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

[Krocker]

ChurchMilitant,

You wrote: “If you’re looking for any religious environment that is all sweetness and light, I suspect you’re on the wrong planet.”

Response: Maybe that’s true. I’m just saying if what we are ultimately trying to do is spread the Word to nonbelievers, I would rather they know our commonalities than that we tend to bicker, sometimes bitterly, on issues they would probably see at least initially as irrelevant. I have had numerous discussions with nonbelievers as to this very point, which has turned them off to CHRISTIANITY regardless of Catholic or Protestant beliefs, and I think that is very sad.

You wrote: “Of the two choices (Catholic vs non) I will have to assert that in my experience, the Catholic teachings have proved more scriptural and in better agreement with the writings of the early church.”

Response: Hence your beliefs, no doubt. Does “in your experience” mean what the Church tells you? (I’m not trying to be rude, that’s an honest question). I thought Catholics could not interpret scripture on their own? How then can you compare whether one interpretation is more right than the other when you aren’t allowed to interpret at all?

You wrote: “In both cases the scriptural teachings were ignored or twisted to permit their practices.”

Response: Agreed, I’ve seen it too. Believe it or not, I’m having pro-Catholic type conversations with Protestant family members (at least to the extent that a lot of divisive issues are largely irrelevant).

You wrote: “Can you show me a passage of the Word of God that tells us that we should not show deference to those who lead and teach us in the Church?”

Response: Deference? No, obviously there are verses that call for this. Undying devotion and refusal to question is not in there either. I think it’s pretty clear that scripture is difficult to interpret (parables, Peter’s claim that Paul’s teachings were “difficult”). It’s for that reason that I find it hard to swallow that fallible humans can get every single point absolutely right, however miniscule.

You wrote: “The earliest discussion that I can find on [limbo] is from the early 4th century.”

Response: So a discussion and concept that is 1600 years old was just now clarified (or having to be re-clarified) as not official teaching? Why wouldn’t that have been stamped out hundreds of years ago? (Again, an honest question, I’m not trying to be rude).

 

[MarcoPolo]

Response: I was just thinking that females have XX chromosomes, while males have XY chromosomes, with the Y chromosome being inherited by the father. Since Mary was a virgin, there was no source for a Y chromosome. It seems logical then that the miracle of Jesus’ birth was a solely God-created issue without regard to whether Mary had original sin or not (Mary obviously couldn’t have produced Jesus on her own – if God can simply introduce a Y chromosome into Mary, why couldn’t He simply introduce an entirely chromosomally unrelated Jesus into Mary?)

I assume the Holy Spirit provided the Y chromosome, but I don’t think the Immaculate Conception has any definition of the science behind how God did it. Still, one would presume that if Mary was pointless then she wouldn’t be in the story, nor called the Mother of the Lord, no?

Response: Maybe I misunderstand what transubstantiation means then? Can you explain it further. Does it mean the actual body and blood of Christ? Because, if it does, I would think DNA and blood alcohol tests would be the obvious proof or disproof. If it means something else, than how is it different than the Protestant view of communion?

Here’s how the Catholic Encyclopedia explains the change:*Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.*The language may be a little esoteric I realize…but what it means is the “accidents,” or outward physical properties of the species of bread and wine, remain the same. However, the object’s substance (think prefix sub-, that is “beneath”, i.e. TRANSUBstantiation…i.e. “transformation beneath”), by the power of God, are the Body of Christ inherently. Mysterious, no doubt. Yet that at least should give you a better idea. Here is the whole article on the “Real Presence” in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I can’t really give you a quick answer to how it differs from the Protestant view because there are so many. Many Protestants think the bread is just a “symbol” and that Christ is not present in a substantive form at all…we just “remember” Him in our hearts whenever we break the bread. Others, like Luther, believed in Consubstantiation, which says that Christ is truly present, but the bread is still present along with Christ. Catholics say that after a priest consecrates the bread and wine, that they become only Christ. And I believe there are some Protestants who believe they have the Real Presence in their bread, but unlike Catholics, they do not believe you need an ordained priest to consecrate it as such.

