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

[PC_Master]

You’ll agree, again, this involvels the fallibility of our judgmet not less than accepting Magisterium.

Obviously human fallibility is always involved. But the fact that you’re trusting an earthly body that’s visible doesn’t mean your belief is more accurate than mine.

What means did God prefer to preserve Scripture for us ?

At the least, we can clearly see that he inspired authors to write. Since we know most of the New Testament was circulating in collected form during the second century, we must assume that it was either fluke chance, the guidance of satan, or the guidance of God that caused this. I choose to believe the later, for a variety of reasons, an important one of which is that I don’t believe God would leave us with nothing to guide our spiritual journey (no, that doesn’t mean I believe he left an earthly organization around to help). Canonization was mostly a formality, but even so, it’s not unreasonable to assume that God led those proceedings too.

in some way, you appear to perceive at present the NT as a sort of Treatise, authored ( by the Holy Spirit) through a single man…

As I recall, scripture had some 40 different authors. The New Testament has around a dozen. Who would say that it was through a single man?

How do we know who has the right disposition ?

We don’t. God does.

The Church can deliver the message. Being a living informant, she can correct our misinterpretations of the message. Repeatedly, if necessary. Whether people believe it’s up to the Holy Spirit abd themselves, I guess.
A text cannot do that. We can master it, leading it where we please. Because it cannot give us any feedback.

And now here’s the Protestant model…

The holy spirit can deliver the message. Being a living informant, it can correct our misinterpretations of the message – repeatedly, if necessary. Whether people believe or not is up to them – God won’t force it.

Why do you continue to misrepresent the doctrine of infallibility by speaking of it as if it exists separate from the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

I don’t. What I did was pointed out from scripture that when there was agreement with Peter, most notably at the “Council of Jerusalem” (Acts 15), we see no indication of “We must defer to the opinion of Peter, for he is the pope, and therefore is protected from error in this declaration.” No, instead we see that they all wrote back “It seemed good to the holy spirit and to us” – they claimed that they (collectively) were guided by the holy spirit.

I was merely pointing out there are no examples of papal infallibility in scripture.

I do not like it when someone bashes others on the site and tell God’s children their Protestant, non Catholic, accuse them of heresey, any name calling is unacceptable!

Calm down, friend. Be rational and express your concerns. Remember, getting upset isn’t going to help anything.

Can the CC tell me the exact date, that Peter handed them the keys and to whom, what was his name, who was all present, why Rome did such a thing etc?

I’ve got to say, I’ve always wondered about this – if Peter had keys, and they had to be handed to him by Christ, then doesn’t that mean Peter had to hand them to the next guy, or someone had to pick them up off the ground (or take them off Peter’s dead body) when he died?

When ST. Peter was crucified was St. Paul still alive in prison in Rome?

As I understood it, Peter and Paul were supposedly executed right about the same time. (Note that I’m still not sold on Peter actually being in Rome.)

Are we to worship the CC and believe every word they say first, then God?

I think the more appropriate way to phrase it is that we’re to worship God and follow his commands, as interpreted by the RCC. Since I don’t trust the interpreter, it leads to a problem.

More later perhaps…

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I agree with you. “If anyone teaches you another gospel other than the one we preach and have bore witness to do not accept it”!

----------------This is taken from Pope Benedict-- XV1-------------------------------------Joseph Ratzinger Book " Jesus of Nazareth-------------------
-----------His personal search for the face of the LORD-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Pope wrote:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me so wills ( Jn 6:44) But whom does the Father will? Not “the wise and understanding”< the Lord tells us, but the " SIMPLE".

Taken in the most straightforward sense, these words reflect Jesus actual experience: It is not the “Scripture experts” those who are professionally concerned with God, who recognize him: They are too caught up in the intricacies of their detailed knowledge, Their great learning distracts them from " SIMPLY" gazing upon the whole, upon the reality of God as he reveals himself-----------for people who know so much about the complexity of the issues, it seems that it just cannot be so “SIMPLE” A must read.

God Bless

What a gem - thanks for sharing it.

Many churches over-analyze everything instead of simply obeying. Do I need to KNOW exactly what happens when I am baptized? I know as a believer I need to be baptized and I know the Apostles used water. To go beyond that into technical definitions of “original sin” etc. and then insist everyone submit is, well, unnecessary and scandalous. What is laid out in the good news is complex in a spiritual manner, but not in a technical one. Jesus’ teachings were not unreasonable or technical. Spiritually complex, yes, and perhaps un"natural", but not legalistic or technical. Expecting submission in such analyzations is asking us to put blind trust in higher learning (if it even is that) b/c most of us aren’t going to understand it and may even be turned away b/c of being unable to grasp it. If it were matters of salvation it would be necessary to know such things, but most contention between varying religious beliefs are technicalities which are not essential to our salvation. Salvific issues, however, are easily grasped by even the simplest of minds!

Bottom line is: Keep it simple , and simply obey.

