Proof that your interpretation is the right one.

[Grace_Seeker]

I agree that we are capable of being wrong on our own, with or without the Pope. But why don’t you share one or two of these “mistakes” that you feel have been passed down to us by the Pope, so that we can address them itemizedly, and in some detail.

I have. You aren’t listening. Here are two of them stated plainly:

I think that the Catholic church’s teaching on its own infallibility is in error.
I think that the Catholic church’s teaching insisting on the need for a visible Church, a teaching magistrium, and all of the incombant heirarchy associated with it is in error.
From another thread that I just responded to, I think the Catholic church’s teaching that worship must have a priest and a sacrifice is in error.
And I think the present-day Catholic church’s teaching that it has always taught these things is also in error. I think they were inventions on forumalations that took place only after some time, not in the time of Peter, the rest of the apostles, nor any of the first generation of the church. Indeed, I think the majority of these changes took place well after Constantine, but most often the result of the Catholic church reading back into its own history. Even the idea that the Catholic church has a longer history than any other church is in error. Even churches that were formed by schism have the same history as the Catholic church up until the time of that schism. If my parents get divorced, and I end up raised by just one of them, I still have the same number of grandparents as before; that history doesn’t change. And if I run away from home, my parents would still be my children’s grandparents even if I never introduced them to one another. So, your history is my history. You can reject me as not worthy to be considered your brother if you want, but I know that the same blood runs through both our veins even though our life experiences are different.

 

[kujo313]

As for whether the Catholic Church “puts more on Mary than is necessary,” well, that is according to your personal, fallible, interpretations of Scripture, which cannot be taken as authoritative. We look back over the span of 2 millenia and inquire what have Christians believed about Mary all along? We try to believe what they believed. Christianity wasn’t born in 1525, you know. The peculiar notions about Mary that characterize much of Protestant beliefs, covering as they do a wide expanse of theories, are relatively new… only about 500 years old. By the time of Luther, the Church was already 1500 years old. And, BTW, it is interesting to read Luther’s writings regarding true veneration of Mary, and placement of her in the Church. It seems that the Protestants who followed Luther had much more severe ideas about Mary than he did.

I’ve only studied Luther by watching a movie. It was good and he had some good points about the RCC: RCC says there’s no Salvation for the Greeks, etc.
About Mary, she’s one of my favorite Christians. However, if she’d say “no”, then God would’ve gotten another virgin. There was more than one virgin that day.
Overall, God and mankind is reconciled through Jesus.
In the Old Testament times, what attention was given to Eve? Not much. People for thousands of years was waiting for The Messiah, their Deliverer, their Hope.
Once Jesus showed up, God’s Chosen was reconciled with the Creator, Himself.
It’s all about God.
God’s Chosen people are now complete. You really don’t hear a Messianic Jew put Mary as high as the RCC does.
Those who accept God’s “sacrificial Lamb” for the forgiveness of sins are “grafted into the Vine.”
The traditions and letters or the origional apostles show no evidence of lifting Mary up to where the RCC puts her.
It wasn’t even until 1850 when the pope said that Mary did not die but that she was assumed into Heaven.
The scapular, according to Wikipedia:

Of all the types recognized by the Church the best-known, and perhaps the most popular, is the Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, sometimes referred to as the “brown scapular” from the color of its bands. It is believed to have been originally given by the Blessed Mother to Saint Simon Stock when she appeared in England in 1251. The saint was apparently told by Mary that those who died “clothed in this habit [would] never suffer eternal fire”. (Jesus already DIED so we can never suffer Hell)The brown scapular is also associated with the “Sabbatine Privilege”, which states that Mary’s motherly assistance for those who wear the scapular will continue after their death, especially on Saturdays - the day devoted to her honor. Some interpret the Sabbatine Privilege as a promise that those who wear the scapular will be freed from Purgatory on the first Saturday after their death; the Church has never confirmed this. The Sabbatine Privilege has two extra requirements - to observe chastity according to one’s state in life, and to recite the Office every day.

The Scapular of the Immaculate Heart of Mary has green bands and thus is known as the “green scapular”. To receive the indulgence and benefit of the scapular, the wearer must daily pray “Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.” As with the brown scapular, the benefit is that the faithful wearer will not die without the opportunity to receive the Last Rites. The green scapular is traditionally worn by the terminally ill.

