Personal interpretation

[atmmgraves]

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!

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

Dogg:

A few pages back, you noted that the answers you were being provided were “circular.” With all due respect, I posit to you, sir, that it is you who are and have been going in circles. You are given answers, apparently do not like the answer, and write a sentence or two to keep the circle going. And, strangely, when you are asked a question, you dodge answering it. Why?

Also, you seem very much occupied with fallible men, men, men declaring this that or the other. The simple truth of the Catholic Church is that She was founded by Christ. A previous poster already tried to guide you to the true source of the bible, which was the Catholic Church. The bible was written by Catholics and the canon agreed on by Catholics and it was written for Catholics. Hopefully you followed through and investigated this. If you do not believe history - which includes Martin Luther - I do not know what else can be said to you on this or any other matter.

This is a site for Catholic answers - folks post questions about the Church, the question is discussed/debated, and answers given. You have asked your many, many, many questions, which have been answered ad nauseum. It would be generous and enlightening of you to answer a question or two posed to you, as well. So…

Since you have consumed most of the oxygen of this thread with your questions, allow me the courtesy to ask you a few:

1. Where is the documentation of any other Christian denomination being in existence before the Catholic Church?
2. Since God is not the author of confusion, yet there are 30K protestant denominations, which one of these is the “infallible” teacher of the Truth? Remember, God is Truth, and His word is Truth, so those teaching His Truth must - logically - be “infallible.” So, which protestant denomination is it?
3. Please refute this agrument: “The bible was written by Catholics and the canon agreed on by Catholics and it was written for Catholics.”
4. A) Which translation of the bible is the correct one to use, and B) who says so?

I am seriously interested in seeing your serious answers to these questions. I do not think it is too much to ask of you, in light of the charity and effort that has been poured out to you here.

God bless.

 

[Doggg]

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

For now, I’ll have to pass on this issue. I really want to continue the topic of how we (fallible creatures with fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation, fallible logic, etc.) know infallibly which church is the one founded by Jesus? Can you tell me?

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

It is my belief that the church recognized Scripture as God-breathed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The details of it will, by necessity, be very sketchy since the books of the bible were first put together as the bible, a very long time ago.

 

[Doggg]

A few pages back, you noted that the answers you were being provided were “circular.” With all due respect, I posit to you, sir, that it is you who are and have been going in circles. You are given answers, apparently do not like the answer, and write a sentence or two to keep the circle going. And, strangely, when you are asked a question, you dodge answering it. Why?

In this particular thread, it is not necessary that I should submit to the same rather rigorous kind of examination from you. Here are some reasons why:

1. This topic (that I started) isn’t about me, my beliefs, or about Protestant churches. This topic is intended to examine certain claims of authority made by the CC. Is my arguing circular? Of course not. But even if it were, so what? Why should that matter? I’m not trying to “win” a debate here. I’m asking for real evidence to support certain claims of authority made by the CC. This topic is not about me!
2. This kind of topic should be strongly encouraged if the CC is capable of substantiating it own claims of authority. Are you certain that creatures with fallible reasoning, fallible interpretations, fallible logic, etc. are really capable of infallibly discerning the one true church out of thousands of so-called “churches”? Of course, this topic will probably be steered off-topic or simply shut down if my topic is found to be a bit troubling. My hope is that you will see this as an opportunity to shed light on something very important.
3. Do you want people to trust in the CC blindly, or would it be better if the Catholics who read this are strengthened by a better understanding of why it is necessary to trust in the authority of the CC.

 

[atmmgraves]

In this particular thread, it is not necessary that I should submit to the same rather rigorous kind of examination from you. Here are some reasons why:

1. This topic (that I started) isn’t about me, my beliefs, or about Protestant churches. This topic is intended to examine certain claims of authority made by the CC. Is my arguing circular? Of course not. But even if it were, so what? Why should that matter? I’m not trying to “win” a debate here. I’m asking for real evidence to support certain claims of authority made by the CC. This topic is not about me!
2. This kind of topic should be strongly encouraged if the CC is capable of substantiating it own claims of authority. Are you certain that creatures with fallible reasoning, fallible interpretations, fallible logic, etc. are really capable of infallibly discerning the one true church out of thousands of so-called “churches”? Of course, this topic will probably be steered off-topic or simply shut down if my topic is found to be a bit troubling. My hope is that you will see this as an opportunity to shed light on something very important.
3. Do you want people to trust in the CC blindly, or would it be better if the Catholics who read this are strengthened by a better understanding of why it is necessary to trust in the authority of the CC.