Blessings~

 

[pneuma07]

ù

The answer is that the only way a Christian can test the faithfulness of any post-Apostolic teaching/practice/etc… is to compare it to the original source. Even Catholicism recognizes this meanwhile (illogically) rejecting sola scriptura.
Peace,

Dear Joy,

The “original source” is IMHO the meeting between divine and human.
It is Christ’s life, and the lives of the Apostles alongside Him, later enriched by the Spirit. Living with the Apostles or within the primitive Church is what could approach the original experience most. Within the life of the apostolic and early post-apostolic Church, text would be written, among which a group would come to be considered ( some sooner, some later) as the most faithful written witness to the original source, to be therefore considered as normative for future generations.

We can/must consider them faithful and normative because they were considered as such, by the group of guys who enjoyed the most direct link to the original experience, through the life of (in) the Church. Now, Tradition is ultimately that: the life in the Church. The Church, and her life, was there before, during and after the composition and acknowledgement of what would be known as NT.

We can maintain then, IMHO, that the composition of the books, the canonization process as well ( what is to be considered Scripture),
and the interpretation ( what Scripture says), is/should be considered within the life of the Church: who decided with the Holy Spirit to have a Scripture - namely those 27 books - binding for herself.
You’ll ask: which church ?
IMHO, in particular we’re speaking about the visible leadership of the first 4 centuries and something after Jesus.

If we exclude from the picture a canonizing and interpreting Church, normally we arrive to assume perspicuity in both aspects.

Which, IMHO, does not sound plausible.

 

[guanophore]

So I see the likelihood that there needs to be an earthly authority. Question is: How does one determine who has that authority?

Do you think the words of Jesus have become invalid?

Matt 28:17-20
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “**All authority **in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 **Go therefore **and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

There are many churches claiming to be The One True Church/Earthly Authority. Why should I believe the CC is that authority?

Really? Is this the case with your Anabaptist/Menonite congregation?

I think the problem is the tendancy to believe that the best way to determine where the authority is, is to compare it to the early church; the apostolic church; the church of the Bible… Or, is that really a problem?:

It is a problem to the extent that what we see in the NT is a mustard seed, and and it is difficult to recognize it ontologically with the great tree that has grown.

This is circular reasoning. If there needs to be an extra-biblical, eartly authority, we still need to determine where that authority is, and the bible is the only infallible source to turn to. The rest is heresay and more self-interpretation.

Is this not hubris on your part? How is it that you are more worthy to “determine” this than the Apostles themselves? You are not “Catholic”, or you would have accepted that the NT was written, preserved, and promulgated by Catholics. If the sacred tradition preserved by Catholics was not inspired-inerrant, then how was it appropriate to commit it to writing 20-50 years after the fact? Have you considered writing an inerrant history of events that occurred 20 years ago?

No matter what angle I try to come to the Catholic Church from, I run into a wall - or should I say - I come back to the same place b/c I’m running around in circles.

I think you have a trust issue. You cannot trust God to do what He said He would do .

It can’t be proven. But then again, neither can God’s existence be proven. You can show me what you think is more probable, and I can show you conflicting things that I think are more probable, but neither of us can prove anything at all and we all have to rely on our own, flawed judgement.

If you refuse to accept the Word of God, all you are left with is your own flawed judgement. Do know how many people Jesus told “according to your faith, be it done to you”?

but the problem there is that when you introduce crafty Satan into the picture it throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing. Perhaps the CC looks like the most probable answer (I say “looks like” in that many of the reasoning, apologetically, historically, etc. is somewhat convincing), but I always ask myself (and what is keeping me from accepting the Catholic defense) if the Catholic defense of “supposed” scripture contradictions are not simply crafty ways of excusing herself.

Then you have to embrace that you believe the devil is more powerful than Christ. You must accept that Jesus is a liar, or a weakling, in that He was unable to watch over His word to perform it.

There are many, what appear to me to be, blatant contradictions in some very plain verses. Inevitably someone will say “what is so plain about that verse? You are looking at it too simplistically. You need to look at history, culture, etc to understand how to interpret that”. But is that all scripture is? A mere picture of how things were in particular circumstances at a particular time in history?

OR do you place yourself as an expert over and above all these sources of information?

It seems to me that the Bible is simply viewed as old letters and early church writings with no more value than present church writings. If that is the case (as it seems to be – to Catholics anyway) then there is no way to really determine if the Catholic claims of authority, current teachings, etc. are valid or not b/c you can’t prove they didn’t fall into error somewhere along the lines w/out a point of comparison/rule of measure that the average Joe can turn to.

I don’t know where your mind has been at Mass, but the Word of God does not go out void, but accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent. If you esteem it of so little value, you have been daydreaming at Mass, and that “crafty one” of whom you speak is nipping at your heels!

That, I believe, is where non-Cs determine that the Bible must be that authority. We know it comes from God. We’re not all so sure the CC as we see it today is.

Here you have identified yourself as non-Catholic. Your username is disengenuous.

Anyone else dizzy?

God must be taking into account our flawed evalutations. If we can’t infallibly interpret scripture, then we can’t infallibly interpret the earthly authority either.

God is bigger than your intellect, and your apparently wounded ability to trust. May you be healed of it all!

