P
Porknpie
Guest
nothing wrong with that. “Pie” went through RCIA twice…the second time completely. Her protestant background taught her to love The Lord…,Catholicism filled in some gaps and corrected a few errors.
Pork
- Status
Pork
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Do you think that’s quite the right way of putting it. I think I agree with what you’re trying to convey - the fact that Scripture is part of the tradition of the apostolic church - but that’s not quite the same as the Bible just reflecting Christian doctrine, as if its authority were derived from its representation thereof, and not from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
C
Contarini
Guest
The mind boggles. One of my big problems with Latin Catholic worship as generally practiced in the U.S. is how staid and sedentary it is.
What kind of church are you familiar with–one where people lie on sofas?
Edwin
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I know… as if it was wrong to kneel or prostrate oneself before the Lord… Even with my attempt at light comments went over…
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Because the Catholic Church has examined and explored the issue, and she is the one whom Christ promised would be led by the Holy Spirit.
Now, how about YOU answering the question without just asking another question?
P
Porknpie
Guest
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Perhaps so. I just get annoyed when it looks like someone is avoiding the answer.
C
Contarini
Guest
I don’t hear him saying that it’s “wrong,” just physically demanding. That’s what I find weird.
I guess this is partly an American thing–they exercise like crazy but they seem to want to keep physical exercise in its place. I do the opposite–I hate “just exercising” so I try to build physical activity into the rest of my life as much as possible (walking to church, for instance).
People find the Episcopal Church confusing this way too, and it’s hard for me to empathize with after having been a liturgical Christian for so long. (We probably bob up and down more than Catholics do, if anything.)
Edwin
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Do you raise your arms on high at the Liturgy?
To be honest, I kinda miss doing that.
Peace,
S
steido01
Guest
Jon is among the most honest posters on these boards, if not the most. I do not know him to avoid an answer where he can give one. I think he might be trying to get you to think by asking a question. Jesus often did the same when the Pharisees tried to force him into giving an up-down type answer.
FKB, we’ve tried so very hard to explain that the paradigm through which you and PR are pressing your line of questioning simply does not allow us to answer in the way that we understand this issue. If you were debating a generic protestant, sure. Lutherans, not so much.
I promise, as I’ve said earlier in this thread, we’re not being evasive. The lens through which we see this issue is entirely different from your own, or from most protestants. There are more than two ‘sides’ to how to view the canon and Scripture. You say that you understand this, but it is clear that you are still thinking through your own mindset.
I do not believe I can contribute any further to this thread.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
That may very well be, but he is not Jesus. Jesus’ answers were pertinent.
You might want to ask yourself exactly why you are not allowed to answer these questions. Could it be that you can’t answer those questions in a straightforward way because doing so would reveal a weakness in your beliefs?
Maybe not purposefully. But you are avoiding addressing the issue nonetheless.
I know you are annoyed, but the next question is, how do you KNOW it is the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is this one institution, only and exclusively, to whom Christ made this promise?
The entirety of the patriarchates of the east consider, and have considered since the undivided Church, that 3Macc is canonical. How do you know the Catholic Church is right?
I know that, without question in the undivided Church, certain books remained uncontested and universally affirmed. I know without question that there are certain books that are accepted today universally as canonical, though have been subject to dispute throughout history. I know without doubt that the are certain books that some accept as canonical, while others do not, and there are some that are universally rejected in terms of canonicity.
With that in mind, our communion uses these books in that light. The light of the history of the Church. Yes. The Church, because it is the Church that has the teaching authority, and makes the determination. That doesn’t violate sola scriptura because scripture gives that authority to the Church.
As the Church is divided, and has been for a millennium, it should not be surprising that different communions have made different prayerful judgements as to which books do and do not rise to the level of others. As Lutherans, we hold that the DC’s are not at the same level as canon, but that they are good and worthy of reading, and I would add of great worth to the Church.
The Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome consider them to be canonical and inspired, as does Orthodoxy, who additionally consider other books as canonical.
How do I know Tobit is not canon, or 3Macc is not canon, or The Prayer of Manasseh is not canon? I frankly don’t, because I am not the Church, and I am not the Holy Spirit. I simply pray that I, as a Christian, respond as best I can to the Savior’s grace and call, and ask forgiveness where I am wrong.
Jon
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Well, I know that it has to be one of two Churches, and I have pretty good reasons for choosing the Catholic Church over Eastern Orthodoxy. But that’s a different thread.
For the purposes of this discussion, I can assure you that it HAS to be a Church that has existed for 2,000 years, and that leaves all protestant denominations out.
That leaves you the book of Luke (and not a complete book of Luke at that), and a handful of Pauline epistles, as your entire NT. That’s if you exclude Jewish beliefs, which excludes any NT book at all.
Very good. Now, can you tell me when you believe that the Church lost that teaching authority?
And how did you make that determination?
It’s great to “hold” a belief, but you really need a basis for that belief.
That sounds all good 'n gushy & stuff, but St. Paul, writing under the inspirition of the Holy Spirit, told us how we can know:
1Ti 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
It isn’t an issue for me. The fact that the Bishop of Rome is a central part of the Church is self-evident. That fact that Orthodoxy, Lutherans, and many others are part of the Church is self-evident, as well.
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
You are correct–except that I haven’t said that the Bible “just reflects” Catholic doctrine. Emphasis on the “just”.
That the Bible came after the kerygma is a fact that is incontrovertible.
That the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was put to writ is also a matter of theological certainty.
That means that we don’t distill our doctrines from the pages of a Book, no matter how Holy.
The Catholic faith came first. Then came the Bible.
As such, the Bible reflects the faith of the Church, given once for all, to the apostles.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I simply find it bemusing and peculiar that you are able to confirm that the Catholic Church was able to correctly discern the 27 book canon of the NT, and do this over and over and over again, and yet be unable to say: “Therefore, the Catholic Church has been given the charism of infallibility. At least, as it applies to this issue of the canon.”
For some reason you cannot say that, and prefer rather to say, “Let’s just agree that cows are animals that produce milk.”
C
Contarini
Guest
And yet again, you seem not to get that being right and being infallible are different things.
One can recognize that the Church got it right without positing that the Church had a special charism preventing it from getting it wrong.
Your position just isn’t logical. You are making a leap that is convenient for the point you want to prove but not supported by reason. You are confusing two different things, and you keep accusing the Lutherans of being evasive because they refuse to confuse those things.
Edwin
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I’m not sure that your position is as nuanced as you think it is. What would you say that the purpose of the Bible is?
- Status