L
Lampo
Guest
It does help me understand *your *thought. I see flaws in your thinking and understanding of the Catholic Church. I will try to address your post in better detail soon.
- Status
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
.
Okay…
Undeniably.
You just violated the very foundation of The Catholic Church. Read your Catechism # 87 for starters. But, let’s continue…
Then, your position is that if self alone agrees with self alone, then that self is correct. BTW, The Catholic Church rejects the rubric you suggested (it would need to conclude that Luther was correct otherwise, for Luther’s interpretation agreed with Luther’s interpretation).
What you’ve done is create a perfect circle of self-authentication.
Ummm, no. It’s actually exampled all over Scripture. What is NEVER taught or exampled is that if the interpretation of self agrees with the interpretation of self, then self is correct.
The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church alone is INFALLIBLE and INCAPABLE of error (in these matters), that when IT (and it itself alone, exclusively and it particularly and singularly) when IT speaks, Jesus is speaking. ERGO (that’s the key), it is exempt from accountability and norming (thus being moot in the singular, exclusive, sole case of it and it itself alone since it claims that it cannot be wrong). You are to just accept whatever it and it itself alone says “with docility.” It rejects ANY norm for it itself alone (not just Scripture) because it rejects accountability for it itself alone, exclusively. None is to hold it accountable, all are to just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.”
Thank you.
Pax
Okay…
Undeniably.
You just violated the very foundation of The Catholic Church. Read your Catechism # 87 for starters. But, let’s continue…
Then, your position is that if self alone agrees with self alone, then that self is correct. BTW, The Catholic Church rejects the rubric you suggested (it would need to conclude that Luther was correct otherwise, for Luther’s interpretation agreed with Luther’s interpretation).
What you’ve done is create a perfect circle of self-authentication.
Ummm, no. It’s actually exampled all over Scripture. What is NEVER taught or exampled is that if the interpretation of self agrees with the interpretation of self, then self is correct.
The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church alone is INFALLIBLE and INCAPABLE of error (in these matters), that when IT (and it itself alone, exclusively and it particularly and singularly) when IT speaks, Jesus is speaking. ERGO (that’s the key), it is exempt from accountability and norming (thus being moot in the singular, exclusive, sole case of it and it itself alone since it claims that it cannot be wrong). You are to just accept whatever it and it itself alone says “with docility.” It rejects ANY norm for it itself alone (not just Scripture) because it rejects accountability for it itself alone, exclusively. None is to hold it accountable, all are to just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.”
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Hello again AJ.
One issue with your analogy of the Canon = the measuring tape is that we don’t all have the same measuring tape. And I guess I would argue that it seems to be (have been) alterable (altered.)
One issue with your analogy of the Canon = the measuring tape is that we don’t all have the same measuring tape. And I guess I would argue that it seems to be (have been) alterable (altered.)
D
Drawmack
Guest
Mark,Drawmack
In my exchanges with you in this thread, I have learned I have a great deal to learn about apologetics and I realize it is more than an exchange of opinions and ideals. You friend are very good at what you do.
In the future I will be very cautious in entering the arena of apologetics, you make some very good points and they have gotten me thinking and delving into questions that I had never considered before about the Catholic Church and the Christian Faith.
If I attempted to defend “my opinion” concerning why has the Canon of Scripture been defined and why it has been closed, it would be just that, my opinion. When I have found a logical answer I will attempt to present it to you. Honestly I don’t think that will happen for I believe there is a great deal concerning God and Salvation that is beyond what logic can explain and it is what we Catholics consider to be The Mystery of Faith. It is not logical my friend but it is what I believe God intended.
It has been a pleasure participating in a dialog with you and maybe after a bit more study I will be better equipped to do so again.
Thank you for the kind words. I believe that you are better equipped than you believe yourself to be. After all simply saying I don’t know is more than most are willing to do.
God Bless
Drawmack.
