Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[paul_c]

No. It’s your failure to show why The Catholic Church alone should exempt The Catholic Church alone from accountability and thus norming; your inability to substantiate your premise that since God infallibly leads, ergo The Catholic Church exclusively and infallibly follows; your inability to reveal that God promised The Catholic Church… well, anything at all.

CHRISTIANITY certainly has a continuity back to Jesus. If it were not for Jesus - and then all generation of believers before us - we’d likely not be Christians. But what in the WORLD does that have to do with The Catholic Church being infallable, unaccountable, exempt from norming, right cuz it alone says it alone is?

What you now bring up is the norma normans that The Catholic Church uses FOR ALL OTHER TEACHERS (remember, it exempts itself from any accountability for what it teaches; it’s just right cuz it’s right so it’s right when it says it’s right, so you are to just accept whatever it alone says “with docility”). BUT, it exempts NO OTHER - just itself.

When OTHERS are evaluated, it has a rule/canon. Is it OUTSIDE itself? Is it ABOVE and BEYOND itself? Nope. It’s just itself. Here’s it’s rule FOR OTHERS.

1. Tradition has chosen, defined and interpreted by ITSELF.
2. Scripture NOT objective and knowable and unalterable on a page, but “in the heart” of ITSELF as interpreted by ITSELF.
3. Magisterium of ITSELF as chosen by ITSELF from men pledged with blood to uphold the teachings of ITSELF - the decisions, interpretations, arbitrations and views of ITSELF.
   These 3 EQUALLY and INSEPARATELY, forming ONE rule/canon, so that each must agree with all others. If the RCC Magisterium has a view, Scripture MUST have that view too (if only “implied”) since it is mandated to agree (again, it’s not Scripture you can read - it’s found in the “heart” of The Catholic Church and is NOT even that but rather what it alone says it MEANS - which MUST agree with what The Catholic Church’s Tradition and Magisterium say). It’s just self looking in the mirror at self to see if self agrees with self. Self usually does.

It makes “sense” in this sense: Since self alone has declared that self alone is right cuz self alone is right and self along says self alone is right so self alone thus is, therefore, others MUST be wrong is they disagree with self. It’s also why this “rule” won’t work vis-a-vis the teachings of self (beside the reality that self won’t permit the question of whether it’s right - you are to just accept it with docility): Obviously self CANNOT be a norm for self - even The Catholic Church knows that, which is why it rejects the rule you suggest for itself, it only embraces it for OTHERS.

.

Look, its obviously that you’ve blinded yourself to the truth. There is no point in carryng this on further. You don’t recognize the limitation of your arguments. You can’t defend the obvious weaknesses of sola scriptura : that any person can make scripture say whatever they want if there is no authoritative arbiter. You won’t recognize the Catholic Church as the arbiter, turning aside history and scripture to deny that it is the Apostolic church… At the same time, you haven’t identified who you think is a better arbiter, but your discussions make it obvious that you are your own arbiter of truth, since you mock us for being docile. Instead, you continually repeat your tired axiom that the catholic church is self monitoring.

What is really being accomplished here.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You can’t defend the obvious weaknesses of sola scriptura : that any person can make scripture say whatever they want if there is no authoritative arbiter.

You seem to desire to switch topics - like the proverbial magician trying to get the audience to loose site of where the ball actually is…

This discussion is not about arbitration - it’s about the embraced norma normans/ rule/ canon in norming. You keep trying to change the topic. And The Catholic Church alone excepts The Catholic Church alone from that - anyway.

This discussion is not about hermeneutics - it’s about the embraced rule/ canon/ norma normans in norming. You keep trying to change the topic. And The Catholic Church alone is the one that appoints The Catholic Church alone as the sole interpreter - your “problem” is with the very thing you are trying to defend!

You are TRIED to be a good Catholic. You DO understand that The Catholic Church has no alternative, it alone just exempts itself alone from the entire issue of this thread - norming, since it just exempts itself from accountability. What you - and others - have TRIED to do with what the LDS and all the cults also must try to do as they also exempt self alone from accountability: somehow justify that. You’ve failed. You TRIED to say The Catholic Church alone is infallible/ unaccountable/ incapable of error/ exempt from norming because Jesus promised it infalliblity/unaccountablilty - but as you’ve shown, Jesus never promised it ANYTHING. And Jesus never promised ANY teacher infallibility/ unaccountability/ exemption from examination or norming. God did warn us - over and over - of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray AND HE NEVER EXEMPTED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH or any other denomination. The Catholic Church alone just exempts The Catholic Church alone.

Friend, self exempting self from accountability does NOT indicate that self alone is infallible, incapable of error, speaking for Jesus, and all norming must be laid aside and instead all must accept whatever that one exclusively says “with docility.” In fact, IMHO, the true teacher WELCOMES the light and comes into the light. It is the false teacher that must hide in the dark, exempt self from accountability, insist rather than all just accept whatever self alone says with docility.

You won’t recognize the Catholic Church as the arbiter

Perhaps it feels it NEEDS to appoint itself as the only arbiter for the correctness of itself? Should President Obama be the only, infallible, unaccountable, unquestionable arbiter for whether he is correct in what he says and does? Just eliminate the law, the courts, the Constitution, the people - self is the sole arbiter for self? Is that really an epistemology you desire to defend? Have you studied the cults? Do you really want to defend the idea that self appoints self as the sole authority and sole arbiter for the correctness of self?

your discussions make it obvious that you are your own arbiter of truth

No, that’s the position of The Catholic Church that you are trying to defend.

.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
You can’t defend the obvious weaknesses of sola scriptura : that any person can make scripture say whatever they want if there is no authoritative arbiter

Actually you have co=opted this thread to try to press your own agenda: This is the original topic of the thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4862641&postcount=1 : Can someone explain to me sola Scriptura and sola Fide?
You are claiming that Scripture is the only Norm by which the truth can be judged, yet you have failed to demonstrate this point, because you have failed to demonstrate that everyone understands Scripture in the same way. Nor have you demonstrated that it covers all of the truth about salvation. In fact, if you are honest with yourself, you will recognize that you have a failed thesis. My alternative thesis: that the Catholic Churches teachings, including scripture, the rulings of the magesterium and Sacred tradition, is the true normative value on which salvation should be understood addresses all these issues.
YOUR issue with my alternative is that you don’t like or respect what the church teaches and you don’t accept its authority. That my friend, is your problem.

You are TRIED to be a good Catholic. You DO understand that The Catholic Church has no alternative, it alone just exempts itself alone from the entire issue of this thread - norming, since it just exempts itself from accountability. . You TRIED to say The Catholic Church alone is infallible/ unaccountable/ incapable of error/ exempt from norming because Jesus promised it infalliblity/unaccountablilty - but , Jesus never promised it ANYTHING. And Jesus never promised ANY teacher infallibility/ unaccountability/ exemption from examination or norming. God did warn us - over and over - of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray AND HE NEVER EXEMPTED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH or any other denomination. The Catholic Church alone just exempts The Catholic Church alone.

