This argument has one very large hole. Simply because a book, an inanimate object, claims to be written by God, you believe it. Are you that gullible? Or do you believe it because of the faith tradition handed down to you? You believe it because of tradition, which you claim to deny.
If you are catholic, your faith is very similar.
I presume you are serious in saying this. I suppose you do not mean to insult all thinking Catholics by saying such a thing? The statement falls so far short of the fact that one would scarcely know where to begin in putting the record straignt.
I do not believe the church is infallible simply because a book says so. I believe the church is infallible(in certain instances) because Christ said so! I believe Christ was God through study of Scripture as a generally historically accurate document.
No, I believe it because 2000 years of living Apostolic Tradition have preserved this truth. Actually longer if you want to trace the unbroken line of Tradition all the way back to Adam, which we do.
How do you know Jesus set up an infallible church? Is it the gates of hell not prevailing scriptures? I have a few other questions but will wait until you answer this one.
Thanks for your reply. You said in a shorter version pretty much what the apologist said.
One of the titles the Pope is know by is “Servant of The Servants of God” What did Jesus say to His Apostles,
Luke 22:25-27
The Pope is in submission to Christ to lead by serving His Church.The Pope is also one of the most loved people on Earth because he is Christ’s representative on Earth; And for this reason he is also one of the most hated men on Earth. Matthew 5:10-12
How can such a derivative claim be made when no visible Church with a direct claim will agree to it?
I understand that you did not mean to “insult” – and perhaps my choice of the word “insult” was too strong. But when you say that we believe in the infallibility of the Church ‘because the Church says so’ you do assume that there could be no other reason for believing it.
Knowing Contarini, I don’t think he was holding to a ‘visible church’ point of view in that statement. The mainstream Protestant churches hold to the fundamentals of the first four ecumenical councils, and thus, claim some kind of connection with the ancient faith. It is not an ecclesial connection but a doctrinal one.
So the state of play is:
But Contarini is not from a sola Scriptura tradition.
Why is that relevant? History is not yours to define as you will. We have baptism–we believe we have Eucharist as well, though you disagree–we have the Scriptures, we have the creeds. Those are all marks of a “visible Church,” and they are all things that come to us from the ancient Church. If there are other things that we have lost (most obviously communion with Rome–as an Anglican, I think we do have episcopal succession), then we need to recover them. But there are things that the Roman Communion lost along the way as well. Some of them–communion in both kinds, free access of laity to the Scriptures–you have recovered. Others–election of bishops, for instance–you have not.
Depends on how you define “sola scriptura.” I wish that term could be retired–it causes far more confusion than anything else, because it can mean so many things.
Fear enough, but as an ex-Episcopalian myself, I’m used to noting the exception of the Anglican view without explicitly stating it.
What is the “sola scriptura strain”? What counts as an “authority”? This is simply way too vague. As mercygate said, it certainly doesn’t describe my position or that of Anglicans generally–or that of modern Methodists (the other Protestant tradition with which I have some affiliation). I’m not sure it even describes the “classical Protestant” view, and for that matter I know Baptists who would disagree with it.
Not by the Catholic Church of twenty-one Councils. Not by the Catholic Church that recognizes papal infallibility, and whose bishops are appointed by the bishop of Rome. Not by the Catholic Church that issues indulgences. Not by the Catholic Church that declares the Assumption and Immaculate Conception to be dogmas.
Speaking for myself, and for Anglicans and other high-church Protestants more generally, we certainly recognize the authority of the Catholic Church as it existed in the fourth century (to which you allude in point 2). The question is: how is that Church related to the various churches that exist today. You simply assume that the contemporary Roman Communion is identical to the early Catholic Church. I maintain, on the other hand, that all Trinitarian Christians are in some sense part of that Church, and Vatican II agrees with me to some extent, while trying to maintain the essence of the older, more exclusive position as well (in a manner that is very clever, but a bit ambiguous).
No, you completely misunderstood me there. The Church is never invisible. It is marked out by creeds, sacraments, the episcopate, and many other visible things. The Church’s unity is never entirely visible in this life, as long as some of the elect remain outside the visible boundaries of the Church, or out of full communion with each other.
You aren’t stupid. You’re just indulging in the natural human weakness of thinking your opponents are more stupid than they are!