The Scapular of the Passion, called the “red scapular”, is the only scapular for which the images are specifically prescribed. It also designates that the bands must be of red wool. It was revealed in 1846 to Sister Apollone Adreveau of the Sisters of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul and approved by Pope Pius IX the following year.

This “scapular” thing is worshipping (bowing down to) and honoring Mary when the Blood of Jesus is all that is, and ever was, needed to escape Hellfire.

Even from RCC tradition, this is going way off. First, the RCC calls her “mother of God”, THEN it says that the scapular, thanks to Mary, can keep you from Hell.

Either by your tradion or by Scripture, the RCC has taken a detour from the “straight and narrow.”

 

[kujo313]

Since you, as a Protestant, do not possess a teaching institution with infallible authority to interpret and implement Scripture into a useable piety, it must therefore be that YOU are your own Pope. If this isn’t true, then tell me who IS your Pope. Who is teaching you, interpreting Scripture for you, telling you what is correct doctrine, so that you are not whipped around willy-nilly by every wind of doctrine.

I know who my Pope is. I’m wondering who yours is.

“In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is the dogma (settled or established opinion, belief, or principle) that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. For all such infallible teachings, the Holy Spirit also works through the body of the Church to ensure that the teaching will be received by all Catholics.”
“According to the First Vatican Council (1870-71) and as reaffirmed at Vatican II (1963-1965) the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.”

A bunch of fallible people declare that one is infallible. Yet, Scripture says “For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

 

[Allweather]

I think that the Catholic church’s teaching on its own infallibility is in error.

Would you mind if we take these so-called “errors” one at a time? I’ll write them all down in order to keep track of them so we don’t cover old ground unnecessarily. If this is OK with you, why don’t we start with the first one, infallibility. I don’t know how thoroughly familiar you are with the dogma, so I’ll start by quoting a small part of an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia in which the basic definition is given. The Encyclopedia was assembled near the turn of the 20th century so when it refers to Vatican Council, it means the First Vatican Council, ca 1870.

Infallibility is defined as: "“in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.”"

""That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation. The teaching of the Vatican Council is to be found in Session III, cap. 4, where it is declared that “the doctrine of faith, which God has revealed, has not been proposed as a philosophical discovery to be improved upon by human talent, but has been committed as a Divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted by her”; and in Session IV, cap. 4, where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra “enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals”. ""

Does this accurately describe your understanding of Catholic infallibility?

 

[Allweather]

A bunch of fallible people declare that one is infallible. Yet, Scripture says “For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Kujo, you don’t give the source of your definition of infallibility, and it reads a little cockeyed to me. Nevertheless, I am not a theologian, and am far from an expert on infallibility, so I will accept it as is for now. Based on that definition, it appears that you did not read it, or if you did, did not understand it, or if you did, prefer to deliberately obfuscate its meaning.

Briefly: Speaking only of Papal infallibility, the Pope’s infallibility is very limited, and refers only to faith and morals. He is yet a sinner. Nothing about infallibility makes the Pope not a sinner. So, you have erroneously applied the Scripture you cite.

Remember, it is only when the Pope teaches ex cathedra, and only faith and morals. Here is how it is understood:

"…its (ex cathedra) present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”

 

[Allweather]

I’ve only studied Luther by watching a movie. It was good and he had some good points about the RCC: RCC says there’s no Salvation for the Greeks, etc.

I didn’t see that movie, but in general, I don’t put much stock in movies as testaments to truth. I don’t know what you mean when you say “RCC says there’s no Salvation for the Greeks, etc.” You’ll have to explain that a little more deeply, as I am dense.

About Mary, she’s one of my favorite Christians. However, if she’d say “no”, then God would’ve gotten another virgin. There was more than one virgin that day.

That is true. And yet, that isn’t the way it happened. Your possibles are trumped by the facts of Scripture. Therefore, it might be better for you to wonder less about what MIGHT have happened, and dwell more deeply on what DID happen, keeping in mind that God doesn’t make mistakes, and he never acts without purpose and profound meaning.

Overall, God and mankind is reconciled through Jesus.

True.

In the Old Testament times, what attention was given to Eve? Not much. People for thousands of years was waiting for The Messiah, their Deliverer, their Hope.

I’m just ruminating here, but Eve was the person through whom sin came into the world. We might not expect her to be elevated onto the same plane with Mary, through whom the Savior came into the world.