D
Drawmack
Guest
Yes, Lutherans and Baptists consider these teachings heterodoxy. And, even the Catholic Church affirms that this is room for heterodoxy: see Thomism and Molonism. When you get heterodoxy is not when the Bible teaches two things but when the Bible leaves room for interpretation. Sometimes the Bible is not clear on a finer point and thus there is room for various teachings on that finer point but the points it is clear on create the orthodoxy which must be accepted in order to be called Christian. If you are honestly going to argue that there is no room for heterodoxy could you please inform your priest of this stance and see if he agrees with you?
According to everyone who is Christian but not Catholic. Even the Catholic Church affirms that Protestants are Christians. Therefore, the Bible must leave room for more heterodoxy than the Catholic Church does. Additionally, isn’t it a teaching of the Catholic Church that the Catholic Church is an infallible interpreter of Scripture, hasn’t the Catholic Church made infallible proclamations on the meaning of Scripture, therefore the Catholic Church by their own actions admits that they leave less room for heterodoxy than Scripture does.
Really, Lampo, at this point you are showing yourself to be uneducated on even what your own Magisterium teaches.
D
Drawmack
Guest
Okay, so you claim that Philip converting him and bringing him into the church was enough. However, the eunuch said that he could not understand Scripture without an interpreter. So, how does this eunuch know the teachings of his new church unless he has acquired the ability to interpret Scripture? Therefore I assert that your explanation does not have the explanatory scope and power that mine does.
Did I say the eunuch possessed inerrant interpretation of Scripture? I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that, if I am mistaken please quote me, if I am correct please stop throwing straw men at me I am allergic.
No, Catholics have the teachings of the Magisterium on what Scripture means they do not have a different interpretation than I do because they do not have an interpretation.
Please see everything I have written in this thread about heterodoxy vs. orthodoxy vs. heresy. Both Thomism and Molonism are Biblically based but they are different. By your assertions the Catholic Church must tell us which one is wrong and they have not done so. Please stop with the disingenuous apologetic tactics they are really tiresome.
No, but I believe there is orthodoxy, heterodoxy, and heresy. If am answer falls into the category of orthodoxy then everyone must affirm the same thing to rightly be called Christian. For example, we both have the same view of the Trinity. However, if an answer falls into the category of heterodoxy then it does not matter which one someone believes.
I wonder why Catholics constantly wish to ignore the fact of heterodoxy when the Catholic Church affirms it. There is Thomism vs. Molonism; evolution vs. creation; did Mary die before assumption or was she assumed while alive; etc; etc. These are just a couple of the areas that the Catholic Church allows for heterodoxy. So why are you trying to claim that heterodoxy does not exist?
C
cfrancis
Guest
Here’s what you originally posted:
Looking at the story, you explanation falls short of any “scope and power.”
26 But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, “Get up and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a desert road.)
27 So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship,
28 and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.”
30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:
[passage from Isaiah]
34 The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?”
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
37 And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.
The Ethiopian Jew was reading a scroll from Isaiah (v 28). Philip’s question (v30) is obviously directed at the scroll from Isaiah from which the Ethiopian was reading (v30).
What didn’t the Ethiopian understand? Not the actual writing (v34 , which shows he can read) but that that which was written referred to something he could not have known - that Christ fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy. In fact, the Ethiopian’s question in about the verses referring to Isaiah or someone else speaks to some understanding on the Ethiopian’s part.
How could the Ethiopian know about Christ? At best, we can assume he knew of the crucifixion of a Jewish teacher who caused quite a stir (v27). Beyond that, we have to assume he heard nothing of what Jesus taught.
So what does Philip do? Read some more Scripture to him?
No, he preaches to the Ethiopian about Christ (v35).
Certainly Philip didn’t use the Old Testament to teach the Ethiopian about being baptized to be saved; that came from Philip’s preaching.
So, after Philip tells the Ethiopian that which he could not know - that Christ fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy - and baptizes the Ethiopian, only then is Philip whisked away.
There is nothing in the passage that hints at the Ethiopian being able to interpret Scripture on his own now. In fact, one can imagine the Ethiopian, as he reads more and more Old Testament, wanting to ask if certain passages also speak to Jesus Christ.
You are free to read into the passage and make all the assumptions you wish, but to attempt to pass it off as having some “explanatory scope and power” is a bridge too far.
Oh, so you meant that **“because once the eunuch is baptized he then possess the ability to both read and interpret Scripture” **incorrectly.
