More on false gospels

[centuri0n]

jccurtis:

Centurion,

I think it’s important to note the implicit consequence of denying the bodily assumption of Mary: that being the denial of the teaching authority of the Church.

Hold on there, jc: it doesn’t deny the teaching authority of the church – it denies the infallibility of the church. When you confuse these things, you wind up saying all kinds of other things which are simply untrue – like that the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura strips the church of its authority to teach. As a Protestant, it is important to me that, given the deep objections I have toward Catholicism, we argue only about what we actually have to argue about.

I have a lot more to say about your post, but my wife is holding dinner for me. I’ll give the rest of my comments tomorrow.

 

[DonaNobisPacem]

I think that you have to ask yourself how you know anything is true. Is it because an authority tells you that it is true, or is there some other reason you can know truth.

Right on centuri0n! It seems to me that EVERY argument/objection between Protestants and Catholics has the issue of authority at its heart.

Might be a good issue for another thread!!

 

[Adam_D]

DonaNobisPacem:

Right on centuri0n! It seems to me that EVERY argument/objection between Protestants and Catholics has the issue of authority at its heart.

Might be a good issue for another thread!!

Indeed. What in fact does the Protestant have in mind by way of authority? How does the Protestant divorce infalliblity from authority and yet still put faith in that authority? I can’t put religious faith in any mere men. My faith is in God. Infallibility is precisely why I can assent to the teachings of the Catholic Church … because they are from God, not in inspiration but in protection from error. But the authority of the Protestant churches … it isn’t derived from divine guidance. So whence does it come?

 

[centuri0n]

jccurtis:

I think it’s important to note the implicit consequence of denying the bodily assumption of Mary: that being the denial of the teaching authority of the Church. Because the Church has defined the assumption infallibly, to believe otherwise denies not only the assumption itself, but infallibility as well. If one believes in infallibility, one must logically also believe in the assumption: the first leads naturally to the second. One cannot hold the first belief without also (given knowledge of it) holding the second.

Yesterday I noted as I was running out the door that the real issue is infallibility, not authority. The standard Catholic equation is that without infallibility there is no authority to teach, but that’s patently untrue. “Authority” is, in this case, “power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior; freedom granted by one in authority”. One can certainly have that power or freedom without being guaranteed that it will make any errors – and given that Paul and Peter wrote many times that the church has to guard against error (cf. 2Pet 3, 2Cor 11), it seems that they were aware of the very sensitive position leaders in the church are in.

I agree that if one accepts Papal infallibility, one must accept the assumption of Mary – but the question is whether infallibility is true given the facts of the history of teaching inside what we call Catholicism today.

jccurtis:

Is the belief in the bodily assumption of Mary necessary for salvation? Probably not. Is this belief, in and of itself, necessary to be considered in full communion with the Church? Maybe. Is the dependant belief, the infallibility of the Church, necessary to be in full communion with the Church? Definitely.

Look carefully at the wording of the Munificentissimus Dei:

“45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”

You have equivocated badly here. When Pius XII made this decree, there was no Vatican II to hide behind. When he employs the formula “the divine and Catholic faith”, he is not talking about Roman Catholicism as a denomination or as a perfect incarnation which other Christian faiths ought to strive to be: he is talking about the view that there is one true faith, that this faith only occurs inside the bounds of Roman orthodoxy, and that there is no salvation outside the church.

Pius XII is saying that if you do not believe the bodily assumption, you do not have saving faith. For you to imply or argue otherwise is not warranted. The basis of your speculation is a doctrine established after Pius XII issued this decree and not on his own understanding of the phrase “the divine and Catholic faith”.

 

[centuri0n]

I love this topic.
Adam D:

Indeed. What in fact does the Protestant have in mind by way of authority? How does the Protestant divorce infalliblity from authority and yet still put faith in that authority?

