Personal interpretation

[PRmerger]

A Circular Argument

1. Anyone who studies church history in general, and apostolic succession specifically, AND THE SACRED SCRIPTURES WHICH DECLARE THAT THE CC TEACHES INFALLIBLYwill know that the -]RCC /-] CC is the one true church.
2. Only the -]RCC/-] CC traces its apostolic roots all the way back to the apostle Peter.

I’ve amended your statement above so that it is not circular.

 

[inkaneer]

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by po18guy
Back at ya: How do you know that your faith community was founded by Christ? Does this even matter to you?

Yes, it matters to me. My church community, as a group, claims to place its faith in the infallible truths found in God’s word, and not in the fallible traditions of sinful men. Jesus said, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” In His warning against false teaches, Jesus said, “By their fruits you will know them.”

I don’t know what your faith community is. You only listed non Catholic for your belief system and that only means you could be atheist, agnostic, nondenominational or anything but Catholic. But in any event you state that your faith group '“claims to place its faith in the infallible truths found in God’s word, and not in the fallible traditions of sinful men.” Certainly you must realize that is exactly what every other sola scripturist denomination claims also. So tell me why you are not united with these other groups that '“claims to place its faith in the infallible truths found in God’s word, and not in the fallible traditions of sinful men.” Why are you separated? What is it that sets you apart from them? Is it the way you interpret the infallible truths found in God’s word?

I’ll give you an example of what I mean. Take fundamentalist evangelical Baptists and evangelical Lutherans for instance. Both claim**“to place its faith in the infallible truths found in God’s word, and not in the fallible traditions of sinful men.”**. They even claim to be led by the Spirit. Okay so far? Sounds real good doesn’t it? Now throw in the doctrine of Baptism. What happens? Lutherans say water Baptism is necessary for salvation. They say it is a sacrament and is the entry into the church so that it should not be withheld from children. The Baptists [and they are divided on this subject] may say water baptism is not necessary for salvation or if it is it is only an ordinance not a sacrament and should be given to adults only. Now both groups make the very same claim as does your faith group of placing its faith in the infallible truths found in God’s word, and not in the fallible traditions of sinful men and even use the same scripture verses to support their respective and contradictory positions. So you tell me which one has the “infallible truths found in God’s word, and not in the fallible traditions of sinful men”? Obviously both can’t as their positions are contradictory.

You see in both the Baptists and the Lutherans cited above someone at sometime in the present or the past 500 or so years had to read a bible verse and then say what that verse meant. The same thing holds true in your faith group. What it boils down to is that whoever that person in your group was or is, he/she better be perfect, without sin or else you are following the “fallible traditions of sinful men”. Furthermore the Bible did not just dropout of heaven leather bound, gilt edged, in the King’s English and with the words of Jesus in red ink. Men put the Bible together and they were not perfect men either. They were sinful men. Sinful men determined which books were inspired and which were not. Do you know who those men were? I’ll tell you first who they weren’t. They weren’t from your faith group. They were Catholic Bishops of the fourth century who wanted to unify those readings that were suitable for use in the Divine Liturgy of the Mass. The Bible was a Catholic Book for liturgical use and not a self study guide for Christianity that the sola scripturist have perverted it to be. But wait, what about those sinful men of the fourth century? How do we know the writings they selected were in fact correct? After all, the selection process was not a slam dunk affair, especially the New Testament. Several writings such as Hebrews and Revelation and a couple of others were not accepted in a lot of locations. Some locations accepted as inspired such writings as the Didache, the Protoevangelium of James to name just two. There were others also such as the Epistle to the Laodoceans. In short what you hold as “the infallible truths found in God’s word” is based on the decisions of sinful men. That blows the foundational premise of your faith group completely away. This is sola scriptura’s Achilles heel. As much as one may want to eliminate the God given authority of the church [Mt 16:18-19] and use scipture alone one finds that even scripture rests on the authority of the church. Is it any wonder that when Paul wrote his first letter to Timothy that he called the church the pillar and foundation of truth [1Ti 3:15] And isn’t strange that scripture would say that of the church but not of itself?

