On Roman Catholic Authority

[JonathanKinsman]

Hoosierdaddy:

Don’t post your replies within the quotation icon command (unless your intent is to avoid answering your answers), it is needless to have to retype your words in order to reply.

You talk disrespect, you threaten reporting? How Christian, my brother. Of course, your off-handed remark of not believing in the deutercanon demanded a reply even as much as you took offense at being called on it.

Of course it’s for another thread. But quit the gratuitous comments, they’re unbecoming in debating and discussing these issues.

Let’s look at one of your quotes:

"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 you believe in and have no basis in Scripture for believing them."

Come on, Brian, be a little charitable. I didn’t throw out a stupid comment about non-Catholics following the Devil! I answered YOUR comment about the Catholic canon for the Bible.

Also, none of the myths listed about that issue were personal attacks on ol’ steel toes you: don’t take it personal if you get a response from your own words.

If you don’t see that, I can’t help you. Maybe a moderator can explain it better to you.

For the record: where does it say the Bible is the end all and be all for Christian belief? I’ll take a direct, to the point scriptural answer on that question as long as I don’t have to ‘imply’ something.

Give it to the thread, Brian.

Pax Christi

 

[maryj]

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

Your opinion of course. and your welcome.

 

[valient_Lucy]

valient Lucy said

Thanks. I understand better the RC position. If I could restate it:

1. The truth of Christianity is found perfectly in the RC
2. Any RC who rejects the teaching of the RC church in any matters of Scripture, tradition and morals is rejecting the truth of Christianity and thus forfeiting salvation.
3. A person outside of the RC church does not have the truth of the RC church and thus cannot be judged by the same standards by God as listed in #2. Such a person may eventually be saved–we cannot ever be certain until we die according to the RC church–but if he is saved, it is because of the RC church, due to #1.

Have I got that right?

Looks good to me.

I shall keep you in mind concerning marriage counseling. I agree with your metaphor that baptism is like a marriage ceremony. I don’t know what a “mark on the soul” really means and would be delighted if you have Scripture to explain that.

It is exactly because baptism is like a marriage ceremony between us and Jesus that I have problems with infant baptism (aside from Scriptural problems and Early Church practice to the contrary): infant baptism is like an arranged marriage. Perhaps this could be justified if we could be certain that the infant would fall in love with Jesus(although the Scriptural evidence is tenuous in Acts, in my opinion).

In practice, in Spain in any case, where 90% of people are baptised and 15% attend church regularly, infant baptism is an abuse, like a marriage ceremony where one part doesn’t love the other and never does. Much RC baptism in Spain today is nothing more than tradition, empty religious practice. Jesus absolutely hated empty religiosity–See Matt 23:1-13

But this is a tangent from the question of authority. Thanks so much for your comments, they helped me.

Don’t read TOO much into my “mark on the soul” comment. I was mainly using it as a figure of speech. However, Catholics DO believe that it is at baptism that a person’s sins are forgiven and he becomes a Christian. A Catholic believes that a person is “born again” in baptism, and incorperated into the Church at that moment. (I’ll leave baptism to another thread.)
I agree that, if the parents of a child are not practicing Catholics, their child should not be baptized. If a child is baptized, they are members of the Catholic Church, and have the responsibillities of a Catholic, such as being married in the Church.

One thing to remember also, in terms of justification for Catholics and Protestants is both Catholics and Protestants believe that we are dependent on God’s grace for salvation. There is no salvation apart from God’s grace and forgiveness. I think that Catholics and Protestants would add their “amen” to this statement.
The disagreements stem from, among other things, HOW does God give us His grace?

Hasta pronto.

 

[Santos]

For the record: where does it say the Bible is the end all and be all for Christian belief? I’ll take a direct, to the point scriptural answer on that question as long as I don’t have to ‘imply’ something.

I’ll answer for Hoosierdaddy, There is no scriptual text that speaks of scripture being the “end all” or that the scripture is “all” that is needed for Christian belief.

Just the opposite, from the Bible we know that not everything Jesus said was recorded in scripture (Jn 21:25). We also see in Acts 20:35 that Paul records a saying of Jesus that is not found in the gospels.