I only have 5000 characters with which to reply, so let me say this about what you portray here briefly, with the hope of starting another thread in the near future:
:bible1: Protestants do not deny that leaders in the church have the authority to teach; if you’ll notice our churches, the leaders are the ones who teach.
:bible1: We do not place our faith in our teachers but in Jesus Christ; the heart of Protestant theology is a God-centered view of the gift of faith. However, we do admit that men qualified by their actions ought to lead the church (cf. 1 Tim 3).
:bible1: Leaders in the church ought to be equipped for service through God-breathed Scripture, which equips for every good work (cf. 2 Tim 3).
Adam D:

I can’t put religious faith in any mere men. My faith is in God.

I know what you’re about to say next because I have heard this many, many times in interacting with Catholic advocates of all kinds of experience and education. Before we read it, let me say this: I agree that no one should ever put their faith in men – “mere” or “marvelous”. Having faith in men is the root cause of all sin. If one has faith in men, one does not have the kind of faith Abraham had, and certainly not the faith Peter and Paul had.

OK: now to your assertion:
Adam D:

Infallibility is precisely why I can assent to the teachings of the Catholic Church … because they are from God, not in inspiration but in protection from error. But the authority of the Protestant churches … it isn’t derived from divine guidance. So whence does it come?

In a forum where responses can tally 5000 words rather than 5000 characters, I’d take a short detour to the Catholic Catechism (hereafter CCC) to discuss the “catholicity” of Protestants, but let me say this as what might be perceived as an unsubstantiated summary: Rome accepts the “catholicity” of Protestants baptized in a Trinitarian formula. Since Vatican II, Rome has migrated (perhaps “developed”) to a theology of inclusivity among anyone confessing the name of Jesus Christ and accepting the Trinity – so to say that Protestants are not receiving “divine guidance” is an argument that is contrary to catechetical teaching.

That said, the authority in a Protestant church is derived from God by decree – that the church should be lead by men with proven character, as taught in 1Tim 3. The purity or reliability of the teaching of that authority is derived not from the position or office: it is derived from the correct source of teaching, which would be Scripture.

Because Scripture is theopneustos (cf. 2Tim 3) – that is, God-breathed – is has in its very nature and from its point of origin the assurance that is cannot be wrong. Can men misuse it? Certainly they can – even Satan can use Scripture from his own devices. But if one is true to Scripture – if one uses it for showing us truth, for exposing our rebellion, for correcting our mistakes, for training us to live God’s way – then one can produce results in line with the intent of God in providing Scripture in the first place. That’s the formula for truth in the church: men of Godly character possessing and using the Scriptures for the edification and growth of the church.

**:dancing:____ All of which has nothing to do with whether ____:dancing:
:dancing: the assumption of Mary is an addition to the Gospel. :dancing: **

 

[centuri0n]

DonaNobisPacem:

Please forgive me for my blunder earlier on this post. I think it is correct to say that Abraham MAY have known the Trinity. If the faith had been revealed to him in this manner, he MAY have known about the Assumption of Mary also.

Dona, this is the first post here that makes me want to type in CAPS.

WHERE and WHEN do you propose that Abraham received the necessary knowledge of the assumption of the mother of Jesus? I have given my scriptural basis for demonstrating he had saving faith. I’d like to see yours.

DonaNobisPacem:

I think it is so hard to distinguish between what MAY be and MAY NOT be, that is why I look to the authority of the Church, since I believe Christ founded and guides the Catholic Church.

I have no comment on this admission.

 

[centuri0n]

DonaNobisPacem:

Actually, that is not what “MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS” says. It reads:

“45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”

To me this sounds like an act of the believer, not the Church.
And why shouldn’t we believe it wholeheartedly? Christ has revealed it.

This discussion is sadly slipping into irrationality. The question is whether this assertion by Pius XII is an addition to the Gospel which Paul preached. I have provided my case that it is, and if possible I’d like to see someone (as Phil is doing to some extent) stay on-topic and address the issue at hand.

This response is answering a question that is not actually being asked, and is overlooking the clear fact that Pius XII’s statement is cutting the offender off from the faith.