The Catholic church did not set itself up as arbiter of the truth. It simply fulfills the role given it by Jesus, most easily recognizable to you as the great commission in Matthew 28:18-20. You won’t accept that and you don’t have to, but you will still be held accountable to the truth at the last judgement.

Friend, self exempting self from accountability does NOT indicate that self alone is infallible, incapable of error, speaking for Jesus, and all norming must be laid aside and instead all must accept whatever that one exclusively says “with docility.” In fact, IMHO, the true teacher WELCOMES the light and comes into the light. It is the false teacher that must hide in the dark, exempt self from accountability, insist rather than all just accept whatever self alone says with docility.

These are two false accusations.
First of all, the church’s infallability comes from Jesus’s promise protection, not from the authority he gave it. Secondly, the Chruch is accountable to both man and God and does not hide form the light, but in fact explains all its teachings in detail so that man can understand them through reason. Blind faith is never a requirement of the Catholic Church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c You won’t recognize the Catholic Church as the arbiter

The Church didn’t appoint itself the arbiter, Jesus did and the church must fulfill its role. There are many fundamental differences between the Catholic Church and the cults you keep comparing it to. The Catholic Church doesn’t exclude anyone. Nor does it require anything of its members, no money, no tithing, etc… And it can trace its roots back to St. Peter and it didn’t calim its authority, that authority was thrust upon it by Christ and it is a heavy burden. Most of the early leaders were martyred, afterall. And yet the Catholic church has not only survived for 2000 years but has thrived, teaching the same doctrines as it did in the beginning, albiet expanding the understanding over the ages… None of your cults can say that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c
your discussions make it obvious that you are your own arbiter of truth

All independent readers of this thread will understand the difference between the Catholic chruch teaching the truths about salvation and your claiming that your biblical understanding is superior to the Church’s

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.
paul c:

Josiah:

You seem to desire to switch topics - like the proverbial magician trying to get the audience to loose site of where the ball actually is…

This discussion is not about arbitration - it’s about the embraced norma normans/ rule/ canon in norming. You keep trying to change the topic. And The Catholic Church alone excepts The Catholic Church alone from that - anyway.

This discussion is not about hermeneutics - it’s about the embraced rule/ canon/ norma normans in norming. You keep trying to change the topic. And The Catholic Church alone is the one that appoints The Catholic Church alone as the sole interpreter - your “problem” is with the very thing you are trying to defend!

.

You are claiming that Scripture is the only Norm by which the truth can be judged, yet you have failed to demonstrate this point, because you have failed to demonstrate that everyone understands Scripture in the same way.

Actually…

1. Our chief disagreement is that I hold all human teachers to be accountable for what they teach (especially as doctrine). You are defending The Catholic Church alone exempting The Catholic Church alone from accountability (and the resulting need for norming) so that self alone just circumvents the whole issue of the correctness of the positions of self alone by self alone insisting that self alone is infallible, incapable of error.
2. If we accept accountability, then we have embraced norming. The first issue in norming is to mutual embrace of the rule/canon/norma normans for such. Yes, I think that Scripture is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines. The Catholic Church (nor you) have an alternative to this at all (better or worse) for the rule in evaluating it’s doctrines (it does in evaluation the doctrines of OTHERS - the only rule it will allow for THAT is whatever it teaches). The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture NOT because it has an alternative (better or worse) but because it alone rejects accountability for itself alone, thus it rejects norming for itself alone. It’s norming it rejects, Sola Scriptura is simply an aspect of that.

My alternative thesis: that the Catholic Churches teachings, including scripture, the rulings of the magesterium and Sacred tradition, is the true normative value on which salvation should be understood addresses all these issues.

1. You are departing from Catholicism, since it doesn’t allow ANY rule to be used for its’ doctrines. Rather, “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, ergo I’m right - just accept it with docility; I don’t need no norming cuz I can’t be wrong.”
2. The norma normans you are suggesting is just The Catholic Church as the Rule for The Catholic Church as arbitrated by The Cathiolic Church. Self looks in the mirror at self to determine if self looks like self. Self always does. It’s WORTHLESS as a norma noramns for the teachings of The Catholic Church which is why The Catholic Church rejects your alternative for the evaluation of it’s own teachings. It’s the norm for the teachings of OTHERS. Remember too that the “Scriptures” you’re talking about here are not knowable/unalterable but rather “in the heart of The Catholic Church” (CCC 113) as interpreted by The Catholic Church alone (CCC 85) - it is WHATEVER The Catholic Church alone says it is and means whaterver The Catholic Church alone says it means - it’s just the teachings of self alone. And Tradition here is whatever The Catholic Church alone currently says it is and means whatever The Catholic Church alone says it means - it’s just the techings of self. And the Magisterium is chosen by The Catholic Chruch alone among men pledged upon death to uphold the teachings of The Catholic Church alone and the rulings, decisions, arbitrations, interpretation of The Catholic Church alone. it’s just SELF. Friend, I typically agree with me. Do you HONESTLY think that me agreeing with me is the best, most sound indication that I’m correct?

paul c:

Josiah:

You are TRIED to be a good Catholic. You DO understand that The Catholic Church has no alternative, it alone just exempts itself alone from the entire issue of this thread - norming, since it just exempts itself from accountability. . You TRIED to say The Catholic Church alone is infallible/ unaccountable/ incapable of error/ exempt from norming because Jesus promised it infalliblity/unaccountablilty - but , Jesus never promised it ANYTHING. And Jesus never promised ANY teacher infallibility/ unaccountability/ exemption from examination or norming. God did warn us - over and over - of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray AND HE NEVER EXEMPTED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH or any other denomination. The Catholic Church alone just exempts The Catholic Church alone.

.

The Catholic church did not set itself up as arbiter of the truth. It simply fulfills the role given it by Jesus, most easily recognizable to you as the great commission in Matthew 28:18-20.

Nope.

Jesus never “commissioned” The Catholic Church to do anything. About anything. Concerning anything. At any time.

The Catholic Church is simply exempting The Catholic Church alone from accountability and examination for its dogmas. You are to lay aside all norming for it alone, and just accept “with docility” whatever it teaches.

IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light.
It is the false teacher that must hide in the dark, exempt and excuse self alone from accountability and examination and norming, insist instead that all just accept “with docility” whatever self alone says.

Continues in the next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

… continues from the post above
paul c:

Josiah:

Friend, self exempting self from accountability does NOT indicate that self alone is infallible, incapable of error, speaking for Jesus, and all norming must be laid aside and instead all must accept whatever that one exclusively says “with docility.” In fact, IMHO, the true teacher WELCOMES the light and comes into the light. It is the false teacher that must hide in the dark, exempt self from accountability, insist rather than all just accept whatever self alone says with docility.

.

