The catholic church to which Ignatius belonged...?

[Cat_Herder]

Originally Posted by Radical:

it is not about information at this stage…
…You can believe that the 1st century church is the same as the modern CC, because you don’t see a significant difference in doctrine (wrt Mary in particular). On the other hand, with the use of that test, you can’t expect me to think that the 1st century church is the same as the modern CC because (you know) I do see a significant difference in doctrine.

Therefore for you to be right the Catholic Church must have lost the truth until your alleged “difference in doctrine” was “resolved” by the Protestants. If you are right, you are looking at a timespan of one thousand plus years in which your alleged “difference in doctrine” was the ONLY doctrine.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

If God wills everyone to know the truth then why would He allow the truth to be lost for a thousand-plus years? He would never do that, which can only mean that there is NO difference in doctrine.

I have lost track of the number of times I have presented this argument here on CAF over the past month… Maybe 20 times or so. NO ONE has even responded to it. If you know God so much better than we do, why can’t you answer a simple question about His Will?

 

[Radical]

Your posting Eph1:13-14 is a perfect example of trying to rest on ONE SCRIPTURE ALONE, to the EXCLUSION of others….Resting on this one, cafeteria style selection of scripture, alone. We need not REPENT, be baptized in the name of the Lord TO REMIT AND WASH AWAY OUR SINS, and RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit. With your interpretation scripture would be in error ……When they accepted gladly receiving the Word. They were baptized, saved and ADDED to the body of Christ the Church…

That was a whole lot of blustering which missed my point entirely. First Eph 1:13-14 isn’t unique. Second, and more importantly, the point was that many, many Protestants, through belief have received the HS and are therefore, members of the body of Christ (aka the True Church). Now are you just objecting to my point for the sake of objecting, or does the “official” teaching of your church contradict my point?

JL: How can one hear a conglomeration of contentious contradicting groups?

yep, when your goal is to belittle and dismiss Protestantism, we are a “conglomeration of contentious contradicting groups”.

All who have the indwelling Holy Spirit are SPIRITUALLY in union with the body of Christ the Church.

On the other hand, when you are forced to acknowledge that the indwelling of the HS is what really determines membership in the body of Christ, all of a sudden we must have a certain unity (ensured by God and achieved by his Spirit). Well, you may be inclined to dismiss non-Catholic & non-orthodox Christians as a “conglomeration of contentious contradicting groups”, but I will remain content in the unity ensured by God and achieved by his Spirit….compared to that, any visible unity is relatively unimportant.

Yet in the visible FELLOWSHIP and DOCTRINE they are separated from the VISIBLE body of Christ the Apostles Fellowship.

and the Pharisees would have certainly viewed themselves as Abraham’s children, but as Paul pointed out nicely, it was only those with a circumcised heart who were the real children of Abraham…

Paul even checked his teaching with that one fellowship….

and so should we…we should check teaching against that fellowship…not modern Rome, not Ignatius’s Antioch, but against original Christianity.

JL: Nonsense, the only doctrine that has changed substantially and is also contradicting would be yours. Doctrine has not changed.

say it as often as you like, but I’ll believe it once the facts actually back you up

The understanding has developed.

yep, and the intercontinental ballistic missile has developed from the bow and arrow (which, of course had developed from a simple throwing stick).

JL: Yes God has worked to form ONE VISIBLE BODY, ONE BRIDE, so there should be no division. He didn’t form a harem of thousands of contentious contradicting brides. That ONE VISIBLE BODY includes all the saved in every age both those passed on and those on earth. We call it the Communion of Saints. Even those who are separated thru no fault of there own are spiritually united to that ONE BODY OF CHRIST. Although not in VISIBLE FELLOWSHIP or DOCTRINAL UNITY.

this is sure a dramatic turn-around….errr development…from what has been previously said about non-Catholics (Orthodox included)

1Cor12:25 that there should be NO DIVISION. So teaching contradicting doctrine isn’t a division? So preaching contradicting Gospels doesn’t matter.

God will sort it out and achieve a certain unity through the indwelling of the HS…you, of course, have acknowledged this, but again, you conveniently disregard what God has achieved when you want to belittle the institutions within which his non-Catholic children worship him. Nicely done.

JL: It isn’t a matter of WANTING to define the CC as the body of Christ. It’s simply a scriptural and historic fact.

and we’ll disagree on the historical and scriptural facts.

