S
SIA
Guest
I don’t agree with your Bible+ philosophy but hey, that’s ok.
- Status
R
Robbinson
Guest
Thanks SIA - we can certainly agree to disagree.
On the Bible alone idea - of course the Bible (e.g., which books make up the cannon) is itself the product of the Church (e.g., it was the councils within the apostolic church that determined which books would be part of the Cannon and which would not). By definition, tradition is a critical part of our faith. And early Church doctrine (still endorsed by Protestants) was also established by the early Church councils (again, within the apostolic Church), e.g., the doctrine of the trinity, rebuttal of heresies regarding Jesus being only spirit or Jesus not being fully divine, etc. Finally - we have scripture itself which gives the apostles the express authority to determine what is “bound in heaven and what is losed in heaven” and expressly given the authority to forgive sins (with those sins they forgive, forgiven, and those sins they don’t not forgiven) clearly therefore providing authority outside of scripture. Something to think about seriously for any who take up the banner of “scripture alone”.
Blessings,
Brian
S
SIA
Guest
I do not come from a church that believes in authority only in Scripture. Yes,there are Protestants who do not conform to sola scriptura, us being one. I believe that Scriputre is the product of many many years of painstaking prayer and devotion to God and his will and that it is truly God’s Word.Thanks SIA - we can certainly agree to disagree.
On the Bible alone idea - of course the Bible (e.g., which books make up the cannon) is itself the product of the Church (e.g., it was the councils within the apostolic church that determined which books would be part of the Cannon and which would not). By definition, tradition is a critical part of our faith. And early Church doctrine (still endorsed by Protestants) was also established by the early Church councils (again, within the apostolic Church), e.g., the doctrine of the trinity, rebuttal of heresies regarding Jesus being only spirit or Jesus not being fully divine, etc. Finally - we have scripture itself which gives the apostles the express authority to determine what is “bound in heaven and what is losed in heaven” and expressly given the authority to forgive sins (with those sins they forgive, forgiven, and those sins they don’t not forgiven) clearly therefore providing authority outside of scripture. Something to think about seriously for any who take up the banner of “scripture alone”.
Blessings,
Brian
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well said.
Personally, I’ve only become aware in the past few months of just how common it is for Catholics to misunderstand and misrepresent Catholic teaching, even Catholics who think they know what they’re talking about. (Don’t get me wrong, I already knew it was common, just not how common.)
To me he obvious example is Catholics who say that the pope is infallible whenever he teaches anything about faith and morals. (The actual Catholic teaching, as you probably know, only says that the pope is infallible when he makes an ex cathedra statement.)
And yes, I’ve also encountered Catholics whose enthusiasm for Mary is, for lack of a better phrase, “not really Catholic”. But it’s a little harder to put your finger on – it’s not like that make any particular statement that contradicts Catholic teaching, but more a matter of attitude. (It often seems to stem from a
we-have-to-make-up-for-all-those-Protestants-who-don’t-love-Mary-enough kind of attitude.)
J
Just_Me_Andrew
Guest
I have some theological reasons for not being Catholic. Can I give an example? How about “Was Peter the Pope in Rome” was Peter even in Rome? I would like to challenge any Catholic with the following challenge: Refute the following evidence which proves Peter was NOT in Rome ruling as Pope
Catholic tradition holds that Peter went to Rome and founded the papacy. This would mean that Peter should already be in Rome when the Apostle Paul arrives. But in Acts 27, which involves very specific details about Paul’s journey to Rome, not a word is said about Peter. In fact, in Acts 28:30 it says that Paul spent two entire years at Rome in his own quarters, welcoming everyone who came to him. Now if Peter were in Rome partaking of the papal office, is it at all conceivable that Peter would not go and visit the Apostle Paul—at least once? If he did, would Paul fail to mention it—fail to mention that he was visited by the head of the Church? Why is it that Luke, the great historian of the early Church, who set down his record in exacting detail also never mentions even a hint that Peter is in Rome or that he has his papal office?
*Why is it also that when the Apostle Paul actually writes to the Roman Church, he does not even mention Peter? Peter is supposed to have been in Rome around 42-67 A.D. If the book of Romans was written in 57 A.D., this means that Peter has already been in Rome for 15 years. Again, is it conceivable that the Apostle Paul would not mention Peter or the great office of papacy that he now occupies? This is impossible if indeed Peter is supposed to occupy the position of the vicar of Christ as the head of the Church. In Romans 16 Paul mentions 27 people by name—but he fails to mention Peter even once.
