Mary's "Saving Office"

[Eufrosnia]

Your statements assume that the authority of the Catholic Church is a given. How do you reach that assumption without having to make some self interpretation of the evidence, whether in scripture or tradition, and thus conclude that the Church has the authority it claims?

Very good question. First thing you have to realize is that the idea that “the Catholic Church is the authority regarding what Christ taught” (or some other entity that a non-Catholic wants to consider as authority) has to be something that can be deciphered through natural reason. NOT a faith matter. Otherwise it would make the whole thing circular and reduce Christianity to an arbitrary assent.

I explained to Classicist how we reason to the Catholic Church in Post #50

Let me know if you have any questions after reading that on the reasoning a person follows. So a Christian cannot just stop at figuring out Christ has authority and then jump to something else arbitrarily. There has to be a reason to go from Christ to whichever authority we wish to listen to. It is that critical process that we must settle as Christians in our journey of assent.

So usually if we are Christians, the authority of the Church should never be a primarily Theological question or something that we still have to figure out. It has to be a matter settled before assent to Christianity. For without the Church, we cannot say a text or Tradition contains the Word of God anyway (for it is a supernatural truth to claim as such and neither you nor me have the authority to make such truth claims about the supernatural).

Note that this procedure is critical because it is the very reason we confidently reject non-Christian religious claims as false or view their merits according to the teaching of Christianity. In other words, we do not see Christianity as a mere arbitrary assent to a religion because the assent is grounded in reason. The matters we assent to however are grounded in faith.

It is also problematic that the Church defines dogma, like the Immaculate Conception, almost 1800 years after revelation ceased. Is this something that always had to be believed?

So to answer your questions,

1. Yes, you must believe everything the Church teaches because she is the sole authority on truths we cannot verify directly (Transcendent/Supernatural truths). We simply have no grounds of authority to disagree with her.
2. The Church has not failed anyone because it is considered that Divine Providence leads the Church to proclaim all required teaching for the faithful when it is needed to be known.
3. The Church states that Divine Revelation ended with the last Apostle. That claim itself is accepted by us on the authority of the Church. That being said, the Church can continue to interpret and teach using that Divine Revelation. I gave the example of IVF in Post #50 to highlight this.
   
   So one mistake here is that you assume Dogma is NEW Divine Revelation. To the contrary, Dogma is the exercise of the infallibility of the Church in interpreting and teaching what has been Divinely revealed through Scripture and Tradition. We do not need to understand how she arrives at the conclusion to assent. We assent only based on her authority. Any difficulty we have in understanding has to be attributed to ourselves or we have to reject Christianity itself.
4. After the Church settles a matter with authority, we cannot dispute it. To dispute it, is to dispute the authority of the Church. The reason why it seems “unfair” to you is because you are looking at this negatively. If you think positively, you are living in a time where the Church has clarified a truth and a settled a matter that many before you had not known in their time. You should be praising God that in his Providence, you were privileged to come to know that truth.

To say that it is unfair is like having Jews, Muslims or some heretics of the past speak of how unfair it is to wrap their head around a Trinitarian view of God because the Church has now taught it as a truth that Christ revealed (note that “God is a Trinity” is not an explicitly stated truth in Scripture as well. So it requires an infallible interpretation for us to be sure.). As to why God chooses a certain time to clarify truths, that is not our place to ask. What we do know is that he does not feel the obligation to make sure everyone knows everything from the beginning of time. So while Abraham had very less to believe, you and I have more that we must believe, and we are expected to do more with it because much has been given to us.

Also worth noting is that the Church teaches that its extent and limits of authority, just like any professional body governing a field of knowledge. The Church teaches that its authority is such that whatever it binds on earth, legally, is also binding in heaven. So we are required to obey the laws that the Church puts in place in different times as well. They are binding, and breaking them does count as a sin of disobedience. We cannot dispute with such a claim because we have no authority to speak of the supernatural truths and we certainly cannot see it right now.

But all this should show you how important it is that we know through natural objective reason that the Church (or any other entity you might have in mind) indeed has the authority to teach Christianity (or if you were an atheist, that Christ himself has authority to speak of supernatural truths in the first place). So do read Post 50 and let me know what problems you have with it.

 

[Bodyandblood999]

The Word of God is authoritative in and of itself to point people to Christ and the truth. I have seen people who said they didn’t believe in the Bible be led to salvation by the scripture they said they don’t accept…all within the same conversation! We can talk about the Church, but the only thing that gives the Church validity today is the fact that the Holy Spirit saw to it that the words He inspired the NT writers to pen were authoritative and preserved. Those words were changing lives before any body of people ever declared them to be canon! The gospels and the letters of Paul and John and Peter, etc were communicating authoritative, life-changing truth right after they wrote them. As long as men stay within the doctrines God established through the Apostles, in his word, they will be blessed and authoritative. But when they teach things contrary to the word, no matter who those men may be, they lose both blessing and authority. Any man–and I mean ANY man–is capable of falling into error!

