Sola Scripture (yes, again)

[CentralFLJames]

Mine is better than yours because I like mine better than yours. You get to have your delusions all to yourself.

So you admit that you do not believe in sola scriptura and accept your own private tradition in lieu of private interpretation of scripture. This is a new variant on Protestantism I have not seen before - a traditionalist who picks traditions based on taste.

I am still curious how you got to where you are. Have you sampled all the various flavors to arrive at this personal choice or did you go with the first flavor that tasted good to you?

James

 

[guanophore]

True, but he quoted from them as evidence of his authority. It was His personal knowledge of the Scriptures and their authority that continually amazed the teachers of the Law.

Yes, I agree. However, you have to consider that the passage in Tim about the value of scripture is only referring to the OT. The NT had not yet been written! I mean, he was writing it on the spot…

No Christian in their right mind today would try to live a good Christian life based only on the OT. Yet, Paul knew the OT scriptures so well he could make such a statement.

Jesus did teach from the scriptures (Septuagint, specifically) but he had more new things to add than He ever did quotes. Yes, the teachers of the Law were amazed at his cheek.

But His example, most of all, should demonstrate that SS is not the way He intended. He would have commissioned scribes to write, instead of planting a church!

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3328077]Yet you say scripture is infallible at the same time you call The Catholic Church fallable. Do you not see a logical absurdity in holding the original author of the Bible (The Holy spirit working through the Catholic Church) as fallible while saying it produced an infallible work in the Bible?

I’m suprised you say this. The Scriptures which are from God are inspired-inerrant. That we hopefully agree on.
The church, made up of sinful and fallen men are not infallible. The Scriptures are infallible but the church is not nor can it be since it is composed of men.

How can something fallable beget infallibility? Your logic appears fallable as best.

You are making a category mistake here. The church which is composed of fallible men are not the “source” of the Scriptures. God is. The Scriptures are infallible because their source is God.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

I’m suprised you say this. The Scriptures which are from God are inspired-inerrant. That we hopefully agree on.
The church, made up of sinful and fallen men are not infallible. The Scriptures are infallible but the church is not nor can it be since it is composed of men.

You are making a category mistake here. The church which is composed of fallible men are not the “source” of the Scriptures. God is. The Scriptures are infallible because their source is God.

We do agree that scripture is infallible. But where we part company is in the thinking that The Infallible Church made up of members who individually may be fallable are infallible when speaking through the head of the The Body of the Church through Christ’s Vicar - the Pope.

You just painted yourself into an irrational corner by admitting that all men are fallable, yet can produce infallible scripture, yet somehow suddenly again become fallible in the aggregate when reading and interpreting the Scripture they wrote. I hope you are not saying this since it means you just decisively lost your basis for your own faith. You rely on YOUR OWN INFALLABILITY in reading infallible scripture while making the case that all men are fallable. If you truly believe what you state here then you can NOT trust yourself to properly read scripture and teach yourself the truth - because YOU are fallable and you admit you are.

Generalizing the principal that in the aggregate The Church becomes infallible when the Holy Spirit operates through it to produce scripture then logically it follows that the Church is also infallible when the Holy Spirit operates through Her to Teach!

You need to convert to Catholicism since you just proved to yourself that you can not trust your fallable self since all men are fallable. The only source of infallible teaching comes from The Church - not from individual private interpretation. Even a professional writer NEVER trusts his own eye. He always hires or consults with a proof reader to check his works. This is both a humble admission of fallibility and also a pragmatic means to overcome a false reliance on self to the detriment of self.

You need to honestly evaluate your conscience and objectively see that what I say here is true. You should see that at the root of your argument and belief that all authority is evil and not worthy of service. What Protestants carry as their cross is the emotional and social baggage of the 1500’s - revolt against monarchs and all authorities. It is a wild freedom that leads eventually anarchy. There is such a thing as legitimate authority. This is stated all through scripture. You recognize Jesus’ authority and are willing to follow him and submit to his authority through the vicars and spokespersons of the early church (e.g. the apostles - and Peter as their head) but just as soon as The Church produces a written Bible and people learn to read (ironically through The Church founding all the early schools) you think vicars and teachers become superseded. By the faux liberation achieved through the printing press (occasioned by the social peace and social order of The Church) and the disordered musings of a rebel leader (Luther) you bought into the lie that there is no need for The Church anymore since we have all been saved by the printing press.

