S
SteveVH
Guest
And of all those listed, which Church can actually prove “historically”, Apostolic succession?
- Status
J
Jaberwocky
Guest
But you said you accepted Scripture after discovering the Apostolic religion. Without the Apostolic religion or Scripture, you will not be aware of the existence of a “Holy Spirit” and what sort of guidance is provided by the “Holy Spirit”. You will not even know if the “Holy Spirit” has anything to do with Christ, right?
So how did you come to conclude that there is no discrepancy between what Christ taught and what the Apostles taught? If what the Apostles taught were a lie, the existence of the Holy Spirit could be a lie too, yes?
C
Contarini
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Why is that a stumbling block for you? That is simply what infallible means.
And if you believe that the CC was able to produce the canon of the NT without error, then you believe that she was indeed given a charism of infallibility.
That you can’t quite say “therefore the CC has been given the charism of infallibility” is a misstep in your own logic/reason.
But it does not change the fact that you believe this, if you believe that the NT canon is without error.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Of what benefit is a lineage of descent, if the individual in question no longer teaches the faith rightly?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
In the western church of the time.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
You can continue to trumpet that. It doesn’t matter to me.
Do you want a historical dissertation?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
It’s not a stumbling block.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Not sure exactly what you’re asking here, Jaber. Are you asking whether I accept the historical validity of Christianity? Yes, I do. I do not approach Christianity accepting it because of the Bible…as that would be circular. i.e., I believe the Bible because the Bible says so. I accept the veracity of the historical record regarding the truth claims of Christianity. That is to say, I believe the Bible is the word of God because Jesus was raised from the dead, not the other way around.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Not in substance, no.So you are saying that the Church who defined, “without error” the canon of the Bible is not the same Church that also defined the doctrines you mentioned?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Trumpet, ha! Just shows true history is annoying to you. Unless you enjoy the sounds of a trumpet.You can continue to trumpet that. It doesn’t matter to me.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Hahn, Pelikan and many, many others will disagree with you. But we already know you hold your personal opinion higher than that of the Church.
A substantial answer is much better than a little one liner that demonstrates nothing.
Are you working on your line of Lutheran Bishops from the time of the Apostles?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
What do you mean by substance, specifically?
C
Contarini
Guest
That is obviously, empirically false. I know a lot of people who are more learned in church history than I, including my “Doktorvater” (the professor who oversaw my doctoral dissertation at Duke University), and who see no need to be Catholic or Orthodox.
Newman’s famous quote should be rephrased, given its historical context: “to be deep in history is to cease to believe the line of propaganda peddled by Calvinist evangelicals in the Church of England in the early nineteenth century.” And even that is dubious:Joseph Milner was a very learned man, even though many of his interpretations were incorrect. I suppose it depends on what one means by “being deep in history.”
Edwin
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
And the tune of my trumpet!
http://i3.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/lens18952414_1325823518Great-trumpet-solos.jpg
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then the fact that you can’t quite say “therefore the CC has been given the charism of infallibility” is a misstep in your own logic/reason.
C
Contarini
Guest
No, the fact that you think that being right on a particular issue requires a charism of infallibility is a mis-step in yours.
It is reasonable to believe that the reason why the Church got so many things right is that it had a charism of infallibility. But that’s not the same thing as saying that it’s logically necessary.
Similarly, it is odd that conservative Protestants insist so tenaciously on adhering to the results of certain decisions of the early Church, sometimes (as, for instance, with the apostolicity of 2 Peter) oing against the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship without even having an overwhelming consensus of early Christian opinion on their side.
But that doesn’t mean that it’s logically incoherent.
Catholics frequently use a priori arguments when a posteriori arguments would do the job better.
Edwin
H
Honorius
Guest
What would jeopardize a someone’s salvation? I would like to say for starters that I (and all other humans on the earth that are honest) can not for certain say who is or is not going to Hell. However, there are some things that can be reasoned from the scriptures. If something is condemned in the Bible, and someone goes on to commit sin by doing whatever was condemned, then that would jeopardize their salvation. For example, in Romans Homosexual acts are condemned. I a person committed a homosexual act, and did not beg for forgiveness, then that would be putting themselves in jeopardy.
Now, for your examples. I do not think that praying to Mary or any of the other people that are thought to be in Heaven, is a sin. There does not seem to be anything in the Bible that would contradict it. Refusing blood transfusion for a child could fall under “You shall not kill”.
Now onto what constitutes the canon of the Bible. I cannot claim to be an expert on the matter, but can add my 2 cents. I cannot comprehensively say what should be in the Bible, but I can say with some certainty what should not. The Apocryphal books contain errors and contradictions. Later tonight or tomorrow morning I will post what appears to be wrong with the Apocryphal books.
:whistle:
P
PRmerger
Guest
Hiya, Edwin!
Good to be back in dialogue with you.
So if you don’t think that the CC has been given the charism of infallibility, at least as it applies to discerning the NT canon, where do you think she erred?
I didn’t say it was logically necessary, given that the Church has gotten “so many things right”.
Only logically necessary for Per Crucem to conclude, specifically regarding his acknowledgement that the Church did indeed proclaim without error the canon of the NT.
That’s simply what infallible means.
He can’t bring himself to say “The CC was infallible in discerning the canon of the NT”, even though he admits that “The CC was without error in discerning the canon of the NT.”
J
Jaberwocky
Guest
I admit right now that PRmergers argument is something that I have not thought out to the very end. But at a cursory examination, I think he/she has a sound argument.
a) To be Christian, one must know what it means to be truly be a Christian
If we are to hold that Christianity is the true faith, then it must follow that we must be able to know what it is. At a given time we may not now it completely but we must know it as much as it pertains to the circumstance at hand and in full. If we cannot know the actual true faith, then it does follow that Christianity is pointless since no one really knows if what they believe is actually Christian.
b) To know what it truly means to be Christian, one needs an infallible source
This too seems to follow. We see this in the practice of even Protestants as they hold Scripture to be infallible. Of course, how they come to know if it is infallible is a big issue that suggests something missing in their thinking. So with that we have (c)
c) One cannot relegate this infallibility to a mere text or Oral tradition
I think if one were to think a bit on this issue, the above seems clear. With respect to writings and oral traditions, we do know that it can appear ambiguous at times. There has to be someone who can step in and say “THIS is the right interpretation”.
d) So infallibility seems to be a logical necessity for any religion
As for posterior arguments, they cannot be used because one cannot prove infallibility posteriori. It would be impossible to prove it logically because one has to presume knowledge of the infallible kind about what is been pronounced infallibly.
J
Jaberwocky
Guest
I understand. But what I am asking is something a little different.
How did you go from “Jesus was raised from the dead” to Bible is the word of God? Is it because the Bible speaks about Jesus rising from the dead?
- Status