Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[Jon_S_1]

Another on Purgatory

In closing I would like to end with a quote from Pope Benedict the XVI regarding this doctrine, in his encyclical Spe Salvi I believe he sums it up in a beautiful way that even an Evangelical reader can appreciate and hopefully recognize as not just plausible, but likely.

*Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ’s Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy. *

For more this is another blog post on this issue. findingthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/2013/03/purgatory-part-2-what-about-temporal.html?m=0

 

[SteveVH]

If I have to have an infallible authority to tell me what Scripture is, then what is the infallible authority that tells me the Church is infallible?

Jesus Christ. He gave the Church the authority to bind and loose; i.e. the authority to legislate. What the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven and what the Church looses on earth is loosed in heaven. Amazing authority. He also sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. The Church, therefore is divinely protected from error by the promises of Jesus Christ, the head of the Church.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Jesus Christ. He gave the Church the authority to bind and loose; i.e. the authority to legislate. What the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven and what the Church looses on earth is loosed in heaven. Amazing authority. He also sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. The Church, therefore is divinely protected from error by the promises of Jesus Christ, the head of the Church.

But since that is your interpretation of Scripture, and therefore fallible, it isn’t infallible evidence of the church’s infallibility.

 

[Jon_S_1]

But since that is your interpretation of Scripture, and therefore fallible, it isn’t infallible evidence of the church’s infallibility.

How else can you interpret the words “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”

What was the council of Jerusalem a demonstration of if not the exercising of authority given to the church by Christ?

 

[Peter_J]

If I have to have an infallible authority to tell me what Scripture is, then what is the infallible authority that tells me the Church is infallible?

As an Eastern Catholic, I don’t think of “infallibility” the way protestants and RRCs do. (But that’s probably a topic for another thread.)

 

[Per_Crucem]

How else can you interpret the words “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”

One can interpret it numerous ways other than “this means the church is infallible, and specifically the papacy and councils.”

What was the council of Jerusalem a demonstration of if not the exercising of authority given to the church by Christ?

You would have to demonstrate that revelation has continued past the apostolic period. For that is precisely what the council in Acts was.

 

[Per_Crucem]

As an Eastern Catholic, I don’t think of “infallibility” the way protestants and RRCs do. (But that’s probably a topic for another thread.)

Yes…the eastern model does tend to be more organic than institutional. Regardless, though, the argument of western Catholics about infallibility fails its own test.

The argument that you need an infallible teaching authority in order to have doctrine and/or Scripture is itself a doctrine which has no infallible authority outside of itself to validate it. To argue that the Church is infallible because the infallible Church has interpreted Scripture infallibly to teach that there is an infallible teaching authority is a circular argument.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;11317325]

Preach it, Brother Jon! :bowdown2:

:tiphat:

But in the end, the Church spoke.

All of Christendom defers to her in this matter. At least as far as the canon of the NT
This is huge, Jon…

All of Christendom defers to the Church on this matter.

On the OT, the Church has never spoken with a united voice, even before the Reformation. What we have heard is a thoughtful dispute about certain books, and none of those books should be outright rejected.

I am confused. You view Revelation, 2 John, 3 John, Hebrews differently than the “universally attested books”?

Yes. Antilegomena books are seen differently than universally attested books, in terms of setting doctrine only.

What infallibility means is that the Church did not err.

But you agree that being right doesn’t necessarily require being infallible.

If you don’t believe she is infallible, then where do you believe she erred in discerning the 27 book canon of the NT?

Not being infallible does not me the Church made an error, either.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But since that is your interpretation of Scripture, and therefore fallible, it isn’t infallible evidence of the church’s infallibility.

No. That is not his individual interpretation. It is what the Church has declared rooted in Scriptures. We are not individual protesting groups, we are THE Church founded by Jesus Christ, who gave the keys to Peter and who commanded Peter to feed and to tend to His sheep. You are part of a movement that supports new denominations based on individual interpretations of Scriptures - either directly or indirectly.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes…the eastern model does tend to be more organic than institutional. Regardless, though, the argument of western Catholics about infallibility fails its own test.

The argument that you need an infallible teaching authority in order to have doctrine and/or Scripture is itself a doctrine which has no infallible authority outside of itself to validate it. To argue that the Church is infallible because the infallible Church has interpreted Scripture infallibly to teach that there is an infallible teaching authority is a circular argument.

Are Scriptures free of error?

 

[Porknpie]

Poco,

I think you mean symbolic and literal from CC point of view. Hard to prove they believed in transubstantiation in 1st century.

You are again creating a strawman to knock it down. While the term transubstantiation was not developed until later, they did understand that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, just as scripture says. Tradition and scripture are consistent.

Jews are allowed differing views. Don’t think that is the only one.

Not the Jewish Christian converts. They understood the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice, that not only did one have to kill the lamb, but one had to eat it as well to complete the Passover.

It is clear, and clear that we have two differing views. Interesting that both sides quote Augustine.

St. Augustine, a Catholic Bishop who presided over the Mass. Yes, he understood that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ. Nothing symbolic.

Yes, and right after Jesus said, “… this is my blood”, he said, " I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom is come."

Yes, Christ drank the 4th cup finally on the cross, just as he gave up his Spirit. Great book here on the subject (truly, truly, truly, 5 Stars).

John 19:30

28 After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the wine, he said, “It is finished.” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

PnP

 

[Randy_Carson]

If I have to have an infallible authority to tell me what Scripture is, then what is the infallible authority that tells me the Church is infallible?

Ah…an easy one. The infallibility of the Church and the inspiration of scripture are interwoven, so it is important to follow this logic very carefully:

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Ah…an easy one. The infallibility of the Church and the inspiration of scripture are interwoven, so it is important to follow this logic very carefully:

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.

