J
jpete79
Guest
Ryan:
I don’t like violence. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to be called the whore of Babylon though.
I am just really confused by this whole infallibility idea that’s all.
- Status
I don’t like violence. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to be called the whore of Babylon though.
I am just really confused by this whole infallibility idea that’s all.
B
banjo
Guest
If you want the straight story of the Spanish Inquisition from a non-Catholic author published by a non-Catholic publisher I suggest you read The Spanish Inquisition:A Historical Revision; Henry Kamen; Yale University Press.
Richard L. Kagan, New York Times Book Review wrote…"[This book is] the best general book on the Spanish Inquisition both for its range and its depth of information. [Kamen] reaffirms his contention that an all-powerful, torture-mad Inquisition is largely a nineteenth-century myth."
God be with you.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I think we might be able to do a better job of explaining it if we had a good grasp on where you are coming from re: the questions that we (mosher and I) asked about what makes you think the Bible is infallible.
J
jpete79
Guest
First off, the original documents that were found (and dated) thousands of years apart which are in complete unison with each other. The fact that things that were said in Isaiah came true, the things that were said in Genesis happened in Matthew, etc.
Second, the historical significance. Many archaeologists have found various temples, shrines, artifacts and proofs from the Bible.
The Books were written in various languages and yet phrases are sometimes identical.
For a more indepth look at this, the book A Case for Faith will share most of my viewpoints.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Stay w/ me here jpete.
But how do you know that the original authors didn’t compare notes or that a subsequent editor didn’t edit out the conflicts to make it appear they were consistent. This is certainly plausible considering none of the original writings of the original writers still exists.P.S. I’ve read all three books by Strobel (Case for Christ, Case for a Creator, and Case for Faith).
J
jpete79
Guest
If you look at writings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls andg the earliest Greek manuscripts; the wording is 99.9% accurate with the last percent missing only punctuation, grammar and spelling. Besides to compare notes between time (think of how long of a period between Genesis and Revelation (or between Old Testament Canon from Genesis til the birth of Christ) and seeing that they are still consistent in nothing short of amazing. Also language (if Paul was writing in Greek, he had to reference all his Hebrew material) is another amazing thing.Stay w/ me here jpete.
P.S. I’ve read all three books by Strobel (Case for Christ, Case for a Creator, and Case for Faith).
Did you like those books? I only read Case for Faith myself…
H
hurst
Guest
Wait a minute. You refuse to obey an authority claiming infallibility in faith and morals in the name of Jesus, but you will obey parents and civil authority that require obedience in their own name?
That reminds me of this passage:
John 5:43 I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?
Yet, there is a reward for receiving the Pope in the name of Jesus. I am reminded of this passage:
Matthew 10:41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man. 42 And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.
In the end, you have to obey the Pope by faith, in the name of Jesus, when the Pope speaks via his teaching authority (which is not all the time).
hurst
H
hurst
Guest
This is simple. The Pope is merely passing on what was handed down to him. It is the office of Pope that is infallible in faith and morals. Remember the passage where Jesus refers to the chair of Moses? Similar concept. Do as they say (since what they say is passed down), but do not do what they do (since they themselve don’t follow it).
Infallibility in teaching does not mean holiness of life. The Pope could be a scoundrel, but still be infallible because of the office he holds. The teaching of the Church doesn’t change, though it becomes clearer over time. Discipline does change, but any head of a household needs to have such authority to keep things in order.
You seem to miss the incoherency of accusing one Pope of “standing by” during the holocaust, while also accusing another Pope of “standing at the forefront” of the Crusades! If they act to protect the Holy Land from the assault of muslims, they are evil to you. If they don’t act to stop the Nazis from assualting the Jews, they are evil to you. It reminds me of Jesus’ words:
Luke 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and you say: He hath a devil. 34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking: and you say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a drinker of wine, a friend of publicans and sinners.
What would satisfy you? That the Pope attack the Nazis to free Jews, but ignore the Muslims and allow Christians and the Holy Land to be destroyed? I think your logic is confused. The Pope has more of a duty to Christians and the Holy Land for one thing. Secondly, the Pope did not have as much power during the holocaust.
