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

[JoyToBeCatholic]

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?

Indeed! Well put, PCM! I’ve tried saying it, but you did it better than I!

 

[bookgirl32]

is able to purvey the truth to millions of individuals

Is there more than 1 truth then?

 

[pneuma07]

Direction given, perhaps. Direction followed

– unfortunately at least all but one of them has to be wrong.
Then let us examine these claims. and the claims to be in continuty with Church of the first ecumenical Councils.

I can’t speak for Joy, but I respect who I respect because of how God used them (most frequently in their writing). Whether the RCC recognizes them or not is inconsequential to me, though I will admit, it’s sometimes difficult to locate material by authors not recognized and endorsed by the RCC.

I am pretty sure you do not guess you respect the Fathers ( as long as you do) because the Church did.

“The Catholic Church” (that is, The Universal [Christian] Church

) is a valid name for the so-called “invisible church”.
Whose (statement of) faith is…

Short answer: Over a period of centuries Rome fell into error. There is no specific date where we can suddenly see the heresies appear (nor is there ever such an exact and sudden date for heresies).

Your view is not seemingly the same as Joy’s.
You can confidently state when a heresy you consider as such
was born: Sola Scriptura was born with Martin Luther.

[/QUOTE]

 

[pneuma07]

Just FYI

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?

…

Dear Joy and PCM,

           the issue is not what God is able to do (:eek: ).   Or whether he has ( :eek: ) to do like this or like that.

It is what He decided to do.
I’d guess we’re here in order to humbly look at that. Can we agree ?

 

[PC_Master]

I am not sure I really got. . It appears we should bemoan debates in themselves, cause debating implies, shows disunity.

Debates are good things in that they can hopefully bring understanding to individuals on matters of faith, allowing eyes to be opened to the message the holy spirit is trying to convey, but up until now has not been seen (by one or more debaters – and possibly all of them).

Therefore Coucils from Jerusalm to Vatican II have to be looked at as clear evidences of disunity.

No – the fact that they had to have a council to decide issues means that, before the council, people were disunited. Thus it is an evidence of the disunity. If people were united on these issues, there’d be no need for a council, would there?

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 ).

Perhaps not “no unity”, but certainly something south of the unity we should strive for as followers of Christ – a “perfect” unity with the truth (for lack of better terms).

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.

Good – so we agree that the RCC is not as united as previously claimed, then? Can we also now agree that unity of belief is more important than unity of religious observance?

You know what, I do not feel disunited because a learn from my brothers…

That doesn’t mean you actually aren’t disunited, you know. But moreover, I think the more accurate statement might be that you don’t feel alienated against your brothers.

We learn every day. Faith as life is a journey.

Agreed. And the more we learn, the more united in belief we will (hopefully) become.

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

And we shouldn’t strive for heavenly things?

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.”.

Perhaps I have a very horrid understanding of Protestantism myself, but as I recall, most (if not a very vast majority) of the Protestant denominations don’t claim to be “the true church”. What a great many do claim is that they (or more specifically, their individual members) are a part of the true church.

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

Better to be visibly divided, following the truth (each in our own fallible way), than to be visibly united, but following an earthly organization which doesn’t match up with the truth, I think.

Indeed! Well put, PCM! I’ve tried saying it, but you did it better than I!

Every so often I can speak clearly and express what I’m thinking. I’m glad it benefited you.

(Still, most of the time, I think when I try to say stuff, it just comes out wrong.)

Is there more than 1 truth then?

Nope – truth is absolute. We just often misunderstand (or aren’t willing to hear) that truth.

The question is again trustfulness being seemingly alien to your mindset.

Because I won’t trust an earthly body to interpret the will of God? That has nothing to do with me not being willing to trust – it has to do with me seeing evidence that the RCC isn’t trustworthy. Good thing that the holy spirit is trustworthy.

I am saying that protestantism is not only manifestly less united, but that this stems from its founding principle, which is source of disunity.

Since you seem to think you understand this principle, would you articulate it for us, please?

They say they cannot believe Christ when, as taught by the Church, He says so.