First of all, the church’s infallability comes from Jesus’s promise protection, not from the authority he gave it.

1. Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything. About anything. For anything. Concerning anything. At any time.
2. It has been the argument here that when one has authority, one MUST be infallible/unaccountable. I’m glad you’ve abandon that absurd thought…

paul c:

Secondly, the Chruch is accountable to both man and God and does not hide form the light, but in fact explains all its teachings in detail so that man can understand them through reason. Blind faith is never a requirement of the Catholic Church.

Read the Catechism # 87. No, it is not accountable to you, it insists you are to docilicly accept whatever it says.

Sure, The Catholic Church is a great teacher and explains things very well. The same can be said of The LDS Church. But, you miss the point: it’s not accountable, you are to simply accept such “with docility” cuz The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church alone is infallible, incapable of error - thus unaccountable, exempt from norming. You are to just accept it “with docility,” as God speaking.
paul c:

Josiah:

Perhaps it feels it NEEDS to appoint itself as the only arbiter for the correctness of itself? Should President Obama be the only, infallible, unaccountable, unquestionable arbiter for whether he is correct in what he says and does? Just eliminate the law, the courts, the Constitution, the people - self is the sole arbiter for self? Is that really an epistemology you desire to defend? Have you studied the cults? Do you really want to defend the idea that self appoints self as the sole authority and sole arbiter for the correctness of self?

.

The Church didn’t appoint itself the arbiter, Jesus did and the church must fulfill its role.

Of course, Jesus never appointed The Catholic Church to anything, for anything, about anything, concerning anything, at any time.

It’s just The Catholic Church alone claiming MUCH for The Catholic Church alone. All as an attempt to somehow “justify” that it alone exempts it alone from accountability. To somehow “justify” that while God repeatedly warned all of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray - and never exempted The Catholic Church, well, He meant to.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[IronHammer]

.
Jesus never “commissioned” The Catholic Church to do anything. About anything. Concerning anything. At any time.

This statement is the equivalent of covering your ears as you scream “blah, blah, blah”. Your refusal to accept the authority of the Catholic Church with scripture CONFIRMING that authority only hurts you, yourself and your normans.

 

[paul_c]

Josiah,
don’t you recognize that your entire argument has become:
“Jesus never “commissioned” The Catholic Church to do anything. About anything. Concerning anything. At any time.”

You can’t substantiate this statement. You are just throwing it out there because having separated yourself from the Catholic Church, you need to believe it. But saying it over and over and over again will not make it true.

So now you have two problems in your logic:

You can’t defend sola Scriptura as being the norma normans because it fails the very first test in that it is not repeatable person to person.

and you can’t defend your position that the Catholic Church is not the authoritative interpreter of scripture because you can not prove that the Church was not given the authority by Jesus. IN fact, scripture, on which you obstensbily rely says that the Catholic church WAS given that authority.

One final statement; How could it ever make sense for the Catholic Church to rely on a book it wrote to tell it the definitive truths about salvation. That is the tail wagging the Dog,

 

[Randy_Carson]

.

1. Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything. About anything. For anything. Concerning anything. At any time.
2. It has been the argument here that when one has authority, one MUST be infallible/unaccountable. I’m glad you’ve abandon that absurd thought…

Of course, Jesus never appointed The Catholic Church to anything, for anything, about anything, concerning anything, at any time.

Maybe you’re right. Maybe Jesus never promised the Catholic Church anything, and maybe He never appointed the Catholic Church anything.

However, He sure as heck promised and appointed all of these things to the men whom He chose to become the leaders of that small band of believers which began calling itself the Catholic Church before the end of the first century.

Are we Catholics wrong to listen to the Church that Jesus Himself promised to build?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah,
don’t you recognize that your entire argument has become:
“Jesus never “commissioned” The Catholic Church to do anything. About anything. Concerning anything. At any time.”

No, it’s YOUR apologetic (following that of The Catholic Church) that it alone may exempt it alone from accountability and thus norming BECAUSE Christ founded IT, Christ promised that He would lead IT, and when Christ leads it’s impossible to not infallibly follow, that Christ promised IT immunity from error in faith and morals, that God would reveal all truth to IT and IT would infallibly understand.

What you’ve so well documented is that it has NOTHING, absolutely, totally, undeniably NOTHING to support these accountability-evading claims of self alone for self alone.

So now you have two problems in your logic:

You can’t defend sola Scriptura as being the norma normans because it fails the very first test in that it is not repeatable person to person.

Your “rebuke” applies to ALL norma normans - including the Rule of Law in civil societies. But your alternative: self alone excludes self alone from accountability for what self alone says/does, is hardly superior.

You continue to play the “shell game” - constantly shifting the discussion to other issues: pricniples of hermeneutics, various approaches to arbitration, your insistance that if God leads all, one (The Catholic Church) must infallibly follows, if one excludes self from accountablity, then that one is (but only if that one is The Catholic Church)…

and you can’t defend your position that the Catholic Church is not the authoritative interpreter of scripture because you can not prove that the Church was not given the authority by Jesus. IN fact, scripture, on which you obstensbily rely says that the Catholic church WAS given that authority.

1. I don’t have to prove or disprove the claims of any. No one can disprove a non-reality, which is why your ploy is not permitted in debates. YOU made the claim, it’s YOUR responsibility to prove it CORRECT. Ah, but THAT would require norming!!! That’s the VERY THING The Catholic Church won’t permit (for it itself alone, exclusively). You are taking The Catholic Church position here (well, I might add), just doing what The Catholic Church requires of all, just accept “with docility” the following - but ONLY in the singular case of The Catholic Church: “I’m right, so I’m right when I say I’m right, ergo I’m right - just accept it with docility; I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right.” Studied any of the cults? Are you aware of their epistemology on this point? It has NOTHING to do with self being correct, it’s just self exempting self from the question - replacing it with a demand to just be accepted as infallibly, unquestionably correct cuz it just is.
2. Look, everyone who can read KNOWS what you are saying is false. You have had all the opportunity you needed to show that Jesus promised and gave all these things to The Catholic Church - and you have failed, Completely, undeniably, failed. Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED The Catholic Church, even in passing, about anything, concerning anything, for anything. Not once. Never. Nope. We all know that, my friend… All this is just self alone TRYING to justify why self alone is exempt from accountability. And you bring it up because The Catholic Church (like the LDS and all the cults) rejects Sola Scriptura, all for the same reason: because it rejects accountability for self alone - and thus the norming that suggests, and all aspects of norming (including what would serve as the rule/canon/norma normans in such).

How could it ever make sense for the Catholic Church to rely on a book it wrote to tell it the definitive truths about salvation. That is the tail wagging the Dog,

Oh my, the most absurd of all Catholic apologetics…

1. The Catholic Church can’t write. It has no hands.
2. Most of Scripture pre-dates even the entirely unsubstantiated claim of The Catholic Church for when it came into existence, making the claim historically IMPOSSIBLE. You’d have to move the founding date 1400 years back, and you’d need to deny Scripture and say God did not write The Ten Commandments, The Catholic Church did - you’d have to be in contradiction of Scripture itself AND history for this absurd claim to be true.

