None of these involve a communication of divine attributes, PR.How about when Peter walks on water.
Or when Peter heals. (In fact, he heals just through his shadow!)
They were not. The revelation was. The teachings are theopneustos. God didn’t breathe out the apostles.Or when Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Moses, Peter write infallible encyclicals.
All of those things are, as you claim, are divine attributes.
Wow…Oh, and I just thought of another: Paul says that *he *saves. Salvation is, of course, the purview of the Divine, right?
You mean Holy Orthodoxy?If we truly want to be good Christians why don’t we obey Jesus and join the Church He built for us and calls us too? You know, the Church that created Scriptures in the first place? Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?
No, Gaelic.So you think the church just sat down and arbitraily said the Shepherd of Hermas is not inspired. Is that how you think they handled canonization? Or did they have a reason to reject it?
Where did sacred tradition tell you that PR?No, Gaelic.
It was Sacred Tradition that revealed this. Canonization was achieved through the hierarchy of the Church—the process is not unlike that which the Magisterium practices today.
My Church has the same praxis, essentially, as the Church that discerned the canon of Scripture.
I will pointedly say that I don’t believe that you can say the same for your church. :nope:
Sacred Tradition IS revelation.So tradition came before revelation, PR?
The same way you do: because I defer to the authority of the CC.How do you know?
Through the testimony of the early Christians.Where did sacred tradition tell you that PR?
How do you know?Sacred Tradition IS revelation.
God’s Word has 2 channels: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Is your deferment to the church infallible?The same way you do: because I defer to the authority of the CC.
How do I know that God’s Word has 2 channels?How do you know?
No, it is not. I could be wrong. Just like you could be wrong.Is your deferment to the church infallible?
So you do this uncritically? If not, what evidence led you to submit to it?How do I know that God’s Word has 2 channels?
The same way you do: because I submit to the authority of the Catholic Church.
First, you’re already under the presupposition that the church you belong to is equivalent to the one that received the canon. That’s fine but it’s not one I share. Nor do the oyher churches that claim to be the true one.You have only submitted to her proclamation regarding the canon, but for some reason that I am trying to distill from you, you seem to think she did not get it right on all sorts of other areas.
Because I am under obligation to adhere to the words of Christ and His apostles. I am not, however, under obligation to be under whatever decrees the church may develop if those decrees cannot clearly be demonstrated to come from Christ or His apostles. Much of which can directly be demonstrated not to.I can’t figure out why you defer to her authority here, but in other areas you don’t.
Thy word is truth.How is it that you discern when the Church got it right and when she didn’t? What pillar and foundation do you use to determine the truth?
Then I don’t see how your triumphalism is warranted. If you are wrong…which you neither can nor not infallibly know…then having an incorrect authority serves you no better.No, it is not. I could be wrong. Just like you could be wrong.
Yes, because the gospel stands or falls with an infallible church? Please approach a Muslim and convince him of the truth of the gospel by telling him the magisterium is infallible. Let me know how that works out.But then that means that you and I have NOTHING to stand on in the way of evangelizing atheists, Muslims, and Jews, right?
Because the unhistorical nature of the Qu’ran pales…pales…in comparison to the historical evidence for the Scriptures. I haven’t seen too many professional Catholic apologists debating Jew or Muslims lately. I can’t imagine why that is. Oh, now I remember…too much time spent trying to convince us that we can’t trust the Bible.For they will tell both of us, rightly, your submission to the Church (on the issue of the canon) is only a fallible decision. You could be wrong. The Koran actually could be God’s revelation.
Christ tells us that this is my body and this is my blood…and that His Body is true food and His Blood is true food…and when St Paul tells us that whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.Because I am under obligation to adhere to the words of Christ and His apostles.
Snarky sarcasm is not helping your argument.Oh, now I remember…too much time spent trying to convince us that we can’t trust the Bible.
Gaelic,So you think the church just sat down and arbitraily said the Shepherd of Hermas is not inspired. Is that how you think they handled canonization? Or did they have a reason to reject it?
For what reason do you think it arbitrary thst the DC books were rejected?Gaelic,
Thinking is not knowing. Arbitray can be seen in the rejection of the Deuterocanonicals. The reasons for rejection by the Church are noted in not accepting or including as seen in records of Council and use through Tradition. What reasons are there for rejecting and creating something that Protestants call the Bible 1500 years after the fact?
[/QUOTE]Christ tells us that this is my body and this is my blood…and that His Body is true food and His Blood is true food…and when St Paul tells us that whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
Do you not have an obligation to adhere to these words?
No snark or sarcasm intended. For I see that is precisely whst occurs in these types of debates. Trying to convince Christians we cannot trust the words of Jesus without an infallible middle manBecause I do not interpret them literalistically does not mean I do not adhere to them. Dispensationalists try the same argument all the time.
Who is the “middle man”? Peter?Because I do not interpret them literalistically does not mean I do not adhere to them. Dispensationalists try the same argument all the time.
No snark or sarcasm intended. For I see that is precisely whst occurs in these types of debates. Trying to convince Christians we cannot trust the words of Jesus without an infallible middle man
Not sure what you’re asking here, stew? Peter?Who is the “middle man”? Peter?
(Apologies for the brevity but I’m using my phone).Not sure what you’re asking here, stew? Peter?
When we come to the point where the tire meets the pavement…it comes down to interpretation. The Real Prescence is the center of the apostolic teaching in the apostolic Church. It was taught by the Fathers, Saints, and Councils. And yet many groups from the reformation denied it…and re-interpreted as figuritive and symbolic.Because I do not interpret them literalistically does not mean I do not adhere to them.
I don’t know about “infallible middlemen”…but I do know that certain teachings in Scripture are very clear (such as the Real Prescence). And yet the majority of protestants do not accept it…or re-interpret it.Trying to convince Christians we cannot trust the words of Jesus without an infallible middle man