 

[DonaNobisPacem]

This discussion is sadly slipping into irrationality.

In fact, I would have to agree with you. We are all over the place :yup:

The question is whether this assertion by Pius XII is an addition to the Gospel which Paul preached. I have provided my case that it is, and if possible I’d like to see someone (as Phil is doing to some extent) stay on-topic and address the issue at hand.

This response is answering a question that is not actually being asked, and is overlooking the clear fact that Pius XII’s statement is cutting the offender off from the faith.

I am going to have to strongly disagree with you! The problem lies in our difference of the definition of the Gospel. (remember I gave mine earlier)

But that there can be no mistake, I will quote from the CCC :

#76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33

• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34

. . . continued in apostolic succession.

The Assumption would be an example of “oral” tradition as described above.

 

[RedHotForJesus]

Hi folks. Can’t we move this discussion to the simplest form possible and say that an addition to the gospel would be to go beyond the Biblical requirements for salvation? Namely, faith in Christ and His work as revealed in Scripture.

For example, the Judaizers used the OT in a manner that was misapplied by requiring obedience to the “law” as a condition of salvation. So it is not enough merely to regurgitate Biblical texts, but they must be exposited in a way that is contextually consistant with the Bible’s teaching.

So, if any group (catholic or protestant) claims that a certain condition is required or definitional of salvation, then we must consider that a false gospel. That includes those things which are consequential of other beliefs (rejecting that Christ was fully man and fully divine) which affect the doctrines of salvation and were defended by the apostles.

Thanks for indguling my opinion.

 

[DonaNobisPacem]

WHERE and WHEN do you propose that Abraham received the necessary knowledge of the assumption of the mother of Jesus?

OK, I admit, (and please forgive me) that this area is basically “over my head” in a manner of speaking. I thought you were saying something different. My mistake. Sorry.

 

[DonaNobisPacem]

Now the question you are putting (and correct me if I am wrong) is:
Can a Pope define (infallibly) part of the deposit of faith and hold it binding on the faithful?

First, please remember that the Pope “defines”. He does not make it up.

Again, I quote from the CCC :

862 "Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops."375 Hence the Church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ."376

1556 To fulfill their exalted mission, "the apostles were endowed by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and by the imposition of hands they passed on to their auxiliaries the gift of the Spirit, which is transmitted down to our day through episcopal consecration."35

This is the basis for why I believe the Pope can make such a statement.

 

[centuri0n]

You enjoying this thread? :yup: :nope:

 

[centuri0n]

DonaNobisPacem:

This strand is way off the original topic, and unfortunately it is a dead end. You are resorting to circular definitions to advance your position.

I hope that in the future we can maintain a dialog which maintains the tone we have established here in the last few days.

 

[centuri0n]

DonaNobisPacem:

OK, I admit, (and please forgive me) that this area is basically “over my head” in a manner of speaking. I thought you were saying something different. My mistake. Sorry.

I appreciate your honesty!

 

[BobCatholic]

centuri0n:

Paul calls the gospel of the false bretheren in Galatia a false gospel – and it is a gospel which says that the circumcision is required to be a right believers.

Now, what authority does Paul have to infallibly and authoritatively declare that this is a false gospel? That’s right, he’s an Apostle.

Now, all the apostles are dead. Who do we turn to, to infallibly and authoritatively declare what is a false gospel? How do we know they’re declaring it infallibly and authoritatively?

Remember, if it is NOT infallible, then the true gospel can be repudiated, and apostasy results. If it is not authoritative, then we don’t have to listen to it and it is worthless.

Did Christ leave us orphans? Of course not.

 

[Adam_D]

Centuri0n, thanks for addressing my comments. I don’t want again to get you off your topic of Marian Dogmas and False Gospels, though, so I’m simply going to look forward to your next thread, perhaps addressing infallibility head on, which I am much more interested in anyhow.

 

[centuri0n]

Nice to meet you, Bob.

