S
- Status
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
You cannot accept that the Church was divinely inspired and protected by the Holy Spirit in one thing, the determination of what constitutes Scripture or the Divinity of Jesus, and at the same time reject that same Divine Inspiration and Protection of the Holy Spirit when it comes to other teachings, such as Purgatory, based merely on your own opinions. This places yourself as the determining Authority. Only you can determine the Truth. Only you can decide what is an authentic Teaching of Christ.
If you believe the Spirit left the Church, how could you ever depend on the Holy Spirit? If the Spirit abandoned the Catholic Church, It can abandon you. You can’t ever know if the Spirit is guiding you or not if you believe that It failed the Church.
Does God ever break his promises? If the Holy Spirit did not preserve the Catholic Church in the Truth, then the promise was broken.
If the promise to protect the Church was broken, then none of the promises of God found in Scripture can be believed.
Indeed, none of Scripture can be trusted if the promise to the Church was broken.
If none of Scripture can be trusted, then the whole of Christianity is a myth with no more founding in Truth than the worship of Jupiter and the rest of the Roman pantheon.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Excellent Post, cuts to the heart of it and lays it out very clearly!
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
Wow. Can I copy and use this please?
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
You might. But no I don’t. Walking by faith. Not by sight. But people can be different in what they need in their faith walks. Some need black and white. Others are at peace with gray. Peace,
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
You’re very kind. Blessings to you too.
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
You cannot accept that the Church was divinely inspired and protected by the Holy Spirit in one thing, the determination of what constitutes Scripture or the Divinity of Jesus, and at the same time reject that same Divine Inspiration and Protection of the Holy Spirit when it comes to other teachings just because you disagree with them.
It is not consistent. How can you Know that the Catholic Church ‘may have strayed and not gotten everything else right’? How can you claim the protection and inspiration of the Holy Spirit for your beliefs, while believing that the Spirit abandoned the Church founded by Jesus?
If the Spirit abandoned the Catholic Church and allowed it to go astray, then the Spirit can abandon you and allow you and your church to go astray.
If the Holy Spirit did not preserve the Catholic Church in the Truth, then the promise was broken.
If the promise to protect the Church was broken, then none of the promises of God found in Scripture can be believed.
So yes, it is very difficult to reconcile belief that the Church was divinely inspired and protected from error by the Holy Spirit when She determined what was Scripture and what wasn’t, yet was abandoned by the Holy Spirit when it came to other Teachings and allowed to go astray.
T
Telstar
Guest
Judas might have thrown himself down on the rope rather violently, to make sure that he died quickly. And, as a few others have noted, it’s quite possible that after Judas hung himself, his body might have burst open after it began to decay. When someone dies, one of the first things that happens is that gasses begin to build up in the abdomen. In modern times, a dead body is placed in a very cold morgue quickly, to prevent that from happening. So, it’s a very good possibility that the body of Judas did burst open from the built up pressure of those gasses. With the hot climate of Jerusalem, I don’t think it takes much of a stretch of the imagination for anyone to come to that conclusion.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Interesting. Not only because I can’t recall ever hearing someone say that before, but also because of one of Bud Macfarland Jr’s books: “Sam”, at one point, saw that all non-Catholic Christian denominations, were false, but remained on the fence about whether Catholicism or atheism was the truth.
Granted that’s probably not interesting to anyone who’s never heard of Macfarland.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well, perhaps I was reaching a little (when I said “does your statement imply/assume that Catholicism (in communion with Rome) is the Church that wrote the bible way back when?”) :redcheeks:
But that aside, I think what you’re saying about “ORAR” is reminiscent of various Protestant-to-Catholic conversion stories that I heard or read in my youth (I’m thinking Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft, but don’t quote me on that because I’m really reaching back in my memory) … except that those writers of quality don’t take it to an extreme like “If they’re right about this, they must be right about everything.” Rather it was more like “I was so impressed by the cases where they turned out to be right after I was initially certain they were wrong, that I decided to investigate them further.”