If you are willing to obey God, then you must be willing to obey those whom He sends, and who speak for Him. You must obey the messenger or representative by virtue of the One sending, not on their own merits. Jesus taught this when He mentioned the chair of Moses. Even though those leaders were corrupt, wicked, and seeking to murder Jesus, He still told them to obey.
So it really doesn’t matter if some Pope “stood by” during evil times. That has no bearing on whether his office is infallible in faith and morals. It just means that something hindered him from doing what you think he should have done. But whether this was due to ignorance, wickedness, or powerlessness, we don’t really know. And even if it was due to wickedness, it would still not be grounds to disobey the teaching of Jesus that he represents as Pope.
Isn’t it interesting that even though we are all fallible by ourselves, we still tend to only want to listen to ourselves? But yes, we must bring ourselves to understand in order to act with integrity.
hurst
H
hurst
Guest
The infallibility does not possess the Pope in such a degree that he can do no wrong at any time. When the Pope teaches infallibly, he does so in the person of Christ. It is Christ Who is impeccable and infallible and holy at all times.
He is not making personal moral decisions when he teaches infallibly.
The same is for the sacraments. The priest speaks in the person of Christ, and God makes it happen! It is Christ in our midst feeding us, healing us, annointing us!
Thus it is that the Church can be holy, and an infinite source of sanctification for its members, through its ministers, despite the fact that those ministers may themselves not be following its precepts at all times. They are not guaranteed to be holy, not even the Pope. (But they ought to be, because they are so close to the sources of grace!)
Ecclesiasticus 37:21 … There is a man that is subtle and a teacher of many, and yet is unprofitable to his own soul.
Consider that Jesus predicts that people will try to enter the kingdom, claiming as grounds that they worked miracles in His name.
Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?
While the miracles did indeed occur, it did not guarantee that they were holy or even worthy of heaven, for they were cast out.
Jesus can work the miracle of preserving His Church in His teachings through the Pope, without requiring that the Pope be holy.
hurst
H
hurst
Guest
For one thing, scripture also explains that God is a God of order.
And the order of scripture is plainly that it is first of all a record of historical events. They really happened. After this physical meaning, there is the spiritual meaning, but it is based on the physical meaning. Thus, additional meanings are layered over the physical meaning, hence the prefiguring of later works of God.
But you can’t just allow them to change meaning indiscriminantly. Did Paul mean all future scripture also? Perhaps in a general sense. But he did not thereby specify which books should be included, for there were others. Who then decides which books will fall under the category of being true scripture which subsequently gets treated as inspired scripture?
hurst
P
Philthy
Guest
You have to admit - it is rather circular reasoning to claim that the bible is the word of God because it says so. Now don’t get me wrong - I agree with you that it is the word of God, but my REASON for believing it is different, and it matters. You will find that we, as Catholics, will always attempt to make you realize this first. Why? because you are going to argue everything you argue from the bible, yet why are we to believe the bible to be what it is? The answer is that we believe because of the Tradition of the Church that handed it down to us and preserved it over the years. You said you read some Augustine - did you know that he said that the only reason he accepts Scripture to be what it is is that the Catholic church claims it to be so?
Phil
J
jpete79
Guest
I am not only listening to myself. I am looking at history, I have other Christian friends (and even some Catholic), I have family to go to. I am a devout seeker of truth in the name of Jesus Christ.
I would like to know where infallibility is seen in the Bible? Even if Christ establishes a Church with Peter where does it say that his decisions will always be right?
Alot of you have said to me Sola Scriptura would be spoken about explicitly by Christ if it were true, I am asking to see where a line of successive Bishops/Popes is talked about by Jesus Christ?
Also, remember when Christ talked to the Pharisees, he was talking in a time very close to when he was crucified. Knowing this, he was telling the people to obey because he knew that when he died there could be upheaval. Remember the Pharisees were also involved in politics and not just religion. Also, what they taught was the Law. This was Scripturally intact then. This isn’t their interpretation but what it said so therefore it was correct. They didn’t practice it.
