The Pillar and foundation of truth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Petersmate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mystophilus #59
The difficulty is that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is very easy to claim, but very hard to prove.
The proof of the guidance of the Holy Spirit is very clear indeed from the Sacred Scriptures: “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

The fact that Jesus proved His divinity by His Resurrection makes a shambles of the dismissal of proof that He as God declared that the Holy Spirit guides His Church.
No…. as to admit of only one interpretation.
Since the Catholic Church defined the books in Sacred Scripture, and She alone was founded by God the Son, She is Christ’s authorized teacher. She teaches in Dei Verbum, 11, Vatican II: “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”
Meanwhile, others of us say, “We’re probably all wrong.”
What a cop out!

As Jesus the Christ founded only His Church, the Catholic Church, with the fullness of truth any “others” concocting something different are undoubtedly “wrong”.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
Do you also agree with the second part?

". . . Scripture has one and only one interpretation.
No. Language is not so simple, or so perfect, as to admit of only one interpretation. This is why lawyers get paid so much, and why people have been arguing over the interpretation of Homer for 2300 years.
So let’s see this from a protestant perspective. Scripture is the Word of God who is immutable (unchanging) but scripture (Word of God) can and does change depending on who is doing the interpretation. And this was devised by an all knowing God who had to know the consequences. God never accepted deviation from His Word in the OT why would He allow it in the NT? That is if He is truly immutable???

Quote:
“If the OT is a foreshadowing, as protestants claim, of the New Testament…”
Typology is neither universal among nor exclusive to Protestants.
I didn’t ask what protestants accept or reject. The evidence for typology is overwhelming. Again we are dealing with the immutability of God. Protestants express this as, “God is the same , yesterday, today and tomorrow,” Besides the OT and the NT are not two separate books but rather divisions of the same book.

Quote:
then who in the New Testament has the authority to say, with clarity, ‘Thus sayeth the Lord…’? Obviously it isn’t scripture because, as you acknowledge, with at least three different interpretations there is no clarity. Rather it is the church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit who is the New Testament authority to proclaim, ‘Thus sayeth the Lord…’."
The difficulty is that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is very easy to claim, but very hard to prove."
Oh, I don’t think so. Jesus said his church would be guided by the Holy Spirit. Now is that church a sixteenth century invention of man or is that church the one founded in the first century? No protestant denomination claim today or anytime before that they existed before the sixteenth century _ Unless you are into fairy tales and ignorant enough to believe the “Trail of Blood” by tracing your linneage through every heretical group that ever existed.
The Catholic argument is that the Tradition and the Holy Spirit guide the Magisterium to understand the Scriptures. The Orthodox argument is the same, although they understand the Scriptures differently (q.v. Original Sin versus Ancestral Sin). A widespread Protestant argument is that the Tradition actually blinds the older churches to the true meaning of the Scriptures, by imposing preconceptions on the readings.
The protestant argument is not only unscriptural it imposes chaos for unity. Unless one is willing to say. in effect, that Jesus was a liar then the protestant position is untenable. I really do not think that Jesus would remain with His church if it lapsed into error. That is if His church could lapse into error under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So when did the Holy Spirit begin his job? In the sixteenth century or on Pentecost, fifty days after the Resurrection.
Meanwhile, others of us say, “We’re probably all wrong.”
Well that is certainly true for protestants.
 
In the Holy Bible, we read, "If I (St. Paul) am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15

How do our protestant friends respond to this bible passage.
These days we have in excess of 30,000 different Christian denominations all claiming to have the truth yet one church has the truth.
Mostly, they ignore it. Sometimes, they ‘divide the word’ about it to spiritualized it. Other times they tie ‘pillar and foundation’ back to God.