 

[Redfred]

Yeh, and by the way, Jesus did not say “If Mary asks for anything in my name I will do it!” Why? Because he doesn’t recognize that sort of thing. And if you find yourself obsessed with anyone other than God, you better start wondering why! Read that statement again!

 

[pablope]

Your statements assume that the authority of the Catholic Church is a given. How do you reach that assumption without having to make some self interpretation of the evidence, whether in scripture or tradition, and thus conclude that the Church has the authority it claims?

It is also problematic that the Church defines dogma, like the Immaculate Conception, almost 1800 years after revelation ceased. Is this something that always had to be believed? If so, has not the Church failed all those who didn’t believe it before the dogma was defined? If it did not have to be believed before, why is it necessary now? Is this not in reality changing doctrine; adding something that must now be believed that wasn’t before? Does it not make it “harder” for Christians today by compelling them to believe something or be anathema, when someone who had exactly the same beliefs is not, simpl because they were not born in a time when there was less to believe?

Let me give you an example: Sola Scriptura

Luther never defined it, he jus asserted it. How, how has it developed in the world of protestastism?

There are Lutherans that say, it does not mean scripture alone, but includes traditions and creeds and the early councils, there are protestants who disagree, who have their own definitions…each one not agreeing with each other.

So which one is correct? Can provide a definite definition of SS that all protestants will agree to?

Unfortunately, without an authority in protestastism…nobody can define it dogmatically that everyone will agree.

That is the difference with the Catholic Church. For further reading:

newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

 

[Eufrosnia]

The Word of God is authoritative in and of itself to point people to Christ and the truth. I have seen people who said they didn’t believe in the Bible be led to salvation by the scripture they said they don’t accept…all within the same conversation! We can talk about the Church, but the only thing that gives the Church validity today is the fact that the Holy Spirit saw to it that the words He inspired the NT writers to pen were authoritative and preserved. Those words were changing lives before any body of people ever declared them to be canon! The gospels and the letters of Paul and John and Peter, etc were communicating authoritative, life-changing truth right after they wrote them. As long as men stay within the doctrines God established through the Apostles, in his word, they will be blessed and authoritative. But when they teach things contrary to the word, no matter who those men may be, they lose both blessing and authority. Any man–and I mean ANY man–is capable of falling into error!

So ok, you have to think about the bolded part a bit. The Word of God is authoritative IF we can know what is the Word of God. That is not under dispute. The issue here is that without another authority to tell us that something is the “Word of God”, we cannot possibly claim such a truth.

So if you accept that the Church is the sole authority, then it also means that you must assent to its teaching regarding its scope of authority. The scope of authority of the Church is defined as such that any contradiction you may see is accepted as part of your own inability to understand. It takes humility for certain but that is what Christians are called to do.

Imagine if Peter stomped out on Christ because he did not understand what on earth he was saying? Peter did not do that. He trusted Christ instead and said the famous words “To whom else do we go?”.

Same with Christians. One arrives through reason at Christ and then at his Church. Then one accepts all its teachings because of its authority in obedience and with faith.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Yeh, and by the way, Jesus did not say “If Mary asks for anything in my name I will do it!” Why? Because he doesn’t recognize that sort of thing. And if you find yourself obsessed with anyone other than God, you better start wondering why! Read that statement again!

How do you know anything that Jesus said if not for the Church’s authority?

Also, regardless of how you feel, God felt the need to use a woman and her consent to give us his son. That may seem quiet foreign to you if you were a Jew at the time that all powerful omnipotent God humble himself to that level. But how wrong would you be if you thought that therefore it did not happen?

So the form of argument you use above is very weak. It assumes that God behaves the way we think he does when neither you nor I have any reason to think us authoritative regarding how God behaves. We both can do only one thing. Either turn to the Church’s authority or reject Christianity completely. There is no middle ground that is reasonable. The middle ground involves us designating ourselves as authorities and accepting and making arbitrary claims regarding Christianity.

 

[Koineman]

Let me give you an example: Sola Scriptura

Luther never defined it, he jus asserted it. How, how has it developed in the world of protestastism?

There are Lutherans that say, it does not mean scripture alone, but includes traditions and creeds and the early councils, there are protestants who disagree, who have their own definitions…each one not agreeing with each other.

So which one is correct? Can provide a definite definition of SS that all protestants will agree to?

Can you provide an infallibly declared list of infallible teachings?

Unfortunately, without an authority in protestastism…nobody can define it dogmatically that everyone will agree.

That is the difference with the Catholic Church.

There is actually no difference because if Catholics are uncertain about the meaning of a particular infallible dogma, they cannot ask the Pope directly for clarification about what they read, so they, too, like Protestants, are bound to a set of writings that they ultimately must interpret on their own–in other words, private interpretation. You can say that they can go to their local parish priest for clarification, but priests can differ in ***their *** interpretations of infallible teachings, so that doesn’t help.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Can you provide an infallibly declared list of infallible teachings?

