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

[utunumsint]

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.

These people are not united to the Catholic Church. It is that simple. They have partial unity as members, but they are not truly one with the teachings. That is why doctrinal unity is so important. You cannot have a common belief, or a spiritual union (whatever that means to you) without a common set of doctrines.

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)?

Let me ask you this. Why was it important for Paul to get consensus from the disciples on his doctrine concerning Jewish laws?

God bless,
Ut

 

[PC_Master]

These people are not united to the Catholic Church. It is that simple. They have partial unity as members, but they are not truly one with the teachings. That is why doctrinal unity is so important. You cannot have a common belief, or a spiritual union (whatever that means to you) without a common set of doctrines.

Apparently you can’t even have it with such a thing.

Let me ask you this. Why was it important for Paul to get consensus from the disciples on his doctrine concerning Jewish laws?

First – very clever, answering a question with a question, rather than providing a real answer. I’d still like an answer, by the way.

Second – it wasn’t important enough for Paul to go there until three years after he started. Second, I don’t recall that he went to get consensus from the disciples. Going to meet with those of spiritual maturity and learn from them doesn’t mean you’re going to them to act as an authorizing body for your teachings. If that were the case, Paul surely would have gone directly to Jerusalem after his conversion – yet he didn’t. He believed God sent him directly into the field.

So, again – where does scripture (or other very early church teaching) say that unity of doctrine is important, in and of itself?

 

[bookgirl32]

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).

How is one to know, then, which individuals hold the actual truth?

 

[utunumsint]

Apparently you can’t even have it with such a thing.

First – very clever, answering a question with a question, rather than providing a real answer. I’d still like an answer, by the way.

Oh, I’ve learned that from the Master… The question was my answer. I’m trying to lead you into the truth.

Second – it wasn’t important enough for Paul to go there until three years after he started.

He waited three years because he failed to reach a doctrinal consensus among the Galatians. He needed a higher authority.

Second, I don’t recall that he went to get consensus from the disciples. Going to meet with those of spiritual maturity and learn from them doesn’t mean you’re going to them to act as an authorizing body for your teachings.

Sorry. That is not how I read the events. Paul went to them, presented his case, there was a ruling, then a council called. After Peter and James spoke, the matter was settled. Paul had nothing to do with the decision making processess. He only represented one side. Peter, James, and the rest of the apostles were the judges.

If that were the case, Paul surely would have gone directly to Jerusalem after his conversion – yet he didn’t. He believed God sent him directly into the field.

No. Paul was sent out by the elders in Antioch. One does not need to consult with every cardinal and pope in the Catholic church when one converts. Or am I understanding your meaning wrong?

So, again – where does scripture (or other very early church teaching) say that unity of doctrine is important, in and of itself?

Answers, abundantly.

God bless,
Ut

 

[maryj]

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.

quote]

Yes,truly present body, soul, and divinity
yes, in matters of faith and morals
Yes
yes
yes

Your argument, or point PC, is not valid. As catholics we believe we are learning/growing in our faith until the day we die. Have I always believed yes to the questions you pose, I suppose not at one time in my life. I was blind, but now I see. Whoever has left the darkness of sin, yearns for God. But I have learned and grown stronger in my faith, lead by the Holy Spirit through His church.Because I was wrong does not make His church wrong. We live and learn, that does not make disunity of belief, that just means we are still growing in our faith. It is only when we refuse to see that there is disunity between peoples, and the blind can not see. Ah but praise be to the Lord, for He can heal the blind. I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, and just because someone does not see, does not make His church out of union.

For the Lord takes delight in His people,
He crowns the poor with salvation. Psalm 149

 

[pneuma07]

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).

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?

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).

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?

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.

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

And we shouldn’t strive for heavenly things?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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).

Dear PCM,

            on the long excursus about unity:

I’m far from being an expert of protestantism,( of which I have no experience from within. ). I am humbly of the opinion that John Henry Newman described superbly the mindset producing it and produced by it. I’d say you did summarize the situation fairly well yourself: “trust no man”. Which leads to being a de facto master of Divine Revelation, be it as solascripturaist or listener to the Holy Spirit. That is essentially disunity-making, so as acknowledging the presence of a superior informant given us to serve and preserve the word of God, is a unity-making principle.

The catholic principle does not work always, hence the unsatisfying degree of consensus in the catholics. So does the protestant principle: hence you still have denominations, sermons, reverends and so on, and not only churchless christians there.

.
To come back to the main issue I’d like to show what I am understanding so far. If and where I should build any strawman, or look in any way disrespecteful, I’ll stand corrected.

We got the NT through a (body of) men who would not understand it. Those guys, who were collecting, approving the books we would know as NT, were (eg) preaching and practiging episcopacy. And, we’re told today, episcopacy is unbiblical.
So they got it perfectly right with the Bible ( we know by ourselves the 27 books are the right ones), but we also know their doctrines and practices were unbiblical, because the Bible we got through them clearly shows that. Such was the choice of the Holy Spirit.

But why did they not understand correctly what through them was to become the NT, if Scripture is perspicuous ? Well, it is perspicuous, it is formally sufficient, but you need the right disposition to interpret it correctly.
Those early bishops and martyrs of the faith, those spiritual selected grandchildren of the Apostles had not enough of the proper disposition. Differently from anyone proposing today this vision.
TBC

 

[PC_Master]

How is one to know, then, which individuals hold the actual truth?

Ultimately, you can’t. You’re human, and thus fallible in your interpretations. But the Roman Catholic situation is no better, for in the end it comes down to you interpreting scripture, the ECFs, and so on to believe the RCC has the actual truth.

