N
Non_Serviam
Guest
By Jove, I think he’s got it!
- Status
A
Angels_Unaware
Guest
And where is that truth? You cannot see the Spirit. Where is it? If you deny that it is in the Church because you do not trust the Church has been guided by the Spirit, which is the point of everything you’ve said prior to the above quote, then what do you have left?
What you have left is “I believe that the Church was infallible in the declaration of the canon, but never since. Anything that is the Word of God was written down, and then by a singular act of supernatural guiding, the canon was established, and that’s the end.”
If you do that, then you ignore the points I made before that the Scriptures were written *secondarily *to the embodiment of the New Covenant in Jesus’ life and resurrection, and in the guidance of the apostles.
IF you say that it is in the Scriptures, THEN you must acknowledge that the Scriptures were rendered infallible by the Church. You are ignoring this point, and its really the whole of the point. You cannot clearly separate out the Church from the Scriptures. The New Covenant is 3-dimensional.
What’s more, your problem with the Magisterium NOW would be your problem with the canon if you were alive in 385 AD. You would be asking how these people can be trusted to really tell us what God’s word is.
You know the answer to this question when it pertains to Scripture. The Church came to a consensus over centuries as it developed, and then was formally declared by Church council at the close of the 4th century. The canon was officially closed in 405 AD when the pope was asked for a definitive canon in a letter.
When it pertains to Sacred Tradition, we are trusting the historic practice of the Church as a whole. Your question does not apply to a question about the entire context of how faith has been practiced. We aren’t asking, when does this apostle’s words become infallible. We are asking, when does the Church decide to create infallible dogma to explain a historic practice of the faith, and how that practice further elucidates core Christianity.
It is the development of dogma, which are principles, that are directly induced from the current body of knowledge.
If you are a Protestant, you accept Sacred Tradition if you accept the Holy Trinity.
Or is the Trinity a gnostic idea?
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Your argument would be correct if God doesn’t exist.
But if God dose exist - and I know He dose - than He must guide the Church and use His omnipotence to secure her infallibility (as I explained in posts #123, 124, 132), and so, the Catholic Church is not making up truths and realities but guarding the revelation of God from harm and sharing it with the world.
The truth of the Catholic Church can be discovered by many means: looking at the sucession of Popes which go back to Peter, at the miracles which testify to her divine origin, at the Church Fathers who belonged to the Catholic Church, and at the Scriptures which do paint a picture of the Church, though using the language of that time, not of our time (for example, “full of grace”, “elect”, etc.)
One can argue all day and all night over the Scriptures, but when it comes to history, it is either acceptance or denial of the truth. Many doubt, few accept. Nonetheless, here is some evidence of the Catholic Church being the Church of Christ:
In Rome is a list of all the Popes
I discussed various miracles here
The Fathers speak on Catholicism
You can verify what the Fathers say by checking out their writings here
Now, if you do accept that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, then you must accept her authority as being the authority of the Lord.
The Church is a historical Church, its authority is not man-made but comes from Jesus Christ, and she herself comes from Him, and the Pope down through history to the Apostle Peter.
P
PJM
Guest
Actually BOTH
As you know well, neither doctrine or dogma’s can be denied. And this is no exception to that rule.
However, a more full and yes, even a better understanding is possible. Boniface was a long time ago.Wasn’t Bonaface before the Protestant revolution?
Vatican II was a Universal Council, with a “pastoral mandate.” Meaning it was not conveyed to announce new Doctrines or Dogma’s.
It’s primary purpose was to bring up to date, and to make evident truths aleady known and accepted, in the Modern World.
So both are right, and vatican II is now more curent and correct:tiphat:
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
I believe the Spirit is in the Church-why do you say that when you believe it is in the Magisterium? I believe the Spirit is leading the whole church to truth-Jesus Christ who is Truth, while you believe the some possess Truth and the others can only follow them in docility. Since the Apostles realized they could be mistaken they never limited the action of the spirit in the church this way-Paul even said he could become a spiritual shipwreck-does that sound like someone claiming infallibility?