Bottom line, this is another reason that it is so annoying that people who have a huge amount of time for CAF can’t seem to redirect even a small fraction of that time to reading Catholic authors (or, dare I say, even Vatican documents).
B
benhur
Guest
Fine, just that I would apply the same to a “leader”.
They are not to question their office, but whether they are following the Holy Ghost faithfully because their obedience has bearing on their leading. Examine their conscience so that they can realign to and thru the Holy Ghost.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi T,
Yes, and it invites an “on guard” :knight2:
eggzactly
Just that the CC call the one that matters “Catholic”, even though any "other"church can do it.
Sounds a bit gnostic even cultic. Jesus taught quite openly. We are all to be disciples. Your dichotomy of lay/clergy is partly man made, very OT. There is a reason why presbyters are not called priests in new testament. It is a different ball game when the same Holy Spirit that not only indwells but baptizes the apostles/leader also indwells and baptizes your “lay” person.
Of course there are offices, apostles, teachers, prophets, healers and such giftings, as the Holy Spirit wills. But we can all teach, preach, pray for healing in our realm of influence.We are all priests and are to be equipped for any ministering, no matter how small.
All kind of like what Judaism did up to Christ’s time.
I agree, that if any notion of truth became "extinct’’, His promise failed. But just as in OT there was always a prophet, a “remnant” that was faithful in preserving truth against any temporary "error’’ so also now.
It is not either the CC is always right and never wrong (either/or), but that together with orthodox and protestants His full truth is marching on (both/and).
NO, no, no T. That is the Catholic reaction to what an “either/or”, “all or nothing”, “infallible” paradigm leads to. Another words that is what Catholics think, but not what O’s or P’s think.
Remember, we do not have an infallibility lens when we look at others so we look at you as we do ourselves. We do not see you, or ourselves, as abandoned or orphaned, or lied to. Our lens does allow for the true examination of the good, bad and ugly of any church, and the Lord’s working in that church, till our perfection when we will be perfect, even infallible, in that great day of His return. We will be a perfect bride as promised on that day, and not a day sooner.
See the all or nothing , either/or ?
Also hopefully you see we ignore nothing of His promises. We see that Christ has used the O’s and P’s also in fulling that guidance promise. I would dare say the CC is better today specifically because of O and P “sharpening”, iron sharpening iron.
Again, some who argue the fine print see that Christ knows who is saved for He is the guaranteer of that also.
Blessings
I
icamhif
Guest
To those who believe in the argument that I must either believe that the Church is infallible or be a non-Christian, may I ask, how do you know that the Church is infallible?
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hmmm … I honestly can’t think of a single country that’s true in.
S
SonOfMan
Guest
Keep in mind that every brand of Christianity claims they are “the one”, and since this is a Catholic site and Catholics claim they are the one true Church, if I knew Jesus’ words were true and it played out how Catholics claim, then yes.Interesting. Not only because I can’t recall ever hearing someone say that before, but also because of one of Bud Macfarland Jr’s books: “Sam”, at one point, saw that all non-Catholic Christian denominations, were false, but remained on the fence about whether Catholicism or atheism was the truth.
Granted that’s probably not interesting to anyone who’s never heard of Macfarland.
Now if Jesus’ words turned out to be true regarding the Orthodox, then I’d become Orthodox, and so on.
If I were able to know that Jesus’ words were true, then I would know exactly which Church to become a member of.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Can I point out the elephant in the room…
If we are all teachers led by the Holy Spirit…why do two prayerfully fervent and sincere people come to wildly different conclusions on what the faith is and how to practice it?
Why did the Corinthians need correction by Paul? If your church needed correction Ben hur who would give it?
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
Personally I don’t know any Catholic who believes that. We recognise all those baptised with water in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost to be christians who possess some of the Truth. We believe the CC holds the fullness of Truth. Obviously many Protestants do not believe the Catholic Church is infallible in it’s teachings.
How do I know the Church is infallible? You mean how do I know the Church’s Teachings are infallible? The word* infallible* in the Catholic context can only ever be used to describe how the Teachings (Doctrine) of the Magisterium are without error.