In short, among the group of believers who claim to have the truth, treat the RCC as one more individual in that group. It too claims to have the truth, revealed by the holy spirit…but how can you know it’s correct in its assertion? You have to decide for yourself, which means that you’re interpreting the evidence to come to whatever conclusion you come to – thus, since you’re human, you could be wrong.

It’s unsettling, yes, but it’s really not much different. The only difference I could really bring up is that I’ve got personal experience of revelation from the holy spirit, and I’ve seen (minor) miracles. I also have personal experience of me rejecting the teaching of the holy spirit, because I was too prideful. I’m sure I still reject it to some degree, though I hope it’s to a much lesser extent than before, because I believe myself to be more open to it.

Oh, I’ve learned that from the Master… The question was my answer. I’m trying to lead you into the truth.

Your question wasn’t an answer. You presupposed that Paul going to Jerusalem was the same as a teaching that “doctrinal unity is important”. But that’s not what the Council of Jerusalem was about – it was about unity of belief…where individuals were in disagreement with one another, not over doctrine or practice, but over the belief itself. That doctrine and practice were involved was of minor concern. The main contention was the belief that extra things were required for salvation, a point which Paul was clearly not happy with. It’s about the belief and the disunity of belief, not about the doctrines that could be said to have been established because of it.

In any case, as the instance you provided was not applicable, I’ll ask again – where does scripture (or a similarly antique writing) say that doctrinal unity is, in and of itself, important? Where does it say “hold fast to the traditions I’ve taught and make sure you have an established doctrine, even if your beliefs aren’t the same”? As I recall, the entire focus of the NT is on belief, not doctrine.

Was Jesus intending that we should let people hit us twice in a row? That we should give up possessions above and beyond what is asked of us? Are these specific rules he was trying to institute for us? Not at all – instead, he was giving examples of the underlying principle of belief/morality – showing compassion to one another. This was the importance, not the actions themselves.

He waited three years because he failed to reach a doctrinal consensus among the Galatians. He needed a higher authority.

Honestly, I’d have to study this a bit more intensely to be certain, but I’m reasonably sure this is incorrect.

Sorry. That is not how I read the events. Paul went to them, presented his case, there was a ruling, then a council called. After Peter and James spoke, the matter was settled. Paul had nothing to do with the decision making processess. He only represented one side. Peter, James, and the rest of the apostles were the judges.

Representing one side makes you part of the decision making process. A collective of apostles and other leaders gathered together, and spoke as they believed was in-line with the will of God. Luke recorded that many had spoken before Peter did. I find it very unreasonable to assume that Paul had no say in what was going on.

No. Paul was sent out by the elders in Antioch.

You’re speaking of the issue that led to the “Council of Jerusalem”. I was speaking of his initial 3 year tour of ministry, immediately following his conversion – he went out for 3 years, without going to Jerusalem, even though he would have well known of any position of authority they held. If he later went to Jerusalem for authorization of his teaching, he was a fool to not have gone when he first converted.

Answers, abundantly.

That was a stirring reply. Unfortunately, while all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. You did not answer the question that I asked.

I’d say you did summarize the situation fairly well yourself: “trust no man”. Which leads to being a de facto master of Divine Revelation, be it as solascripturaist or listener to the Holy Spirit.

Actually, I think it would be more accurate to phrase it as “trust only God, and be willing and open to hear what he has to say”.

You’re right – it does make me the one who ultimately decides what God has said to me (at least, as far as I am personally concerned). This can, and sometimes does, lead to self-deception. However, as I’ve said, this is no different than the Roman Catholic principle – in the end, you ultimately decide what the RCC means when it speaks of invincible ignorance, for example. You choose how to interpret the words and teachings given, and thus you are capable of the same self-deception as I am. Where’s the difference?

The only way the Roman Catholic model has a benefit over the Protestant one is if Christ actually did institute the RCC.

But if he did, that leads me back to the question of sufficiency – was the faith and practice of the apostles sufficient? And if so, why should it not be the same for me?

That is essentially disunity-making, so as acknowledging the presence of a superior informant given us to serve and preserve the word of God, is a unity-making principle.

Actually, you’re doing as much self-interpretation as I am – you interpret the words of the RCC to mean something which disagrees with other interpretations I’ve heard. Now – how do I know which of you is right on a given issue? If I write a letter to the pope, I likely won’t receive a response from him. If I write a letter to 5 different bishops or priests, I’ll bet I’ll get at least 2 different responses.

In terms of practice and visible earthly things, you’re right, the RCC is a unifying principle. But in terms of belief and faith, the RCC is no more united than Protestantism as a whole is, and possibly less united than individual Protestant denominations are. So, we’re back to the question of why doctrinal unity is important if it doesn’t include with it a spiritual unity.

We got the NT through a (body of) men who would not understand it.

What makes you say this? Part of the NT was written by some of the closest followers of Christ. The rest was written within a couple of generations. As for canonization – are you saying that they had to understand perfectly the scriptures in order to canonize them?

Those guys, who were collecting, approving the books we would know as NT, were (eg) preaching and practiging episcopacy.

As stated – the NT canon was in existence (mostly) by the mid second century. This assemblage was not the responsibility of a council of men, but of the church at large, with a good deal of help from the holy spirit, I believe.

So they got it perfectly right with the Bible ( we know by ourselves the 27 books are the right ones)…

When have I said anything of the kind? I said I believe the 27 books of the NT are indeed divinely inspired (though I have personal reservations about II Peter, James and one or two others which I have yet to fully study). I never said I believe that they are the only works of divine inspiration.

…but we also know their doctrines and practices were unbiblical, because the Bible we got through them clearly shows that.

I assume you’re speaking of the supposedly Roman Catholic council who canonized the NT. No doubt these men were imperfect, and thus not in line with the teachings of scripture on a few issues. However, I think what you’re trying to get at is the false claim that the RCC was fully existent back then, teaching all the same things it does now. But, if you’d like to clarify what practices you’re talking about that I supposedly think are unbiblical, along with proof that these men followed such teachings, feel free.

