructive, and IS NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE. Unless Brian can find a scripture that explicitly says this, which he can’t, then he must re-phrase it to say: "Only doctrines explicitly understood from scripture can be accepted, except this one.”
T
tweetymom
Guest
Succintly is a word I did not know. Maybe you could write simplier words, so we do not have to look them up on bing to understand what they mean? I am always to the point and have been accused of being too brief in my answers, by many here.
I was agreeing with Brian. I believe that we are all Christ’s church regardless where we go. f one does not have Christ in ones heart it doesn’t matter cause the name on the door will not mean a thing.
S
Shannon9791
Guest
This is what succint is. Seems like you knew it, you just didn’t know there was a word to go with it.
T
tweetymom
Guest
Then why not use a brief word? LOLThis is what succint is. Seems like you knew it, you just didn’t know there was a word to go with it.
K
kepha1
Guest
Succinct means briefly put, precise expression in a few words, but with a punch.
All believing Christians are part of Christ’s Church, but it is unfortunate that many are in incomplete communion with the Catholic Church, and they are part of the Church whether they like it or not. Exactly who is part of Christ’s Church is another thread, but I would rely heavily on the encyclical Unum Sint for any discussion.
Protestantism says anyone can read the Bible for themselves, and verify any suppositions with scripture, but to the exclusion of the Magisterium that gave them the very bible they read from. Everyone is a pope but not the Pope himself. Everyone can support an opinion based on scripture, but not Catholics. We are not entitled to what Protestants entitle to themselves, and it’s OUR BOOK!
Infallibility is NOT a simple doctrine. The Catholic Church could not have compiled an infallible Bible without the charism of infallibility, and Protestants delude themselves into thinking she just assigned infallibility to herself, with false theories of Bible origins.
Over the Book stands the Church, while according to the Reformation conception, over the Church stands the Book. This fundamental vision of the Church causes the Catholic to look to the episcopate for doctrine, because the bishops are the authentic exponents of God’s message to the world.
The body is made up of many members who are distinguished one from the other by functions for which they have a fixed structure. In the Body, the bishops have the function of teaching and guiding, and this task they perform through the power of the Spirit who transfuses the whole Body, making each member effective in his function.
The Body is one, and so the episcopate is one, and the unity of the episcopate is achieved through solidarity with the prime source of Episcopal power, the Bishop of Rome. In the Catholic vision the pope teaches in the name of the episcopate and the episcopate teaches in the name of the Church and the Church teaches in the name of Christ, and Christ teaches in the name of God.
All believing Christians are part of Christ’s Church, but it is unfortunate that many are in incomplete communion with the Catholic Church, and they are part of the Church whether they like it or not. Exactly who is part of Christ’s Church is another thread, but I would rely heavily on the encyclical Unum Sint for any discussion.
Protestantism says anyone can read the Bible for themselves, and verify any suppositions with scripture, but to the exclusion of the Magisterium that gave them the very bible they read from. Everyone is a pope but not the Pope himself. Everyone can support an opinion based on scripture, but not Catholics. We are not entitled to what Protestants entitle to themselves, and it’s OUR BOOK!
Infallibility is NOT a simple doctrine. The Catholic Church could not have compiled an infallible Bible without the charism of infallibility, and Protestants delude themselves into thinking she just assigned infallibility to herself, with false theories of Bible origins.
Over the Book stands the Church, while according to the Reformation conception, over the Church stands the Book. This fundamental vision of the Church causes the Catholic to look to the episcopate for doctrine, because the bishops are the authentic exponents of God’s message to the world.
Code:
The Church is an organized visible fellowship. Because it is divine institution and dynamism, the Holy Spirit dwells in it, keeping it alive, keeping it true, and making it grow. The Spirit is the source of the life of the Church, but that life is the life of a body.The Body is one, and so the episcopate is one, and the unity of the episcopate is achieved through solidarity with the prime source of Episcopal power, the Bishop of Rome. In the Catholic vision the pope teaches in the name of the episcopate and the episcopate teaches in the name of the Church and the Church teaches in the name of Christ, and Christ teaches in the name of God.
- Status