Anyway, by all means, when dealing with non-believers, tell them about Christ as the Savior or other things we all agree on! That is effective, no doubt. As a Catholic, I have an obligation to teach my faith because I do believe it is the normative means for salvation, and offers the fullness of revealed truth. Please take no offense that I choose to do so!

 

[epostle]

If the Protestant bible is the sole rule of faith, why do their bibles have footnotes?

 

[Atemi]

Could God not have preserved His revelation to us?

Of course…in every and any circumstance imaginable.

Could He not have done so through fallible people?

Without any problem at all.

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?

No.

And remember that God’s Word did not come through any church, but through specific individual men of God.

Does the fact that the canon came from the CC mean that it couldn’t have come from anyone else with the same results?

One, the canon did not come from the CC. Only a canon came from the CC late at Trent.

Different canons were embraced way before by many different godly people.

Were not most of the books unanimously accepted as canon?

Most were unanimously accepted as inspired.

And were not some of those men involved in the process uncertain as to the canonizability (is that even a word?) of some of the books in question?

Yes.

Very good questions, Joy.

…

 

[HailMary]

One, the canon did not come from the CC. Only a canon came from the CC late at Trent.

try getting your history straight.

Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There is a great amount of wisdom in this.

To hold the position that fallen men are better able to teach God’s doctrines than God Himself is, is a serious mistake.

This is why - ISTM - the fact of God’s grace is so important: it cuts through the arguments on all sides of this and other issues, and relativises the competing claims by condemning both as forms of self-asserting pride, “so that no man should be innocent in [God’s] sight” - because if we are all guilty before God, He can have mercy upon us all. If He declares us righteous, how can we be in need of being made righteous ? “Those who are righteous need no physician”, so they cannot be saved; salvation is for the guilty, the unrighteous.​

The authority of grace destroys all our egotisms, by destroying their foundations in our egotisms, personal or corporate; which means we are in no position, as individuals or as bodies, to boast of any superiority over one another: we are all beggars, in every way possible.

That does at least seem to be implied. in both Galatians & Romans.

Not all arguments from the authority of the CC are circular, but they have to be handled carefully in case the emphasis falls on the Church instead of on Christ; an argument that makes any creature, even the authority of Christ exercised by Christians, is not good if the emphasis is no longer on Him.

 

[Krocker]

MarcoPolo,

Thanks so much for your response and information. I’m still a little confused how something can “be” one thing, yet have no chemical properties for that thing and all of the chemical properties of another thing. It seems you have to have “faith” to ignore science. In the Protestant churches that I have attended over the years, communion has always been a symbol of the body and blood of Christ with focus on the real presence (as always) of the Holy Spirit. I don’t know why this is the case, but I suspect is has something to do with the ability/inability to verify scientifically (or maybe it’s just so they can find another reason to be different from their Catholic brethren). I have also heard the sophomoric explanation that, if you’re really partaking of him, then you’re defacating him, etc. I think I heard that from kids growing up so don’t put a lot of weight into that one, but again it’s just a logical conclusion.

I do wonder sometimes (and this isn’t necessarily asking for any responses, just thinking out loud) how specific Jesus was being when he gave his “This do . . .” command. Did He mean specifically set aside a time where you only eat bread and drink wine and then go through the words that I spoke? Or did He mean, do it only on the day of the Jewish Seder dinner, as was the case with the Last Supper? Or did He mean, think of me EVERY time you eat and drink because I am the sustenance of your new life?

You wrote: “Anyway, by all means, when dealing with non-believers, tell them about Christ as the Savior or other things we all agree on! That is effective, no doubt. As a Catholic, I have an obligation to teach my faith because I do believe it is the normative means for salvation, and offers the fullness of revealed truth. Please take no offense that I choose to do so!”