You need to admit that you abhor The Church’s authority and work through that. It’s irrational to love scripture while holding in contempt the same authority that produced it, protected it and taught it for 1000’s of years. It is not only irrational it is disrespectful and disobedient to Jesus to not obey His Teachers and representatives.

James

 

[Pier]

We do agree that scripture is infallible. But where we part company is in the thinking that The Infallible Church made up of members who individually may be fallable are infallible when speaking through the head of the The Body of the Church through Christ’s Vicar - the Pope.

You just painted yourself into an irrational corner by admitting that all men are fallable, yet can produce infallible scripture, yet somehow suddenly again become fallible in the aggregate when reading and interpreting the Scripture they wrote. I hope you are not saying this since it means you just decisively lost your basis for your own faith. You rely on YOUR OWN INFALLABILITY in reading infallible scripture while making the case that all men are fallable. If you truly believe what you state here then you can NOT trust yourself to properly read scripture and teach yourself the truth - because YOU are fallable and you admit you are.

Generalizing the principal that in the aggregate The Church becomes infallible when the Holy Spirit operates through it to produce scripture then logically it follows that the Church is also infallible when the Holy Spirit operates through Her to Teach!

You need to convert to Catholicism since you just proved to yourself that you can not trust your fallable self since all men are fallable. The only source of infallible teaching comes from The Church - not from individual private interpretation. Even a professional writer NEVER trusts his own eye. He always hires or consults with a proof reader to check his works. This is both a humble admission of fallibility and also a pragmatic means to overcome a false reliance on self to the detriment of self.

You need to honestly evaluate your conscience and objectively see that what I say here is true. You should see that at the root of your argument and belief that all authority is evil and not worthy of service. What Protestants carry as their cross is the emotional and social baggage of the 1500’s - revolt against monarchs and all authorities. It is a wild freedom that leads eventually anarchy. There is such a thing as legitimate authority. This is stated all through scripture. You recognize Jesus’ authority and are willing to follow him and submit to his authority through the vicars and spokespersons of the early church (e.g. the apostles - and Peter as their head) but just as soon as The Church produces a written Bible and people learn to read (ironically through The Church founding all the early schools) you think vicars and teachers become superseded. By the faux liberation achieved through the printing press (occasioned by the social peace and social order of The Church) and the disordered musings of a rebel leader (Luther) you bought into the lie that there is no need for The Church anymore since we have all been saved by the printing press.

You need to admit that you abhor The Church’s authority and work through that. It’s irrational to love scripture while holding in contempt the same authority that produced it, protected it and taught it for 1000’s of years. It is not only irrational it is disrespectful and disobedient to Jesus to not obey His Teachers and representatives.

James

Very well said - may I add:

The Bible tells us that Jesus Himself said there were and would be some arrogant men in the hierarchy, that would teach correctly but not live as they should…

And that we should do as they say, but not as they do.

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

CentralFLJames;3329243]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I’m suprised you say this. The Scriptures which are from God are inspired-inerrant. That we hopefully agree on.
The church, made up of sinful and fallen men are not infallible. The Scriptures are infallible but the church is not nor can it be since it is composed of men.

You are making a category mistake here. The church which is composed of fallible men are not the “source” of the Scriptures. God is. The Scriptures are infallible because their source is God.

CentralFLJames
We do agree that scripture is infallible. But where we part company is in the thinking that The Infallible Church made up of members who individually may be fallable are infallible when speaking through the head of the The Body of the Church through Christ’s Vicar - the Pope.

Where do you get the idea that the church is infallible? Jesus never made such a promise.

