The Reformation...reforming to What?

[Radical]

Truth can not vary by definition, so certain churches must hold more truth than others, or in the Catholic teaching, it holds the fullness of truth.

I note that Catholic doctrine keeps developing with more and more being added. As such, the catholic/universal Church of the 3rd century would have held less truth than the Catholic Church of the 19th century…yet you would insist that both held the fullness of truth and were thus both were the pillar and foundation of truth….so I guess a Church can hold less truth than another and both are still considered to be the pillar and foundation of truth.
Perhaps you would suggest that the difference is that the Catholic church of any century would never have taught error, but when I look at the Catholic Church of history it taught some very harsh stuff about the Orthodox and about Protestants of various stripes…stuff that is at odds with the more friendly stuff of Vatican II. Those at the top of the Catholic Church of centuries ago taught that the Greeks and Protestants were damned, whereas now, according to the leadership of the CC, the Greeks are the other lung and Protestants are separated brethren. If I follow Catholic practice correctly, they deal with the harsh stuff by dramatically redefining its meaning and/or by classifying it as unofficial teaching that can be disregarded. The thing is, the earlier CC didn’t know that what it was teaching needed redefining or was unofficial. They believed what they taught …plain and simple….yet you would insist that the earlier CC was the pillar and foundation of truth….so I guess a Church can hold to teachings that are at odds with the teachings of the modern CC (regarding a matter as important as salvation) and still be considered to be the pillar and foundation of truth….the respective teachings are at odds, but both have the fullness of truth. So why again is some variety amongst protestants such a troubling thing?

So if I were atheist, finding a church that “supports the gospel” can lead me to a lot of different churches and imho, wildly different views on truth, both in faith and in morals.

and if I were a time traveller trying to find a CC within its history that “supports the gospel”, then that effort could lead me to a lot of different Catholic churches and imho, ones with wildly different views on truth, both in faith and in moral

The books of bible while inspired and infallible were put together in a canon by the church to be used for reading at Mass. It was not put together as a compendium of all faith which is why tradition and the magisterium become so important, because the bible needs both to be interpreted correctly. So if I were aethiest, I would look for a church, Catholic by name that has all three: bible, tradition and magisterium so that I could be assured that on faith and morals I was being taught the fullness of truth.

so a traditional Catholic, trying to envision what approach an atheist would take in his search for the Christian God, concludes that the atheist would value exactly what Catholics value….go figure. Neither tradition nor the magisterium would be any use w/o God being behind them…w/o that they would add to the problem and not be part of the solution. So then, riddle me this, what would cause a sceptical atheist to conclude that God’s hand was on either the magisterium or on tradition to the point of ensuring that error was eliminated?

 

[Porknpie]

I note that Catholic doctrine keeps developing with more and more being added. As such, the catholic/universal Church of the 3rd century would have held less truth than the Catholic Church of the 19th century…yet you would insist that both held the fullness of truth and were thus both were the pillar and foundation of truth….so I guess a Church can hold less truth than another and both are still considered to be the pillar and foundation of truth.
Perhaps you would suggest that the difference is that the Catholic church of any century would never have taught error, but when I look at the Catholic Church of history it taught some very harsh stuff about the Orthodox and about Protestants of various stripes…stuff that is at odds with the more friendly stuff of Vatican II. Those at the top of the Catholic Church of centuries ago taught that the Greeks and Protestants were damned, whereas now, according to the leadership of the CC, the Greeks are the other lung and Protestants are separated brethren. If I follow Catholic practice correctly, they deal with the harsh stuff by dramatically redefining its meaning and/or by classifying it as unofficial teaching that can be disregarded. The thing is, the earlier CC didn’t know that what it was teaching needed redefining or was unofficial. They believed what they taught …plain and simple….yet you would insist that the earlier CC was the pillar and foundation of truth….so I guess a Church can hold to teachings that are at odds with the teachings of the modern CC (regarding a matter as important as salvation) and still be considered to be the pillar and foundation of truth….the respective teachings are at odds, but both have the fullness of truth. So why again is some variety amongst protestants such a troubling thing?
and if I were a time traveller trying to find a CC within its history that “supports the gospel”, then that effort could lead me to a lot of different Catholic churches and imho, ones with wildly different views on truth, both in faith and in moral
so a traditional Catholic, trying to envision what approach an atheist would take in his search for the Christian God, concludes that the atheist would value exactly what Catholics value….go figure. Neither tradition nor the magisterium would be any use w/o God being behind them…w/o that they would add to the problem and not be part of the solution. So then, riddle me this, what would cause a sceptical atheist to conclude that God’s hand was on either the magisterium or on tradition to the point of ensuring that error was eliminated?

Hi Radical,

The church has not changed is doctrine on salvation, only the words to describe it. I would say that the clarity helps. There are a lot of other posts on catholic.com that have discussed this. .

So to the original question…How do would an aethiest …or a person from another planet …know where truth exists among 1000s of churches? Isaiah and the Psalms refer to God as the “God of Truth”. Catholicism aside, I personally take this to mean that and faith and morals, there must be truth to various issues including divorce, contraception, abortion, euthenasia to name a few. Some of these are explicitly called out in the bible and some are not. And churches have differing views on faith and morals even when scripture seems clear. I’m not trying to hit you over the head with the Catholic church but asking a theological and philosophical question. Maybe the post is better suited for the philosophy sub-group on this website…

One request,…let’s exchange views on this one question before moving to a second one. Thanks! :compcoff:

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

I want to make sure I understand what it is you are addressing … with about 2,000 years of being the Church of Christ, your claim is that the Catholic Church has had a major doctrinal change because it calls the Eastern Catholic Church the ‘other lung’ - is this correct?

First, here is the text from Blessed John Paul II’s speach: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2LIGHT.HTM

Secondly, we need to understand the distinction that JP II between the Eastern Catholic Churches (recognizing the Pope as the Leader of the Church) and the Orthodox Church which does not recognize the Pope. JP II specifically identified the Eastern Catholic Chruchs. Here is a link that provides some of the differences between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church:christianityinview.com/comparison.html

The ‘…other lung…’ is specifically referring to the Eastern Catholic Church (non-Latin rites) who do recognize the Pope as the Leader of the Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ, and not the Orthodox who do not recognize the Pope. Here is a link that may help clarify the Eastern Catholic Church: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches

Now, concerning your concern about, ‘…harsh language…’. here is a link which clearly gives the Catholic view: scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm Your attention is directed to items #838 - 848.