Paul said follow me as I follow Christ-if he stops following the Spirit’s leading as some of the early church leaders did-stop following him.
How does your proposed apostolic infallibility take into account the documented mistakes of the Apostles?
No-I believe that God ensured His Word endured. How do you propose He preserved it during the time of the Jews? Are you saying the Jewish priesthood was infallible? If God preserved the OT without an infallible body, why does He suddenly need one now?
The Catholic church has no good answer to that question.
Yes, individuals taught God’s Truth orally, and then God moved on them or others to record that truth to preserve it. Moses wasn’t infallible-Israel wasn’t infallible. Why would Peter or the New Israel be infallible?
You’ve said a lot about how it must be this way, yet God gives examples of the Old Covenant and the Apostles making mistakes both of which negate any must that you offer. Can you show propositionally that the Apostles or the earliest church fathers thought that there was an infallible Magisterium?
You make it sound as if everyone was on pins and needles not daring to read any of these letters until a council had pronounced on them-the local assemblies already knew they were inspired and used them as such. Look at Justin Martyr:
Justin Martyr said:
A good historian, an iffy theologian
But then he wasn’t part of the Magisterium At this time they were aware of the role of the Gospels-to instruct them in Christ’s teachings and to be the foundation of any teaching by the leadership-200 years before any council!
Answer me this and I’ll answer your last question:It is the development of dogma, which are principles, that are directly induced from the current body of knowledge.
If you are a Protestant, you accept Sacred Tradition if you accept the Holy Trinity.
Or is the Trinity a gnostic idea?
Were the 3000 added to the church and did they have their sins remitted on the Day of Pentecost, even though Peter didn’t teach on the Trinity?
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
“More current”-for a church that claims its teaching goes back to the Apostles I would think this wouldn’t be a good thing-the same way “Modernism” was condemned.Actually BOTH
As you know well, neither doctrine or dogma’s can be denied. And this is no exception to that rule.
However, a more full and yes, even a better understanding is possible. Boniface was a long time ago.Wasn’t Bonaface before the Protestant revolution?
Vatican II was a Universal Council, with a “pastoral mandate.” Meaning it was not conveyed to announce new Doctrines or Dogma’s.
It’s primary purpose was to bring up to date, and to make evident truths aleady known and accepted, in the Modern World.
So both are right, and vatican II is now more curent and correct:tiphat:
“More correct” so Boniface is less correct than you and the “more current” teaching of the Magisterium?
Methinks you are caught in a bit of doublethink, PJM-the picket fence gets uncomfortable when you try to straddle it for extended periods of time.
I’ll be interested to see your next reply.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hi NS,
Sorry for the delay. I haven’t been on this thread (or any other thread) all day, till now.
First let me explain why I only quoted one statement from Unam Sanctum, to wit:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
The reason is that this is the only statement in Unam Sanctum that is considered a candidate for infallibility. Hence, all the other statements in Unam Sanctum are ‘open to criticism’ in a way that this particular statement is not.
Now, you claim that this statement is contradicted by the CCC when it says:
Thanks for the link to the article from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. It comes as no surprise to me that there are differences between the p.o.v. advanced there (which, btw, is still adamantly maintained by certain so-called “Catholic traditionalist” groups) and the p.o.v. that can be found in e.g. the Catechism.
(This post is, I think, not entirely irrelevant to the point. If I may say so.)
Sorry for the delay. I haven’t been on this thread (or any other thread) all day, till now.
First let me explain why I only quoted one statement from Unam Sanctum, to wit:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
The reason is that this is the only statement in Unam Sanctum that is considered a candidate for infallibility. Hence, all the other statements in Unam Sanctum are ‘open to criticism’ in a way that this particular statement is not.