Response: No offense indeed. This is my feeling as well. I tend to think some Catholic teachings are wrong and most of them are right. I tend to think some Protestant teachings are wrong and most of them are right. As long as we agree on the BIG stuff regarding who Jesus is, what He did, how we come to know Him, etc, that should be collectively and joyously taught. Turn your life around for Christ first, before you start delving into the intricacies of denominations.

 

[epostle]

As long as we agree on the BIG stuff regarding who Jesus is, what He did, how we come to know Him, etc, that should be collectively and joyously taught.

The Catholic Church coudn’t agree more. The problem is Protestants have no one in authority to determine what the BIG stuff is and what isn’t, and how it is applied.

The authority of the Catholic Church is Christ Himself. Church authority is not self-assigned, not man-made, not church made, not invented, and has never been separate from Christ Himself. The whole of the Christian community, that is, all baptized in Christ, belong to the body of Christ, but the Catholic Church / Christ on earth holds PRIMARY authority, and the fulness of faith.

Without divinely appointed authority, without the ongoing superintendence of the Holy Spirit, the Church would have fallen into the wayside as an obscure cult, a mere footnote in the putrid backwaters of history, defenselss in the face of destructive heresies. (Arianism for starters)

Virtually every argument against Church authority rests on a false premise of the absence of the Holy Spirit, and the divorce of Christ from his Bride on earth. It’s a self-defeating premise.

 

[PC_Master]

REPLY: Which is all the more reason to set up an authority to determine what is correct doctrine and worthy of belief and what is not. The U.S. Constitution could be interpreted many ways also but there is a Supreme court that says that this is the way it is to be interpreted. And that becomes the law of the land.

You have a flaw here – we don’t hold the US Supreme Court to be infallible. Yes, our judicial system makes their decisions binding, but these are only fallible men and women. I am fairly confident that at least some of the decisions passed by the USSC would not have been approved by those who approved the US Constitution.

Many other religious groups have such leadership groups that make decisions. The key difference is only the RCC claims infallibility in this (oh, and perhaps the EO do as well – I’m not totally sure). That’s the real kicker. It’s not just the idea of fallible men being used by God to do correct and righteous things, for we’ve seen this throughout scripture as well, but rather the idea of men being divinely protected by God in a way that would counteract free will. That’s what the problem is.

 

[agangbern]

John 6:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. " Coming to Jesus and believing in Him are that eating and drinking, for they are the things Jesus says will leave you satisfied/not hungry or thirsty (spiritually).

So, eating Jesus is believing in him. And what shall we believe in Him? We believe in what he says. And what did He say? He said, " Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man you shall have no life in you." How shall one escape from circular thinking if he thinks that “eating is believing but then believing is eating”? That would only result to one not having eaten anything at all.

 

[agangbern]

It’s not just the idea of fallible men being used by God to do correct and righteous things, for we’ve seen this throughout scripture as well, but rather the idea of men being divinely protected by God in a way that would counteract free will. That’s what the problem is.

That would not create a problem if we understand what is free will in relation to the Church. Jesus did not force anyone to accept His teachings. But hose who freely choose to become subject to Him become obliged to follow his will, to follow God’s will. Christ gave authority to His Church, guaranteeing that the Holy Spirit shall always guide her, so that through her His sheeps may be fed. And who are His sheeps? They are those who find pleasure in doing His will.

 

[inkaneer]

You have a flaw here – we don’t hold the US Supreme Court to be infallible. Yes, our judicial system makes their decisions binding, but these are only fallible men and women. I am fairly confident that at least some of the decisions passed by the USSC would not have been approved by those who approved the US Constitution.

Many other religious groups have such leadership groups that make decisions. The key difference is only the RCC claims infallibility in this (oh, and perhaps the EO do as well – I’m not totally sure). That’s the real kicker. It’s not just the idea of fallible men being used by God to do correct and righteous things, for we’ve seen this throughout scripture as well, but rather the idea of men being divinely protected by God in a way that would counteract free will. That’s what the problem is.