So, they (certain Roman Catholics) knowingly reject God’s will?

Protestants say they know Christ does not say so at all.

They follow what they see to be God’s will, to the best of their ability.

I won’t say now what sort of disbelief is graver, but it looks like a different matter, which needs being addressed differently.

I see no problem with the Protestant issue unless Christ did institute a single earthly voice to represent him – but I see no evidence that he did. With the Roman Catholic situation, however, it’s open rebellion against God.

The key word to get the difference , IMHO, is trustfullness (towards a living earthly informant). Whom do I trust more in matters of faith: my present self, or the Church ?
Your answer: “The Holy Spirit ( through communications which seem to be individually directed to you)”

Tell me, what can be more trustworthy than the holy spirit?

BTW have you ever experienced collective communications, shared by yourself with other believers, later commenting on that with you ?

In short, yes. I’ve had many things I believe also revealed independently to other believers. But that’s something for another thread.

So the problem is the interpretation of divine direct communications.

I’d say that’s what causes visible disunity in Protestantism, yes.

I am pretty sure you do not guess you respect the Fathers ( as long as you do) because the Church did.

Right – I respect (or disrespect) them because of what they taught. Unfortunately I haven’t read enough to have good opinions on all of them, or even most of them – much less the other authors that aren’t endorsed by the RCC. I intend to…some day.

Whose (statement of) faith is…

Open up your Bible and read the words of Christ. That’s pretty much it.

You can confidently state when a heresy you consider as such was born: Sola Scriptura was born with Martin Luther.

Sola Scriptura existed before Martin Luther – some of the ECFs effectively believed in the principle. “Let nothing be held as valid unless it is expressly contained in scripture,” was one quote I recall.

the issue is not what God is able to do eek: ). Or whether he has ( ) to do like this or like that…It is what He decided to do. …I’d guess we’re here in order to humbly look at that. Can we agree ?

Yup – that has always been my position (take a look at my previous posts). I’ve never held that God couldn’t establish an earthly organization like the RCC. I only hold that he didn’t. I hold that he is capable of revealing himself to each individual through the holy spirit, and has chosen to do so.

Hmm, that’s a curious question – can you find anything in scripture which says that the holy spirit doesn’t reveal things to each believer? I realize that there are no “private interpretations”…but that’s simply a warning against relativism (in other words, the truth is the truth and is the same for all – it’s public and absolute).

 

[utunumsint]

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 have a four year degree in Classica History. I do not believe that I am mistaken but it is possible. I had a wonderful Anglican professor, who at the time did not believe in the Catholic faith. He taught some great church history classes that were instrumental in my reversion. Doctrinally we were on the same page on everything except the papacy.

I can respect you for the position you take, but do not insult my education, or my inteligence.

God bless,
Ut

God bless,
Ut

 

[bookgirl32]

Nope – truth is absolute. We just often misunderstand (or aren’t willing to hear) that truth.

But God did leave us with a revealed absolute truth?

 

[utunumsint]

I have a four year degree in Classica History. I do not believe that I am mistaken but it is possible. I had a wonderful Anglican professor, who at the time did not believe in the Catholic faith. He taught some great church history classes that were instrumental in my reversion. Doctrinally we were on the same page on everything except the papacy.

I can respect you for the position you take, but do not insult my education, or my inteligence.

God bless,
Ut

God bless,
Ut

Its hard to type with a cranky two month old in one hand.

 

[utunumsint]

You’re right, the RCC does claim that, but it doesn’t possess that.

The model of protestant doctrines is rupture, split, and futher divisions. The model in the catholic faith is council, debate, then resolution. After the resolution is passed, if further councils are needed because further clarification is necessary, then another council is called. The catholic church remains united through it all.

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”.