 

[pneuma07]

God’s divine hand was responsible for it’s production. Certainly He is capable of preserving it using whatever means or people

).

So the catholic Church was born precisely when the bad guys came up and won the day.
Then you have the good guys persecuted for more than 10 centuries, and coming back to full light in the XVI century.
Does your present vision rely on this Church History model. ?

Not all things can be proven - I have chosen to put my faith in what I believe is reliable - and so have you. Before you decided for yourself to be Catholic (or remain Catholic) you had to determine, first of all, that there was even a worthwhile reason to be a Christian!

Amen

. I suppose we can’t know for sure anymore than we can know

anything else. It is a lifelong task to work at stripping away self and societal conditioning. Jesus does though clearly demonstrate some of the qualities of this disposition: contrition, humility, etc… …This alone is sufficient to produce the proper disposition. Take man’s philosophy and clever argumentation out of the equation and focus on knowing God and self and there you have it (not talking to you in particular ).

I consider your illustration interesting. But I understand I cannot workably acknowledge who has the right disposition and, consequently, who has the right interpretation.

Do you think those who opposed Jesus did so b/c they simply misunderstood? Or did they perhaps lack something deeper?

Good question.

Blessings

[/QUOTE]

 

[utunumsint]

In principle, perhaps – but principle is not enough. If the goal is unity, then it must be happening in reality – this source of unity must be actively and completely removing traces of disunity. Clearly, in the RCC, they always have, and still do exist.

Summary: you believe there is no difference between catholic and protestant versions of unity.

Answer: The office for doctrine and faith serves the function you describe. If a certain priests gets too far out of line, his errors are rebuked. If the said priest does not repent, he is excommunicated. This action is supposed to help the priest reform, but it also stops the heresy from spreading among the faithful, and so unity is preserved. I’m sure many protestant churches have something like this office.

However, I would propose that the doctrinal unity among Catholics is better than any kind of unity provided by the Protestant churches. The Protestant model is as followes: If a doctrine becomes to controversial, you either leave the church, as an individual (something catholics are free to do) or start your own church (something that catholics are also free to do). In my estimation, however, there is no current protestant church that can claim a continuous body of doctrines down through the centuries.

The Catholic church does claim this. Doctrines have been
elaborated throughout the ages, but they have no really changed. Now. It is clear to me that you do not buy this, since you have rejected the Catholic notion of the Eucharist, the Papacy, apostolic succession, and I’m sure there are others I have missed.

Since I accept the validity of these doctrines, and all other doctrines presented by the Catholic church, I can say with great certainty that I can see these sacraments and doctrines extended down through the centuries back to Christ himself. You have argued agains this many times, but not persuasively, in my judgement.

Therefore I say with great faith, the following:

I believe in the Holy Spirit:
-The one who guarantees truth and unity in the church
I believe in the Holy Catholic Church
-Who is sanctified by the Holy Spirit, who continues down through the ages in a chain of episcopal succession (apostolic succession). Who is united under a common body of doctrines and beliefs. Who is united under the authority of the Pope. And who is united in the one communion of the Eucharist, and in one baptism. Who has seven sacraments throughout the world. Who is united in one common liturgy that although may have various forms, is one in its substance and message.

I also see how easy it is to break this chain of unity. All you need to do is say “I don’t believe in infant baptism” and you are no longer part of the unity of the church. You have at the same time, denied the validity of the church by rejecting this doctrine. However, if you reject the reality of limbo, no one will question your right to do so. Throughout the ages, this is true. Show me one instance of a man or woman excommunicated because he or she rejected limbo. You cannot find one.

I believe it was Chesterton who said something along these lines: Orthodoxy is no a humdrum submission to authority, but a precarious balancing of multiple truths, built together into a towering structure of doctrines and dogma, that only a small shift in emphasis can bring crashing to the ground.

I can honestly tell you, it is this precarious beauty, and the fact that it has lasted throughout the ages, that brings be to greater and greater faith in the church. It is this precarious beauty that makes me love God’s church.

God bless,
Ut

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Guanophore,
This thread has been a respectful conversation for many months and I am hopeful it can be kept that way. I w/drew from my other thread primarily b/c of your disrespectful posts (as well as a few others, but your’s was the most significant contribution). Some of the content of your posts is valuable insight to me, however, the rest of it is filled with disrespectful comments.

Here you have identified yourself as non-Catholic. Your username is disengenuous.

You have already been answered about this false accusation - by me and others. The people who have been contributing to this thread for the past 5 or so months are well aware that I am not exactly Catholic right now and my signature clarifies my position. There is nothing disengenuous about it. But you already know this, b/c it has already been pointed out to you several times on the other thread by me and others. Why is it that you want to misrepresent me and falsly accuse me now on this one? Does it give you some satisfaction?

For the sake of this thread I am not changing my username b/c THAT would be disengenuous and at the least confusing.

I’m hoping you will find it possible to be more charitable “here” or I will simply ignore your posts. Authority is at the heart of the issue - indeed, ALL the issues, ultimately - b/c I would have no problem following the direction of the CC if I believed it was being divinely led. So this thread is and has been very important to me. Please don’t hijack it.