In 2 Timothy 4, Paul is writing from Rome in 67 A.D. He says that the time of his death is near (2 Tim. 4:6). Remember that according to Catholic tradition, Peter has already been in Rome for twenty-five years. But nothing that Paul does suggests Peter is even there. If Peter had been killed about 67 A.D., before Paul had written 2 Timothy, how could it be that Paul fails to mention Peter’s death? Why does he mention day-to-day details and instructions for individuals by name but fail to mention the death of the first pope who has ruled in Rome for twenty-five years (2 Tim. 4:10-14, 19-21)? Paul goes on to say that Demas, loving this present world “has deserted me” and that “only Luke is with me” and that, “At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them” (2 Tim. 4:16).
If Peter has been in Rome for twenty-five years, why did not Peter ever come to Paul’s defense? Is this the exercise of papal authority and leadership?*
Thank you and anyone please respond!
Catholic tradition holds that Peter went to Rome and founded the papacy. This would mean that Peter should already be in Rome when the Apostle Paul arrives. But in Acts 27, which involves very specific details about Paul’s journey to Rome, not a word is said about Peter. In fact, in Acts 28:30 it says that Paul spent two entire years at Rome in his own quarters, welcoming everyone who came to him. Now if Peter were in Rome partaking of the papal office, is it at all conceivable that Peter would not go and visit the Apostle Paul—at least once? If he did, would Paul fail to mention it—fail to mention that he was visited by the head of the Church? Why is it that Luke, the great historian of the early Church, who set down his record in exacting detail also never mentions even a hint that Peter is in Rome or that he has his papal office?
*Why is it also that when the Apostle Paul actually writes to the Roman Church, he does not even mention Peter? Peter is supposed to have been in Rome around 42-67 A.D. If the book of Romans was written in 57 A.D., this means that Peter has already been in Rome for 15 years. Again, is it conceivable that the Apostle Paul would not mention Peter or the great office of papacy that he now occupies? This is impossible if indeed Peter is supposed to occupy the position of the vicar of Christ as the head of the Church. In Romans 16 Paul mentions 27 people by name—but he fails to mention Peter even once.
In 2 Timothy 4, Paul is writing from Rome in 67 A.D. He says that the time of his death is near (2 Tim. 4:6). Remember that according to Catholic tradition, Peter has already been in Rome for twenty-five years. But nothing that Paul does suggests Peter is even there. If Peter had been killed about 67 A.D., before Paul had written 2 Timothy, how could it be that Paul fails to mention Peter’s death? Why does he mention day-to-day details and instructions for individuals by name but fail to mention the death of the first pope who has ruled in Rome for twenty-five years (2 Tim. 4:10-14, 19-21)? Paul goes on to say that Demas, loving this present world “has deserted me” and that “only Luke is with me” and that, “At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them” (2 Tim. 4:16).
If Peter has been in Rome for twenty-five years, why did not Peter ever come to Paul’s defense? Is this the exercise of papal authority and leadership?*
Thank you and anyone please respond!
R
Robbinson
Guest
Well - I’m a Protestant (and while admittedly now leaning toward Catholicism), never gave much credence to this line of argument. This is an old charge easily refuted. Just one of many links - take a look catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp
At the end of the day, the Papacy does not turn on Rome but on Peter and his successors (Peter having been given the keys to the kingdom). I think history shows us Peter was in Rome - but its ultimately a red herring issue my friend.
Blessings,
Brian
S
SIA
Guest
I don’t think so. I think that there is much creedence in his statement.
L
LutheranDK
Guest
The ONLY reason I am not RC is because of theological reasons.
P
Peter_J
Guest
For me as a Catholic, whether or not Peter was the Bishop of Rome is not central to my beliefs. I’m not saying that it is insignificant, just that it is an historical question and not a doctrinal question.
I believe that each Pope is free to move his See to where ever he wants. In fact, St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch first, then became the Bishop of Rome (or so is the traditional belief), but he didn’t thereby cease to be Pope.
What’s more, there were the Avignon Popes more than a millennium later. (Unfortunately, because of the corruption that existed during the Avignon period, that incident actually served to reinforce in many peoples’ minds the idea that the Pope has to be the Bishop of Rome.)
Right on.
R
Reformed
Guest
Who’s that Zwingli guy? Is he the roots of fundamental Baptists? The Catholics follow Peter. The Lutherans follow Martin Luther. The hyper-Calvinists follow John Calvin. The biblical Calvninists follow Jesus Christ. 
Divisions in the Church
3:1 But I, brothers, [1] could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?
5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
16 Do you not know that you [2] are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.
18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” 20 and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” 21 So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
1 Cor 3
Divisions in the Church
3:1 But I, brothers, [1] could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?