 

[Doggg]

Yes. And if you believe that God did this with sinful men then why do you object to the His continuing to use sinful men to continue to guide His Church** infallibly**?

Because it is the Holy Spirit that was promised to guide the church.

Where do you think the Bible came from, Doggg? It came from the Catholic Church.

Can you prove that?

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Where do you think the Bible came from, Doggg? It came from the Catholic Church.

Can you prove that?

Oh come on now! I guess your faith group doesn’t teach you about the early church. After all, your faith group would have nothing in common with them primarily because the early church was definitely not sola scripturist. They were steadfastly insistant on Apostolic Succession which they saw as the pedigree of the true church. In any event the writings of the early church have survived and are historical evidence of events in the church in the first centuries. These writings show there was difference of opinion in different locales about the canon of the New Testament scripture. St. Athanasius in about 348 AD was the first to come up with a canon that matched our current 27 book New Testament. This canon was then accepted by Pope Damasus I at the synod of Rome which also affirmed the 46 book Septuagint version of the Old Testament as canonical and became the Basis for Jerome’s Vulgate, the very first Bible as we know it today. All of this is historical fact which is based on the evidence and that evidence has been known by historians in all centuries right up to the current time. So you question of “Can you prove that?” only shows your ignorance of christian history of the first centuries.

 

[PRmerger]

Because it is the Holy Spirit that was promised to guide the church.

Exactly!! :extrahappy::dancing:

Thus, what the Church claims for herself–infallibility–is only that which Christ claims for Himself.

Can you prove that?

Well, yes, I can. What kind of proof are you looking for? Would you like secular sources?

I will provide such, provided you do the same and show me where* you* believe the Bible came from. If you can show me proof of a non-Catholic church, say in the 8th century, providing a Bible to its flock?

 

[Doggg]

How we came to know that the Magisterium should be trusted and is authoritative for helping people to understand the written word:
Originally posted by Randy Carson

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

The church is preserved IN SPITE OF NUMEROUS ERRORS that enter the church; it isn’t preserved FROM ERROR. So, to answer your question, it is none of the above.

Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?

The fact that there is no error in heaven doesn’t mean that His church here on the earth never gets exposed to error. So, the answer is yes, the church here on the earth is continually fallible, sinful, and imperfect, and that means that some teachings at some local “faith communities” are indeed incorrect.

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

The church is continually being taught error, sometimes through the ignorance of certain teachers, and sometimes by wolves who seek to carry away the flock. None of this should be surprising. It was predicted in Scripture, and it isn’t proof that Jesus has ever forsaken His church.

Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?

No one is allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus, but yes, God does allow wolves to enter His church and they will certainly teach error and seek to carry away the flock.

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

None of the above. The church is continually under assault from various kinds of error. This doesn’t mean that God has forsaken the church, or that the gates of hell have prevailed against the church.

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

No.

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

No. It is impossible for God to fail at anything.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

No.

 

[Doggg]

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

No, Satan is not stronger than Jesus, yes, the church is the household of God, and no, Satan can’t rob the church by binding Jesus in any way.

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error?

The history of the church from its very beginning is all a continuing struggle against sin and error. Yet His church is very much alive today! Praise God! For He is faithful to the end!

Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history.

The church here on the earth is composed of sheep who are prone to wandering away. But we have the Good Shepherd to guide us back to Him. Our safety isn’t in a religion, it is in the God of the bible…who is faithful to the very end.

 

[PRmerger]

The church is preserved IN SPITE OF NUMEROUS ERRORS that enter the church; it isn’t preserved FROM ERROR. So, to answer your question, it is none of the above.

Please give an example of an error you believe was taught infallibly.

 

[cassini]

OK lads, I have read all the posts. Now the test.