Now I will answer your more respectful thoughts…

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Do you think the words of Jesus have become invalid?

I disagree about HOW it is that the gates of Hell have not prevailed.

Really? Is this the case with your Anabaptist/Menonite congregation?

I don’t see any contradiciton in their teachings nor the teachings of like faiths (Brethren, Huttite, Charity, Amish, etc…). Yet I still will not blindly follow the lead of those churches. It must line up with Scripture;the most original rule of measure one can use to determine faithfulness.

it is difficult to recognize it ontologically with the great tree that has grown.

It looks very much like “adding to” or “another gospel” - especially in light of what appears to be teachings that are contrary to the original. We were told to “hold fast to the traditions…”. I see very few churches doing such a thing. Instead they have “modernized” or rather, secularized - appealing more to the unregenerated and accepting worldly and unspiritual philosophy and practices to gain more popularity. I doubt that is the “great tree” you think the church is supposed to grow into. The very thought is un-scriptural. Jesus’ disciples are a “little flock”. That doesn’t sound like a great tree. Neither does “hold fast…” seem to echo that thought.

How is it that you are more worthy to “determine” this than the Apostles themselves?

Who are you calling “Apostles” here? I recognize their authority - that is why I recognize their writings (Scriptures) as having primary (earthly)authority(outside of the HS Who never contradicts Scripture).

the NT was written, preserved, and promulgated by Catholics.

God could have used any means or anyone He wished to preserve His Word. The CC affirmed the inspiration of the Scriptures. Even Satan himself recognizes divine inspiration. But does not =faithfulness…

If the sacred tradition preserved by Catholics was not inspired-inerrant, then how was it appropriate to commit it to writing 20-50 years after the fact? Have you considered writing an inerrant history of events that occurred 20 years ago?

Is the HS incompetent to do so?

. You cannot trust God to do what He said He would do .

I see the possibility that He did it a different way than that which the CC claims does not = I don’t trust that God did it.

If you refuse to accept the Word of God, all you are left with is your own flawed judgement.

I trust the Word of God as delivered through His Apostles (the Bible) and as it is delivered by His Holy Spirit - personally as He reveals Himself to me in my life, and through others when I see His working in their lives, and through the church . I recognize God’ Spirit in me, in others and in the church b/c I see, in Scripture, what He is like and what His message is. If something doesn’t line up, I know it is not the Holy Spirit at work, b/c God does not contradict Himself.

you believe the devil is more powerful than Christ… that Jesus is a liar, or a weakling, in that He was unable to watch over His word to perform it.

No, instead I see that God has not preserved everyone in the church from error and trusted His own prophesy that error would arise from within, but not to the destruction of the church. I see the possibility that the reason history looks somewhat Catholic is b/c the truth has not held by those with the power and means that the CC had. The CC grew in popularity and power, so if it was in error, obviously faithful groups would have been underground to avoid persecution and any evidence of their existence would have been snuffed out by the more popular and powerful church. Not to mention that Jesus said His flock would be small, persecuted, and unpopular (the truth usually is). I’m not saying this is exactly what happened, but I see it as a possibility. I don’t really have to know exactly what happened, but the inconsistencies prove to me that SOMETHING to that affect happened. And no, I don’t treat any historical event as taught in present day as accurate. I realize human weakness often distorts the truth.

do you place yourself as an expert over and above all these sources of information?

I use my fallible judgment to draw these conclusions, just like you use your fallible judgment to decide & put your faith in the CC.

I don’t know where your mind has been at Mass…

Would it be fair to you if I said “I don’t know where your mind has been when you’ve read your Bible”?

If you esteem it of so little value, you have been daydreaming at Mass, and that “crafty one” of whom you speak is nipping at your heels!

How do you know he isn’t nipping at yours? By your tone I’d have to say you’d better watch yourself.

God is bigger than your intellect, and your apparently wounded ability to trust.

And He is bigger than yours too. That is why I believe His message isn’t for the learned or in need of an outside interpreter outside of the promptings of the HS. The simple understood Christ. God would not be so elusive as to hide the means of salvation in a man-made institution and expect us to put our trust there. How is it that the simple understood Jesus as His teaching fell from His own lips if they didn’t have an interpreter? What prevented the learned and religious leaders of His day from understanding/embracing His message? Did the Apostles complicate the message when they recorded it in Scripture? Or is the HS incompetent to accurately convey the message through the Apostles?

We should all seek that contrite and humble disposition the “simple” who understood had. “Unless you become like a little child…”

May you be healed of it all!

Don’t pass judgment. Perhaps it is you that is in need of heeling.

Peace~

 

[bookgirl32]

**You’re assuming “they” and the current-day RCC are the same thing, so that if someone accepts the accuracy of the NT canon, they’re granting the infallibility of that council, and thus somehow the entire RCC. **But this is quite flawed, as there have been many church splits since that time, and thus any one of the resulting denominations can make that claim of infallibility – unfortunately at least all but one of them has to be wrong.

Last I checked, people split FROM the Church, but the Church never split.

And as far as I know, any church could claim infassibility, but there’s only one Church that actually does.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I don’t get the last line: All other things ?