Are you a dancer by any chance, because you are tapping your way around these questions quite nicely. Your comment here makes no sense, but I suppose it was easier for you to say this than actually address the issue.
C
cfrancis
Guest
First, it’s Molinism, not Molonism. Second, neither Thomism nor Molinism is a doctrinal issue, for neither denies the doctrines of grace and free will.
So, when Paul or Lampo present you with, for example, Protestant doctrine that states baptism is symbolic and Protestant doctrine that states baptism is regenerative, you seem to be saying that matters of doctrine can be matters of heterodoxy, not orthodoxy.
Your task, then, is to present the list of doctrines that fall into the “orthodoxy” category, and your support for placing them in that category.
The claims being made are that doctrine does not fall into your categories you’ve created. Nothing you’ve listed is a doctrinal issue. But you yourself have stated that at least some doctrine falls into the “orthodoxy” category; yet you’ve not provided all that falls into that category, nor the criteria by which you made those decision.
C
cfrancis
Guest
Aside from the personal attack meant to build yourself up at the expense of others, you’ve said little in your response and provided even less evidence.
therefore the Catholic Church by their own actions admits that they leave less room for heterodoxy than Scripture does.
Really? Care to provide the evidence for this assertion.
Your whole argument is based upon your own creation as to what constitutes orthodoxy, heterodoxy and heresy; yet you’ve not once provided the criteria you set for these and the evidence to support your criteria.
hasn’t the Catholic Church made infallible proclamations on the meaning of Scripture,
What you are saying here is that no Protestants have made “infallible” declarations. So, when I hear Baptists or Assembly of God members state, “we are saved by faith alone” what they are really saying is “we’re not sure, but we are leaning toward being saved by faith alone, but we could be wrong…”
Likewise, when you, Drawmack, say Sola Scriptura is a biblical principle, you’re really saying, “Yeah, I’m thinking that Sola Scriptura is right, but it may not be, so I could be wrong.” Is that it?
C
cfrancis
Guest
BTW, the entire “norming” argument presented by AJ and Drawmack is hollow if they themselves have not held accountable those authorities that have told them what writings are inspired and therefore to be Scripture.
What norm did they use to determine if those authorities were correct?
I have yet to see either one of them apply their principle to the themselves.
What norm did they use to determine if those authorities were correct?
I have yet to see either one of them apply their principle to the themselves.
J
JoeT777
Guest
This is a very interesting analogy; I like it except the syllogism is somehow flawed, but it can be fixed. The best I can tell scripture can’t be canon unless and except one condition is met. Please forgive me if I try to re-formulate the allegory a little more to my way of thinking:
Bob the Builder builds a fence on your adjoining property line and you agreed to share the costs. The fence is built and Bob the Builder wants the two of you to validate the proper height of fence so you can pay your share. You both go to Sears and purchase a tape measure. Both parties measure the fence and agree the fence is the proper height. Who validated the height of the fence? You, Bob the Builder, Sears, or somebody else. The answer is somebody else. The tape measure is the equivalent of ‘doctrine’ which is equivalent to ‘canon’, i.e. “a measuring stick.” So, now you each have the canon of measure. The Norms are the equivalant of the method used to measure (that is how to hold the tape, where to hold it, with what tension to hold the tape). Such standards or norms are standards written by our yet unnamed party. Sears validates that the tape measure meets the norm or standard for accuracy and that on average each tape will measure the same within certain tolerances. So, who Is it that validates the accuracy of the tape? It’s the mystery party, the ‘Bureau of Measures’ who sets standards for the manufacturing of the tap and the methods required to use the tape to fall within certain tolerences (tolerences can be thougth of as orthodoxy). The Bureau of Measures is not the equivalent of Sola Scriptura, that is canon, but rather the Catholic Church. It’s this agency that is the Bureau of Measures that validates, authenticates the soundness of scripture, canon, and the norms. Consequently, the only way scripture can be the canon, “the measure”, is when it is authenticated by the Church and used in the manner for which it was intended, otherwise you stand the good chance of coming up with different measures.