There is actually no difference because if Catholics are uncertain about the meaning of a particular infallible dogma, they cannot ask the Pope directly for clarification about what they read, so they, too, like Protestants, are bound to a set of writings that they ultimately must interpret on their own–in other words, private interpretation. You can say that they can go to their local parish priest for clarification, but priests can differ in ***their *** interpretations of infallible teachings, so that doesn’t help.

I think you are misunderstanding. All the teachings of the Church must be assented to. This includes its Ordinary Magesterium as well as the Pope.

If one is wrong, and starts misleading others, the Church corrects that person. Then everyone knows that it is wrong. Otherwise there is enough teaching and writings of saints for a faithful to know what the Church teaches. There is a Catechism of the Catholic Church as well in case you are unaware.

So what you have here is a living breathing authority that will exist till the end of time. The Protestant authority on the other hand does not exist. There is no reason to think any of the Protestant ministers have authority let alone their claim that Bible is the word of God.

Would you agree with me that for us to accept clams like

1. I am a prophet
2. John Doe is a prophet
3. Book P contains the Word of God
4. John Doe is God
5. God is a Trinity
6. Saints cannot pray to you after their death
7. We should not pray to Mary for her intercession
8. Mary has no role in our salvation

and any other these types of supernatural truths, the person proclaiming these truths must have authority? The Catholic claim is that the only reasonable entity to think of having authority is the Catholic Church. If you want to discuss how that is, we can get in to that. But what is the Protestant claim as to how one arrives at the above? Who is the authority for Protestants and what are the reasons to think they have authority? If there is no authority for the Protestants, why should Protestants themselves be defending these truths they hold to be true?

 

[Koineman]

I think you are misunderstanding. All the teachings of the Church must be assented to. This includes its Ordinary Magesterium as well as the Pope.

Actually, you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not addressing the issue of authority. I’m addressing what someone else had said, namely:

Can provide a definite definition of SS that all protestants will agree to?

Protestants can ask (and rightly so) the same question of Catholics: Can you provide an infallible list of infallible teachings that all Catholics agree to? Is there one single authoritative declaration that will clarify, once and for all, which teachings of the RCC are infallible and which are not?

If one is wrong, and starts misleading others, the Church corrects that person. Then everyone knows that it is wrong. Otherwise there is enough teaching and writings of saints for a faithful to know what the Church teaches. There is a Catechism of the Catholic Church as well in case you are unaware.

I’m fully aware of that. I am also fully aware that my own experience has shown me that bringing the same question to different priests results in contradictory answers at times. That is why Catholics must fall back on their own private interpretation. Their priests give THEIR private interpretations, so that won’t help. So unless Catholics can go straight to the Pope to ask him (which they can’t), they must ultimately fall back on their own personal, private interpretation. Try as you might, you cannot escape that conundrum.

So what you have here is a living breathing authority that will exist till the end of time. The Protestant authority on the other hand does not exist.

Sure it does: the living, breathing word of God, that will not fade away. Please don’t bring up the multiple interpretations because a) that problem exists within the RCC and b) the existence of multiple interpretations does not prove that the text is not authoritative.

There is no reason to think any of the Protestant ministers have authority let alone their claim that Bible is the word of God.

Correct–sort of. They have authority only insofar as what they teach echoes the word of God.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Actually, you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not addressing the issue of authority. I’m addressing what someone else had said, namely:

Protestants can ask (and rightly so) the same question of Catholics: Can you provide an infallible list of infallible teachings that all Catholics agree to? Is there one single authoritative declaration that will clarify, once and for all, which teachings of the RCC are infallible and which are not?

All teachings must be assented to by a Catholic. You can find a list of Church teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I’m fully aware of that. I am also fully aware that my own experience has shown me that bringing the same question to different priests results in contradictory answers at times. That is why Catholics must fall back on their own private interpretation. Their priests give THEIR private interpretations, so that won’t help. So unless Catholics can go straight to the Pope to ask him (which they can’t), they must ultimately fall back on their own personal, private interpretation. Try as you might, you cannot escape that conundrum.

Catholics go to the teaching. So Church documents, council pronouncements, writings of saints etc. The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that once the Church has spoken, we accept. If I were to incorrectly hold Sola Fide, and I came to know that the Church condemned it back in Council of Trent, I abandon it no matter how reasonable I think it maybe.

So I am not sure what similarity you are seeing here. Protestants see no authority. Catholics see the Church as authority.

Sure it does: the living, breathing word of God, that will not fade away. Please don’t bring up the multiple interpretations because a) that problem exists within the RCC and b) the existence of multiple interpretations does not prove that the text is not authoritative.

I think you are confusing things again. We know the RCC has authority through natural reason. What we don’t know is that “Book x is Word of God” or other similar supernatural claims are true unless the Church has spoken.

Correct–sort of. They have authority only insofar as what they teach echoes the word of God.

Well, without the Church, you don’t know what is contrary or according to the Word of God, let alone what is the “Word of God” to begin with. You will just be pitting your interpretation against the Church. What reason do you have to think that you can interpret the Word of God with authority? If there is none, then for all purposes, the Church speaks, you listen. It has to be assumed that it is consistent with the Word of God and any inconsistency is a problem with our own intellect.