I liken it to the CAtholic example of the Pope. God uses Him to make infallible pronouncements, yet EVERYTHING the Pope says is not ALWAYS infallible.

I’d say they could help us understanding Scripture. Yes they could err. You seem to say you can judge them ( as any other) through your perspicuous Bible.

I am saying we should seek a right understanding of them by comparing them to a more authentic source. To compare them to a developing church is not reliable unless you can prove it is not w/out error, and the only way to do that is to compare it to the most authentic source (the bible).

Many guys see particular similarities there with their own present faith community. Think only of JWs for example. You maybe say.they are wrong. Fine. And what about perspicuity of the text ?

I’m not sure what you mean here. I’ve already explained why I believe we have different interpretations in Christendom. Not b/c the text is unclear, but b/c we are not all properly disposed to understand them as we should. The problem is not with a supposed need for an interpreter.

Many have come to the Church through the “discovery” of the fathers. I do not know at present authors who became protestant leaving catholicism after discovering the fathers and because of that. If you could verify this , then we’d have an example of something non circular about the thrust of the Fathers.

I think people come to the CC through the ECF b/c they see at least the seeds of CAtholic thought in some of their writings. Some people believe this proves the church at that time was Catholic. I don’t believe that proves that at all. The only way to know is to go beyond the ECFs to the Apostles themselves.

OK about authority. The Fathers are part of the picture, an auxiliary tool, a window …

But not a complete picture. And only an incomplete picture of their personal beliefs and, perhaps the beliefs of others. Maybe an incomplete picture of the church at that time. But not proof that any of those things were w/out error.

So the catholic Church was born precisely when the bad guys came up and won the day.
Then you have the good guys persecuted for more than 10 centuries, and coming back to full light in the XVI century.
Does your present vision rely on this Church History model. ?

Nope. That insinuates that the light was snuffed out and relit. It also implies that the reformation was successful, which it was not. Look, the world does not recognize light. It did not recognize The Light as He walked the earth. The truth is unpopular. The church is a “little flock”. “…it (the world) hated Me before it hated you”: the church is unpopular.

I consider your illustration interesting. But I understand I cannot workably acknowledge who has the right disposition and, consequently, who has the right interpretation.

Well, we may not be able to judge the hearts of others, but we are told that we may “know them by their fruits” - so we must be able to determine at least some level of faithfulness by externals. Furthermore, we are told that God is “the same yesterday today and always” and to “test everything” - so nothing we observe should contradict the Word of God.

Bless You~

 

[pneuma07]

I know of no Protestant denomination which claims exclusivity to “one true church” membership. They all accept that those in other denominations can end up in heaven without ending up in their denomination. Eastern Orthodoxy and a few of the others, I don’t know about for certain, as I haven’t yet studied them in enough detail to competently speak about them.

I guess it depends what the model includes. If we boil it down to the core of things, the requirement for salvation is faith (and willful desire) to follow Christ and his teachings. (Scripture says that you must “believe in” Christ – if you believe in him, surely you must believe what he says – otherwise he’s a liar and you wouldn’t believe “in” him.) Other criteria could be added, but I haven’t seen many, if any, Protestant denominations which said that communion, confession, obedience to a pope or other central leader (aside from Christ, of course) was necessary to enter heaven. But if you’d like to tell me where I’m wrong on that, feel free.

To be faithful to Christ is to be Christian. The more faithful, the more Christ-like you are.

No – the definition is simply an explanation of how things are. You’re looking for a definition by which you can ascertain which people are Christian, and which are not. You want to quantify it in an earthly fashion. What makes you think that we’re supposed to be doing that?

No, you can’t. I’ve heard many times on this forum and elsewhere that there are members of the “one true church” who don’t accept the RCC as valid. There are also members of the RCC, who are not true believers, and thus not members of the “one true church”. Clearly, you can’t even quantify it in your own belief system. You can provide a set of criteria, perhaps, but since you don’t know the mind of the individual, you can’t ever truly know if someone really believes or not. (I’m pretty sure theres RCC documents that indicate this point.)

No, I can’t. If I know a person well, I can attempt to come to an understanding of what they believe, and make an educated guess – but that’s all it is…a guess. I am not God, and I don’t know the hearts and minds of others.

The result is (visible) disunity, so why does it matter what the principle is? You’re essentially arguing that “if everyone followed the doctrines of their denomination perfectly, the RCC would be the best”. I might even agree with this (if those doctrines were in line with truth)…but it’s not reality.

You said “not really correct or orthodox” – to clarify, you mean that sometimes a priest or bishop can teach in error, contradicting RCC teaching, right?

In principle, perhaps – but principle is not enough. If the goal is unity, then it must be happening in reality – this source of unity must be actively and completely removing traces of disunity. Clearly, in the RCC, they always have, and still do exist.

In principle, Protestants could all listen to the holy spirit with full open-mindedness, and thus receive the same truth, and thus be in perfect unity. In principle, it works. In reality, like the RCC’s teaching magisterium, it doesn’t.