REPLY: No there is no flaw except in the fact that Unlike the Church, the Supreme Court is not led by the Holy Spirit into all truth. Also the Supreme Court does not have the power to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven. In reality the supreme Court authority is bound by the borders of a single country and does not extend all over the earth. However, the analogy here is that even though we have the Constitution we still need an authority to interpret it. Because in a country of 300 million or so people not everyone will be on the same page in the playbook. So some will interpret it one way while other will do so another. Who is right? And how does one determine who is right? Someone has to say what this or that means and that becomes the law of the land. That is the duty of the Supreme Court. Similarly we have the Bible which is also open to interpretation as the thousands of protestant denominations attest. Obviously the protestant concept of private interpretation of scripture is defective and has been the direct cause of the divisions which afflict protestantism. Private interpretation of the scriptures has made every protestant their own pope. Now Frank Sinatra can sing about doing it my way. But Jesus says He alone is the way. If you check the scriptures the promise of the Holy Spirit who would lead into all truth was only made to 11 Apostles. Yet Jesus had far more believers than that. These other believers never received this promise nor this authority. It is the absence of any authority in the protestant denominations that creates the inherent problem in protestantism. Jesus made two promises to the Apostles that apply here. First He promised power to bind and loose both on earth as well as in heaven. I do not think protestants realize how awesome that power is? So let me ask you how many men do you know who can bind or loose in heaven? Outside of Peter and his successors I don’t know of any . As for those other religious groups who claim a central authority none of them can prove Apostolic Succession. In fact I don’t know of any that even claim Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Succession is extremely important but is a topic for another discussion Second, Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to lead them [11 Apostles] into all truth. These guys were not going to run around binding and loosening willy nilly. They would be constrained by the Holy Spirit to the truth. That is where the infallibility comes in. It is not inherent in any man. But it is inherent in the Holy Spirit. He is the one who guides these men into the truth. Now is that an extreme idea for protestants? I don’t think so for every protestant accepts that the Holy Spirit guided the writers of scripture into truth. So is it a stretch to say the Holy Spirit can guide the church into the truth on a continuing basis? Let me ask you, how big is your God? Is that something impossible with God? So it is not that extreme at all. Seems to me that protestantism tries to emulate an ostrich when it comes to scriptural truths which rebuke protestant doctrines. Luther rebelled against any authority he could not control be it parental, civil, religious or whatever. His theological ideas were formed as a result of his physical and psychological abuse as a child by his parents. Read Luther’s own accounts of it for yourself. His mother was a perfectionist and Luther spent his entire life trying to please his mother and never could. If he could not please his mother, a human being, how could he please God? His answer was he could not. But protestantism is not about to admit that their theology was the product of a victim of abuse who never experienced any love as a child and who never could relate to a loving God. So like Luther, protestants say the scriptures mean what you want them to mean and every three days two new protestant denominations are formed because there is no one to say what is and what is not correct. It is a failed system that is doomed to fracture and divide into smaller and smaller sects.

 

[epostle]

Which is all the more reason to set up an authority to determine what is correct doctrine and worthy of belief and what is not. The U.S. Constitution could be interpreted many ways also but there is a Supreme court that says that this is the way it is to be interpreted. And that becomes the law of the land.

This is an anology, not a comparison, and a good analogy at that. Any country with no means of interpreting its constitution authoritively would be a country of chaos.

 

[Krocker]

It’s my sense that nearly every issue we’ve talked about here at some point comes back to infalibility. It’s pretty difficult to discuss interpretation or Biblical issues when the response is some form of “because I said so, and that’s all there is to it.” I’m not trying to be rude here, I understand the Catholic doctrine and where it comes from. I just don’t believe it personally (and I know most of you do and that’s okay and I know what most of you think of me for not believing it and that’s okay with me too). Maybe that gets us back to the very purpose of this thread . . .