You just painted yourself into an irrational corner by admitting that all men are fallable, yet can produce infallible scripture,

Not so. A fallible man can produce a perfect “paper” without any mistakes. Its done all the time. Secondly God used fallible men to produce an infallible scripture because He is the One guiding these men when they write. It is not required these men themselves be infallible themselves while doing so.

yet somehow suddenly again become fallible in the aggregate when reading and interpreting the Scripture they wrote. I hope you are not saying this since it means you just decisively lost your basis for your own faith. You rely on YOUR OWN INFALLABILITY in reading infallible scripture while making the case that all men are fallable.

I have never claimed infalliblity for myself nor do i need to to understand the scriptures.

If you truly believe what you state here then you can NOT trust yourself to properly read scripture and teach yourself the truth - because YOU are fallable and you admit you are.

I can trust what i read and study because God has given us minds to study and the ability to understand most things. When the pope or a priest speaks must you be infallible to understand them?
Secondly, when you read your catechism do you trust yourself to properly read and teach yourself the truth because you are fallable?

Generalizing the principal that in the aggregate The Church becomes infallible when the Holy Spirit operates through it to produce scripture then logically it follows that the Church is also infallible when the Holy Spirit operates through Her to Teach!

It may logically follow but it does not necessarily follow. You must assume at all times when your church teaches something that the Holy Spirit operates through Her to Teach.
How do you know for example if a person in your church who teaches that the Holy Spirit is operating through her? What is the criteria you use to determine this?

 

[justasking4]

Part 2

You need to convert to Catholicism since you just proved to yourself that you can not trust your fallable self since all men are fallable. The only source of infallible teaching comes from The Church - not from individual private interpretation. Even a professional writer NEVER trusts his own eye. He always hires or consults with a proof reader to check his works. This is both a humble admission of fallibility and also a pragmatic means to overcome a false reliance on self to the detriment of self.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Part 1

Where do you get the idea that the church is infallible? Jesus never made such a promise.

I will respond to each of your comments separately.

The phrase papal infallibility occurs in Scripture as often as the term Trinity: not once. However, it does not follow from this that biblical proof is lacking

Rather than spend a lot of time redeveloping a case for Church Authority I am going to borrow from various sources:

According to Catholic theology, there are several concepts important to the understanding of infallible, divine revelation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium. The infallible teachings of the pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the “ordinary and universal magisterium”. In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.

You are a person who we Catholics see as only possessing a fractional truth. So I understand that of the above you will only accept Sacred Scripture. So I will offer you evidence of that from scripture alone. To wit:

John 1:42, Mark 3:16 ("And to Simon he gave the name “Peter”, “Cephas”, or “Rock”)

Matthew 16:18 (“thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church”; cf. Matthew 7:24-28, (the house built on rock)

John 21:15-17 (“Feed my lambs.”/“Feed my sheep.”) (stated three times)

Luke 10:16 (“He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.”)

Luke 22:31-32 (“confirm thy brethren”)

Acts 15:28 (“For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, …”) (“the Apostles speak with voice of Holy Ghost”)

Matthew 10:2 (“And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,…”) (Peter is first.)

Matthew 16:19 (“whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”) (Also used to defend the sacrament of Confession)

There are many other indications in Scripture that Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke
22:32, Luke 24:34, and 1 Corinthians 15:5, Matthew 28:18-20, John 14, 15, and 16, I Timothy 3:14-15.

You might want to go back and re-examine why you think scripture is infallible. If all these things were done without acts and Jesus had made all his comments as a young boy for example would you believe them? No - probably not since I think your faith derives from 2nd hand accounts of Jesus’ works and acts of wonders. My own faith first derives from the lives of the early saints and apostles not directly from Jesus’ works. I know in my heart that these many early Christian Martyrs all believed with all their hearts in what they saw and heard since they were willing to die for what the believed in. Thus my faith derives directly from The Living Church - which is the mystical body of Christ.

Given that it took Jesus over 30 years from the time of His birth to come into an understanding of who He was (especially when He spent 40 days in the wilderness after His baptism) I accept the spiritual truth that God reveals to us who and what we are OVER TIME. Thus God also revealed and formed His Church over time.