The difference between the two is the Pharisees are teaching Law which was given by God. I see a lot of tradition in Catholicism that is given by man (you see it too but you say that man is allowed to create that tradition because authority is given by God…I say that all men fall short of God including those who are given authority).
I also would like to know when Christ gives Peter the keys to Heaven what do you think he’s talking about?
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
You are still missing the point of the question. Imagine that we had copies of all four Gospels in the handwriting of the author. What gives you confidence that they were inspired by God and not just really smart people who thought they had met God and compared there drafts to make sure there were no inconsistencies?
Case for a Creator to me was the best but it appealed to my attraction to math and science. My wife couldn’t get past the first 10 pages but loved Case for Christ.
J
Jlcastagna
Guest
jpete,
If I appeared to be sarcastic or snip at you in the other thread I appologize. My only motive is to draw you, myself and all closer to the truth. Any sarcasism or snips are only my frustration with myself coming out because I feel I’m not getting the point across well enough. There are many here who are much better at answering your questions than I and to my satisfaction they have. jpete, It is my opinion that you are being drawn closer to the Catholic Church. I heard or read a study somewhere not to long ago that people who convert to protestantism from Catholism do so because of emotions and lack of teaching, but those who convert from protestantism to Catholism do so for intellectual reasons and through study of scripture and history.( Scott Hahn, Marcus Grodi, Tim Staples, Michael Cumbie…) So to steal a Phrase from Michael don’t be afraid of becomig Ca-Ca-Ca-Ca-Catholic.
May God bless and protect us,
JLC
If I appeared to be sarcastic or snip at you in the other thread I appologize. My only motive is to draw you, myself and all closer to the truth. Any sarcasism or snips are only my frustration with myself coming out because I feel I’m not getting the point across well enough. There are many here who are much better at answering your questions than I and to my satisfaction they have. jpete, It is my opinion that you are being drawn closer to the Catholic Church. I heard or read a study somewhere not to long ago that people who convert to protestantism from Catholism do so because of emotions and lack of teaching, but those who convert from protestantism to Catholism do so for intellectual reasons and through study of scripture and history.( Scott Hahn, Marcus Grodi, Tim Staples, Michael Cumbie…) So to steal a Phrase from Michael don’t be afraid of becomig Ca-Ca-Ca-Ca-Catholic.
May God bless and protect us,
JLC
J
jpete79
Guest
Is it circular? Yes I agree that it is…but I think it is self-authenticating as well and it was around long before it was canonized. It was also in original form long before it was canonized (and just so everyone knows, most protestants believe that the Bible is only perfect in its original languages as only the original authors were divinely inspired…does it mean that it cannot be properly interpreted? No, it just means that one must use discernment in reading).
I also don’t see the tradition of Christ’s day (orally passing what was learned before it was written) and Tradition of today being the same. I didn’t see a highly organized structure with political ties but a small community of believers who wanted to know God. I didn’t didn’t read about babes being baptized but about people who believed and then were baptized (now granted there was no household but I firmly attest that anyone who is saved must go through a conversion of some sort; no matter where they grew up), I didn’t see Peter tell any man to come to him but saw him directly tell the person to speak to God and not himself (Acts 10).
Ask a person that is not Catholic (or even some that are) what they think of the Church…I have done it numerous times, I hear people tell about the Crusades, the Inquisition, financial issues, anti-semitism, etc. Now I do not absolve any protestant from any sin. We have all committed our share and I still have my share of stumbling blocks that I need to overcome and am working on but we never claim that the protestant Church is spotless and unblemished. That claim does hold to the Catholic Church.
Also, everyone claims about how there wouldn’t be thousands of denominations if the same Spirit guided everyone. There were denominations right away. Nicolas was a deacon who headed one belief, people that were baptized by various people thought that they were all right. Denominational lines were made then…long before the reformation. Did the Church try to bring unity? Yes, and that was a good thing. However, unity needs to be made even simpler. Unity needs to be in Jesus Christ alone…not in Churches but in belief of Him. We are made to be free and worship how we please (as long as it is not morally objectible to God). Jews may or may not be circumsized (read Galatians), some Christians say you can’t drink and others say there are no issues with it, some denominations say that we need to be more vibrant in worship others say that we need to recite hymns and Scripture.