Abu…from a Catholic to a Catholic, I would urge you to prayerfully consider your approach. I am not disagreeing with your points, which are valid, but I am concerned about your tactics… We need to be certain that we are approaching others with LOVE and respect when discussing our differences. That doesn’t mean you have to compromise our faith, morals, or values of what the Church teaches, but it does mean that we need to ‘kill them with kindness’. As a casual observer of this thread and others, I sometimes find it difficult to see any love coming from your posts. Text-only forums such as this do not always lead to a clear read of what is meant, so we must exercise extra caution in how we respond to others. You have a wealth of knowledge about the faith, and you should use that to draw others into the Church, but that will also require some tact. There is a time and place for being stern and loud, just as there is a time and place for being soft and quiet. I would hate to lose you as an apologist just as much as you would hate to lose a soul you are leading to the Church. I am praying that the Holy Spirit will guide you to a place where you can use your knowledge to draw other in and away from this place that seems to be 'desiring to “win” the discussion.

Peace in Christ
 
The difficulty is that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is very easy to claim, but very hard to prove.
I agree. I have issues with the word “prove” because in our modern culture it is used more commonly for the scientific method, and I find that most matters of faith cannot be well subjected to scientific method.

That aside, how might we discern if the HS is at work?
The Catholic argument is that the Tradition and the Holy Spirit guide the Magisterium to understand the Scriptures.
Yes, but the CC has really only interpreted a handful of Scriptures. Since we are not a “bible based church”, it is more a matter of reading the Scriptures through the lens of Sacred Tradition. The faith is handed down through the paradosis, and the Scriptures are an expression of that paradosis.

Just for the record, I don’t think that the HS leading understanding of the Scriptures is confined to the Magesterium.
Code:
The Orthodox argument is the same, although they understand the Scriptures differently (q.v. Original Sin versus Ancestral Sin).  A widespread Protestant argument is that the Tradition actually blinds the older churches to the true meaning of the Scriptures, by imposing preconceptions on the readings.
Yes, I think this is a good description. Our “preconceptions” are the faith that was taught before the Scriptures were penned, and the faith that produced, discerned, promulgated and canonized those scriptures. For us, reading the Scriptures outside of the “preconceptions” that produced them will inevitably lead to error. The Sacred Scriptures were never meant to be separated from the One Faith that produced them. We think this separation (due to Sola Scriptura) is what has caused the splintering of denominations.
Meanwhile, others of us say, “We’re probably all wrong.”
I find it an attempt at humility to take this view, but I also can’t believe that Jesus would leave us without the guidance we need. He promised He would provide it, and I believe He has.
 
Hawkiz #62
Abu…from a Catholic to a Catholic, I would urge you to prayerfully consider your approach. I am not disagreeing with your points, which are valid, but I am concerned about your tactics…
Thank you so much for the kind remarks and concern for others.

For anyone who feels that they know better than Christ and His Church on faith or morals, and that loving one another precludes offering His Church’s loving, healing truths, including sorrow for sin and forgiveness on repentance (to the woman found in adultery to “go and sin no more”), the Christ commanded us to: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).

St Paul (Acts 20:17-36), admonishes the elders of the Church at Ephesus: “So I solemnly declare to you this very day: if any of you should be lost, I am not responsible. For I have not held back from announcing to you the whole purpose of God. Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock which the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be shepherds of the Church of God, which He made His own through the death of His own Son. I know that after I leave, fierce wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock. The time will come when some men from your own group will tell lies to lead the believers away after them. Watch, then, and remember that with many tears, day and night, I taught every one of you for three years.”

That outstanding apologist Frank Sheed from Australia has taught on soapboxes in Hyde Park, London, and founded the publishing House of Sheed and Ward with his wife, Maisie Ward; has written outstanding books including *Theology and Sanity *and Society and Sanity, but the one I shall quote from here is Christ in Eclipse – A Clinical Study of the Good Christian, 1978, for there is a great need to listen to Christ through this great work.
we need to ‘kill them with kindness’
Really? That’s not the example that St Paul gives, who follows Christ who had admonished St John.
That very same loving Christ to His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18) (Frank Sheed, Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 42). "With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it.” (Ibid. p 40-41).

