Just found article on Dr. Frances Beckwith's conversion from Protestant to Catholic

[wmscott]

I would have to disagree, I hate being told what to do and how to think. It would be so much easier to not be religious at all. But as a person who seeks the trruth, I can not seperate from it was I have found it. It is the a persons pride that does not allow a person to been shown the truth. As I can easily see with your statement above you think because I’m Catholic I can not think for myself, but it was thinking for myself that brought my to the truth.

Peace!

What I was going to bring up next is by making a statement like " For people who want to be told what to believe, how to think, and how to behave in every corner of their existence, it really doesn’t matter who or what is doing the directing" If this person is a Christian, then what about Sacred Scripture? does the Bible not tell us what is right and wrong, what to do and what not to do? Doesn’t the Bible for Christians affect every corner of our existence? As you state this is just a jab at the CC.

 

[lovemyboys]

A leading evangelical is just the sort to convert from one authoritative religious belief to another. It’s not surprising. Occasionally Orthodox Jews convert to Catholicism and–surprise!–the reverse happens also. For people who want to be* told *what to believe, how to think, and how to behave in every corner of their existence, it really doesn’t matter who or what is doing the directing.

This is an absolutely crazy statement when you consider Dr. Beckwith’s education. You’re implying that he is not a thinking man-- nothing could be further from the truth. He’s an intellectual GIANT.

 

[Berean2]

(@ Kepha1, posts #10 thru 12)

I’m not familiar enough with the early church writers to know what they penned (or not) about the penal atonement “theory,” but I do know that the doctrine is actually clearly taught in passages like Isaiah 53:5, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed,” as well as in Romans 4 (one of the **best *chapters in the whole Bible, if you’ve never studied it): "And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned [Greek logizomai = to pass to one’s account, impute, credit] as righteousness. So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works…We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised…But the words, ‘it was reckoned to him,’ were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification."

Kepha (are you the same person as MF?), how telling that you repeatedly refer to Beckwith’s interview as no “threat” to me: where have I ever implied, much less outright written, that his interview or conversion is a threat to me? I did read it and found it intriguing (especially the fact that he attended Vineyard, which is the key, in my estimation, to explaining his return to Rome—Vineyard excels in unbiblical experientialism and pseudo signs-n-wonders, kind of a Protestant version of Fatimaism :whacky; in earlier years, I also thoroughly relished analyzing Patrick Madrid’s collection of RCC conversion stories, bec. the whole process of conversion endlessly fascinates me (have you read Hoffer’s True Believer?). So, your perceiving a “threat” on my part actually inadvertently reveals your own stance in regards to this (from your perspective) brazen heretic interloper waltzing in and simply posting a couple of Scriptures (your Torquemadaesque guillotining of my comments underscores that attitude on your part) in reply to Mimi’s question (I had no desire to shred apart Beckwith’s relapse; I stumbled on this forum precisely bec. I was googling his regression; if you want to hear a compelling analysis of B’s book about his recidivism, listen to ex-RCCer Tony Bartolucci’s series ). It is the RCC that feels threatened by the Scriptures, unless they be tamed by the Gilt [sic] Guru and his conclave.

As for “preaching” rather than “reading”—I already addressed that issue in my above post; please go back and refresh your memory (or were you perhaps too busy gouging out my comments to really think about what I wrote there?). And yes, of course, in Paul’s day, the N.T. portion of the Bible had not yet been collected into a volume, but when he or Jesus refers to Scripture, it means the O.T., and Peter already refers to Paul’s writings as Scripture, presaging the later compendium of the premier apostle’s screeds. Regardless of whether we’re talking about 34 A.D. or 2010, the principle of Scripture as the ultimate arbiter in Xtian faith matters continues to apply.

How do you decide what is “truth” without a teaching Church that has been divinely established to teach the “truth?”

That question floors me! I can read, I can understand, I can think (and pray) The Bible isn’t an arcane text requiring a rocket science brain to decipher it; we’re not talking Kabbalah here.:egyptian: And doesn’t Jesus say that He will give us the Holy Spirit to teach us, and doesn’t Paul say we have the mind of Christ? Again, in the days of Paul & Jesus, yes, most people were illiterate and very few folks had personal access to the Bible, so they were dependent on a gathering where they could hear the Word read to them. But we’re not in that boat anymore.

The Bereans accepted Paul’s interpretation of scripture. They could not understand it on their own.

They didn’t accept it blindly: they first checked it against Scripture (meaning the portion = O.T. that they had available to them @ that time).