I am not rigorously examining you - simply asking you a couple of questions. Perhaps your answers to my questions - if you would answer them - could answer your questions.

Looking at this thread, the “claims of authority” seem to have been answered very well for you and repeatedly. In a nutshell - Christ founded the Catholic Church. Since Christ cannot err, the Catholic Church cannot err. People within her can - and do. But the Church has been, is, and always will be Truth. Look at history, and examine the answers you come up with to some off the questions asked of you. Your answers to those questions might fill in the gaps that do not seem to be getting filled with the answers you are given here.

No, I do not want people to trust in the Catholic Church “blindly.” I’ve had my questions answered as to why I should trust the Church. Many because of questions I asked, and many due to others asking me questions. I asked you earlier which version/translation of the bible was the True one, and who is to say which one is True. I posit to you that if you follow that one question to its roots, you will find a whole bunch of answers you are seeking.

God bless.

 

[Doggg]

Since you have consumed most of the oxygen of this thread with your questions, allow me the courtesy to ask you a few:

OK, but I’m not going to allow myself to be pulled very far off the topic that I want to discuss.

1. Where is the documentation of any other Christian denomination being in existence before the Catholic Church?

It is possible that there were several denominations, one of which was called, “The Way”. If you read the entire NT you will find that the very early church apparently had no knowledge of the papacy, indulgences, purgatory, the immaculate conception, prayers to the saints, transubstantiation, salvation requiring water baptism, salvation by both our faith and our good works, and papal infallibility, to name a few.

1. Since God is not the author of confusion, yet there are 30K protestant denominations, which one of these is the “infallible” teacher of the Truth? Remember, God is Truth, and His word is Truth, so those teaching His Truth must - logically - be “infallible.” So, which protestant denomination is it?

Even though the word is truth, there are still plenty of ways to end up with teachings that are contrary to it. IMO There are no church communities that teach infallibly. I think I’ve already addressed this.

1. Please refute this agrument: “The bible was written by Catholics and the canon agreed on by Catholics and it was written for Catholics.”

I don’t see any reason to believe it, so why is it necessary for me to refute it? You might as easily have asked me to refute this:

“The bible was written by Santa Claus and the canon agreed on by the toy manufacturers union in 1992, and it was written for pre-school children."

Does this need refuting, or is it more reasonable that a person who insists that it is true should be required to prove it?

1. A) Which translation of the bible is the correct one to use, and B) who says so?

Is there one correct one? Some are slightly better than others. Does it matter? Why do you ask? Who says so? I don’t know. I don’t even know why it matters. Is there a point here?

 

[cassini]

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

Why are you re-posing?

Because I no longer reply to or take serious any of granny’s rhetorical posts. Moreover, I post the above for you to try to answer, not to dodge. Yes Dogg.

 

[po18guy]

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.”

The bible, by itself, is a foundation of sand.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of disagreeing denominations prove this. They all use the same bible. What kind of “foundation” is that?

Satan interprets scripture. Since it is God’s word, should we believe him?

 

[grannymh]

Because I no longer reply to or take serious any of granny’s rhetorical posts. Moreover, I post the above for you to try to answer, not to dodge. Yes Dogg.

As for me, I do respect you and your posts. And I do take your posts seriously.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[PRmerger]

Because I no longer reply to or take serious any of granny’s rhetorical posts. Moreover, I post the above for you to try to answer, not to dodge. Yes Dogg.

You seem to be a Johnny-one-note on the CAFs, cassini.

Your fixation on this is puzzling, as it has been answered–ad nauseum–on the forum.

I will refer you, again, to grannymh’s eloquent response, and to thistle’s.

A Pope has no authority to infallibly define/declare anything outside faith and morals and, as an example, in your case (geocentrism) they most certainly did not infallibly declare this. Nothing scriptural about this anyway, otherwise you might also argue the earth is flat!!

 

[PRmerger]

For now, I’ll have to pass on this issue.

This speaks volumes, Doggg.

I really want to continue the topic of how we (fallible creatures with fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation, fallible logic, etc.) know infallibly which church is the one founded by Jesus? Can you tell me?

Again, this is another example of arguing against a Catholic Church that does not exist, except in your own imagination.

No Catholic ought to proclaim that we are infallibly declaring anything. We do not declare that we “know infallibly which church is the one founded by Jesus.”