There are other clear indications as well in the Traditions and early Church writings that an understanding among the Apostles was written down in what became the Scriptures, and rapidly became the living custom of the Church. But I won’t bother to expose these here since you will not accept anything but the historical scripture that The Church assembled into its cannon.

More here: Infallibility

More here: How to Argue for Papal Infallibility

All the above is completely unassailable since NO OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY on the planet can argue to defeat The Church’s claim in a way that they can usurp that authority to give it to themselves as each and every single Protestant attempts to do.

Now That I have answered your question I have one for you.
Where DO YOU get your authority to challenge The Church and replace it with yourself as a Church of One?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Part 1

Where do you get the idea that the church is infallible? Jesus never made such a promise.

[CentrelFLJames Already answered]

Not so. A fallible man can produce a perfect “paper” without any mistakes. Its done all the time. Secondly God used fallible men to produce an infallible scripture because He is the One guiding these men when they write. It is not required these men themselves be infallible themselves while doing so.

I have never claimed infallibility for myself nor do i need to to understand the scriptures.

I can trust what i read and study because God has given us minds to study and the ability to understand most things. When the pope or a priest speaks must you be infallible to understand them?

Then why is it when Protestants read the bible they all hear different things? Why do we have a legion of 30,000 or more different protestant sects and all constantly re splintering and forming new allegiances with other sects due to progressively degrading conditions? When a pope or priest speaks and something does not make sense to us we should assume first that the authority is legitimate just as a good child should trust that their parents have a natural authority over them. It is the nature of children to constantly ask questions to reinforce teaching or clarify understandings or to dig deeper. So its the attitude that is important in how we listen, read and learn and we listen with an assumption of our own fallibility or soon learn that when we make a mistake that proves to us by consequence of life that we heard or learned wrong. That’s called growing in the faith.

Secondly, when you read your catechism do you trust yourself to properly read and teach yourself the truth because you are fallable?

Catholics never or rarely read the Catechism as a self-study aid since most of us are cradle Catholics and its taught to us over many years through our traditional Catholic family upbringing and through our early formation in Church and school teaching. Each mass teaches some aspect of our Catechism (The Homily and The Gospel readings). So most Catholics are immersed in a bathing and light of Catechism over time as a conditon of their life experience as they grow in the faith and as they progress as a human. Each of us is as a budding fruit that responds to the Grace of God to help us absorb more fully the teaching and to develop our own spiritual fruits and talents to contribute to God’s mystical Church. As we mature toward adulthood and developed a disciplined intellectual capacity we have sufficient life insights and teaching to permit us us to read the Catechism and spiritual works concurrent with our Traditions and Teachings to gain deeper insights - but always cross check with core teaching and traditions.

It may logically follow but it does not necessarily follow. You must assume at all times when your church teaches something that the Holy Spirit operates through Her to Teach.
How do you know for example if a person in your church who teaches that the Holy Spirit is operating through her? What is the criteria you use to determine this?

The teachers all use Church approved teaching sources and these most often will bear the Imprimatur of a governing Bishop or council of Bishops that are in accord with Rome. Like anything in life there are times where some individual may be in discord with teaching. But these are usually found out and dismissed rather quickly since most every Catholic knows “core” teaching enough to see when somone is getting way outside of what is official doctrine (each of us hears the entire NT bible and its teaching in mass over any calendar interval of 3 years for example). So the students themselves or other teachers will bring the anomalous teaching to the attention of their superiors or other authority (parents for example). We can be confident that the Holy Spirit operates through The Church in Teaching since Jesus made this promise in scripture.

I want to point out that the Apostles themselves were sinners! These men all had petty issues with each other. What happened on Good Friday was disgraceful - the disciples (save Mary and John and a few others) all ran into hiding. Peter betrayed Jesus. The apostles were very human they were not impeccable. The Church is full of sinful souls more so than it is full of heroic saints who never committed a serious sin. The thing to focus on here is The Church. It is the Church that prevails. Judas betrayed Jesus and we believe this is a prefiguring for those apostates who went outside the Church yet had their own ideas for how to initiate God’s Kingdom (through zealot militant action).