With that said, are there any Catholics on here that think there is even a scintilla of truth, logic, or solid reasoning behind any Protestant beliefs? (Take your pick on any of the “big” differences: immaculate conception, transubstantiation, works/faith, supremecy of the Bible, infant baptism, papal authority, infalibility, or anything else.) If so, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts – you can contact me personally if you’d prefer.

 

[MarcoPolo]

It seems you have to have “faith” to ignore science.

Reason alone should at least tell you science cannot have all the answers because it is limited to sight, sound, taste, scent, and touch. Not to mention science’s track record of limitations…i.e. the flat earth…the surprise of quantum physics…medicines taken off the shelf…etc…

But I would guess you are correct, it requires faith, grace, to “see” that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Paul reveals this in giving instruction on receiving Communion:
1 Cor 11:27-29 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.The “body and blood” correspond to the bread and wine Jesus said was His body and blood in Matthew 24. And then of course there’s John 6, which I mentioned earlier. Anyway, carry on, Krocker…you ask good questions and your charity is worthy of imitation. Hope you have a good experience here.

 

[inkaneer]

It’s my sense that nearly every issue we’ve talked about here at some point comes back to infalibility. It’s pretty difficult to discuss interpretation or Biblical issues when the response is some form of “because I said so, and that’s all there is to it.” I’m not trying to be rude here, I understand the Catholic doctrine and where it comes from. I just don’t believe it personally (and I know most of you do and that’s okay and I know what most of you think of me for not believing it and that’s okay with me too). Maybe that gets us back to the very purpose of this thread . . .

With that said, are there any Catholics on here that think there is even a scintilla of truth, logic, or solid reasoning behind any Protestant beliefs? (Take your pick on any of the “big” differences: immaculate conception, transubstantiation, works/faith, supremecy of the Bible, infant baptism, papal authority, infalibility, or anything else.) If so, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts – you can contact me personally if you’d prefer.

REPLY: The entire deposit of faith was delivered to the Apostles who passed it on. Some of it was passed on in the Written Tradition, some in the Oral Tradition. That deposit of truth was contained in the early church and continues in the Catholic Church. All the other christian churches [Coptic and Orthodox] as well as the protestant denominations and even Jews and pagans have a share or a portion of that deposit of truth. But none except the Catholic Church has a full share. So the protestant denominations have varying degrees of the deposit of faith. It is only those doctrines which they share with the Catholic Church that are true. The thing to keep in mind is that God is immutable. He is unchanging. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow as the protestants like to say. That being the case His word which is truth is also unchanging. Therefore any doctrine present today should be present in the early church. However, that does not mean that doctrine can not develop or be more precisely defined. After all it took the church well into the fourth century to define the person of Jesus and not until the fifth century to define the Trinity and almost 2,000 years to define the Assumption of Mary. But once defined a doctrine does not change. Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. They do not believe that the substance of bread is changed into the body and blood of Jesus. Rather the substance and accidents of bread remains but it is spiritually the flesh and blood of Jesus. This is a departure [a change] from the early church teaching which is in line with the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation which says that the substance of bread is changed into the body and blood of Jesus but the accidents [taste, smell etc.] remain. So in a nutshell any protestant doctrines that contradict doctrines in the Catholic Church are invalid. The difference is simple. Protestant denominations are not infallible institutions in matters of faith and morals. The Catholic Church is.

 

[Teflon93]

With that said, are there any Catholics on here that think there is even a scintilla of truth, logic, or solid reasoning behind any Protestant beliefs? (Take your pick on any of the “big” differences: immaculate conception, transubstantiation, works/faith, supremecy of the Bible, infant baptism, papal authority, infalibility, or anything else.) If so, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts – you can contact me personally if you’d prefer.

The Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth; Protestantism is theology by subtraction. There are seven sacraments insituted by God through Christ’s ministry; Protestants subtract 5 or 6 of these. The Church consists of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium; Protestants subtract at least one and sometimes two of these, while redacting the third.

