Civil authorities base their laws wherever they may be on a subjective morality which changes from nation to nation. … They base their laws on what they consider morally correct or whether it deals with freedom and does not impose on other’s freedoms.
I’ll take that as a “yes, civil authorities
do have the ability to make regulations and set laws.” Remember, though – it’s not about
the basis upon which these laws are made, it’s whether they have the
authority to make binding pronouncements. After all, the Church
has a solid basis: Mt 16:18 is Jesus’ proxy that what His Church binds/looses on earth will be bound/loosed in heaven. It’s not a matter of
basis; Jesus provided that basis. It’s a matter of whether the Church has the authority. You’ve agreed that civil authorities have such authority in their own context; why do you insist that the Church does not have this authority, in her own context?
And again I bring you to Romans 14 as I often do here. The reason I always bring up Romans 14 is that Paul explains what some examples are of little disputes and that we ought to drop them and focus on Jesus Christ
The problem, I believe, is that your exegesis of Romans 14 is deficient:
Paul speaks of observing certain foods and certain days (as I believe Catholics practice within their own Religion, on penalty of mortal sin if one disobeys). So here is an example of Paul speaking right out against a practice within the Catholic Church of people within Christianity not taking part of certain observances.
Paul is not speaking about “practices within the Church”; he’s speaking about
clean and unclean foods here. ‘Abstinence’ in this context is not the periodic abstinence of Catholic practice, but the absolute and perpetual prohibition against (for example) a bacon cheeseburger or a shrimp po’boy. In other words, Paul is simply telling the Romans that, if a Jewish Christian continues his practice of the Mosaic dietary law, it’s fine for him to do so; since there is no such restriction within Christianity, there is no harm in them continuing to observe their familiar dietary habits. Neither Jewish Christian nor Gentile Christian has the right to impose a burden that the Church does not impose on a Christian. Moreover, Paul tells Gentile Christians that, if their dietary practices scandalize Jewish Christians, and hurt their walk with Christ, that out of charity they should stop scandalizing other Christians. This is
not an example of Paul speaking out
against practices “within the Church” which others “are not taking part” in and asking people to “drop them and focus on Jesus Christ.” This
is an example of Paul addressing practices that
aren’t part of Church discipline, and asking people to examine their habits and discern whether their habits scandalize other Christians.
[The Catholic Church] makes a proclamation on infant baptism and yet leave out the important stuff; ie: is Ambrose correct?
*“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant.” St. Ambrose, *
Ambrose here says that an infant can’t go to Heaven without Baptism. Do you believe this?
It depends. Did Ambrose speak with magisterial authority? That is, was he pope or did he bring the entire college of bishops around to his point of view, such that there was a declaration of pope (or pope + all bishops) to that effect? If not, then it’s not a matter of Catholic belief. Rather, it’s simply a matter of the opinion of one bishop. They’re allowed to have opinions, you know; they’re capable of being wrong, as individuals.
You can have an opinion like Ambrose had, yet you can’t argue whether or not Infants must be Baptized as that has been closed.
Exactly. Where an individual speaks, he speaks for himself. When the Church speaks, she directs her members. What’s so difficult about that? You seem to be saying that the Church oversteps her bounds when she speaks authoritatively. Your argument doesn’t hold water – and this can be demonstrated Scripturally:
So basically I have a Bible that covers all of this and does say not to make a huge fuss over… “Eat this/don’t eat that”.
Hmm… you might want to trade your Bible in for a better translation. I seem to remember a “huge fuss” over the controversy of diet! (Cf Acts 10, 11, 15.) It was part of the controversy addressed at the so-called ‘Council of Jerusalem’, in which the leaders of the whole Church gathered in order to resolve the questions people were asking! And you know what? The Church spoke authoritatively, and answered a question that hadn’t been addressed in ‘Scripture’, and bound people to the authoritative proclamation that she made. She even sent messengers to proclaim the decision, and tell people what the decision was… and the people accepted the Church’s authority to make this kind of decision.
In other words, not only is your assertion in error; it’s
demonstrably in error, through the witness of Scripture.
Anyways, I was just ranting there; my point is that the Catholic Church has made a big deal out of little issues for centuries; and it’s impossible for me to believe some of the stuff that has come out of it considering what the Bible says.
Funny, that. The “Bible says” that the Church has the authority to make a “big deal” out of issues (whether individuals consider them “little” or not). If you follow “what the Bible says,” how do you find it “impossible to believe” what it says?