St John is a good example of the ways of Jesus as the Way, apparently unknown, like much else, to many. John “had met the hard firmness three times: when he and his brother asked for high places in Christ’s kingdom, his ambition was tossed back on him so decisively (Mk 10:35-41); when he wanted fire from heaven to consume a Samaritan city which would not receive Christ, he was rebuked, ‘You do not know what manner of spirit you are, for the Son of man came not to destroy men’s lives but to save them’ (Lk 9:56); when he asked how Peter was to die he was told in effect to mind his own business (Jn 21:22).”

The forgotten reality that is Jesus of Nazareth is given by the great Frank Sheed:
“Certainly, some people who knew Christ in His lifetime would have been startled to find so much made of His loving kindness, indeed might have wondered if you were talking of the same person.”

Frank Sheed points out that Jesus was simply not given to sentimental utterances, and we have just seen how he handled John. Jesus shows plenty of the emotions of anger and grief – at those who accused Him of breaking the Sabbath when he healed (Mk 3:5). We never see Him smile, and His settled habit was terseness of speech. He made it His duty to tell people what was wrong with them, and made sure they realised it.

He refers us to the Gentile woman who “must have felt His ‘Do you want Me to take the bread of the children and give it to dogs?’ as an assertion of her inferiority as a Gentile:…did she feel Him loving?” (Mk 7:25)

So much for the false “acceptance” so often attributed to the Christ who told the woman taken in adultery to “sin no more” as she had breached the sixth commandment – which ensured that she paid more attention to the law. (Jn 8:3-11).

On the multitude however “he had compassion, for they were helpless and harassed like sheep without a shepherd.” (Mt 9:36). So, beware of the wolves in sheep’s clothing.

That’s why faithful Catholics don’t disregard faithful bishops; they heed them and follow them, for to follow Christ is to heed and accept His Church – “if you love Me, keep My Commandments”, for He is the Way the Truth and the Life.
[See *Christ In Eclipse, Frank Sheed, Sheed & Ward, 1978, p 40-41].

Until one is able to take off the blinkers and assent to all of Christ’s teaching through His Church that person will remain in a haze over what Christ really teaches. If there is dissent from any of the teaching of Christ’s own Church then those so afflicted are unable in the area of their infidelity to help others to the truth. The information is flawed – the education is flawed. They will be disinformed, malformed, without clear direction – strong and vibrantly wrong.
 
I agree. I have issues with the word “prove” because in our modern culture it is used more commonly for the scientific method, and I find that most matters of faith cannot be well subjected to scientific method.

That aside, how might we discern if the HS is at work?
It is very much in a scientific sense that I use it. We can apprehend all kinds of things, but our apprehension is subjective because we are subjective. That which we cannot prove we should not presume to know, although we remain free to believe whatever we consider most probable.

In that sense, I would suggest that locating the Spirit at work might start here:
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
… and continue here:
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Just for the record, I don’t think that the HS leading understanding of the Scriptures is confined to the Magesterium.
IIRC, the sensus fidelium is also held as being significant.
I find it an attempt at humility to take this view
I would love to be so virtuous, but it is only based in methodological necessity: the assumption of knowledge is, when coupled with mere human fallibility, a constant threat to accuracy of understanding.

I understand how Catholic theology dodges that one, but it does not apply for some of us.
but I also can’t believe that Jesus would leave us without the guidance we need. He promised He would provide it, and I believe He has.
I agree that Jesus would not so abandon us, but I am not certain that the guidance which we need is quite as detailed as the guidance which some of us want.
 
Mystophilus #65
the sensus fidelium is also held as being significant
The sensus fidelium is this:
The revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., explains that the universitas fidelium (the university of the faithful) referred to in LG art 12, constitutes those who are agreed on the truth - what God has revealed, under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. This is what gives them universality - spiritual unity. “the truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true.” The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 225-227]
Thus those dissenting are outside of the sensus fidelium.
I don’t think that the HS leading understanding of the Scriptures is confined to the Magesterium
Certainly the Holy Spirit helps all who seek truth, but any other understanding against the teaching of the Magisterium is false.
I am not certain that the guidance which we need is quite as detailed as the guidance which some of us want.
Supposed individual “wants” are irrelevant. The Holy Spirit may guide when help is asked for if the seeker is sincere. Nothing against Christ’s teaching through His Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church has been founded by Christ with the Holy Spirit to offer the fullness of Truth.
 