Even more problematically, what reason do you have to think anything as being the Word of God without an authority to tell you?

 

[Koineman]

All teachings must be assented to by a Catholic. You can find a list of Church teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

But the Catechism is not infallible is it? If it’s not infallible, then my question was not answered.

Catholics go to the teaching. So Church documents, council pronouncements, writings of saints etc. The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that once the Church has spoken, we accept.

And when the church says something you don’t understand, you can’t clarify. That puts you in the same confusion you say the Protestants are in.

If I were to incorrectly hold Sola Fide, and I came to know that the Church condemned it back in Council of Trent, I abandon it no matter how reasonable I think it maybe.

That’s because your ultimate authority is the Catholic Church. My ultimate authority is Scripture. So if the Catholic Church ends up teaching something that is contradictory to Scripture, then I abandon the CC’s teaching no matter how right it may seem. And that is precisely why I came to the conclusion that the CC’s claim to be the one true apostolic church is dubious at best, given her contradiction of the gospel.

Sola Ecclesia vs. Sola Scriptura. In the end, adherents of both end up relying on private interpretation. Sorry, you still haven’t gotten around that problem.

So I am not sure what similarity you are seeing here. Protestants see no authority.

Protestants do see authority–in Scripture. I pointed that out before.

I think you are confusing things again. We know the RCC has authority through natural reason.

And that natural reason must rely on statements of alleged fact that lead up logically to a necessary conclusion, just as with any other argument and its conclusion. Where do those statements of alleged fact come from?

Better yet, provide me with a logical syllogism whereby you know, through natural reason, that the RCC has authority. For example:

1. Premise 1
2. Premise 2
3. Premise 3
   … additional premises, as needed
   Conclusion

That will help me to see the process you used to come to this conclusion involving natural reason.

What we don’t know is that “Book x is Word of God” or other similar supernatural claims are true unless the Church has spoken.

Take it back one step further and you’ll be on the right track: The church doesn’t know that “Book x is the Word of God” unless God revealed it to her.

God is the ultimate authority over the church, and since Scripture is God-breathed–that is, His voice, living and active–then it, too, has authority over the church. The deliverer of the message does not have authority over the message.

Well, without the Church, you don’t know what is contrary or according to the Word of God, let alone what is the “Word of God” to begin with. You will just be pitting your interpretation against the Church. What reason do you have to think that you can interpret the Word of God with authority?

All you’re doing here is repeating the same conundrum. What reason do you have to think that you can interpret the Catholic Church’s written statements with authority? Don’t tell me that you don’t interpret them, because ANY time anyone reads something, he is interpreting it.

 

[Eufrosnia]

But the Catechism is not infallible is it? If it’s not infallible, then my question was not answered.

But you are creating a false dilemma that Catholics are only required to follow teaching that has been explicitly declared Infallible. That is not the case. All teachings of the Church, whether it be from the Ordinary Magesterium or the Pope are to be given assent, and obeyed. As for specifically infallible teachings of the Dogma variety, there lots of good references that list Dogma of the Church. Even the CCC states when it discusses a particular teaching when it is Dogma.

So I am really not sure what you are trying to claim here.

And when the church says something you don’t understand, you can’t clarify. That puts you in the same confusion you say the Protestants are in.

I am afraid that is your mistake. I may not know how to explain or lack the intellect to explain any of the Church doctrine. That does not make me a Protestant. Why? Because I have enough of an intellect to know who has authority and I have assent to it.

Do you reject the Holy Trinity if you cannot defend it against the arguments of a Muslim?

That’s because your ultimate authority is the Catholic Church. My ultimate authority is Scripture. So if the Catholic Church ends up teaching something that is contradictory to Scripture, then I abandon the CC’s teaching no matter how right it may seem. And that is precisely why I came to the conclusion that the CC’s claim to be the one true apostolic church is dubious at best, given her contradiction of the gospel.

My point is that to say “My ultimate authority is Scripture” is an illogical statement. Why? Because the truth claim “Scripture is the Word of God” is not something you can arrive at through reason. This would mean that you made an arbitrary assent to Scripture as some authority. Not a reasonable one.

What you have done is actually a bit worse. You have also designated YOURSELF as the authority that can interpret Scripture as well. That has lead you to be interpretations inconsistent with the Church. Then you have concluded that this implies that the Church is the one contradicting Scripture. Did it occur to you that it may well be you that is contradicting Scripture?

It feels like you are arguing with a group of medical Doctors that a person is not suffering from a particular disease when they are all saying that person does. Who is reasonable?

Sola Ecclesia vs. Sola Scriptura. In the end, adherents of both end up relying on private interpretation. Sorry, you still haven’t gotten around that problem.

Incorrect. This is like saying the advise of a medical Doctor regarding a disease is the same as that of a Theologian. Therefore it is absurd.

In assenting to the Church’s authority, one has assented to the reasonable authority regarding the field of supernatural knowledge. You on the other hand have designated yourself the authority regarding interpreting it. Those are two different things.

