C
CWBetts
Guest
Are you still spouting your own personal dogma? Why is it you refuse to submit to the Church founded by Jesus Christ? Why do you insist on sowing discord and causing division?
- Status
C
Cristian_B
Guest
It is written: God makes history repeat itself.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Ah, but I do…
The issue here has to do with accountability. Do you regard teachers of doctrine as accountable for what they teach? Martin Luther and Augustine? John Calvin and Pope Benedict? John Wesley and Joseph Smith? The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church and The Catholic Church? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and The United Presbyterian Church in the USA? Are they accountable for what they teach as dogma or not? Read your Catechism # 87 before you answer.
Do you accept it as the most sound rubric for a defendant to exempt himself exclusively from accountability and norming by himself exclusively insisting that himself exclusively is incapable of being wrong, laying aside any discussion of such, and himself alone insisting that whatever he himself exclusively says rather just be accepted with docility? Before you do, consider that this is a common denominator among all the cults and that The Catholic Church rejects this rubric.
Before you insist (as have others), “but GOD (or the Apostles or Scripture) states that The Catholic Church alone may exempt The Catholic Church alone from accountability” or “God told us that The Catholic Church exclusively is to be accepted with docility in whatever it alone says” that the obvious question is: Where? Others will do EXACTLY the same as The Catholic Church does when others make that claim, ask “Where?” And The Catholic Church would reject as invalid and absurd that that one uses every verse with the word “church” in it, capitolizing the word so as to imply in modern English grammar that a proper noun is being used and inserting the legal moniker of itself into the text as where this is done.
IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light, confident that God’s truth is revealed in the light. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability, exempt self from norming, insist all that be laid aside in the singular case of itself exclusively, and demand that whatever self alone says rather just be accepted with docility, as God speaking. Kinda makes it moot that God so often warned us of false teachers (never exempting The Catholic Church or any that so exempts self), kinda makes Jesus wrong when He praised the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating the issue and for declaring them false.
.
P
paul_c
Guest
Josiah.
I think you now have it. The Catholic Church does have a unique role in that it was commissioned by Jesus to hold and teach the basic truths to which everyone is accountable, including itself. The eternal Catholic faith is the measure that is the norm. As we have already shown, scripture alone is insufficient as a norm, since it can’t be reproduced realiably. With every new post, that point is proven anew.
Your argument at this point is relegated to denying that the catholic church has this role. If you want to make that argument, which I doubt you can support, start another thread.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
- Quote Jesus where He so much as even MENTIONS The Catholic Church. For anything. About anything. Concerning anything.
- Exactly, and it alone declares what it alone says as that “truth.” “Whatever I say is Truth and so truth is whatever I say - just accept it with docility.” “I’m right cuz I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, so there.” “I alone agree with me alone, so therefore I alone am right cuz I’m right so I’m right when I alone agree with me alone.” Is that really a rubric that you believe is the most sound? Have you studied any of the cults?
- I remind you: The Catholic Church is NOT accountable to the teachings of The Catholic Church for the teachings of The Catholic Church (as absurd as that rule/canon would be). The Catholic Church is infallible - and thus accountability is moot, in the singular, exclusive, sole and only case of itself, itself exclusively so claims. As I understand it (as all my Catholic teachers and my priest taught me), The Catholic Church REJECTS the rubric you are suggesting: that if self alone agrees with self alone, then self is correct. Friend, as all my Catholic teachers pointed out, that is entirely moot to whether self is correct. I agree with my priest and my Catholic teachers and disagree with you in this regard.
THIS thread is about the most sound rule/canon for the norming of teachers regarded as ACCOUNTABLE. It has been the (necessary) response of the Catholics to suggest that while the topic is appropriate for every man, woman, child, group, organization, body, congregation or denomination on the planet and throughout all history, The Catholic Church makes ONE remarkable, stunning exception to this: Itself. Exclusively. And you’ve TRIED to justify WHY it is the most sound rubric for determining correctness for a teacher to exempt himself from accountability, declare self alone to be incapable of error, and to lay all taht aside and rather just accept with docility whatever that one says “with docility” “as God speaking.”
If it is your position that Jesus or any Apostle promised The Catholic Church anything, then start a thread and simply list for us every Scripture where Jesus or any Apostle said “The Catholic Church” in any context, in any regard, for anything. Then we can see if Jesus stated that we are to exempt one teacher from accountability and just accept with docility whatever that single one said with docility - and that that specific, singular one is The Catholic Church as it is constituted today. Ah, but that’s a subject for another thread (one I doubt any Catholic would start, and one no Protestant who has read the Bible needs to start).