Code:
 Since Christ established His Church and no other through His Magisterium, and He is God the Son, no other can assume to be a god and claim that that is false – God has proclaimed through His Magisterium that His Church is **“held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy”**  [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium
, art 39].

Protestants see themselves as members of the Church founded by Christ.

They reject the “magesterium” for various reasons, one that it is a Latinization - a term developed after the NT times. Another that most of the clerics comprising the Magesterium at the time of the Reformation were very corrupt and obscured the faith with their sins.
Disagreement is due to false ideas about Christ and Catholicism, or to selfism – narcissism, egoism, self-worship.
While this is true in some cases, it is a judgmental sounding statement that reflects a deep prejudice against people that don’t believe as you do. It is a fundamentalist statement, Identical to what Fundamentalist Bible Based Christians say about Catholics.

Did Paul go to the Aeropagus and accuse the people in this way? Acts 17:22
So Paul, standing in the middle of the Are-op’agus, said…

Did Priscilla and Aquilla say this to Apollos? Acts 18:25
25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.

Did Paul take this attitude toward the disciples who were lacking a fulness of faith? Acts 19:1-2
Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.

It seems that, instead of affirming the faith that is present, and giving instruction in gentleness and truth, you prefer to take the pillar off the foundation of the Church and use it as a bludgeoning club. Or just ram people’s heads into the pillar?
 
Code:
The proof of the guidance of the Holy Spirit is very clear indeed from the Sacred Scriptures: "The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you." (John 14:26) "But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you." (John 16:13-15).
On the contrary, Abu, it was when these Scriptures came into the hands of the laity that it became quite obvious that the leadership was NOT acting in accordance with them. They observed Simony, abuse of power, pre-occupation with secular rule and power, and what seemed to them as “perverting the Gospel of Christ”. Although we would all agree that Scripture testifies clearly to the fact that the HS was given to the Church, the Reformers thought that the Roman Church/Papal system had fallen away from the guidance of the HS. They saw the fruits of living in the flesh.
Code:
The fact that Jesus proved His divinity by His Resurrection makes a shambles of the dismissal of proof that He as God declared that the Holy Spirit guides His Church.
It does, but that is not at issue here. What is at issue is that those who claimed to follow Christ departed from His teachings, abused positions of power, and lost themselves in greed and worldly pleasures. Again, I urge you to study the Medici family.
Code:
Since the Catholic Church defined the books in Sacred Scripture, and She alone was founded by God the Son, She is Christ’s authorized teacher. She teaches in *Dei Verbum*, 11, Vatican II: "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
What a cop out!
Spouting papal documents is not effective in pursuading those who have rejected the papacy as a valid or appropriate expression of God’s intention. The Children of the Reformation often do not recognize any Councils, much less those that came during or after the Reformation.
Code:
As Jesus the Christ founded only His Church, the Catholic Church, with the fullness of truth any “others” concocting something different are undoubtedly “wrong”.
Assertions of this kind do nothing to forward the cause of Apologetics, Abu. Telling others they are wrong (asserting your own view above theirs) is not pursuasive in these cases.

Your inability to affirm what is “right” in non-Catholic eccleisial communities is also a contradiction to the Catechism, so you disqualify yourself even while you are spouting your Church’s documents!
 
guanophore #68
Protestants….reject the “magesterium” for various reasons, one that it is a Latinization - a term developed after the NT times. Another that most of the clerics comprising the Magesterium at the time of the Reformation were very corrupt and obscured the faith with their sins.
Totally unwarranted and no excuse as it is a denial of Christ, the Son of God, who guaranteed:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Such continued toadying to the errors vilifying Christ Himself and His Church helps no one.
Disagreement is due to false ideas about Christ and Catholicism, or to selfism – narcissism, egoism, self-worship.
is a judgmental sounding statement
How strange, but not unexpected! The response reflects deep confusion over Christ’s teaching and that of His Church.
We may not judge motives, intentions, and guilt before God but we are commanded by Christ Himself to judge actions, speech, writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth.