In summary, there has been no change is Catholic teaching. The Orthodox may not lack much to be in full communion with Rome - but, there is a lack. There is full communion between the Eastern Catholic Church and Rome.

God bless

I note that Catholic doctrine keeps developing with more and more being added. As such, the catholic/universal Church of the 3rd century would have held less truth than the Catholic Church of the 19th century…yet you would insist that both held the fullness of truth and were thus both were the pillar and foundation of truth….so I guess a Church can hold less truth than another and both are still considered to be the pillar and foundation of truth.
Perhaps you would suggest that the difference is that the Catholic church of any century would never have taught error, but when I look at the Catholic Church of history it taught some very harsh stuff about the Orthodox and about Protestants of various stripes…stuff that is at odds with the more friendly stuff of Vatican II. Those at the top of the Catholic Church of centuries ago taught that the Greeks and Protestants were damned, whereas now, according to the leadership of the CC, the Greeks are the other lung and Protestants are separated brethren. If I follow Catholic practice correctly, they deal with the harsh stuff by dramatically redefining its meaning and/or by classifying it as unofficial teaching that can be disregarded. The thing is, the earlier CC didn’t know that what it was teaching needed redefining or was unofficial. They believed what they taught …plain and simple….yet you would insist that the earlier CC was the pillar and foundation of truth….so I guess a Church can hold to teachings that are at odds with the teachings of the modern CC (regarding a matter as important as salvation) and still be considered to be the pillar and foundation of truth….the respective teachings are at odds, but both have the fullness of truth. So why again is some variety amongst protestants such a troubling thing?
and if I were a time traveller trying to find a CC within its history that “supports the gospel”, then that effort could lead me to a lot of different Catholic churches and imho, ones with wildly different views on truth, both in faith and in moral
so a traditional Catholic, trying to envision what approach an atheist would take in his search for the Christian God, concludes that the atheist would value exactly what Catholics value….go figure. Neither tradition nor the magisterium would be any use w/o God being behind them…w/o that they would add to the problem and not be part of the solution. So then, riddle me this, what would cause a sceptical atheist to conclude that God’s hand was on either the magisterium or on tradition to the point of ensuring that error was eliminated?

 

[Radical]

The church has not changed is doctrine on salvation, only the words to describe it.

so then, is it that as one moves from one Protestant denomination to the next, the doctrine of salvation does not change, but only the words used to describe it?

So to the original question…How do would an aethiest …or a person from another planet …know where truth exists among 1000s of churches? Isaiah and the Psalms refer to God as the “God of Truth”. Catholicism aside, I personally take this to mean that and faith and morals, there must be truth to various issues including divorce, contraception, abortion, euthenasia to name a few. Some of these are explicitly called out in the bible and some are not. And churches have differing views on faith and morals even when scripture seems clear. I’m not trying to hit you over the head with the Catholic church but asking a theological and philosophical question. Maybe the post is better suited for the philosophy sub-group on this website…

One request,…let’s exchange views on this one question before moving to a second one. Thanks

from what I have posted on this thread you could very well anticipate my answer. This atheist, like you and I, will be a fallible human and will only be able to come to a fallible opinion as to where truth exists…even if he came to the fallible opinion that the magisterium of the CC is infallible. Like it or not, that is the reality. Instead of one, it would be better to consider a 1000 atheists. A good percentage of these hypothetical atheists (converting to Christianity) would come to the conclusion that they know with certainty where truth exists, but being fallible, they wouldn’t come to the same conclusion as to the location…they would be spread out amongst the various Christian denominations. Some would end up Catholic, some Orthodox and some Protestant…and unless the CC (in this hypothetical scenario) enjoyed the same cultural and political advantages that it does in the real world, I doubt very much that it would end up with the same percentage of converted atheists as it actually enjoys WRT the world’s Christian population. Instead, I expect that it would end up with quite a bit less.

I get the impression that you find this result (the converting atheists spreading out through the various Christian options) to be unacceptable…and so very unacceptable that you have concluded (formed a fallible opinion) that God could not possible tolerate it/desire it…and that he would have made a way available so that those who seek him would not be spread out/hold to differing doctrine. If so,then I disagree. IMH(and fallible)O there is just too much history and reality that one would have to disregard and too many forced/self-serving interpretations that one would have to swallow in order to conclude that any one Christian denomination constitutes the one true Church and is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[Porknpie]

so then, is it that as one moves from one Protestant denomination to the next, the doctrine of salvation does not change, but only the words used to describe it?

from what I have posted on this thread you could very well anticipate my answer. This atheist, like you and I, will be a fallible human and will only be able to come to a fallible opinion as to where truth exists…even if he came to the fallible opinion that the magisterium of the CC is infallible. Like it or not, that is the reality. Instead of one, it would be better to consider a 1000 atheists. A good percentage of these hypothetical atheists (converting to Christianity) would come to the conclusion that they know with certainty where truth exists, but being fallible, they wouldn’t come to the same conclusion as to the location…they would be spread out amongst the various Christian denominations. Some would end up Catholic, some Orthodox and some Protestant…and unless the CC (in this hypothetical scenario) enjoyed the same cultural and political advantages that it does in the real world, I doubt very much that it would end up with the same percentage of converted atheists as it actually enjoys WRT the world’s Christian population. Instead, I expect that it would end up with quite a bit less.

I get the impression that you find this result (the converting atheists spreading out through the various Christian options) to be unacceptable…and so very unacceptable that you have concluded (formed a fallible opinion) that God could not possible tolerate it/desire it…and that he would have made a way available so that those who seek him would not be spread out/hold to differing doctrine. If so,then I disagree. IMH(and fallible)O there is just too much history and reality that one would have to disregard and too many forced/self-serving interpretations that one would have to swallow in order to conclude that any one Christian denomination constitutes the one true Church and is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Radical, you read too much into me. I do believe that the Catholic church holds the fullness of truth but again, I’m not trying to crush you with Catholicism. . Your answer speaks to an end result(s) but the key word in my question is “how”, how does the aethiest or person from another plant come to the conclusion that you refer to? It’s the process of discerning that I am asking about and not directly the end result of their fact finding. My arms are down at my side and I’m just curious to your thoughts. Thanks.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

I think you have really missed several important items that were in previous posts. In my opinion, a straightforward return to basics would resolve a lot of the issues that you are presenting.