BobCatholic:

Now, what authority does Paul have to infallibly and authoritatively declare that this is a false gospel? That’s right, he’s an Apostle.

I would offer this response to your assertion: certainly Paul was an Apostle, and certainly some of the things that Paul taught were inerrant (for instance, his teaching in Scripture is certainly inerrant), but I don’t think it’s right to say that every word that came out of Paul’s mouth on the subject of Christianity was infallible.

For example, Paul parted company with Barnabas over John Mark. He was mistaken as Mark was used by the Holy Spirit to write the first Gospel account. How could that happen if Paul was infallible on the subject of Christianity?

BobCatholic:

Now, all the apostles are dead. Who do we turn to, to infallibly and authoritatively declare what is a false gospel? How do we know they’re declaring it infallibly and authoritatively?

Declaring it “authoritatively” is different than declaring it “infallibly”. I know you folks like to tie them together, but there is no reason to – no justification of such a thing.

BobCatholic:

Remember, if it is NOT infallible, then the true gospel can be repudiated, and apostasy results. If it is not authoritative, then we don’t have to listen to it and it is worthless.

You are confusing “authoritative” and “infallible”. You’re not the only one doing that here at Catholic Answers’ forum. I wonder why?

BobCatholic:

Did Christ leave us orphans? Of course not.

Not sure how that relates to this topic.

 

[system]

centuri0n:

Nice to meet you, Bob.
I would offer this response to your assertion: certainly Paul was an Apostle, and certainly some of the things that Paul taught were inerrant (for instance, his teaching in Scripture is certainly inerrant), but I don’t think it’s right to say that every word that came out of Paul’s mouth on the subject of Christianity was infallible.

I don’t think you’d find any Catholic arguing with you here. It’s the same thing with Peter’s successor. Not everything that comes out of his mouth is infallible (or authoratative ).

For example, Paul parted company with Barnabas over John Mark. He was mistaken as Mark was used by the Holy Spirit to write the first Gospel account. How could that happen if Paul was infallible on the subject of Christianity?

What difference woud this make (ie, why would Paul’s infallbillity even enter intot he equation here)?

Declaring it “authoritatively” is different than declaring it “infallibly”. I know you folks like to tie them together, but there is no reason to – no justification of such a thing. You are confusing “authoritative” and “infallible”. You’re not the only one doing that here at Catholic Answers’ forum. I wonder why?

I’ve got to say that this is a very silly generalization. I know that Bob, CA, etc., are fully aware of the differences between something being authorative and something being infallible. They can mean the same thing (or more properly, an authorative person can be infallible). But this is not a necessity.

Of couse, the end result of Bob’s question was to advance the discussion to what Christ left us - an infallible authority (separate words) in that he bestowed to Peter and his successors (and occasionally to the bishops as a whole) to be the pillar and foundation of Truth. It is clear (as you suggested) that the written ‘gospels’ and letters from the apostles are inerrant (heck, many writings are inerrant). So again, where Bob was going (if I may make the presumption) was to ensure that everyone understood that we can be assured of not having a false gospel (a false good news) by adhering to what has been infallibly declared by the leader of Christ’s Church on earth, the office Christ setup, until Christ returns.

 

[DonaNobisPacem]

This strand is way off the original topic, and unfortunately it is a dead end. You are resorting to circular definitions to advance your position.

I hope that in the future we can maintain a dialog which maintains the tone we have established here in the last few days.

I totally agree, thanks! I am a defender/believer in my faith for sure, but I am afraid I am not a very good apologist! I think I should leave that to the “professionals”!

Having said that, I thank you, centuri0n, for all that I have learned. I do not believe for one minute that you are an “amateur apologist”! :tiphat:

 

[centuri0n]

… I’ll leave you with your assertion that “many works are inerrant”.

There is a difference between something being “inerrant” and something merely not making any mistakes. Your post indicates that you do not know the difference. It would be difficult to have a deeper discussion with you given that gap in your understanding of the issue here.