If Jesus called Peter “Satan” a few verses after he said he would build his Church upon him, we can rest assured that Christ’s Church does not stand or fall based upon the perfection of its members. That can only mean one thing - The Holy Spirit is at work.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Part 2
You claim that a person needs an infallible teacher. How do you know if you as a fallible person is interpreting the infallible teacher correctly?

You are the one implying that you are infallible and not in need of any teacher - not I. I can use normal prudence to ascertain if the person teaching first of all sounds like it makes sense and is in accord to what I have already learned from tradition and experience and from other’s within the Church. One can also use the person’s personal behavior to get a feel for the state of ther person’s spirit. For example, if the person reads from an official text book and then says “well believe what you want since I have to teach what the Bishop tells me to get paid but if you want to know the truth - God is love and if you Love him then there is nothing you can do wrong even if someone calls it a sin”. Then it becomes clear we have a false teacher and this kind of person never lasts long.

I never said such a thing. I never said “ll authority is evil and not worthy of service”.

Jesus never taught don’t render unto Caesar unless he is worthy. Where in scripture did someone teach you not to obey God given authority?

Can you give me a couple of examples of this anarchy in protestant churches?

Open up any phone book in the country and go to the Churches section of the Yellow Pages and count the different denominations of protestant churches. Or go here and see an exhaustive reference: World Christian Encyclopedia : a comparative survey of churches and religions in the modern world

Then go to the headlines or a history book and see the circus that Protestant anarchy has let loose since Luther’s rebellion first infested the planet. You will find the atrocities of Henry XVIII usurping The Church under his monarchy just to satisfy his lust for power as well as his illicit unions. From there is just splinters and fractures along Luther’s fault-line to where today we have homosexuals heading up major protestant denominations and declaring heterosexual unions no different than homosexual unions and protestants scrambling to forge new alliances among competing sects. Protestantism is disintegrating all around us and threatens to completely upset the social fabric of the western society as it deconstructs itself. We have now a flea-market sort of protestantism. Do you deny this?

I agree that there is a legitimate authority but that does not mean we are accept all this authority teaches without holding these authorities to the standard of the Scriptures. The scriptures warn that false teachers will come into the church and deceive many. All members of the body of Christ are to hold them accountable. From what i see in the catholic church is a failure to do so.

Created beings do not think to hold God to our human standards. Can’t you see the rebel attitude here? Your problem is YOU DON’T TRUST ANY authority - legitimate or not. There is a normal Christian procedure for dealing with perceptions of error - one has internal meetings and expresses concerns to superiors. One does not make demands or think to hold authority hostage to disobedience as Luther did.

Nonsense. Protestants have established their own churches. Are you aware that after Luther died there were many in the leadership of the Roman Catholic church that agreed with Luther on many of his teachings?

No its fact. It varies but Protestants either elect or hire their own ministers based on interviewing them. There is no central authority that defines the standards - each sect has its own rules. In some cases if the church membership does not like a minister they can elect to fire him simply because he teaches too harsh or does not say what they want to hear. I am aware that there were some abuses in the pre-Protestant Catholic Church. Luther would have found advocacy for working out the abuses internally. But Luther was a revolutionary at heart who attempted to force the Church to conform to his own ideas rather than submit them respectfully and work internally for changes.

What i abhor is an authority that claims to teach the truth but does not.

Me too. But what I hate more is where there is no authority and that same entity tried to teach rebellion through an illusion of truth.
The Catholic Church has both authority and truth. Individual leaders are as imperfect as the next person but overall the mystical Church is teaching truth.

What you fail to do with your leaders is to hold them accountable to the teachings of the Scriptures. There are many doctrines and practices that are unbiblical and catholics refuse to speak up against these things.

Not true we recently excommunicated a bishop who tried to break with Rome (SSPX). A very sad loss of a highly respected man but The Church will not tolerate open dissension and disobedience. There are proper ways to getting The Church to consider dealing with legitimate issues. I do not know of a single unbiblical teaching of the Catholic Church. Most Catholics were distressed about the sex scandal within the Church and still are. But that was not a teaching - that was some evil men who got into the Church to victimize innocents. The Church now has adapted and grown and put in place rigorous procedures for dealing with this under a zero tolerance doctrine. Will that be 100% effective in preventing evil minded individuals from sinning and getting past the checks and and safeguards? No. But will God let evil men prevail against His Church (or go unpunished) . NO!

