The Catholic Church

[benedictus2]

elvisman:

elvisman

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif ]
You’re both wrong. The Church was never meant to stay as it looked in the New Testament.
It grew - much like an acorn that grows into an oak.

Much like the mustard seed that grows into a very large plant and the birds come to nest in it.
Hmmmm, who said that?

The same person who said a good tree could not bring forth bad fruit.

Matthew 7:18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

This is a non-sequitur. What is being discussed is whether the Church was meant to be the same as it was when it was an infant (and not whether it is bearing good or bad fruit). As I have mentioned before, to expect the Church to remain that way is to want a Church whose growth has been retarded. You want a church that remains an infant throughout its life of 2000 years.

Why would anyone want the acorn when the tree is already here?

But to ride along with your reasoning here. We can therefore conclude that should really all become atheists or some other non-christian religion considering that there is not one single Christian denomination that has been spared from sinfull members.

Another problem with you statement is that you are assuming that the fruit that the tree is supposed to bear is right conduct. This is only half right because first and foremost, the fruit is supposed to be Truth, from whence follow right conduct.

 

[John1]

Nope. Not incrementalism. You are hoping for a retarded church that failed to grow from infancy.

You obvioiusly have no concept of development.

And the analogy of the frog is another non-sequitur from you as can be expected.

Hi Benedictus2,

I apologize for interrupting your discussion, but would you please refrain from using the word “retarded”? It’s become a very offensive term, especially for the people who have mentally handicapped loved ones. I realize that you didn’t mean anything offensive, I’m just asking.

Thanks

 

[benedictus2]

If, among the ECFs, there was even a remote amount of disagreement over the smallest Catholic doctrine that is not explicitly found in the Scriptures, then that would prove beyond any shadow of a doubt, that it was not a part of the Deposit of Faith.** If there was some mystical “Deposit of Faith,” then there never would have been a debate about the nature of Jesus (along with a hundred other things discussed and “voted” upon in various councils). **

It does not follow. To affirm that there is a deposit of faith does not preclude that doctrine needs to be discerned. An example would be the Trinity.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Benedictus2,

I apologize for interrupting your discussion, but would you please refrain from using the word “retarded”? It’s become a very offensive term, especially for the people who have mentally handicapped loved ones. I realize that you didn’t mean anything offensive, I’m just asking.

Thanks

Okay. What word would you use to illustrate someone who failed to grow in any way from infancy? Isn’t that growth retardation?

I think the term is only offensive if I mean it in the way you think, which is not quite what I was saying at all.

If you can come up with a better word that describes it exactly. I would use that one.

 

[John1]

Okay. What word would you use to illustrate someone who failed to grow in any way from infancy? Isn’t that growth retardation?

I think the term is only offensive if I mean it in the way you think, which is not quite what I was saying at all.

If you can come up with a better word that describes it exactly. I would use that one.

I don’t want to pick your words for you, I just wanted you to know how I felt about that particular word. Your more than welcome to use any words that you want. You do what you think is right.
I know “stunted” is a term that I’ve heard used for plants that fail to mature for some reason , but again I’m not trying to tell you what to say.

 

[ckempston]

It does not follow. To affirm that there is a deposit of faith does not preclude that doctrine needs to be discerned. An example would be the Trinity.

Nobody affirmed the Trinity for several hundred years, so it couldn’t possibly be necessary, although I personally believe it to be true.

 

[ckempston]

This is a non-sequitur. What is being discussed is whether the Church was meant to be the same as it was when it was an infant (and not whether it is bearing good or bad fruit). As I have mentioned before, to expect the Church to remain that way is to want a Church whose growth has been retarded. You want a church that remains an infant throughout its life of 2000 years.

Why would anyone want the acorn when the tree is already here?

But to ride along with your reasoning here. We can therefore conclude that should really all become atheists or some other non-christian religion considering that there is not one single Christian denomination that has been spared from sinfull members.

Another problem with you statement is that you are assuming that the fruit that the tree is supposed to bear is right conduct. This is only half right because first and foremost, the fruit is supposed to be Truth, from whence follow right conduct.

I’m not assuming anything:

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control.

Secondly, I’m not convinced you know what a non sequitur is.