Such was the choice of the Holy Spirit.

You accept, without question, that for over two centuries all of Christianity was persecuted, with a great many men being martyred. You also accept, without question, that Noah was a righteous man, and yet we see he wasn’t perfect in scripture. You accept that the twelve were Christ’s closest followers, and yet they were all human, and all made mistakes.

What’s so hard to believe about God using imperfect people, with imperfect faiths and imperfect practices to do something amazing? You claim, today, that God uses imperfect people to purvey perfect truth on a regular basis. It seems that the canonization of scripture would be a far easier thing to accomplish for the holy spirit.

But why did they not understand correctly what through them was to become the NT, if Scripture is perspicuous ?

What is it that you’re saying I’m saying they didn’t understand? Also, why is it you expect that men who do works of God should be infallible and perfect in understanding?

Well, it is perspicuous, it is formally sufficient, but you need the right disposition to interpret it correctly.

Right.

Those early bishops and martyrs of the faith, those spiritual selected grandchildren of the Apostles had not enough of the proper disposition. Differently from anyone proposing today this vision.

Uh – you’ve lost me. My premise is that we should follow the faith of the apostles, and now you’re saying I think they didn’t have proper understanding of scripture?

I think you’re still too closely associating the apostles with the modern practices of the RCC, and thus assuming that when I discredit the one, I also do the same to the other.

 

[pneuma07]

Then the Holy Spirit chose to let the whole ( or almost ?) visible Church go astray, and astray. The true message was only conserved by: version a) the “invisible church” b) a few visible congregations, always surviving through the centuries, but persecuted by the dominating “christianity”.
It would be of paramount interest to examine the historical documentation about this continuity of faithful visible congregations.

In any case the Holy Spirit decides not to leave any earthly permanent informant on revelation, because he chooses to communicate Himself, directly all what is necessary to …( to whom exactly I did not get).
Therefore, obviously no need of earthly informant. Fine.
Only, the Holy Spirit decides to be understood very differently by the recipients of His communications . Who, getting info directly from above, cannot this way agree even on how to agree.

The invisible church has its own statment of faith: precisely that Bible received thorugh those poor ancient non bible believing guys of the visible Church. Catechisms are useless ( as well as impossible to write without visible hands) since everything is just plainly there.

(about the action of the Holy Spirit I had begun to propose a catholic point of view…).

We agree on the concept of journey. Why not a journey within the Church ? You appear to conceive being catholic as essentially and necessarily static, and seriously accept as evidence of disunity th very fact I am learning. ( at what age, BTW, should catholics stop learning ? ). The Church can bestow such wonderful intellectual and spiritual treasures, certainly enough for several human lives.

I really appreciate Joy’s invitations to simplicity. And the Church can express the wonderful simplicity of St. Francis.
But then it comes to the catholic positions on bioethics, or on usury, or on whatever. PCM seems to tell I should know more than a living Catholic Encyclopedia , or I can become evidence
of disunity.
You’re both right, my brothers, in some way, and I am open to advice.
But I hope the very same poor guy won’t be charged with being too AND too poorly articulated on matters of faith and moral.

About trustworthiness and Holy Spirit, what we have to debate is about the claims of receiving direct divine comunications.

Blessings.

 

[bookgirl32]

Ultimately, you can’t. You’re human, and thus fallible in your interpretations. But the Roman Catholic situation is no better, for in the end it comes down to you interpreting scripture, the ECFs, and so on to believe the RCC has the actual truth.

In short, among the group of believers who claim to have the truth, treat the RCC as one more individual in that group. It too claims to have the truth, revealed by the holy spirit…but how can you know it’s correct in its assertion? You have to decide for yourself, which means that you’re interpreting the evidence to come to whatever conclusion you come to – thus, since you’re human, you could be wrong.

It’s unsettling, yes, but it’s really not much different. The only difference I could really bring up is that I’ve got personal experience of revelation from the holy spirit, and I’ve seen (minor) miracles. I also have personal experience of me rejecting the teaching of the holy spirit, because I was too prideful. I’m sure I still reject it to some degree, though I hope it’s to a much lesser extent than before, because I believe myself to be more open to it.

So you don’t believe that God makes absolutely sure that the truth is available . . . .

 

[utunumsint]

Your question wasn’t an answer. You presupposed that Paul going to Jerusalem was the same as a teaching that “doctrinal unity is important”. But that’s not what the Council of Jerusalem was about – it was about unity of belief…where individuals were in disagreement with one another, not over doctrine or practice, but over the belief itself.

OK. I bite. **What is the difference between belief and doctrine? **Oh, and by he way, you seem to be reading a great deal into the text here. Where, in the New Testament, is there a distinction made between doctrine and belief?

That doctrine and practice were involved was of minor concern. The main contention was the belief that extra things were required for salvation, a point which Paul was clearly not happy with. It’s about the belief and the disunity of belief, not about the doctrines that could be said to have been established because of it.

I am mistified by this answer. Please explain. Because it seems to me that Paul went to Jerusalem, lest he strive in vain. Meaning that the answers he was going to get in Jerusalem had great importance to him, especially in validating the work he was doing.

Hypothetically, had the apostles rejected his teachings, then what? Would Paul have gone one and established his own church like a good protestant would? Or…would Paul have submited to the authority or opinion of the apostles? In what way was this situation not applicable to doctrinal belief? Because I can’t see how you can separate the two concepts.

In any case, as the instance you provided was not applicable, I’ll ask again – where does scripture (or a similarly antique writing) say that doctrinal unity is, in and of itself, important? Where does it say “hold fast to the traditions I’ve taught and make sure you have an established doctrine, even if your beliefs aren’t the same”? As I recall, the entire focus of the NT is on belief, not doctrine.