But it’s actually moot - even if this absurd claim was true. People wrote the law, and yet under the Rule of Law, people (from President Obama to lowly me) are ALL subject to it as the rule for behaviors.

**
It is my position that the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light.
It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, exempt self from accountability/norming, replacing that with the demand that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility.” **

.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Are we Catholics wrong to listen to the Church that Jesus Himself promised to build?

I don’t think so, but that church has nothing to do with The Catholic Church (or any other denomination). But IMHO, you are missing the point. The issue is not whether we should LISTEN to our teachers, but whether one particular teacher is INFALLIBLE, INCAPABLE of error - thus unaccountable and exempt from error if the self same so declares the self same.

Yes, as I noted, there is a “tension” here. We are told to “listen” to those in authority to teach. But that does not mean one such is “infallible/unaccountable” and thus exempt from examination. Over and over, God warns us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray - and He never exempted ANYONE or ANYTHING (including The Catholic Church) from that possibility of error or the need for accountability. In Revelation 2:2, Jesus praises the Ephesians for doing the exact opposite of what The Catholic Church demands in CCC #87 (etc., etc.) - He praised them for regarding their teachers as ACCOUNTABLE, for examining them - norming them, and for arbitrating the issue, finding them to be false. Where is the statement, "The Catholic Church is exempt from accountability, The Catholic Church exclusively is infallible in official matters of faith and morals and thus all must accept WHATEVER it says “with docility?”

IMHO, The Catholic Church has simply ignored the tension. A policeman has great authority when doing what he has been authorized to do - but he is not regarded as infallible, unaccountable, exempt from any possibility of error. It’s not absolute. He is accountable - to the law (yup, the WRITTEN, KNOWABLE, UNALTERABLE, rule/canon) and to arbitration OUTSIDE himself. President Obama has GREAT authority - perhaps more than any other on Earth - all the authority clearly, objectively GIVEN to him (as can be clearly substantiated) - but that does NOT mean he is INFALLIBLE, INCAPABLE of error, unaccountable, exempt from norming, when he alone (exclusively) speaks or acts - it is GOD doing so. He has authority - and that must be respected, but he is accountable.

Let’s look at Catholic Catechism # 87: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.”

1. Let’s consider the supposed “justification” for this truly remarkable insistence of self alone for self alone. It’s based on Jesus promising His Apostles that “whoever hears you, hears me.” The point is: If Jesus promised this to His Apostles, ergo He is promising this exclusively to The Catholic Church. That’s the first HUGE problem - it’s entirely, completely unsubstantiated, illogical and unreasonable. Then, it wants you to apply it’s own claims of Apostolic Succession - so that it can “connect the dots” to itself, today (it entirely fails on that point, too). But, if one bothers to actually look up the verse being quoted here - this whole, unsubstantiated, illogical house of cards crashes. Jesus never said even this to ANY Apostle, individually or collectively. So the whole premise fails - theses’ NO connection to The Catholic Church - even if all the irrational, unsubstantiated claims from it are true.
2. My study of the cults powerfully taught me that there’s one overwhelming common denominator: A rejection of accountability for self alone and a replacement of that with a demand that all must accept whatever it says “with docility.” It’s a dangerous epistemology. As I think it is in all other aspects, too. The president or general who gives self absolute, unaccountable power, who alone exempts self alone is often not sound. It certainly has nothing to do with that one being correct.
3. God again and again warned us: Watch out for false teachers! Obviously, the possibility for error in teachers exists or this very common warning would be senseless. Can a teacher just exempt himself from such, alone claiming for self alone that there is ONE exempt from this possibility? Well, let’s just say that such would require something profoundly, obviously, undeniably clear and from OUTSIDE that one. Well, The Catholic Church has nothing. From Scripture or anywhere else. It’s not only NOT ovewrwhelmingly compelling and undenial - it’s entirely missing.
4. IF there’s an infallible, unaccountable organizational, institutional denomination that is EXEMPT from norming, and “whatever it says, Jesus says,” doesn’t it strike you as, well, peculiar that Jesus and all the Apostles never once even MENTIONED it? If the sole authority is The Catholic Church, why did Jesus look to Scripture over FIFTY times, referring to “Scripture” specifically but never once so much as even in passing mentioned ANY denomination by ANY name in ANY way? Odd, at least. Especially given the profound emphasis from God that human teachers are to be regarded as accountable and Jesus’ praise when they are.

Again, to me, true teachers welcome the light and come into the light. To them, truth stands and is the important issue - not the glory or power of self. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, who must exempt self from accountablity and the norming that requires, who must circumvent the issue of correctness and just demand that all accept “with docility” whatever one - self - says, even as God speaking.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Josiah,
don’t you recognize that your entire argument has become:
“Jesus never “commissioned” The Catholic Church to do anything. About anything. Concerning anything. At any time.”

So basically, you are questioning the credibility of the Catholic Church when it makes the claims that it was commissioned by God to do what it does, whether those claims are in scripture, the teachings of the magesterium or part of Sacred Tradition. Fair enough. So how do you test the credibility of the organization? One way is to look at continuity of leadership and doctrine. Another is to look at signs from God that the Church is valid. Things like the miralcels at Gaudalupe, Lourdes and Fatima. Like the incorruptible saints (those whose bodies don’t decompose). Like the stagmata of St. Francis of assisi or St. Padre Pio.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c So now you have two problems in your logic:

The Catholic church teaches one set of truths that are reproduceable person to person. Unlike you, who try to glean all knowledge out of a book, we learn through the magesterium, scripture,and tradition, with true teachers passing on what they have been taught with great care going back to the source of all truth: Jesus Christ

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c

Look, you were the one that said " Jesus never “commissioned” The Catholic Church to do anything. About anything. Concerning anything. At any time." so you were making a claim that you just are not in a position to defend. You have no idea what Jesus said, other than what you read in the New Testament and according the the New Testament, Jesus commissioned the church to teach the faith and administer the sacraments. Your argument that this can’t be shown to be the Catholic Church as we know it today is wrong. We can show continuity of existence, leadership and doctrine back to the very 11 Apostles that Jesus uttered those words to in Matthew 28: 18-20. That is far more proof than you can offer to the contrary.

The Catholic Church rejects sola scriptura because a) scripture doesn’t contain ALL truth and b) because without proper interpretation, scripture can be made to say anything anyone wants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c

The Catholic Church has over 1Billion sets of hands today and many billion more over the previous 20 centuries, including those of all the new testament writers and those that compiled the Canon into the Bible that you know today.