Paul was a Bishop of the Church. He had teaching authority

Er, um, he was Christ’s premier Apostle, a one of a kind overseer of the flock, not repeatable after he and his colleagues passed on to Glory. And yes, he sure did have teaching authority, which is why Protestants take his writings seriously.

 

[kepha1]

(@ Kepha1, posts #10 thru 12)

I’m not familiar enough with the early church writers to know what they penned (or not) about the penal atonement “theory,”(…truncated…) justification."

Kepha (are you the same person as MF?), how telling that you repeatedly refer to Beckwith’s interview as no “threat” to me: where have I ever implied, much less outright written, that his interview or conversion is a threat to me?

You didn’t answer the question; I figured you didn’t read the link. Sorry, my mistake. I don’t know what MF is but I am in Pat Madrid’s forum.

I did read it and found it intriguing (especially the fact that he attended Vineyard, which is the key, in my estimation, to explaining his return to Rome—Vineyard excels in unbiblical experientialism and pseudo signs-n-wonders, kind of a Protestant version of Fatimaism :whacky;

Beckwiths’ attendance at Vineyard does not automatically mean endorsement. He was President of the Evangelical Society and Vineyard has several denominational affiliations. Do the math. And even if he was in attendance at Vineyard at one point in time, that in no way discredits his journey home.

in earlier years, I also thoroughly relished analyzing Patrick Madrid’s collection of RCC conversion stories, bec. the whole process of conversion endlessly fascinates me (have you read Hoffer’s True Believer?). So, your perceiving a “threat” on my part actually inadvertently reveals your own stance in regards to this (from your perspective) brazen heretic interloper waltzing in and simply posting a couple of Scriptures (your Torquemadaesque guillotining of my comments underscores that attitude on your part) in reply to Mimi’s question (I had no desire to shred apart Beckwith’s relapse; I stumbled on this forum precisely bec. I was googling his regression; if you want to hear a compelling analysis of B’s book about his recidivism, listen to ex-RCCer Tony Bartolucci’s series ). It is the RCC that feels threatened by the Scriptures, unless they be tamed by the Gilt [sic] Guru and his conclave.

I said I was sorry. You can retract the claws now.

As for “preaching” rather than “reading”—I already addressed that issue in my above post; please go back and refresh your memory (or were you perhaps too busy gouging out my comments to really think about what I wrote there?). And yes, of course, in Paul’s day, the N.T. portion of the Bible had not yet been collected into a volume, but when he or Jesus refers to Scripture, it means the O.T., and Peter already refers to Paul’s writings as Scripture, presaging the later compendium of the premier apostle’s screeds. Regardless of whether we’re talking about 34 A.D. or 2010, the principle of Scripture as the ultimate arbiter in Xtian faith matters continues to apply.

You are using a blanket definition of “scripture” that would be illogical for St. Paul to use in the context of the verses in question. It would not make sense for Paul to write about “the scriptures” and include his own letter as scripture unless he said it was. It is obvious when St. Paul is refering to the Old Testament when the context is understood. It ain’t so clear now, is it?

Scripture as the arbiter is not supported by scripture. Before you quote 2.Tim. 3:16, be sure to include it with the preceeding 2 verses. (14, 15)

And doesn’t Jesus say that He will give us the Holy Spirit to teach us, and doesn’t Paul say we have the mind of Christ?

Yes, but not to individuals, who have a different function. The authority to teach is given to the Apostles and their successors. Yes, we have the mind of Christ, with some having better minds than others.

Again, in the days of Paul & Jesus, yes, most people were illiterate and very few folks had personal access to the Bible, so they were dependent on a gathering where they could hear the Word read to them. But we’re not in that boat anymore.

You are welcome to come aboard.

They didn’t accept it blindly: they first checked it against Scripture (meaning the portion = O.T. that they had available to them @ that time).

They checked scripture against scripture? What if both are forgeries?

 

[cu016584]

(@ Kepha1, posts #10 thru 12)

They didn’t accept it blindly: they first checked it against Scripture (meaning the portion = O.T. that they had available to them @ that time).

Where does it say in the Bible that “they first checked it against Scripture?”

Frances Beckwith read the practices of the Early Church Fathers and realized that the Catholic Church is doing the same thing they did (which included reading from Scripture AND transubstantiation ), so he converted because he wanted to imitate them (as we all should).

 

[Berean2]

Kepha1 wrote, “And even if he was in attendance at Vineyard at one point in time, that in no way discredits his journey home.” Man, I popped by here yesterday—after being referred by google about B’s change-over—simply to read whatever relevant comment might’ve been made; then I couldn’t resist replying to Mimi’s post, and here I am getting embroiled in a discussion about B’s defection after all, sigh…

My point was that if he was attending Vineyard types of churches, then that would have, so to speak, primed him for returning to RCCism. Vineyard ilk churches do not root their congregants in the Scriptures, which deficit then backfires in various ways (for example, I know of one ex-Vineyardite guy who no longer believes anything Christian at all, and another one who went even one step further and only believes Darwinism now).

