On Roman Catholic Authority

[hoosierdaddy]

Yes, and there are many prominent Catholics who also are pro-abortion. Kerry. Kennedy. Pelosi.

So are they correct?

No…but it does prove that Catholicism is splintered contra what gets repeated here ad nauseum. That being that only Protestants have divisions and Catholics are united. The three characters above are proof this is not the case.

 

[scylla]

Calvin made this argument also. I am just not convinced of the scriptural justification for it. I also don’t see any 1st century Christian practice for baptism of infants (the examples of “families” being baptised in Acts is not a clear justification).

By the way, there are prominent Catholics today who also argue against infant baptism.

Why does there have to be 1st century justification, did the Church Jesus founded last only 75 or so years? Why not 150 years later? 250 years who decides the windows of truth?
Can we even trust the Bible then?
Do I have to reduce everything to my own personal justification or to yours, for believing in something. If so then I make myself God, because I would trust nothing but my judgement.
Ultimately it does come back to you as only you can decide what is acceptable and unacceptable.
So what guidelines are acceptable as ultimately if you are the arbiter of truth, then nothing going against your judgement is acceptable.

The parts I highlighted in you comments are indeed the crux of the dialogue we are having as you pointed out.
I agree with you.
It is authority.

Do you ultimately make yourself the authority on truth, where you personally have the judgement of truth?

Opinions really don’t matter, what matters is truth.
(this is not popular these days as people even are insulted by comments such as that, but it is true)
Does it matter what theologians think, if what they say doesn’t reflect truth. Does it matter what I think or what you think, our opinions, really if they are not in conformity with truth, are then just that a wrong opinion.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Church_Militant]

Please…forgive me for suggesting otherwise.

Now, if Tertullian et al declare it to be a formal practice of the Church, why didn’t the authors of Scripture?

Actually they did. 2nd Maccabees 12 40-46 (Douay-Rheims Bible)

40 And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.

41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. 42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. 43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, 44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.

46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

You might note that Jews to this day celebrate the feast that is established in these books of the Bible. That seems pretty authoritative to me.

BTW, I just noticed that the idols in question were from the same place where the Jews supposedly rejected the septuagint as Canon. though that is not really an accurate statement, since they had no authority even among themselves and there is still much discussion among Jewish scholars as to what is inspired and what is not.
Pax tecum,

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Ok thanks CM. Now if only I can be persuaded that the Aporcrypha truly are part of Scripture.

 

[DeFide]

Actually they did. 2nd Maccabees 12 40-46 (Douay-Rheims Bible)
,

I apologize if this has been covered earlier in this thread, as I am not really following it much, but here’s another relevant passage:

2Tim 1:16-18 - Paul prays for dead friend Onesiphorus

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I apologize if this has been covered earlier in this thread, as I am not really following it much, but here’s another relevant passage:

2Tim 1:16-18 - Paul prays for dead friend Onesiphorus

Sorry friend, but I don’t see it saying he’s dead. Maybe that inference can be drawn but I don’t know…I could be wrong.

If he was dead, then do you know where Protestants got this idea praying for the dead is wrong? And if we can pray for the dead, you acknowledge that this is the only thing that we can pray for them right?

 

[scylla]

Sorry friend, but I don’t see it saying he’s dead. Maybe that inference can be drawn but I don’t know…I could be wrong.

If he was dead, then do you know where Protestants got this idea praying for the dead is wrong? And if we can pray for the dead, you acknowledge that this is the only thing that we can pray for them right?

I understand that you might not see it, it really depends on your faith tradition and how you personally, your group or anyone approaches the Bible or the faith.

The reason some Protestants think that praying for the dead is wrong is because that is their faith tradition. The persons who founded their faith traditions thought that was incompatible with the faith that they believed and rejected that part of the faith, so their followers continued with that practice or non-practice.

I am not sure what you mean by the last sentence, but ultimately as I said before it comes down to authority. Who really decides what they see is compatible with their faith tradition and who doesn’t.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Thanks Scylla. I’m sorry; what I meant in my last sentence was the thing that Paul prayed is pretty much the only thing that we could pray for the dead today. I don’t believe that we can pray for someone who died an unbeliever for example.

 

[Church_Militant]

Thanks Scylla. I’m sorry; what I meant in my last sentence was the thing that Paul prayed is pretty much the only thing that we could pray for the dead today. I don’t believe that we can pray for someone who died an unbeliever for example.

Brian, since we cannot know for sure the things that go on within anyone but ourselves, what about prayers in the hope that there was some last minute response to grace?

This is scriptural in light of 1st Corinthians 13:7: Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8: Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

Since we are not privy to the last thoughts of others…
What say you now, brother?
Pax tecum,

 

[ldv]

Hi.

Lack of humility is the problem. Not authority.

To think that we know better is to lack humility. We are mere humble servants and as such we listen. To think that we on our own merit will convince, persuade, convert someone is to forget the most humble servant of all. Yes, our Lord.