How in the world can you have beliefs…without doctrines? When one says one believes that Christ is the son of God, one is making a doctrinal statement. There is a wealth of possible doctrinal meanings that could be implied in these words. Otherwise the statement is just words without meaning (doctrinal content). No?

God bless,
Ut

 

[pneuma07]

You’re right – it does make me the one who ultimately decides what God has said to me (at least, as far as I am personally concerned). This can, and sometimes does, lead to self-deception. However, as I’ve said, this is no different than the Roman Catholic principle – in the end, you ultimately decide what the RCC means when it speaks of invincible ignorance, for example. You choose how to interpret the words and teachings given, and thus you are capable of the same self-deception as I am. Where’s the difference?

 

[PC_Master]

Then the Holy Spirit chose to let the whole ( or almost ?) visible Church go astray, and astray. …The true message was only conserved by: version a) the “invisible church” b) a few visible congregations, always surviving through the centuries, but persecuted by the dominating “christianity”.

You accept that the whole of the Church was essentially underground for centuries, do you not? Roman paganism was dominant in those days. Surely you’re not arguing that something must be dominant or extremely visible to be the truth, are you? If so, the church as a whole fails the test right from the start.

In any case the Holy Spirit decides not to leave any earthly permanent informant on revelation, because he chooses to communicate Himself, directly all what is necessary to …( to whom exactly I did not get).

Scripture (and other writings) seem fairly permanent.

Therefore, obviously no need of earthly informant. Fine.

I’m glad we agree (finally), that an earthly informant is not necessary (even if you might argue that it is beneficial to have).

Only, the Holy Spirit decides to be understood very differently by the recipients of His communications .

Incorrect – that’s like saying God decided that he was going to make some people incapable of entering heaven. It’s not God’s choice for us to pervert and misunderstand the truth – it’s our own imperfect nature that causes it. More to the point – yes, I suppose the holy spirit could speak in an audible voice, or that God could have had the whole explanation of everything regarding faith written down and canonized as scripture in 50 years after Christ’s death.

But then, if it’s about what God could do – he could have stayed on earth after his resurrection, and served as a visible informant, always perfectly expounding on matters of faith. Surely that would have been a better way, in my thinking. It would provide absolute unity, because you either accept God or reject him directly – there’s no question of interpretation. He can work miracles, thus proving his claimed authority. His wisdom would be absolute, thus never requiring any development of doctrine – the question of limbo, or purgatory, for instance, would have been simply answered, and completely so.

But this isn’t about what God could do – it’s about what he did. For whatever reason, he chose to leave us with free will. He chose to leave us as imperfect people. This means that we can, for a multitude of reasons, misunderstand or intentionally misinterpret the will of God. This is true whether it’s the RCC putting it forth, or the holy spirit directly. In both cases, we have a single, absolute truth (in theory for the RCC – I don’t agree that it’s the practical reality, but for the sake of argument I’ll leave it), and in both cases we have constituents who disagree with one another.

Who, getting info directly from above, cannot this way agree even on how to agree.

What do you mean by that? Just rhetoric?

The invisible church has its own statment of faith: precisely that Bible received thorugh those poor ancient non bible believing guys of the visible Church.

Why do you keep acting as though the earliest members of the church, and even those who canonized scripture, were non-bible-believing? What practices are you insisting they held that are unbiblical (by your interpretation of my belief, of course)?

Catechisms are useless ( as well as impossible to write without visible hands) since everything is just plainly there.

Visible hands were used to write scripture. It’s also possible that God could use modern hands to write equally valid works. It’s just a question of whether he did or not. God could have ensured that the Bible was fifteen times as voluminous, explaining every possible question we might ever have…he just chose not to. And if he chose not to then, why should I believe that he would change his views centuries after the fact?

We agree on the concept of journey. Why not a journey within the Church ?

I have no problem with the RCC gradually learning more, and correcting its flaws. It’s what people should all do. The problem I have is insisting that it has no flaws, and that it never changes its teachings, and that it has complete unity…and yet, it still introduces changes to teachings, and writes new documents to “clarify” things. It’s simply unnecessary if the claims of the RCC were true.

Remember, I don’t hold that the one true church needs to be infallible. Thus, if the RCC didn’t have infallibility, that doesn’t necessarily (in and of itself) disqualify it from being the one true church.

PCM seems to tell I should know more than a living Catholic Encyclopedia , or I can become evidence
of disunity.

No – I’m not saying you should. I’m saying that it is necessary in order to keep with the claims of the RCC, which seems to be of value to you.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

You’re both right, my brothers, in some way, and I am open to advice.

My advice is this – take a few weeks. Try to drop any preconceptions you have…at least as much as possible. Read scripture (and other equally ancient works) in fullness (yes, that’s a lot of reading). Focus on the words of Christ, and see what picture he’s painting overall. Was he trying to institute a religion with strict dogmas and doctrines, or was he instituting a way of living, only providing tangible examples to support the underlying concepts of life? I think the latter is much more in agreement with scripture.

About trustworthiness and Holy Spirit, what we have to debate is about the claims of receiving direct divine comunications.

I’m open to it, as long as we’re willing to include the RCC, for it too is a claimant in that regard. Did you have a particular point you wished to address on this?

So you don’t believe that God makes absolutely sure that the truth is available . . . .

Uh, sure I do. The truth is absolutely available to me…if I’ll drop my preconceptions, and have an open mind. I’m the limiting factor, not God. You seem to be thinking that God’s incapable of revealing the truth to me. This is not so – it’s that I’m not always capable of receiving and understanding that truth in my current frame of mind.