Once Jesus showed up, God’s Chosen was reconciled with the Creator, Himself.
It’s all about God.
God’s Chosen people are now complete. You really don’t hear a Messianic Jew put Mary as high as the RCC does.

I don’t know any Messianic Jews, but my understanding is that most of them are Protestants, and even Fundamentalists, so no, I wouldn’t expect one of those to have a Catholic understanding of Mary.

Those who accept God’s “sacrificial Lamb” for the forgiveness of sins are “grafted into the Vine.”

Does that refer to gentiles?

The traditions and letters or the origional apostles show no evidence of lifting Mary up to where the RCC puts her.
It wasn’t even until 1850 when the pope said that Mary did not die but that she was assumed into Heaven.

By “traditions and letters or the origional apostles” are you referring to Sacred Scripture? Or to extra Scriptural material?

The scapular, according to Wikipedia:

I know what a scapular is, but I have never heard the things attributed to it that you present here from Wikipedia, such as it being a “worshipping of Mary” or that a scapular can, in and of itself somehow magically keep a person out of hell. This is all news to me. You might consider not using Wikipedia as a source. Accuracy is very questionable there, since just about anyone can post or modify an article. If you want accurate Catholic sources, I’d recommend you use the Catechism, or maybe read the articles that are available here at CA, which are very readable and easy to understand, and AFAIK are true to the faith.

 

[Allweather]

I’ll admit that they MAY be. But I don’t think you can have any more certainty of it than anyone else can.

Sorry I am just now getting around to responding to this, as I was very busy earlier today and only had time for the last little snippet.

OK, so you admit that my scriptural interpretations MAY be just as valid as yours. According to most Protestants I’ve known (including me), each man is his own interpreter of Scripture. I realize that there are bodies of Protestants who have a more organized interpretive process, but even those, I understand, give precedence to the individual’s right and even obligation to interpret for himself. The problem arises with the varying interpretations. Within the Protestant universe, there are many variations of interpretations, as you know. But let’s confine this to MY interpretations vs YOUR interpretations. You’ve accepted that mine may be at least as valid as yours. But mine differ from yours in many important particulars. When I read the Bible, I see Catholicism on most every page (for instance John 6). Apparently, you see Protestantism. Now, given what you say about God guiding our interpretations, how could it be that we are arriving at so different interpretations? One of us is wrong, either in whole, or in part, and that just may be you. You are basing your faith on a suspect foundation. If your interpretations are wrong, then YOU may be wrong.

Given that your theological brethren, Protestants, have such a wide array of interpretations, many of whom would find it impossible to be in communion with you because of these differences, and given the relative uniformity of Catholic doctrine and Scriptural understanding throughout the world, how likely is it that yours is the correct version? Isn’t it far more likely, given what we say we know about God, that yours, being DISunifying, is the incorrect version?

The best we can do is depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is present to guide all Christians, for no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit. And protestants do indeed say, “Jesus is Lord.” Thus we have the same Spirit to guide us that is available to the Pope himself.

That is true (and BTW I do not “admit” that the Pope and bishops cannot accurately interpret Scripture, I don’t know where you got that I did), the same Spirit guides us all, Popes and people. But Popes are special, same as Peter was special, and all the Apostles Jesus personally selected. In Luke 10 Jesus sends out the 72, which undoubtedly include the 12 Apostles, paralleling as it does the similar account in Mark 6. He tells them: “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And woever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Jesus, being God, could have just flown around and delivered his message directly into the heads of people. Rather, he designed a Church, the genesis of which we see here, in which he gives authority to Apostles and disciples. Jesus says “all authority has been given me by the Father” and “As the father has sent me, so I send you.” (paraphrasing). So Jesus is giving the authority that he possesses from the Father unto the Apostles, and those Apostles are building a visible, authoritative Church, which we see being done in Acts, and throughout the rest of the NT. So Apostles and their successors, the Popes and bishops, are special people.

But back to the Holy Spirit’s guidance. You know, the Mormons claim the Holy Spirit makes their bosoms burn with a conviction that the Book of Mormon is true, and that Joseph Smith is a true Prophet of God, and that You and I are apostates. They believe that there are unnumerable gods in the universe, and that they may become gods if they’re good Mormons. And they’re very good at using our Bible to back up their beliefs. The Pentecostals claim the Holy Spirit makes them speak in tongues and that this is necessary evidence of a second necessary “saving” baptism, which notion BTW they get from Scripture. Many of those don’t believe in the Trinity. There are many, many examples of very different interpretations of Scripture, all of whom are claimed to derive from Holy Spirit guidance. They can’t be true, though, and I’d be surprised if you didn’t agree with me. So, how do you know YOURS isn’t also untrue? You’ve already admitted that they may be untrue. Isn’t there something more solid on which you stand than maybe?