Sure, and we can find ample evidence to support each and every doctrinal claim based on historical sources. It is based on the fully Biblical principle that the Lord guides a definite people of God, who grow and develope in their relationship and understanding of God through the ages. Jesus said the Samaritans who were decendents from the deported Isrealites, did not know God, but the Jews did. God especially chose the Jews to carry forward his true doctrines. They could trace their decent back to the Babylonian exile, and had remain true to the faith, purified by God himself (see Ezekiel 36). God forms a definite church, not an invisible church. It is this distinction that makes me reject your brand of Protestantism. Your invisible church means you can never have any assurance that you are correctly guided by God, and that you are not deceived. You say so yourself again and again. You have no assurance that you are not in error. I do, because I have one church that I believe is the true and visible church founded by Christ that provides me with the fullness of the truth. You only have yourself.

I pity your position, because you can never stop questioning. You can never stop doubting. In short, you can never trust anyone but yourself. The debate will never end.

God appointed Peter the cheif shepherd of his church, which implies that there are sheep to be cared for. In your church, the sheep are lost and alone. They can trust no one but themselves, or if they do trust someone else, they are at the mercy of every presuasive Tom, **** and Harry preacher to come along with their warped doctrines, from OSAS to crazy health and wealth preachers.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Genesis315]

This article shows how it is the Orthodox argument that is circular while the Catholic is not.

rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html#Harrison

 

[PC_Master]

I have a four year degree in Classica History.

And because you have a degree, you know you’re right? I’m taking college classes in technology right now, and I can say with a high degree of certainty that some of the stuff being taught is incorrect. Just because you have some other earthly authority which validates your education or beliefs doesn’t mean that those things actually are valid. There are Baptist seminaries (fully accredited ones), after all, and I’m sure you wouldn’t agree with the way they teach church history and theology.

I do not believe that I am mistaken but it is possible.

Well, I don’t expect that anyone believes their current beliefs to be in error – once you recognize error in what you believe, you change your beliefs…usually.

I can respect you for the position you take, but do not insult my education, or my inteligence.

I’m not insulting those things – I’m merely saying that you, your education, and your intelligence, just like my own, are the product of men, and men are fallible, just as you and I are. That means our educations could be wrong.

Don’t jump to a defensive position just because someone says you’re subject to human fallibility.

But God did leave us with a revealed absolute truth?

God didn’t leave us, so no. Additionally, God actively reveals the truth (via the holy spirit) – it’s just a matter of whether we can, or choose to, see it, and then what we do about it.

The model of protestant doctrines is rupture, split, and futher divisions.

No, it isn’t. Such nonsense shows ignorance of Protestant beliefs. (Actually, even calling us Protestant does that, but that’s another topic for another day.)

The model in the catholic faith is council, debate, then resolution. After the resolution is passed, if further councils are needed because further clarification is necessary, then another council is called. The catholic church remains united through it all.

But since that doesn’t result in unity of belief, what good is it? Secondly, since that unity, if it were had, isn’t in line with the truth, what does it matter whether there’s unity about it or not?

Sure, and we can find ample evidence to support each and every doctrinal claim based on historical sources.

No, you can read the present into history to see what you wish to see, selectively omitting the parts that don’t jive with your notions. It’s revisionist history.

Also, and this is quite important – you need to do more than support a doctrinal claim from history/scripture. You need to find it there, without needing to have the doctrine elsewhere defined and labeled for you to look at. You shouldn’t have to tell people about the Roman Catholic interpretation of X or Y.

It is based on the fully Biblical principle that the Lord guides a definite people of God, who grow and develope in their relationship and understanding of God through the ages.

And such are all true believers. We just don’t all fit into a nice earthly organization. But on the same note as what I asked before – where does Christ say that he was referring to an organization when he said “church”?

Jesus said the Samaritans who were decendents from the deported Isrealites, did not know God, but the Jews did. God especially chose the Jews to carry forward his true doctrines.

And we see they failed miserably in many regards. Just read your New Testament. Had they succeeded (at least a majority of them anyway), they’d have accepted Christ.

Your invisible church means you can never have any assurance that you are correctly guided by God, and that you are not deceived.

Absolute certainty…no. But then again, you can’t have absolute certainty that your interpretations of RCC teachings aren’t in error, so it’s pretty level, I think.

You have no assurance that you are not in error.

That’s right, I’m a human being that can make mistakes (including placing my faith in the wrong teachings and holding improper beliefs). How about you?