JoeT
D
Drawmack
Guest
Yes, as I’ve been saying the Catholic Church allows less room for heterodoxy than does Scripture.
D
Drawmack
Guest
First, I have provided more then sufficient evidence, by way of a logic argument, for the fact that the Catholic Church allows less room for heterodoxy than Scripture does. Here allow me to simlify it a bit:
Premise 1) The Catholic Church claims to be infallible in their interpretation of Scripture.
Premise 2) The Catholic Church has made infallible proclamations on the meaning of some Scriptures
Conclusion) The Catholic Church, by their own actions, leaves less room for heterodoxy than Scripture does.
Now, this is a logic argument and can only be refuted in one ot two ways. You can show that one of the premises is wrong or you can show that the conclusion does not directly flow from the premises. You cannot ask me to define a tangentially related term and expect to invalidate the argument. Please logically show that this argument is incorrect or admit that it is not.
First of all, that is not a logical conclusion. Making a statement about the Catholic Church implies nothing about any other church. For example if I said the Catholic Church has priests, would you claim I was asserting that no Protestant church has them? Of course not, because that is false. Well, it is no less false when we are talking of a concept then when we are talking of physical entities.
Kind of. You see, Protestant ministers have no problem being held up to the norming of Scripture. So what they are saying is, “What I have learned from Scripture is that faith in the Trinitarian God is what saves us, but if you can show me Scripture that convinces me I am wrong I will happily accept the correction so that I can better teach the truth of Scriptures in the future.”
Close, see my above answer and then cross apply it.
BTW: Next time you start off a post by decrying someone else for making a personal attack in an attempt to build themselves up you should think twice about taking a disrespectful tone in your response :rollseyes:
Another note on the building myself up, you did an awesome job of correcting Lampo when they opened discussions with me in this thread by doing the same thing.
L
Lampo
Guest
AJ…You like to point out that the Catholic Church agrees only with itself on all Christian doctrines. That makes sense. So what? Did the Church Jesus found in the year 33 AD agree only with itself on all Christian doctrines? Yes. So why wouldn’t this same Church today (the Catholic Church) agree only with itself on all Christian doctrines?
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
EXACTLY…
One of the most common Catholic apologetics is that The Catholic Church is correct because it agrees with itself. No one denies that, it’s just that most have the exact same reaction to the claim as you do. Obviously, AT LEAST the same is true for all other teachers. Self usually agrees with self - it has absolutely nothing to do with that self being correct.
In this thread, we’ve witnessed a common variation of this claim: Self alone agrees with self alone - thus it has unity. Sure. Again, no one denies that. It’s just that it’s a unity of one: self alone with self alone. My reaction to that is the same as yours: so what? Is THAT unity?
.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Then…
- You are embracing that Bob the Builder is accountable. He does not simply require that he alone be exempt from accountability and rather whatever he says rather simply be accepted with docility. Compare with the Catechism written by The Catholic Church, # 87.
- You are embracing that there needs to be a canon (the word literally means “measuring stick”) for the norming process. I remind you: The Catholic Church rejects ANY such canon in the singular, exclusive case of it itself alone (although it insists on it for all and every OTHER teacher of doctrine).
- You are embracing an arbitive process that is NOT limited to Bob alone. And yet I remind you that The Catholic Church permits only and exclusively ONE arbiter in the evaluation of it’s doctrines: Itself, alone.
- No. The canon (the word literally means “measuring stick” and comes from the epistemology of norming) is embraced by all parties involved in the normative process as reliable for this purpose; it is OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND all the parties involved, it is knowable by all and alterable by none. In my field (physics) we use math and experimental observation. Now, it’s correct, people developed the math we use and the processes of experimentation but I did not, you did not, the peers involved in my review did not - and it is knowable to all of us and alterable by none of us. This is in contrast to the Catholic epistemology where Bob the Builder alone declares himself exclusively to be exempt from accountability and norming because Bob the Builder exclusively claims that Bob the Builder exclusively is INCAPABLE of error in this matter and thus any norming by ANY rule is moot and is to be abandoned, rather WHATEVER Bob says is the case is simply to be accepted as correct “with docility” - without accountability, without norming by ANY rule/canon.
