Is the Catholic Church as an authority a circular argument? (Edited Title)

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

See what I mean? Why is it that you see this ONLY as a warning against the gnostics? WHY doesn’t this also apply to the CC?

I suppose because, first of all, the message given is internally consistent with the Scriptural record which spoke out against the teachings of the gnostics who have been historically verified in the “mystery religions” which did exist around this time.

One of the key qualifiers of these “signs of a seducing spirit” was the denial of the divinity of Christ. In other words, you need to test the spirits.

For example, we also read here…
1 John 4:1-3:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.

This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

A follow up can be found here…
2 John 1:7:

Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

As the NIV commentary provided explains, gnostics balked at the Christian concept of God’s becoming a man. Because they believed a physical body was intrinsically evil, they denied that a pure God could take on a body. Some dealt with the problem by claiming that Jesus was never a real human being, but a phantom, a temporary appearance of God who only looked human. Others proposed that God had “descended” on Jesus at his baptism, but left him before his death.

The apostle John debated in person with Gnostics of his day, and he had Gnostic thinking in mind when he wrote this letter. The very first sentence expressly states that the author has seen, heard, and touched Jesus - implying he could not have been a phantom, or pure spirit. Throughout the letter, and especially in 4:2-3, the author lambastes those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh.

To Gnostics, all matter was evil. Only the spirit was pure, and Gnostics sought to rise to a higher, more spiritual plane. This teaching often produced a side effect: people who strove to rise above matter didn’t care about personal ethics. Their pure spirits could not be tainted by “earthly” sin. Thus, they could act any way they wanted.

Aging John roared out against the twin dangers of Gnosticism: immoral living and doubts that Christ became a man. Beliefs must be judged by the actions they produce, and John stresses the theme of brotherly love. He primarily refutes errors by presenting a wholesome picture of the Christian life as it is supposed to be lived.

True fellowship is not a mystical, super-intellectual flight into the great Alone, but a relationship with the Father through Christ. And that also entails responsibilities to others in God’s family.

Consequently, the Catholic Church does indeed teach that Jesus is true God and true man. This alone appears to remove her from the equation of who these Scriptures were actually talking about.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

continued

Incidently, in our modern day, we are indeed seeing resurgence of gnostic thinking, not only in the ultra-conservative side found within Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormon’s denial of the divinity of Christ— but also in the fecundly liberal side found within various New Age movments.

I’m not saying that vegetarianism is inherently evil. One of my best friends, who is from the Anglican background, is indeed a vegetarian. This is a personal choice that he has made.

And yet, within the New Age movment, how many do you know who are vegetarians and insists that this is indeed a way to be more spiritually pure?

Think about it.

Some other New Age movements, on the other hand, are notorius for their scandalous accusations against the Church, and yet they indeed do feel that their pure spirits can not be tainted by “earthly” sin. Thus, in effect, some can, in theory, act any way they want (such as various sexual life-styles) without any spiritual penalty whatsover.

JoyToBeCatholic:

Btw, I meant this to tie into the next verse I cited about forbidding marriage and eating meat to which you said: It does in the priesthood, or does that not count?

I think the preisthood is considered to be married to God. So, for the most part, they do not deny marriage. Rather, they insist that, for the most part, you must be married to God alone.

And if the priest is indeed married, then this removes the accusation to begin with.

I supposed it needs to be stated, by the way, that the Catholic Church actually does allow priests to be physically married under special circumstances (such as coming from another denominational background and already married). So, technically, the Catholic Church does not actually forbid her priests to be married.

There is a difference between chastity and celibacy. Celibacy is the state of not being married, so a promise of celibacy is a promise not to enter into marriage but instead to consecrate one’s life to service (in other words, “married to God”). Chastity, a virtue expected of all Christians, is the state of sexual purity; for a vowed celibate, or for the single person, chastity means the avoidance of sex. For the married person, chastity means the practice of sex only within marriage between a man and woman, and can carry the expectation of intercourse with the spouse that is open to conception.

A reading of the theology of the body would be good for you.

So, you are saying this verse of scripture only applies to the gnostics to the degree they forbade marriage and not to other circumstances of forbidding it currently? Why is that? Isn’t it clear from this verse that the forbidding of marriage is a “doctrine of the devil”?

No. I think the key points in these passages are the denial of the divinity of Christ. The accompanying signs given, the forbiddance to marry, the abstaining from eating meat, etc, are all additional signs that may or may not accompany the movement that denies the divinity of Christ.

Nonetheless, the reasons you have brought forth are some of the clearest examples of why I do not adhere to any form of sola scriptura reading. If you are unable to critically examine the events that the apostle’s experienced in their time (such as regarding their struggles against the gnostic heritics), a passage found in 1 Timothy 4:2-4 can be easilly misread to imply something that it is not actually talking about.

The Sciptures divorced from any historical context can seriously move the believer in the wrong direction. And I think that Cardinal Newman is correct: To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

 

[epostle]

Well, that is where we will disagree in our reasoning. Yes, we can affirm that Jesus established a church, but where do you arrive with that church have the rudiments of what we see in the CC (papacy, etc.)? You had to use your fallible judgement about the Bible and those other ancient works to arrive at that - and how do you know you are right?

We are not talking about me, we are talking about the bishops who did not rely on human fallible judgment to prove inspiration of the bible. If they relied on pure human judgement, how can you call the Bible inspired? And why didn’t they admit the 35 “gospels” and 15 “books of acts” into the Bible that were circulating???