The problem beginneth here, Randy. It is an interpretation of the data contained in the Scriptures that the Church Christ founded is infallible. This interpretation is, in itself, not infallible.

Not to mention the doctrines such as the papacy, aforementioned in the argument which were not manifestly evident to millions of Christians for hundreds of years.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sure…I understand that Randy. You don’t agree and that’s fine. Catholics and Lutherans are united by the same Holy Baptism. Not that the dividing issues aren’t important but at the end of the day…meh, not worth arguing over. IMO, the the way Christ and His gospel was obscured in the medieval church was enough to warrant Luther’s commotion. It still is.

It still is? Really? Let’s review.

After the dust-up with Luther, the Catholic Church made some changes, clarified other things and defined still others once and for all.

Most of the legitimate objections that Luther raised were cleaned up. No one is selling indulgences today, for example. So, it THAT still worth the commotion? :nope:

The questions about justification have been worked through to the point that Catholics and Protestants can agree that the misunderstanding of the 16th century was really a matter of different terminology and not real substance. So, is THAT still worth the commotion? :nope:

The doctrine of sola scriptura was completely unknown before Luther’s time, and thus, it cannot be said to be apostolic in any sense of the word. Luther invented the doctrine out of necessity to facilitate some of his other ideas. Now, is THAT still worth the commotion? :nope:

The infallibility of the Church and the authority of the pope were recognized by all Christians prior to Luther (with the Orthodox waffling until their final split just before Luther’s day), and even Luther acknowledged the authority of the pope long after nailing his 95 theses to the Church door. His final break came late in the game. In light of that, the problem you modern Lutherans have is simply that he’s not “your” pope, so you naturally root for the home team and against the visitors in your gatherings. But, is THAT still worth the commotion?

You decide.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The problem beginneth here, Randy. It is an interpretation of the data contained in the Scriptures that the Church Christ founded is infallible. This interpretation is, in itself, not infallible.

I can make a rock-solid case for papal infallibility from scripture alone.

Not to mention the doctrines such as the papacy, aforementioned in the argument which were not manifestly evident to millions of Christians for hundreds of years.

Papacy was unknown to millions of Christians for hundreds of years?

Oh. Okay.

 

[PRmerger]

No…God is outside of time, and so our prayers are eternally effectual.

God is outside of time, indeed.

But where do you get the conclusion: therefore our prayers are outside of time.

That is not a necessary conclusion.

That would mean this:

God is outside of time.
Therefore my meeting at 3pm today is outside of time.

:whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

But since that is your interpretation of Scripture, and therefore fallible, it isn’t infallible evidence of the church’s infallibility.

Be careful, PC.

If this is your paradigm–that we can’t infallibly know anything, then this will make you quite inutile in dialogue with non-Christians. A Muslim will simply use your argument against you.

When you say, “But we know that Jesus Christ really and truly died and rose from the dead!” this Muslim is going to say, “But since that is your interpretation of Scripture, and therefore, fallible, it isn’t infallible evidence of Jesus’ resurrection”.

 

[PRmerger]

On the OT, the Church has never spoken with a united voice, even before the Reformation. What we have heard is a thoughtful dispute about certain books, and none of those books should be outright rejected.

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree regarding the OT canon.

Yes. Antilegomena books are seen differently than universally attested books, in terms of setting doctrine only.

But as you know, the CC does not use Scripture to set our doctrine.

Rather, the Scriptures reflect our doctrine.

As such, we do not need to view any of the NT canon with any more or less of a discerning eye.

The Church has spoken. We defer to her.

As far as Lutherans looking at several books in the NT differently, well, that is something that I have never heard before. I am astonished that this is permitted, frankly.

I think it puts you on a slippery slope towards the guy that I referenced earlier who views the Pauline epistles as “satanic”.

Please note, dear friend, that I am NOT saying that Lutheranism is even close to that whacky paradigm. Only that it tilts you in that direction, if you have that mentality that certain books of the NT may be viewed differently.

But you agree that being right doesn’t necessarily require being infallible.

Being right over and over and over again, regarding the same point, does indeed make you infallible. On that issue anyway. Right?

 

[PRmerger]

If I have to have an infallible authority to tell me what Scripture is, then what is the infallible authority that tells me the Church is infallible?

My decision to defer to the infallible Church is not infallible. That is correct.

That does not change the fact that you view the Church as infallible, each and every time you quote from the Scriptures.

There is no way to refute this, PC: If you believe that Hebrews, 3 John, the Gospel of Mark, etc are inspired…and the ONLY way you know this is because the CC told you this…and you don’t believe the Church erred in this…then you must believe that the CC has been given the charism of infallibility.

You cannot argue, logically anyway, any other position.

 

[JonNC]

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree regarding the OT canon.

But as you know, the CC does not use Scripture to set our doctrine.

Rather, the Scriptures reflect our doctrine.

As such, we do not need to view any of the NT canon with any more or less of a discerning eye.

The Church has spoken. We defer to her.

As far as Lutherans looking at several books in the NT differently, well, that is something that I have never heard before. I am astonished that this is permitted, frankly.

I think it puts you on a slippery slope towards the guy that I referenced earlier who views the Pauline epistles as “satanic”.

Please note, dear friend, that I am NOT saying that Lutheranism is even close to that whacky paradigm. Only that it tilts you in that direction, if you have that mentality that certain books of the NT may be viewed differently.

Being right over and over and over again, regarding the same point, does indeed make you infallible. On that issue anyway. Right?

Perhaps a better explanation.

internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

Jon