James

 

[justasking4]

Part 1a

CentralFLJames;3330165]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Part 1

Where do you get the idea that the church is infallible? Jesus never made such a promise.

[CentrelFLJames Already answered]

I must have missed it. Can you show me in Scripture where this is explicitedly spelled out?

justasking4
Not so. A fallible man can produce a perfect “paper” without any mistakes. Its done all the time. Secondly God used fallible men to produce an infallible scripture because He is the One guiding these men when they write. It is not required these men themselves be infallible themselves while doing so.

I have never claimed infallibility for myself nor do i need to to understand the scriptures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I can trust what i read and study because God has given us minds to study and the ability to understand most things. When the pope or a priest speaks must you be infallible to understand them?

CentralFLJames
Then why is it when Protestants read the bible they all hear different things? Why do we have a legion of 30,000 or more different protestant sects and all constantly re splintering and forming new allegiances with other sects due to progressively degrading conditions?

Not all church splits have to do with doctrinal differences that i’m aware. Most that i am are due to church plantings from a larger church that starts a church in a different part of the city or country.
There are some splits due to doctrinal differences as we see in the Anglican church over homosexuality and rightfully so.

When a pope or priest speaks and something does not make sense to us we should assume first that the authority is legitimate just as a good child should trust that their parents have a natural authority over them. It is the nature of children to constantly ask questions to reinforce teaching or clarify understandings or to dig deeper. So its the attitude that is important in how we listen, read and learn and we listen with an assumption of our own fallibility or soon learn that when we make a mistake that proves to us by consequence of life that we heard or learned wrong. That’s called growing in the faith.

What is your criteria that you use to determine if an authority is speaking the truth or not?

 

[justasking4]

Part 1b

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Secondly, when you read your catechism do you trust yourself to properly read and teach yourself the truth because you are fallable?

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3330440]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Part 2
You claim that a person needs an infallible teacher. How do you know if you as a fallible person is interpreting the infallible teacher correctly?

CentralFLJames;
You are the one implying that you are infallible and not in need of any teacher - not I.

I have never made such an absurd assertion. Can you show me what makes you think this?
Is it not also true the catholic church claims to be an infallible interpreter of the Scriptures and that it alone has the authority to do so?

I can use normal prudence to ascertain if the person teaching first of all sounds like it makes sense and is in accord to what I have already learned from tradition and experience and from other’s within the Church. One can also use the person’s personal behavior to get a feel for the state of ther person’s spirit. For example, if the person reads from an official text book and then says “well believe what you want since I have to teach what the Bishop tells me to get paid but if you want to know the truth - God is love and if you Love him then there is nothing you can do wrong even if someone calls it a sin”. Then it becomes clear we have a false teacher and this kind of person never lasts long.

What do you do when its more subtle than this? For example is it a false teacher when many catholics are claiming that Mary is spouse of the Holy Spirit when the church has not offically declared that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I never said such a thing. I never said “ll authority is evil and not worthy of service”.

CentralFLJames;
Jesus never taught don’t render unto Caesar unless he is worthy. Where in scripture did someone teach you not to obey God given authority?

When false teachers are present and teaching falsely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Can you give me a couple of examples of this anarchy in protestant churches?

CentralFLJames;
Open up any phone book in the country and go to the Churches section of the Yellow Pages and count the different denominations of protestant churches. Or go here and see an exhaustive reference: World Christian Encyclopedia : a comparative survey of churches and religions in the modern world

Go to these churches in your area and compare their doctrinal statements. Do they believe in the deity of Christ and that He died for the sins of the world? Do they believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God?