Furthermore, the scriptures tell us that Sacred Tradition is to be followed alongside Sacred Scripture (2 Thess 2:15, 3:6). By this way the teachings of Christ will remain preserved and not mis-understood by private interpretations. Scripture warns about private interpretations (2 Pet 1:20, 2 Pet 3:15-16) and clearly says that it is the Church that is the Pilar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15), which is led by one shepherd to shepherd Christ’s sheep (Jn 10:16).

The NT scriptures was handed to us in 405 AD, but prior to that it was by word of mouth and epistle in how we got the teachings of Christ (2 Thess 2:15):

“The teachings of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” (230 AD) Fundamental Doctrines 1, preface, 2.

**I’m more then happy to help you out with that one Hoosierdaddy, from Encyclopaedia Brown **

Santos

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Hoosierdaddy:

Don’t post your replies within the quotation icon command (unless your intent is to avoid answering your answers), it is needless to have to retype your words in order to reply.

You talk disrespect, you threaten reporting? How Christian, my brother. Of course, your off-handed remark of not believing in the deutercanon demanded a reply even as much as you took offense at being called on it.

Of course it’s for another thread. But quit the gratuitous comments, they’re unbecoming in debating and discussing these issues.

Let’s look at one of your quotes:

"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 you believe in and have no basis in Scripture for believing them."

Come on, Brian, be a little charitable. I didn’t throw out a stupid comment about non-Catholics following the Devil! I answered YOUR comment about the Catholic canon for the Bible.

Also, none of the myths listed about that issue were personal attacks on ol’ steel toes you: don’t take it personal if you get a response from your own words.

If you don’t see that, I can’t help you. Maybe a moderator can explain it better to you.

For the record: where does it say the Bible is the end all and be all for Christian belief? I’ll take a direct, to the point scriptural answer on that question as long as I don’t have to ‘imply’ something.

Give it to the thread, Brian.

Pax Christi

I’m sorry. I’m used to responding within the quotes on other message boards. I haven’t quite gotten the hang of it yet. Surely you can forgive a guy for such a minor thing?

It is not un-Christian to threaten reporting. Rather, it is assertiveness. I don’t take poop. Others have threatened me; some have reported me. It’s life. You can call me on whatever you wish, I do not take offence to that. However, you can be polite. If you are polite, I am always polite. Still, I don’t agree with you on the Bible. I believe there are, and always have been 66 books in the Bible.

I apologize for my part in the mess. However, I was not the only one making the gratuitious comments. You are right though; they have no place in debate. And yes, I can be a jerk. I tend to fight dirty. However, some (not all) but some of your beliefs I consider to be myths. Not even your Church requires you to believe them. I do not apologize for my opinion but I apologize for being uncharitable.

The Bible has to be the end all when it comes to spiritual matters. It claims to be and it has to be. If it weren’t, then we have no basis for believing anything. To add Tradition is to discredit Scripture, to make it redundant and to put something else at the same (actually above) the authority of Scripture. It’s late and I gotta get up early but I will look for specific Scriptures tomorrow.

This is for Encyclopaedia Brown I disagree with you. I will show you why as I get the chance. God bless.

 

[PRmerger]

Hoosierdaddy and JesusforMadrid:

When you seeks the truth from your Protestant pastors, who have no claim of infallibility or authority, who is the final arbiter in your disputes?

Is everything merely left up to one’s opinion, as you are guided by the Spirit? Could the Holy Spirit tell you, “Hoosierdaddy, you need not baptize infants” and “JesusforMadrid, you must indeed baptize all in your household, including infants.”?

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Hoosierdaddy and JesusforMadrid:

When you seeks the truth from your Protestant pastors, who have no claim of infallibility or authority, who is the final arbiter in your disputes?

Is everything merely left up to one’s opinion, as you are guided by the Spirit? Could the Holy Spirit tell you, “Hoosierdaddy, you need not baptize infants” and “JesusforMadrid, you must indeed baptize all in your household, including infants.”?

This is a straw man. Who is the final arbitrator in your disputes on such issues as: creation versus evolution, the material sufficiency of Scripture, the relevance of the charismatic spiritual gifts, liberation theology, etc.?
There is a huge diversity of opinion within the Roman Catholic Church in matters of doctrine and practice and having an “infallible magisterium” doesn’t get you out of this.

Moreover, so what? There is a remarkable OT tradition of rabbis “binding and loosening” Scripture…i.e. wrestling with it. They didn’t all come to the same conclusions. The NT churches didn’t agree on everything–Read The Chair of St. Peter by Roman Catholic author Robert Nobel for an insight into this.