Furthermore, the problem is, when you say you look at both the Bible and other ancient works, what are those other ancient works? Did you already have a bias toward Catholicism and Catholic works were what you looked at?

We are talking about the bishops of the 2nd to the end of the 3rd century, not me and not now.

“Other ancient works” include non-Christian historians such as Josephus and probably others, as well as the writings of the Early Church Fathers (ECF). It’s not a question of who is right, it’s a question of truth. Catholics do not accept every single word of every ECF as being 100% truth. We are not bound to them and we do not revere them as we do scripture. They had to freedom to formulate on doctrine, primarily to refute heresy. Their general consensus is considered reliable. But I challenge you to find one ECF who rebelled on any formal Church teaching AFTER A DISPUTE WAS SETTLED BY THE CHURCH. You won’t find any. And you won’t find any Protestant innovations of this time period either.

Furthermore, the problem is, when you say you look at both the Bible and other ancient works, what are those other ancient works? Did you already have a bias toward Catholicism and Catholic works were what you looked at?

Would you call the love a man has for his wife or girlfriend a bias?

Did small, humble, unlearned faithful groups (which I believe existed outside of the early CC) have the power or resources to record their beliefs like the ECFs did?

There is not one shred of evidence these “faithful” groups existed apart from Apostolic Teaching. The final conclusion is the same as the initial supposition. This is circular reasoning. It amazes me that you believe in this alleged “small group of unlearned faithful” as being the true believers and remained underground while the CC opposed Gnosticism, Arianism and Nestorianism, and compiled the Bible. Were the Cathari and Albigenians related to this “faithful group”?

There is not a shred of evidence to support this invention (propagated by unlearned revisionists such as Hyslop and Pickering, the laughing stock of real Protestant historians). You believe this falsehood. Yet you refuse to accept the vast amount of evidence that proves the early church was Catholic.

Is St. Ignatius, who was trained by St. Paul, and ordained by Peter, included in your group?

 

[epostle]

Now, if, when looking at those other ancient works - whatever they were - you saw inconsistencies between what was contained in them and what was contained in the Bible, wouldn’t you be suspicious and need to know which works to eliminate as authentic?

You take the overall picture, not three words at a time and of course, the Gospels. As I explained, I gave a brief overview of how the books were proven to be (name removed by moderator)sired, but that was by no means an exhaustive list of criteria.Yes, you ditch was does line up with universally accepted tradition and scripture.

I have, and I have chosen to eliminate as authoritative those things that contradict the Bible.

On whose authority do you determine what is contradictory and what is authoritive? You and the Holy Spirit apart from the Church? The Bible does not support such innovations in any way, but condemns individualism.

And are the ECF writings w/out error? Even Catholics agree that they are not w/out error, and I don’t see much proof in them as the rudiments of Catholicism as we have it today, and what little I do see as possible seeds of Catholicism isn’t proof to me that they were correct, for the ECFs writings/thoughts/practices are not w/out error. Nothing post-apostolic can have that claim or we have nothing to measure anything by. The only way to know if the ECF remained faithful (and the Catholic church as it evolved over the years) is to compare it to The Most Ancient Work; The Bible.

And we compare what we believe to be inspired scripture against Apostolic Tradition, which includes the authority of Sacred Scripture.

Again, you have chosen to put your faith in the ECFs and whatever other ancient works.

I have done no such thing. I put my faith in Jesus Christ and I KNOW the earth is not flat.
The Church has never claimed the ECF writings to be infallible doctrine, and no one has been able to prove the consensus of their teachings to be out of harmony with scripture.

I

have chosen to stop at the Bible, firstly b/c it is The most original work, also, b/c I see the hand of God in it based on fulfilled prophesy and accuracy on many levels (historical, geological, etc), and lastly, all of Christendom agrees on its inspiration and if I’m looking for Christ’s church, I will look, primarily, at what they all at least agree on and what came first:

Christ church (as you will agree) and,
Its Traditions (as you will also agree) - which are most original and error-free in the Scriptures which it wrote.

That is correct. The authority of scripture is a Sacred Tradition, but scripture without an authority is a dead letter.

You are arguing that the divine cannot touch anything human, especially authority. This is dangerous because it denies the Church as being an extension of the Incarnation, and the final conclusion is a denial of Incarnation Itself. It’s a rehash of old heresies that we see more and more in some Protestant churches who interpret the bible with the same self-appointed “holy spirit”.

You chose to put your faith in the CC using a fallible thinking-process

Wrong. We put our faith in Jesus Christ, and his inseparable human authority, the Magisterium. Jesus said, “He who hears YOU (Apostles and successors) hears ME.” Not the contect, nor anywhere else in the bible, allows for the heresy of Individualism.

and I have chosen to put my faith in the Bible using my fallible thinking-process.

Then logically, your interpretation is prone to error. Catholics put faith in the bible too, and we can interpret the Bible any way we like, as long as it does not conflict with the teaching Church that gave us the Bible. And it is impossible for the Church to give teachings that contradict herself, because Tradition and Scripture are like fonts of the same well-spring. If the Church is wrong, then Christ is wrong, or He is a liar and left us on a date that no Protestant has been able to p(name removed by moderator)oint.

I guess the problem really is that we are all fallible, no? There is no guarantee any of us have it right b/c we cannot infallibly discern what is true. Faith is a gift but it is also a choice.

Truth is not altered by choices. Truth cannot be relative.