The following links are posts of mine giving my scriptural evidence for the CC.

thanks, but no thanks

It is the same VISIBLE Apostolic Fellowship, gathered around it’s bishops, in the apostles’ doctrine, breaking of bread and prayers,…

you may think that nothing of substance has changed and that only developments have occurred, but my studies don’t validate that opinion…it isn’t even close.

Show me YOUR so called True Church in scripture and history. Name leaders from Christ to now.

why? I value substance over form. Naming leaders doesn’t matter to me…If you wish to see the concept of a spiritual Church, besides the NT, look at 2nd Clement. If you want to consider splits, then consider the Corinthian Church of Paul’s time. It had 3 or so groups within what? …a 100 or so people? Nevertheless, Paul identified them as one body. That is a much higher ratio of divisions to members than what we see within Protestants today. If you want to see the Church as it originally was, then look at the works of some good historians….some who aren’t committed to validating the CC. I don’t expect that you will actually do that, but don’t expect me to do otherwise and don’t expect me to agree with your beliefs wrt the history of the Church when you fail to do that.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Paul pointed out nicely, it was only those with a circumcised heart who were the real children of Abraham…
and so should we…we should check teaching against that fellowship…not modern Rome, not Ignatius’s Antioch, but against original Christianity.

You keep talking about “original Christianity” but you cannot define it.

Why can’t you answer my question?

Therefore for you to be right the Catholic Church must have lost the truth until your alleged “difference in doctrine” was “resolved” by the Protestants. If you are right, you are looking at a timespan of one thousand plus years in which your alleged “difference in doctrine” was the ONLY doctrine.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

If God wills everyone to know the truth then why would He allow the truth to be lost for a thousand-plus years? He would never do that, which can only mean that there is NO difference in doctrine.

I have lost track of the number of times I have presented this argument here on CAF over the past month… Maybe 20 times or so. NO ONE has even responded to it. If you know God so much better than we do, why can’t you answer a simple question about His Will?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=7617

 

[Radical]

If God wills everyone to know the truth then why would He allow the truth to be lost for a thousand-plus years? He would never do that, which can only mean that there is NO difference in doctrine.

I understand that this is your reasoning. I think your reasoning is flawed for a number of reasons:

a) You seem to think that if the hierarchy of the Catholic or Orthodox Church teaches X, then all Catholics/Orthodox believe X, and therefore, if X is wrong, then all Christians are wrong. Well, we know all Catholics don’t agree with the hierarchy and we know further that such disagreement didn’t start with the Reformation. The hierarchy isn’t the Church…not even close. The hierarchy isn’t the depository of the truth…not even close.

b) You seem to think that truth is lost if the hierarchy errs, notwithstanding that the Word of God exists independently of the hierarchy (the Word surely doesn’t need the hierarchy for survival) and that the Word has never been lost…so what if all or part of the hierarchy errs, the Word is still there.

I have lost track of the number of times I have presented this argument here on CAF over the past month… Maybe 20 times or so. NO ONE has even responded to it.

have you considered that the lack of response might have nothing to do with any difficulty in the question and entirely to do with the difficulty in your conduct?

 

[Cat_Herder]

a) You seem to think that if the hierarchy of the Catholic or Orthodox Church teaches X, then all Catholics/Orthodox believe X, and therefore, if X is wrong, then all Christians are wrong.

And that is true if there are no other churches. And between 33 AD and the 1500s, there are no other churches.

b) You seem to think that truth is lost if the hierarchy errs, notwithstanding that the Word of God exists independently of the hierarchy

Appealing to the Scriptures as preserving the “true gospel” doesn’t work because they weren’t available to anyone as a compilation before the 400s AD (when the Bible was first compiled), and they weren’t available outside the Church’s libraries until the printing press was invented. That isn’t because the Church did anything insidious, it’s because a Bible cost a fortune and any Bible not chained down was likely to be stolen. Securing Bibles made them more accessible so that not only rich barons would have one, but it meant that the only access to the Bible was through the Church.

And besides, you probably believe the Vulgate, despite being the only available lay-readable non-Byzantine translation until said printing-press era, is erroneous because you go with the post-crucifixion Jewish Masoretic Text–which didn’t exist before the tenth century!–as if it was the original… but that’s another topic.