Thirdly, there is a difference between maintaining a simple faith, and maturing spiritually, and simply adding more complicated doctrines that everyone is required to believe. That’s not spiritually maturing, that’s “going beyond what is written.”

 

[sambos671]

I’m not assuming anything:

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control.

Secondly, I’m not convinced you know what a non sequitur is.

Thirdly, there is a difference between maintaining a simple faith, and maturing spiritually, and simply adding more complicated doctrines that everyone is required to believe. That’s not spiritually maturing, that’s “going beyond what is written.”

A non sequitur is an argument or reasoning that doesn’t follow. The thing is the writen word for the New Testiment wasn’t fluid until sometime in the third and fourth centuries. Christians followed primarily the greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures, letters passed around (ones they had) and the gospels. Most people being illiterate followed the teachings of the clergy who submitted them selves to the metropolitan bishops of their day. So the writen word backs up what was already given orally. So what is written was second to tradition and the authority already placed on the bishops due to apostolic succession which all the the metropolitan or primary polis bishops could point to. Which is why Eusibius makes a point to show which of the Apostles established which churches. So the church was established beyond what was written to begin with and the writtings supported the teachings already inherent in the churches. Which is why you don’t see a real comprehensive list as the NT until Athenatius. Up until that time many of the churches were also reading the Sheperd of Hermas. And other works that the Bishops together decided should not be included in the rule of books (canon) considered inspired by God. The church made this decision.

 

[ckempston]

A non sequitur is an argument or reasoning that doesn’t follow. The thing is the writen word for the New Testiment wasn’t fluid until sometime in the third and fourth centuries. Christians followed primarily the greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures, letters passed around (ones they had) and the gospels. Most people being illiterate followed the teachings of the clergy who submitted them selves to the metropolitan bishops of their day. So the writen word backs up what was already given orally. So what is written was second to tradition and the authority already placed on the bishops due to apostolic succession which all the the metropolitan or primary polis bishops could point to. Which is why Eusibius makes a point to show which of the Apostles established which churches. So the church was established beyond what was written to begin with and the writtings supported the teachings already inherent in the churches. Which is why you don’t see a real comprehensive list as the NT until Athenatius. Up until that time many of the churches were also reading the Sheperd of Hermas. And other works that the Bishops together decided should not be included in the rule of books (canon) considered inspired by God. The church made this decision.

I would partly agree with your analysis. For one, literacy is no longer a problem. The fact that it was a problem, and the solution was for people to take all their direction from the clergy could be viewed as more of a functional requirement than a real necessity. I would say that some parts of the New Testament were fluid. Certainly, if I recall correctly, the gospels, the letters of Paul, and one from Peter were universally accepted as authoritative as far back as anyone can find references. Unlike some Protestants, I am not a Bibleolater. A problem I have is that all Christians (Catholic or otherwise) agree that the Bible is the Word of God (differences on the number of books notwithstanding), so where it came from doesn’t really make much difference (amongst ourselves) in regard to its authority. The Old Testament came from the Jews, but we certainly don’t accept their authority to interpret it for us, especially the parts that prophesy the coming of Christ. So, the suggestion that, when we accept the Bible, we accept the authority of the Catholic church to interpret it for us, is a non sequitur itself. Lastly, I’ve read the Shepherd of Hermas, and many letters like it from various associates and successors to the Apostles. The interesting thing in these is that practically everything that they say is backed up with what they considered Scripture, whether Old or New Testament.

 

[sambos671]

I would partly agree with your analysis. For one, literacy is no longer a problem. The fact that it was a problem, and the solution was for people to take all their direction from the clergy could be viewed as more of a functional requirement than a real necessity. I would say that some parts of the New Testament were fluid. Certainly, if I recall correctly, the gospels, the letters of Paul, and one from Peter were universally accepted as authoritative as far back as anyone can find references. Unlike some Protestants, I am not a Bibleolater. A problem I have is that all Christians (Catholic or otherwise) agree that the Bible is the Word of God (differences on the number of books notwithstanding), so where it came from doesn’t really make much difference (amongst ourselves) in regard to its authority. The Old Testament came from the Jews, but we certainly don’t accept their authority to interpret it for us, especially the parts that prophesy the coming of Christ. So, the suggestion that, when we accept the Bible, we accept the authority of the Catholic church to interpret it for us, is a non sequitur itself. Lastly, I’ve read the Shepherd of Hermas, and many letters like it from various associates and successors to the Apostles. The interesting thing in these is that practically everything that they say is backed up with what they considered Scripture, whether Old or New Testament.

