To live by faith

[Cinette]

Hi Lief,

I am pleased that " that the Church fully accepts the possibility of the need for clarifications of councils."

I would say, however, that no Church Council is always infallible in and of itself; and this applies, in my view, to the Roman Catholic leadership as well.

God bless, Craig

What you are saying is that Jesus left the Church rudderless after the death of the Apostles!

I have never heard of such reasoning! I am coming to the conclusion that you belong to the same group as Justasking4! What else? You are presented with painstakingly prepared presentations with both historic and scriptural support and you just reject them out of hand! “In my opinion” “I do not agree” In my view" I I I my my my -YOU ARE YOUR OWN AUTHORITY - YOU ARE YOUR OWN MAGESTERIUM!

I do not believe that you are being honest here!:sad_yes: :nope: :sad_yes:

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

But the point I am making is that the NT canon was compiled at the very least 200 years after the death of the apostles, so by your criteria, no longer infallible.

If infallibility applied only to the apostles, then the Bible is not infallible and thus cannot really be taken as authority on faith and morals.

Hi Benedictus2,

It was God Himself who infallibly INSPIRED, His inerrant words in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS.

God Himself divinely superintended this whole process; if God wanted to give "infallibilty’'to the utterances of the Apostles THEN could He not have done this?

Cheers, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

I’d also appreciate it if you’d respond to this part of my post, which you haven’t yet responded to:

Jesus prayed that they may be one “as we are one,” or as He is one with the Father. That is visible unity as well as invisible, for He said that whenever anyone looks at Him, they look at the Father, and whatever He says is said by the Father. Therefore the unity between believers is both visible and invisible. Jesus’ unity with His Father was not split into pieces but was complete.

Besides, people only break from visible union with one another when they have doctrinal disagreements. Visible disunion is therefore a symptom of a deeper spiritual malady. There certainly was no spiritual separation, or doctrinal disagreement, between Jesus and His Father.

In addition, I already pointed out from several other passages that visible unity is included in these words. If your belief is correct, that the passage from John doesn’t refer to it, this does not negate the verses I referenced which say it is included.

Good, and I’d like to make a further comment, based on that agreement. But first, would you please respond to the point of that post I wrote? My point was that this passage says the apostles are twelve foundations of the wall of the city of God eternally. For the heavenly city described in that passage is eternal, and its arrangement eternal. Therefore the apostles are permanently, not just temporarily, foundations of the Church with Jesus.

Hi Lief,

This was an excellent post by you and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

You have made some excellent points.

As I’ve told you before - in all my posts I use my own words and express my own thinking. I am not, though, a “fount of all knowledge” and I have never claimed to be.

However, when I am sure about my response I post; when I am “not sure” what I think about a point then I don’t post until I am persuaded in my own mind. I don’t just post for “the sake of saying something.”

This post warrants some serious thinking on my part and I will pray for the Holy Spirit’s leading and help here. I will then come back to you with an answer.

I am sure you will understand. I continue to learn here, as all of us surely should as well. I do not consider that my views are INDEFEASIBLE!

God bless you, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

“Comic Sans MS”]Benedictus made a point to which I was hoping you would answer:

When you come to think that the definitioin of a canon of books was started only by Pope Damasus in the council of Rome in 382 and not finalized until 787, the Apostles were long dead by then.

By your reasoning therefore, those who came up with the canon were no longer infallible.

To say that infallibility rested with the Apostles and not after that means that you do not think the Bible as it is today is infallible because that was established at the very least 200 years after apostolic times.

And if you say that okay, those who defined the canon were infallible but not their successors, how do you determine that. What standard do you use to determine when infallibility was in and when it went out. And who determines that ?

If the deposit of faith was given to the Apostles only for the duration of their lives and the canon of the bible was only compiled and declared inspired in the 4th century, by whose “infallibility” was this performed? Because if the infallibility given to the Apostles was no longer “active” then, according to you, there was no more infallibility and therefore the bible compiled and declared “inspired” by the CC would have been ineffective. This means therefore, that the bible as we know it is a tradition of man. How then would Sola Scriptura be valid?

Where do you get your belief that the Apostles mandate was only valid for the duration of their lives?

Hi Cinette,

I have answered this question, in reply to Benedictus2.

In essence, God infallibly inspired and preserved His WORDS in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS of the scriptures.

In God’s infallible foreknowledge and pre-determination He purposed that He would use the Apostles to achieve this end.

Now that we have God’s full revelation, the FUNCTION of the Apostles in THAT UNIQUE CAPACITY HAS PASSED AWAY.

I do acknowledge that the original Apostles, however, retain their FOUNDATIONAL STATUS IN THE CHURCH TRIUMPHANT.

I believe that this answers your questions and does justice to them.

God bless, Craig

 

[Cinette]

Hi Cinette,

I have answered this question, in reply to Benedictus2.