Now, you claim that this statement is contradicted by the CCC when it says:
But that doesn’t contradict Unam Sanctum – or, at least, it does not contradict that one specific statement from Unam Sanctum. If the CCC said “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know … may achieve eternal salvation but are not subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff”, then that definitely would be a contradiction. But it doesn’t say that, but simply “… may achieve eternal salvation.” (period)
Thanks for the link to the article from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. It comes as no surprise to me that there are differences between the p.o.v. advanced there (which, btw, is still adamantly maintained by certain so-called “Catholic traditionalist” groups) and the p.o.v. that can be found in e.g. the Catechism.
(This post is, I think, not entirely irrelevant to the point. If I may say so.
)
P
Peter_J
Guest
P
Peter_J
Guest
P
Peter_J
Guest
Thanks!
A
Angels_Unaware
Guest
I have enjoyed talking to you, so it is unfortunate that you have resorted to telling me what I believe, and forgetting that I’ve already answered many of these questions. I am getting the sense that we are coming now to a personal block. I enjoy explaining what I believe, though, which I think you might be suprised to know is quite a bit more complex than what you assume. Anyway, I will try to explain again. The simplest way to state it is that the Truth is contained first in people, and reflected in Scripture, Tradition, dogma, etc., that can be intellectually digested and understood. So, far from Truth being the exclusive purview of an elite few, Truth is fully accessible to all in its full capacity. Anyone and everyone can reflect and write as a Catholic theologian. Anyone can pursue a Catholic mystical path. There is no limitation on laiety in those capacities. When it comes to determining what creative processes, intellectual thoughts, and mystical experiences that occur in the Church are Nihil Obstat, or deemed worthy of belief, then those are authoritatively determined. When it comes to an ex-cathedra statement of a council or a pope, those are taken with great care and consideration, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit is sought. That is not being docilely led by a dictator. That process is the alternative to schism, and ensures a coherent body of Christian theology. You may not agree, for whatever reason, but surely being an intelligent and reasonable person, you by now understand the Catholic position.
Quite simply, the boundaries that are put in place in the world allow people to find the security they need to go deeper spiritually than they would without structure. Perhaps you are one that does not need the roots and structure of the Catholic tradition to fully follow God. Few people, though, are able to pursue God fully without the boundaries of their theology to ground them. Without the Church, we would certainly have schism as a result of the many marian appartions, and claims of demon possession. The Church doesn’t act rashly when it declares something authentically orthodox, from God, or supernatural.
I’ve already answered this question. You should really pose your question to the St. Augustine, since it was a Church council under his direction that declared the apostles infallible in their NT letters. God speaks and it is agreed upon by others that are gathered together in His name that He has spoken. That’s how it works for everyone who accepts the Bible as God’s word. Or, perhaps your point was how do we know that the Church has remained an oracle of God? How do we know the Church is not corrupt? Well, that’s a good question for you, and it involves systematically investigating whether or not Catholic teaching is actually contrary to Scripture and to Sacred Tradition. Or just Scripture. That would work, too. There are other threads on those issues. I think one active one right now, though I haven’t read it.
That’s an interesting question for you. Deuteronomy 4:2 says, Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Perhaps books added after Deuteronomy should be considered extra-Biblical.
Perhaps that is another question for St. Augustine, since his council rendered Peter infallible in I Peter.
I don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t recall saying that. I did say that the revelation of God in the NT has progressed from being textually/law oriented to being people oriented.
Well, first, why? Second, the Magisterium teaches on what has already been rendered infallible by Scripture and Tradition. It only rarely makes any new pronouncements of infallibility, which are always made in response to a need, and always are deduced from what is already rendered infallible. So, this idea that there is a group that somehow thinks they’re super-human in everything they say is just false. But again, that has already been explained in great detail.
A
Angels_Unaware
Guest
{CONTINUED POST}
But you didn’t respond to that: to what I actually said.
But, you did go right over the point I made about the Trinity. Remember, you asked me to show you what the process of defining infallible Tradition looked like. I told you it was the same process that defined the Trinity, which you accept.