Actually, I don’t see how the bolded area itself follows. The fact that we don’t accept Jewish interpretation does not affect the Catholic position with regard to interpreting scripture. The fact is that Jews did not accept Jesus as Messiah. Christianity defines the Jewish scripture in light of Jesus being the Messiah. Now we have two groups (for the purpose of this discussion) of christians determining the best way of interpreting scripture. The Catholic position is this. That scripture supports the teaching of the Church since it is inherently a product of the Church by the power of the Holy Spirit to inspire men to write “God’s words”. My question is how is this played out historically? Protestants have a more direct view. But the Church was already established and teachings were already in effect before the gospels and the letters were written. In fact they were written for the expressed purpose of providing the already established church apostolic materials burgoning its already established teaching. Now to understand the Catholic view is that Scriptures support teachings already established by the church. Scriptures are authoritative and Traditon is not permitted to teach against the Scriptures nor is scriptures to be interpreted in such a way as to conflict foundational teachings. Much like many protestants say the bible does not contradict itself; catholics state that scriptures and the magesterium do not contradict themselves. They are in essense the same.

 

[ckempston]

Actually, I don’t see how the bolded area itself follows. The fact that we don’t accept Jewish interpretation does not affect the Catholic position with regard to interpreting scripture. The fact is that Jews did not accept Jesus as Messiah. Christianity defines the Jewish scripture in light of Jesus being the Messiah. Now we have two groups (for the purpose of this discussion) of christians determining the best way of interpreting scripture. The Catholic position is this. That scripture supports the teaching of the Church since it is inherently a product of the Church by the power of the Holy Spirit to inspire men to write “God’s words”. My question is how is this played out historically? Protestants have a more direct view. But the Church was already established and teachings were already in effect before the gospels and the letters were written. In fact they were written for the expressed purpose of providing the already established church apostolic materials burgoning its already established teaching. Now to understand the Catholic view is that Scriptures support teachings already established by the church. Scriptures are authoritative and Traditon is not permitted to teach against the Scriptures nor is scriptures to be interpreted in such a way as to conflict foundational teachings. Much like many protestants say the bible does not contradict itself; catholics state that scriptures and the magesterium do not contradict themselves. They are in essense the same.

It follows perfectly. The claim runs thus:

The New Testament came from the Catholic church, therefore, we should accept the Catholic church’s intepretation of the New Testament.

The counter-claim, and refutation, is to point out that:

The Old Testament came from the Jews, therefore, we should accept the Jews’ interpretation of the Old Testament.

It’s the exact same argument, but you accept the former, and not the latter. Put quite simply, origin does not equal authority.

Actually, I tend to agree with Catholic interpretation of scripture, over your typical Protestant interpretations,;that is, when they stick to interpreting. The problem is, Transubstantiation (just a for instance) is not an interpretation, but the exact opposite: eisegesis. The Catholic church is afflicted with the disease of explanation. It’s almost like a mental disorder. Everything has to be explained. Even what they call mysteries are not really mysteries, because they’re explained in every detail.

 

[sambos671]

It follows perfectly. The claim runs thus:

The New Testament came from the Catholic church, therefore, we should accept the Catholic church’s intepretation of the New Testament.

The counter-claim, and refutation, is to point out that:

The Old Testament came from the Jews, therefore, we should accept the Jews’ interpretation of the Old Testament.

It’s the exact same argument, but you accept the former, and not the latter. Put quite simply, origin does not equal authority.

Actually, I tend to agree with Catholic interpretation of scripture, over your typical Protestant interpretations,;that is, when they stick to interpreting. The problem is, Transubstantiation (just a for instance) is not an interpretation, but the exact opposite: eisegesis. The Catholic church is afflicted with the disease of explanation. It’s almost like a mental disorder. Everything has to be explained. Even what they call mysteries are not really mysteries, because they’re explained in every detail.