In essence, God infallibly inspired and preserved His WORDS in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS of the scriptures.

In God’s infallible foreknowledge and pre-determination He purposed that He would use the Apostles to achieve this end.

Now that we have God’s full revelation, the FUNCTION of the Apostles in THAT UNIQUE CAPACITY HAS PASSED AWAY.

I do acknowledge that the original Apostles, however, retain their FOUNDATIONAL STATUS IN THE CHURCH TRIUMPHANT.

I believe that this answers your questions and does justice to them.

God bless, Craig

The apostles were not alive when the manuscripts were completed and compiled so how could they apply their seal of infallibility on the documents that over 200 years later were declared to be authentic and inspired?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

My point exactly! Where does that leave Sola Scriptura?

It makes NO SENSE that the authority and inspiration that Jesus gave to the Apostles would only be for the “duration of their lives”. So the Church Jesus founded would be left without leadership and guidance until the second coming?

*Where is THAT in the Bible?

This post does no justice to my views at all and, in fact, portrays a lack of understanding of them.

The Role of the NEW TESTAMENT PROPHETS AND APOSTLES WAS UNIQUE TO THAT TIME AND ERA - FOR THE BUILDING OF THE CHURCH AND THE COMPLETION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

The unique role of the apostles has now ceased.

Christ has NOT, however, left us without a wise and ordered Church Leadership which remains until He comes again.

The Church is guided today by the Holy Spirit through duly constituted leadership.

Please do not “put words in my mouth” and create “strawmen” in discussing biblical issues.

God bless, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

The apostles were not alive when the manuscripts were completed and compiled so how could they apply their seal of infallibility on the documents that over 200 years later were declared to be authentic and inspired?

Answered in Post 320.

In Christ, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

What you are saying is that Jesus left the Church rudderless after the death of the Apostles!

I have never heard of such reasoning! I am coming to the conclusion that you belong to the same group as Justasking4! What else? You are presented with painstakingly prepared presentations with both historic and scriptural support and you just reject them out of hand! “In my opinion” “I do not agree” In my view" I I I my my my -YOU ARE YOUR OWN AUTHORITY - YOU ARE YOUR OWN MAGESTERIUM!

I do not believe that you are being honest here!:sad_yes: :nope: :sad_yes:

This is not what I believe at all.

Please read the posts.

I have said in my posts to Lief Erikson that I believe in a duly constituted Church leadership.

The church is NOT RUDDERLESS. The Holy Spirit guides the Church today, through proper spiritual Leadership.

Quite frankly, I am getting EXHAUSTED HERE. I know what I believe and I am more than capable in articulating it. It takes TIME to do this. I have only a limited amount of time. I have work and family committments. I am married with children. I cannot have “words put in my mouth like this.”

I am not on this forum to be put “under the hammer” like this. You do need to get your facts straight before making “big statements” about my theological competence.

If this type of approach continues, I will withdraw myself from the forum. I do not need this nonsense.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

FOR LIEF,

Further comments on your Post 301.

Hi Lief,

In your post 301 you made this stunning admission, about the Church Fathers:

"Not everything they said was infallible. They also speculated, some. However, they simultaneously adhered to infallible Sacred Traditions and proclaimed their authority.

I know you don’t believe the views of the Early Church were infallible, but we already agreed that they would have understood better how to interpret the Scripture than we do in our social context. Therefore, when the Early Church wrote (without any serious disagreement except from heretics) that their leaders were appointed by the apostles and that the idea of Sacred Tradition, Magesterium and Papal Infallibility came from the apostles, logically, they would have known much better what they were talking about than we do what we are talking about. Therefore their interpretations must be taken extremely seriously."

Thank you, brother in Christ. This is what I have been saying all along, viz: the Church Fathers were NOT INFALLIBLE…THEY ALSO SPECULATED…

All of this confirms my belief that the early Church Fathers did not comprise or form part of an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM.

God bless, Craig

I don’t see why you think that, frankly. The men who wrote the scriptures also were fallible and capable of making mistakes – except when they were writing Sacred Scripture. In the same way, the Early Church Fathers were capable of making mistakes, except when declaring Sacred Tradition.

The Magesterium is made up of fallible men but ensouled with the infallible Spirit. Fallible men, thinking on their own accord, make mistakes. Fallible men speaking from the Holy Spirit (or writing in it, when penning Scripture) do not. Thus individual bishops thinking on their own make errors, just as the Prophets did, but when the Magesterium collectively declares dogma from the Holy Spirit, it does not make errors, just as the Prophets did not make errors when writing the Holy Spirit.

So . . . I don’t really know where you’re coming from when you say this, honestly. The fallibility of humans does not prevent God from speaking infallibly through them.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Hi Lief,

This was an excellent post from you and it drew my full attention.