This being the case, the answer is no, there is no area of doctrine or dogma where Protestants are right and the Catholic Church is wrong. Of course, individual Protestants may have it all over individual Catholics; these anecdotes abound.

It is sometimes hard for the non-Catholic to see exactly how glaring the various Protestant communities’ subtractions are—the communities I’d been part of all emphasized one aspect or another of the Church in their own worship, to the exclusion of others. Thus, liturgy was extremely important to Episcopalians while Pentecostals couldn’t care less about it. Pentecostals placed an emphasis on a personal relationship with Christ that Episcopalians tend to view as bordering on the superstitious. Each has a piece of the Truth, but so polishes the piece they have that they ignore and exclude other pieces.

Only in the Catholic Church is the Truth complete.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

The entire deposit of faith was delivered to the Apostles who passed it on. Some of it was passed on in the Written Tradition, some in the Oral Tradition.

I don’t understand then what the difference is between the Written Tradition of the Bible and any other of the church’s written tradition. Why is the written tradition of the Bible set apart from the rest of written tradition? (ECF for example) This is the problem I have with Scripture. It seems to have been set apart in a special way (and rightly so) and so should be above (authoritatively) later writings. Yet the CC seems to regard the Bible as a small seed of truth that would eventually evolve into what is now current Catholic teaching. The question is: should it evolve at all - and if so, how would we be able to measure if it remained faithful unless we compared it to the most original teachings (from the Apostles themselves - which we have record of in the Bible)? The apostles were promised to be led into all truth. Does it say their successors would also be led into all truth? Of course, it didn’t say they wouldn’t be either, but Jesus did say heretics would rise up from within the church.

As for the Constitution etc - I will copy what I posted on the first page of this thread, since no one commented on it. I’m curious of your thoughts on it:

**The problem with comparing God’s revelation to the Constitution and the Catholic Church/an earthly, extra-biblical authority to the US Government is that each deals with different kingdoms. The government deals with everyone whether they are living in the flesh/unsaved or not (the earthly kingdom). The church should not deal with the converted as such (the heavenly kingdom) as they have the law “written in their hearts” already. And perhaps, they don’t need the church/government to “interpret” what they already understand; like the Gentiles who are a law unto themselves who by nature obey the law. Of course, this is all assuming the church is comprised of the truly converted, which is hardly possible for the majority of fallen humanity if they are baptized as infants when they haven’t even the capacity to be converted. It can and should give direction to help its members live in a sin-steeped world but it shouldn’t bind its members to man-made laws. The problem is that many church practices and teachings are binding which inevitably produces mindless drones who will just obey w/out what is really necessary for that obedience to matter: faith and contrition. And if one’s heart is truly circumcized by faith and contrition it doesn’t need threats from the church (“by pain of mortal sin” etc.) to “keep them in line”. **

**Colossians 2:20 *Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, ******21(Touch not; taste not; handle not; **22Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? ***

**Civil law is an attempt to keep order amongst those who disregard the natural law/moral law. There are many good, righteous, law-abiding citizens who are such b/c of the goodness of their hearts and are not even in need of civil law, but the law has to be there for those who are not so good. But God’s laws are not an attempt to keep order amongst all of humanity. The Bible is God’s revelation to us but more than that it requires a response - that of faith expressed through love and obedience - from each of us. But God knows MOST of humanity will not respond that way! Now personally, I see nothing wrong with voluntary submission to a church with certain restrictions; a voluntary church (similar to a religious order with different disciplines and charisms) but I reject the idea of ONE particular governing body that gives binding rules (abstinance on Good Friday; Holy Days of Obligation, etc) to all of Christendom. Everyone is differnt and what may be a virtue for one (abstaining from meat) could be sin for someone else (someone proud of his mortification). It is pointless and is a sure way to get many, lukewarm, uncoverted people infecting the fold and causing the downfall of the church/parish/denomination. The church is for the converted. It’s not an initiation game of getting as many members as possible and then needing to keep them in line b/c most of them weren’t ever really converted. I believe the CC tries to remedy this by having helps/sacraments/sacramentals, etc. to help the unregenerated; perhaps to bring about conversion (?) and/or, unfortunately, the result is a false sense of security amongs the unregenerated/unconverted. **

Look, the way is narrow and FEW will find it. Certainly, this does not mean that the #s of Catholics following the “supreme court” of Catholicism are going to find salvation through simple obedience to the magesterium.

