second question for our non-catholic brethern

[pocohombre]

No, it doesn’t. A stop sign can’t arrest you if you fail to stop. It is the police officer who can arrest you, who has the authority that is *represented *]in the stop sign. Pretty much what I said- the stop sign "represents authority". Otherwise we quibble in semantics eg. “authoritative” or “resource” or “inanimate” .

In the same way, it is the Church, and not the Bible, that can tell you if you are misreading or misinterpreting the Bible.

 

[pocohombre]

Nope. They got their authority through appointment by the President of the United States, with confirmation by congress,

Why do we do it this way ? Where does the president get his instructions, even his power for this from ?

Injustice. That is why it is very important for a president and a congress to vet every candidate for the Supreme Court very carefully. Sometimes they make mistakes. But this has nothing to do with where they got their authority.

Yes it does. What is the best way to vet them ? Is it ok to see the Constitution as "living’ and “changing”, “evolving”, relative so that by the time you are done you may have more than injustice but you may have a government and society totally different than from the beginning ? You have things that were once considered “unconstitutional” to be “constitutional”, and more importantly, vice versa. It totally is dependent on just how authoritative the constitution should be (vs changing will of the people, political pressures etc), not just on how you should interpret it.

 

[eddie_too]

for non-RCs, religious authority does not truly exist. for non-RCs, every man is his own pope.

truly, being RC requires an assent of faith. the assent is given to the idea that Jesus created a mechanism by which all mankind could know His life and teachings error-free.

this idea means that the RC knows, as fully as the Church can provide it, the truth that is Jesus Christ.

all non-RCs are left with no person or institution in this world whereby they can know what Jesus did and taught.

certainly non-RCs can have faith in Jesus. it is just that they can never be certain who that Jesus is and what that Jesus taught because, by their own admission, there is no human being or human institution whereby they can have certainty as to truth.

the entire non-RC christianity is based on the belief that no one knows for sure what Jesus did and taught. as a consequence of this belief, every christian is a church unto themselves. every christian is united to each other by the lowest, acceptable common agreement.

so, it does make sense, from the non-RC point of view, to reduce Jesus and the truths He taught to that which all christians agree upon.

of course, the mormons provide us with the essence of this non-RC christian belief system when they proclaim themselves and their doctrines christian because they believe in and acknowledge the salvific and redemptive consequences of Jesus.

my main problem with this non-RC christianity and its belief that Christ gave us no authority by which we could know HIm and what He taught is that it leads to a deprivation of God’s graces for those who adopt it.

what do i mean by deprivation of God’s graces? those who reject the authority of the RCC do not have access to the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. they do not have access to apostolic succession. they do not have access to the sacraments of Holy Orders, Confirmation, Anointing of the Sick and Confession. they do not have access to all of the tens of thousands of committed followers of Christ who have through the past two millenia lived, preached and taught the depth of Christ’s life and teachings. they do not have access to Christ’s teachings on marriage, on contraception, on abortion.

this deprivation from God’s graces that results from the non-RCs’ belief that Christ left no authority to guide His Church is the true tragedy.

as any sincere follower of Christ will admit, it is not an easy task to live as Jesus asks us to live. to know this and to yet refuse the assistance in following Him that Jesus provided is a tragedy in the truest sense of the word.

 

[Protestor]

I have never read where Jesus through a bunch of keys into a bucket and invited everyone to come and grab a set. You read too much into Origen’s comments. Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter. Please demonstrate where any other keys were given to anyone else?