Gotta get some shut-eye; going out of town, which always sucks the life out of me…

 

[kepha1]

Beckwith did not convert to Vineyard or to Vineyard type churches, and Vineyard is theologically at odds with Catholicism so your point is moot. It is true that some Catholic clergy have been in attendance at Vineyard, but as ecumenical attendees, which does not mean full endorsement of their beliefs and strange practices.

If Beckwith “defected”, please provide the date that the Catholic Church defected, and broke ties with “true believers”. While you at it, please provide some evidence that Christians believed and practiced sola scriptura before the 16th century. Better still, provide any usage of the terms “sola” and “scriptura” where the two words appear together in any Christian document for the first 16 centuries of Christianity. You won’t find it used anywhere until it was invented by Martin Luther. You haven’t a shred of evidence to prove the Catholic Church separated from anyone. You are in no position to be using insulting terms like “defection”.

 

[KathleenGee]

There was a post that pointed out about John informing his followers to not listen to teaching…he was referring to that which he himself did not teach.

St. Ireneas was a pupil of St. Polycarp. St. Ireneas was chosen by St. Gregory of Tours to become Bishop of Lyons in 177 to succeed St. Pothinus and through preaching almost converted the entire country. He was martyred and almost all the Christians in Lyons were butchered in 202.

St. Ireneas was a pupil of St. Polycarp. St. Polycarp was taught by the Apostles and appointed by them to become Bishop of the Church of Smyrna. St. Ireneas was taught by Polycarp that he was connected with Papias, a hearer of John. When comparing the writings between Ignatias in those times and that of Polycarp, the former was most faithful in drawing passages from the Evangels and Apostles.

These bishops in the Sub-Apostolic age insisted heavily on drawing that only from the Apostles.

When you consider the Seat of Peter as the sign of unity of the Catholic Faith, the nourishment and strength of faith we receive from it inspite of the countless persecutions and scandals from within, nevertheless the Church is our mother and guide to the Lord and to be in union with Him in heaven. Jesus has given us His sacraments through the Apostles and the Church.

The Church is a social institution that in carrying the mystery of Christ is indeed His bride. Nobody is kissing the Pope’s hand. What they are doing is showing profound appreciation and gratitude to Our Lord for giving us His church carnated through the successor of Peter, the Holy Father.

 

[KathleenGee]

I find the most fundamentalist and firm believers of the Bible alone also need to find balance that comes with studying early Church history.

There is always the problem with language.

I was invited to a Protestant led Bible group. We were studying a book written by Pastor Warren of that large church that now has to meet in an athletic stadium. All that was said in the book could be affirmed by any Catholic. He did not touch on worship, nor did I see anything to oppose the sacrament of confession.

It ended up that we 3 Catholics would sit together at one setting with the group. When it came to read and study passages, we would read, get the message to ourselves, and then that was it, ready to go…and we were likewise sensing each other’s position. We were all in the same place.

The protestants had their dictionaries with them, pencils and papers, and looking up what all the different words meant from the Scripture all of us knew. It was like they were still searching and trying to figure it out. They are all great Christians and know the Lord. But what I am getting at is the different way of relating to Scripture and in the manner of study.

The best place I have learned to study Scripture is at Mass, and at daily Mass, after listening to both Old and New Testament readings, the priest always explains certain passages that stand out to us, and puts everything in context of the times and people, and their place in journey of Salvation History.

 

[Third_Day]

Originally Posted by Third Day
How do you decide what is “truth” without a teaching Church that has been divinely established to teach the “truth?”

Berean2 That question floors me! I can read, I can understand, I can think (and pray) The Bible isn’t an arcane text requiring a rocket science brain to decipher it; we’re not talking Kabbalah here.:egyptian:

How do you know that what you “think and understand” is the truth? WHy do you think Peter says that Pauls writings are “hard to understand?”

Berean2 And doesn’t Jesus say that He will give us the Holy Spirit to teach us, and doesn’t Paul say we have the mind of Christ?

No he doesn’t. Jesus told the APOSTLES that He would send THEM the Holy Spirit and guide THEM into all truth. THis does not apply to individuals like you and me. The Holy Spirit guides the Church
Paul did not say that YOU have the mind of Christ. Paul said “we have the mind of Christ”. He was talking about those ordained by the apostles. The Church has the "mind of Christ’. Just open your phone book and look at all the denominations. Do you really believe that they all have have “mind of Christ?”