I do, because I have one church that I believe is the true and visible church founded by Christ that provides me with the fullness of the truth.

The key words here – “I believe”. You believe that the RCC is the one true church, and thus you accept its teachings, including the teachings that say “the RCC is right”.

But that’s really not so different from me…I have assurance that I’m not in error to the same extent you do, because I believe that the holy spirit guides me to the fullness of truth as I am willing to hear that truth.

You only have yourself.

No more than you have only yourself. You determined by some means involving self-reasoning that the RCC is the interpreter of God’s will. I determined by a similar means that the holy spirit reveals the truth to individual believers, and not just a church hierarchy.

I also determined, by self-reasoning that it doesn’t make sense for us to think that the apostles and the earliest Christians in general lacked anything in their faith. Thus, if they didn’t teach or do something, it must not have been vital to the faith, lest their faith be insufficient, and their teaching be in error. Therefore, since I don’t see things from the modern RCC in the historical church until centuries after Christ, I choose to believe they are not integral to the faith. That makes any church which says they are, a liar, and thus not infallible.

What faith the apostles had was sufficient for them, and must have been sufficient in God’s eyes. Can I dare say I’m in need of more than they had? They didn’t have a pope living in a palace, acting as a king. They didn’t have priests absolving sins (or rather, claiming to). They didn’t have rosaries or Marian devotion. (The list can go on.)

I pity your position, because you can never stop questioning. You can never stop doubting. In short, you can never trust anyone but yourself. The debate will never end.

Don’t worry about me – I’m gaining more certainty in my beliefs every day. Remember – lack of doubt only provides comfort – it doesn’t necessarily provide truth. As I recall, it’s reasonable to question teachings to see if they are of God. I have no problem with doing this.

God appointed Peter the cheif shepherd of his church,

Christ told Peter to be a shepherd. To “feed my sheep” is the act of a shepherd, not necessarily the only shepherd, nor a chief shepherd.

which implies that there are sheep to be cared for. In your church, the sheep are lost and alone. They can trust no one but themselves, or if they do trust someone else, they are at the mercy of every presuasive Tom, **** and Harry preacher to come along with their warped doctrines, from OSAS to crazy health and wealth preachers.

Which is why you shouldn’t trust the wisdom of man, but instead rely on God’s grace, wisdom, and power. God is all-sufficient.

 

[bookgirl32]

God didn’t leave us, so no. Additionally, God actively reveals the truth (via the holy spirit) – it’s just a matter of whether we can, or choose to, see it, and then what we do about it.

By your logic we wouldn’t even need the Bible, God could just send the Holy Spirit to give us all our own revelations.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Dear Joy and PCM,

the issue is not what God is able to do eek: ). Or whether he has ( ) to do like this or like that.

It is what He decided to do.
I’d guess we’re here in order to humbly look at that. Can we agree ?

Humility = agreement?

The reason many reject such an idea - even in light of some very early historical (possible) evidence of Catholic thought amongst at least some of the men of the church (and even that is up for interpretation) - there appear to be *blatant *contradictions between church teachings and Bible teachings. So it seems logical to conclude that the preservation of God’s word could have been done by God in some other way than that which the CC claims - or at least, if it was done as the CC claims, that God did not necessarily continue to infallibly guide those same men in all other things. Just like the Pope is not infallible at all times. Just like men like David did not remain faithful…

The only way to know is to test it - against the most original source…

Surely, there is some way to determine just how God decided to preserve Scripture? Otherwise God left us with His revelation; not written for common man - but rather, a specially chosen group of people who would be ordained in the church. The message contained in God’s revelation would forever be hidden from the world unless man would trust the religious leaders of the largest religious institution of the world who claim inspiration. But there is no sure way to test their claim b/c of human weakness. Common man is prone to be led by the blind by such claims, b/c absolutely ANY religious institution can make such a claim. (gnosticism?)

I believe God’s revelation is hidden (in a sense), but not in this way…

Scripture gives MANY examples of just who it is that will understand and embrace God’s Word and who will not:

Parable of the sower (Mark 4:1-20, Matthew 13:1-23, and Luke 8:1-15)

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Luke 18:17
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Romans 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

1 Corinthians 1:19
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty

Proverbs 18:2
A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.