Exactly. The need for a council is a demonstration of disunity of large effect. If one person had disagreed about the need for circumcision, Paul wouldn’t have traveled to Jerusalem about it. Clearly, it was much more wide-spread than one or two men.

Continued…

Dear PCM,

       I imagine you are not stating that Protestantism is  concord  about soteriology, or at least as concord as catholicism is.

You cannot mean arminianism is the same thing as calvinism, you cannot mean the understanding of baptism in relation to salvation, in particular its regenerative power or its rejection, is a common ground …
Obedience to the pope isn’t necessary for
the whole of protestantism. OK, that’s common ground.
I can give another one: obedience to the Dalai Lama is not necessary. i mean we can give as many common gorunds as we wish, but that do not delete the conflictual natures of the actual tenets. Many protestant brothers preach that the OSAS doctrine is not only error, it is a grave danger for the salvation of those who follow it. Shall we call we a shared conception about salvation ?

For further consideration: maybe most of protestants are taught and officially follow Sola Scriptura, a doctrine you label heresy.
That could suffice to refute any situational parallelism with Catholicism.

I say Amen to any “we don’t know the hearts and minds, only God does” statement. We can have clues.
But we can know what is preached. In protestant churches
contradictory teachings are proposed, not as a deviation to a given rule. You just have contradictory rules. And that is not surprising at all.

The claim of supposed direct communication from the Holy Spirit appears IMHO a weak proposal in itself. Psycologically
( likelyhood of self-deceptions), socially
( difficult acceptability without adequate supportive signs), as well as logically ( it can stand only if nobody of such claimants ever contradicts each other).

The effects of your position as well as of ( the in your opinion heretical ) Sola Scriptura ( both IMHO versions of the “trust no man” principle), are there.

But if you persuade me that there is a common officially shared protestant understanding of the two sacraments those faith communities generally conserve ( communion and baptism)
I could really begin to change my mind on the last paragraph.

TBC later

 

[savedsinner]

That’s why we have God’s Word in His Scriptures.

He told us.

…

He also told us that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth,
and he also told us that his word is “preached” to us, that is in the oral form as well as the written form.

He also told us that his word was to be passed down in written form and the oral form through sacred tradition.

You just can’t ignore the passages of scripture that go against your personal theology.

You need to read all of the bible, not just the parts you agree with.

 

[bookgirl32]

Does anybody know that infassability is a new word? I made it up!

 

[PC_Master]

Just FYI – I realize some of the posts I respond to are not directly addressed to me, but I figure there’s no harm in responding anyway. I hope this isn’t confusing anyone.

Do you think the words of Jesus have become invalid?

Not at all – I just don’t think you’re correctly understanding what he said. There’s a difference between Jesus’ words being false and an interpretation of them (such as the Roman Catholic one) being false. Would you not agree?

Matt 28:17-20
18 And Jesus came and said to them, "**All authority **in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Notice that the next verse does not say “and so, all authority in heaven and/or on hearth I give to you – act as my voice”. Instead, it says to go and make disciples by teaching the things that Christ himself commanded and baptizing.

It is a problem to the extent that what we see in the NT is a mustard seed, and and it is difficult to recognize it ontologically with the great tree that has grown.

In that case, I can (hypothetically) add my own doctrines to Christianity, split from the RCC, and simply claim that I possess a more fully developed mustard “tree”.

But what happens if a scientist analyzes my “tree” and says “hey, wait a second – when I compare this thing to a mustard seed, I’m seeing that they are actually different species of plant”? Well, it seems then that my claim is false.

I would liken plant DNA to beliefs and/or teachings of a faith system. One must actually compare the one to the supposed original to tell if it truly is what it claims to be! Just because it’s bigger doesn’t mean it’s unrecognizable.

Is this not hubris on your part? How is it that you are more worthy to “determine” this than the Apostles themselves?

You mistakenly are placing the RCC in the place of the apostles.

If the sacred tradition preserved by Catholics was not inspired-inerrant, then how was it appropriate to commit it to writing 20-50 years after the fact?

You’re assuming that the tradition of then (which was inspired and accurate, and was preserved by the earliest Christians) is the same as the traditions of today, passed down via the RCC. This is simply untrue, and thus saying [Roman] Catholics preserved traditions from the very beginning is false.

I think you have a trust issue. You cannot trust God to do what He said He would do .

I think Joy trusts God, and I do as well. The question is – did God actually say he was going to create the RCC and make it infallible in matters of faith? The answer to that, as best I can determine, is that he didn’t say that at all.

If you refuse to accept the Word of God, all you are left with is your own flawed judgement.

I do accept the word of God. Christ said that whoever believes in him will have everlasting life. Christ said he would build his church (though he didn’t say “on you, Peter”), and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (that is, that it would not be overcome/destroyed). What he didn’t say is that this would be a visible organization which would have the authority to interpret his words.

Then you have to embrace that you believe the devil is more powerful than Christ. You must accept that Jesus is a liar, or a weakling, in that He was unable to watch over His word to perform it.

Nope - all we have to accept is that your interpretation is wrong. And that’s kind of an easy pill to swallow, since you’re a human being, and thus, are fallible in your beliefs.