Then let us just pray humbly and ask God to open our hearts and minds and souls to the truth! For we seek the truth because it set us free.

Seek the Truth!

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Brian, since we cannot know for sure the things that go on within anyone but ourselves, what about prayers in the hope that there was some last minute response to grace?

This is scriptural in light of 1st Corinthians 13:7: Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8: Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

Since we are not privy to the last thoughts of others…
What say you now, brother?
Pax tecum,

You make a good point. In light of this, I guess it would be fine to pray that the person may have had a change of heart before they died. I see nothing wrong with this I guess as we probably all do this when someone we love dies who we didn’t think to be a believer.

 

[scylla]

Thanks Scylla. I’m sorry; what I meant in my last sentence was the thing that Paul prayed is pretty much the only thing that we could pray for the dead today. I don’t believe that we can pray for someone who died an unbeliever for example.

perceive…
I understand, how we may perceive others to be unbelievers, heck we might perceive others to be believers and be wrong about that. perceive…
Since we do not limit the power of God to reach people we should pray for most everyone. I do not know if the person jumping off the bridge might have an experience with God one on one as they are falling.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[vern_humphrey]

perceive…
I understand, how we may perceive others to be unbelievers, heck we might perceive others to be believers and be wrong about that. perceive…
Since we do not limit the power of God to reach people we should pray for most everyone. I do not know if the person jumping off the bridge might have an experience with God one on one as they are falling.

In Christ
Scylla

I once had the unpleasant duty of being the investigating officer in a suicide by hanging in an Army barracks. The physical evidence made it plain that the deceased sincerely regretted his action in the last moments of his life.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Ok thanks CM. Now if only I can be persuaded that the Aporcrypha truly are part of Scripture.

Anytime, hoosierdaddy, anytime.

There are (according to former evangelical minister now Catholic apologist, Mark Shea) 5 Protestant errors about the Deuterocanonical books (‘books’) of the OT.

I’ll make it easy for you. Pick a myth, any myth:

1. The books are not found in the Hebrew bible. They were added by the Church at the Council of Trent after Luther rejected it.
2. Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from the books, nor did they ever mention them. If these books were part of Scripture, Jesus would have cited them.
3. The books contain errors (of history, geography and morals) so they can’t be considered inspired.

4.The books themselves deny that they are inspired Scripture.

1. ECFs (such as St Jerome and St Athanasius) rejected the books as Scripture and the Church only added them to the canon at the Council of Trent.

Anyone will do, hoosierdaddy, if you are serious about your faith and its background.

I suggest Mark Shea’s excellent *“By What Authority: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition.” *

On second thought, if you read it you may quit your off-handed comments challenging Catholic readers about their faith. Don’t read it, we need the mental exercise and diversion from the reality of our days.

 

[Santos]

Noma? Sorry, I don’t get this one. If there is another person who struggles with the same issues, I feel comforted. By the way, Noma may be an English phonetic spelling of the Greek word pneuma, which is commonly translated to “spirit” or “breath”. Pneumatology refers to the study of spiritual beings, particularly the interactions between humans and God. I am sure you know that, right? Anyway, good name, whoever he/she is.

Good name? Actually the word Noma is more commonly associated with the Greek word numein, which means to devour. This word is specifically used in connection to “disease” and corruption of the flesh. In a spiritual view Noma may be related to “heresy” and corruption of the Truth. I am sure you knew that, right?
hoosierdaddy 'aka' who's your daddy:

I think you have too much time on your hands Encyclopaedia Brown.

…Encyclopaedia Brown, True That! All in Fun

 

[maryj]

Hey Bro, thanks for your thorough responses, which raise a lot of other questions.

I certainly believe that truth is objective and doesn’t depend on the communicator of that truth. St. Paul quoted pagan poets, refered to “unknown Gods” and said that “all things are ours…the present, the future… for those who are in Jesus Christ”. For the Christian, all truth is our truth, even if it comes from Richard Dawkins!

On the other hand, the Holy Spirit does guide us to the truth, so I would not, for example accept the inspiration of a Non-Christian in matters of scriptural interpretation.

I think one of the basic differences in our perspectives is that I, as an Evangelical, think that it is not only acceptable to question our pastors and churches always on doctrine and on even the most basic issues (yes, even the Trinity), I think it is blessed. We are blessed when we “scrutinise their words” relative to Scripture, as the Bereans did, and we “don’t quench the Spirit” regarding prophecy, for example, “but test it”, as Paul asked us to do.

For the Roman Catholic, they cannot actually be good Berean Christians, if I understand correctly, because rejecting a particular RC doctrine that doesn’t conform with the Scriptures (for example, in my opinion, the sinlessness of Mary), implies rejecting the Magisterium, thus rejecting the Church, thus rejecting Christ himself and thus, rejecting eternal salvation.

The RC faith seems subject to the domino theory: My faith falls completely if I reject one aspect of RC teaching, even if I do so as the Bible instructs me, when I am guided by the Holy Spirit.