Proverbs 12:11
He that tilleth his land shall be satisfied with bread: but he that followeth vain persons is void of understanding.

Ephesians 1:17That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may **give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: **
18The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

Ephesians 4:17…henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk**, in the vanity of their mind, **

18Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, **because of the blindness of their heart: **19Who being past feeling have **given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. **

Colossians 1:9
For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

Colossians 2: 1For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; 2That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; 3In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4And this I say,lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.

… 8**Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. **

2Tim 2:7Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

cont…

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

So…
For Understanding:

Babes
Little child
What the world considers foolish
What the world considers weak
Discovering one’s heart
The spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of God is given by the Father to those that believe.
Can be prayed for
Is hidden in Christ
The Lord gives understanding

For Misunderstanding/not embracing:

Considered “wise and prudent”
Professing wisdom
He that follows vain people
Vanity of mind
Blindness of heart causes darkened understanding
Given to uncleanness
Beguiled by men’s enticing words
Spoiled through philosophy, vain conceit, traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

It is clear to me that for understanding, one must have the proper disposition. It isn’t about turning to this or that organization. Not about trying to interpret history 2000 years after the fact. It’s about knowing oneself, his heart, his sinfulness, his littleness/weakness, trusting God, praying for His guidance and being humble, receptive and obedient - like a child.

On the contrary, those who seek out those considered by the world to be “wise and prudent” to gain understanding will likely not find it.
The proud and vain who profess to have the answers, likely do not have them.
Those who deceive themselves b/c they do not know their own hearts (the opposite of one with a humble and contrite heart) will remain in darkness about the things of God.
One who clings to sin will not understand or embrace truth.
Who trust men’s words b/c they are “enticing”/“tickle the ears”.
Who instead of looking to God, look at man’s/the fallen world’s philosophy and traditions.

I’m going to give this a rest now, partly b/c it is REALLY time consuming, and b/c I feel like I’m repeating myself a lot. And, contrary to what many people here think, I am not here to preach, so I will just back off. I am just showing you WHY I am where I am presently in thought. You can believe that I am being “popish” in interpreting these cited Scriptures this way, but I see them as recorded for the benefit of common man; to teach us how to understand God.

One needs to empty self and let God transform him. IMO, anything else is turning to self or turning to the world for salvation.

God Bless~

 

[utunumsint]

Which is why you shouldn’t trust the wisdom of man, but instead rely on God’s grace, wisdom, and power. God is all-sufficient.

I agree that God is sufficient, however God did not act in such a way that he directly imparts his wisdom to people. It is taught. As the Etheopian says, how can I know what this scripture means without someone to teach me? He needs a teacher. Now in the time of the Apostles, everyone knew who the teachers/shepherds were. They were the Apostles. Did Jesus give them everything they needed to know before he departed in the ascencion? No. He did not tell them how to deal with the Jew/Gentile issue and concerning circumcision. The apostles had to have a council to figure this out.

But acording to you, this would be the only council ever to be called and the only issue that would require concensus because after that (or at least four hundred years later) we would have the Bible, which should solve all issues for us…but it didn’t. We have council after council, after council, where issues are brought up in their historical context, according to the needs of the time. Each side appeals to scripture and tradition. The side that is not in accord with both loses. But who choses the loser? The Bible? No. It cannot speak. The Tradition? No, that cannot speak either. It is an authoritative body in line of succession with the apostles.

In the four hundred year span between the formation of the cannon and the teachings of the apostles, who was in charge? According to our historical accounts, everyone knows that it was the bishops, and in a particular way, the bishop of Rome held great authority. For Irenaeus, one of the key apologetical support for his attacks again Gnosticism was his appeal to apostolic succession and the teachings and traditions they provided. They did not consider these teachings as “wisdom of men”. They were set alongside the word of God. There was only one church. Each city had only one bishop. And there was only one bishop of Rome. Thus unity was maintained in the early church.