.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Matthew 16:18-19. Jesus founded only a single Church, and with Peter and his successors have the authority to “Bind and Loose” What his means is that Peter and his successor s were granted the authority to decree what is right and wrong. Considering that the Catholic Church in existence in the 1st century, that means these promises were conferred to the Catholic Church. It most certainly wasn’t the Lutheran “church”
P
paul_c
Guest
Josiah, dont lecture me on what the Catholic church teaches. I am sure I understand it better than you do and am quite confident that all the Catholics on here would agree.
Again, you claim that the Catholic Church doesn’t have the authority to hold and teach the truths about salvation. Proove it. Saying that the words, “Catholic Church” don’t appear in scripture is a poor argument, note worthy of intelligent discussion. Its the essence of the organization that matters, not its name.
No, the topic of this thread is not about the rule of norming. The topic of this thread is to explain sola scriptura and sola Fide forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4862641&postcount=1
You coopted this thread to push your own agenda, which obviously is to bash the Catholic Church. I will start the thread on the authority of the catholic church to hold and teach the Christian Faith. See you there.
P
Philthy
Guest
P
paul_c
Guest
Okay, Josiah. here’s the promised thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6266211#post6266211.
Prove your point that the Catholic Church was never given authority to define authentic Christian doctrine…
T
Theoferrum
Guest
I can explain it to you from the point of view of a Protestant who attended Bible College for one year and then converted to Catholicism.could someone explain to me these two things?
The point is, in fact, that the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura is hypocritical cause in their Bible colleges they will add that you can’t just take the Bible out in the desert and start making up your own doctrines but must interpret it in the context in which it was written which then means you have to study the Church Fathers to know what the Apostles taught, etc.
Sola Scriptura is basically a Protestant cop out…
P
Philthy
Guest
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the accountability as practiced by the Church. The Church has a system of accountability as I pointed out before. In this system anyone can contribute to the discussion of an issue. The point at which you confuse “exempting itself from accountability” with exercising authority in the process of accountablility, is in how it chooses the ultimate arbiters in this discussion. Apparently you would like to be more involved with it! But not everyone has the authority to exercise a final judgment in the Catholic system of accountability; only those who have been entrusted with that authority. Perhaps in your own system - which you repeatedly refuse to share with us - everyone is involved at every level in the accountability process. That is certainly consistent with the history of Protestantism - even within the Lutheran Church. When the system of accountablility fails to meet the expectations of a particular group or individual, they decide to EXIT THE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM and form their own group and usually create a name to represent their modified allegiance. The Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod would be one such example among many I could provide. The ultimate expression of exiting the accountability system is the “non-denominational” churches. In case it isnt apparent to you, this form of accountability ultimately results in no accountability at all despite the persistent claims of Scripture as the authority and any other fancy names for that such as a “norma normans”.
It’s possible?! Doncha think that is just a bit of an understatement AJ? And no, we are not going to run from this topic to yet another one of your rants on how bad the Catholic Church is. It is time for you to deal with the reality of disagreement over what Scripture is, what is says, and what it means. That is the topic!
It is not merely “possible” that we’ll have disagreements, it is most probable and historically predictable that there will be WIDESPREAD differences of opinion. And yes, we would “need” to go to “arbitration” which is a fancy way of saying that we will need to have an authority higher than our individual concerns. Even more importantly, if the faithful - both on earth and in Heaven - are to be “bound” by what this arbitrator comes up with, it has to be God’s actual will that is expressed through the arbiter. That will require divine intervention in the form of illumination by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church claims this illumination in the successors to the Apostles in their capacity as teaching matters of faith and morals universally to the Church. Its historical ties (by Apostolic succession) to the original Apostles as well as it’s 2000 year history of existence as promised by Christ should serve to build your intellectual confidence and faith in their claim. But in the end, you simply disagree with their claim, and its as simple as that. You recognize the need for an arbitrator, but you simply reject the CC’s claim of being God’s appointed arbitrator. What more is there to discuss, really?
Blessings!
T
Tomster
Guest
Exactly! What our esteemed adversary fails to see is that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is a divinely established institution and therefore infallible. Whether or not the word ‘Catholic’ appears in the New Testament is immaterial. Neither do the terms Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, non-denominational, etc.
It appears that our esteemed adversary is unwilling to look at the Scripture references we have given him in this regard.