So why would God allow this situation if it is His Will for everyone to have knowledge of the truth–unless the Church had the truth for all those hundreds of years from Calvary to the Reformation?

have you considered that the lack of response might have nothing to do with any difficulty in the question and entirely to do with the difficulty in your conduct?

Ad hominem desperation.

 

[Radical]

And that is true if there are no other churches. And between 33 AD and the 1500s, there are no other churches.

again, you keep equating the flawed visible institution(s) with the true Church…and from there you equate the flawed hierarchy(s) with the entire flawed institution(s)…two wrongs don’t make a right.

Appealing to the Scriptures as preserving the “true gospel” doesn’t work because they weren’t available to anyone as a compilation before the 400s AD (when the Bible was first compiled), and they weren’t available outside the Church’s libraries until the printing press was invented.

so in your mind the Word didn’t exist and wasn’t available until a bunch of bishops ratified a canon that had already been accepted by practice? So much for “In the beginning was the Word…”

Ad hominem desperation.

pointing out that your demeanor does not encourage interaction is not an ad hominem…tis common sense.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Dead end argument. Care to show us the overwhelming sources from the 1st century from the Apostles and post-Apostolic Fathers discussing a fixed canon?

The Septuagint?

 

[Jack_Bauer]

**I agree with you that the “petina” has been stripped off in the RCC. That “patina” is in fact the apostolic faith, and it is being varnished over with humanism. **Pope JPII’s dialogues with voodoo “priests”, participating in animistic rites and even going so far as to venerate the koran show his total belief in the heresy of eccumenism, and humanism in its rawest forms. (However, don’t think that I don’t know that in the last century nearly every “Orthodox” Patriarchate has also been involved in similar endeavors.) But, I digress.

I should have also pointed out in my last post that Ignatius says in another place that, “whereever the Bishop is, there is the Church.” Not, whereever the “presidency” is, or whereever the bishop of rome is. The Episcopacy is one. It is democratic rather than monarchical in nature. The elevation of the papacy in its present form was even denied by the “Old Catholics” in Ultrecht (when they would not accept papal infallability). The monarchy of the pope is the main stumbling block to unity. But again, I think I’m getting a bit off topic here.

The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!

Just noticed this. I was mainly referring to the Protestant stipping of the petina. But in many ways I see your point as well. Unfortunately there are far too many Catholics out there trying to make the Catholic Church look like Protestantism. It’s the new, mod, more hip look. Like it was ever an option. The TLM is at least hanging onto traditions. But the clericalism is what is driving me mad. I’ve felt drawn to Orthodox Christianity ever since I discovered it. I do not on the other hand agree with stripping the Pope from his place. Even if one does not consider him the head of the entire body of Christ on Earth, he is still the bishop over our rite. I do see Pope Benedict seemingly make moves towards snapping the Church back to center though.

Back to the petina. This is one major reasons I’m drawn to Holy Orthodoxy. In my view, from my perspective, this should never have diverted from the ancient fathers teaching. I would not goes as far as suggesting its okay to slam dunk Benedict or John Paul II for their efforts though. I believe that is going too far… even if I don’t like it. I’ve been studying Orthodox Christianity ever since I returned to the Catholic Church. My wife refuses to even look at it and that was when she wasn’t Catholic. I found it odd. Her reasoning is related to the bearded men wearing all those funky clothes. Irony…love it. So, now I’m studying Orthodoxy and how I can help in creating a real atmosphere for reunification with the Eastern Church. I suspect that Pope Benedict is working towards that direction. It’s the other Catholics that worry me most. Lord help us if the Traditionalists [TLM SSPX leaners] have their way to the fullest extent of the past. It would be a complete return to the monarchical aspect of the Church that drove it into utter chaos of today, and yesterday.

Talk about having to read a bunch of books. Radical wants me to reaad about 5 authors. I doubt I’ll be able to get to one. What’s interesting to me with Radical, Radical, is that you are very radical. You believe in bible only, yet you research all those other books as your source for what you currently believe. I used to have a huge library of materials to “help me” learn and understand. At one point I realized that I had just conceded to Catholicism when I did so and chose to donate them to a library for the tax write offs. I felt bad donating them to the church, but needed the tax breaks. I didn’t want someone else to get hold of them and decide they knew more than the preacher or the elders… thus causing a division and poof, a new church is born again. However, I’m not solo scriptura anymore. I finally get why it contradicts everything. The bible itself does not have authority, it’s writers have authority. But sometimes when you give people authority, they abuse it. That’s how we’re in this pickle in the first place.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