**How do I know the Church’s Teachings are infallible? Some reasons are below, can’t list all due to time constraints:
- Everything rests with authority** given by Jesus (keys to Heaven) to Peter and passed from Peter to Linus and so and so on and onto Francis…Matt 16:19
- Apostolic succession from the Apostles replacing Judas with Matthias who laid hands over and ordained bishops and so and so on…Acts 1: 21-22
- Teaching authority passed from Jesus to Peter (Matt 16:19) and ALL the Apostles (whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven)…Matt 18:18.
- The Gates of Hell will not prevail against the rock (Kepha/Peter) upon which Jesus built his Church…Matthew 16:18
- Jesus asks Peter 3 times to watch over his flock…John 21:15-17
- Isaiah 22 also confirms the role of the papacy.
Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon. It’s a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22, “I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.” Look at all of the symbols of dynastic authority that are being given to this individual. First of all, an office. Second, a robe. Third, a throne and fourth, keys, the key of the House of David, these royal keys.
Now, what is going on here? I’ll just summarize it in rather simple terms. Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers. Like David Cameron is the Prime Minister, so there are other ministers under the Queen in Great Britain. Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that’s why Eliakim is called to fill it.
Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister’s position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it’s the key of David; it’s the House of David.
Let me go back and try to simplify this even further. I’ll read the quote. Albright says, “In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying.” Albright, a Protestant, non- Catholic insists that it’s undoubtable that Jesus is citing Isaiah 22, “The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” In other words, the Prime Minister’s office.
Other Protestant scholars admit it too, that when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister’s office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession."
(Scott Hahn)
P
Peter_J
Guest
I was just thinking of saying something similar, although not quite that strong. (I probably would have said “Can you name a single time when the Pope, or a conference of bishops, or heck even one sinlge bishop, said that someone cannot be Christian without believing in infallibility?”)
I don’t think I would say “any Catholic” because in my time on the 'net I’ve surely met a number of Catholics who believe that. (The Internet is crazy place, not just for Catholics of course, but for just about any group. No examples forthcoming.
)
I
icamhif
Guest
Sorry, I was not clear. The OP’s argument seems to be that if I don’t believe in the infallibility of the Church, then I have no basis on which to believe what the Scripture teaches, at all; not even in the Resurrection. I have demonstrated how that is a false dichotomy. I can see how he would think that, though. To me, it seems like Catholic presuppositional apologetics taken to the extreme. It reminds me of how some Christians argue that atheists have no basis on which to do good, just because they don’t believe in an absolute, moral Lawgiver.I was just thinking of saying something similar, although not quite that strong. (I probably would have said “Can you name a single time when the Pope, or a conference of bishops, or heck even one sinlge bishop, said that someone cannot be Christian without believing in infallibility?”)
I don’t think I would say “any Catholic” because in my time on the 'net I’ve surely met a number of Catholics who believe that. (The Internet is crazy place, not just for Catholics of course, but for just about any group. No examples forthcoming.
B
benhur
Guest
Well Peter, thanks for sharing, and I certainly could read more of anything on these matters. I will also say most Catholic rationale is very, very persuasive and powerful and enticing and would almost have me persuaded, as King Agrippa once said. Yet of course I have been convinced otherwise.Well, perhaps I was reaching a little (when I said “does your statement imply/assume that Catholicism (in communion with Rome) is the Church that wrote the bible way back when?”) :redcheeks:
But that aside, I think what you’re saying about “ORAR” is reminiscent of various Protestant-to-Catholic conversion stories that I heard or read in my youth (I’m thinking Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft, but don’t quote me on that because I’m really reaching back in my memory) … except that those writers of quality don’t take it to an extreme like “If they’re right about this, they must be right about everything.” Rather it was more like “I was so impressed by the cases where they turned out to be right after I was initially certain they were wrong, that I decided to investigate them further.”
Bottom line, this is another reason that it is so annoying that people who have a huge amount of time for CAF can’t seem to redirect even a small fraction of that time to reading Catholic authors (or, dare I say, even Vatican documents).
Blessings
- Status