Listen to Christ Himself:
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).

“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).

St Paul and St John add:
“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).

“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).

“I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed…” (1 Cor 5:3; read 1-13).

“I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.” (1 Cor 10:15).

“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).

“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16).
 
guanophore #69
Your inability to affirm what is “right” in non-Catholic eccleisial communities is also a contradiction to the Catechism, so you disqualify yourself even while you are spouting your Church’s documents!
How perverse in a thread on **The Pillar and foundation of truth **– which guanophore is ridiculing!

There is no need to reaffirm what every real Catholic believes as we assent to all of the Church’s teaching, while the misinformed and confused spout that “most of the clerics comprising the Magesterium at the time of the Reformation were very corrupt” (guanophore #68) which is gigantic distortion with regard to the Magisterium.

Was reform needed? Yes.
Was Luther’s revolt justified? No

As Fr Robert J Fox sums up in his *A Catechism of the Catholic Church *in the chapter The Disunion of Christians: The Protestant Revolt, 1979, Franciscan Herald Press, 1979, p 120:
“Terrible failure and neglect and **the laxity of some Church leaders **paved the way for the men who in the sixteenth century divided Christendom into hundreds of bickering churches. However the Church as such was still a holy organism. There were even great saints at that time, but general purification in many quarters was seriously needed.”

The Magisterium continues to teach, sanctify and rule as always, against the miscreants who try to ridicule what God has instituted.
 
Code:
Totally unwarranted and no excuse as it is a denial of Christ, the Son of God, who guaranteed:
Abu, this might be easy for you to say, because for the last century, you have been blessed with holy Popes. But at the time of the Reformation, the corruption was so acute
that those who observed it believed that any authority that may have been posessed by the successor of Peter was lost by disobedience, and that He had ripped the Kingdom away from them, and gave it to the faithful.
Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
You keep reiterating these passages, I guess because you believe they are pursuasive in your argument, but they are not. There is nothing in either of those passages that indicates sole jurisdictional authority of anything. They are clearly of a serving nature, both of them. Jesus specifically directs his discoples not to “lord it over” others, yet here you are, trying to lord it over! You understand them as “sole authority” because that is what your Church teaches you to believe about them, but those who have rejected the Catholic faith understand them differently. You will not succeed in changing how they think by repeating your fundamentalist perspective.
response reflects deep confusion over Christ’s teaching and that of His Church.
We may not judge motives, intentions, and guilt before God but we are commanded by Christ Himself to judge actions, speech, writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth.
I can see your point, but educating people about the faith is different than whacking people over the head with dogma and doctrine. Quoting over and over what the Church documents say about herself is not an effective method with those who have already rejected the Catholic magesterium.
Listen to Christ Himself:
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).
Do you consider yourself to be spiritually gifted so as to be able to judge justly? Can you look into the hearts of all here and know that all the things you say about them are true? That they are egotistic, and reject Christ?
“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).
And that would be you, Abu?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystophilus
Meanwhile, others of us say, “We’re probably all wrong.”

Quote:
Originally posted by Ezeekel
Well that is certainly true for protestants.
Sorry, but I am only interested in dialogue, not monologue.

👋
Merely agreeing with you my friend.
 
guanophore #72
You understand them as “sole authority” because that is what your Church teaches you to believe about them…. repeating your fundamentalist perspective.
Now Christ’s Church has a “fundamentalist perspective” and it is “your Church” – what a crude dissenter!
Quoting over and over what the Church documents say about herself is not an effective method with those who have already rejected the Catholic magesterium.
Christ Himself taught; “The truth shall set you free” (Jn 8:32), and “the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1Tim 3:15) – from the Bible which Protestants use.