The doctrine of salvation is that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, suffered, died and rose again for the salvation of each human soul ever created so that each of us - if we cooperate with the Grace of God - will be with Christ in Heaven. To ensure that those who believe in His Work of Salvation would have access to all the Graces that God has provided, He founded His Church on Peter, promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail and promised that all truth would be given so that no error can be taught.

Christ intentionally built His Church on frail human beings - probably selecting the frailest of the 12 - to show that His Church will continue through the Power of God and not through the wit and manipulation of any human being. Peter denied Christ 3x - and ever Pope thereafter has made significant personal mistakes - but, none has ever taught error. Now, this is the doctrine of salvation - Cliff’s Notes style. But, we really can not stop at this because there other issues.

Luther and those others who revolted saw abuse in the Church and ultimately decided that they could do a better job. They created new doctrine based on the traditions of men (Sola Scruptura, Sola Fide, personal interpretation of Scripture, and the rejection of the Church that Christ had founded 1,200+ years before Luther was born. Splintering from the teachings of those who revolted has continued for almost 500 years - and will continue to do so.

Truth is not based on either majority or consensus - Truth is - and either one believes it or they do not. Not to pick at the 1 atheist vs 1,000 atheists argument - but, it is really irrelevant. To paraphrase Blessed Fulton Sheen, "The truth is the truth no matter if no one believes it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. What Luther and those others who revolted fromthe Catholic Church all have in common is that they have opposed the Will of God Who founded the Catholic Church so that all men could be saved.

Anyone (Protestant, Jew, pagan, etc) who sincerely believes that their approach ot God is correct will be judged by God in a merciful way. Anyone who sincerely believes that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of thier immortal soul but refuses to join because of some human motive will be judged by God in a just manner. This is the meaning of, “Outside the Church, there is no salvation.”

May I suggest that you focus on one issue, respnd with references that actually support your position and then respond to the others who have attempted to answer your questions. It really looks like you are simply evading items you would rather not deal with… and that makes dialogue difficult. You can start by going back a few posts and responding to the material I presented to you, refuting your idea of the Orthodox bing the ‘other lung’.

God bless

so then, is it that as one moves from one Protestant denomination to the next, the doctrine of salvation does not change, but only the words used to describe it?

from what I have posted on this thread you could very well anticipate my answer. This atheist, like you and I, will be a fallible human and will only be able to come to a fallible opinion as to where truth exists…even if he came to the fallible opinion that the magisterium of the CC is infallible. Like it or not, that is the reality. Instead of one, it would be better to consider a 1000 atheists. A good percentage of these hypothetical atheists (converting to Christianity) would come to the conclusion that they know with certainty where truth exists, but being fallible, they wouldn’t come to the same conclusion as to the location…they would be spread out amongst the various Christian denominations. Some would end up Catholic, some Orthodox and some Protestant…and unless the CC (in this hypothetical scenario) enjoyed the same cultural and political advantages that it does in the real world, I doubt very much that it would end up with the same percentage of converted atheists as it actually enjoys WRT the world’s Christian population. Instead, I expect that it would end up with quite a bit less.

I get the impression that you find this result (the converting atheists spreading out through the various Christian options) to be unacceptable…and so very unacceptable that you have concluded (formed a fallible opinion) that God could not possible tolerate it/desire it…and that he would have made a way available so that those who seek him would not be spread out/hold to differing doctrine. If so,then I disagree. IMH(and fallible)O there is just too much history and reality that one would have to disregard and too many forced/self-serving interpretations that one would have to swallow in order to conclude that any one Christian denomination constitutes the one true Church and is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[Radical]

Radical, you read too much into me…Your answer speaks to an end result(s) but the key word in my question is “how”,

fair enough

…how does the aethiest or person from another plant come to the conclusion that you refer to?

he looks at what is available to assess and from there gives the appropriate weight to the various things that are found:

a) are there miracles validating an exceptional authority?

b) is there an extraordinary display of the fruit of the Spirit that would be consistent with an extraordinary involvement of the Spirit? (an extraordinary involvement being essential for an exceptional authority

c) does the entity being examined claim to possess the truth and if so, on what basis?

I don’t think any entity today can validly point to (a) or (b) to a degree that exceeds what other entities can also claim. (c) is a very subjective process…involving, among other things, the way in which the entity interprets the history of its origin, the history of its existence, the history of its doctrine and the interpretation of what it designates as God’s revelation.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

I think your imagination has caught up with your wishful thinking…

Maybe it is just me, but, coming up with three criteria that you then promptly dismiss because none have met your standards, brings us to the possible conclusion that there is no True Church on earth. But, you have again arrived at a faulty conclusion.

First, your emphasis on public miracles appears to be based on the degree of showmanship they produce. Christ rose from the dead on His Own Power - and this was dismissed by the Jewish leaders for many reasons - but, the real reason is that Christ challenged their distorted view of religion, called them a wicked generation and then told them that the only sign they would get is the sign of Jonah (Matt 16:4).

Chist founded His Chruch on Peter (Matt 16:18) and promised the Spirit would lead them to all truth (John 16:13). This is surely a miracle of God’s Divine Providence for His Church - yet the 16th Century revolutionarys from the Catholic Church, have left this Church for one founded on mere men who only offer human traditions. The fact that the same Catholic doctrine (Trinity, necessity for Baptism, Real Presence, the Canon of Scripture, the Sacraments,Divinity and humanity of Christ, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, sacredness of life, abortion is destroying innocent human life, etc.) has been taught since the beginning - yet we find Protestantism arriving 1,500 years later and saying it is all wrong because it does not agree with their own distorted view of Christ and His Church. Contrast the solidity of Catholic doctrine with the chaos and contradiction of Protestant doctrines. This looks like a miracle to me. If you insist on the ‘Red Sea being parted again’ then tell me how this differs from the Jews demanding another sign?