 

[Church_Militant]

Why is it that you see this ONLY as a warning against the gnostics? WHY doesn’t this also apply to the CC?

Btw, I meant this to tie into the next verse I cited about forbidding marriage and eating meat to which you said: It does in the priesthood, or does that not count? So, you are saying this verse of scripture only applies to the gnostics to the degree they forbade marriage and not to other circumstances of forbidding it currently?

Why is that? Isn’t it clear from this verse that the forbidding of marriage is a “doctrine of the devil”?

Because if you check your history you’ll discover that that is who he was writing about at the time.

You run into a real problem here. Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!

Right. He lives in heaven and in us - neither of which are temples made with human hands. However, tabernacles (like the little gold boxes in a Catholic church) are.

Just where would you suggest one store the Eucharist, if as we believe it is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ, then? In a shoe box?

Surely, however, were they commanded to do so under pain of mortal sin? Did Paul abstain b/c he was commanded to by someone or b/c of his love for his weaker brothers?

So then self sacrifice and penance (which is extremely scriptural, why else do we see so many case of people repenting in sack cloth and ashes?) is wrong? Christ Himself submitted Himself to suffering for us. How then is it wrong to do works worthy of repentance?

To teach obedience? Isn’t love more important than obedience? Isn’t motive more important? You can tell me every day not to eat meat or I’ll go to hell and if I do it just to avoid hell I’ll probably end up there anyway. Love is more perfect than obedience. Obedience without love is an empty work.

I am unaware of anyone telling any one that they need to abstain from meat under penalty of hell… I am aware that it could be sin, in that one disobeys a call to repentance. I would think that most Christians would find it helpful to carry out some confession of their day to day sins and some penance as a indicator to God of their heartfelt contrition for them. Unless of course you come from one of the n-C cults that asserts that they never sin after they “get saved”.

I would disagree that any effort at real self-discipline is without merit in the Christian life.

Yes - false humility. Such practices can incite pride. I believe that is why instruments of self-mortification are now discouraged.

To me this is one of the weakest arguments of all because I don’t know of a single faithful Catholic who would find a source for pride in his penance. I sure can’t because I know why I do them. Furthermore there are great many places in the New Testament that speak of fasts and prayers. Most of the n-Cs that I encounter don’t bother with the fasts for some reason.

The point is that those who love God may benefit from such man-made rules only as far as submission/obedience WITH LOVE can carry it - but to the average layman in the CC such rules give one a false sense of security: I’ll just do what the authoritative church tells me to and I’m sure to go to heaven… I know its not like that for everyone - but there are far too many. Holiness of life is mostly absent. The way is narrow and few find it.

I think one of the reasons few find it is b/c of such man-made rules. Those who truly love God do not need such rules. Unlovingly following rules does not bring about holiness but is more likely to produce lukewarmness and false security.

Sorry, but this is completely faulty reasoning, as I just pointed out. Moreover…why point to the lowest common denominator as an example? That’s like me using all the backslidden n-Cs that I know as the example of what all n-Cs are like. It’s fallacious (and biased) reasoning

However, to impose unecessary observances like fasting, abstinence, Holy Days of Obligation, chastity - does no good for a soul unless they have a personal reason for doing so.

Sorry Joy, but ALL believers are called to chastity. Did you perhaps mean celibacy?

There is nothing in the Word of god that says that any of that is unnecessary. The heart just has to be right. And if one does these things out of a desire to be closer to Our Lord, then how is that either unnecessary or wrong?

The church needs to lift a person out of the muck of sinfulness and make holy saints instead of covering up our filthiness with rules that can produce self-righteousness and a false sense of security.

This is a complete fallacy and one that presupposes that the Catholic Church does not do this, which is patently not true.

 

[epostle]

It is an error to equate Church authority with power and dominance. IMHO, this mispercieved notion is a result of suspicion to anything that is not a democracy. That is why the United States is the world leader in anti-Catholic bigotry, taking it from being socially acceptable to the point of institutionalizing it, even at the highest levels of society.

Jesus turned the pyramid of power completely upside down with His teachings on who is the greatest in the kingdom, and later the washing of the feet when He instituted the priesthood. Humility has been, for the most part, a virtue identified with the office of leadership.

Paranoid anti-Catholics can only see power, dominance, and spiritual dictatorship. Fear, ignorance and self hatred are the ultimate root of anti-Catholicism. The literature they feed off of cultivates their existing doubt, and the hidden rage they read is like spiritual pornography. It’s addictive and evil. They gravitate from innocent looking anti-Catholic web sites to hate cultists like Jack Chick or Dave Hunt. There are legions of them.

CCC2088

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

 

[Krocker]

I grew up Protestant, left the church for a while, then married a Catholic, hence the reason for checking out this forum. I find myself agreeing with a few more fringe Catholic beliefs as I delve into them (i.e., what I call the “nonessential” disputes), but I still have some major concerns that are being addressed on this thread. Forgive me if they are basic:

(1) Most Catholics I’ve encountered are so sure that they are right that they refuse to consider any other interpretation than the one hand-fed them, and they reject any contrary argument in a mean-spirited way. I’ve read every post on this thread and see this to again be the case – demeaning, “no duh” type of responses. I don’t think this helps anyone. Agree to disagree, stand firm in your faith, and hope that the strength of your faith with convert others.