You’re last statement has some validity to it. Transubstantiation is attempt to define what the Eucharist is not. Yet the Catholic Church still regards it as a mystery. It does spend a lot of time defining things that are mysteries. But I blame that on people and challenges to already established teachings rather than the Churches magesterium. The first part of your statement I’m still having problems with because Christianity is not Judaism. Now if you are muslim and state make the same point I would have to say you have a point. Jews on the other hand would have to take authoritatively the original teachings of the OT Jews. Christians should take authoritatively the teachings of the early church.

 

[ckempston]

You’re last statement has some validity to it. Transubstantiation is attempt to define what the Eucharist is not. Yet the Catholic Church still regards it as a mystery. It does spend a lot of time defining things that are mysteries. But I blame that on people and challenges to already established teachings rather than the Churches magesterium. The first part of your statement I’m still having problems with because Christianity is not Judaism. Now if you are muslim and state make the same point I would have to say you have a point. Jews on the other hand would have to take authoritatively the original teachings of the OT Jews. Christians should take authoritatively the teachings of the early church.

And what do Jews say in regard to their authoritative original teaching in regard to the Messiah? That it’s not Jesus. Do you believe them? I think not.

Define “early church.”

 

[sambos671]

And what do Jews say in regard to their authoritative original teaching in regard to the Messiah? That it’s not Jesus. Do you believe them? I think not.

Define “early church.”

From its inseption. Primarily in the context of the discussion, starting with Acts of the Apostles through to the establishment of Canon. Still Judaism doens’t believe he came. Christians do. Its a fundamental difference in faith. Comparison is like apples and oranges.

 

[elvisman]

Nobody affirmed the Trinity for several hundred years, so it couldn’t possibly be necessary, although I personally believe it to be true.

ckempston -
Going by that logic, nobody affirmed the canon of Scripture for several hundred years, so it couldn’t possibly be necessary, right? This is an extremenly weak argument, as most of your arguments have been on this thread.

**On top of that, you practice hit-and-run apologetices. You still haven’t addressed m****y posts to you, namely, **Posts 83, 98 & 100.
Until you do, your points cannot be taken seriously.

 

[ralphinal]

Nobody affirmed the Trinity for several hundred years, so it couldn’t possibly be necessary, although I personally believe it to be true.

So how is Jesus God, the Father God and the Holy SPirit God? Can we accept modalism?

Can a CHristian deny that Jesus is God?

Are we even monotheistic?

 

[phil8888]

The catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ. The Roman Catholic church was NOT founded by Christ. One is an institution created by man and the other is not an institution and was founded by Christ.

I could use what you said and make a nice baloney sandwich! Roman Catholics are a subset of Catholics in general. It has to do with our particular way of worship as opposed to Byzantines, etc. The Pope is the head and supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church. Either you are a member of the Catholic Church or you are not. It has a visible structure. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church and he built it upon Peter.

 

[Peter_J]

Nobody affirmed the Trinity for several hundred years, so it couldn’t possibly be necessary, although I personally believe it to be true.

The Deposit of Faith does not change, but the circumstances in which we live do change.

Was it possible for a Christian in the third century to not believe in “the Trinity”, and not be a heretic? Obviously, the answer is yes.

Was it possible for a Christian living in the fifth century to not believe in “the Trinity”, and not be a heretic? Yes, it was technically still possible. But I would say that because of the circumstances that Christians (or rather, most Christians) lived at that time, not believing in “the Trinity” would be, by default, an indication of heresy.

 

[ckempston]

So how is Jesus God, the Father God and the Holy SPirit God? Can we accept modalism?

Can a CHristian deny that Jesus is God?

Are we even monotheistic?

“It’s a mystery.” Why couldn’t we just leave it at that? As I’ve said elsewhere, the Catholic church has a disease. I’ll call it, “explanationism.”

 

[phil8888]

“It’s a mystery.” Why couldn’t we just leave it at that? As I’ve said elsewhere, the Catholic church has a disease. I’ll call it, “explanationism.”

What’s explanationism?