Berean2 Again, in the days of Paul & Jesus, yes, most people were illiterate and very few folks had personal access to the Bible, so they were dependent on a gathering where they could hear the Word read to them. But we’re not in that boat anymore.

Yes you are. You still need an authoritative Church to correctly interpret the word of God.

Originally Posted by Third Day
The Bereans accepted Paul’s interpretation of scripture. They could not understand it on their own.

**quote Berean2 **They didn’t accept it blindly: they first checked it
against Scripture (meaning the portion = O.T. that they had available to them @ that time

The checked to see what Paul said was true. They had been reading those scriptures for centuries and didn’t understand them. It took Paul who had the authority to interpret for them to understand correctly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Third Day
Paul was a Bishop of the Church. **He had teaching authority **

**Quote Berean2 **Er, um, he was Christ’s premier Apostle, a one of a kind overseer of the flock, not repeatable after he and his colleagues passed on to Glory. And yes, he sure did have teaching authority, which is why Protestants take his writings seriously

His authority was passed on thorugh the laying on of hands. Just read Paul’s letters to TImothy (also a Bishop). You are not a Bishop. Your Protestant denomination has no Bishops. They have no authority to teach. You have no authority to teach apart from the Church established by Christ.

 

[kepha1]

I would like to clarify a point for Berean2.

Anybody can read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Us Catholics do it all the time. As a Catholic, I am free to verify any supposition I invent by “testing it against scripture.” But when my suppositions or opinions or private interpretations conflict with the sacred authors original intended meaning of the Bible, then I am prone to error. After all, the faith community that wrote the Bible should know what it meant. How do we know for sure what the Bible means? Scholars? Lexicons and commentaries?

The Holy Spirit guides individuals to a certain extent, that’s true, but nowhere in the Bible does the Holy Spirit teach or guide anyone apart from the Church. And the Church is not just made up of people. She is superintended by the Holy Spirit to SERVE the scriptures, and teach without error on faith and morals. The Catholic Church does not rely on pure human effort in her teachings.

I am not saying the Holy Spirit is not with you when you read and are inspired by the Bible. What I am saying is that the Bible is quite clear on who can teach without error, and it is not individual Bible readers. Having the Holy Spirit is not the only qualifier for teaching. You have to

1. be ordained, or
2. be called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders.

So keep reading your bible, but don’t do violence to it by reading it out of context from the faith community that wrote it in the first place. And if you can read, and understand, and think, why would you deny us what you award for yourself? If private judgement means anyone can read the Bible and formulate interpretations, why does that automatically exclude ours?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I agree with a lot of what you said, kepha. So I will limit my comments to areas of disagreement.

She is superintended by the Holy Spirit to SERVE the scriptures, and teach without error on faith and morals. The Catholic Church does not rely on pure human effort in her teachings.

Where does Scripture indicate that the Church teaches without error on faith and morals? If the doctrines which the Church purports to teach are infallible, then it is impossible to test it against Scripture, because the Church is no longer serving the Scriptures, but dictating their meaning without any possibility of being corrected.

 

[Third_Day]

I agree with a lot of what you said, kepha. So I will limit my comments to areas of disagreement.
Where does Scripture indicate that the Church teaches without error on faith and morals? If the doctrines which the Church purports to teach are infallible, then it is impossible to test it against Scripture, because the Church is no longer serving the Scriptures, but dictating their meaning without any possibility of being corrected.

I don’t mean to butt in with your discussion but I would like to ask you this. ’
Is scripture infallible?
Is the Church infallible?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I don’t mean to butt in with your discussion but I would like to ask you this. ’
Is scripture infallible?

Yes. More accurately, the word of God is infallible.

Is the Church infallible?

No. Unless she is receiving direct revelation from God, such as the prophetic word, for example.

 

[Third_Day]

Yes. More accurately, the word of God is infallible.

No. Unless she is receiving direct revelation from God, such as the prophetic word, for example.

You believe that scripture is infallible but the Church is not. What good is infallible scripture without an infallible Church to interpret it?
To say that God gave us infallible scripture but did not give us someone with authority to interpret it without error defeats the whole purpose of having infallible scripture.

This is exactly why Christ established a visible Church that was to be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. Not “some” truth but “all” truth.
Your Protestant forefathers rejected this authorative Church and made themselves their own authority. they made themselves the “church”. Jesus established a Church. He did not establish denominations.

 

[kepha1]

I agree with a lot of what you said, kepha. So I will limit my comments to areas of disagreement.