In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.

On Wednesday, February 24th, 1616, the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

‘In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ — Commission Report, October 1992.

Now quick, before this thread gets closed down PRmerger. tell Doggg how the Fathers and the Church got this interpretation wrong. And Doggg, watch how Catholics can have their cake and eat it at the same time.

 

[PRmerger]

OK lads, I have read all the posts. Now the test.

In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.

On Wednesday, February 24th, 1616, the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

‘In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ — Commission Report, October 1992.

Now quick, before this thread gets closed down PRmerger. tell Doggg how the Fathers and the Church got this interpretation wrong. And Doggg, watch how Catholics can have their cake and eat it at the same time.

I believe you posted the above proposition here, and it was already answered there, quite eloquently, by grannymh.

Why are you re-posing?

 

[Doggg]

Please give an example of an error you believe was taught infallibly.

I guess this pretty much proves my whole point! Thanks, PRmerger!

 

[Doggg]

OK lads, I have read all the posts. Now the test.

In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.

On Wednesday, February 24th, 1616, the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

‘In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ — Commission Report, October 1992.

Now quick, before this thread gets closed down PRmerger. tell Doggg how the Fathers and the Church got this interpretation wrong. And Doggg, watch how Catholics can have their cake and eat it at the same time.

Fantastic post, cassini! I really appreciate it!

 

[PRmerger]

I guess this pretty much proves my whole point! Thanks, PRmerger!

Huh?

What teaching do you believe the Church proclaimed infallibly that is in error?

Also, have you found any proof yet that the church you belong to gave its members the bible in, say, the 6th, 7th or 8th centuries?

 

[Doggg]

Huh?

What teaching do you believe the Church proclaimed infallibly that is in error?

Although it is quite tempting to answer this, for now, I’d like to stay focused on the question of how we (fallible creatures with fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation, fallible logic, etc.) know infallibly which church is the one founded by Jesus? It seems to me that this is really what you are claiming for yourself. Now, if you don’t know infallibly that the RCC is the correct one, then what? Do you still have infallible teachings from it? A most perplexing question, it seems!

Also, have you found any proof yet that the church you belong to gave its members the bible in, say, the 6th, 7th or 8th centuries?

Nope. And I really don’t recall having claimed any such thing.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope. And I really don’t recall having claimed any such thing.

Well, Doggg, where do you think the Bible came from? Did it drop down from the sky, leather bound and in the King James version?

 

[PRmerger]

Although it is quite tempting to answer this, for now, I’d like to stay focused on the question of how we (fallible creatures with fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation, fallible logic, etc.) know infallibly which church is the one founded by Jesus?

How does that answer my question with regards to the post you made here:

I guess this pretty much proves my whole point! Thanks, PRmerger!

What proves your point? That the CC taught as an error when it was claiming to be infallible?

 

[Doggg]

How does that answer my question with regards to the post you made here:

What proves your point? That the CC taught as an error when it was claiming to be infallible?

I was just being amused by the wording of your request. This brought a smile to my face:

Please give an example of an error you believe was taught infallibly.

I didn’t mean any disrespect. I was just sort of amused by how it sounds.

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t mean any disrespect. I was just sort of amused by how it sounds.

Ah. Very good, then.

So there are no errors that the CC has taught infallibly?

And, what church was it, if it wasn’t the CC, that originally discerned, codified and produced this book called the Bible?

 

[Doggg]

Well, Doggg, where do you think the Bible came from? Did it drop down from the sky, leather bound and in the King James version?

No. I probably agree with most RC’s about where the books of the bible came from…except the part where they say it came from the RCC.

 

[PRmerger]

No. I probably agree with most RC’s about where the books of the bible came from…except the part where they say it came from the RCC.

Well, what other church existed in the 4th century and had bishops and a pope and met in ecumenical councils?

Does your church have bishops and a pope and meet in ecumenical councils?