You made one statement, though, that I need to get right with you. You wrote:

“The Church today is still fundamentally organic, made up of the true believers who are united with Christ and following Him. It always had a hierarchy and a government, as I pointed out from numerous passages of the New Testament (and you agreed that it had an ecclesiastical hierarchy), so its institutional shape always existed…”

You are “putting words in my mouth” here somewhat. Please go back to my post and you will see that I only agreed that the New Testament taught that there was a duly constituted and ordered leadership that believers were to submit to. That is all I agreed to. I never said that the Church was an INSTITUTION as such.

I never said that there was a HIERARCHY as such.

God bless you, Craig

When you have shepherds and sheep, leaders and followers, you have a hierarchy. That’s what a hierarchy is.

I agreed with you that the Church itself is the “temple of the living God,” not an institution. It is made up of human beings. The institutional elements are the process by which the Church’s government is managed. They are not the Church itself but are the tools of the Church. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Cinette, I am certain Craig is being honest.

Quite frankly, I am getting EXHAUSTED HERE. I know what I believe and I am more than capable in articulating it. It takes TIME to do this. I have only a limited amount of time. I have work and family committments. I am married with children. I cannot have “words put in my mouth like this.”

I am not on this forum to be put “under the hammer” like this. You do need to get your facts straight before making “big statements” about my theological competence.

If this type of approach continues, I will withdraw myself from the forum. I do not need this nonsense.

I know you’re alone responding to everybody right now, and you also want to think through things rather than responding off the top of your head.

I may relax my pressure for a while, as several parts of my upcoming week look pretty busy. Though I have Tuesday off.

I had a wonderful devotional period yesterday, praying the Rosary . I included you in the prayer, Craig! In fact, you were the main reason I did it. It was 2 hours long and filled with such joy and the presence of God and Mary.

Don’t leave the forum! Ack! Take a break if you like, though, by all means. Don’t feel you have to respond to us immediately; take your time and, as you told me over email, let your other responsibilities come first. Plus your health .

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Dear Friends in Christ,

I have decided not to post any more on this forum.

This is not a decision I have taken lightly. I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions here and have appreciated the (name removed by moderator)ut of many, especially Lief Erikson. rawb, and Tom. However, I have found that time demands make it impossible for me to do full justice to my views.

Furthermore, I was never here to promote any set agenda; only to learn in a mature way what Catholics believe. There is a large amount of common ground that I share with Catholics, but there are some differences too.

I feel as though I have gone as far as I want to go with this. I could not convert to Roman Catholicism, because of the reasons I have stated in my posts in this thread.

I do thank you for the fellowship and knowledge gained through these discussions; I feel that I have a greater love and understanding of Catholics - but this is as far as I want to go with this.

I know you will understand my sentiments here.

May God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[Lief_Erikson]

However, when I am sure about my response I post; when I am “not sure” what I think about a point then I don’t post until I am persuaded in my own mind. I don’t just post for “the sake of saying something.”

I really appreciate that. Many people I’ve talked to do “post for the sake of saying something,” and it’s a drag.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Benedictus2,

It was God Himself who infallibly INSPIRED, His inerrant words in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS.

God Himself divinely superintended this whole process; if God wanted to give "infallibilty’'to the utterances of the Apostles THEN could He not have done this?

Cheers, In Christ Craig

But this is exactly my point. If you say that infallibility ended with the death of the apostle, then how do we know for sure that those who came up with the canon were infallibly guided?

To put it in a timeline:

100 A.D. (around) - all apostles have died. INFALLIBILITY CEASES.

382: Pope Damasus gets the ball rolling to establish the cannon. STILL FALLIBLE by your reasoning.

787: Council of Nicea confirms the canon. STILL FALLIBLE by your reasoning.

So now you posit, that if God could have guided the apostles He could have guided the process as well.

That is true, but how do we know for sure when you say that they are already fallible at this stage. Could have guided the process just is not good enough because this is purely speculation which does not have any support at all.

We have to know for sure that He did guide the process.

And if this is the best we can know about the Bible then there really is no point in following it at all because it could or could not be, the Word of God.

You have to remember that there are other Gospels floating around at this stage.

Maybe those that have been left out are the real Gospels and those letters that were not included **could have been **the real deal.

And who determines this? Which body/person/ institution decides that God did guide the establishment of the canon.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

benedictus2:
But this is exactly my point. If you say that infallibility ended with the death of the apostle, then how do we know for sure that those who came up with the canon were infallibly guided?

To put it in a timeline:

100 A.D. (around) - all apostles have died. INFALLIBILITY CEASES.

382: Pope Damasus gets the ball rolling to establish the cannon. STILL FALLIBLE by your reasoning.

787: Council of Nicea confirms the canon. STILL FALLIBLE by your reasoning.