(2) I have real doubts as to who was “first,” and I’ve never heard an argument from either Protestants or Catholics that persuades me. Regardless, being “first” certainly doesn’t mean you are “right,” or wouldn’t we all be Jews? I know, I know, easy response to that one. But really, what about an earth-centric universe? Clearly taught, and clearly wrong. What about everyone’s favorit topic – limbo – clearly taught and now overruled. And please don’t explain this by telling me there are distinctions in teachings, because that appears to be nothing more than a cop-out when a teaching is wrong. I’ve read old posts on this forum regarding limbo, and there was no question what the Catholics here believed. Anyway, isn’t it at least arguable that being first has no bearing on being right? Again, I know, I know what the Bible says about fracturing, but how do you know what the Bible was referring to? Maybe it was referring to Joseph Smith? Maybe it was referring to Martin Luther? Maybe it was referring to (fill in the blank)?

(3) When it all boils down to it, if you were in Iran on Christmas – wouldn’t you love to see a Christian church, Catholic or Protestant, to worship your Lord? Isn’t this where our focus should be, on Jesus, rather than on popes and transubstantiation and sola scriptura and sola fide and Martin Luther and the immaculate conception? The one, most-important thing we all have in common. Why don’t we praise him more often and respectfully disagree on other interpretations? We’re all on the same team here. I’d like to think we could have discussions like Pope John Paul II and Billy Graham used to – we love Jesus and we want to understand more. We respect each other’s differences, but rejoice in our similarities.

Wrong thread?

 

[inkaneer]

Jesus said He would establish a church and the powers of hell would not prevail against it. This is found in Mt 16:18. What does it mean when He says the powers of hell will not prevail against it? Or another way to put it How could hell prevail against the church? Two ways come to mind. First Satan could persecute it to death so that the church would be wiped off the face of the earth. Second Satan could subvert it and cause the church to teach error. Now bear in mind Jesus said neither of these things would happen. Also Jesus told his church that He would remain with it until the end of the Age This is in Mt 28:20. Since I know of no one who claims the church age is over I have to take Jesus at His word that he is still with His church and His church is still present on earth and it is still prevailing over the forces of hell. Now which church is it? Oxford University School of Divinity [Oxford, England] lists over 32,000 protestant denominations. Each of these claims sola scriptura and private interpretation of the scriptures as their two basic doctrines. They also claim to be led into the truth by the Holy Spirit [Joh 16:13]. But can there be 32,000 truths??? Or is there only one truth? In Mt 16:18-19 Jesus promised the keys to heaven to Peter. No other apostle was given these keys. Peter also received the power to bind and to loose. And while the Apostles would also receive this authority in Mt 18:18 they would receive it collectively not individually as did Peter in Mt 16:19. Look at the Greek pronouns that are used in the two passages for “you” In Mt 16:19 the Greek word is “Soi” -“you” singular. In Mt 18:18 the Greek word is “Humin” - “you” plural. Also notice symbolic nature of the keys and the similarity of the wording of to bind and to loose in Mt 16:19 with the keys the chief steward had who kept the Kings house in Isaiah 22:22 with the power to open or shut. And what does it mean to bind or loose on earth as well as in heaven? Does the most powerful man on earth today have the power to bind in heaven? No. Yet Jesus said Peter a poor fisherman from Galilee had that power. That power was infallible power. Infallible because of John 16:13. That promise of being led into the whole truth was not made to every believer nor every follower of Jesus. That promise was made only to 11 men who we know as the Apostles. But there is more. In John 21:15-17 we find the three fold question of Jesus to Peter of “do you love Me?” We also have Peter’s response of “Yes Lord”. But we have something else. Following each of Peter’s three responses we have a command from Jesus to Peter. In verses 15 and 17 Jesus tells Peter to “Feed my Sheep.” He uses the Greek word “bosko” wich means “to feed”. However, in verse 16 Jesus doesn’t say, “Feed my sheep”. Instead He says, “Tend my flock” [some protestant Bibles have “Feed my flock”] However, the Greek word that is used in this verse for “tend” or “feed” is not the Greek word “bosko” as in verses 15 and 17. Instead it is the Greek word “poimaino” which has an entirely different connotation that to merely “feed”. It means to rule or to govern. In Matthew 16Jesus gave the keys to Peter designating him as the chief steward of his household, the Church, with the power to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven. Now in John He is giving Peter charge over His flock which is also His Church. Peter is the shepherd of God’s sheep. No one else is given this duty. So we ask again the Question we asked earlier. Which Church is the church that Jesus said would prevail over hell and the one He would remain with until the end of the age? Scripturally it is the one church that claims Peter as its head with the power to bind and to loose and the command to govern God’s flock. Does any church claim that scriptural authority? There is only one church that fits that scriptural requirement. You can forget about all those 32,000+ protestant denominations. They adhere to sola scriptura which denies a church with authority. You can forget about Orthodoxy which denies the universality of Christ’s chief steward. The only church that meets the scriptural requirements is the church named in Acts 9:31, the ecclesia kata holis, the Catholic Church.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

(3) When it all boils down to it, if you were in Iran on Christmas – wouldn’t you love to see a Christian church, Catholic or Protestant, to worship your Lord? Isn’t this where our focus should be, on Jesus, rather than on popes and transubstantiation and sola scriptura and sola fide and Martin Luther and the immaculate conception? The one, most-important thing we all have in common. Why don’t we praise him more often and respectfully disagree on other interpretations? We’re all on the same team here. I’d like to think we could have discussions like Pope John Paul II and Billy Graham used to – we love Jesus and we want to understand more. We respect each other’s differences, but rejoice in our similarities.