1. Most of Scripture pre-dates even the entirely unsubstantiated claim of The Catholic Church for when it came into existence, making the claim historically IMPOSSIBLE. You’d have to move the founding date 1400 years back, and you’d need to deny Scripture and say God did not write The Ten Commandments, The Catholic Church did - you’d have to be in contradiction of Scripture itself AND history for this absurd claim to be true.

True, Catholics did not write the old testament books, but the Catholic Church did define through the Holy spirit which ones were divinely inspired.

But it’s actually moot - even if this absurd claim was true. People wrote the law, and yet under the Rule of Law, people (from President Obama to lowly me) are ALL subject to it as the rule for behaviors.

In the same way, every member of the Catholic church, from the Pope to lowly me is subject to what the Catholic church teaches. There is no exemption.

It is my position that the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light.
It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, exempt self from accountability/norming, replacing that with the demand that all just accept whatever self alone says “with docility.”

How can you make the accusation that the Catholic chruch hides in the dark. The church is far from hidden. You reject obedience to the truth. That is your option and you know you will be held responsible for your choices. But don’t be surprised that others make different choices.

.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t think so, but that church has nothing to do with The Catholic Church (or any other denomination).

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation).

The Church Christ founded is a visible communion. This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

This is why we do well to listen to the Catholic Church.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

So basically, you are questioning the credibility of the Catholic Church when it makes the claims that it was commissioned by God to do what it does,

It has zero substantiation for the exemption of itself alone. It’s not a “credibility” issue, it’s a substantiation issue. YOU are required to just accept “with docility” WHATEVER it alone says - and you do, fair enough. But the reality is: there’s no substantiation, and what is being embraced is entirely irrelevant to self alone being correct, and is not only worthless in this regard, but dangerous - as any study of the cults reveals.

We’re disagreeing on the point that it’s sound and good epistemology (and the best indicator of correctness) for self alone to exempt self alone from accountability for the doctrines of that same self. You are defending that, IF (and only if) “self” is The Catholic Church. I’m disagreeing with that position. But you ARE (I admit) well stating the Catholic position, giving the Catholic apologetic. Self alone may/should exempt self alone from accountability and thus norming as the best indicator of the correctness of self alone if self alone is The Catholic Church, for The Catholic Church alone declares The Catholic Church alone to be infallible and incapable of error (in official matters of faith and morals) thus accountability and norming are moot in the singular case of The Catholic Church alone, insists The Catholic Church alone - so instead, just accept whatever The Catholic Church alone says “with docility”

Yes, you’ve TRIED to make a case that Jesus promised all sorts of various things specificly and solely to The Catholic Church - all in attempts to “justify” this remarkable exemption of self for self, but what you have clearly and undeniably documented is that Jesus never promised IT anything. And you’ve TRIED to make a case that since Jesus promised to lead Christians, ergo there’s exclusively one that MUST infallibly follow as long as that one is The Catholic Church (exclusively, consistently, unquestionably - exempt for accountability about that), but what you’d documented is that Jesus never promised ANY that it would alone infallibly follow.

One way is to look at continuity of leadership and doctrine.

You are confusing consistency with infallibility. One can be consistently wrong.

And you are ignoring that there is likely no denomination on the planet that has changed it’s doctrines more than yours. Do you REALLY believe that The Catholic Catechism’s 2,875 points were indentical in 31 AD? Come on… You know, the Lutheran Catechism was developed in 1529 - and since then, not a single letter or puntuation mark has been added, substracted or modified. Compare that to the Catholic Catechism. And yet, I’m guessing you are not insisting that ergo, The Lutheran Church is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, exempt from norming, right cuz it just is, whatever it says is what Jesus says and must just be accepted “with docility…” See, I don’t think even YOU accept your own apologetic here…

Let’s look at your Catholic Catechism # 87: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.”

1. Let’s consider the supposed “justification” for this truly remarkable insistence of self alone for self alone. It’s based on Jesus promising His Apostles that “whoever hears you, hears me.” The point is: If Jesus promised this to His Apostles, ergo He is promising this exclusively to The Catholic Church. That’s the first HUGE problem - it’s entirely, completely unsubstantiated, illogical and unreasonable. Then, it wants you to apply it’s own claims of Apostolic Succession - so that it can “connect the dots” to itself, today (it entirely fails on that point, too). But, if one bothers to actually look up the verse being quoted here - this whole, unsubstantiated, illogical house of cards crashes. Jesus never said even this to ANY Apostle, individually or collectively. So the whole premise fails - theses’ NO connection to The Catholic Church - even if all the irrational, unsubstantiated claims from it are true.
2. God again and again warned us: Watch out for false teachers! Obviously, the possibility for error in teachers exists or this very common warning would be senseless. Can a teacher just exempt himself from such, alone claiming for self alone that there is ONE exempt from this possibility? Well, let’s just say that such would require something profoundly, obviously, undeniably clear and from OUTSIDE that one. Well, The Catholic Church has nothing. From Scripture or anywhere else. It’s not only NOT ovewrwhelmingly compelling and undenial - it’s entirely missing.
3. IF there’s an infallible, unaccountable organizational, institutional denomination that is EXEMPT from norming, and “whatever it says, Jesus says,” doesn’t it strike you as, well, peculiar that Jesus and all the Apostles never once even MENTIONED it? If the sole authority is The Catholic Church, why did Jesus look to Scripture over FIFTY times, referring to “Scripture” specifically but never once so much as even in passing mentioned ANY denomination by ANY name in ANY way? Odd, at least. Especially given the profound emphasis from God that human teachers are to be regarded as accountable and Jesus’ praise when they are.

Again, to me, true teachers welcome the light and come into the light. To them, truth stands and is the important issue - not the glory or power of self. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, who must exempt self from accountablity and the norming that requires, who must circumvent the issue of correctness and just demand that all accept “with docility” whatever one - self - says, even as God speaking.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

 

[paul_c]

It has zero substantiation for the exemption of itself alone. It’s not a “credibility” issue, it’s a substantiation issue. YOU are required to just accept “with docility” WHATEVER it alone says - and you do, fair enough. But the reality is: there’s no substantiation, and what is being embraced is entirely irrelevant to self alone being correct, and is not only worthless in this regard, but dangerous - as any study of the cults reveals.

We’re disagreeing on the point that it’s sound and good epistemology (and the best indicator of correctness) for self alone to exempt self alone from accountability for the doctrines of that same self. You are defending that, IF (and only if) “self” is The Catholic Church. I’m disagreeing with that position. But you ARE (I admit) well stating the Catholic position, giving the Catholic apologetic. Self alone may/should exempt self alone from accountability and thus norming as the best indicator of the correctness of self alone if self alone is The Catholic Church, for The Catholic Church alone declares The Catholic Church alone to be infallible and incapable of error (in official matters of faith and morals) thus accountability and norming are moot in the singular case of The Catholic Church alone, insists The Catholic Church alone - so instead, just accept whatever The Catholic Church alone says “with docility”

…

You are confusing consistency with infallibility. One can be consistently wrong.