- Bob the Builder did not make the measuring tape, nor did you or your neighbor. The Catholic Church did not “make” Scripture. Most of it was written and embraced CENTURIES before The Catholic Church itself alone even claims that it was “born.” And obviously, it cannot have written ANY of it since it has no eyes or hands or the ability to write anything. As we both know, the embrace of Scripture was a “grassroots” one of God’s people. Yes, at the Council of Trent, The Catholic Church affirmed the embrace of Scripture in some formal, official way by it alone for it alone. Most denominations have done the same thing (mine did it at St. Louis, MO in 1847). This would be the equal of Bob, you and your neighbor all agreeing that the Sear’s Measuring Tape is reliable as the canon for this purpose.
- While you obviously are correct that there is an affirmation of Scripture as reliable that is not being normed here, you are missing the point: All parties involved are accepting it as such. You will note that the Protestants here (including me) have spoken of the Rule of Scripture as “most sound” or “best” canon for this purpose among us. The alternative (so defended by the RCC, LDS., as well as by all the cults) is that NO canon be embraced because the best way to determine the correctness of a teacher is for the teacher to exempt himself exclusively from accountability and from norming according to ANY rule/canon/norma normans because self alone claims that self alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong and thus is infallible - and accountability is moot in the singular and exclusive case of just one: self. Friend, I have heard and read this epistemology defended for years by Catholics, Mormons and every single one of the cults I have studied. Self usually agrees with self. Self usually regards self as correct. If self is exempted from accountability and rather whatever that one says is just accepted - then it’s just accepted. But none of these things has any relevance WHATSOEVER to that self being correct.
- Again, if you have a better canon for the evaluation of the doctrines of The Catholic Church - one you believe is MORE inspired, MORE reliable, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE knowable by ALL and alterable by NONE (including The Catholic Church), ecumenically and historically embraced by all parties - then share it. But WHATEVER you suggest will be rejected by The Catholic Church, for it rejects accountability and norming by ANY canon, it rather just demands that whatever it proclaims (as such) be accepted as correct “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” Now, some here have suggested that the best canon is whatever The Catholic Church says as the canon for whatever the Catholic Church says; but this is just a perfect circle and, as my Catholic teachers ALL insisted, is a canon REJECTED by The Catholic Church (so odd one or two here are defending it).
.
L
Lampo
Guest
Agreed. The Catholic Church doesn’t claim to be correct because it agrees with itself. That’s absurd. The Catholic Church claims (and can back up those claims) to be correct because it was founded by Jesus Christ, has the promise of the Holy Spirit to be guided into *all *truth and to *be *the pillar and bullwark *of *the truth.
The importance of it is because that’s the way Jesus set up His Church. He didn’t want His house to be divided against itself like is the case with Protestantism.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
I agree. Tell that to the Catholic here trying to make the point that because it alone agrees with it alone - it’s correct. Or that because it alone agrees with the tradition of it alone that it alone is correct. But we seem to be in agreement here.
Yes. The Catholic Church alone claims that The Catholic Church alone is infallible - and thus exempt from accountability. THAT is why it rejects the Rule of Scripture (and ANY OTHER rule) in the norming of its doctrines; it’s not because it has an alternative rule (better or worse), it doesn’t. It’s because it exempts it and it itself exclusively from ANY norming by ANY norm in the single case of it itself alone. “I’m right so I’m right - just accept it with docility.”
No. Sorry, but it can “back up” none of the claims. There’s no evidence that ANY denomination existed in 30 AD, much less the singular, exclusive, specific and particular one that today is The Catholic Church. The only record we have of Jesus’ words and actions are found in the New Testament, and there we find The Catholic Church not so much as even MENTIONED - for anything, about anything, concerning anything. There’s no record of Him founding ANY denomination - much less that specific one. I think we all know that.