The best analogy I can think of is that you have become a self designated Doctor after reading a book on Biology and are not trying to apply the concepts in the book to the best of your knowledge. All of this while the people who wrote and published the book are telling you that you are doing it wrong.

Protestants do see authority–in Scripture. I pointed that out before.

And as I pointed out, that is an illogical assent. Scripture cannot exist without another authority that we can arrive at through natural reason.

(Continued to Part 2)

 

[Eufrosnia]

And that natural reason must rely on statements of alleged fact that lead up logically to a necessary conclusion, just as with any other argument and its conclusion. Where do those statements of alleged fact come from?

Better yet, provide me with a logical syllogism whereby you know, through natural reason, that the RCC has authority. For example:

1. Premise 1
2. Premise 2
3. Premise 3
   … additional premises, as needed
   Conclusion

Why didn’t you ask for this before?

1. Jesus died and rose from the dead – Historical fact
2. Jesus was a rabbi – Historical fact
3. Jesus had students (Apostles) – Historical fact
4. Rabbi’s pass their knowledge and teaching authority to their selected students – Natural reasoning and History
5. Therefore Apostles have the knowledge given to them by Jesus and the authority to teach
6. The Apostles had selected students of their own – Historical fact
7. Therefore these students (who we have usually come to refer to as Apostolic Successors) have the knowledge and authority to teach what Jesus revealed as well
8. Today you assent to the Catholic Church to learn what Jesus taught because it has the Apostolic Successors of Christ

Nothing I said above is contrary or odd because this is the same way we maintain our other fields of knowledge, whether it be Mathematics or Physics. The previous set of Mathematicians certify new Mathematicians and so forth. This is how the University system operates as well. The Professor designates which one of his selected students will be awarded a doctorate and who gets to teach. Not everyone who he taught gets the chance to be a Professor/Doctor of the field.

What you, and other Protestants have done is by passed all of this and self designated yourself Doctors of the field regarding the supernatural. Considering that the Supernatural is not directly verifiable, such a thing is more impossible than the other fields we naturally meet.

That will help me to see the process you used to come to this conclusion involving natural reason.

Presented above and would be happy to discuss it further.

Take it back one step further and you’ll be on the right track: The church doesn’t know that “Book x is the Word of God” unless God revealed it to her.

God is the ultimate authority over the church, and since Scripture is God-breathed–that is, His voice, living and active–then it, too, has authority over the church. The deliverer of the message does not have authority over the message.

Well apply this to your own self. Unless God has directly told you “These 66 books are all my Words”, you have no reason to think so. Yet you do. Why is that?

All you’re doing here is repeating the same conundrum. What reason do you have to think that you can interpret the Catholic Church’s written statements with authority? Don’t tell me that you don’t interpret them, because ANY time anyone reads something, he is interpreting it.

You are confusing things slightly here.

If I were to say “X is what the Bible says” and X is a proposition, I do not know if X is true or false because I cannot verify it. But if I were to say that X is what the Church says, then I can verify it by looking in to Church documents to see if my view is consistent. Now in the even that I still make a mistake and go ahead and start teaching that view, the Church itself will stop me after analyzing my work.

In other words, there is room to verify my proposition in the Catholic Church by asking the Church. God only wants that you try your best to listen to the Church. He doesn’t demand you to be unreasonable. Only reasonable. In your case, you come up with a proposition from the Bible and that is it. There is no way to verify. More problematically, that is unreasonable. God is just going to ask you one day as to what made you think you had the authority to interpret things from the Bible even if you happened to think by chance that it is the right book from God. Quiet frankly even I am interested to know the answer to that one.

So you need to think about this a bit more. Both sides don’t suffer the same problem though some Protestants try to find comfort by thinking that way.

 

[brb3]

It bothers me when Catholics overemphasize Mary above all the other Saints, ----- and talk of her “saving office”, her Mediatrix role of all graces, her ability to deliver our requests of Christ [if we pray to her] … since Christ never would refuse his Mother.

Scripture says she is ‘most blessed among women’ … not 'she sits at the Rt. Hand of her Son, and will judge/save us … via her ‘saving office’.

Recall Paul said, " I’m glad I did not baptize you all" … when the disciples were arguing who had the best Spiritual mentors and were gifted with more grace from the Sacraments. I wonder if Mary feels the same … everyone claiming she is the Key link between we and Christ. Putting the emphasis on her … and not her Son. The Mary we read of in Scripture was not that of one who ‘tooted’ her own horn. She always pointed to her Son …saying he was her/our SAVING OFFICE. She says so in her Magnificat.

 

[Eufrosnia]

It bothers me when Catholics overemphasize Mary above all the other Saints, ----- and talk of her “saving office”, her Mediatrix role of all graces, her ability to deliver our requests of Christ [if we pray to her] … since Christ never would refuse his Mother.

Scripture says she is ‘most blessed among women’ … not 'she sits at the Rt. Hand of her Son, and will judge/save us … via her ‘saving office’.