 

[suupah]

Basically the way we can prove without a doubt that the catholic church is the true church is by our fruits. if the world were to judge churches by their fruit i don’t think the Catholic church would come out on top.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Does this accurately describe your understanding of Catholic infallibility?

Yes. And also why I think it is in error. I don’t think it has any more supernatural divine guidance than the common everyday Christian.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

So, how do you know YOURS isn’t also untrue? You’ve already admitted that they may be untrue. Isn’t there something more solid on which you stand than maybe?

Asked and answered. You may have to go back and read my posts again if you missed it.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Basically the way we can prove without a doubt that the catholic church is the true church is by our fruits. if the world were to judge churches by their fruit i don’t think the Catholic church would come out on top.

I don’t think any of us have so much fruit that we can put another down for their lack thereof. And if one did, I would wonder where the fruit of love was?

 

[kujo313]

“RCC says there’s no Salvation for the Greeks, etc.” You’ll have to explain that a little more deeply, as I am dense.

In the days of Luther, the pope at that time declared that there was no Salvation outside the RCC. Luther asked, “what about the Greeks?”

That is true. And yet, that isn’t the way it happened. Your possibles are trumped by the facts of Scripture. Therefore, it might be better for you to wonder less about what MIGHT have happened, and dwell more deeply on what DID happen, keeping in mind that God doesn’t make mistakes, and he never acts without purpose and profound meaning.

True, God works His way. However, giving clues from the Law and Prophets, God does not say to lift up the virgin the way the RCC does.

True.

I’m just ruminating here, but Eve was the person through whom sin came into the world. We might not expect her to be elevated onto the same plane with Mary, through whom the Savior came into the world.

There are only two “planes”: us and God. All of us, (past, present and future) have to go through Jesus. He said so.

I don’t know any Messianic Jews, but my understanding is that most of them are Protestants, and even Fundamentalists, so no, I wouldn’t expect one of those to have a Catholic understanding of Mary.

God’s “chosen” people are the Jews. We, believers in Jesus the Messiah, follow a Jewish Messiah.

Does that refer to gentiles?

Yes. Born-again Christians are grafted into the Vine.

By “traditions and letters or the origional apostles” are you referring to Sacred Scripture? Or to extra Scriptural material?

First Century writings of the apostles. 2nd Century cannot be relied on because you don’t know if the followers of the disciples twisted Truth or not. What is, and has been, proven is Scripture.

I know what a scapular is, but I have never heard the things attributed to it that you present here from Wikipedia, such as it being a “worshipping of Mary” or that a scapular can, in and of itself somehow magically keep a person out of hell. This is all news to me. You might consider not using Wikipedia as a source. Accuracy is very questionable there, since just about anyone can post or modify an article. If you want accurate Catholic sources, I’d recommend you use the Catechism, or maybe read the articles that are available here at CA, which are very readable and easy to understand, and AFAIK are true to the faith.

Google search “scapular” and you’ll see a whole webpage on the subject. It’s all about Mary. God made us to worship Him and not His creations. carmelnet.org/scapular/scapular.htm
ewtn.org/expert/answers/brown_scapular.htm

It seems that, thanks to Mary, those who wear a particular scapular will not go to Hell.

Blasphemy!

 

[Bishopite]

[kujo313;2176509]Some “protestants” look back at the FOUNDATION of our faith: God’s Word. First-hand witnesses’ accounts are in the Bible. It’s the Holy Spirit, not a fallable man, who can reveal the Scriptures to mankind just as Jesus revealed Himself in the Scriptures to His disciples. For it is true that Jesus IS the Truth just as He said He is. The Holy Spirit, according to Jesus, guides us into all Truth.
As far as leaders go:

Ephesians 4:11-16

11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

Note that this was written after Jesus ascended into Heaven. THIS is the first century Church of Jesus Christ. Paul does not say that Peter is the head, but rather Christ.
**

We agree Christ is the head, He is God. Peter is simply the stewart, the temporary majordomo in place who is shepharding the King’s sheep until the King returns.