well, not with this crowd at least

surely you can’t think that your claim is proven by the posting of a few verses that fail to even mention the concept of apostolic succession…we both know that you would first have to define what you believe “apostolic succession” entails and then show how those verses establish the various aspects of "apostolic succession’. Catholic historian F Sullivan admitted that it couldn’t be done, but go ahead, give it your best shot.
hmmm…I must have missed the polite efforts on this thread and now, the reaction to my silence has become rather amusing…tell you what, I have disclosed my affiliation a number of times on these threads….you’ve got Jack Bauer on your team, surely he could find the answer in 24 hours.

You betcha britches. Got a knack at getting answers out of people the hard way. Would you like to take a seat in this chair? Never mind the table. That’s just a little … “incentive” I’ve put together for you. Works every time.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Just noticed this. I was mainly referring to the Protestant stipping of the petina. But in many ways I see your point as well. Unfortunately there are far too many Catholics out there trying to make the Catholic Church look like Protestantism. It’s the new, mod, more hip look. Like it was ever an option. The TLM is at least hanging onto traditions. But the clericalism is what is driving me mad. I’ve felt drawn to Orthodox Christianity ever since I discovered it. I do not on the other hand agree with stripping the Pope from his place. Even if one does not consider him the head of the entire body of Christ on Earth, he is still the bishop over our rite. I do see Pope Benedict seemingly make moves towards snapping the Church back to center though.

Back to the petina. This is one major reasons I’m drawn to Holy Orthodoxy. In my view, from my perspective, this should never have diverted from the ancient fathers teaching. I would not goes as far as suggesting its okay to slam dunk Benedict or John Paul II for their efforts though. I believe that is going too far… even if I don’t like it. I’ve been studying Orthodox Christianity ever since I returned to the Catholic Church. My wife refuses to even look at it and that was when she wasn’t Catholic. I found it odd. Her reasoning is related to the bearded men wearing all those funky clothes. Irony…love it. So, now I’m studying Orthodoxy and how I can help in creating a real atmosphere for reunification with the Eastern Church. I suspect that Pope Benedict is working towards that direction. It’s the other Catholics that worry me most. Lord help us if the Traditionalists [TLM SSPX leaners] have their way to the fullest extent of the past. It would be a complete return to the monarchical aspect of the Church that drove it into utter chaos of today, and yesterday.

Talk about having to read a bunch of books. Radical wants me to reaad about 5 authors. I doubt I’ll be able to get to one. What’s interesting to me with Radical, Radical, is that you are very radical. You believe in bible only, yet you research all those other books as your source for what you currently believe. I used to have a huge library of materials to “help me” learn and understand. At one point I realized that I had just conceded to Catholicism when I did so and chose to donate them to a library for the tax write offs. I felt bad donating them to the church, but needed the tax breaks. I didn’t want someone else to get hold of them and decide they knew more than the preacher or the elders… thus causing a division and poof, a new church is born again. However, I’m not solo scriptura anymore. I finally get why it contradicts everything. The bible itself does not have authority, it’s writers have authority. But sometimes when you give people authority, they abuse it. That’s how we’re in this pickle in the first place.

This Sunday there was a show by Bob and Penny Lord. They explain how the Orthodox splitted from teh CC. It was a great listen of history. I wish you could find and listen to it.
They brought up the fact of how the secular emperors of the East ordained patriarchs in the East and wanted them to have power like the holy father. there was a great desire of these emperors to destroy the unity of the Church and they succeeded somewhat.

Make no mistake my friend. The office of the holy father is no small thing and many wanted to be done away with. it is this holy office that many envy. It is a great way to destroy the Church. it is this office that keeps the unity of the holy Church of God. It is Jesus alone who protects him, otherwise this office would no longer exists.

The EO churches have no unity and that is why they cannot have a Council. Also know that the never really became independent from the CC. Everytime they get in trouble, they run to the CC for help.
I read an article of an Orthodox priest where he calls the Orthodox an ungratefull children of the CC. I wish I could find it again. I will try.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I personally find amusing that this still goes on to this day. the fight for the chair of St Peter. We find ourselves doing what the Saints did hundreds of years ago.

go here.

catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii

 

[Cat_Herder]

again, you keep equating the flawed visible institution(s) with the true Church…and from there you equate the flawed hierarchy(s) with the entire flawed institution(s)…two wrongs don’t make a right.