If you want an ‘extraordinary’ display of the Spirit - maybe you should tell me what it is you are looking for. This does not look materially different from your first criteria - and I will again remind you that Jesus was not helpfu to the Jews in furnishing them with signs that they managed to dismiss or used in an effort to discredit Christ. Just try to provide a clearer statement then Justice Potter Stewart who said, “I know it when I see it”!

The 3rd criteria possibly has something going for it. “The entity being examined…” is the Catholic Church, who was founded by Christ in the 1st Century and is still preaching His Word to this date. No one else has an objectively longer record of preaching Christ crucified (1Cor 1:23). No one else provided the Canon of Scripture from about 400AD until Luther chose to attack it in about 1520 - and then all he managed was to remove 7 Books from the OT, leaving the NT as handed down from the Catholic Church, intact.

There is nothing subjective in this - as long as you are willing to look at history and the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the decisions of the Councils - all in black and white for open to all to read. Here is a link you may find useful:dailycatholic.org/history/councils.htm

From what I have read, Radical, you really appear more interested in blowing smoke to hide what is going on, rather then just addressing the issues presented - and, yes, this poverty of of references is quite obvious. Surely there are other Protestants you can quote.

Rather then dismiss your 3 made up criteria, I have done my best to answer them. Let me invite you to use these same three to establish the legitimacy of your chruch. I think this would make for interesting reading.

God bless

fair enough

he looks at what is available to assess and from there gives the appropriate weight to the various things that are found:

a) are there miracles validating an exceptional authority?

b) is there an extraordinary display of the fruit of the Spirit that would be consistent with an extraordinary involvement of the Spirit? (an extraordinary involvement being essential for an exceptional authority

c) does the entity being examined claim to possess the truth and if so, on what basis?

I don’t think any entity today can validly point to (a) or (b) to a degree that exceeds what other entities can also claim. (c) is a very subjective process…involving, among other things, the way in which the entity interprets the history of its origin, the history of its existence, the history of its doctrine and the interpretation of what it designates as God’s revelation.

 

[ahs]

…they would be spread out amongst the various Christian denominations…I get the impression that you find this result (the converting atheists spreading out through the various Christian options) to be unacceptable…and so very unacceptable that you have concluded (formed a fallible opinion) that God could not possible tolerate it/desire it…and that he would have made a way available so that those who seek him would not be spread out/hold to differing doctrine. If so,then I disagree.

Christ not only established ONE Church (which is also the pillar and foundation of truth) but He prayed that it remain ONE. He does not want division…but unity. How then could you find it acceptable that these people would flock to various different churches…many with opposing doctrines?

On of the points I wanted to make in this thread was exactly that…Christ established ONE Church. The “reformers”/protestants broke from that Church…supposedly believing it was the only way to correct the abuses. But look what happened afterwards…division followed division followed by division…directly contrary to Christ’s call for His Church to remain ONE. That is why I want to know what the so-called “reformers” were reforming to. Either it was back to the original (so-to-speak), which they missed, OR they changed doctrine…which is forbidden in the very Scripture which they give sole authority to.

Either way, isn’t it time for all Christians to take Christ’s prayer to heart?

In case you missed tqualey’s excellent post:

Hi, Radical,

I think your imagination has caught up with your wishful thinking…

Maybe it is just me, but, coming up with three criteria that you then promptly dismiss because none have met your standards, brings us to the possible conclusion that there is no True Church on earth. But, you have again arrived at a faulty conclusion.

First, your emphasis on public miracles appears to be based on the degree of showmanship they produce. Christ rose from the dead on His Own Power - and this was dismissed by the Jewish leaders for many reasons - but, the real reason is that Christ challenged their distorted view of religion, called them a wicked generation and then told them that the only sign they would get is the sign of Jonah (Matt 16:4).

Chist founded His Chruch on Peter (Matt 16:18) and promised the Spirit would lead them to all truth (John 16:13). This is surely a miracle of God’s Divine Providence for His Church - yet the 16th Century revolutionarys from the Catholic Church, have left this Church for one founded on mere men who only offer human traditions. The fact that the same Catholic doctrine (Trinity, necessity for Baptism, Real Presence, the Canon of Scripture, the Sacraments,Divinity and humanity of Christ, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, sacredness of life, abortion is destroying innocent human life, etc.) has been taught since the beginning - yet we find Protestantism arriving 1,500 years later and saying it is all wrong because it does not agree with their own distorted view of Christ and His Church. Contrast the solidity of Catholic doctrine with the chaos and contradiction of Protestant doctrines. This looks like a miracle to me. If you insist on the ‘Red Sea being parted again’ then tell me how this differs from the Jews demanding another sign?

If you want an ‘extraordinary’ display of the Spirit - maybe you should tell me what it is you are looking for. This does not look materially different from your first criteria - and I will again remind you that Jesus was not helpfu to the Jews in furnishing them with signs that they managed to dismiss or used in an effort to discredit Christ. Just try to provide a clearer statement then Justice Potter Stewart who said, “I know it when I see it”!

The 3rd criteria possibly has something going for it. “The entity being examined…” is the Catholic Church, who was founded by Christ in the 1st Century and is still preaching His Word to this date. No one else has an objectively longer record of preaching Christ crucified (1Cor 1:23). No one else provided the Canon of Scripture from about 400AD until Luther chose to attack it in about 1520 - and then all he managed was to remove 7 Books from the OT, leaving the NT as handed down from the Catholic Church, intact.

There is nothing subjective in this - as long as you are willing to look at history and the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the decisions of the Councils - all in black and white for open to all to read. Here is a link you may find useful:dailycatholic.org/history/councils.htm

From what I have read, Radical, you really appear more interested in blowing smoke to hide what is going on, rather then just addressing the issues presented - and, yes, this poverty of of references is quite obvious. Surely there are other Protestants you can quote.