How defeatist can you get? Especially as the Protestant Bibles have:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later also to the Twelve]

As we are commanded by Christ Himself to judge actions, speech, writing against truth, in this way we can help others by offering truth, or hinder them by absconding or surrendering to mistaken beliefs even when the opportunity presents itself.
 
Now Christ’s Church has a “fundamentalist perspective” and it is “your Church” – what a crude dissenter!
No, Abu, the Catholic Church is not fundamentalist, but some of her members are. 😉

There is a place for fundamentalism. People need it who cannot tolerate anything but black and white, and it is often embraced by the intolerant, to help them excuse their bigotry.
Christ Himself taught; “The truth shall set you free” (Jn 8:32), and “the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1Tim 3:15) – from the Bible which Protestants use.
Yes, an often overlooked passage in Protestantdom, I think. Nevertheless, since Protestants have redefined the concept of Church, they have difficulty applying such a concept.
How defeatist can you get?
I am not defeated, Abu, because I do not engage the ineffective methods you do, nor do I present the arrogant attitude that shuts others down. For me, apologetics is a dialogue, and an opportunity to present different ways of understanding Truth.
As we are commanded by Christ Himself to judge actions, speech, writing against truth, in this way we can help others by offering truth, or hinder them by absconding or surrendering to mistaken beliefs even when the opportunity presents itself.
I suppose the possibility is there. I have not found that to be the case in the threads where you post. On the contrary, you methods seem to alienate others, and push them further from Catholicism.
 
guanophore #75
Now claims:
No, Abu, the Catholic Church is not fundamentalist, but some of her members areAfter pontificating:
You understand them as “sole authority” because that is what your Church teaches you to believe about them…. repeating your fundamentalist perspective.
What a mishmash of confusion and error. Yet he has been quite unable to say where the Church identifies and refutes this imaginary “fundamentalist” clique, confined to his own distorted ideas…

Now In answer to:
‘Christ Himself taught; “The truth shall set you free” (Jn 8:32), and “the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1Tim 3:15) – from the Bible which Protestants use’, guanophore excuses a false “redefinition” as a mere “difficulty applying such a concept.”
since Protestants have redefined the concept of Church, they have difficulty applying such a concept.
A real reluctance to challenge the false Protestant redefinition of the Church – defined clearly by Christ Himself – signifying the continued toadying to falsehood, and the continued hesitancy to offer the truth of the Church’s teaching.
 
Yet he has been quite unable to say where the Church identifies and refutes this imaginary “fundamentalist” clique, confined to his own distorted ideas,.
.

Unfortunately, Abu, your fundamentalism is not a figment of my imagination,but regularly demonstrated in your posts. :eek:
guanophore excuses a false “redefinition” as a mere “difficulty applying such a concept.”
Indeed not, Abu. Protestants have redefined “Church” to the point where the Apostles would not recognize the results. But your method of trying to correct the problem is one which is diffucult to apply. Protestants give little or no value to Catholic documents. beating them over the head with quotations from them will not correct the false definition.
Code:
 A real reluctance to challenge the false Protestant redefinition of the Church -- defined clearly by Christ Himself -- signifying the continued toadying to falsehood, and the continued hesitancy to offer the truth of the Church’s  teaching.
Not at all, Abu. It is incumbent upon us, in consistency with the documents of Vatican II, to affirm the works of the Holy Spirit among Protestant Ecclesial Communities. Starting with what we have in common will allow us to gain much more ground, rather than starting with what separates, It is not the message you are trying to convey that is the problem, but your methods.
 
.

Unfortunately, Abu, your fundamentalism is not a figment of my imagination,but regularly demonstrated in your posts. :eek:

Indeed not, Abu. Protestants have redefined “Church” to the point where the Apostles would not recognize the results. But your method of trying to correct the problem is one which is diffucult to apply. Protestants give little or no value to Catholic documents. beating them over the head with quotations from them will not correct the false definition.