Here you have identified yourself as non-Catholic. Your username is disengenuous.

Give it a rest. This is as ridiculous (yes, worthy of ridicule) as griping about the naming of the RCC. In neither case are you confused about anything – you know what I mean when I refer to the RCC, and anyone who reads her posts knows what Joy’s religious position is (or at least, specifically, that she’s not a devout Roman Catholic).

God is bigger than your intellect, and your apparently wounded ability to trust.

God certainly is bigger than my intellect and understanding. Let’s not forget that he’s bigger than yours too though.

The second statement above, however, is false – my ability to trust is not wounded. In fact, I’d say I have more trust than you do – I trust that the holy spirit, without the aid of an earthly organization or physical structure, is able to purvey the truth to millions of individuals, and is able to ensure that the “invisible” church is not overcome by the gates of hell.

That’s an amazing claim to make, if you think about it – very trusting. On the other hand, you’re unwilling to have such trust, instead insisting that God had to use fallible men to make his word known. How impotent would that make God?

I don’t get the last line: All other things ?

In short – that God uses individuals to make a correct decision or take a correct action at one point in time does not mean he’s gifting them with infallibility in all matters of faith and morality.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

I’d say they could help us understanding Scripture. Yes they could err. You seem to say you can judge them ( as any other) through your perspicuous Bible.

That’s quite right.

Many guys see particular similarities there with their own present faith community. Think only of JWs for example. You maybe say.
they are wrong. Fine. And what about perspicuity of the text ?

You’re right – no matter how clear something is, people can misinterpret it. This is readily evident in the RCC, where centuries of explicit teaching still result in church members who deny the infallibility of the pope, etc.

However, something being unclear doesn’t mean that the RCC has the authority to “clarify” it. It also doesn’t mean that those who are truly seeking the truth won’t find it.

I freely admit having a catholic p.o.v. But you will concede that does not automatically mean whatever I can say about the Church is therefore circular. ( or we’d all be circular defending or explaining our persuasions).

Agreed.

Many have come to the Church through the “discovery” of the fathers. I do not know at present authors who became protestant leaving catholicism after discovering the fathers and because of that.

I’ve heard of a few. I don’t recall names, unfortunately. I can try to look them up if you really want to know – but somehow I doubt that this will be beneficial. It’s more likely to have you thinking “well, they just never really understood the RCC”, right?

So the catholic Church was born precisely when the bad guys came up and won the day.

I thought I clarified that there was no precise birth-date of the RCC, any more than there was a precise birth-date of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Old Catholics, etc.

Then you have the good guys persecuted for more than 10 centuries, and coming back to full light in the XVI century.
Does your present vision rely on this Church History model. ?

By your view (the RCC one), the church was persecuted for centuries after Christ, until it finally became a favored religion under Constantine and later emperors.

But I understand I cannot workably acknowledge who has the right disposition and, consequently, who has the right interpretation.

That’s why you don’t trust the interpretations of man.

Summary: you believe there is no difference between catholic and protestant versions of unity.

In regards to unity of faith (actual, not professed, beliefs), that’s correct – they are very similar.

Answer: The office for doctrine and faith serves the function you describe.

No – it serves to maintain organizational unity, not unity of belief among all constituents. Such a thing is not humanly possible.

I’m sure many protestant churches have something like this office.

Some, perhaps.

However, I would propose that the doctrinal unity among Catholics is better than any kind of unity provided by the Protestant churches.

Absolutely! However, I don’t trust in the unity provided by “Protestant churches”. I trust in the unity provided by God himself as I am willing to listen to and obey him.

In my estimation, however, there is no current protestant church that can claim a continuous body of doctrines down through the centuries…The Catholic church does claim this.

You’re right, the RCC does claim that, but it doesn’t possess that. The interesting part is that any time someone doubts the claim, and brings up an example of a contradicting teaching, the immediate response is along the lines of “since we know the RCC can never contradict itself, we already know that this teaching must be a development of an earlier one, so let’s look and see what we can find that supports that idea”.

Doctrines have been elaborated throughout the ages, but they have no really changed. Now. It is clear to me that you do not buy this, since you have rejected the Catholic notion of the Eucharist, the Papacy, apostolic succession, and I’m sure there are others I have missed.

Bingo – I don’t accept it, precisely because I don’t see the teachings you claim in history.

Since I accept the validity of these doctrines…I can say with great certainty that I can see these sacraments and doctrines extended down through the centuries back to Christ himself.

Do you at least admit that you could be in error in your interpretation of history?

I honestly believe that the reason you see these things is because you went looking, expecting to find them, or because you haven’t studied fully enough to have an accurate understanding of the history. In either case, you’re interpolating the available data with modern practices, building a picture that I believe is inaccurate.

I also see how easy it is to break this chain of unity. All you need to do is say “I don’t believe in infant baptism” and you are no longer part of the unity of the church. You have at the same time, denied the validity of the church by rejecting this doctrine.

At least half of the Roman Catholics I know personally disagree with the RCC’s official teaching on one or more issues. That’s really not too good for “unity”.