This is a huge difference between how Evangelicals and RCs view authority.

I need a bit more time to think and reflect about your comments–unfortunately, my wife is not as understanding as yours!

Blessings to you.

“In your opinion”, in my opinion you were given multiples of scriptual quotes to defend the sinlessness of Mary. You may believe “in your opinion” all you want, but the truth is that there are no Roman Catholic beliefs that are unbiblical. the gates of hell shall not prevail, and that IS the promise that Christ gave. So your domino theory is incorrect, to follow catholic teaching is to do as the Bible instructs. It’s not about authority, it’s about teaching, it’s about obeying, it’s about trusting the promises that Christ made. Everyone gets to have an opinion, I know this, I came from a family of eleven, don’t mean your opinion is right though until you’ve had someone teach you. Maybe the Holy Spirit is leading you straight to the teacher, I pray He does. God Bless.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Anytime, hoosierdaddy, anytime.

I’m shakin’ in my steel toes…

There are (according to former evangelical minister now Catholic apologist, Mark Shea) 5 Protestant errors about the Deuterocanonical books (‘books’) of the OT.

I’ll make it easy for you. Pick a myth, any myth:

1. The books are not found in the Hebrew bible. They were added by the Church at the Council of Trent after Luther rejected it.
2. Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from the books, nor did they ever mention them. If these books were part of Scripture, Jesus would have cited them.
3. The books contain errors (of history, geography and morals) so they can’t be considered inspired.

4.The books themselves deny that they are inspired Scripture.

1. ECFs (such as St Jerome and St Athanasius) rejected the books as Scripture and the Church only added them to the canon at the Council of Trent.

**Who’s Mark Shea? Me thinks he doesn’t hold a candle up to the great Martin Luther. You want to talk myths though, why don’t you start another thread and we can talk about any one of the number of myths that you believe in and have no basis from Scripture for believing them. **

Anyone will do, hoosierdaddy, if you are serious about your faith and its background.

Oh I’m serious alright. One hundred percent Protestant. And the background? The Reformation, which was drastically needed.

I suggest Mark Shea’s excellent *“By What Authority: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition.” *

Thank you. I will look it up.

On second thought, if you read it you may quit your off-handed comments challenging Catholic readers about their faith. Don’t read it, we need the mental exercise and diversion from the reality of our days.

You already get the mental exercise. Also, you have absolutely no basis to accuse me of making off-handed comments challenging Catholics about their faith. I haven’t really done that but if I want to I will. It’s not a sin. Besides, it is some of you that are doing it to me. And I welcome it. But if you want to challenge me, bring Scripture or don’t come at all ok Hercules? Any more disrespect from you towards me personally or towards Protestants and I will report you and put you on the ignore list. Bonsoir.

 

[Church_Militant]

You make a good point. In light of this, I guess it would be fine to pray that the person may have had a change of heart before they died. I see nothing wrong with this I guess as we probably all do this when someone we love dies who we didn’t think to be a believer.

Well said. You now understand this much better.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

“In your opinion”, in my opinion you were given multiples of scriptual quotes to defend the sinlessness of Mary. You may believe “in your opinion” all you want, but the truth is that there are no Roman Catholic beliefs that are unbiblical. the gates of hell shall not prevail, and that IS the promise that Christ gave. So your domino theory is incorrect, to follow catholic teaching is to do as the Bible instructs. It’s not about authority, it’s about teaching, it’s about obeying, it’s about trusting the promises that Christ made. Everyone gets to have an opinion, I know this, I came from a family of eleven, don’t mean your opinion is right though until you’ve had someone teach you. Maybe the Holy Spirit is leading you straight to the teacher, I pray He does. God Bless.

This is preaching, not discussion. I get that on Sundays, thanks.

 

[Agrazing_Mace]

1. I have read that at Vatican II, it was agreed that in order to be saved, one had to agree with the entire Magisterium of the Catholic faith, presumably meaning the dogmas enunciated in the Roman Catholic Catechism. Is this true? Yes.

Does this mean that certain Roman Catholic theologians such as Hans Küng are in danger of not being saved because they do not embrace all of Roman C doctrine? If he still does not embrace all Catholic dogmas and doctrines, then yes, he is in danger. Keep in mind, dogmas and doctrines are core to the faith (dogmas being the most basic and essential).

Would a RC that practices birth control be outside of saving grace? If they, in fact, have full knowledge that birth control is against the teachings of the Church (which, we believe, is truly against the will of Christ), and continues to use it, then yes, this Catholic would be placing themselves in grave danger. More specifically, if what you mean by “saving” grace is what we refer to as sanctifying grace, then yes, this Catholic would have lost it through their practice of birth control. This Catholic would be relying on actual grace at this point in order to regain their sanctifying grace. Actual grace- a transient supernatural push or encouragement- is that helping grace from God enabling the soul to perform some supernatural act, such as an act of faith or repentance (taken from “Grace: What It Is and What It Does” on CA website).