I think you are right about faith being the essential, but having once been Catholic, and having once had a truly incredible spiritual life through that faith, I can hardly dismiss it all for this bible-only mindset I’ve been in. That is why I am here. Ultimately, even the Catholic Church teaches that there is salvation outside the church (albeit, much more difficult to arrive at). I think the purpose of these forums is for those of us who see that universality of truth, but believe God has more to offer; He has a remedy to all the denomination confusion. In Iraq it may be a comfort to go to any Christian church, but for those of us with the option (and there are many!), we see a problem with the differences. They cannot all be correct. I don’t know about you, but I need a lot of help living a devout, Christian life amidst this sinful world, and I am looking for the place that will give me the most of what God has provided us. As a non-Catholic, I truly feel emptier than I did as a Catholic. For someone who has never had Catholic devotion, perhaps there is nothing more to imagine. But “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him”. I do believe that, and believe the only time I’ve come close to experiencing it was through the CC. Truly, I never could have imagined that level of devotion and love, and I’ve never experienced since I left.

(1) Most Catholics I’ve encountered are so sure that they are right that they refuse to consider any other interpretation than the one hand-fed them, and they reject any contrary argument in a mean-spirited way. I’ve read every post on this thread and see this to again be the case – demeaning, “no duh” type of responses. I don’t think this helps anyone. Agree to disagree, stand firm in your faith, and hope that the strength of your faith with convert others.

I agree the moral isn’t always charitable, but then again, not much different from non-C forums. That is not an excuse for this forum either - just an observance.

(2) I have real doubts as to who was “first,” and I’ve never heard an argument from either Protestants or Catholics that persuades me. Regardless, being “first” certainly doesn’t mean you are “right,” or wouldn’t we all be Jews? I know, I know, easy response to that one. But really, what about an earth-centric universe? Clearly taught, and clearly wrong. What about everyone’s favorit topic – limbo – clearly taught and now overruled. And please don’t explain this by telling me there are distinctions in teachings, because that appears to be nothing more than a cop-out when a teaching is wrong. I’ve read old posts on this forum regarding limbo, and there was no question what the Catholics here believed. Anyway, isn’t it at least arguable that being first has no bearing on being right? Again, I know, I know what the Bible says about fracturing, but how do you know what the Bible was referring to? Maybe it was referring to Joseph Smith? Maybe it was referring to Martin Luther? Maybe it was referring to (fill in the blank)?

I won’t comment too much here, but I will direct you to my new thread, as I’ve had some light on this recently and I welcome any insight:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=200048

Peace

 

[Church_Militant]

(1) Most Catholics I’ve encountered are so sure that they are right that they refuse to consider any other interpretation than the one hand-fed them, and they reject any contrary argument in a mean-spirited way.

I’ve read every post on this thread and see this to again be the case – demeaning, “no duh” type of responses. I don’t think this helps anyone. Agree to disagree, stand firm in your faith, and hope that the strength of your faith with convert others.There may be those who present their arguments in this way, but I disagree with you that they have accepted anything “hand-fed” them. Most of the faithful Catholics I know from here at CAF are those who have had their faith challenged by n-C/a-C’s “contrary argument in a mean-spirited way” (this I have experienced both here and in real life). Generally, you do not find Catholics attacking other belief systems, but mostly you’ll find that they are apologetically seeking to respond to the kind of attacks on our faith that I mentioned. Most are bewildered by those attacks and if they respond with some passion or even vitriol I have to understand. Hopefully they grow out of that, but I certainly can understand where it comes from.

(2)…What about everyone’s favorit topic --** limbo – clearly taught and now overruled**

. And please don’t explain this by telling me there are distinctions in teachings, because that appears to be nothing more than a cop-out when a teaching is wrong. I’ve read old posts on this forum regarding limbo, and there was no question what the Catholics here believed. …In your opinion. Unfortunately, just because something has been believed and taught by some does not give it the weight of dogmatic or doctrinal truth. The same can be asserted concerning things like n-C altar calls and “accepting Christ as your personal Lord and Savior”. Unbiblical terminology that has developed into n-C traditions. Limbo has never been taught as a doctrine, so your principle is erroneous.

(3) … Isn’t this where our focus should be, on Jesus, rather than on popes and transubstantiation and sola scriptura and sola fide and Martin Luther and the immaculate conception?

When n-Cs/a-Cs cease challenging Catholics on these topics then there will be far less need for apologetic defenses and explanation.

I have often wondered why it is that some n-Cs cannot simply preach the Gospel without creating a confrontational compare and contrast discourses with the Catholic faith. Catholic priests do and you will almost never find a Mass where the homily is used for this kind of preaching. Yet the same is not true of some n-C communities. This is what creates this aggressive oppositional atmosphere that Catholics find themselves caught in.

The one, most-important thing we all have in common. Why don’t we praise him more often and respectfully disagree on other interpretations? We’re all on the same team here. I’d like to think we could have discussions like Pope John Paul II and Billy Graham used to – we love Jesus and we want to understand more. We respect each other’s differences, but rejoice in our similarities.

Hey, I’m all for that and there are some n-Cs with whom I have this very relationship. (I’m thinking here of my friend SinginBeauty from here at CAF for instance!)

Unfortunately, so long as Catholics are subjected to aggressive “witnessing” and efforts to proselytize us away from our most holy faith then you can rest assured that some of us will step up to refute the errors of the reformers and their modern step children.