It is the Church that declares things infallibly (guided, of course, by the HS). And we know that they have the authority to do so because of the spiral argument presented earlier.

It is my belief that the church recognized Scripture as God-breathed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Yes. And which church was this? Was it the one that has bishops, popes, ecumenical councils, or was it the one that has altar calls and other non-Biblical traditions such as Wed. evening Bible studies and infant dedications?

The details of it will, by necessity, be very sketchy since the books of the bible were first put together as the bible, a very long time ago.

It seems, Doggg, that you have never been asked this question before about where the Bible came from. I think you’ve never given it any consideration whatsoever and are now stumped.

I urge you to consider this question when you offer objections to Catholicism. It was the CC which gave you the Bible, and if she got it right (and infallibly so!) with the Bible, then perhaps she got it right with other things?

And whenever you provide Scripture verses you ought to give credit to the authority of the CC, without which you would not know that it was* theopneustos* or not!

 

[PRmerger]

1. Do you want people to trust in the CC blindly, or would it be better if the Catholics who read this are strengthened by a better understanding of why it is necessary to trust in the authority of the CC.

Who here has stated that we want people to “trust in the CC blindly”?

And it has been shown, quite extensively, why the CC has the authority she claims.

No other church can trace its roots back to the Apostles.

Your pastor was NOT anointed by anyone who can claim he was anointed by anyone who can claim he was anointed <snip to 2000 years> by the Apostles.

My pastor was.

 

[PRmerger]

Because I no longer reply to or take serious any of granny’s rhetorical posts.

That’s a shame. It appears you are really not looking for answers, then. :sad_yes:

BTW, what do you mean by granny’s “rhetorical” posts?

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:

1. Where is the documentation of any other Christian denomination being in existence before the Catholic Church?

It is possible that there were several denominations, one of which was called, “The Way”. If you read the entire NT you will find that the very early church apparently had no knowledge of the papacy, indulgences, purgatory, the immaculate conception, prayers to the saints, transubstantiation, salvation requiring water baptism, salvation by both our faith and our good works, and papal infallibility, to name a few."

Well not true. Scripture tells us that Jesus Church would prevail over hell and Jesus would remain with it until the end oif the age. Therefore any church claiming to be that church founded by Jesus has to be present today. But there is no church called “The Way” today. That Church which you refer to previously known as the Way got a new name in about 100 AD. It was then called, in Greek,*\Eccclesia kata holis *. Ignatius of Antioch was the first we know of to use this name for the Church established by Jesus. And *Ecclesia kata holis * translates as Catholic Church. Regarding the papacy, all you need do is look at the book of Acts and you see there was a recognized heirarchy of Apostles over othe other disciples. And among the Apostles Peter is recognoized as their leader. Peter gives the first altar call on Pentecost. It is Peter who takes command and calls for a replacement for Judas. At the Council of Jerusalem the scripture says there was much debate. Then Peter stood up and spoke and everyone shut up. Why was this done for Peter and not any of the other Apostles? Because the Boss was speaking, that is why. The early church knew this. The apostles certainly knew this for they were present when Jesus told Peter to govern his flock [See John 21:16] They knew it so why don’t you and your group know it? As for the other things you list all of them are scripturally based except one. That is “salvation by both our faith and our good works” There is no Catholic doctrine that states this. Rather, Catholic Doctrine aas confirmed by the Council of Trent states that we are saved by God’s grace.

Quote:
2) Since God is not the author of confusion, yet there are 30K protestant denominations, which one of these is the “infallible” teacher of the Truth? Remember, God is Truth, and His word is Truth, so those teaching His Truth must - logically - be “infallible.” So, which protestant denomination is it?

Even though the word is truth, there are still plenty of ways to end up with teachings that are contrary to it. IMO There are no church communities that teach infallibly. I think I’ve already addressed this.

But your statement so plainly and clearly contradicts scripture. How can you ignore something so obvious that when Jesus tells the apostles that He will send the Holy Spirit and the Spirit will lead them into all truth See John 16:13. How can you ignore scripture when Paul tells Timothy that it is the church that is the pillar and foundation of truth? See 1 Ti 3:15. How can you ignore scripture when Jesus first tells Peter and later all the apostles that whatever they bind on earth is bound in heaven and whatever they loose on earth is loosed in heaven See Mt 16:18-19 and Mt 18:18. Have you ever considered what that means? That is power. Not even the president of the USA with all the nuclear weapons and the armed forces of the nation has that power. But a fisherman from Galilee did. How can you ignore these scriptures to make the statement that “There are no church communities that teach infallibly”? Scripture most definitely says you are so very, very wrong.