When we are bound by Scripture, this at least focuses the debate. In my opinion, the inclusion of tradition as a source of dogma, as distinct from Scripture, just adds an added complexity and arbitrariness.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is a straw man. Who is the final arbitrator in your disputes on such issues as: creation versus evolution, the material sufficiency of Scripture, the relevance of the charismatic spiritual gifts, liberation theology, etc.?
There is a huge diversity of opinion within the Roman Catholic Church in matters of doctrine and practice and having an “infallible magisterium” doesn’t get you out of this.

You couldn’t be more wrong.

Now it’s prefectly true that there is wide lattitude permitted on those things which are not de fide, but we do not vote on the Dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church. If someone who calls himself Catholic denies any point that is taught de fide, then he is wrong and has separated himself from the Church.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

You couldn’t be more wrong.

Now it’s prefectly true that there is wide lattitude permitted on those things which are not de fide, but we do not vote on the Dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church. If someone who calls himself Catholic denies any point that is taught de fide, then he is wrong and has separated himself from the Church.

There is a lot of argument by assertion on Catholic Answers. Why is that? I don’t get that. It is a conversation stopper.

You couldn’t be more loved by God, even if you tried.

OK, got that off my chest. Now, I would respond that, likewise, there is a “wide latitude” on non essentials amongst Evangelicals, following the spirit of Augustine. Using Scripture as our only certain authority on God’s revealed truth, rather than Scripture + tradition + Magisterium narrows the debate considerably on what is essential.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is a lot of argument by assertion on Catholic Answers. Why is that? I don’t get that. It is a conversation stopper.

Yet you use argument by assertion almost exclusively.

You couldn’t be more loved by God, even if you tried.

OK, got that off my chest. Now, I would respond that, likewise, there is a “wide latitude” on non essentials amongst Evangelicals, following the spirit of Augustine. Using Scripture as our only certain authority on God’s revealed truth, rather than Scripture + tradition + Magisterium narrows the debate considerably on what is essential.

And in return for narrowing the debate on what is essential for theological doctrine, you have accepted a widely varying thicket of doctrines – some of which flatly contradict others.

For two thousand years, the Catholic Church has taught a consistent and coherent doctrine. In less than a quarter of that time, Protestantism has fragmented, split, quarreled, re-split and re-fragmented.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is a lot of argument by assertion on Catholic Answers. Why is that? I don’t get that. It is a conversation stopper.

You couldn’t be more loved by God, even if you tried.

OK, got that off my chest. Now, I would respond that, likewise, there is a “wide latitude” on non essentials amongst Evangelicals, following the spirit of Augustine. Using Scripture as our only certain authority on God’s revealed truth, rather than Scripture + tradition + Magisterium narrows the debate considerably on what is essential.

What you call narrowing down to the essentials, I call watering down of the fullness.

For many non-Catholics, the “church” is an invisible entity made up of all “true believers” regardless of their denomination or doctrinal beliefs. These non-Catholic denominations are not the Church; they are simply congregations of people who come together for worship and fellowship. This “invisible Church” cannot act with any real authority because it cannot make decisions on faith and morals in the visible world nor can it lead others into all truth because in order to have any unity at all, these believers must strip their faith down to the bare minimum that everyone can agree on. While this may give everyone involved a warm, fuzzy feeling of unity while holding hands around a campfire singing “Kumbaya”, it is clearly not the fullness of the gospel proclaimed by Jesus Christ. People who do not know Christ need to hear the truth from an authoritative source and are hindered in coming to salvation if they cannot see and find an invisible Church.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What you call narrowing down to the essentials, I call watering down of the fullness.

For many non-Catholics, the “church” is an invisible entity made up of all “true believers” regardless of their denomination or doctrinal beliefs. These non-Catholic denominations are not the Church; they are simply congregations of people who come together for worship and fellowship. This “invisible Church” cannot act with any real authority because it cannot make decisions on faith and morals in the visible world nor can it lead others into all truth because in order to have any unity at all, these believers must strip their faith down to the bare minimum that everyone can agree on. While this may give everyone involved a warm, fuzzy feeling of unity while holding hands around a campfire singing “Kumbaya”, it is clearly not the fullness of the gospel proclaimed by Jesus Christ. People who do not know Christ need to hear the truth from an authoritative source and are hindered in coming to salvation if they cannot see and find an invisible Church.