The protestant model is nowhere close to this. There is no line of succession, there is no communion in common sacraments. There is no Tradition or sense of historical continuity going back to the Apostles.

Now, I can accept you don’t believe in Tradition, or that the evidence provided by the early church fathers is normative for you. I can even respect that.** You do not claim to be inline with historical Christianity.** When your particular brand of Christianity began is identical to when you first started to believe in your Bible. You follow no authority but your own. You do not trust any tradition. It is just you and the Holy Spirit.

Well all I have to say to you is good luck! Welcome to the Protestant church, home of over 33 0000 denomincations. You are in my prayers. As for me, I will rest in the historical Christianity, and not your fabrications. I will rest in the unity of the Catholic church.

I do not question your right to believe what you want. But I feel I must point out to you that it will not lead you to peace, but only further and further conflict and division.

Cheers, and God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Bottom line is this: the only real kind of unity possible is doctrinal unity. The Catholic church is the only one that can provide this with any degree of historical coherence over the ages. What the protestant church offers is fragmented doctrine, that are mutually contradictory. Often, what passes for unity, boils down to sentimentality (e.g. just believe in Christ and try your best). As far as I’m concerned, this is not unity.

God bless,
Ut

 

[PC_Master]

By your logic we wouldn’t even need the Bible, God could just send the Holy Spirit to give us all our own revelations.

God certainly could do that. I just don’t believe he did.

Also, the holy spirit doesn’t give “us all our own revelations”. The holy spirit reveals the same truth, in parts, to different individuals. It is only our understandings of that same truth that differ (because we’re human, and thus imperfect).

Joy> Thanks for posting those references about revelation – they’re quite clear that revelation to individual believers does happen.

I also understand you backing off from this – I’ve thought about doing the same thing, since we’re essentially getting into a back-and-forth repeating circle.

All that said, I would like pneuma, or ut, or someone else to answer the following – do you believe that the faith and practice of the apostolic church (not to be confused with any current denomination – I’m talking about the era of the church which the apostles themselves lived in, and perhaps the time directly after) was sufficient for salvation and closeness to God?

In other words, on what grounds is anything that’s not found wholly and completely in the apostolic church necessary for salvation?

To further clarify, I’m also addressing teachings that have been “expanded or elaborated upon” over the centuries – the apostolic church’s “version” of these teachings must have been sufficient, right? If so, why is any expansion or explanation necessary or vital?

How is it that you can say following the teachings of the apostles isn’t enough, especially when you claim to get everything you have from the apostles?

 

[PC_Master]

Bottom line is this: the only real kind of unity possible is doctrinal unity. The Catholic church is the only one that can provide this with any degree of historical coherence over the ages. What the protestant church offers is fragmented doctrine, that are mutually contradictory. Often, what passes for unity, boils down to sentimentality (e.g. just believe in Christ and try your best). As far as I’m concerned, this is not unity.

God bless,
Ut

Okay – now show us that doctrinal unity (as opposed to spiritual unity) is important, and was taught as such by the apostles and those who learned from them, especially when it does not include unity of spirit and/or belief.

 

[utunumsint]

Okay – now show us that doctrinal unity (as opposed to spiritual unity) is important, and was taught as such by the apostles and those who learned from them, especially when it does not include unity of spirit and/or belief.

Who said it does not include spirit or belief?

God bless,
Ut

 

[PC_Master]

Who said it does not include spirit or belief?

God bless,
Ut

I’ve already explained that most Roman Catholics are in disunity of belief on at least some area of RCC teaching. Consult any two Roman Catholics, and I guarantee that you’ll find something they disagree on. Common topics which would result in this:

Is Jesus actually present (really and wholly) in the Eucharist?
Is the pope actually infallible?
Can anyone outside of the RCC’s membership be saved?
Does purgatory exist?
Was Mary sinless throughout her whole life?

I guarantee most Roman Catholics will answer at least one of these questions with a no.

But even that aside, let’s make it simpler (so that I hopefully get a response from you), where is it that scripture or other similarly antique writing teaches that doctrinal unity is important (we’ll treat spiritual unity as another matter)?