Then go to the headlines or a history book and see the circus that Protestant anarchy has let loose since Luther’s rebellion first infested the planet. You will find the atrocities of Henry XVIII usurping The Church under his monarchy just to satisfy his lust for power as well as his illicit unions. From there is just splinters and fractures along Luther’s fault-line to where today we have homosexuals heading up major protestant denominations and declaring heterosexual unions no different than homosexual unions and protestants scrambling to forge new alliances among competing sects. Protestantism is disintegrating all around us and threatens to completely upset the social fabric of the western society as it deconstructs itself. We have now a flea-market sort of protestantism. Do you deny this?

No doubt there are and have been problems in protestantism. Are you also willing to admit that the Roman Catholic church guided by the Holy Spirit is responsible for the inquistions that went on for centuries with the support of the popes?

 

[Namesake]

Yet you say scripture is infallible at the same time you call The Catholic Church fallable. Do you not see a logical absurdity in holding the original author of the Bible (The Holy spirit working through the Catholic Church) as fallible while saying it produced an infallible work in the Bible? How can something fallable beget infallibility? Your logic appears fallable as best.

James

I am just stunned that Catholics really believe that the Catholic church produced the Bible. Incredible!!!

I came here looking for information that could lead to my conversion from Protestantism to the RCC. Instead I keep finding so many reasons why that would be wrong for me.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Part 1a

I must have missed it. Can you show me in Scripture where this is explicitedly spelled out?

Not all church splits have to do with doctrinal differences that i’m aware. Most that i am are due to church plantings from a larger church that starts a church in a different part of the city or country.

There are some splits due to doctrinal differences as we see in the Anglican church over homosexuality and rightfully so.

What is your criteria that you use to determine if an authority is speaking the truth or not?

Rather that run around the May pole to evade my answers with more rhetorical counter-questions in an endless dance of fundamentalist insincerity when are you going to answer my question?

Where DO YOU get your authority to challenge The Church and replace it with yourself as a Church of One?

I have given over 20 scriptural quotes in my original reply

See my scriptural references on Catholic Authority at this link.

Can you give me even one quote where Jesus authorizes you to rebel against His Teaching and His Church ? I didn’t think you could.

You are being completely dishonest and disingenuous if you think even 10% of the splits in the Protestant community arise from Ecclesiastical imperialism and expansion. You know very well that I am not talking about new Protestant ecclesiastical communities which use the same protestant denominational name in different cities and who share a common business plan and mission statement and franchise fee to use the same name. You know that I am talking about the 30,000+ Protestant sects who all separately form their organizations under different business models and different mission statements and different trademarked franchises and different organizational hierarchies. You know that none of these legions of protestant sects share any real doctrinal linkage nor recognize each other as being a true teaching. The only thing they share in common is their KJV Bible and their commitment to being against pontifical authority. This is why we Catholics do not recognize Protestant organizations and denominations as “churches” - you have ecclesiastical communities and are separated from the sacraments and the salvific graces God offers through His Church. Protestants reach near unity only in their general rebellion against papal authority but remain pitifully fractured around the legions of seperate interpretations of scripture.

My criteria for determining when The Church is speaking the truth is not the same for secular authorities nor for sects. When The Church speaks I know it is with one accord since the college of Cardinals (Bishops) and the other Bishops at large are all involved with forming and evolving doctrine. Therefor its a given that when there is consent among the bishops and an official position is taken by the pontiff that The Church speaks infallibly. Unlike Protestants Catholics conform to God given authority and trust God that what The Church teaches is true.

Treason, rebellion, insubordination, disloyalty, suspicion and intrigue are not fruits of the Holy Spirit. These sort of things are vices that are anti-Christian and are found only in the decaying branches of The Church. When these are present God prunes them away or permits them to fall away to suffer in their own error to reach their logical conclusion. Some come back and The Church always does so with open arms. You need to come back.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

CentralFLJames;3330165:

Part 1b

Do you think all catholics who do read and study the catechism arrive at the very same understanding of it? Are there differences of opinion on what certain sections or teachings mean?

Peter is an interesting example that i think demonstrates that even one who is under the influnce of the Holy Spirit can err. In the passage you refer to that is exactly what happened. This should tell us that even when the Holy Spirit they can err.