5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
16 Do you not know that you [2] are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.
18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” 20 and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” 21 So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
1 Cor 3
G
Greg27
Guest
Where my reasons were theological, they had to do mostly with matters relating to moral theology, but also on who can and cannot validly receive the sacraments. But it was not over the traditional issues which divide the churches.
S
SIA
Guest
Well, several of the Early Church fathers didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception. It is just a matter of historical fact.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
But they do believe she is pure. They never openly said that she sin. they did say that she had faults, like doubt, and other things.
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).
“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).
“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).
“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).
“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).
“As** he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain**.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).
“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).
“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).
“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).
“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).
“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).
“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures,** but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.**” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).
"O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew." John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749
The definition of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary is without any sin and it also states that she was conceived without original sin. The concensus of the Fathers show that they believe Mary to be PURE, spotless like the Son.
E
elvisman
Guest
**So the Early Church Fathers were wrong because YOU say so? Peter and Paul were wanted men. What makes you think that Paul would endanger Peter (and vice versa) by giving him a “shout out” in his letters. **
Consider (1 Pet. 5:13):
“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark”.**
“Babylon” was a code-word for Rome in the New Testament and is the same city referred to in Rev. 14:8, Rev. 16:19, Rev. 17:5, Rev. 18:2, Rev. 18:10 and Rev. 18:21*.***
Here is a list of Fathers that say not only that Peter was in Rome but that he was martyred there as well:
Ignatius of Antioch
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Clement of Alexandria
Lactantius
Eusebius
Cyril of Jerusalem
Optatus
Epiphanus
Dionysius
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Yes, and some of the early Church fathers questioned other aspects of Catholic teaching, too. (Like Tertullian, for example).
Thing is, Early Church Fathers are not ‘infallible’. Their works are valuable in giving us a picture of the early Church and how teachings developed and deepened, but they are not to be considered as ‘authoritative’ (like Scripture or like Papal encyclicals, etc.).
Early Church Fathers often were ‘right’ in their theological speculations. . .but sometimes they were wrong. Since their works are not considered to be dogma or doctrine, though, there is no real ‘problem’ when some of them err on teaching.
What is interesting is that while ‘some’ of them might not have talked of the Immaculate Conception in the terms that we do today, they did indeed believe in Mary’s sinlessness. . .or they gave their own ‘limited’ opinion yet still honored and revered Mary. They didn’t say, “The Church teaches Mary is immaculate, but here’s why the Church is wrong.” They didn’t say, “OK, people, you’re all wrong when you think Mary is sinless”. They did, indeed, treat Mary (even when they were confused or erring in their opinions) as ‘blessed’. . .which is more than some (not all) Protestants do today, in making her barely even an ‘incubator’ as though Jesus was ‘popped into’ her womb under some forcefield, and the minute He was born, Mary just was ‘discarded’ and Jesus kind of ‘raised Himself’, admonishing His parents for their sinfulness and sighing over their ‘stupidity’ so much that as ‘soon’ as He could He went out and made it clear to His disciples that they were His ‘real’’ family and He could not care less about his ‘mother and brothers’. . .
Thing is, Early Church Fathers are not ‘infallible’. Their works are valuable in giving us a picture of the early Church and how teachings developed and deepened, but they are not to be considered as ‘authoritative’ (like Scripture or like Papal encyclicals, etc.).
Early Church Fathers often were ‘right’ in their theological speculations. . .but sometimes they were wrong. Since their works are not considered to be dogma or doctrine, though, there is no real ‘problem’ when some of them err on teaching.
What is interesting is that while ‘some’ of them might not have talked of the Immaculate Conception in the terms that we do today, they did indeed believe in Mary’s sinlessness. . .or they gave their own ‘limited’ opinion yet still honored and revered Mary. They didn’t say, “The Church teaches Mary is immaculate, but here’s why the Church is wrong.” They didn’t say, “OK, people, you’re all wrong when you think Mary is sinless”. They did, indeed, treat Mary (even when they were confused or erring in their opinions) as ‘blessed’. . .which is more than some (not all) Protestants do today, in making her barely even an ‘incubator’ as though Jesus was ‘popped into’ her womb under some forcefield, and the minute He was born, Mary just was ‘discarded’ and Jesus kind of ‘raised Himself’, admonishing His parents for their sinfulness and sighing over their ‘stupidity’ so much that as ‘soon’ as He could He went out and made it clear to His disciples that they were His ‘real’’ family and He could not care less about his ‘mother and brothers’. . .
R
ron77nyc
Guest
Amen. Very good point. I have been aware of that for some time. “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.” Everything has it’s expiration date but God never changes.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
The important words in the post are “it seems”. After all, “It seems” is not “it is”. . . right?