You have yet to demonstrate that ANYONE before the Reformation taught your views. And you can’t do it. As much as you may want to believe that God preserved “special people” and gave them pocket Bibles so that they could endure 1,500 years of alleged apostasy, it just isn’t true.

so in your mind the Word didn’t exist and wasn’t available until a bunch of bishops ratified a canon that had already been accepted by practice? So much for “In the beginning was the Word…”

Jesus is not a book. The Bible is not eternal. It was written by humans under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit over thousands of years and what books comprised it was decided by the Catholic hierarchy in the 400s.

But let’s borrow a page from Islam and Mormonism (because that’s where your position comes from) and assume arguendo that the “real” Bible is engraved in eternal golden plates in Heaven. That does not do anything to prevent your alleged apostasy because everyone in Heaven is already saved. Again, the Scripture in question says:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]
That alleged magic golden Bible in Heaven isn’t going to do anything to help bring about God’s will. It needs to be preached and shared with people and only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were doing that before the Reformation.

pointing out that your demeanor does not encourage interaction is not an ad hominem…tis common sense.

You are getting angry because you realize that your beliefs cannot be justified by common sense and so you are projecting your anger and lack of sense on me.

 

[Mickey]

there was a great desire of these emperors to destroy the unity of the Church and they succeeded somewhat.

Sounds like revisionist history.

The EO churches have no unity and that is why they cannot have a Council.

There would be a Great Council if there was a reason to have one.

Also know that the never really became independent from the CC.

That makes no sense. When Rome split from Holy Orthodoxy…She ventured on Her own…and of course the reformation was soon to follow. This thread is not about Orthodox bashing…so please attempt to stay on topic.

 

[Cavaradossi]

This Sunday there was a show by Bob and Penny Lord. They explain how the Orthodox splitted from teh CC. It was a great listen of history. I wish you could find and listen to it.
They brought up the fact of how the secular emperors of the East ordained patriarchs in the East and wanted them to have power like the holy father. there was a great desire of these emperors to destroy the unity of the Church and they succeeded somewhat.

Make no mistake my friend. The office of the holy father is no small thing and many wanted to be done away with. it is this holy office that many envy. It is a great way to destroy the Church. it is this office that keeps the unity of the holy Church of God. It is Jesus alone who protects him, otherwise this office would no longer exists.

The EO churches have no unity and that is why they cannot have a Council. Also know that the never really became independent from the CC. Everytime they get in trouble, they run to the CC for help.
I read an article of an Orthodox priest where he calls the Orthodox an ungratefull children of the CC. I wish I could find it again. I will try.

The problem with this claim is that the papacy did not always exist in it’s current state. Even if your claim that the papacy in its current post-vatican I form existed from the very beginnings of Christianity were true, you would then have to explain the untenable position that the evil emperors who were trying to foster disunity in Christendom were the same emperors that the popes paid a large thank you gift of money to (through the exarch of Ravenna) upon ascending to the throne. Why did Christ not protect the papacy from corruption?

 

[Newsy]

The problem with this claim is that the papacy did not always exist in it’s current state. Even if your claim that the papacy in its current post-vatican I form existed from the very beginnings of Christianity were true, you would then have to explain the untenable position that the evil emperors who were trying to foster disunity in Christendom were the same emperors that the popes paid a large thank you gift of money to (through the exarch of Ravenna) upon ascending to the throne. Why did Christ not protect the papacy from corruption?

This would be a great starter for another thread. But, it’s off topic for this one. I would like to add to this topic, if you start a separate thread.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The problem with this claim is that the papacy did not always exist in it’s current state. Even if your claim that the papacy in its current post-vatican I form existed from the very beginnings of Christianity were true, you would then have to explain the untenable position that the evil emperors who were trying to foster disunity in Christendom were the same emperors that the popes paid a large thank you gift of money to (through the exarch of Ravenna) upon ascending to the throne. Why did Christ not protect the papacy from corruption?

No need for you to address this. I was addressing this to another Catholic. it was not meant to derail the thread.