Rather then dismiss your 3 made up criteria, I have done my best to answer them. Let me invite you to use these same three to establish the legitimacy of your chruch. I think this would make for interesting reading.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ahs,

Thank you for the kind words…

From my experience on CAF, when a challenge is presented by a Protestant - a genuine response is initially provided. It is from this point that the road splits into two:

#1. Working with the response, the Protestant offers their view and provides references which are met with Catholic responses and more references. Sometimes there is a change sometimes there is further discussion - but usually taking this approach on the topic being addressed.

#2. The Protestant offers their views on multiple areas of both historic and contemporary disagreement. When a Catholic response is provided - with references, the Protestant merely says he does not believe and offers nothiing to refute the Catholic position… and then offers more items about the Catholic Church he disagrees with. More Catholics join in to try and achieve a more refined response and this is usually met with not only further refusal but further complaints about the Church, current clerical abuse or other areas that simply borders on an Ad Hominem attack on either the Church itself, or the posters who have challenged this individual. Ultimately, he fatigues of having to defend his non-historic, non-scriptural and non-theologic view and just stops posting.

Ah, Radical, as I see it you have been pretty much on the Second Road. Anytime you wish to move on to the First Road, feel free - it really is all up to you.

Now, my experience is limited - and I invite those with other experiences to share them. A thread such as this is really quite good if - for no other reason - then it gives Catholics a chance to see the richness of their Faith and the poverty our responders seem to relish.

Yes Christ founded One Church - and, did you notice that He did not have 11 extra sets of Keys to hand out… There is a reason Peter is in Charge - he takes the place of Christ on earth, leading His Church away from evil by teaching the Truth. Of course, this does not mean that humans who have sat on the Chair of Peter all acted appropriately - but, the miracle I have always found most amazing is that despite all of real abuse and real public scandal - the Gates of Hell have not prevailed. From a historic point of view - I find this the most significant miracle out there!

God bless

Christ not only established ONE Church (which is also the pillar and foundation of truth) but He prayed that it remain ONE. He does not want division…but unity. How then could you find it acceptable that these people would flock to various different churches…many with opposing doctrines?

On of the points I wanted to make in this thread was exactly that…Christ established ONE Church. The “reformers”/protestants broke from that Church…supposedly believing it was the only way to correct the abuses. But look what happened afterwards…division followed division followed by division…directly contrary to Christ’s call for His Church to remain ONE. That is why I want to know what the so-called “reformers” were reforming to. Either it was back to the original (so-to-speak), which they missed, OR they changed doctrine…which is forbidden in the very Scripture which they give sole authority to.

Either way, isn’t it time for all Christians to take Christ’s prayer to heart?

In case you missed tqualey’s excellent post:

 

[Radical]

Hello ahs, loved your post…it was very amusing…first you started with an unfounded assumption

Perfect, this is exactly what I’m getting at in this thread. I’ll assume someone has provided these to you to use to argue a point rather than you actually reading Tertullian’s works.

Then you moved on to a bad statement:

Had you read them you would have seen, and hopefully been respectful enough to acknowledge, that although Tertullian believed all Doctrine should be tested and proved (by the Church, by the way, not by Scripture…since the NT had yet to be defined, I guess)

I hope you realize that Tertullian had NT scripture available to him….it was only that the edges of the NT were a little fuzzy at that time ….and then your post takes on a rather ironic twist with a few links…the first being:

catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy

this first link (from a page entitled Peter’s Primacy) gives two quotes from Tertullian with the first being these words from Tertullian:
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]). given your criticism of me, I gotta think that you read this passage in full, but I can’t understand what you were getting at. In that passage Tertullian said:

a) Peter received the keys from the Lord; and

b) Everyone who confesses Christ steps into Peter’s shoes and now carries those keys.

As such, the successor to Peter’s keys is not the bishop of Rome, but everyone who confesses Christ. Thank-you for that…tis very Protestant….seems that you went cherry picking but didn’t get what you were looking for
The next Tertullian quote from that link:
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
So the next quote is little more than Tertullian quoting the gospel of Matt (kinda proving that Tertullian had NT scripture)…but here is how Modesty 21 ends (with some bits emboldened):
What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and your (church), indeed, Psychic? For,** in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet.** For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in “three.” And thus,** from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted “a Church,” from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church).** And accordingly** “the Church,” it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops.** For the right and arbitrament is the Lord’s, not the servant’s; God’s Himself, not the priest’s…
Again he seems very protestant in his approach (Charismatic)…in the first bold bit, according to Tertullian, Peter’s authority to bind and loose is possessed by spiritual men (an apostle or a prophet) and not just Peter….as such, the only way that authority would be passed onto a Pope or a bishop is if that pope or bishop was also a prophet (cuz none of them are apostles)…and not all prophets were bishops. In the middle bold bit, he describes a Church as existing wherever any number of believers come together (ie no need for a hierarchy or for a bishop mentioned) Finally, the last bold bit, it seems that Tertullian indicated that power to forgive rests with a church that has a prophet and not with church that has bishops. …thanks for picking those lovely cherries.

So this helps to show my point. What I believe is that the “reformers” did exactly what you have been taught to do and what you have just done. These days it’s called “cherry-picking” and I think it makes for a good visual:…

I don’t think that you could possibly have a bigger log in your own eye….but the funny thing is that the cherries that you picked are good fruit for the Protestant. Brilliant!

If the “reformers” were falling back on the teachings of the ECF’s, why only SOME of their positions and not others.

b/c they were fallible and were in the practice of adding to the rule of faith…the idea is to reject (or at least not treat as infallible) their additions and to use their works to determine what was believed at the very start. Obviously, the later the ECF, the less useful the ECF will be for determining the original rule of faith.

Tertullian is a great example.

yes he is…and he is rather useful b/c he appears so early

Why accept his arguments on Mary but reject his arguments on Papal Authority?

which ones on papal authority?..the one that says all believers have the keys?..or the one that has the power to loose and bind resting with churches with prophets?