Where does Scripture indicate that the Church teaches without error on faith and morals?

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 - this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the “Way” prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

Luke 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.

Luke 22:32 - Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error (which means infallibly). (unless you want to argue that Jesus’ prayer for Peter went unanswered)

John 11:51-52 - some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus’ death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

1 & 2 Peter - for example, Peter denied Christ, he was rebuked by his greatest bishop (Paul), and yet he wrote two infallible encyclicals. Further, if Peter could teach infallibly by writing, why could he not also teach infallibly by preaching? And why couldn’t his successors so teach as well?

Gen. to Deut.; Psalms; Paul - Moses and maybe Paul were murderers and David was an adulterer and murderer, but they also wrote infallibly. God uses us sinful human beings because when they respond to His grace and change their lives, we give God greater glory and His presence is made more manifest in our sinful world.

John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.

John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

John 16:12 - Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn’t bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church’s infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God’s Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.

 

[TriuneUnity]

You believe that scripture is infallible but the Church is not. What good is infallible scripture without an infallible Church to interpret it?

Do you believe the Temple hierarchy of Israel was infallible, too?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 - this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Yes, I understand that Rome does not teach impeccability. Can you please demonstrate where anyone has ever interpreted these passages in Isaiah to be referring to the Magisterium’s infallibility? I agree that it is a prophecy of a coming time wherein the righteous will be loyal to God, unlike ancient Israel. In that regard, it is a prophecy of the new covenant. I do not see any mention here of an infallible Church hierarchy, however.

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the “Way” prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

And how does this in any way establish an infallible Magisterium of bishops, versus a description for those who follow Christ, who is the way?

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

This is because you are operating under the presupposition that Rome is infallible. To say that Rome is infallible, and Rome has infallibly interpreted Matthew 16:18 to refer to the Church’s infallibility is a circular argument. That the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church in no way necessitates that there is never a false teacher within the Church, as Paul prophesies. It is a prophecy of perseverance.

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Why does it require infallibility?

 

[kepha1]

If the doctrines which the Church purports to teach are infallible, then it is impossible to test it against Scripture, because the Church is no longer serving the Scriptures, but dictating their meaning without any possibility of being corrected.

Wrong assumption. You are describing a classic Protestant misunderstanding of the relationship between the Church and Tradition that is inseparable from Scriptures. When St. Paul says “test all things”, he is not refering to scripture alone. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is perfect, he doesn’t need correcting. A basic Protestant tenent is that the the Catholic church has nothing divine about it, and is very Docetic in its denial that the Church is an extension of the Incarnation, (including the Eucharist) It would have been impossible for the Church to accomplish what she has by relying purely on human leadership. ( the very concept is quite silly) Either the Church has divine attributes or Jesus is a liar. Protestantism sees only a human institution. How sad.

In Defense of Sola Ecclesia

Scripture and Tradition

Q: In Matthew 15:1-9 (the “you make void the word of God by your tradition” passage), didn’t Jesus indicate that any tradition which contradicts Scripture is false, meaning that we must test traditions by Scripture, meaning that tradition is inferior to Scripture? http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q076.htm

A: It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.

This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected. Between the Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) or Marcion’s edited version of Luke and Paul’s epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings that different groups wanted to see in the New Testament. But the Fathers said, “No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged writing.”

So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic. There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.

The bottom line: it is impossible for the Church to teach against Scripture.

 

[Third_Day]

Do you believe the Temple hierarchy of Israel was infallible, too?

What did Jesus say? Matt: 23:2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but do not do what they do, for they preach but do not practice"
When they sat on the chair of Moses they spoke for God. This comes straight from the Old Testament. What did God say?

Exodus 4:15-16 “ You are to speak to him, then, and put the words in his mouth. I will assist both you and him in speaking and will teach the two of you what you are to do.
He shall speak to the people for you: he shall be your spokesman, and you shall be as God to him”

Exodus 7:1-2 “The LORD answered him, "See! I have made you** as God to Pharaoh**, and Aaron your brother shall act as your prophet. You shall tell him all that I command you”

The Church must be infallible or the Bible is in error. Scripture clearly states that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” 1 Tim 3:15

Christ clearly said the He would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. John 16:13 THis would include the authority to infallibly interpret scripture.

Christ clearly gave the Church the authority to legislate, to discipline, to interpret and to forgive sin " whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven" Matt 18: 18
Only One Church in history has claimed this authority. Only one Church in history has dared claim to be infallible, the Catholic Church.
Not one doctine of the Catholic Church has changed in 2,000 years. That alone proves infallibility.

Now answer my question. Why would God give us infallible scriptures without an infallible interpreter?