OK. I bite. What is the difference between belief and doctrine?

A belief is something which is believed – an opinion; something you personally have trust in and hold to be true.
A doctrine is a teaching – taught by a church or other entity.

Generally, organizations have doctrines. Individuals have beliefs.

Oh, and by he way, you seem to be reading a great deal into the text here. Where, in the New Testament, is there a distinction made between doctrine and belief?

Actually, I would say that the apostles never considered doctrine when teaching others. They were wholly concerned with the belief of the individuals they were teaching, and not with the teaching itself. If the individuals they spoke to did not believe, they wrote to them, imploring them to hold proper beliefs. I suppose you could say they taught doctrines, in some regard – but that’s not what they stressed as important.

They were concerned with common belief, not with having a common teaching of doctrine.

I am mistified by this answer. Please explain. Because it seems to me that Paul went to Jerusalem, lest he strive in vain. Meaning that the answers he was going to get in Jerusalem had great importance to him, especially in validating the work he was doing.

If I were out evangelizing, I’d be a fool not to consult with those of great spiritual maturity, and this is precisely what Paul did. As an individual man he was fallible. But consulting with others who he believed to be guided by the holy spirit confirmed his teaching – not because those men were important…but because they listened to the holy spirit, and thus ensured that Paul wasn’t being self-deceptive.

Hypothetically, had the apostles rejected his teachings, then what? Would Paul have gone one and established his own church like a good protestant would?

If he maintained certainty that the teaching he held was of God’s will…I suppose. Though, it’s worth noting that a good portion of the major churches of the day were planted by Paul, so I wouldn’t exactly look at it that way.

Or…would Paul have submited to the authority or opinion of the apostles?

If Paul were convinced that the apostles and elders of Jerusalem were listening to the holy spirit (which is why he presumably went there in the first place), I would like to think he’d be willing to set aside his own beliefs. It’s all about God’s will, not our own, after all.

In what way was this situation not applicable to doctrinal belief?

Doctrinal belief…what is that…belief in doctrines? I don’t think Paul had any concern over whether they believed his “official” teachings. His concern was certainly whether they believed the truth of God or not. That this may or may not have established some form of doctrine in the process is of little consequence. He was focused on making sure the beliefs were the same, not on making sure that all the teachers taught the same things. No doubt, the latter would be a result of accomplishing the former, but it wasn’t the goal.

Because I can’t see how you can separate the two concepts.

They’re tied together, yes, but still distinct. Doctrine is about what is taught (by a hierarchy, generally). Belief is about what the individual holds true. The latter is clearly more important, especially when speaking of unity. But if you know of a passage of scripture (or other ancient text) that talks about making sure that you all teach the same things, and doesn’t make the emphasis of “because we want everyone to believe the same things”, let me know.

Unified doctrine should be a result of unified belief. It’s a by-product, not a goal.

When one says one believes that Christ is the son of God, one is making a doctrinal statement.

No – one is making a statement of belief. Doctrine is a matter of teaching, not of belief. It’s about the individual, not the organization.

in knowing whether the Church is really speaking, in the first place. How could I be sure a supposed communication is indeed from the Holy Spirit ?

You can’t, any more than you can be sure that the RCC isn’t being guided by Satan.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

In the second place I can measure my understanding with my fellow brothers, who have the same text I do.

As I’ve said, having the same text, in the RCC case is not enough. You obviously disagree with some of the Roman Catholics I know about some things. In some cases, you both believe your opinions are espoused by the RCC, and you support your views based on texts put out by the RCC.

How can you confidently share impressions/interpretations about your communications, if they are individual, and not received collectively in a shared way ?

As I said before, I have had truths revealed by the holy spirit to both myself and others at nearly the same time. I know people, even Roman Catholics, whom I agree with on a great many points of belief.

The thing about the holy spirit is that revelations therefrom are not “the same thing to every person at the same time” in their form. God is alive, leading us each to a full understanding of truth. The path each of us may take is different, because of our upbringing and cultural understandings (and other imperfections).

In the third place in being ready to a trustful submission, were my understanding clearly refuted by following statements/explanations.

So then, your ultimate faith is in the RCC’s accuracy, which you don’t test against another source. It becomes your ultimate authority, rather than God.

Being uncertain on what call is real, I could not accept so easily corrections. Personally, I guess that between the first supposed call, and the supposed correction, I’d personally acknowledge what I like better as the true voice of the Holy Spirit.

I take it you have very little experience with divine revelation? Corrections are not easy to accept (even from a source like the RCC). It means you’re wrong about something, and changing beliefs isn’t easy in many cases. God can nudge and push you in the right direction (sometimes through nearly-miraculous events too), but ultimately we’re free to believe as we will.

Interestingly, I think this comes back to an issue of trust. If you hold that the RCC teaches something, and then you hear a correction from them, you accept it because you trust the RCC. Likewise, if I hold that God has revealed something to me, and then I receive correction from him, I trust him, and thus accept the correction.

As for questioning whether revelation is of God or not – How do I know this correction isn’t an attempt by satan to lead me down the wrong path? – there’s a reason God gave us scripture. There’s a reason the words of Christ were written down. We are to test “the spirits”, to see that they are from God.

Agreed. We’re looking here for which one has more plausibility I suppose.

Which all hinges on whether or not God chose to institute an earthly organization. It’s not a matter of what’s more plausible if you or I were to “play God”. It’s a matter of whether what the RCC teaches is of God or not.

The formal sufficiency we were speaking about with Joy is about Scripture. Nothing to do with the faith of the Apostles.

Was it not the apostles and their closest disciples who wrote NT scripture (mostly)? I’d say the faith of the apostles is directly reflected in scripture and other very antique works.

It is not impossible that you get an answer from the Vatican.