And you are ignoring that there is likely no denomination on the planet that has changed it’s doctrines more than yours. Do you REALLY believe that The Catholic Catechism’s 2,875 points were indentical in 31 AD? Come on… You know, the Lutheran Catechism was developed in 1529 - and since then, not a single letter or puntuation mark has been added, substracted or modified. Compare that to the Catholic Catechism. And yet, I’m guessing you are not insisting that ergo, The Lutheran Church is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, exempt from norming, right cuz it just is, whatever it says is what Jesus says and must just be accepted “with docility…” See, I don’t think even YOU accept your own apologetic here…

Let’s look at your Catholic Catechism # 87: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.”

1. Let’s consider the supposed “justification” for this truly remarkable insistence of self alone for self alone. It’s based on Jesus promising His Apostles that “whoever hears you, hears me.” The point is: If Jesus promised this to His Apostles, ergo He is promising this exclusively to The Catholic Church. That’s the first HUGE problem - it’s entirely, completely unsubstantiated, illogical and unreasonable. Then, it wants you to apply it’s own claims of Apostolic Succession - so that it can “connect the dots” to itself, today (it entirely fails on that point, too). But, if one bothers to actually look up the verse being quoted here - this whole, unsubstantiated, illogical house of cards crashes. Jesus never said even this to ANY Apostle, individually or collectively. So the whole premise fails - theses’ NO connection to The Catholic Church - even if all the irrational, unsubstantiated claims from it are true.
2. God again and again warned us: Watch out for false teachers! Obviously, the possibility for error in teachers exists or this very common warning would be senseless. Can a teacher just exempt himself from such, alone claiming for self alone that there is ONE exempt from this possibility? Well, let’s just say that such would require something profoundly, obviously, undeniably clear and from OUTSIDE that one. Well, The Catholic Church has nothing. From Scripture or anywhere else. It’s not only NOT ovewrwhelmingly compelling and undenial - it’s entirely missing.
3. IF there’s an infallible, unaccountable organizational, institutional denomination that is EXEMPT from norming, and “whatever it says, Jesus says,” doesn’t it strike you as, well, peculiar that Jesus and all the Apostles never once even MENTIONED it? If the sole authority is The Catholic Church, why did Jesus look to Scripture over FIFTY times, referring to “Scripture” specifically but never once so much as even in passing mentioned ANY denomination by ANY name in ANY way? Odd, at least. Especially given the profound emphasis from God that human teachers are to be regarded as accountable and Jesus’ praise when they are.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

Josiah, you are grasping at straws here. Jesus mentions his church multiple times in the Gospels. The Catholic Church is the only one that existed, but it wasn’t called the Catholic (universal) Church during apostolic times because a) it wasn’t yet universal and b) there was no reason to call it anything other than the Church (or the Way, in fact) because thier was no other church to consider. The fact that people started calling it the Catholic church at a later date, doesn’t mean it wasn’t the same organization, with the same role because in fact it was. Have you read Eusebius’ History of the Church written in 310AD? It is on line here: newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm. It might help you mak ethe necessary connections.
The False teachers were the ones teaching doctrine contrary to what the Church taught and several of the epistles warn us to avoid them. these are discussed with some detail in Euebius as well.

Look, you don’t like the Catholic Church or what it teaches, that’s our perogative. But lashing out against the church’s infallibility or authority doesn’t prove your point on sola scriptura, does it? As for Lutheran’s having the same catechism since 1529, the problem was it was written by the authority assumed by Martin Luther, which is no authority at all.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah, you are grasping at straws here. Jesus mentions his church multiple times in the Gospels. The Catholic Church is the only one that existed

1. There’s zero evidence that ANY denomination existed in 28 AD, by any name.
2. Yes, Jesus promised PEOPLE many things. Infalliblity/unaccountability was never one of them, of course. And yes, many of these promises were collective - to the body of believers - the church.
3. The Catholic Church alone simply exempts The Catholic Church alone from accountability - thus from norming. This is why it rejects Sola Scriptura, it is simply an aspect of norming and norming is rejected. But what justification does any have to exempt self alone from accountability? For self alone to claim that self alone is infallible, incapable of error, exempt from examination, to simply be accepted with docility for whatever self alone says? All that do this (and The Catholic Church is the only Christian denomination that does; it’s universal among all the cults but in Christianity, it’s unique to The Catholic Church) have the same “problem” - how to justify this remarkable, accountability-evading claim of self for self? Now, YOU claim that Jesus promised IT infallibllity/unaccountability, yet you have nothing to support this. ANYONE can capitolize the word “church” every time it appears (the word just means “assembly” “gathering” of PEOPLE) so as to imply in modern English grammar that thus a proper name is being used, and then insert, impose the name of their denomination before that, so that “church” becomes “The Lutheran Church.” But we all know that’s NOT what the text says.
4. Friend, if a Mormon said, “Jesus promised the The LDS Church would be infallible and incapable of error!” I just have a hunch the first thing out of your mouth would be “show me!” And if he quoted every verse in the NT with the word “church” in it, your response would be “but it says NOTHING about the LDS!” Well…

But lashing out against the church’s infallibility or authority doesn’t prove your point on sola scriptura, does it? As for Lutheran’s having the same catechism since 1529, the problem was it was written by the authority assumed by Martin Luther, which is no authority at all.

1. You keep developing and then dropping apologetics for why The Catholic Church alone should exempt The Catholic Church alone from accountability; why we should abandon the issue of whether The Catholic Chruch is correct and just accepted whatever it says “with docility” cuz it CANNOT be wrong. One of these was because it now teaches as it always has. I asked if you wanted to prove that all 2,875 points of the latest Catholic Catechism were taught in 31 AD and you wisely ignored that point. And I related that not a single letter or punctuation point in the Lutheran catechism has changed since it was written in 1529, so by YOUR apologetic - it’s the Catholic Church that would be errant and The Lutheran Church that is infallible/unaccountable. But as you often do, you abandon your point the moment you realize that not even you accept your apologetic.
2. The issue before us has to do with norming, which flows from an embrace of accountability. As the good Catholic you are (and you are doing an excellent job of representing the Catholic apology here), you need to skirt around that issue and try to justify that, because The Catholic Church rejects accountability (and thus norming, and all issues in it, including whatever might serve as the rule/canon/norma normans in such). You need to support why the teachings of one exclusively are exempt form accountability, examination, norming - and the issue of correctness is simply to be circumvented and replaced with simply accepting whatever that one exclusively says “with docility.” You’ve give the usual Catholic “reasons” - and a couple of others. But what you have revealed SO very, very clearly is that it’s entirely unsubstantiated. It’s just self alone excluding self alone from accountability, self alone insisting that self alone CANNOT be wrong and THEREFORE is right - just accept it “with docility.” Friend, this is NOT an alternative process of norming - it’s the EVASION of such. Friend, this is not an alternative rule/canon/norma normans - it’s the rejection of accountability for self alone. “Forget about that, just accept whatever I alone say with docility cuz I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, so I’m right; I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right.”