A man from Mars once visited Earth. Anxious to learn about Christianity, he went from church to church. And he found a strange thing – each church he visited had its doctrine, with elaborate arguments and proof texts to back it up. But the doctrines of the various churches didn’t agree – indeed, some of them taught the exact opposite of what the church across the street taught.

What’s a poor Martian to do? How can he tell which is right?

He finally hit upon a solution. He went from church to church and asked one question: “Is it possible you are wrong? Answer yes or no.”

Only one Church was able to answer “No.”

 

[PRmerger]

This is a straw man. Who is the final arbitrator in your disputes on such issues as: creation versus evolution, the material sufficiency of Scripture, the relevance of the charismatic spiritual gifts, liberation theology, etc.?

The final aribiter is, of course, the Church. If she should ever proclaim that liberation theology, for example, is heretical, then, IT IS HERETICAL.

You did not answer my question, however. If all one needs is one’s opinion, guided by the Holy Spirit, then how can one Christian proclaim that X is necessary for salvation while another Christian, citing the same Scriptures and inspired by the same Spirit, proclaim non-X is necessary for salvation?

There is a huge diversity of opinion within the Roman Catholic Church in matters of doctrine and practice and having an “infallible magisterium” doesn’t get you out of this.

Having a diversity of opinion within sinful individuals in the Church is not the same as having a diversity of opinion proclaimed by the infallible Magisterium. Indeed, there is no diversity of opinion proclaimed by the Magisterium.

There is a remarkable OT tradition of rabbis “binding and loosening” Scripture…i.e. wrestling with it.

Binding and loosening means wrestling with Scripture??? I think not. If one receives the Keys to the Kingdom, then what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. Why would someone who’s received Keys from Christ have to wrestle with Scripture?

 

[Dia]

I am a new forum member and I have enjoyed reading all of these comments. Someone earlier commented about Christians receiving a spiritual “mark” at baptism. The Catechism teaches that no sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. This mark, or seal, is a symbol of a person, a sign of personal authority, or ownership of an object. Christ himself declared that he was marked with his Father’s seal, John 6:27. Paul in 2 Cor. 1:21-22 speaks of a seal, and also in Eph. 1:13.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I believe there are, and always have been 66 books in the Bible.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

PRm>>

The final aribiter is, of course, the Church. If she should ever proclaim that liberation theology, for example, is heretical, then, IT IS HERETICAL.

I disagree. The final arbiter is the Word of God. The Church must be faithful to the Word of God. Whatever Scripture condemns is what the Church is to condemn. If there is no such thing in the Scriptures as liberation theology, then it is heretical. God bless.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

 

[JonathanKinsman]

You are correct, “It is written” was used literally and figuratively to the Sadducees and the Pharisees as well as the crowd (remember following the Law and the stoning incident in John?)

Also, what was Jesus referring to as being “written?”

He quoted from the Septuagint. Every Protestant scholar agrees on that. The Septuagint. What the Church uses for her OT. Which, contrary to your assertion, has those books in it which you call ‘apocrypha.’

Well, Jesus wasn’t quoting the NT because the NT was assembled by the Catholic Church in 382 AD as “official canon” which INCLUDED the deuterodcanonical books.

 

[Reformed1]

You are correct, “It is written” was used literally and figuratively to the Sadducees and the Pharisees as well as the crowd (remember following the Law and the stoning incident in John?)

Also, what was Jesus referring to as being “written?”

He quoted from the Septuagint. Every Protestant scholar agrees on that. The Septuagint. What the Church uses for her OT. Which, contrary to your assertion, has those books in it which you call ‘apocrypha.’

Well, Jesus wasn’t quoting the NT because the NT was assembled by the Catholic Church in 382 AD as “official canon” which INCLUDED the deuterodcanonical books.

The septuagint also includes books that you don’t accept as canonical so I’m not sure what it gains you for the apostles and Jesus to have used the septuagint in their OT quotes.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

The septuagint also includes books that you don’t accept as canonical so I’m not sure what it gains you for the apostles and Jesus to have used the septuagint in their OT quotes.

1. Which books are you referring to in the Septuagint?
2. If Jesus paraphrases or quotes from a book in the Septuagint, then the Church believed (rightly) that the whole text must be included. Why? To get the context of the quote and to understand what Jesus understood during his ministry on earth. That’s what it gains for us.