And why accept the opinions of a man on the merit that he was a ECF while his words seem to agree with your position, but reject them when they don’t on the basis that he is fallible? Again, everything is subjected to opinions and interpretations of the person seeking to prove a point.

no…it is trying to find what Christ and the apostles originally taught ….w/o pretending that the ECFs wouldn’t make innovations or that they were infallible when in groups or when they reached a consensus

That’s why he gave ONE man the Keys to the Kingdom, and why He established ONE Church and prayed that His ONE Church would remain as ONE and HE and the Father are ONE.

and by providing his Spirit to all believers he grew his Church and assured its continued unity through the Spirit…now there could be greater visible unity, but Christ’s prayer wasn’t that all his children would embrace error for the sake of unity.

The “reformers” broke from the Church…whether you agree with their theology or not, they took what was A Church and broke it into many. Instead of working on the corruption from inside the Church through the Authority that all the ECF’s taught and submitted to…they rejected the Authority and decided they knew better and could fix it themselves. That’s where they went wrong, IMHO.

what choice did they have? When the alleged authority is incapable of admitting error, how does one reform it to eliminate the error? One can only point out that the emperor has no clothes. One can’t make the emperor realize his nudity and the solution isn’t to join in and pretend that he isn’t naked.

 

[studychristian]

Many of the Original Protestant Sects of Christianity now are okay with Gay Marriage and all sorts of shenanigans these days.

 

[Radical]

Christ not only established ONE Church (which is also the pillar and foundation of truth) but He prayed that it remain ONE. He does not want division…but unity. How then could you find it acceptable that these people would flock to various different churches…many with opposing doctrines?

b/c searching for truth is a good thing…accepting error for the sake of unity is not.

On of the points I wanted to make in this thread was exactly that…Christ established ONE Church. The “reformers”/protestants broke from that Church…

no, the reformers broke from the Catholic Church of the 16th century…it is only your assumption that the CC of that century is the same one that Christ founded…others disagree b/c of how the doctrines of the two Churches differ by so much and on the basis that Chirst’s Church was based on who possessed his Spirit and not on some visible hierarchy.

. But look what happened afterwards…division followed division followed by division…directly contrary to Christ’s call for His Church to remain ONE.

most of the divisions are not as dramatic or as important as you would like to think

That is why I want to know what the so-called “reformers” were reforming to. Either it was back to the original (so-to-speak), which they missed, …

well at least they tried and they did succeed in getting closer…a lot closer in some cases.

Either way, isn’t it time for all Christians to take Christ’s prayer to heart?

would you endorse embracing error for the sake of unity?

In case you missed tqualey’s excellent post:

for the most part, I stopped reading his posts some time back…there is just too much to correct in each one…for example I have given scripture to show how God used miracles to validate the message of both Christ and the apostles, but he starts off (in the one you quoted) with this:

First, your emphasis on public miracles appears to be based on the degree of showmanship they produce.

…I would have to keep going back over the same stuff again and again to simply get him to understand what I believe and why. Rightly or wrongly, I have come to the conclusion that he isn’t really interested in learning what I believe and why, he simply wants to misdescribe my beliefs/motives/reasoning etc. for the sake of ridiculing them…and I have better things to do. Porknpie, on the other hand, actually seems to want to understand how a different perspective might work. .

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

You have distorted the definition of ‘cherry-picking’ in your criticism of Aha - but, have managed to provide another excellent example in this post! The essence of ‘cherry-picking’ an argument is to provide only the material that agrees with your position while evading and avoiding any reference that would refute this position.

Have you ever considered that quoting Tertullian as not supporting the Primacy of Peter, would be similar to quoting Martin Luther on this same topic? Both were once practicing Catholics. Both disagreed with the Catholic Church and left its truth for a heresy (Montanism for Tertullian and Sola Scriptura with personal interpretation for Luther). So, I guess the real conclusion is: so what? Tertullian really did make contributions to the development of Catholic teaching - and he also made some serious mistakes. If his work essentially proves nothing with regards to the Primacy of Peter - do you have another ECF that also disagreed with this Early Catholic doctrine?

If you look at the previous references I provided you, the vast majority of Chruch Fathers fully endorsed the Primacy of Peter. Tertullian may have been the exception.

May I suggest to at least try to present a balanced argment?

God bless

Hello ahs, loved your post…it was very amusing…first you started with an unfounded assumption
Then you moved on to a bad statement:
I hope you realize that Tertullian had NT scripture available to him….it was only that the edges of the NT were a little fuzzy at that time ….and then your post takes on a rather ironic twist with a few links…the first being:

catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy

this first link (from a page entitled Peter’s Primacy) gives two quotes from Tertullian with the first being these words from Tertullian:
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]). given your criticism of me, I gotta think that you read this passage in full, but I can’t understand what you were getting at. In that passage Tertullian said:

a) Peter received the keys from the Lord; and

b) Everyone who confesses Christ steps into Peter’s shoes and now carries those keys.

As such, the successor to Peter’s keys is not the bishop of Rome, but everyone who confesses Christ. Thank-you for that…tis very Protestant….seems that you went cherry picking but didn’t get what you were looking for
The next Tertullian quote from that link:
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
So the next quote is little more than Tertullian quoting the gospel of Matt (kinda proving that Tertullian had NT scripture)…but here is how Modesty 21 ends (with some bits emboldened):
What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and your (church), indeed, Psychic? For,** in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet.** For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in “three.” And thus,** from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted “a Church,” from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church).** And accordingly** “the Church,” it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops.** For the right and arbitrament is the Lord’s, not the servant’s; God’s Himself, not the priest’s…
Again he seems very protestant in his approach (Charismatic)…in the first bold bit, according to Tertullian, Peter’s authority to bind and loose is possessed by spiritual men (an apostle or a prophet) and not just Peter….as such, the only way that authority would be passed onto a Pope or a bishop is if that pope or bishop was also a prophet (cuz none of them are apostles)…and not all prophets were bishops. In the middle bold bit, he describes a Church as existing wherever any number of believers come together (ie no need for a hierarchy or for a bishop mentioned) Finally, the last bold bit, it seems that Tertullian indicated that power to forgive rests with a church that has a prophet and not with church that has bishops. …thanks for picking those lovely cherries.
I don’t think that you could possibly have a bigger log in your own eye….but the funny thing is that the cherries that you picked are good fruit for the Protestant. Brilliant!
b/c they were fallible and were in the practice of adding to the rule of faith…the idea is to reject (or at least not treat as infallible) their additions and to use their works to determine what was believed at the very start. Obviously, the later the ECF, the less useful the ECF will be for determining the original rule of faith.
yes he is…and he is rather useful b/c he appears so early
which ones on papal authority?..the one that says all believers have the keys?..or the one that has the power to loose and bind resting with churches with prophets?
no…it is trying to find what Christ and the apostles originally taught ….w/o pretending that the ECFs wouldn’t make innovations or that they were infallible when in groups or when they reached a consensus
and by providing his Spirit to all believers he grew his Church and assured its continued unity through the Spirit…now there could be greater visible unity, but Christ’s prayer wasn’t that all his children would embrace error for the sake of unity.

what choice did they have? When the alleged authority is incapable of admitting error, how does one reform it to eliminate the error? One can only point out that the emperor has no clothes. One can’t make the emperor realize his nudity and the solution isn’t to join in and pretend that he isn’t naked.