We’re to listen to the teachers that God appoints, but we’re to worship the same God that they do.

This is an over simplification without any clarification. If you look into ecclessiastical history, you will NOT find the same theology of the teachers you follow. What you will find is a succession of teachers (bishops and priests) whos theology was Catholic, for the “teachers” God appointed are shown in councils and in their very writings as they are perserved for us today. And the worship of Protestantism is NOT the worship of the early church.

As long as we keep Jesus in our “sights”, we’re not being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.”
The RCC goes way, way outside the “sights” and “sight-sees” leaders and followers within its denomination while some “protestants” have “blinders” on and do not wish to veer off of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

First of all, Catholicism is not a denomination. Denominations didn’t exist until post reformation. Secondly, which of the Protestants correctly interprets the Bible?

 

[Bishopite]

"
Google search “scapular” and you’ll see a whole webpage on the subject. It’s all about Mary. God made us to worship Him and not His creations. carmelnet.org/scapular/scapular.htm
ewtn.org/expert/answers/brown_scapular.htm

It seems that, thanks to Mary, those who wear a particular scapular will not go to Hell.

Blasphemy!

Your whole assertion is a straw man. Can you show me any official Catholic document that asserts that Catholics worship Mary??
You convieniently jumped from Mary to worship of Mary, which Catholicism does NOT teach. Mary is a creation, we worship only the creator.

And we only ask those who are in the body of Christ to pray for us.
Wearing a scapular is NOT a dogma of Catholicism but a discipline and just because one wears a scapular does NOT mean they have a free ticket to heaven. The scapular is designed as a disciplinary tool so that those who keep its guidelines live a holy and justifying life. It would be the same as living a life like Paul or one of the other Apostles or being “Christ-like.”
And read Hebrews 11 a chapter on hagioraphy or the study of the Old Testament saints. The writer of Hebrews writes about their “faith” so that we can model them; and to model them is to model Jesus.

 

[Allweather]

In the days of Luther, the pope at that time declared that there was no Salvation outside the RCC. Luther asked, “what about the Greeks?”

By which I assume he meant the Orthodox? And what did the Pope reply? BTW is this from the movie you watched? You had said earlier that you haven’t read much of anything about Luther, but that you’d watched a movie about him once.

True, God works His way. However, giving clues from the Law and Prophets, God does not say to lift up the virgin the way the RCC does.

And what about the Greeks? You think the RCC has bigtime Mary veneration? You should look at the Greeks (meaning orthodox). How would you explain that, given the fact of 1000 years of separation between them?

There are only two “planes”: us and God. All of us, (past, present and future) have to go through Jesus. He said so.

And what does that have to do with my reply to your wondering about why Eve isn’t “raised” up in OT eras the way Mary is in NT eras?

God’s “chosen” people are the Jews. We, believers in Jesus the Messiah, follow a Jewish Messiah.

That is true, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the question of why Messianic Jews of today don’t apparently venerate Mary as Catholics do. I opined that it is probably because they are Protestants. Why don’t you keep to the topic?

First Century writings of the apostles. 2nd Century cannot be relied on because you don’t know if the followers of the disciples twisted Truth or not. What is, and has been, proven is Scripture.

OK, so you’re referring to Bible, as in New Testament. You used this phrase: “traditions and letters or the origional apostles” which is an odd way to refer to Bible. I just wanted to make sure you didn’t have some extra-Biblical material on hand. And BTW we can know that 2d century followers didn’t “twist truth” for instance because those were the people who had possession of the sacred texts in those days, which you accept as NOT twisted. What did you think? That the 1st century people emailed the texts directly over to you? They were kept, protected, transmitted, carefully, lovingly, by Catholics for 1500 years before Luther. Those are the same ones you misinterpret according to what gets handed down to you from your teachers.

Google search “scapular” and you’ll see a whole webpage on the subject. It’s all about Mary. God made us to worship Him and not His creations. carmelnet.org/scapular/scapular.htm
ewtn.org/expert/answers/brown_scapular.htm

It seems that, thanks to Mary, those who wear a particular scapular will not go to Hell.

Blasphemy!

There is nothing blasphemous about anything at those two sites. I’m afraid you’re in the grip of fundamentalism, my friend. Do a web search using the key words fundamentalists anonymous. There is help for you.