Naturally, sometimes charity is difficult to maintain, but that is always what we should aspire to.

Hopefully you better understand the situation now.

 

[Krocker]

You’re right. I’ve encountered a lot of mean-spirited Protestants as well … in fact, I think I was raised by a couple of them. The Catholic-bashing was pretty evident and, now that I’m a bit older, I find it really sad. I find the Protestant-bashing really sad as well. I guess it’s the nature of the forum that lends itself to the latter. If our collective goal is the great commission, you will be hard pressed to get anyone to listen if you’re (not anyone in particular) close-minded and derogatory. Maybe that’s what I was trying to say. This forum is great for its purpose, but how about spending some of that energy talking to non-Christians about the basics of Christianity or simply (I hestitate to use the word) “witnessing” to others by living a Christian life and keeping your mouth shut. People notice and are transformed. I’ve seen it personally hundreds of times. I just think that’s where our efforts are better spent. There are obvious differences between Catholic and Protestant teachings and, frankly, pretty good logical explanations for both. If you can’t admit to that, I’m not sure you should be on a forum intended to “discuss” your religion … maybe the “Catholic, we’re going to try to convert you” forum is better.

I believe the Bible is a living, breathing document that can be applied and learned from today as was the case 2000 years ago. If it isn’t, it’s largely an irrelevant history book. I think this is an argument for the Catholic-type 2000 years of collective interpretation, but I also think meaning can be taken from it individually on a day-to-day basis. There are countless times when I’ve had a struggle in my life and just “happened upon” a verse that is just perfect for that time and place. I think that can be an argument for individual interpretation. Frankly, I know you’ll disagree, but I still believe that everyone should be entitled to interpret the Bible on their own with help as necessary from priests or pastors. And I’m not saying this is the case, but if I were to come up with a plan to wield power and corruption, I’d tell people the only way you can be truly happy and experience heaven is by what I’m telling you about the Bible (and tradition) … and by the way, I’m never wrong … and by the way, you can’t understand that Bible there on your own, even the stuff you think you can understand … and by the way, anyone who disagrees with me is a heretic. That is WAY too deferential and open to corruption given our sinful nature. I think Catholics would agree that they make mistakes, and even huge mistakes. I think the limbo issue is an example on a fringe issue. Again, you can say whatever you want about whether it was “official” or not, but it is what it is. Ask a Catholic about limbo 30 years ago and you’ll get a different answer than today. And even if it wasn’t “official,” isn’t that just an indictment on how poorly the true Catholic interpretation is being disseminated? Check out the old posts on limbo. I already know what your responses will be, so unless you’re willing to concede even a little bit, there is no reason to regurgitate.

I do find it interesting, however, that Protestants generally believe that everyone should be entitled to interpret the Bible on their own … but apparently not Catholics. Why is this any less of an acceptable “denomination” from a Protestant perspective?

Oh, and inkaneer, to be fair not ALL Protestants believe in sola scriptura and, in fact, I would say most don’t. Those types of generalizations don’t help either … from either side, and I know Protestants make them too. The basic premise, from my perspective, is the game you used to play in elementary school perhaps – start by saying something to one classmate, who passes it along to the next and so forth. Rarely if ever did you end up with the beginning and ending the same. Now factor in that a child (a crooked one no doubt) realizes he can profit or gain power by a certain interpretation and that will increase the chance of change through the chain. Now compare that to the same statement on a piece of paper that is passed from one child to the next to the end of the line. The paper will not be subject to error through crookedness or physical fallibility. The Protestant premise is not that tradition is worthless, it’s just that the paper is more reliable and that’s where you should start.

Anyway, thanks for letting me post, and sorry for the long post!

 

[Krocker]

Ha! I just read my post and thought it sounded a little mean-spirited too. That was not my intent, believe me. Maybe some of the problem is the medium. The irony was too sweet not to acknowledge.

 

[inkaneer]

"Oh, and inkaneer, to be fair not ALL Protestants believe in sola scriptura and, in fact, I would say most don’t. Those types of generalizations don’t help either "

Really, which do not? Do they accept another authority in place of scripture or another authority alongside of scripture? What is that other authority?

I have found protestant denominations to be far less than what they purport themselves to be. They claim they are scripture based but in reality they are based on a perverted interpretation of scripture. There is no comparison with any of the beliefs of any protestant denomination today with the beliefs of the early church. God is immutable [unchanging] and so is his word. The beliefs of the church today should be the same as the beliefs of the early church. Every protestant denomination fails that test. Protestantism decries the office of the universal bishop [the Pope] yet every protestant is his own pope. Protestantism is like a giant amoeba dividing again and again into more and more denominations. Every time a protestant congregation has a difference of opinion on doctrine the likelihood of a new denomination being formed presents itself. In 500 years the protestant amoeba has divided into over 32,000 different denominations all claiming to be Spirit led into the truth. The current trend is 274 new denominations a year. Jesus prayed that his followers be one as he and the Father were one yet every three days two new protestant denominations are formed.

 

[Krocker]

Well I don’t believe it, and that is sufficient for our discussion. I attend a non-denominational church (and a Catholic church), and I can assure you my fellow Protestants non-denominationalists collectively do not agree that the Bible is the ONLY source, it’s just the best source. If tradition contradicts the Bible, it must submit. If it doesn’t, do with it as you wish. It’s not equal authority, as Catholics believe, but more of a 1 and 1A. That, to me, makes perfect sense, but I know it doesn’t to others and that’s fine.