IF you accepted norming (which, as a Catholic, you cannot - at least regarding Catholicism) then we could have a discussion on what is the most sound rule/ canon/ norma normans for such. Catholics and Protestants share the same doctrine of Scripture and The Catholic Church has no suggestions for a better rule/canon - so that might be a short and easy discussion, but The Catholic Church alone just exempts The Catholic Church alone from the whole issue - busying itself with the necessarily requirement of a clear substantiation for why it alone should exempt it alone from the whole issue.

.

 

[paul_c]

1. There’s zero evidence that ANY denomination existed in 28 AD, by any name.

that’s correct. There were no denominations, only the Catholic Church.

1. Yes, Jesus promised PEOPLE many things. Infalliblity/unaccountability was never one of them, of course. And yes, many of these promises were collective - to the body of believers - the church.

He promised that he would guide the church to all truth. That is our understanding of infallibility: that the Church would reliably teach truth. He never said the Church was unaccountable. Every member of the Church, from the lowest member to the Pope will be judged by God on the day of his death based on what he did or didn’t do.

1. The Catholic Church alone simply exempts The Catholic Church alone from accountability - thus from norming. This is why it rejects Sola Scriptura, it is simply an aspect of norming and norming is rejected. But what justification does any have to exempt self alone from accountability? For self alone to claim that self alone is infallible, incapable of error, exempt from examination, to simply be accepted with docility for whatever self alone says? All that do this (and The Catholic Church is the only Christian denomination that does; it’s universal among all the cults but in Christianity, it’s unique to The Catholic Church) have the same “problem” - how to justify this remarkable, accountability-evading claim of self for self? Now, YOU claim that Jesus promised IT infallibllity/unaccountability, yet you have nothing to support this. ANYONE can capitolize the word “church” every time it appears (the word just means “assembly” “gathering” of PEOPLE) so as to imply in modern English grammar that thus a proper name is being used, and then insert, impose the name of their denomination before that, so that “church” becomes “The Lutheran Church.” But we all know that’s NOT what the text says

The Church doesn’t see itself as exempting itself from anything. It simply sees itself as carrying out the mission Christ gave it: to spread the truth about salvation and to administer the sacraments. It has been doing this for 2000 years and was doing it before the new testament letters were even written. And your continual denial that the Catholic Chruch is the same Church that derived form the Apostles is non-historical. Virtually any reputable historian agrees that it is the same Church, Those that are not Catholic, usually try to argue(always unconvincingly) that the church lost its way at some point, which they can never define…

1. Friend, if a Mormon said, “Jesus promised the The LDS Church would be infallible and incapable of error!” I just have a hunch the first thing out of your mouth would be “show me!” And if he quoted every verse in the NT with the word “church” in it, your response would be “but it says NOTHING about the LDS!” Well…

No, Actually, I’ve had a number of Discussions on this site with members of the LDS. They can not claim to be the Apostolic Church because they were founded in the last century. What they try to claim is that there was a great Apostacy where the Catholic Church lost its way and that God called Joseph Smith to restart the Church. Of course, Joseph Smith has huge personal credibility problems so his self proclamations are easy to dismiss. St. Peter has no such issues.

1. You keep developing and then dropping apologetics for why The Catholic Church alone should exempt The Catholic Church alone from accountability; why we should abandon the issue of whether The Catholic Chruch is correct and just accepted whatever it says “with docility” cuz it CANNOT be wrong. One of these was because it now teaches as it always has. I asked if you wanted to prove that all 2,875 points of the latest Catholic Catechism were taught in 31 AD and you wisely ignored that point. And I related that not a single letter or punctuation point in the Lutheran catechism has changed since it was written in 1529, so by YOUR apologetic - it’s the Catholic Church that would be errant and The Lutheran Church that is infallible/unaccountable. But as you often do, you abandon your point the moment you realize that not even you accept your apologetic.

Your memory on this issue is faulty. I never said that the chruch is unaccountable for its actions. Its is fully accountable to the only authority that counts: God. And yes, so is everyone else. And I answered you that not all of the points of the Catechism were relevant in 31AD. Circumstances have changed over 2000 years requiring new explanations, so it is natural for an effective catechism to require alteration over time. For instance, medical science has brougth out many moral issues that simply weren’t factors in 31AD. What is true is that nothing in the new catechism contradicts any previous catechism. This is not true of the Lutheran Catechism, which clearly contradicts what was taught in the previous 1500 years.

 

[paul_c]

1. The issue before us has to do with norming, which flows from an embrace of accountability. As the good Catholic you are (and you are doing an excellent job of representing the Catholic apology here), you need to skirt around that issue and try to justify that, because The Catholic Church rejects accountability (and thus norming, and all issues in it, including whatever might serve as the rule/canon/norma normans in such). You need to support why the teachings of one exclusively are exempt form accountability, examination, norming - and the issue of correctness is simply to be circumvented and replaced with simply accepting whatever that one exclusively says “with docility.” You’ve give the usual Catholic “reasons” - and a couple of others. But what you have revealed SO very, very clearly is that it’s entirely unsubstantiated. It’s just self alone excluding self alone from accountability, self alone insisting that self alone CANNOT be wrong and THEREFORE is right - just accept it “with docility.” Friend, this is NOT an alternative process of norming - it’s the EVASION of such. Friend, this is not an alternative rule/canon/norma normans - it’s the rejection of accountability for self alone. “Forget about that, just accept whatever I alone say with docility cuz I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, so I’m right; I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right.”

Tell me, Josiah, assuming that the Catholic Church WAS given the mission to spread the word of God by Jesus, what norming would apply?

IF you accepted norming (which, as a Catholic, you cannot - at least regarding Catholicism) then we could have a discussion on what is the most sound rule/ canon/ norma normans for such. Catholics and Protestants share the same doctrine of Scripture and The Catholic Church has no suggestions for a better rule/canon - so that might be a short and easy discussion, but The Catholic Church alone just exempts The Catholic Church alone from the whole issue - busying itself with the necessarily requirement of a clear substantiation for why it alone should exempt it alone from the whole issue.

The Catholic Church recognizes more knowledge than is contained in the Bible, that’s why it can’t accept scripture alone as sufficient. It also recognizes that it is not the written word itself that is important but the truths it contains and you need the correct interpretation of the written word to get at those truths. This requires human interaction and explanation. Taht’s why Jesus left a church behind to teach the truths about salvation rather than leaving us with a book, which he knew would be twisted and misinterpretted according to men’s biases and wishes…

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.
paul c:

Josiah:

1. There’s zero evidence that ANY denomination existed in 28 AD, by any name.

.

that’s correct. There were no denominations, only the Catholic Church.