I am not saying anything but that there are keys. I am not reading anything into anything. I was merely quoting tradition. I actually remember stopping the quote because later on it reads like all christians have the keys and I did not want to get into that. I was trying to correct PJM with tradition. Next time I will just quote the bible

 

[pocohombre]

for non-RCs, religious authority does not truly exist. for non-RCs, every man is his own pope.

truly, being RC requires an assent of faith. the assent is given to the idea that Jesus created a mechanism by which all mankind could know His life and teachings error-free.

this idea means that the RC knows, as fully as the Church can provide it, the truth that is Jesus Christ.

all non-RCs are left with no person or institution in this world whereby they can know what Jesus did and taught.

certainly non-RCs can have faith in Jesus. it is just that they can never be certain who that Jesus is and what that Jesus taught because, by their own admission, there is no human being or human institution whereby they can have certainty as to truth.

the entire non-RC christianity is based on the belief that no one knows for sure what Jesus did and taught. as a consequence of this belief, every christian is a church unto themselves. every christian is united to each other by the lowest, acceptable common agreement.

so, it does make sense, from the non-RC point of view, to reduce Jesus and the truths He taught to that which all christians agree upon.

of course, the mormons provide us with the essence of this non-RC christian belief system when they proclaim themselves and their doctrines christian because they believe in and acknowledge the salvific and redemptive consequences of Jesus.

my main problem with this non-RC christianity and its belief that Christ gave us no authority by which we could know HIm and what He taught is that it leads to a deprivation of God’s graces for those who adopt it.

what do i mean by deprivation of God’s graces? those who reject the authority of the RCC do not have access to the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. they do not have access to apostolic succession. they do not have access to the sacraments of Holy Orders, Confirmation, Anointing of the Sick and Confession. they do not have access to all of the tens of thousands of committed followers of Christ who have through the past two millenia lived, preached and taught the depth of Christ’s life and teachings. they do not have access to Christ’s teachings on marriage, on contraception, on abortion.

this deprivation from God’s graces that results from the non-RCs’ belief that Christ left no authority to guide His Church is the true tragedy.

as any sincere follower of Christ will admit, it is not an easy task to live as Jesus asks us to live. to know this and to yet refuse the assistance in following Him that Jesus provided is a tragedy in the truest sense of the word.

ET ET ET. Why is that non rc’ers, at least here, can describe your authority structure/ doctrine etc. quite accurately ? Why don’t you try again with accurately portraying Orthodox and Protestant views on authority etc ?. Of the seven statements only one is half correct (deprivation of a few sacraments). The other 6 and half are general misrepresentations.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have never read where Jesus through a bunch of keys into a bucket and invited everyone to come and grab a set. You read too much into Origen’s comments. Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter. Please demonstrate where any other keys were given to anyone else?

They must have made copies

 

[jmcrae]

The fact is, you don’t know for sure. You’re just going along with the crowd.

The most honest answer I’ve ever gotten to this question was, “I don’t really care whether the books in the Bible are the “right” ones. The Church could have put any books in there, and the fact that we believe or at least say, that they were inspired by God means that we will find a way to find God in them - even if they aren’t actually divinely inspired. People will still look to them and find ways to interpret them for moral and theological teaching, even if the books were Grimm’s Faery Tales, and The Little Engine That Could, and the complete collection of Shakespeare’s plays.”

Of course, such a view assumes that people already understand theology, and already know what is moral, without having to read about it first - which presumes that there is a Holy Tradition that is given to children before they can read.

 

[SteveVH]

Why do we do it this way ? Where does the president get his instructions, even his power for this from?

From the people who voted him into office in accordance with the constitution.

The Church, however, received its authority directly from Christ, not from a collection of inspired writings, even though it lives according to those writings which are a reflection of the faith it first received from Christ and the Apostles.

Yes it does. What is the best way to vet them ? Is it ok to see the Constitution as "living’ and “changing”, “evolving”, relative so that by the time you are done you may have more than injustice but you may have a government and society totally different than from the beginning ? You have things that were once considered “unconstitutional” to be “constitutional”, and more importantly, vice versa. It totally is dependent on just how authoritative the constitution should be (vs changing will of the people, political pressures etc), not just on how you should interpret it.

This is precisely why the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church have not changed. Truth is not changing and evolving nor is it relative. It is constant and consistent.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

That in no way answers the conundrum. Who is your authoritative interpreter to interpret the true church which can act as an authoritative interpreter?

Think about it.
It is, in a sense, like asking “who interprets the US Supreme Court’s decisions?”

I disagree.

You’re free to disagree all you want. You have the right to be wrong!

Should I downplay the teachings of the Catholic church because it has split off into a SSPX?

Good example!! The Catholic Church didn’t “divide.” There’s STILL the Catholic Church and a splinter group called the SSPX.

Should I fault sacred tradition because with that same tradition the catholic and orthodox churches experienced schism?

I think it’s funny that protestants invoke the OC so often.
Our differences with Orthodoxy are much more nuanced. However, for purposes of argument, I’ll accept that there may be TWO and ONLY TWO candidates for the ONE True Church.

So, if you want to become a part of one of the only two candidates, I will explain why the claims of the Catholic Church are superior.

If you were taking a multiple choice test with answers of A, B, and C, and you KNOW that the correct answer is EITHER A or B, it would make no sense to choose C because you couldn’t figure out if A or B is the correct answer.

At some point you have to recognize it’s people that cause divisions because they want what they shouldn’t.

True enough. For instance, King Henry wanted to marry Anne Boleyn.
Others want to deny other Truths that we received from the Apostles (who received them from Jesus).

The number of divisions has no bearing on the quality of the original message.

It DOES have a connection to the idea of personal interpretation, which facilitates the multiplicity of divisions.

Also, as an aside to the rest of this thread… the comparison of the bible being interpreted by the church with the US constitution being interpreted by the supreme court really doesn’t work. The constitution is not an inerrant document written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit to proclaim the history and teachings of a gospel that does not change. The constitution, instead, is written with the knowledge that the founding fathers don’t know what the future holds and that the document must be a living document, able to be amended and reinterpreted. The word of the Lord, meanwhile, does not change and its teachings apply to us always.

I agree. The analogy is faulty. Especially in the sense that the SC isn’t guided by the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised the Church would be.

So, the analogy, if anything, is too weak.

 

[SteveVH]

I am not saying anything but that there are keys. I am not reading anything into anything. I was merely quoting tradition. I actually remember stopping the quote because later on it reads like all christians have the keys and I did not want to get into that. I was trying to correct PJM with tradition. Next time I will just quote the bible

Okay, well here is your comment that the quote was meant to support:

Originally Posted by Protestor
There are many keys to the kingdom which open many gates.

The early Church fathers are wonderful sources by which we can see what the early Church believed. But Origen was not trying to convey what is implied in your statement.

 

[SteveVH]

They must have made copies

Yeah, just in case…

 

[eddie_too]

having unequivocally been told i am wrong about non-RCs and authority, it is sad that i was not given the gift of knowledge about what human being the non-RCs acknowledge as possessing the legitimate authority to proclaim the life and teachings of Jesus.

it is self-evident that such authority does not exist in the groups that, beginning in the
16th century, rejected apostolic succession and subsequently turned in to over 20,000 different groups all claiming to teach the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, albeit with different conccepts, doctrines and structures.

a person might think that when someone rejects another person’s opinions it would be only charitable to explain why the opinions misrepresent reality.

but, like i said, it is very difficult to be charitable (the essence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ) when refusing to take advantage of all of the grace giving mechanisms created by Jesus. by that i mean the grace found in the sacraments, apostolic succession and faithful assent to the teachings of the RCC.

 

[eddie_too]

i should have added that it is difficult to be charitable WHEN accepting all of the mechanisms Christ gave to us. that is why it is even more difficult to be charitable when refusing to use those mechanism.

 

[jmcrae]

If you were taking a multiple choice test with answers of A, B, and C, and you KNOW that the correct answer is EITHER A or B, it would make no sense to choose C because you couldn’t figure out if A or B is the correct answer.

Perhaps there is a strange sort of comfort in being completely sure that you’re wrong …

 

[SteveVH]

Perhaps there is a strange sort of comfort in being completely sure that you’re wrong …

 

[Traverse]

Think about it.
It is, in a sense, like asking “who interprets the US Supreme Court’s decisions?”

Yes. It is exactly like that. That’s my point. You can go on and on with claims like that. But to be fair, I do understand where you’re coming from. We choose not to trust the supreme court per se but abide by their ruling. Likewise, you choose to trust the magisterium but in so doing also proclaim that it can’t be wrong. And that’s kind of where everyone gets hung up.

You’re free to disagree all you want. You have the right to be wrong!

You too, old bean.

Good example!! The Catholic Church didn’t “divide.” There’s STILL the Catholic Church and a splinter group called the SSPX.

I think we’re just at semantics at this point. You talk about divisions upon divisions upon divisions of protestant churches. Lutherans could just say “we’re still here, everyone splintered from us.” It’s the same argument you’re using here isn’t it? Members of the SSPX used to actually be catholic and then they separated themselves. The church divided.

Now that’s sad stuff, but you’re absolutely right when you say the catholic church remains and those who left do what they want. I just wanted to point out that claiming the appearance of divisions from protestants is contradictory. A church is established and when those leave it to start their own they do not “divide” that church but splinter from it, if you prefer that term. It’s the same concept as far as I know.

But of course this is all kind of irrelevant. I don’t even claim to be protestant as I aspire to the original church that Christ established and so have joined a congregation that has that same goal and am not really protesting anything about catholicism.

I think it’s funny that protestants invoke the OC so often.
Our differences with Orthodoxy are much more nuanced. However, for purposes of argument, I’ll accept that there may be TWO and ONLY TWO candidates for the ONE True Church.

It gets brought up because it’s relevant. There are not big differences between the two (catholic and orthodox), sure, but that doesn’t change the fact they are two separate churches who both make the same claims of authority. I would very much be interested in your reasoning for why the RC has the better claim, but the reason I brought it up was not to say that they are probably right so you’re wrong but to point out that while catholics love to say sola scriptura causes divisions they ignore that divisions are caused even with sacred tradition. Or splinters, if you prefer.

True enough. For instance, King Henry wanted to marry Anne Boleyn.
Others want to deny other Truths that we received from the Apostles (who received them from Jesus).

The problem here, personally, is that I can’t even think of any apostolic truths that aren’t also in the biblical account. I know the first thing that pops in your head right now is “trinity” but while the exact definition is not present all the pieces are clearly in the text and able to be understood.

It DOES have a connection to the idea of personal interpretation, which facilitates the multiplicity of divisions.

Right. Yes. Personal interpretation. Even protestants (I would hope) agree with this. I certainly do. The main difference between us is that I believe that studying the bible with an honest heart and continual prayer will help me avoid personal interpretation and you see it in a magisterium.

I respect the elders of my congregation and the deacons as well, but I don’t take anything they say at their own word. I always strive to make sure they’re backing up their points with scripture.

How can I be sure I’m interpreting scripture correctly? I pray to the Lord for that guidance and trust in Him that if I am wrong I will be shown that I am wrong. Knock and the way will be open to you. Seek and you shall find.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

You’re still not understanding. The Church has proper authority to delineate the canon. You’d only need Scripture as an ultimate authority if the Church were to try to introduce the wrong books into the canon. Which sections of the Church did, and the response was to reject them as being incompatible with the rest of Scripture. It’s not about chapter and verse. It’s about the coherence of salvation-history.

Once again, no such thing as “Catholic and Reformed” the Catholic Church has never been reformed in all its 2000 years history, that is why its one continuation and one line straight back , unbroken, to Christ who founded the Catholic Church.

If you want to talk about the Church of England, it was founded by Henry V111 who disagreed with the Pope and broke from Rome, Henry did his own thing and made up a lot of his own Rules and Regulations since he promoted himself as not only King but head of the Church of England also, some pompous ***.

 

[daler]

I respect the elders of my congregation and the deacons as well, but I don’t take anything they say at their own word. I always strive to make sure they’re backing up their points with scripture.

How can I be sure I’m interpreting scripture correctly? I pray to the Lord for that guidance and trust in Him that if I am wrong I will be shown that I am wrong. Knock and the way will be open to you. Seek and you shall find.

Traverse,
. God had a good reason to give everyone of us our own brain and I think its some kind of blaspheme to not use it. It may be easier to deal with the herd pressure, just to nod our heads in agreement, but to retain our own thoughts and maintain an independent investigation of truth is a moral responsibility.

. You’ve hit the nail on the head here, that we need to keep “Knock, knock, knockin’ on heaven’s door…” as Dylan said. If we don’t keep knockin’, nothin’ is open to us.

. Likewise, we are commanded to “Seek, and ye shall find.” Too many people just blindly imitate others. Seeking is an individual thing. Its personal, too.
.

 

[jmcrae]

Traverse,
. God had a good reason to give everyone of us our own brain and I think its some kind of blaspheme to not use it. It may be easier to deal with the herd pressure, just to nod our heads in agreement, but to retain our own thoughts and maintain an independent investigation of truth is a moral responsibility.

The Catholic Church encourages questioning. Indeed, before you can be allowed to become a Catholic, you have to spend at least six weeks in a Period of Inquiry, prior to being accepted into the RCIA, which is a further several months, even in the most liberal parishes.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yes. It is exactly like that. That’s my point. You can go on and on with claims like that. But to be fair, I do understand where you’re coming from. We choose not to trust the supreme court per se but abide by their ruling. Likewise, you choose to trust the magisterium but in so doing also proclaim that it can’t be wrong. And that’s kind of where everyone gets hung up.

Yes, that’s where the analogy departs from the reality: the Church has the promise of Jesus, and the SC doesn’t.

I think we’re just at semantics at this point. You talk about divisions upon divisions upon divisions of protestant churches. Lutherans could just say “we’re still here, everyone splintered from us.” It’s the same argument you’re using here isn’t it?

Not at all.
I can declare myself to be the president of the US, and claim that my claim is equivalent to Obama’s. However, much as I hate to say it, he IS the president and my claim would be delusional.

Members of the SSPX used to actually be catholic and then they separated themselves.

Yes. THEY SEPERATED THEMSELVES.

The church divided.

Nope. Some chose to leave the Church.

Now that’s sad stuff, but you’re absolutely right when you say the catholic church remains and those who left do what they want. I just wanted to point out that claiming the appearance of divisions from protestants is contradictory. A church is established and when those leave it to start their own they do not “divide” that church but splinter from it, if you prefer that term. It’s the same concept as far as I know.

OK, I agree with this. However, it is the fruit of the rejection of Authority (the Authority that Christ gave His Apostles) which makes this possible.

But of course this is all kind of irrelevant. I don’t even claim to be protestant as I aspire to the original church that Christ established and so have joined a congregation that has that same goal and am not really protesting anything about catholicism.

I glad you have that goal. Now, study the History of the Early Church and see just how Catholic those who were ordained by the Apostles really were. That was the thing that really threw me over the edge.

It gets brought up because it’s relevant. There are not big differences between the two (catholic and orthodox), sure, but that doesn’t change the fact they are two separate churches who both make the same claims of authority.

And one is right; the other not right. It DOESN’T mean that any old additional claim is equivalently valid.

I would very much be interested in your reasoning for why the RC has the better claim,

I could point out a book or two, or you could start a thread.

But I should point out that I’m baffled by your interest.
ONE of them is the Church Jesus commissioned. HIS Church, according to His words.
All the other churches are out of the running.

Right. Yes. Personal interpretation. Even protestants (I would hope) agree with this. I certainly do. The main difference between us is that I believe that studying the bible with an honest heart and continual prayer will help me avoid personal interpretation and you see it in a magisterium.

ALL denominations believe that this will lead them to the correct interpretation.
Fact is, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church, not each of us individually. The proof of that is the myriad of denominations who all claim to be led by the HS and scripture.

How can I be sure I’m interpreting scripture correctly? I pray to the Lord for that guidance and trust in Him that if I am wrong I will be shown that I am wrong. Knock and the way will be open to you. Seek and you shall find.

Just like the other thousands of denominations.