I always hear about how fractured Protestantism is and how that must be the reason why it’s collectively wrong. Fair enough argument, but in my opinion it lacks weight (unless you fall back to the “I’m first, therefore I’m right,” which I don’t buy). Again, it’s only my opinion and I respect your ability and right to disagree. With that said, I know many Catholics who don’t believe all the teachings of the Catholic church (my wife for one). You can call them non-Catholics if you’d like, but that’s not what they call themselves. There are bound to be fissures in any collective thought of such massive proportions.

I, for one, don’t think the number of denominations is a bad thing, as long as Christians know why the divisions exist and why they personally believe what they believe, because they don’t relate to THE issue. Plus, the distinctions are far smaller than what most people think, embarrassingly miniscule in most regards. The distinctions between Protestants and Catholics – the great fissure – are even not that great in my opinion. As I mentioned, Catholics believe the Bible and tradition are 1 and 1, Protestants (mostly at least) believe its 1 and 1A. Catholics believe Faith + Works = Salvation, while Protestants believe Faith = Salvation + Works. Catholics believe Mary is a miracle without original sin, Protestants believe Mary is a miracle and a supreme example of Christian faith. Catholics believe the eucharist is a solemn commandment actually internalizing the body and blood of Christ, Protestants believe communion is a solemn commandment signifying the body and blood of Christ and the internal existence of the Holy Spirit. I think that these issues are important, but they are not THE issue – that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he died for our sins, that he is the way, the truth and the life.

Can you imagine how ridiculous we must look to Muslims or Hindus? Agreeing that God himself became man, was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, died for our sins, rose from the dead, and awaits his followers in eternity … but we bicker about whether bread and wine are actually the body and blood of Christ – when we’re all physically doing the same rite? I’m just saying, I think we all should just step back and take a look from a distance once in a while and treat each other as brothers and sisters. Again, we’re on the same team. The things we disagree on are largely “nonessentials”. If people spent as much time focusing on the HUGE things we have in common, versus the fringe things we disagree on, we’d be a much more formidable force around the globe. I personally think that is what Christ wants, not a bunch of bickering and time-wasting “evangelists.”

 

[Teflon93]

Krocker-

Do you consider nondenominational Christians to be Protestants?

In my experience, many split from Protestant denominations, but some of these are a lot more Catholic in liturgy and theology than others. I attended one nondenom baptism recently where the pastor could well have been a Catholic apologist, given how much Scripture was presented —not disjointed phrases, but whole chapters, just like Mass—, the constant reference to community, to confession, and to the importance of the Eucharist, which he insisted was not just symbol but substance.

Perhaps that’s a very rare phenomenon in nondenom circles, but it was striking how much closer to Rome this congregation was than the Church of God denomination they split from.

 

[richardwy]

It’s a really simple premise.

You’re right. And it is unassailable. There is no way to prove the Church’s claim in the way you can prove you are you or a rose is a rose.

It’s like a madman’s argument that he is Napoleon and this is France. He says it is so because he believes it is so, and all the rest are either brainwashed and innocent of lying, or amongst the rest some know the truth but lie.

The same argument can be made of God. Begins with God and ends with God. Those looking for outside authority – independent authoritative testimony – never find it.

We live amid surfaces. I prefer conversations of this ilk that begin with the final “how do you know?” by passing all the preliminary “how do you knows”

When we begin at the beginning instead at the end, important things get talked about and maybe resolved. Otherwise, it’s a game any high school sophomore can play well.

 

[pneuma07]

I agree the gospels attest to the authority of the apostles, and I certainly see the attempt by the apostles to have those after them retain the Traditions, but I see no proof that those who came after them remained entirely faithful to those Traditions, and the only way to tell if they did is to look at the teachings of the apostles which is… In The Bible.
…

Hi Joy, and compliments for the insightful thread !
Here are some observations on your contributions.

**A) ** We have a very important point here, IMHO. Do you state we can judge the orthodoxy or etherodoxy of the sub-apostolic Church leadership, their faithfulness to the deposit they directly received from the Apostles, by the Bible ( the Bible alone) ?
Let’s forget Catholicism and so on for a while.
Just let’s consider this scenario. I have my Bible, read let’s say Ignatius, and then can tell you how he had gone astray.

Can I really do that ? I mean Ignatius and those guys had received the deposit from the Apostle’s very lips. I certainly did not. They had seen the Apostles, looked at their example,
asked them about possible doubts, about what the Apostles’ unique experience with the Lord had been like. All wonderful experiences and possibilities I do not have.
They were living at the very time when the Books that would go into our NT were being completed. They were the people who had started recognizing and delivering those Books as faithful written witnesses to the Tradition they had learnt from the living inspired source: the Apostles. It is those people who tell me
" Look, you can trust the NT, we know that !".
And now, just because I happen to have the Books selected and delivered by them and their successors, can I judge that those guys had misunderstood the Apostolic Tradition ?

**B) **Quote
but what church? The one that closely obeys God’s Word. At that time, there was only one such church; the Apostolic Church in which the Apostles were the authority. Today we still have that authority as if the apostles were still with us - through the Bible.

1. So St. Paul means the Apostles, and then the Bible. What of the period between, say, 90 and 400 AD ( after the Apostles and before a solid canon ?)
2. “Bible alone” cannot substitute the Apostles, IMHO. It does not speak, does not move its face … I cannot ask “Excuse me Bible, what is the exact interpretation of your passage XY ?” Apostles and Bible are qualitatively different sources. We need a living entity too.