You have two entirely FALSE premises. First, that if a teacher is correct, students are infallible and unaccountable. I have asked - repeatedly - for some substantiation for this remarkable and very odd claim (makes me wonder why they give tests in school?). You are confusing teaching with learning, the teacher with the student. The other false premise is even more weird: that if God leads, ergo it is IMPOSSIBLE to not infallibly follow. Very odd because not only is this against EVERYTHING we know from life, entirely illogical but obviously contrary to what they Bible teaches (I strongly suggest you read Genesis Chapter 3 - that, by itself, blows both of these premises entirely out of the water - even if life experience doesn’t). Read jsut that one chapter (all you need to read) and then explain to me your position that students are infallible/unaccountable, and that if God leads - it is impossible to not follow (and we are unaccountable for it if we don’t).
But, I admit, you are presenting the Catholic position well. SOMEHOW, The Catholic Church needs to exempt ITSELF from all accountability, but embrace every OTHER teacher as fully and completely accountable - right here, right now. It’s necessary so that it can condemn all OTHERS but it cannot be regarded as wrong. We see this same “problem” in the LDS and in all the cults. As far as I can tell, every one of them addresses it the same way: “God founded ME - exclusively and solely. God promised that I alone am infallible/unaccountable. Embrace accountability for all others, but reject it in the singular, sole, exclusive case of me alone - cuz I’m right so I’m right.”
And yet The Catholic Church is at least as “bad” as any other in this regard: It agrees only with itself. You can say NO WORSE about any other teacher… Your idea of unity: self alone agreeing with self alone, a unity of one: self with self is an odd one.
You seem to be confusing a teacher agreeing with himself alone with that teacher being correct. I remind you that you declared that to be “absurd” (to use your exact word).
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
L
Lampo
Guest
Stand fast, therefore, in this conduct and follow the example of the Lord, ‘firm and unchangeable in faith, lovers of the brotherhood, loving each other, united in truth,’ helping each other with the mildness of the Lord, despising no man.
– St. Polycarp
Polycarp was converted by St. John the Apostle, and a friend of St. Ignatius of Antioch. He was the first bishop of Smyrna. Today is his feast day. To you, AJ, is this another example of the Catholic Church agreeing with itself?
– St. Polycarp
Polycarp was converted by St. John the Apostle, and a friend of St. Ignatius of Antioch. He was the first bishop of Smyrna. Today is his feast day. To you, AJ, is this another example of the Catholic Church agreeing with itself?
M
maggie41
Guest
A person on another chat forum once said to me, " You don’t go to church to learn what true doctrine is, you discern what true doctrine is for yourself and then choose a church that is teaching that." This is the non-Catholic or protestant mind set. It was my mindset at one time, although I never actually put into those words. But, it was exactly what I did.
But, is that the example we see in Scripture? When I took an honest look at Scripture, I had to conclude no. The closest I could find to that way of thinking were the Bereans. But, I had to ask myself, if the Bereans had disagreed with Paul after searching the Scriptures, would that have made Paul’s message any less true. My answer was, of course, no.
For me it came down to the question of authority, I saw that Jesus had given His authority to the Apostles and they continued His ministry in that authority. I had to ask where was that authority for me. I remember one day saying to God, “where is my Paul”, who do I write to about the disputes I am having with my fellow Christians?
You continue to talk about self agreeing with self does not authenticate a belief. I agree with that, but isn’t that what you do when practicing SS. You used the analogy of a builder and the need for a ruler, indicating that Scripture is that ruler. Great analogy! But don’t those who are using the ruler need to know how to use the ruler? Remember, the Scriptures tell us it is possible to misuse the ruler. We have to conclude in the midst of all the conflicting beliefs that are out there, somebody is misusing the ruler. But, the real question is how do you determine who is an expert measurement taker and who is not.
As everything, it comes down to a choice. I choose to believe that Jesus established a Church of authority, His authority. I choose to believe that to listen to that Church is to listen to Him. I choose to believe, based on the fruit of division, that SS is not what God intended. I also choose to believe, based on many factors, that this Church is the Catholic Church. Now, as you rightly pointed out, I am fallible and could therefore be wrong in my conclusions, I agree. I guess we all have to follow what we truly believe God is showing us, we are accountable only to Him.
I became Catholic for a very basic reason, authority. I knew that I was not that authority, so I asked God where I could find my Paul. He very simply pointed to the Catholic Church.
In Christ’s Love,
Maggie
- Status