Recall Paul said, " I’m glad I did not baptize you all" … when the disciples were arguing who had the best Spiritual mentors and were gifted with more grace from the Sacraments. I wonder if Mary feels the same … everyone claiming she is the Key link between we and Christ. Putting the emphasis on her … and not her Son. The Mary we read of in Scripture was not that of one who ‘tooted’ her own horn. She always pointed to her Son …saying he was her/our SAVING OFFICE. She says so in her Magnificat.

See, part of the issue here is that you do not know specifically what the Catholic Church teaches with respect to Mary as well. I also feel that you are suspicious at the outset because you already do believe that the Catholic Church is a diabolical institution that claims pretty big things that don’t seem to be in Scripture anyway.

So the main thing you need to do is the following. You need to make sure that this Catholic Church is indeed a diabolical organization. Usually people go about doing this the wrong way. They tend to look at things they feel uncomfortable in teaching and say “I feel uncomfortable with X, its not what I see in Scripture etc, so that must mean the Church is false”. Or “the Church members are such sinners. So they can’t be the true Church” etc. But none of the above give reason to think the knowledge it teaches is false. You might not understand how to reconcile what a bunch Professors just taught, with the Physics book you have. It does not mean that the Professors lack authority to teach. You are probably better off asking them than relying on your book. In the same way, if the Professors were big dirt bags who did nothing other than bad things, it does not mean their knowledge is false either. Same with the Church.

The question for you, therefore, rests on this question of authority. If the Authority of the Church is true, you have no choice but to assent. You can rest easy at night knowing that you are in safe hands.

 

[De_Montfort]

It bothers me when Catholics overemphasize Mary above all the other Saints, ----- and talk of her “saving office”, her Mediatrix role of all graces, her ability to deliver our requests of Christ [if we pray to her] … since Christ never would refuse his Mother.

Scripture says she is ‘most blessed among women’ … not 'she sits at the Rt. Hand of her Son, and will judge/save us … via her ‘saving office’.

Recall Paul said, " I’m glad I did not baptize you all" … when the disciples were arguing who had the best Spiritual mentors and were gifted with more grace from the Sacraments. I wonder if Mary feels the same … everyone claiming she is the Key link between we and Christ. Putting the emphasis on her … and not her Son. The Mary we read of in Scripture was not that of one who ‘tooted’ her own horn. She always pointed to her Son …saying he was her/our SAVING OFFICE. She says so in her Magnificat.

Look in Scripture, especially the Old Testament. King Solomon, and the queen Mother.

“The Davidic monarchy finds its perfect fulfillment in the reign of Jesus Christ–and there was never a Davidic king without a Davidic queen, the kings own mother, the queen mother.”

“The everlasting king would come from David’s house, from David’s “body”. When “the male child” came to rule the nations, He would rule as a Davidic king, with a rod of iron, as David himself had sung.”

“Finally, the Davidic monarchy completes the connection between the original Adam and Eve, who failed, and the New Adam and New Eve, who succeeded and won redemption for the human race.”

EDIT: I noticed you made a thread before on saying Mary doesn’t always get her requests because one of the kings refuses the queen. One must remember they were human and sinners and only foreshadowed Christ. The Davidic monarchy is perfected in Christ, hence the wedding feast at Cana, Christ answers the request of the Queen mother.

 

[Koineman]

But you are creating a false dilemma that Catholics are only required to follow teaching that has been explicitly declared Infallible.

No, false. I’m not creating any dilemma. The other poster had asked, “Can provide a definite definition of SS that all protestants will agree to?” So it’s only fair that I ask the same question about a definite defined list of all infallible teachings. Catholics need to know which teachings are infallible and which are not. I’d say that’s an important distinction to make.

That is not the case. All teachings of the Church, whether it be from the Ordinary Magesterium or the Pope are to be given assent, and obeyed. As for specifically infallible teachings of the Dogma variety, there lots of good references that list Dogma of the Church. Even the CCC states when it discusses a particular teaching when it is Dogma.

That’s great, but what I’m asking for is a an infallibly declared list. The CCC is not itself infallible, so it doesn’t count. What I’m asking for is an infallible list of infallible teachings.

I am afraid that is your mistake. I may not know how to explain or lack the intellect to explain any of the Church doctrine. That does not make me a Protestant.

I never said it makes you a Protestant. Please don’t change what I say. I said it puts you in the same situation as Protestants.

My point is that to say “My ultimate authority is Scripture” is an illogical statement. Why? Because the truth claim “Scripture is the Word of God” is not something you can arrive at through reason. This would mean that you made an arbitrary assent to Scripture as some authority. Not a reasonable one.

All belief systems are ultimately based on some unprovable assumption. See below for further explanation on this.

What you have done is actually a bit worse. You have also designated YOURSELF as the authority that can interpret Scripture as well.

As I’ve already pointed out, you’re in the same boat, but you just won’t admit it to yourself. You must interpret Catholic teachings. You cannot read any text, let alone Catholic documents, without making some kind of interpretation. Do you go to some priest to interpret every single Catholic teaching you accept? I doubt it. So you are making yourself an authority to interpret Catholic teaching. If, on the other hand, you had a priest interpret everything the Catholic Church teaches, then you’d be making HIM the authority that can interpret Scripture. Sorry, you can’t get around that conundrum.