So now you posit, that if God could have guided the apostles He could have guided the process as well.

That is true, but how do we know for sure when you say that they are already fallible at this stage. Could have guided the process just is not good enough because this is purely speculation which does not have any support at all.

We have to know for sure that He did guide the process.

And if this is the best we can know about the Bible then there really is no point in following it at all because it could or could not be, the Word of God.

You have to remember that there are other Gospels floating around at this stage.

Maybe those that have been left out are the real Gospels and those letters that were not included **could have been **the real deal.

And who determines this? Which body/person/ institution decides that God did guide the establishment of the canon.
Very important points.

 

[Snowy]

When I read the Gospels, I get an “overdose” of child-like faith. Then I go on with my life and live by faith by not worrying about tomorrow’s bread and putting myself in the hands of God, basically. Just like any real Protestant, I would guess. I don’t worry about doctrinal punctilios, and if someone hates my Pope it will be his hate that will lead him to Hell, not his lack of proper doctrine. If you love God above all else and your neighbor like yourself, what more can I ask of you? How many of our cradle Catholics would be Catholic if they had been born cradle Baptists?

That said, if you’re an imperfect Christian like the rest of us, I believe that working your way to Heaven through faith and good works rather than just by faith will save you many years in Purgatory. And you have no idea what you’re missing by turning your back on the Virgin Mary.

 

[Snowy]

Sometimes I cannot help but wonder if God put theologians in this world just to test our faith and our patience. Do they really need to figure out whether the Trinity is consubstantiated or subconstantiated in order to love their neighbor? And to start wars over it? I have enough trouble loving my neighbor down the street who insists on educating my musical taste to have time to worry about the nature of God! If he plays the Macarena at full blast one more time I’m going to explode!

 

[twb1621]

Dear Friends in Christ,

I have decided not to post any more on this forum.

This is not a decision I have taken lightly. I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions here and have appreciated the (name removed by moderator)ut of many, especially Lief Erikson. rawb, and Tom. However, I have found that time demands make it impossible for me to do full justice to my views.

Furthermore, I was never here to promote any set agenda; only to learn in a mature way what Catholics believe. There is a large amount of common ground that I share with Catholics, but there are some differences too.

I feel as though I have gone as far as I want to go with this. I could not convert to Roman Catholicism, because of the reasons I have stated in my posts in this thread.

I do thank you for the fellowship and knowledge gained through these discussions; I feel that I have a greater love and understanding of Catholics - but this is as far as I want to go with this.

I know you will understand my sentiments here.

May God bless you, In Christ Craig

.Craig, I believe that you will see this so I am responding to your decision. You have received a great deal of information here in a very short time. It is best for all of us who have been in this discussion with you to remember that we can only provide the information to you and anything else is between you and the Holy Spirit. Sometimes we get a bit over zealous as I say in my signature line but we need to remind ourselves of this at times. I recognize your desires and offer you my prayers that all that you have received will benefit your life. I am sure this is a common desire of all of us and you are welcome to and encouraged to return at any time. Brothers in Christ

 

[guanophore]

I hold to a **semi-pelagian view **of human nature and this, of course, is one area that I share with Roman Catholicism. In other words, humans are ‘depraved’; not “totally depraved” as in Calvinism. The human sinner can make moral choices and is responsible to turn to God; however, the human sinner cannot effect REGENERATION. Only the Holy Spirit can grant EFFICACIOUS GRACE. Craig

Help me understand why you say this.

 

[guanophore]

You say in your post:

“She was redeemed by Christ pre-emptively. She was saved by Christ, but I don’t think we can explain it all that well because we are in linear time. The way they explain it, it is He paid her her debt before it was incurred.”

But how did Christ die for Mary, if she committed no sin? How could Mary be redeemed pre-emptively, if in God’s infallible foreknowledge Mary was without ORIGINAL SIN and committed no sin ie she was sinless? Did Christ die on the Cross for Mary in a way that he did not for all other humans?

God bless you, In Christ Craig

This is a good question. I apologize for diving in so late, but I must say, Craig, your open mindedness and willingness to learn are refreshing.

I think clarity between the concepts of original sin, and personal sin will make the answer to your question clear. Humans were not created sinful. God created Adam and Eve with free will, and they chose to disobey Him. The penalty of their choice falls upon all of us who are born after them. This death penalty is our inheritance as children of Adam. Only grace can save us from this, which is why Jesus says that those who don’t believe in Him are condemned already. We are already under a death sentence. Jesus saved Mary from that death sentence by His Grace before she was born. The Catholic Church teaches that John the Baptist was also saved before birth. When Mary came to Elizabeth, the Spirit filled John, and he leaped in her womb. He was filled with the spirit “from His mother’s womb”. This tells us that the recipient of salvation does not necesarily have to make a personal profession of faith.