I most certainly have not. Are you sure you’re reading me? What I did say was that the only reason why they were already considered infallible was by consensus of the Church. There wasn’t a Giddeon seal on 50 bound books, of course. That common knowledge you are talking about comes from the Church, not from the books.
But you didn’t respond to that: to what I actually said.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Are you quoting something from Acts when many were added to the Church? If so, what does that have to do with the Trinity? Nobody really understands the Trinity to begin with, so of course, nobody needs to know about it to be baptized and enter the church. That’s why we baptize babies who don’t understand any theology.
But, you did go right over the point I made about the Trinity. Remember, you asked me to show you what the process of defining infallible Tradition looked like. I told you it was the same process that defined the Trinity, which you accept.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not necessarily going in order here … I just read your post on the “Apostasy vs. Apostolic Succession” thread.
I think you make some valid points, both on that thread and on this one, but I don’t believe they show what you think they show. Specifically, I see your arguments (the ones that are not-entirely-off-base) as showing that abuse can happen (and has happened), rather than showing that there’s something intrinsically wrong with the Catholic Church.
I think you make some valid points, both on that thread and on this one, but I don’t believe they show what you think they show. Specifically, I see your arguments (the ones that are not-entirely-off-base) as showing that abuse can happen (and has happened), rather than showing that there’s something intrinsically wrong with the Catholic Church.
I agree.Non_Serviam said:
Not trying to be difficult here, but I don’t know which Pope Victor you’re talking about.Non_Serviam said:
E
Eucharisted
Guest
P
Peter_J
Guest
I think you’re reading more into my comment than I intended. I was not suggesting that the only Catholics you should quote are the members of the Magisterium (i.e. the Bishops). As a matter of fact, I think I was the one who first mentioned Scott Hahn, who isn’t a Bishop (or a Priest for that matter).
But I don’t attach much weight to just “I heard a Catholic say Y”. I once heard a Protestant ask someone: How can you be a Christian and not know who Jack Chick is? That Protestant is a “living epistle” of experience within Protestantism, correct? And yet (somehow) I don’t think it would be fair for me to draw conclusions about Protestantism as a whole, based on that one person’s attitude.
Well, you might think of it this way: if you’ve heard one Catholic say Y, that still leaves 999,999,999 Catholics that you haven’t heard say Y.As James said, it isn’t just right doctrine, but also right action. As someone on the thread said, God’s Word written in men’s hearts. If a certain belief of the church appears to be regularly producing a result in Catholics, the that belief bears a part of the responsibility for those results. Think of it as sociological theology.
… Speaking of Dr. Hahn brings me to something else I’ve been meaning to get to: Ch 5 of Scott and Kimberly Hahn’s book Rome Sweet Home, and the question of “a fallible collection of infallible documents”.
First let me say that you’re probably going to be disappointed if you’re looking for a straight theological treatment. Hahn mostly just reports what was said in his discussion with Dr. Gerstner (in keeping with the style of the book as a whole).
With that in mind, I don’t have any special power of insight into Dr. Hahn’s mind but here’s my own take on it: The question isn’t just whether “a fallible collection of infallible documents” is right or not (keep in mind that we certainly did have “a fallible collection of infallible documents” up until the year 393 or so); the point, I think, is that Dr. Hahn as a Protestant (albeit one who was pretty close to “poping”) found “a fallible collection of infallible documents” to be unsatisfactory. For me, reading Rome Sweet Home as a Catholic, I don’t have the same kind of problem with the possibility of “a fallible collection of infallible documents”, simply because Catholics don’t compartmentalize “fallible” and “infallible” the way that Protestants do.
P
PJM
Guest
Friend no need to be confussed. Come out of the shadows of doubt, into the light of TRUTH, provied by Christ Himself.=Non Serviam;4817114]“More current”-for a church that claims its teaching goes back to the Apostles I would think this wouldn’t be a good thing-the same way “Modernism” was condemned.
