It was by reason that the Early Church decided what was coherent with Tradition, and thus orthodox, including which texts should constitute the canon of Scripture, and it has been by reason that the Church has subsequently argued, decided, and defined theology.My,
Not reason alone.
My,It was by reason that the Early Church decided what was coherent with Tradition, and thus orthodox, including which texts should constitute the canon of Scripture, and it has been by reason that the Church has subsequently argued, decided, and defined theology.
I believe in the Trinity and indeed in the whole of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, in the Chalcedonian Definition, in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Mother of God, and even (less strongly) in Purgatory.Do you believe in the Trinity?
My,I believe in the Trinity and indeed in the whole of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, in the Chalcedonian Definition, in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Mother of God, and even (less strongly) in Purgatory.
It might be useful to point out that not believing the Bible to be inerrant and infallible does not mean believing the Bible to be mendacious or corrupt: there is a huge array of possibilities between 100% dependable and 0% dependable.
However, we do seem to be straying rather far off the topic.
This argument may not work so well with Lutherans, as we view our church as a valid continuation of the western church.Protestants need to ask themselves: How was your church born? out of the Catholic Church? out of another protestant church? where do you trace your origins?, and after you find the origin, keep finding the origin of the origin… see where that leads you.
I do appreciate our Lutheran Church Missouri Synod brothers and sisters, and hope that we may join in communion, soon enough.This argument may not work so well with Lutherans, as we view our church as a valid continuation of the western church.
However, we do however pray for common communion with the Bishop of Rome in God’s time.
Thought so. Just checking. May I ask how you determine what has been corrupted and what has not?The first-person singular pronoun is quite deliberate. There are other Anglicans who believe this, others who are even more radical (they reject the veracity of Scripture), and many others who believe that the Bible is true in other ways, across a wide spectrum upto and including both sola scriptura and Tradition-based hermeneutics (as in Catholicism).
“Going contrary to Anglican teachings”, however, is rather more complex a matter than going contrary to Catholic teachings, because Anglicanism demands much less adherence to dogmata.
Of course. Why do you believe in it?My,
We are totally on topic. Why do you believe in the Trinity? By way of reason?
My,Of course. Why do you believe in it?
Can we emend “corrupted” to “inaccurate”? As I said, I believe the Bible to be a well-maintained record, not a corrupted one.Thought so. Just checking. May I ask how you determine what has been corrupted and what has not?
If you show me the politeness of answering my question, I will be able to start doing so.My,
This is phenomenal. Share how I may establish the Trinity absent any authoritative source.
Well, beliefs vary widely but we are not speaking of accuracy of belief, but rather accuracy of the sacred text. You and I have the same scriptures but believe differently. The Sacred Scriptures are either inspired or they are not. I’m not sure what Anglicans believe, especially after reading your responses, but as a Catholic I believe in the inspired nature of Sacred Scripture. Interpretation is an entirely different matter.As for inaccuracy in the original belief, I don’t “determine” it, because I can’t: the great problem with metaphysics is that we cannot prove or disprove it from the physical evidence available to us.
If you show me the politeness of answering my question, I will be able to start showing you how reasoning is part of all of this.
My,If you show me the politeness of answering my question, I will be able to start doing so.
BTW, I should point out that reasoning certainly does not preclude the usage of authoritative sources.If you show me the politeness of answering my question, I will be able to start doing so.
You asked how I determined what had been “corrupted”, an idea to which I had never made any reference. I suggested emending “corruption” to “inaccuracy” because I did talk about the latter. If that is not what you meant, what does corruption have to do with this?Well, beliefs vary widely but we are not speaking of accuracy of belief, but rather accuracy of the sacred text.
This simple dichotomy is not at all logically necessary. A message could be wholly inspired, partially inspired, or wholly uninspired.The Sacred Scriptures are either inspired or they are not.
Actually, interpretation of Sacred Scripture is a matter very crucially interdependent with the nature of Sacred Scripture. To use very simplistic examples, an uninspired text interpreted in an inspired way is what you presumably believe to be the case in Titus 1:12-13; an inspired text interpreted in an uninspired fashion is what you presumably believe to be the case in sola scriptura anti-Catholic arguments; an inspired text intepreted in an inspired fashion is what you presumably believe to be the case in the Magisterium’s views of what Scripture says.I’m not sure what Anglicans believe, especially after reading your responses, but as a Catholic I believe in the inspired nature of Sacred Scripture. Interpretation is an entirely different matter.
Why do you believe in the Trinity?My,
What question?
My,Why do you believe in the Trinity?
So, what makes the Catholic Church more believable than the JWs or Mormons?My,
Well it is because I have a well formed ecclesiology that tells me that the Trinity was espoused by the Church, the Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth, from which the manifold wisdom of God is known and that is what I was taught and believe. It is in the Catechism, the Faith, in writing.
I tried the shamrock thing, Aquinas, listened to the Jehovah Witness, Mormons and other non-trinitarians but I go with the Trinity even though I can’t wrap my head around it.