Not at all, Abu. It is incumbent upon us, in consistency with the documents of Vatican II, to affirm the works of the Holy Spirit among Protestant Ecclesial Communities. Starting with what we have in common will allow us to gain much more ground, rather than starting with what separates, It is not the message you are trying to convey that is the problem, but your methods.
Suffice to say, protestantism is untrue to its very basic creed. That is, it is unscriptural. The so called “Protestant Tradition” has changed in the 500 years since the revolt. Immutability of the word of God has been vanquished and replaced with relativism. Protestantism is well aware of what ‘common ground’ they share with Catholicism. Indeed, they try to distinguish themselves from Catholicism by emphasizing the differences. We must not, therefore, foster a false sense of “I’m okay, you’re okay”. Protestantism is not “okay”. And while we are willing to meet them on the points we share in common, we can not compromise with them on those points where they differ from Catholic theology. I think that has to be understood going in. I don’t think protestants are willing to do that. I think, for the most part that, they seek recognition of their doctrines and not complete union. But they, like the prodigal son, have to come back to the church they left. But understand that the prodigal son, when he came back to his father, gave up his own way and was subject to his father. So it is.
 
ezeekl: your #78 substantiates the facts, and the great Archbishop Chaput confirms those facts and further exposes the mishmash of confusion and error.

December 19, 2012
What the Reformation has Wrought
by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap
Contemporary Problems Developed Over Centuries

Brad Gregory, the Notre Dame historian, seeks to show how we got this way in his recent book The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society. His answers are surprising, and for some readers, controversial. But his book is also important—and in its explanatory power, brilliant.

Gregory argues that today’s relativism and cult of the consumer—what he ironically calls “the goods life”—have roots that run centuries deep. He wastes no time on nostalgia for a golden age that never existed. But he does show with riveting clarity that in the sixteenth century, Protestant Reformers unintentionally set in motion certain ideas that eventually enabled today’s radical self-centeredness.

Late medieval clergy too often preached one thing and did another. Greed, simony, nepotism, luxury, sexual license, and schism in the hierarchy created an intolerable gap between Christian preaching and practice.
Many Catholics worked for reform from within. Some had success. Franciscans, Dominicans, and Cistercians owe their origins to medieval reform. Humanists such as Erasmus and Thomas More were part of an international community of letters determined to renew Christian life from the inside. Saints such as Catherine of Siena and Bernard of Clairvaux spoke truth to ecclesiastical power.
But one key difference separated these Catholic voices from the Protestant Reformers: The Catholics believed that the Church had her teachings right. She just needed to actually live them. The Catholics believed that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and other sacraments, in the Scriptures, in the saints, and in the Church’s historic doctrines offered an authentic, all-encompassing Christian way of life sufficient to sanctify human existence—if it was actually embraced and shorn of its abuses.
The Protestants, preaching sola scriptura, threw much of it away.


Competing interpretations of Scripture actually intensified the confusion. Lutherans read Scripture one way, Calvinists another, with varieties of Anglicans, Anabaptists, Baptists, Puritans, Pietists, Methodists, and Quakers veering off into options beyond counting.
Gregory also chronicles the secular philosophers who stepped into the breach. In the place of sola scriptura, the Enlightenment offered wisdom sola ratio. From Descartes, through Hobbes, Spinoza, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, Hegel, and others, on to Heidegger and Levinas and their successors, the great end-run around revealed religion and its traditions began, seeking truth based on human reason alone.
But as Gregory shows, the philosophers fared no better than the Reformers. Competing ideas proliferated. Truth, and answers to life’s big questions, remained disputed. In more recent times, Nietzsche, Foucault, and the post-modernists have been honest enough to say so, scorning the Enlightenment as much as they scorned Christianity. We can see the results in today’s pervasive spirit of irony and skepticism.

The Reformation has led, by gradual, indirect, and never-intended steps, to what Gregory calls the “Kingdom of Whatever.” It’s a world of hyperpluralism, where meaning is self-invented by millions, and therefore society as a whole starves for meaning. [My bold].
crisismagazine.com/2012/what-the-reformation-has-wrought
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top