He is trying his best to give the “authoritative” doctrine of A.J.But, I have failed to find any biblical references stating that A.J. has the authority to do any such thing. Since he has failed to do the above, the point he is trying to make is moot.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
None of those others claim to be singularly unaccountable.
Your case is founded entirely on The Catholic Church being designated as singularly incapable of error in these matters and unaccountable - because Jesus so declared it. But we all realize you have not been able to present anything from Jesus that so declares.
You haven’t given any… Not one even MENTION of The Catholic Church. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in reference to anything, in any regard - even totally in passing. And you haven’t been able to present anything that states that The Catholic Church is infallible or incapable of error in doctrine, nothing about it singularly and exclusively being unaccoutable, nothing about that whatever it itself exclusively teaches is to just be accepted with docility. Nothing.
Your attempt to require that I support your position is odd. I never claimed to be singularly and exclusively infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error. I never claimed that the issue of my correctness is to be laid aside and rather all are just to accept whatever I say with docility, as God speaking. That’s the insistence of The Catholic Church exclusively for The Catholic Church exclusively. The shoe is on your foot, not mine.
It is absurd to argue that whatever God establishes is thereby infallible. God established marriage, are all marriages thus infallable and all married persons unaccountable? God established the Hebrew Kingdom (even directly appointed some of the kings), did that mean taht those kings were infallible, incapable of error, and unaccountable for what they said or did (I hope you’d read the Old Testament and went to Sunday School so that you know the answer there)? EVEN IF you could establish that God founded The Catholic Church (and so far, NOTHING has been presented that remotely indicates that), that is entirely moot to such being infallible and unaccountable. You know that.
Do you believe that those who teach doctrine are accountable for what they teach? Martin Luther and Augustine? Arius and St. Francis? Joseph Smith and Pope Benedict? John Calvin and John Wesley? The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and The Catholic Church? The United Presyterian Church in the USA and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Do you think teachers are accountable or not? Or do you insist that a teacher is exempt from this whole question if the self same teacher exempts self exclusively from norming and rather insists that all just accept whatever that one says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking?” Before you answer, read your Catechism # 87 (and I wish you would read “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie), and consider the epistemology of the cults.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Yes. This is mostly among those that practice the epistemology you are defending: Exempting self exclusively from accountability and norming, and simply declaring self alone as incapable of error in these matters and that everyone should just accept with docility whatever self alone says. Have you studied the LDS? The cults? Are you aware of the diversity of thought among these? Are you aware that there is nothing whatsoever to be done since each regards itself alone to be unaccountable?
Yes, my Calvinist friend and I can find things we disagree on. I’m not aware that any of these are dogmas - but they might be. But I can assure you that we are closer under the Rule of Scripture than you are to my Mormon friend - both of you insisting that your denomination is incapable of error (actually, my Mormon friend would not go nearly that far - but he does embrace the same concept you have been defending: If self agrees with self as determined by self, then self is correct).
Well, there needs to be an arbitration beyond the defendant. So, what is the arbiter that The Catholic Church goes to, that is higher than itself?
Friend, with sufficient ego, anything or anyone can claim anything. And if this thread were about acts of faith - we could discuss how people choose to trust that. And I would extend to you the exact same respect to you for your act of faith in this regard to The Catholic Church as you extend to my Mormon friend for the exact same act of faith for the exact same issue for his denomination. But this thread is not about acts of faith, it’s about ACCOUNTABILITY and CORRECTNESS, and specifically the most sound rule/ canon/ norma normans for that norming. So, the issue is not whether you CAN trust whatever, it’s about whether the claim is TRUE. Again, you must evade the central issue: are teachers accountable for what they teach as doctrine? The Catholic Church is such a teacher for it teaches doctrine.
Obviously, you’ve not shown that Christ promised The Catholic Church ANYTHING.
Nor can you show that Christ promised infallibility to ANYONE.
You keep coming back to this, your foundational point: BECAUSE Christ and/or the Apostles PROMISED infalliblity/unaccountability to The Catholic Church. But you’ve never shown that anyone ever promised it anything. Your apologetic is baseless.
.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
You like to play the “shell game” and to try to reverse things…
Friend, I’m not saying that I’m infallible, incapable of error, thus exempt from accountability and norming, and rather all should just accept whatever I alone say “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” You keep wanting ME to support a position I don’t hold. The Catholic Church does.