 

[inkaneer]

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 shall respond to this. When the Supreme Sacred Congregation for the Roman and Universal Inquisition was first established in 1542, it was led by an officer who bore the title of Grand Inquisitor. Grand Inquisitors led the Congregation for the Inquisition until 1602when the Pope himself assumed formal presidency of the Congregation.

The Grand Inquisitors were: Gian Pietro Carafa 1542-1555 (elected as Pope Paul IV)
Antonio Michele Ghisleri 1558-1566 (elected as Pope Pius V)
Scipione Rebiba 1573-1577
Giacomo Savelli 1577-1586
Giulio Antonio Santori 1586-1602

From 1602 until 1968, the Pope himself held the title of prefect but never exercised this office. Instead, he appointed one of the cardinals to preside over the meetings, first as Secretary, then as Pro-Prefect. From 1968, the Cardinal head of the dicastery has borne the title of Prefect, without further qualification. Therefore, from 1968 onwards, the title of Secretary refers to the second highest ranking officer of the Congregation. There are usually ten other cardinals on the Congregation, as well as a prelate and two assistants.

So there is the fly in your ointment. In the 366 years from 1602 to 1968 the pope never exercised this office. So any claim against papal infallibility fails. Also, mainline protestants have, for the last 500 years tried to find one instance of any pope teaching error. The best they could do was a pope called, I believe, Honorius who failed to act in a situation and did not teach doctrine. But even the Honoroius event was clouded by uncertainty as to exactly what information was available to him. Even so a failure to teach is not covered by infallibility. But even the mainline protestants do not cite this instance involving the Office of the Inquisition for they know, because they did their own research, that papal infallibility did not apply. Now some of the newer fundie evangelical groups don’t bother with doing research. They just shoot from the hip as they do in their scripture interpretation.

 

[Doggg]

Who here has stated that we want people to “trust in the CC blindly”?

And it has been shown, quite extensively, why the CC has the authority she claims.

No other church can trace its roots back to the Apostles.

Your pastor was NOT anointed by anyone who can claim he was anointed by anyone who can claim he was anointed <snip to 2000 years> by the Apostles.

My pastor was.

Hence my observation about blindly trusting in the authority of the RCC. Making the same assertions and repeating them endlessly is not the same thing as offering evidence.

 

[Doggg]

Well not true. Scripture tells us that Jesus Church would prevail over hell and Jesus would remain with it until the end oif the age. Therefore any church claiming to be that church founded by Jesus has to be present today. But there is no church called “The Way” today.

Why does that matter? You are making the following argument here:

1. Scripture tells us that Jesus Church would prevail over hell and Jesus would remain with it until the end of the age.
2. That church (all the various denominations of it) must have the exact same name that they had during the days of the apostles.
3. You can’t point to a single denomination that exists today that is still known by the same name it had during the time of the apostles.
4. Therefore, your theory that some church besides the RCC existed during the time of the apostles is wrong.

You need to establish that #2 is a valid premise.

 

[atmmgraves]

OK, but I’m not going to allow myself to be pulled very far off the topic that I want to discuss.

It is possible that there were several denominations, one of which was called, “The Way”. If you read the entire NT you will find that the very early church apparently had no knowledge of the papacy, indulgences, purgatory, the immaculate conception, prayers to the saints, transubstantiation, salvation requiring water baptism, salvation by both our faith and our good works, and papal infallibility, to name a few.

No offense, but I believe you need to look at the NT more closely. Contains nothing about faith and works? Nothing about Water Baptism? Nothing on the Immaculate Conception? Transubstantiation? It’s all there. Also, what is not in the bible is in Sacred Tradition of the Church, from which the Bible came.

Even though the word is truth, there are still plenty of ways to end up with teachings that are contrary to it. IMO There are no church communities that teach infallibly. I think I’ve already addressed this.

If ten different teachers sit down and process the Truth, you are going to get ten different versions of it. This is not mathematics - this is interpretation. Hence, 30K protestant denominations. There is only one truth, and, by your own logic, if there is not a teacher who can teach infallibly, then there is no Truth. This is why Christ gave us the Catholic Church. It was created by Christ to teach his word. It cannot err. It taught before the bible, and then it wrote the bible. Again, to cite your own logic, when you admit “even though the word is truth” then surely you would agree that since the Catholic Church wrote the bible - “the word” - it then must be infallible?