But is it guaranteed that I will? It’s at least probable that I won’t, thus making this supposed source of unity unavailable to me in my time of need.

Wheter it is likely or not that you could get different responses from different bishops, it depends on the kind of question…On a more serious note, we can have situations in-between the two above, of course.

And this is the problem – if I get different answers from them, how do I know which to believe? The pope didn’t answer, and the bishops conflict…so in that case we don’t even have a unity of doctrine in direct response to the question I asked. Sure, there’s unity of doctrine in what’s written down, but how am I to interpret those words if they don’t directly answer my questions? In the end, the premise of having an earthly interpreter is to be sure that the will of God is explained in a way I can understand, without having to interpret things on my own (for if I had to do it on my own, self-deception would be possible, and thus I fall into error). If the interpreter is unavailable to interpret when I have questions not directly answered by previous interpretation, how am I to know my beliefs on those issues are accurate? I can’t. Which puts me in no better a situation than Protestants.

I was not thinking of the authors themselves. Rather of their disciples and successors, who started teaching theyr flocks that those texts were witnesses of the utmost faithfulness to Christ’s message.

What makes you think these guys didn’t understand the texts? And even if they didn’t fully understand them – so long as the holy spirit is available, what’s the problem?

I guess you could look at it this way – you believe the RCC (more specifically, the pope) interprets the will of God to the people. But he’s a limited being, and can’t possibly completely interpret everything necessary. On the other hand, I believe the holy spirit interprets the will of God to the people. Just as with the RCC, people can choose to reject, or can misunderstand, the interpretation. The difference is that if I am in search of an answer, the holy spirit can provide my answer (assuming I’m willing to accept it).

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

I suppose they had received from the authors something more than the text, living alongside them. Wiithin which a pretty good ability to understand them.

This isn’t unreasonable. However, if this was constituted in additional teachings, surely they’d have been written down, even if not directly. We should have had some record of these things if they weren’t already contained in writing.

I’d say primarily of the most respected leaders ( visible, acknowledgable) of the early Church ( helped by the Holy Spirit).

Perhaps – but we’re still dealing with fallible men being led by the holy spirit to do something important. That doesn’t make them infallible.

You are establishing your own Canon by yourself !

With the guidance of the holy spirit and a sense of logic provided to me by God…I suppose you could say I am in a sense. That doesn’t mean I reject God’s direction of men who lived before me.

You are forgetting I accept the concept of development.

No, I’m not forgetting that – but I don’t accept it. If it needs to be developed, then the original was insufficient, and the apostles’ faith was defunct.

if we want an example of how "unbiblical " those leaders were, even back in the II century, according to many Bible believers of the 21st century, just consider episcopacy.

Elaborate please.

My point is that the Church leadership was “unbiblical” even before having any well defined Bible, according to many Bible believers.

Howso? What evidence do you have of supposedly non-biblical practices and/or beliefs happening so early in church history? I have no doubt there were some, but you seem to be implying that the whole of the church leadership fits this bill.

it’s you who are jumping on the issue of infallibility. I just move from the bottom, and simply ask myself: is that more plausible that I get Christ’s message here and now, with my printed or electronic Bible, better, or the spiritual selected granchildren of the Apostles ?

Better question – is it more plausible that God, who created the heavens and the earth, chose to speak (via the holy spirit) to men individually, or that he chose to speak only to the leaders of the RCC?

Let’s get a practical example – the apostles are presumably trustworthy. They wrote scripture, making no mention of the papacy. They didn’t mention Peter being the head of the apostles (at least not directly). Now, is it more reasonable to assume they’d have neglected to mention this pivotal fact (after all, he was the channel by which God revealed himself to the people, right?), or that it simply wasn’t held as a belief?

Why should we trust the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-and_so_on-grandchildren of the apostles if we have the writings of the apostles themselves. People are fallible, and we know good and well what happens even to stories which are told generation after generation – they lose details and add new ones. The story changes with the telling. The only reason to believe that this didn’t happen with the RCC is to assume God prevented it – but I can’t find anywhere that Christ said it was going to be that way. He didn’t say “and the church shall never teach in error”, or anything of that kind, after all.

No. I was speaking about their children and grandchildren, and whether you state you know Christ’s message better than them. And on what ground.

Children and grandchildren, who heard about the works of Christ, and the events recorded in scripture directly from their parents and grandparents, many of whom saw the events? Perhaps I wouldn’t know better.

But I think when you introduce 10 generations of grandchildren into the equation, you can easily introduce error. Should I listen to the verbal story that’s been passed down for 50 generations from Old Grandpa Joe, or should I read the story that he wrote down himself? I think the written version is going to be more reliable.

 

[guanophore]

Please! then tell me your view of the Catholic Church you belong to. Some of the things I said does it not come from within the Bible?

Thank you God Bless

Thereforth Jesus gave that authority to his apostles yes and also the church leaders are also are called to be apostles and obey the command given to them to spread the gospels. We are all called to become disciples and spread the gospels.

Yes, we are all called to be disciples and evangelize. But no one meets the criteria to be an apostle anymore.

If the Church is not worried about its title ( Catholic) then why is the question asked what does it mean to be a Catholic? Should it not be ask what does it mean to become a child of God instead?

Because “catholic” is a word used to describe the faith we received from the Apostles. Many have departed from that faith since the Apostolic times.

Why do they looked down upon the Protestant who believe in God and Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church does not teach this. If there are Catholics who do this, they are disobedient to the Teachings of the Church.

Is it not because they the Catholic Church wants to be the only authority figure over all?

I can’t imagine anyone wanting such a responsibility. I know that many of the Cardinals pray fervently to God that they might be spared being elected Pope. However, Jesus gave the Apostles this authority, and they passed it on to their successors. I know that all of the Popes in my lifetime have borne this great burden with holiness and humility.