 

[jlhargus]

so in your mind the Word didn’t exist and wasn’t available until a bunch of bishops ratified a canon that had already been accepted by practice? So much for “In the beginning was the Word…”

JL: And the Word was with God and the Word was God and became flesh. Do you believe the Word IS God become flesh? The Church was up and preaching the WORD, converting thousands, at lest twenty years before the first word of the NT was even penned. Not to mention a set canon. Those epistles were written to already established preaching and teaching congregations, not unbelievers.

1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, BREATHREN, STAND FAST, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, WHETHER BY WORD OR our EPISTLE.

Jn14: 26: But the Comforter, which is THE HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring all things to your remembrance, WHATSOEVER I have SAID UNTO YOU.

2Tim2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And THE THINGS that THOU HAST HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, THE SAME COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be **ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS **also.

Philip4:9 THOSE THINGS, which YE HAVE both LEARNED, and RECEIVED, and HEARD, and SEEN IN ME, DO

2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth IN US.

I can literally verify SCRIPTURE teaching to HOLD TRADITION, whether by WORD or EPISTLE. Can you verify scripture, teaching NOT to hold Tradition by WORD and EPISTLE? Can you verify scripture teaching ALL Tradition, weather by word or epistle, is now in the written Word only? If not then you are following a tradition of men made a doctrine of God in order to nullify the Word…

 

[jlhargus]

I understand that this is your reasoning. I think your reasoning is flawed for a number of reasons:

a) You seem to think that if the hierarchy of the Catholic or Orthodox Church teaches X, then all Catholics/Orthodox believe X, and therefore, if X is wrong, then all Christians are wrong.

JL: The magisterium could never teach ERROR.

Well, we know all Catholics don’t agree with the hierarchy and we know further that such disagreement didn’t start with the Reformation. The hierarchy isn’t the Church…not even close. The hierarchy isn’t the depository of the truth…not even close.

JL: Simple answer those who don’t agree with magisterial teaching are mistaken. Ture the maisterium isn’t the Church. They are the INFALLIBLE teachers.

b) You seem to think that truth is lost if the hierarchy errs,

JL: The magisterium can only error if Christ does not keep his promise to lead them into all TRUTH. That isn’t going to happen.

notwithstanding that the Word of God exists independently of the hierarchy (the Word surely doesn’t need the hierarchy for survival) and that the Word has never been lost…so what if all or part of the hierarchy errs, the Word is still there.

JL: I think your reasoning is flawed for thousands of reasons: Which of those THOUSANDS of contradicting so called gospels coming from the bible would you say is correct and how would you know? Which of the following examples are correct.

Those who do not hold OSAS or those who do? Those who hold faith alone or those who don’t? Those who hold bible alone or those who don’t? Those who baptize infants or those who don’t? Those who hold baptism is necessary or those who don’t? Those who hold the real presents or those who don’t? Those who hold the Trinity or those who don’t? Those who hold Tradition or those who don’t? Those who don’t hold a secret rapture or those who do? Those who hold dispensationalism or those who don’t? etc., etc., etc. etc. without end. The Word is without error but we can see interpretations are not.

 

[Newsy]

JL: The magisterium could never teach ERROR.

The Magesterium cannot teach in error because** it uses scripture and Tradition.** Scripture and Tradition cannot contradict each other b/c they were handed down from the Apostles. It’s not an either/or proposition, it’s a matter of different functions. The Gospel of Mark tells us not everything He taught is written down, if it were not even the whole world could contain it.

It’s not Scripture’s job to interpret itself, it doesn’t claim to be the sole source of Truth. Tradition doesn’t claim to override Scripture, despite what rumors may say. Scripture is Inspired, on this we agree, why is it inspired? It doesn’t tell us it is inspired. All Christians take for granted that Scripture is inspired, a statement set forth by the Catholic Church.

 

[jlhargus]

The Magesterium cannot teach in error because** it uses scripture and Tradition.** Scripture and Tradition cannot contradict each other b/c they were handed down from the Apostles. It’s not an either/or proposition, it’s a matter of different functions. The Gospel of Mark tells us not everything He taught is written down, if it were not even the whole world could contain it.

It’s not Scripture’s job to interpret itself, it doesn’t claim to be the sole source of Truth. Tradition doesn’t claim to override Scripture, despite what rumors may say. Scripture is Inspired, on this we agree, why is it inspired? It doesn’t tell us it is inspired. All Christians take for granted that Scripture is inspired, a statement set forth by the Catholic Church.

JL: