second question for our non-catholic brethern

[PRmerger]

If it’s the ultimate authority, then can you quote me where it says that Hebrews is to be included in the canon of the NT? Book, chapter and verse, please.

Novo, can you address this question posed to you way back when?

 

[PRmerger]

Still all elements of a fallen world .There was a method of sanctification and purification in the OT, as the Ark was pure and holy as you say. So to with Mary, quite fitting . Quite pure and holy, in OT sense. The "fitting’ might be human sentiment, uneeded piety.

Excellent.

So the Ark of the Covenant was pure and holy. Just like Mary, the new ark.

What you have described above is nothing more than the Immaculate Conception professed!

 

[PRmerger]

Look. I believe that the battle of Hastings was in 1066. This belief I hold without error. Are we therefore to conclude that my knowledge of the date of the battle of Hastings is infallible? Are we to assume that I literally cannot be wrong? That I could not, in any conceivable world or circumstance have mis-remembered, and thought that it was in 1166? That would be ridiculous. And yet it’s the (il)logical argument you’re making…

And you know this through ONE method only: you trust in the authority of someone else who told you.

So the above is another testimony to the fact that you are an advocate of Sacred Tradition.

And, to entertain your analogy above: if there were a group of men who, without any outside textbooks, declared that the Defeat of the Spanish Armada occurred in 1588, and repeatedly, on different occasions, ***and with entirely different groups of men, ***kept repeating this correctly, then, yes, they would be considered to be speaking infallibly.

 

[PRmerger]

… which means it probably shouldn’t be called Sola Scriptura.

Yep.

It appears that since Sola Scriptura has been diced and sliced and refuted quite easily, the definition has changed now.

It is more like what is being argued by some Prots here is Scripture as the Final Authority, or Scriptura Ultima. Not Sola Scriptura.

 

[Picky_Picky]

And you know this through ONE method only: you trust in the authority of someone else who told you.

So the above is another testimony to the fact that you are an advocate of Sacred Tradition.

And, to entertain your analogy above: if there were a group of men who, without any outside textbooks, declared that the Defeat of the Spanish Armada occurred in 1588, and repeatedly, on different occasions, ***and with entirely different groups of men, ***kept repeating this correctly, then, yes, they would be considered to be speaking infallibly.

Why? Why couldn’t you just say they were right about the date of the Armada? You might think it good evidence that they were also correct when they told you the date of Elizabeth’s death, but you would have no reason to think them infallible, on that matter or any other.

 

[PRmerger]

That would be crazy, if that were what I had argued…

FYI, I’m aware of why Hermas was rejected. The Muratorian Fragment says that it wasn’t for unorthodox content, but because of its post-apostolic origin. The sola scripture Christian can accept this judgement; it only contradicts sola scriptura if the judgement contradicts scripture!

This is another novel definition of SS.

There is nothing in Scripture which states that all writings must be apostolic in origin. That comes from Sacred Tradition.

As such, one again defers to the authority of the CC when he declares that the Shepherd of Hermas is not theonpeustos.

 

[PRmerger]

Why? Why couldn’t you just say they were right about the date of the Armada?

How would they have received their information, Picky?

 

[bubbawanda]

Yes, that would be being a brat, I agree. Your honesty is admirable.

Well I appreciate that, but mostly im in pretty much the same boat as most everyone else. I find the theological hair splitting educational and so I follow along. But that is not what returned me to the Church. Severe approaches have left casualties all over the returning path im on. Im not interested in being a theological expert, i’m interested in the peace that comes with knowing that Jesus is the source of my salvation.
For those that are dissecting various points im getting entertained and educated so thanks for that. But that is not what brought me back.
Sometimes we overthink it. Just my feeling about it.

 

[PRmerger]

Well I appreciate that, but mostly im in pretty much the same boat as most everyone else. I find the theological hair splitting educational and so I follow along. But that is not what returned me to the Church. Severe approaches have left casualties all over the returning path im on. Im not interested in being a theological expert, i’m interested in the peace that comes with knowing that Jesus is the source of my salvation.
For those that are dissecting various points im getting entertained and educated so thanks for that. But that is not what brought me back.
Sometimes we overthink it. Just my feeling about it.

What do you think God meant when He said to love Him with our entire MIND?

It seems like you have embraced the part where we love Him with our entire heart and soul.

But how do you love Him with your entire MIND?

 

[bubbawanda]

What do you think God meant when He said to love Him with our entire MIND?

It seems like you have embraced the part where we love Him with our entire heart and soul.

But how do you love Him with your entire MIND?

Ah the pea brain does what it can. Sometimes im brilliant, and sometimes im an idiot. Fortunately God hasn’t seen fit to strike me down over it.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah the pea brain does what it can. Sometimes im brilliant, and sometimes im an idiot. Fortunately God hasn’t seen fit to strike me down over it.

This doesn’t really address my question, though.

Do you not think that God commands us to attempt to apprehend Him through our mind?

Yes, or no?

And if yes (which I’m almost certain you are going to respond with), then what is wrong with then “theological hair splitting”? (Which, incidentally, I don’t believe we are doing here on the CAFs. We are discussing what God has revealed and how we can know what it is. If that is theological hair aplitting, then so be it. Without discussions such as these we are left with the chaos and confusion of the tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations, each claiming that their interpretation is the correct one,)

Just what the devil ordered, IMHO: the idea that what we are doing here is splitting hairs,

 

[spina1953]

From the Catholic Answers Staff:

The Catholic religion is the religion of the Catholic Church—i.e., that group of churches in communion with the pope. If a group isn’t in communion with the pope, it isn’t part of the Catholic Church.

Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite.

There are many Catholics in the East who are not Roman Catholics, such as Maronite Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, and Chaldean Catholics. These are all in communion with the pope, but they are not members of the Roman rite, so they are not Roman Catholics.

The Roman rite is not stricter than these other rights. They are equal. They all teach the same faith; it is only local customs that are different among them.

PRmerger: Great post especially from the CAF staff. It has been my understanding concerning the different Rites within the Catholic Church. It seems to me that there are those posters that seemingly disregard that and continue to think that somehow that the different Rites are Roman Catholic’s when in fact they are Catholic’s within the Catholic Church and that the Roman Rite is just one Rite among many. Thanks for making that clear.

 

[bubbawanda]

This doesn’t really address my question, though.

Do you not think that God commands us to attempt to apprehend Him through our mind?

Yes, or no?

And if yes (which I’m almost certain you are going to respond with), then what is wrong with then “theological hair splitting”? (Which, incidentally, I don’t believe we are doing here on the CAFs. We are discussing what God has revealed and how we can know what it is. If that is theological hair aplitting, then so be it. Without discussions such as these we are left with the chaos and confusion of the tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations, each claiming that their interpretation is the correct one,)

Just what the devil ordered, IMHO: the idea that what we are doing here is splitting hairs,

Oh ****. OK and as I said before, I follow along because its educational and entertaining. History is both. So no, dont stop what you are doing, it works for me. Just understand that if you pull a pop quiz on me im probably gonna get a C on the details. And thats about the extent of my humble intellect.
God has been pretty good to me in my life and I have no problem with it. I owe. Probably why im here right now.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh ****. OK and as I said before, I follow along because its educational and entertaining. History is both. So no, dont stop what you are doing, it works for me. Just understand that if you pull a pop quiz on me im probably gonna get a C on the details. And thats about the extent of my humble intellect.
God has been pretty good to me in my life and I have no problem with it. I owe. Probably why im here right now.

 

[Picky_Picky]

How would they have received their information, Picky?

I’ve no idea: it’s your story, you tell me. On the whole it seems a rather unlikely set of circumstances, but if it is as you say then I would assume they’ve memorised the date. So perhaps they were told it by someone last week. Of course we have a difficulty. If they are the only people giving that date: how do we know they are right? Fortunately, although there are no text books in this world of yours, we can still go back to the documents written shortly after the Armada.

If you want the answer “Tradition” to your question, fine, because Novocastrian believes in the value of tradition. Unfortunately you are mixing two separate although connected matters. You argue that someone with a history of being right must be infallible. When it is shown that the logic of that statement is unconvincing, you switch to tradition v scripture. Then you’ll switch back

Stick first to the argument about infallibility. I catch a train every week. Every week it gets me to my meeting on time. Is it infallible? Of course not. One day there may well be a signal failure or bad weather and it will let me down.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh ****. OK and as I said before, I follow along because its educational and entertaining. History is both. So no, dont stop what you are doing, it works for me. Just understand that if you pull a pop quiz on me im probably gonna get a C on the details. And thats about the extent of my humble intellect.
God has been pretty good to me in my life and I have no problem with it. I owe. Probably why im here right now.

Okey dokey. Just read and learn your faith better so you can “always have a reason to offer others for the hope that is in you. But do so with gentleness and reverence.”

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve no idea: it’s your story, you tell me.

Well, they got it the way everyone today got it–by believing another authority.

On the whole it seems a rather unlikely set of circumstances, but if it is as you say then I would assume they’ve memorised the date. So perhaps they were told it by someone last week. Of course we have a difficulty. If they are the only people giving that date: how do we know they are right? Fortunately, although there are no text books in this world of yours, we can still go back to the documents written shortly after the Armada.

Egg-zactly. So there really is no way to verify that the armada was truly defeated in 1588 except by trusting in another source.

If you want the answer “Tradition” to your question, fine, because Novocastrian believes in the value of tradition. Unfortunately you are mixing two separate although connected matters. You argue that someone with a history of being right must be infallible

Not exactly, Picky. I argue that completely different groups of men, on multiple occasions, in different venues, with nothing to direct them save Sacred Tradition, have come to a conclusion that even Novo acknowledges was without error.

How was this accomplished?

By the charisma of infallibility.

 

[PRmerger]

Stick first to the argument about infallibility. I catch a train every week. Every week it gets me to my meeting on time. Is it infallible? Of course not. One day there may well be a signal failure or bad weather and it will let me down.

Infallibility requires will, intellect and cognition, Picky. As such, a train doesn’t meet these criteria.

That’s also the reason the Scriptires aren’t infallible but rather are described as inerrant.

 

[Novocastrian]

Well, they got it the way everyone today got it–by believing another authority.

Egg-zactly. So there really is no way to verify that the armada was truly defeated in 1588 except by trusting in another source.

Not exactly, Picky. I argue that completely different groups of men, on multiple occasions, in different venues, with nothing to direct them save Sacred Tradition, have come to a conclusion that even Novo acknowledges was without error.

How was this accomplished?

By the charisma of infallibility.

You realise that that doesn’t follow, right? X being correct y number of times does not ever mean that X must always be correct. That looks suspiciously like the fallacy of induction.

 

[pocohombre]

Excellent.

So the Ark of the Covenant was pure and holy. Just like Mary, the new ark.

What you have described above is nothing more than the Immaculate Conception professed!

Yes but the ark was still “wood and gold” from a fallen earth. Yes it was set apart to hold that which was holy. Not sure I meant it was pure. Can wood be pure ? Dedicated, set apart (holy), yes . The ark is more symbolic of Christ.His humanity-wood (accacia resistant to rot-sin), and Gold , His divinity. Yes the IC covers your bases of pure and holy, but so does all other explanations apart from IC. Again, not necessary, but fitting for some.