C) Quote
*Does the fact that His Word came to us through a church that was perhaps slowly falling into error mean we can’t trust that God’s Word is preserved in the canon that resulted? *

You then trust the Bible as written God’s Word while considering astray the Church leadership in, say, the third and fourth century, through which the Bible was selected, guarded, canonized and transmitted to future generations. They were telling: “This is the very Word of God”, they knew exactly what the Word of God is, and many had died to protect some manuscripts during the persecutions, but at the same time they
( differently from some of us in 2007, who understand that Word correctly without any interpreter) could not understand what that Word says.
So we have to believe that:

• Their doctrines, their practices, their organization, were significantly different from what the Bible teaches, even deviated from it, yet , while going on deviating, they fixed that very text, which would condemn them, as normative, for themselves and the future Church.

Why ?

 

[Church_Militant]

You’re right. I’ve encountered a lot of mean-spirited Protestants as well … in fact, I think I was raised by a couple of them. The Catholic-bashing was pretty evident and, now that I’m a bit older, I find it really sad. I find the Protestant-bashing really sad as well. I guess it’s the nature of the forum that lends itself to the latter. If our collective goal is the great commission, you will be hard pressed to get anyone to listen if you’re (not anyone in particular) close-minded and derogatory. Maybe that’s what I was trying to say. This forum is great for its purpose, but how about spending some of that energy talking to non-Christians about the basics of Christianity or simply (I hestitate to use the word) “witnessing” to others by living a Christian life and keeping your mouth shut. People notice and are transformed. I’ve seen it personally hundreds of times. I just think that’s where our efforts are better spent. There are obvious differences between Catholic and Protestant teachings and, frankly, pretty good logical explanations for both. If you can’t admit to that, I’m not sure you should be on a forum intended to “discuss” your religion … maybe the “Catholic, we’re going to try to convert you” forum is better.

I’d suggest that you look around some of the other parts of this forum before making this kind of comment. Apologetics is mostly the explanation and defense of the faith. There are unbelievers here as well and they have a right to their questions and our responses as well.

I think that if you look around at the prayer intentions section and back fence, evangelization, and family life forums you’ll discover that every aspect of the Christian life is at work here at CAF.

I believe the Bible is a living, breathing document that can be applied and learned from today as was the case 2000 years ago. If it isn’t, it’s largely an irrelevant history book. I think this is an argument for the Catholic-type 2000 years of collective interpretation, but I also think meaning can be taken from it individually on a day-to-day basis. There are countless times when I’ve had a struggle in my life and just “happened upon” a verse that is just perfect for that time and place.

The Catholic Church does not teach anything different. I don’t know where you got that perception.

I think that can be an argument for individual interpretation.

And where is there any scriptural support for that concept? Isn’t that where so many of the modern cascading errors, divisions, and cults have come from?

Frankly, I know you’ll disagree, but I still believe that everyone should be entitled to interpret the Bible on their own with help as necessary from priests or pastors.

And just how many of those individuals know either the Bible or the historically verifiable writings of the Christian faith over the last 2,000 years at all, much less well enough to formulate an informed belief? I spent about 34 years among n-Cs and the wide variety of teachings that I was exposed to that upon further research have proved not to be in line with either the Word of God or the writings of the early church is actually pretty staggering. All because these people believe that they are right to read the Bible and interpret doctrine for themselves. Examples of this are the prosperity gospel cults and the Shepherd’s Chapel cult, but there are a host of others that have descended from that same “Bible only” error.

And I’m not saying this is the case, but if I were to come up with a plan to wield power and corruption, I’d tell people the only way you can be truly happy and experience heaven is by what I’m telling you about the Bible (and tradition) … and by the way, I’m never wrong … and by the way, you can’t understand that Bible there on your own, even the stuff you think you can understand … and by the way, anyone who disagrees with me is a heretic.

Really? Yet that is precisely the way n-Cs tend to operate only they use other terms for it, and though they will not express it as you have, that is exactly what they believe. Most n-Cs, regardless of their devotion defacto rely on their ministers and pastors to teach them the interpretations of the scriptures and do not themselves do the study of the sources that would help them make an informed and correct interpretation. That’s just the way it is, and I know this from my own experience among them for so many years.

With regard to the Catholic Church, I find that there is a far greater level of scholarship that comes down to us and informs the teachings of the Church handed down to us that when a person bothers to research will discover that they are based on the Word of God and backed up with what the church taught from its earliest days.
(Cont’d)

 

[Teflon93]

To judge the accuracy of something, one usually needs something more accurate to measure it by.

It does little good to criticize an atomic clock because your sundial says something different.

Particularly when you’ve got 33,000 sundials all saying different things at 4:00 pm.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Isn’t this where our focus should be, on Jesus, rather than on popes and transubstantiation and sola scriptura and sola fide and Martin Luther and the immaculate conception?

We should indeed be charitable when there are honest disagreements. But the reason things like Transubstantiation and the Immaculate Conception or the office of the Papacy are important is because they reveal Jesus more completely to us. If you love Jesus, do you not want to know Him better and better? Why not go for the totality of knowing Him? I mean if Jesus really is present in the Eucharist and He wants you to receive Him as such…that is kind of important.

Jesus is the Truth. The more Truth you have, the more Jesus you have.