It is not the acts of Worship that defines us, its the heart inside us and that heart needs to be on Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior; no matter what our denominational background.
Sorry I just went on a rant
J
jpete79
Guest
Faith in Him and them…
That sounds like my parents when they try reading some of my books.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
What distinguishes your faith from the Muslims who use the same logic in their claim of the Koran being Scripture? Or the Buddhists or Hindus?
Under your scenario, a debate w/ a Muslim is essentially a “he said-she said” for which there is no wrong answer. Personally, I want to have a stronger argument.
J
johnnykins
Guest
Actually the Bible is not self-proving. If you mean the verse that talks about Scripture being inspired - be careful where you go with that since “Scripture” in that context means the OT - meaning the Septuagint version which includes the “Apocrapha.” So suddenly, if you hold to that interpretation the entire NT is excluded and the current Protestant canon is lacking.
I submit nowhere does the Bible say what’s in the Bible. No list of Books or various disputed sections of Books. That’s precisely why Luther, Mr. Sola Scriptura, could argue for the exclusion of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.
J
jpete79
Guest
Here’s the issue…
Words will never win someone over. Debate will never win someone over. If the person is to become Christian its due to the softening of their heart and the moving of the Holy Spirit.
Now, I believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful, all present God. A God who knew all things before He created them. This being said I keep this in mind when reading Scripture.
I have read the Bible through and through (in more than one translation) and I do believe that when the word Scripture is used it is in sense the Old and New Testament were meant by God. I believe the Canon was intentional to say that “whoever adds or takes away from this book will…” at the end of Revelation. I don’t think its just some random coincidence.
So here’s the thing…as someone who has studied Islam (but is not close to being an expert), I know alot of the basics.
Mohommad is considered a high-prophet that the angel Gabriel revealed the true word of God to. Now in his revelation he twisted Scripture to become the Koran saying it was misinterpreted and corrupted through the years. The Koran is based on Scripture itself but has been changed from it.
Buddhists and Hindus I have not studied so I cannot give a basis for their beliefs.
S
scylla
Guest
Amen JPete,
I agree words are not going to convert anyone, even the clearest teaching is not going to move anyone without the Holy Spirit or even the person allowing themselves to be open to listening to the truth or to having beliefs challenged. That is why some of these forums can get a little heated.
I often say the biggest obstacle to others understanding the Catholic faith and being open to it is Catholics themselves. I agree that sometimes we get a little snippy here on the forums, but I find these forums some of the most charitable on the net.
As a Catholic I treasure the Bible and it distresses me to see people use it to hundreds of different interpretations. To me as a Catholic seeing the Word of God abused in this way sickens me and that is probably why you see some kinda extreme reactions to different interpretations.
I admire your honesty and charity in your posts and look forward to more questions to try and contribute to. I spend much of my time on other forums but your posts have caught my eye on my way through, and I couldn’t help but make a short comment to see if it helps any.
God Bless
Scylla
I agree words are not going to convert anyone, even the clearest teaching is not going to move anyone without the Holy Spirit or even the person allowing themselves to be open to listening to the truth or to having beliefs challenged. That is why some of these forums can get a little heated.
I often say the biggest obstacle to others understanding the Catholic faith and being open to it is Catholics themselves. I agree that sometimes we get a little snippy here on the forums, but I find these forums some of the most charitable on the net.
As a Catholic I treasure the Bible and it distresses me to see people use it to hundreds of different interpretations. To me as a Catholic seeing the Word of God abused in this way sickens me and that is probably why you see some kinda extreme reactions to different interpretations.
I admire your honesty and charity in your posts and look forward to more questions to try and contribute to. I spend much of my time on other forums but your posts have caught my eye on my way through, and I couldn’t help but make a short comment to see if it helps any.
God Bless
Scylla
- Status