I don’t see any reason to believe it, so why is it necessary for me to refute it? You might as easily have asked me to refute this:

“The bible was written by Santa Claus and the canon agreed on by the toy manufacturers union in 1992, and it was written for pre-school children."

Does this need refuting, or is it more reasonable that a person who insists that it is true should be required to prove it?

See above. By the way, this was not a good response and I expected more from you. Maybe you want simple answers rather than to give thoughtful consideration to the questions posed.

Is there one correct one? Some are slightly better than others. Does it matter? Why do you ask? Who says so? I don’t know. I don’t even know why it matters. Is there a point here?

Again, see above. Also, “I don’t even know why it matters.” Really? Seriously? Speaking for myself, I hope the folks who give me an instruction manual on how to put together a child’s toy are correct, much less the word of God. Maybe somee reflection is in order here, rather than reflexive obfustation.

 

[PRmerger]

Hence my observation about blindly trusting in the authority of the RCC.

Doki, no Catholic document and no Catholic here has ever stated one must blindly trust the authority of the CC.

This is a figment of your imagination and a creation of a CC that does not exist.

You cannot find any objections to the existing CC, so now you’re creating this illusory entity and objecting to that.

Making the same assertions and repeating them endlessly is not the same thing as offering evidence.

You would offer the same assertions to an adamantine and obstinate non-Christian who keeps saying, “You Christians keep saying Jesus is God, yet where’s your proof?”

He keeps asking. You keep answering. He thinks you’re going to give a different answer–one that he likes–but you keep proclaiming that which is True.

We are no different here.

 

[PRmerger]

Why does that matter? You are making the following argument here:

1. Scripture tells us that Jesus Church would prevail over hell and Jesus would remain with it until the end of the age.
2. That church (all the various denominations of it) must have the exact same name that they had during the days of the apostles.

Doggg, you are not reading the arguments presented here well. **We have never professed #2. ** In fact, what’s been stated here was that the term “catholic”, in reference to the Church established by Jesus, was not used until 100 years after the apostolic age.

However, you cannot claim that your church goes all the way back to the apostolic age. Unless you can demonstrate that the practices that your fallible pastor practices were practiced in the 1st century, the 8th century, the 12th century, etc etc etc.

 

[wanner47]

Hence my observation about blindly trusting in the authority of the RCC. Making the same assertions and repeating them endlessly is not the same thing as offering evidence.

You know, the best rebuttal to this “blindly trusting” assumption I’ve ever read came from a combox discussion here.

I think the sentiment you expressed is one held by many- that Catholics blindly follow the Vatican, and never use their brains.

Once a person accepts certain premises that then draws him or her to the Church, they do not cease to think for themselves. However, let’s take human sexuality for an example, once I accept the premises that lead me to the Church, the Church’s view of human sexuality is infinitely logical and well-reasoned. Even difficult teachings, such as those on sterilization for women who risk their lives during pregnancy, or the teaching that gays must remain celibate, fit perfectly with the tapestry of life that the Church teaches. It doesn’t make them easy teachings, but their “ease” is totally unrelated to their “reasonableness” or “truthfulness”.

And when those premises are accepted, and a person then hears another Catholic teaching, they don’t think to themselves, “Well, that makes no sense, but I’ll follow blindly.” They hear it, and they think, “Yes, this fits. Another piece of the puzzle that fits perfectly.” And if a member of the Catholic clergy starts spouting nonsense, well, then a thinking Catholic will call him on it. This happens regularly.

Because of the absolute consistency in Catholic teaching, it is nice to be able to look up the answers in the back of the book, so to speak. But as someone who has gone through (hopefully) a thorough catechism, a Catholic realizes they aren’t answers pulled out of thin air, they are well-reasoned under the premises of Christianity. And so, when a question like the infamous “trolley car switch” comes up, we might do a quick google search on Catholic Answers and feel pretty confident with the answer and reasoning provided.

I am not a moralist or a theologian, and so I let the experts do what they are meant to do- look at situations like tubal pregnancies, euthanasia, etc, and reason it out. I am smart enough to then follow their logical explanation and agree that it’s logical. In the same way, I agree to let oncologists treat a cancer, because they are the experts. But if a doc suddenly tells me I need to sleep with a quartz crystal under my pillow, I would sense a logical problem and do a bit more digging. I hope that comparison makes sense.

Does that help you understand?