 

[Allweather]

I don’t think any of us have so much fruit that we can put another down for their lack thereof. And if one did, I would wonder where the fruit of love was?

Actually, I wouldn’t think of it in terms of quantity, like bushels and baskets, but in terms of quality, like unity and division. The fruit of Catholicism, among other things, is remarkable unity over a period of 2k years and still going strong. The fruit of Protestantism is division and heterodoxy, and still going strong. And you shouldn’t take that as a put-down. It is simply a fact that anyone with an eye connected to a brain can clearly see.

I do agree, though, that we can draw attention to this fact of Protestant divisiveness in unloving ways, which we shouldn’t do. But we nevertheless must draw attention to it, out of Christian concern for our separated brethren, who it seems would rather avoid facing up to facts.

 

[Allweather]

Yes. And also why I think it is in error. I don’t think it has any more supernatural divine guidance than the common everyday Christian.

Well I agree (about divine guidance, not error), and have said so, but you’re missing the point, which I may not have made clear enough, so let me rephrase it here rather than ask you to wade back through previous material.

There is only the one Holy Spirit, we surely agree on that. Yet, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of distinct Protestant denomiations, sects, and derived cults, all claiming to be tuned in to the Holy Spirit, and yet mostly at war with each other over these doctrines that they receive, or say they receive, from that Holy Spirit.

Again, given the uniformity of Catholic dogma and doctrine over the 20 centuries, compared to the scattering of Protestant doctrine over a mere 500 years, how do you explain it?

And please don’t come back with a vague reference to changing Catholic doctrines since early times. In Protestantism, we’re not talking about a gradual crystalization of understanding of truth already revealed. We’re talking about radical uprooting, flipflopping, turning inside out changes that have created a sea of strange religions.

Now, with regard to your assertion that infallibility is in “error”, and given what I’ve just described again comparing Catholic uniformity to Protestant non-uniformity, wouldn’t you have to say that maybe there is something to this infallibility thing after all? I mean, the Protestants took themselves out of the loop, and BOOM all hell broke loose among them. Meantime, the Catholic Church kept chugging right along, and even got stronger from the reforms out of Trent. Isn’t that some evidence worth considering?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Now, with regard to your assertion that infallibility is in “error”, and given what I’ve just described again comparing Catholic uniformity to Protestant non-uniformity, wouldn’t you have to say that maybe there is something to this infallibility thing after all?

No. I wouldn’t, and I don’t.

 

[Allweather]

No. I wouldn’t, and I don’t.

Is that your version of a well-reasoned argument?

Are Methodist pastors not in the habit of bringing facts to bear on their opinions?

Or is this tendency to have unsubstantiated opinions a personal thing?

 

[Allweather]

Yes, UNITY is important. Our unity is in Christ and the body of Christ – i.e. all Christians are the Church, not just one particular religious body that calls itself the Catholic church. I don’t think that there exists in this world the God-ordained visible, authoritative Church on Earth that you describe. There is only the body of Christ, an invisible but very real Church. We are all part of it, even Catholics.

I thought about this comment of yours today during the first reading at Mass, from Acts 14: “After Paul and Barnabas had proclaimed the good news to that city and made a considerable number of disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch. They strengthened the spirits of the disciples and exhorted them to persevere in the faith, saying ‘It is necessary for us to undergo many hardships to enter the Kingdom of God.’ They appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith. Then they traveled through Pisidia and reached Pamphylia. After procaiming the word at Perga they went down to Attalia. From there they sailed to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work they had now accomplished. And when they arrived, they called the church together and reported what God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles.”

Was that an invisible Church to which Paul and Barnabas were making the rounds? Appointing elders, and commending them to the Lord with prayer and fasting? Were those invisible ships on which Paul and Barnabas were sailing at great risk? Were those invisible hardships they were suffering for the sake of the Kingdom of God? Who are these men who have authority to appoint elders? Aren’t they the Apostolic seed that Jesus sent forth into the world to make all men followers of Him? Through the visible Church that he established?

And as regards unity, do we get the impression that Paul is unconcerned with unity? He and Barnabas are traveling feverishly from church to church exhorting the people to “persevere in the faith.” If unity were only in the invisible realm, then Paul would’ve had no need to concern himself with deviations from the faith in the visible realm, and so could have just remained at home in relative comfort. So long as they called themselves Christians, they could believe anything they wanted to about Jesus and the Church, and still been quite fine in your world of the invisible.