Play by my rules or your a heretic?

Jesus is the one who is the Head of the Church. He is the one who defines truth. What is Truth? He is Jesus. Everyone is free to reject Him, just as Pilate did. In order to become a heretic, one must have embraced the truth, then left. Most modern Protestants in America don’t qualify to be called heretics, because they havve received falsehoods from the beginning.

Or they question your faithfulness to God, they judge us? I am very confused over such things as theses?

Sounds like you need some new friends! God did not call us to judge one another, but to love one another.

I cannot help wondering and asking Jesus if he is pleased with this. God did not give anyone authority to change his commandments or laws not even Jesus did so. But taught us about God our Heavenly Father.

To some extent, yes. Jesus gave Peter the Keys, and told the Apostles “whatever you bind on earth…”

This is the authority to make rules. However, they cannot contradict commandments that have been given previously.

There is not two Bibles or books there is only ONE BOOK called the Bible.

The reformers took some of the books out of the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

And what is that end result? How can interpretations which include “absolutely no one that isn’t on the member rolls of the RCC will go to heaven” (which I’ve heard in person from a “devout” Roman Catholic) as well as other interpretations that indicate non-Roman-Catholic Christians can end up in heaven all have the same result?

An individuals misunderstanding of the Teaching does not make the Teaching wrong.

And what, besides the *claim* of unity is there actually to support this? And even if the whole of the RCC hierarchy were united, that still doesn't make the whole of the RCC united.

Unity is based on adherance to the Truth. All who adhere to the Truth are in unity. I agree with you that there are a great many “catholics” who do not embrace the Truth.

And what if they don’t knowingly disagree with the teachings of the RCC, and yet are in disagreement?

They are still lacking in unity, but they are not guilty of the greater sin.

For the gates of hell to not prevail against the church is for the gates of hell to not completely overwhelm and destroy the church. It doesn’t mean that absolutely no error or heresy will happen.

Gates don’t move. They are stationary. People pass through them. Error is the entrance through the Gates of Hell. Once a person starts down the path of error, one has already passed the gates, and is on the wide road to destruction.

Paul cited and corrected it independently in several cases, obviously. While we do see the collective of the apostles acting at the “Council of Jerusalem”, we don’t see this happening in most of the other cases regarding Paul’s (and other) writings.

Apostolic Teaching is authoritative. If you imagine that the Apostles were not in unity, then you are in error.

Really? Where’s the scripture to demonstrate that this happened?

here is an example of Apostolic Authority:

9 I have written something to the church; but Diot’rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority. 3 John 9-10

John exerted his authority, and was spurned by the rebellious.

Here is another example:

1 Cor 14:37-39

37 If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. 38 If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

Not sure what you are asking?

This is a nice pseudo-straw-man, but it just doesn’t work. The fact of the matter is that independent Baptist churches (for instance) are quite orderly, even without a centralized hierarchy. I see no chaos.

Well, I have seen plenty of chaos in independent baptist congregations. I am glad you have not been subjected to it. The bottom line on authority is that all authority is given by God. Jesus gave it to the Apostles, who passed it on to their successors. Those who abandon the authority appointed by Christ are out of order.

By the way, I still await a response from Teflon (or anyone else who holds all Roman Catholics to be in complete unity) regarding the definition of “unity”.

Unity is not defined by the individuals (especially those in rebellion). Unity is defined by those who cling to Christ and His Teachings. All who do so are in unity with the Head, and with one another. Pointing out that there are so called catholics living in sin does not make the unity of the faith null.

 

[pneuma07]

You accept that the whole of the Church was essentially underground for centuries, do you not? Roman paganism was dominant in those days.

 

[pneuma07]

My advice is this – take a few weeks. Try to drop any preconceptions you have…at least as much as possible. Read scripture (and other equally ancient works) in fullness (yes, that’s a lot of reading). Focus on the words of Christ, and see what picture he’s painting overall. Was he trying to institute a religion with strict dogmas and doctrines, or was he instituting a way of living, only providing tangible examples to support the underlying concepts of life? I think the latter is much more in agreement with scripture.

 

[PC_Master]

An individuals misunderstanding of the Teaching does not make the Teaching wrong.

This is true – many misunderstood, and still do misunderstand, the teachings of Christ. That doesn’t make them wrong. As for other church teachings however, their rightness must be determined by how in line they are with the earliest witness we have to the faith (that being scripture and other very antique writings). This is what makes some of the teachings of the RCC wrong, not the fact that some people disagree with them.

Unity is based on adherance to the Truth. All who adhere to the Truth are in unity. I agree with you that there are a great many “catholics” who do not embrace the Truth.

I disagree here – unity is a concept which does not have to be tied to truth. To be in unity with the truth requires adhering to the truth, yes, but it’s also possible to be in unity on something that is untrue. Thus, I’ll say again, even if unity were present in the RCC, what does it matter unless you can prove that it’s in accord with the truth?

Gates don’t move. They are stationary. People pass through them. Error is the entrance through the Gates of Hell. Once a person starts down the path of error, one has already passed the gates, and is on the wide road to destruction.

I suppose that’s one way to look at it, but that means that once you commit any error, you’re in hell, presumably with the gates shut behind you.

A better way to look at it, however, is to understand the meaning of what Jesus was saying – according to some sources I’ve read, “the gates of hell” could also be…

*The gates of the netherworld
The gates of hades
The jaws of death
*
Whatever the appropriate translation, most commentators agree that this was a reference to the physical location he was speaking from. Clearly, Jesus was “in the region of” Caesarea Philippi. Now, that city was built upon a rather large mountain, as I understand it. In the side of that mountain is located a cave, known as “the gates of hell” (and/or the other translations given above). In this cave (where Pan was worshiped) was a pool of water so deep that no sounding line could reach the bottom of it. Thus, pagan worshipers seem to have believed that it extended to the underworld itself.