 

[ahs]

Hello ahs, loved your post…it was very amusing…first you started with an unfounded assumption
Then you moved on to a bad statement:
I hope you realize that Tertullian had NT scripture available to him….it was only that the edges of the NT were a little fuzzy at that time ….and then your post takes on a rather ironic twist with a few links…the first being:

catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy

this first link (from a page entitled Peter’s Primacy) gives two quotes from Tertullian with the first being these words from Tertullian:
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]). given your criticism of me, I gotta think that you read this passage in full, but I can’t understand what you were getting at…

Yes. You left off the other two links I provided to get a better perspective of what Tertullian wrote and you also left off the ending of my statement where I got to the point. The point being that, yes, Tertullian sounded “Protestant” and his thoughts were not always in synch with Catholic Doctrine…but he ultimately yielded to the Authority. I said of the office, of the Bishops…maybe that’s a stretch, but that is how I read it. Certianly he did so to the Auhtority of the Church…until he split for the heresy of Montanism.

I don’t think you could say I cherry-picked anything because I provided as much Tertullian as anyone would need to form a basic opinion of him. As you point out yourself, many of the quotes of his that I linked to show him in a more protestant light. So, I hardly see where I was only picking and choosing what would make “my side” look better. I was rather objective in linking to all of those rather than just one or two.

I don’t think that you could possibly have a bigger log in your own eye….but the funny thing is that the cherries that you picked are good fruit for the Protestant. Brilliant!

I can see where I’ve cherry-picked in the past, and I’ll concede that I wanted to this time. But as you correctly noted, many of the statements I linked to (of Tertullian) work counter to my point, so I feel I was objective in my links. Regardless, had I intentionally picked out my favorite and only supplied those specific ones…and erronously supplied others that didn’t help my argument, I find it sad that you would fins good fruit in an error. Error is error, regardless of how it paints an argument. I’m not here to win debate points or to look good. I’m here to find the facts and to form my Faith.

b/c they were fallible and were in the practice of adding to the rule of faith…the idea is to reject (or at least not treat as infallible) their additions and to use their works to determine what was believed at the very start. Obviously, the later the ECF, the less useful the ECF will be for determining the original rule of faith.

Okay. But by what did they compare against in deciding what was an “addition” to the rule of Faith, vs. an unfolding of an already in-place Doctrine? Obviously it was not so clear, so what authority did they go to for answers, and where did that authority derive its Authority?

yes he is…and he is rather useful b/c he appears so early
which ones on papal authority?..the one that says all believers have the keys?..or the one that has the power to loose and bind resting with churches with prophets?

Demurrer Against the Heretics 32)

And just so you don’t I picked that out only to support my point, the above pretty much summarizes severl paragraphs from the same work:
catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

no…it is trying to find what Christ and the apostles originally taught ….w/o pretending that the ECFs wouldn’t make innovations or that they were infallible when in groups or when they reached a consensus

Right, but everyone knows the ECF’s were fallible. So if that’s the route the protestors took, why rely on some of them adn not others? Why not go straight to the source that is infallible…teh Church that Christ promised would never fall to the gates of hell and which the Holy Spirit would guide in truth?

and by providing his Spirit to all believers he grew his Church and assured its continued unity through the Spirit…now there could be greater visible unity, but Christ’s prayer wasn’t that all his children would embrace error for the sake of unity.

Who said anyone had to embrace error? The protestors could have addressed the error without going against Christ’s desire for unity. They did not have to split, they chose to leave instead of work to correct the corruption that had filtered in. Why did they leave instead of fix the problems from within so that they could stay true to Christ?

what choice did they have? When the alleged authority is incapable of admitting error, how does one reform it to eliminate the error? One can only point out that the emperor has no clothes. One can’t make the emperor realize his nudity and the solution isn’t to join in and pretend that he isn’t naked.

They had the choice to address the problems without trying to reject the Authority that Christ had placed in the Church. The protestors weren’t ONLY trying ti address problems…they were trying to change doctrine. For example, instead of working to correct the abuse of selling indulgences, they decided to throw out the Sacrament of Penance. To do that, they had to figure a way to make it work where Penecne was not longer necessary…and necessarily that did away with the Sacrament of Baptism (all of this is my opinion, mind you). That’s where they went wrong, where they rejected Christ’s call to unity.

 

[studychristian]

I watched a Martin Luther movie-type documentary on him it sounded like he didn’t feel God at within himself at Church…Doesn’t the book of Jude say don’t follow God-Less men’s teachings, why all the following of Luther?

 

[pablope]

I watched a Martin Luther movie-type documentary on him it sounded like he didn’t feel God at within himself at Church…Doesn’t the book of Jude say don’t follow God-Less men’s teachings, why all the following of Luther?

Yep…and for all their brilliance…of what value is it if it was borne of disobedience?

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

And look at the result of this disobedience? Several thousand denoms…this story tells a lot too…calledtocommunion.com/2012/02/an-opc-pastor-enters-the-catholic-church/

What piqued my interest now was the peculiar thesis of this one book. Bouyer claimed that the Catholic Church is necessary for the full flowering of the principles of the Reformation. Put differently – Protestantism needs Catholicism in order to become all it aspires to be, which, of course, if true means the Protestant Reformation was completely unnecessary. Worse, it means that the Reformation was impossible from the outset because the reformers had unwittingly cut themselves off from the only source that could make their vision fruitful.