That has lead you to be interpretations inconsistent with the Church. Then you have concluded that this implies that the Church is the one contradicting Scripture. Did it occur to you that it may well be you that is contradicting Scripture?

No, because like you, I have a brain and I can use natural reason to interpret the Scriptures and come to a sound conclusion about what the gospel is and is not.

Incorrect. This is like saying the advise of a medical Doctor regarding a disease is the same as that of a Theologian. Therefore it is absurd.

Not at all. You are misunderstanding me. Everyone has some ultimate authority, whether atheists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, agnostics, etc. By “ultimate authority,” I mean an unprovable starting point that one MUST have as a foundation upon which to build one’s belief system. Let me explain so there is no more misunderstanding. Let’s say you believe doctrine X. I ask you, how do you know X is true? You then appeal to Y to establish X. You have just made Y a higher authority than X, since you had to appeal to it to establish the truth of X. But let’s say I then ask you, How do you know Y is authoritative? You then answer, Oh, I know Y is authoritative because of Z. (You know what I’m going to ask you next, right?) I then ask you, So how do you know that Z is authoritative? And you answer, I know it is authoritative because of A.

Now, we could go on like that forever, in infinite regress, but nobody does that, otherwise nobody would be able to form any belief system at all. I’ll bet my next paycheck (figuratively speaking, of course) that this is true of at least one of your premises in your syllogism in Part 2. I will get to that next, though.

In assenting to the Church’s authority, one has assented to the reasonable authority regarding the field of supernatural knowledge.

This is true as long as the RCC is, in fact, the reasonable authority in the field of supernatural knowledge. When I get to your other post, I’ll examine your attempt to use natural reason to arrive at this conclusion and see if it really is reasonable or if it is not, in fact, ultimately based on unprovable assumptions that you have personally decided are true.

And as I pointed out, that is an illogical assent. Scripture cannot exist without another authority that we can arrive at through natural reason.

I find this kind of thinking to be dangerous because it makes the very existence of Scripture dependent on a human authority. Inspired Scripture gets its authority from the very fact that it is inspired, not because people in the church declared it to be so.

Let me say that again because it is so worth repeating:

**Inspired Scripture gets its authority from the very fact that it is inspired.
**
The epistles of Paul, for example, had authority when they were first written because they were inspired. They didn’t have to wait for the church’s declaration to become authoritative.

As I said before, the deliverer of the message does not have more authority than the message. That’s the vital truth you are missing or, even worse, denying.

 

[Koineman]

First off, thank you, Eufrosnia, for being so willing to post your reasoning in a logical syllogism. I’ve asked Catholics in the past to present their views in such a way, and my request was stubbornly refused. I was

Why didn’t you ask for this before?

1. Jesus died and rose from the dead – Historical fact
2. Jesus was a rabbi – Historical fact
3. Jesus had students (Apostles) – Historical fact
4. Rabbi’s pass their knowledge and teaching authority to their selected students – Natural reasoning and History

On what authority do you know these are all “historical facts”?

1. Therefore Apostles have the knowledge given to them by Jesus and the authority to teach
2. The Apostles had selected students of their own – Historical fact

Again, on what authority do you know for certain that this is a historical fact?

1. Therefore these students (who we have usually come to refer to as Apostolic Successors) have the knowledge and authority to teach what Jesus revealed as well
2. Today you assent to the Catholic Church to learn what Jesus taught because it has the Apostolic Successors of Christ

You are confusing things slightly here.

If I were to say “X is what the Bible says” and X is a proposition, I do not know if X is true or false because I cannot verify it. But if I were to say that X is what the Church says, then I can verify it by looking in to Church documents to see if my view is consistent.

And in that case you must rely on your own private interpretations of those many Church documents. You still have that nagging problem.

In other words, there is room to verify my proposition in the Catholic Church by asking the Church.

Not without making yourself your own infallible interpreter—unless you have direct access to the pope himself, but I doubt that. If by “asking the church” you mean consulting the vast amount of writings of the church fathers, then you are stuck in the same mire I mentioned above: relying on your own private interpretation of those writings.

God only wants that you try your best to listen to the Church. He doesn’t demand you to be unreasonable. Only reasonable. In your case, you come up with a proposition from the Bible and that is it. There is no way to verify.

Sure there is. Historical-grammatical exegesis. Context.

More problematically, that is unreasonable. God is just going to ask you one day as to what made you think you had the authority to interpret things from the Bible even if you happened to think by chance that it is the right book from God.

Well, I don’t consider myself to be the ultimate authority over Scripture, so God won’t ask me that question. I do submit to authorities in my church. I would not trade places with anyone, however, on that great Day, who is asked by God why he made himself a greater authority than God’s word.

So you need to think about this a bit more. Both sides don’t suffer the same problem though some Protestants try to find comfort by thinking that way.