So, imagine the setting – Jesus is standing in front of the massive rock upon which Caesarea Philippi was built, looking in the direction of the cave which was a centerpiece in the worship of a pagan deity. To a degree, this place, “the gates of hell” is a representation of all of paganism – all of satan’s influence. Jesus words, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” can easily be understood, then, not to refer to literal gates (for the location they were in featured no actual gates), but rather to refer generically to paganism and ungodliness.

Apostolic Teaching is authoritative. If you imagine that the Apostles were not in unity, then you are in error.

I never said they weren’t in unity. However, the question becomes, is the RCC in unity with them?

here is an example of Apostolic Authority:

9 I have written something to the church; but Diot’rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority. 3 John 9-10

John exerted his authority, and was spurned by the rebellious.

But how does that exemplify collective, hierarchal authority such as the RCC claims was in place? Why must the examples you provided be interpreted as speaking on behalf of an authoritative “ruling body”, rather than as exerting authority provided to the individual by Christ?

I understand that you want it to fit with the modern-day Roman Catholic model, but the text doesn’t explicitly (or even implicitly) support that in this case.

The bottom line on authority is that all authority is given by God.

Correct.

Jesus gave it to the Apostles, who passed it on to their successors.

How can you prove that? This is important – you can’t just make claims like this without support and expect me to believe them. I need to know where Christ said he intended this power to be passed down (or at least where one of the apostles thought it needed to be). And no, the instance in II Timothy is not an example of that – it refers, as far as I can tell, to succession of ministry, not of office or unique authority.

Those who abandon the authority appointed by Christ are out of order.

That’s the very thing I’m questioning though – how can you demonstrate that the RCC was indeed appointed by Christ?

Unity is not defined by the individuals (especially those in rebellion). Unity is defined by those who cling to Christ and His Teachings.

No – unity is simply a matter of…yeah, you guessed it, being united. Unity with falsehoods is still unity – it’s just not important.

All who do so are in unity with the Head, and with one another. Pointing out that there are so called catholics living in sin does not make the unity of the faith null.

Nor does showing that there are those who hold to the teachings of the RCC prove that the RCC is actually teaching the truth.

Sure I do. Plenty of documentation about that. What is the documentation about the continuity of a tiny group of “biblical congregations”. What was their doctrine like ? The Mennonites ? Or what else ?

Frankly, I don’t know what documentation exists in that regard – what I do know is that history is written by the victor. For instance, how much Roman Catholic writing do you think would actually exist today if paganism were still the dominant belief system on the planet? However, we do have some documentation of what the faith of the apostles was like, and the discontinuity between that and the RCC is unsettling.

I agreed fictionally, on your scenario ( or something like that).

So then you’re holding the position that God had to have an earthly interpreter of his will, and could not have done it another way?

Having supposedly listened to God, and yet dissenting, whom can they listen to to settle the question ?

Your point would have merit if it were not for all the Roman Catholics out there who have split off from the RCC in recent centuries. In an ideal world, yes, an earthly source could settle all disagreement and clarify the truth in case of any dispute. But the reality is that it doesn’t happen that way. Thus, whether or not it would be better in theory doesn’t matter.

To answer your question more directly – in cases of dissent, the answer is to be open to hear the will of God, and then continually pray and listen for his words of truth. It can work, if we don’t limit it with our own stigmas and inhibitions.

And, moreover, why should I settle, give up, if I listen to God ?

Why should a Roman Catholic ask for clarification, or otherwise settle if they believe they perfectly understand what X document from the RCC says? Who cares if another person believes they too have the true understanding, but that understanding is a different one than the first person holds? It’s the same shoe, with the RCC and its writings substituted in place of God’s revelation via the holy spirit.

Show me all the witnesses to a symbolic understanding of the Eucharisty you want, from the II century.

Why? I’m not the one who made a claim. You claimed that the church leaders of that century did things I would find unbiblical (or so I understood your claim to be). What is it you’re saying they did? If you’re saying they believed in transubstantiation, then it would seem the burden of proof is on you, not me. There’s no reason to believe they held a belief like that unless there’s evidence which says so – thus it’s your task to present it.

I do not expect new Bibles. Only commentaries.

And are these commentaries divinely-inspired as scripture was? If so, you’re saying God has subsequently decided to expand his explanations of things, and thus we can logically infer that the understanding held by the apostles was insufficient. And that’s not something I can accept.

It’s a static view. I do not see why you reject development.

Development is change. God doesn’t change. Man does. Therefore, change is the result of man, not of God. I’d rather follow God than man.

Even you, who listen to direct communications, have certainly developed something in last years.

Development of individual understanding is quite another matter – that’s a matter of me bringing my imperfect nature more into line with God’s perfection. The reason I am able to, and therefore should, develop my understandings is that my understandings were previously lacking and were flawed. I was in error in the past.

Now, if the RCC wants to admit to having been in error in the past, and then say that it’s learning and correcting itself to be more in line with God’s will, I can accept that! People are fallible, and thus it’s expected that they’ll mess up now and then. However, if it claims that all it purveys is 100% truth, then there’s simply no room for development. You cannot develop something beyond truth.

You claim for yourself even more than the Curch herself does…She is bound by two millennia of statements…You’re free, no tradition, no predecessor to limit your .

The only reason the RCC is bound by those statements is because the RCC holds itself to be infallible. I don’t hold myself to be infallible – therefore I can contradict my previous beliefs as my spiritual understanding matures without breaking things, logically.

Though, with the amount of twisting some of you do to try and make contradictions disappear, it’s hardly fair to say the RCC is actually limited in such a way.