Just look at what Radical is doing…cherry picking…the ECFs…choosing those he that agrees with what he believes and rejects those that disagree with him…picking and choosing…(substitute Mohler for Radical)…*How does Mohler deal with this dilemma? He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.*

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pablope,

As I understand the Scriptures, the ultimate penalty from God is to let us have free sway with our own opinions as we spiral downward. The term used is that “…God hardened their heart…” just let them do what they wanted to do and they carved out their own hell. What we are really seeing is the result of a hardened heart.

Here is a quote that I found especially meaningful:

"In the Scriptures various aspects of human anatomy are used to define the whole person, but the most frequently used is heart. The heart is the seat of emotion ( Psalm 25:1 ; Prov 14:10 ; Isa 66:14 ; John 14:1 ; Rom 9:2 ), intelligence ( Prov 16:1 ; Luke 9:47 ), morality ( Psalm 58:2 ; Rom 1:24 ), human choice ( Deut 8:2 ; Luke 21:34 ; Acts 11:23 ), and one’s religious life ( Deut 6:5 ; Jer 31:33 ; Rom 10:9-10 ; Gal 4:6 ). The heart, in effect, is the whole person in all of his or her distinctive human activity as a thinking, planning, willing, feeling, worshiping, socially interacting being. And, of course, when the person is not living according to God’s will, it is the heart that is described as darkened, rebellious, callous, unfeeling, or idolatrous. It is within the heart that God works; hence the human heart may be tender and soft or as hard as stone ( Eze 11:19 ). It is in this context that hardening or hardness of the heart must be understood. The heart represents the total response of a person to life around him or her and to the religious and moral demands of God. Hardness of heart thus describes a negative condition in which the person ignores, spurns, or rejects the gracious offer of God to be a part of his or her life."biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/hardening-hardness-of-heart.html

And, this reality takes many forms and has many expressions. Ahs identified a couple, such as removing references and omitting sections - all in an effort to twist and distort what someone has said because the poster did not agree with them. I think most have to work hard at deceit - but, then it becomes much easier with practice. This facility to distort is really based on the hardened heart.

The good news is that with our free will cooperation with God’s Grace, this hardened heart can be softened. Ezekiel 36:26 gives us much to hope for - here is the chapter, I think it is worth the read: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Ezechiel_36

God bless

Yep…and for all their brilliance…of what value is it if it was borne of disobedience?

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

And look at the result of this disobedience? Several thousand denoms…this story tells a lot too…calledtocommunion.com/2012/02/an-opc-pastor-enters-the-catholic-church/

What piqued my interest now was the peculiar thesis of this one book. Bouyer claimed that the Catholic Church is necessary for the full flowering of the principles of the Reformation. Put differently – Protestantism needs Catholicism in order to become all it aspires to be, which, of course, if true means the Protestant Reformation was completely unnecessary. Worse, it means that the Reformation was impossible from the outset because the reformers had unwittingly cut themselves off from the only source that could make their vision fruitful.

Just look at what Radical is doing…cherry picking…the ECFs…choosing those he that agrees with what he believes and rejects those that disagree with him…picking and choosing…(substitute Mohler for Radical)…How does Mohler deal with this dilemma? He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

 

[Porknpie]

fair enough

he looks at what is available to assess and from there gives the appropriate weight to the various things that are found:

a) are there miracles validating an exceptional authority?

IMHO, I think most Catholics would point to miracles as a strong support for the Catholic church as being institutued as Christ’s church on earth: incorruptible saints, incorruptible Popes, declaration of sainthood(s) including the miracles needed to support the title, appearances by the Virgin Mary including Fatima (Miracle of the Sun in front of 70,000), Akita (tears of blood), Lourdes (countless healings of the sick by water), Padre Pio having the stigmata. Those are a few. Related to b) below, the fruits of all these have all been positive, converting non-believers and strengthening the faith of believers.

b) is there an extraordinary display of the fruit of the Spirit that would be consistent with an extraordinary involvement of the Spirit? (an extraordinary involvement being essential for an exceptional authority) Christ said that his church would be visible and directs that the apostles to make disciples out of all nations. The Catholic church has done just this. It is visible and it is making disciples out of all nations. I can also mention all the social work and causes that the church supports (hospitals, food banks, social services etc). In this regards, there is no comparable organization to the CC.

c) does the entity being examined claim to possess the truth and if so, on what basis?

I don’t think any entity today can validly point to (a) or (b) to a degree that exceeds what other entities can also claim. (c) is a very subjective process…involving, among other things, the way in which the entity interprets the history of its origin, the history of its existence, the history of its doctrine and the interpretation of what it designates as God’s revelation

I believe that there are only two churches that make the claim of infallibility teaching on faith and morals from the time of Christ, Catholic and Orthodox, based on Christ’s words and apostolic succession. .

Hi Radical, appreciate your response. Exceptional and extraordinary are good words to consider and I certainly did not give complete answers but would invite any fellow Catholics in kind to offer their thoughts. Another way of approaching this would be to examine and throw out any church that errors on a moral issue. For example, the SDA’s find forms of contraception to be morally permitted despite scripture saying the opposite and nearly no church believing such until 1930. So what changed in scripture to change the morality of contraception? Morality doesn’t change so I’d throw out any church that believed in contraception, and then look at abortion, euthanasia, premarital sex etc. Trying to do the same on a “Faith” basis would be a bit more difficult… but faith can be difficult. A lot of time is spent on this board discussing “faith” differences and more time should be spent on “moral” differences.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Morality doesn’t change…

Actually, I believe it does. Each person does not have the same moral values and they can only account on that which they have been exposed to.

However, God doesn’t change. Everything else, including the Church does.

God’s goodness and values don’t change. Our human morals however do change and they are different.

This is precisely why, the Church being the center of the body of Christ is responsible to keep us from straying away in our morals and keeping us “safe” in how we are to interpret all these changes. The Church evolves into the World without becoming of the World and while keeping and defending God’s values.

Jesus said it himself: “Why do you call me good? Only the Father is good”.

Peace,

Jose