You can’t have it both ways. Either there was instititional, legal/political, organizational entities that were formal association of congregations - or there were not. Make up your mind. IF you want to defend that there was (well, at least one) - then your need need is to establish that said denomination was exactly what The Catholic Church is today - and to do so from OUTSIDE The Catholic Church so it isn’t just The Catholic Church making claims for The Catholic Church. It’s entirely moot to our discussion here, but have a try at that (you’ll need to do that in a separate thread - but have at it). Of course, even if God established IT, that’s entirely moot to IT being infallible/unaccountable. God also established the Hebrew Kingdom and appointed its kings (at least the early ones), was such THEREFORE infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, exempt from norming, whatever it said is what God said? You have a wrong premise.

There were BELIEVERS since Adam and Eve, certainly since Abraham. All of God’s promises were given to PEOPLE. God never promised The Catholic Church anything. He never exempted The Catholic Church from anything. He never authorized The Catholic Church for anything. And He CERTAINLY never stated that The Catholic Church is infallible - about anything, concerning anything, at any time, in any way. IT is just claiming such for ITSELF.
paul c:

Josiah:

1. Yes, Jesus promised PEOPLE many things. Infalliblity/unaccountability was never one of them, of course. And yes, many of these promises were collective - to the body of believers - the church.

.

He promised that he would guide the church to all truth.

Exactly!!! But He didn’t promise The Catholic Church ANYTHING. And again, you seem to be confusing God guiding all with one following without the possiblity of error and without the acceptance of accountability. You have this strange, odd, unbiblical and irrational idea that perfect leading means infallibly following. AGAIN, where did you ever get that idea? Did God infallibly lead Adam and Eve? ERGO, did they infallibly follow? ERGO, did God regard them as unaccountable, incapable of error, exempt from norming? We all know the answers. Your whole premise is simply false.
paul c:

He never said the Church was unaccountable.

EXACTLY!!!

Thus, The Catholic Church is accountable EXACTLY as is The Lutheran Church or The Methodist Church or The LDS Church or Jim Jones or Martin Luther or Pope Benedict or Joseph Smith or Billy Graham or you or me. NONE may exempt self alone from accountability - and replace such with the demand that ONE (self, exclusively) be exempt form norming because self alone so exempt self alone - and instead whatever self alone says must be accepted “with docility.” Welcome to Protestantism, btw…
paul c:

Every member of the Church, from the lowest member to the Pope will be judged by God on the day of his death based on what he did or didn’t do.

This is the second time in one post that you are disagreeing with The Catholic Church. You’ve generally been a good Catholic apologist until this post…

Does The Catholic Church do as you suggest - have GOD do the judging on judgement day? Nope. It believes that ALL OTHERS are fully accountable - RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW (it only exempts itself). Did IT say to Arius - “You will be judged by God on the day of your death - nothing more can be said.” Did IT insist to Martin Luther, “Oh, you may be right and you may be wrong - you cannot be held accountable except by God exclusively on judgement day.” Nope. The Catholic Church has steadfastly, consistently embraced - and insisted upon - accountability and norming RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, rejecting the rubric you are calling for. It’s just that IT alone exempts just one from that - itself. Exclusively. “I’ll be judged by God on judgement day - I reject ANY norming NOW. But all OTHERS shall also be judged right here, right now.”

See, in judging ME - you are rejecting your own apologetic. As you so often have done with your apologetics before in this thread. Even you don’t accept your own position - or you’d insist that we are not to hold positions accountable, we are to reject norming, and permit GOD alone to do this on Judgement Day. But you actually reject your own position. Again, you are just TRYING to find some way for this to apply to one along if that one alone so insists/needs. RCC: “EVERYONE is fully accountable for what they say and do - right here, right now. We have every responsiblity to burn people at the stake for being wrong, to excommunicate, to denounce as heretics. But there’s one acception, just ONE that CANNOT be held accountable except by God Himself alone on judgment say, and that’s me, myself and I alone.”

Continues in the next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

… continued from the post above
paul c:

Josiah:

1. The Catholic Church alone simply exempts The Catholic Church alone from accountability - thus from norming. This is why it rejects Sola Scriptura, it is simply an aspect of norming and norming is rejected. But what justification does any have to exempt self alone from accountability? For self alone to claim that self alone is infallible, incapable of error, exempt from examination, to simply be accepted with docility for whatever self alone says? All that do this (and The Catholic Church is the only Christian denomination that does; it’s universal among all the cults but in Christianity, it’s unique to The Catholic Church) have the same “problem” - how to justify this remarkable, accountability-evading claim of self for self? Now, YOU claim that Jesus promised IT infallibllity/unaccountability, yet you have nothing to support this. ANYONE can capitolize the word “church” every time it appears (the word just means “assembly” “gathering” of PEOPLE) so as to imply in modern English grammar that thus a proper name is being used, and then insert, impose the name of their denomination before that, so that “church” becomes “The Lutheran Church.” But we all know that’s NOT what the text says

.

The Church simply sees itself as carrying out the mission Christ gave it: to spread the truth about salvation and to administer the sacraments. It has been doing this for 2000 years and was doing it before the new testament letters were even written.

1. Yes, CHRISTIANS have been doing that. There’s zero evidence that The Catholic Church even existed for centuries. And exactly how DOES a denominational, legal/political/ institional denomination baptize? Never mind - a different subject for another day and thread…
2. That doesn’t remotely suggest that it is exempt from accountibility or that it is infallible or that it is incapable of error - especially for IT ITSELF alone, exclusively. Ford has been making cars for nearly 100 years, does that make Ford Motor Corporation INFALLIBLE, INCAPABLE of error, exempt from accountability and thus norming, whatever it says Jesus says, we must accept whatever it does and says “with docility?” You keep making these wild presumptions, these AMAZING leaps that are entirely unbiblical, illogical and just stange…

paul c:

Josiah:

1. Friend, if a Mormon said, “Jesus promised the The LDS Church would be infallible and incapable of error!” I just have a hunch the first thing out of your mouth would be “show me!” And if he quoted every verse in the NT with the word “church” in it, your response would be “but it says NOTHING about the LDS!” Well…

.

Of course, Joseph Smith has huge personal credibility problems so his self proclamations are easy to dismiss. St. Peter has no such issues.

1. You evaded the entire point. Read it again.
2. Funny, you hold the LDS accountable for what it claims, but when we discuss The Catholic Church - out that goes, in comes the “just accept it with docility.” Funny how the LDS is not allowed to demand docilic acceptance, but the RCC is. Welcome back to Catholicism…
3. BTW, Peter never said, claimed, promised or authorized ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about The Catholic Church.

IMHO, the true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light.
It is the false teacher that must hide in the dark, exempt self alone from accountability, insist that the issue of correctness be laid aside and that it just be accepted "with docility that self alone is correct, cuz self alone says that self alone is infallible, incapable of error, and thus exempt from accountability and the norming that requires and the whole issue of this thread: the most sound rule/canon for such.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.