Your reading comprehension must be grossly flawed or subjectively colored. We are all TAUGHT the same thing. Do all people have the same level of comprehension? Of course not. Differences of opinion can all be resolved by appealing to the Magisterium. Where do the 30,000 seperate Protestant sects go to appeal to reason on why they are so fractured? And don’t answer “their KJV” since you go circular in the reasoning when you do so.

Are you saying that Peter erred when he wrote His portion of scripture? Which scripture did he err in and how do you know which is in err or not in err? I though you said Scripture is infallible. How do you know? Are you going to go circular again and say “because scripture tells me its infallible”? Or is it because you interpret scripture in a way that you want it to be infallible?

If you were Catholic you would know that God is infallible and therefor so is The Holy Spirit and you would not get yourself into these logical paradoxes and ridiculous assertions.

If you believe that scripture warned against false teachers (and it does) what made you choose to go outside the existing Church formal authority to accept Luther as the correct teacher? Why did you assume that what happened up to the Protestant rebellion was proper teaching then assume that God suddenly wanted Luther to re-teach His truth? Did you flip a coin?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

I am just stunned that Catholics really believe that the Catholic church produced the Bible. Incredible!!!

I came here looking for information that could lead to my conversion from Protestantism to the RCC. Instead I keep finding so many reasons why that would be wrong for me.

Actually Namesake in your 6 weeks here your 330 posts suggest that you came here to teach Catholics your own views more so than you came here to hear ours. Not too many Catholics fall for the tactic of dividing one Catholic against another by tossing the “I might convert if you treat me real nice” card. If what you really want is a ecumenical social pen-pal I’d recommend going to a different kind of forum since we are apologetics and are not inclined to swap out a fellow Catholic just for the chance of picking up a dubious candidate from the legion of dissatisfied protestants shopping for yet another religion.

The Catholic Church absolutely assembled the Catholic Bible from the writings of the Apostles and other inspired writers. It was published in 405 AD. Do you know of any other ecclesiastical authority that exists today that can make that same claim?

Contrary to Protestant revisionist history and popular mythology it was not King James who wrote the bible - he came 1600 years AFTER Christ and after Luther rebelled against The Church. The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. This was produced under a head of state not a head of a Church. It established the common parasitic pattern for princes and monarchs to control access to the word of God through themselves. This was little more than a faux show of benevolence that was intended to elevate monarchical prestige and power among the crown subjects by attaching the crown to the popularity of the Christian religious trends while consolidating their own power while implicitly usurping the pope. Monarchs published bibles to make it appear that the monarchy was the controlling authority for Church matters.

There was no canon of scripture or “Bible” in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church–her leadership, faithful people–guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon and corrected canons of the Old and New Testaments.

Several Church Councils or Synods, were convened to deal with the matter, notably, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419.

Note it was a Catholic Pope who stepped in to authoritatively settle internal disputes on cannon development. In concurrence with the opinion of St. Augustine, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, “The Decree of Damasus”, in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books. St. Jerome acquiesced his different opinions on certain aspects of the cannon to the authority of Pope Damasus under obedience (Hebrews 13:17) and began the translation, and completed it in 404 A.D. In 405, his new Latin Vulgate was published for the first time.

James

 

[Brother_John]

II came here looking for information that could lead to my conversion from Protestantism to the RCC. Instead I keep finding so many reasons why that would be wrong for me.

Oh, come now…you’ve been using that line through more than one thread…nice try at making us feel bad though.

 

[Namesake]

Oh, come now…you’ve been using that line through more than one thread…nice try at making us feel bad though.

I am not trying to make you feel bad, as if I could do that.

I’m serious, I was looking to convert. My wife is so happy that I found this site because she was afraid I really would convert.

I thank you all here for showing me the truth about Catholicism. I have learned a lot.

 

[justasking4]

I am just stunned that Catholics really believe that the Catholic church produced the Bible. Incredible!!!

I came here looking for information that could lead to my conversion from Protestantism to the RCC. Instead I keep finding so many reasons why that would be wrong for me.

Keeping studying what the catholic church teaches and compare it to the Scriptures. You will continued to be stunned…