Peace

 

[Krocker]

Teflon93 wrote: “the answer is no, there is no area of doctrine or dogma where Protestants are right and the Catholic Church is wrong.”

The Bible itself says scripture is difficult. Peter says Paul’s teachings are difficult to understand. I think it’s safe to say that scripture is not always the easiest thing to interpret – even the gospels can be difficult, let alone delving into Revelation. So, for admittedly difficult scripture, the Catholic Church has EVERYTHING absolutely right doctrinally? That is where I just cannot agree. I’ll probably take some heat for saying this, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable either – it seems awfully arrogant to say “no thanks, I already have all of the answers.” If you have all of the answers already why then, as Inkaneer posts, would doctrine be “clarified” over time? There is no need to clarify a correct answer. I also don’t see how any real discussion can occur between Catholics and Protestants as to these issues with that Catholic belief. Maybe that’s why I seem to be the only Protestant voice here. And for that matter, why is there a “Catholic Answers” forum if all of the answers have already been decided? Why don’t you just list them? (Not meant to be sarcastic, but I’m not sure how to ask that without sounding a bit sarcastic, just wanted to clarify).

And, this is a bit of a side issue, but how is it that limbo is not an issue of “faith” to which infalibility would attach? Isn’t one’s eternal destination THE issue of faith? Was this a doctrine or dogma that was simply clarified after 1500 years? I’m sorry to keep coming back to limbo but because of the fairly recent press on the issue it’s on my mind. But I guess on that note, how would the crusades not be an issue of “faith” via the great commission (or a “moral” determination)? What was the purpose for the crusades if not an interpretation of how to spread the Word of God? (Again, these are meant to be honest questions and I’m not trying to be argumentative … just to clarify.)

 

[inkaneer]

I don’t understand then what the difference is between the Written Tradition of the Bible and any other of the church’s written tradition. Why is the written tradition of the Bible set apart from the rest of written tradition? (ECF for example) This is the problem I have with Scripture. It seems to have been set apart in a special way (and rightly so) and so should be above (authoritatively) later writings. Yet the CC seems to regard the Bible as a small seed of truth that would eventually evolve into what is now current Catholic teaching. The question is: should it evolve at all - and if so, how would we be able to measure if it remained faithful unless we compared it to the most original teachings (from the Apostles themselves - which we have record of in the Bible)? The apostles were promised to be led into all truth. Does it say their successors would also be led into all truth? Of course, it didn’t say they wouldn’t be either, but Jesus did say heretics would rise up from within the church.
Peace

The difference is that the Wtitten tradition of the Bible is inspired. The ECF’s are not. Tertullian for example went fronm pagan to Christian then got into heresy. What the ECF’s are however, is eyewitnesses to the church in their time. Their writings tell us what doctrines were held by the church and which were not. As for the Bible you must remember for what it was intended. It was not intended to be a study book for individual believers as the protestants use it. The canon of scriptuire was defined in the late fourth century for use in the church liturgy. The Gnostic writings were quite prevalent and the need to define which writings were inspired and therefore proper to be read at Mass was realized. So beginning with the Council of Rome in 382 the canon of the bible was set. The additional councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 AD confirmed the canon adopted at the council of Rome. As for evolving doctrine I am not sure what you mean by “evolving” Certainly some doctrines have been formally defined. Heresies such as Arianism and Nestorianism caused large upheavals in the early church. It was necessary to define exactly what was the truth.