Well, my friend, I don’t think you have proven this, not even a bit. I, on the other hand, have shown reasonably that you are in the same boat as us. You ultimately must rely on your own private interpretation to make sense of Catholic teaching. That fact is undeniable because any time we read any text whatsoever, we are interpreting. Otherwise, reading is a pointless endeavor. The dismal illusion you indulge yourself in is to think that you are free from this while Protestants are not. Sorry, I don’t buy that.

 

[Eufrosnia]

No, false. I’m not creating any dilemma. The other poster had asked, “Can provide a definite definition of SS that all protestants will agree to?” So it’s only fair that

But that is incorrect. If you want me to refine the original person’s question, I would ask you the following. Who had the authority to state SS was a truth?

That’s great, but what I’m asking for is a an infallibly declared list. The CCC is not itself infallible, so it doesn’t count. What I’m asking for is an infallible list of infallible teachings.

As I said, there are lots of good references for Dogma. But since you are required to assent to all teachings anyway, I am not sure what you are really out to prove here.

I never said it makes you a Protestant. Please don’t change what I say. I said it puts you in the same situation as Protestants.

As I said, it does not. Why? Because we do not have the same epistemological problem.

All belief systems are ultimately based on some unprovable assumption. See below for further explanation on this.

There is nothing wrong with that. But the assumptions must be intuitively true. You can’t just make up field of knowledge and just believe them.

As I’ve already pointed out, you’re in the same boat, but you just won’t admit it to yourself. You must interpret Catholic teachings. You cannot read any text, let alone Catholic documents, without making some kind of interpretation. Do you go to some priest to interpret every single Catholic teaching you accept?

Why am I in the same boat? Protestantism is an internally consistent (I am just going to give the benefit of the doubt for now) field of knowledge. Internal consistency is not proof that something is true.

Catholics on the other hand assent based natural reasoning. So these are two different things.

No, because like you, I have a brain and I can use natural reason to interpret the Scriptures and come to a sound conclusion about what the gospel is and is not.

But you seem to be forgetting that someone has to first tell you if you are doing it correctly. This is why, in any Academic field, there are experts who tell you if you got it right.

Not at all. You are misunderstanding me. Everyone has some ultimate authority, whether atheists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, agnostics, etc. By “ultimate authority,” I mean an unprovable starting point that one MUST have as a foundation upon which to build one’s belief system. Let me explain so there is no more misunderstanding. … So how do you know that Z is authoritative? And you answer, I know it is authoritative because of A.

You are being a bit naive here. Unprovable assumptions do not mean stuff I pulled out of nowhere. Unprovable assumptions are things we can all agree on as intuitive or reasonable.

Assenting to a set of supernatural claims because you feel like it is not reasonable. Neither is it reasonable to claim things like “X is the Word of God” when you nor I have the power to observe supernatural realities.

Now, we could go on like that forever, in infinite regress, but nobody does that, otherwise nobody would be able to form any belief system at all. I’ll bet my next paycheck (figuratively speaking, of course) that this is true of at least one of your premises in your syllogism in Part 2. I will get to that next, though.

There is no infinite regress. You see an infinite regress because you don’t seem to understand epistemology properly. In your mind, all fields of knowledge are based on some unprovable and ARBITRARY assumptions. The ARBITRARY part is incorrect.

This is true as long as the RCC is, in fact, the reasonable authority in the field of supernatural knowledge. When I get to your other post, I’ll examine your attempt to use natural reason to arrive at this conclusion and see if it really is reasonable or if it is not, in fact, ultimately based on unprovable assumptions that you have personally decided are true.

Incorrect. It is based on truths that we generally accept as true regarding observable fields of knowledge like history.

I find this kind of thinking to be dangerous because it makes the very existence of Scripture dependent on a human authority. Inspired Scripture gets its authority from the very fact that it is inspired, not because people in the church declared it to be so.

Whether you like it or not, you cannot claim illogical things, yes? We cannot just say something is the Word of God unless someone with authority tells us so. What reason can we possible have to think that something is “inspired by God”?

Let me say that again because it is so worth repeating:

**Inspired Scripture gets its authority from the very fact that it is inspired.
**
The epistles of Paul, for example, had authority when they were first written because they were inspired. They didn’t have to wait for the church’s declaration to become authoritative.

As I said before, the deliverer of the message does not have more authority than the message. That’s the vital truth you are missing or, even worse, denying.

All fine and dandy IF we can know what is inspired. “Inspired” is not a directly verifiable phenomenon. That itself is a supernatural operation. So you get nowhere by thinking that way.

I can claim that every word I say is inspired. How would you disagree with me? Based on what?

 

[brb3]

**Inspired Scripture gets its authority from the very fact that it is inspired.
**
The epistles of Paul, for example, had authority when they were first written because they were inspired.

True enuf …

And, and let us recall when Christ was tempted by Satan … what was his authority to dispute Satan ?

Sacred Scripture !! Christ quoted scripture to him … and thus, satan was negated/defeated.

And, what did Paul say about SS ? “ALL scripture is ‘inspired’ of God, and proffitable,… etc”