Friend, I NEVER said that Catholics may not teach. You are teaching, and I never said you may not. The issue is: Are teachers accountable for what they teach - especially as doctrine? THAT is the issue here, for the topic is about what best serves as the rule/canon in norming - and norming flows from ACCOUNTABILITY. The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture in regard to its doctrines NOT because it has an alternative (better or not) but because it rejects that its doctrines are accountable - and thus are subject to norming and WHATEVER might be embraces as the rule/canon for such.
Friend, let’s say I insisted as a matter of greatest importance and certainty that I’m the most handsome man in the world, and this is true because Jesus said so. I just have a hunch your first question would be: “Where?” A very relevant question too since my apologetic is entirely that point - the apologetic is entirely moot and baseless if it cannot be substantiated as true. Now, I guess I could say, “Well, Jesus did say “man” 21 times in the NT, and actually, in invisible words only I can see, He said “Josiah - the most handsome” before that and “in the world” after that - you just can’t see those words, but I can.” But I doubt you’d “buy” that. And I wouldn’t respect you much if you did. Your whole apologetic rests on this claim you make that Jesus promised that The Catholic Church is infallible, unaccountable, and whatever it says must be accepted with docility. But what you have revealed is that you have NOTHING where Jesus says ANYTHING about, for or concerning The Catholic Church. He never mentioned infallibility or unaccountability either. What He did is repeatedly, boldly warn us about false teachers. What He did is praise the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Church forbids: holding teachers accountable, testing/norming them, arbitrating the issue, and declaring them false.
Here’s my well-known position on The Catholic Church. Read it. Carefully. Each word. We’ll discuss it on the other end. I regard The Catholic Church as a fully valid and highly esteemed institution. I regard all the believers in it to be my full, equal, unseparated brothers and sisters in Christ. I regard its ministers, ministries and Sacraments as fully valid. I regard nothing it officially teaches to contrary to Scripture or Tradition. I agree with the overwhelming majority of its teachings - more so than most Catholics, according to my priest. I pray daily for God’s richest blessings to its ministers, ministries and Holy Father." There it is. Now, if you will say MORE positive things about the denomination that my congregation belongs to (The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod) then I’m more “anti” than you are. IF you will say LESS positive and affirming things about my denomination, than you are the more anti. Got it? But friend, your playing the “how come you’re always pic’n on pur me” card doesn’t do you justice.
.
C
cfrancis
Guest
I’ve been lurking in this thread, with interest. AJ, can we use your analogy?
Bob, you and I are going to decide with what we will “norm” his fence. You mention a “Sears Measuring Tape” but I think that’s a bit ahead of the game.
You mentioned earlier that Scripture is the norm no matter what/how much Scripture there is (eg, when only the Pentateuch existed, that was it, etc…)
Here we are, Bob, you and me, and his fence extends beyond what we know to be the norm; that is, his fence extends beyond the reach of the Sears Measuring Tape. To make the connection to our Scriptural discussion, all we have the OT, but we are obviously beyond that with the new teachings of Jesus.
So, we need to add to the norm, thus creating a new norm. Or, we need to figure out what to add to the OT to account for this new Revelation.
- How do we do this?
- How do we add to the Sears Measuring Tape?
- What is the norm by which we measure that which will be added to the existing norm?
P
paul_c
Guest
If you regard nothing the Catholic Church teaches as contrary to scripture or tradition, why have you spent the last couple of months arguing that the Catholic church teachings aren’t the norm for measuring truth?
K
kepha1
Guest
There are a lot of questions that Josiah has refused to answer. When asked what rule the Church used to prove inspiration of certain books, he resorts to novel inventions, such a pre-existing list of books that needed no Church to canonize. He doesn’t say how the pre-existing list of books got there, he just avoids the obvious. Re-writing church history to force fit sola scriptura will never work.
The primary rule the Church used for proving inspiration of scripture was that it had to measure up to Apostolic Teaching, which Josiah rejects, in part. For Protestants like Josiah, the rule is assuming certain books were inspired, out of dozens of heterical or fake “scriptures”, and the Holy Spirit told each individual scripture reader which books were inspired.
The primary rule the Church used for proving inspiration of scripture was that it had to measure up to Apostolic Teaching, which Josiah rejects, in part. For Protestants like Josiah, the rule is assuming certain books were inspired, out of dozens of heterical or fake “scriptures”, and the Holy Spirit told each individual scripture reader which books were inspired.
T
Tomster
Guest
Try posts # 359 and # 363 again.
C
CWBetts
Guest
I guess he doesn’t realize that every time the Scriptures mention “church,” that it is the Catholic Church. The descriptor “Catholic” is not needed because there was only one Church.
- Status