However, if you reject the reality of limbo, no one will question your right to do so. Throughout the ages, this is true. Show me one instance of a man or woman excommunicated because he or she rejected limbo. You cannot find one.

And, throughout the ages, you’ll find individuals who espoused both opinions. By definition, that makes them disunited.

Also, we know, for certain, that truth is absolute. Therefore, there either is a limbo, or there is not. Thus some are wrong about this issue, and the RCC is not correcting the error.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Last I checked, people split FROM the Church, but the Church never split.

Check again. It’s all a matter of how you define it. Rome says the Eastern Orthodox (and for that matter, every other church) split from it. On the other hand, the EO say that Rome was the schismatic.

And as far as I know, any church could claim infassibility, but there’s only one Church that actually does.

Infallibility, you mean? Yeah, I think only the RCC makes the claim. It doesn’t mean the claim is accurate, however, just because it’s unique.

I imagine you are not stating that Protestantism is concord about soteriology, or at least as concord as catholicism is.

No, I’m not saying that.

…but that do not delete the conflictual natures of the actual tenets.

Since the result of both the RCC and Protestantism is conflicting individual beliefs among many followers, I don’t really see the difference.

Many protestant brothers preach that the OSAS doctrine is not only error, it is a grave danger for the salvation of those who follow it. Shall we call we a shared conception about salvation ?

Clearly, we don’t agree. But that’s the nature of man being fallible. That’s why I don’t trust man’s interpretation of scripture or history any more than I have to.

But we can know what is preached. In protestant churches contradictory teachings are proposed, not as a deviation to a given rule. You just have contradictory rules. And that is not surprising at all.

No, that isn’t surprising, but again, if unity of belief is important, I can’t honestly say that the RCC has done any better than Protestant denominations have.

The claim of supposed direct communication from the Holy Spirit appears IMHO a weak proposal in itself. Psycologically ( likelyhood of self-deceptions),

Yes, this is quite possible. Any time we rely on ourselves for interpretation of something, we can mess it up. Unfortunately, God didn’t personally talk to me and answer every question I’ve ever had about faith. Neither did he you, I’m guessing. Thus we’re both left interpreting things as best we can, possibly deceiving ourselves, or making mistakes because of ignorance, along the way.

socially ( difficult acceptability without adequate supportive signs),

In other words – how can I prove that God revealed something to me and that it actually is true? The answer is that you can’t. Revelation is God’s turf, not mine.

as well as logically ( it can stand only if nobody of such claimants ever contradicts each other).

Incorrect. The idea of “each individual receives revelation from the holy spirit and each individual interprets it completely correctly” can be logically destroyed as you demonstrated. However, the concept that individuals each receive revelation cannot be destroyed by contradiction because contradiction can be seen as the result of fallible human interpretation/understanding/ignorance/etc.

But if you persuade me that there is a common officially shared protestant understanding of the two sacraments those faith communities generally conserve ( communion and baptism) I could really begin to change my mind on the last paragraph.

You’re looking for unity of teaching, not unity of belief. I’d recommend you focus on the latter.

 

[bookgirl32]

Not at all – I just don’t think you’re correctly understanding what he said. There’s a difference between Jesus’ words being false and an interpretation of them (such as the Roman Catholic one) being false. Would you not agree?

Sure, bit how do you know what’s false and what’s not, there’s lots of different interpretations out there.

 

[PC_Master]

He also told us that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth,

But he didn’t say “Roman Catholic”, nor did he say that this was an organization as such.

…and he also told us that his word is “preached” to us, that is in the oral form as well as the written form.

As it should be, by every believer.

He also told us that his word was to be passed down in written form and the oral form through sacred tradition.

Where’s that exactly? And where does it also say that the RCC is the purveyor of that?

You just can’t ignore the passages of scripture that go against your personal theology.

Anyone can do that – for instance, I think many Roman Catholics do that.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Does anybody know that infassability is a new word? I made it up!

LOL - and I was going to look it up

 

[pneuma07]

Exactly. The need for a council is a demonstration of disunity of large effect. …

I am not sure I really got. . It appears we should bemoan debates in themselves, cause debating implies, shows disunity. Therefore Coucils from Jerusalm to Vatican II have to be looked at as clear evidences of disunity.

Then we should stretch the argument: no unity where exchange of views take place, or teaching is needed, or learning goes on.
( if I have to learn anything from anybody it means we had not oneness of mind in the first place ).

I’m giving you a new example of the manifest disunity among catholics: I am learning here at CAF. From non catholic brothers as well as from fellow catholics. I should not, we should all know the same things, in the same way, with the same depth.
You know what, I do not feel disunited because a learn from my brothers. , here or from books, preaching, anything.
We learn every day. Faith as life is a journey.

That sort of unity you appear to extoll, strictly speaking, is for heavenly creatures or for robots.

As for Councils , within a protestant mindset all of them could produce major earthquakes: the minorities would each coherently create their new “churches” . *“Now and here my self cannot fully assent with you, dear sirs, therefore, I’m going to found my church. The real church. I know it is the true church because the Holy Spirit is telling me that, and I am going to follow Him, not
your simple words of men.”. *

That’s precisely the “trust no man” principle in action.