It might ‘seem’ to me that a particular individual (let’s call him a Catholic) has ‘too much attachment to Mary’.
But. . .how do know what is in his heart? Am I judging truly, or am I going by my own inclinations. . .which may or may not be correct? If I’m going by just my own personal thoughts and feelings (and really, isn’t it a bit arrogant to think that I am so perfect and God-like that I can look at an action or a word of another person and know–with God-like surety–that that person is really, truly guilty of the ‘sin’ of which I accuse him?), then I really cannot say, for sure, that the person is ‘too attached’.
What if it’s a Protestant whom I think pays ‘too much attention’ to one or two Scriptural passages and not the rest? Again, what is 'too much attention?" How do I know the person’s heart with God-like surety? I don’t.
Therefore, it behooves us to be very careful about judging people by ‘appearances’–by what ‘we think’ is too much, too little, too soft, too harsh, too plain, too fancy, etc.
There are enough problems for us to deal with, without us making up problems that were never there in the first place.
IOW–99 out of 100 of those Catholics some Protestants think "pay too much attention to Mary’. . .don’t. Those Protestants just think they do because they pay too little attention themselves.
And to be fair, 99 out of 100 Protestants aren’t Mary-haters. Some (not all) just ‘appear’ to be that way . because their backlash against their perception of Catholics being too ‘loving’ makes them more inclined to make Mary ‘less’ to ‘balance’ things. If they would only stop ‘judging’ and trying to usurp God’s place by finding Catholics ‘too focused on Mary’ (in **their opinion **only) and just tried to love Mary the way they would love her if they weren’t constantly thinking, “Gol durn those pesky Catholics, making you so important. I must keep on telling them how paltry and pathetic you really are, so that I put you in your
proper place”–we would all be a lot happier.
It might ‘seem’ to me that a particular individual (let’s call him a Catholic) has ‘too much attachment to Mary’.
But. . .how do know what is in his heart? Am I judging truly, or am I going by my own inclinations. . .which may or may not be correct? If I’m going by just my own personal thoughts and feelings (and really, isn’t it a bit arrogant to think that I am so perfect and God-like that I can look at an action or a word of another person and know–with God-like surety–that that person is really, truly guilty of the ‘sin’ of which I accuse him?), then I really cannot say, for sure, that the person is ‘too attached’.
What if it’s a Protestant whom I think pays ‘too much attention’ to one or two Scriptural passages and not the rest? Again, what is 'too much attention?" How do I know the person’s heart with God-like surety? I don’t.
Therefore, it behooves us to be very careful about judging people by ‘appearances’–by what ‘we think’ is too much, too little, too soft, too harsh, too plain, too fancy, etc.
There are enough problems for us to deal with, without us making up problems that were never there in the first place.
IOW–99 out of 100 of those Catholics some Protestants think "pay too much attention to Mary’. . .don’t. Those Protestants just think they do because they pay too little attention themselves.
And to be fair, 99 out of 100 Protestants aren’t Mary-haters. Some (not all) just ‘appear’ to be that way . because their backlash against their perception of Catholics being too ‘loving’ makes them more inclined to make Mary ‘less’ to ‘balance’ things. If they would only stop ‘judging’ and trying to usurp God’s place by finding Catholics ‘too focused on Mary’ (in **their opinion **only) and just tried to love Mary the way they would love her if they weren’t constantly thinking, “Gol durn those pesky Catholics, making you so important. I must keep on telling them how paltry and pathetic you really are, so that I put you in your
proper place”–we would all be a lot happier.
A
anon5216
Guest
My theological reason is that I don’t accept the Bible (or any other religious scripture for that matter) as the “Word of God”.
It is a collection of writings by various authors that are claimed as divinely inspired, but by no means adequately proven. Some of these writings certainly can be inspired by quite spiritually dramatic experiences the author had, but that’s no proof of what they wrote in response to the experience being the “Word of God”.
Since the Church bases their theology, dogma, teachings, etc. ultimately on the belief that the Bible is Divinely Inspired, if not Dictated, it all crumbles to nothing if you don’t first accept the source writings as more than human.
It is a collection of writings by various authors that are claimed as divinely inspired, but by no means adequately proven. Some of these writings certainly can be inspired by quite spiritually dramatic experiences the author had, but that’s no proof of what they wrote in response to the experience being the “Word of God”.
Since the Church bases their theology, dogma, teachings, etc. ultimately on the belief that the Bible is Divinely Inspired, if not Dictated, it all crumbles to nothing if you don’t first accept the source writings as more than human.
- Status