Our “claims” on Aplostolic teaching and direct Papal Succession, are historically proveable. Nouthing hidden that you can’t prove for yourself.
[QUPTE]“More correct” so Boniface is less correct than you and the “more current” teaching of the Magisterium?
Yep, I’ll agree with you on that statement. And here I thought that you didn’t understand what I was sharing?
Friend, I’m a IPRC… informed, practcing, Roman, Catholic. I have a moral obligation to be charitable. And yes, current understanding, (when approved by The Church) and simple logic and necessity, cause CURRENT TEACHING to supercede “out-dated” thinking.The Church LIVES! We just keep getting better!
Hold that thought if you wish, but your wrongMethinks you are caught in a bit of doublethink, PJM-the picket fence gets uncomfortable when you try to straddle it for extended periods of time.
I’m in front of the fence, not on it.And I your’s dear friend:thumbsup:
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
My apologies for being unable to reply sooner-some things came up in real life that needed to be addressed.
I agree that we seem to be coming to an impasse-I’m finding as well that beliefs are being attributed to me and that when I point out what I consider to be the natural outcomes of certain beliefs that rather than provide an alternate outcome-I’m simply told they are wrong or false. There are things about Catholicism that I am less than comfortable with-if I am misunderstanding them, I’d like to have my ideas clarified, if my understanding is in fact correct, then even if the conclusions are impolitic, I need to state them as why I have a problem with things.
If we are going to continue discussion we probably need to pare down to one or two specific points and address those until we reach a conclusion or agree to disagree as our present method hasn’t been resolving questions but simply adding more to the pile.
That said, I’ve appreciated your (name removed by moderator)ut and a number of the things you’ve written have given me cause for thought. Thanks.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
I certainly can’t fault you for taking a day to reply when I had to take much longer.Hi NS,
Sorry for the delay. I haven’t been on this thread (or any other thread) all day, till now.
First let me explain why I only quoted one statement from Unam Sanctum, to wit:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
The reason is that this is the only statement in Unam Sanctum that is considered a candidate for infallibility. Hence, all the other statements in Unam Sanctum are ‘open to criticism’ in a way that this particular statement is not.
Now, you claim that this statement is contradicted by the CCC when it says:
But that doesn’t contradict Unam Sanctum – or, at least, it does not contradict that one specific statement from Unam Sanctum. If the CCC said “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know … may achieve eternal salvation but are not subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff”, then that definitely would be a contradiction. But it doesn’t say that, but simply “… may achieve eternal salvation.” (period)
Thanks for the link to the article from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. It comes as no surprise to me that there are differences between the p.o.v. advanced there (which, btw, is still adamantly maintained by certain so-called “Catholic traditionalist” groups) and the p.o.v. that can be found in e.g. the Catechism.
(This post is, I think, not entirely irrelevant to the point. If I may say so.
I must admit that I’m impressed that you consider most of Unum Sanctam “open to criticism” many Catholics wouldn’t make that concession. My view of the bull differs slightly from yours in the sense that I feel the possibly dogmatic statement is simply a summary of all the Pope has said in the rest of the document.
Why it seems quite clear that the statement contradicts the CCC is that the CCC specifically makes room in the salvific tent for the Orthodox after Unum Sanctam has made it specifically clear that they are outside it and the door is zipped shut because they have not submitted to Papal authority. The “be subject to” presupposes an active submission on the part of “every human creature” if you consult the Latin grammar (the 1913 article also addresses this if Latin grammar isn’t your thing)
The Pope makes this explicit in his example of “the Greeks”.So if we give the “unknowing” a pass on the submission requirement (which Unum Sanctam doesn’t explicitly do), that still leaves the pesky Greeks he singled out that the CCC treats differently. Still a contradiction between a possibly infallible statement in a papal document and the CCC.
Which takes us back to our question of the authority that Catholicism claims for itself.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
Nice to see we have some points of agreementNot necessarily going in order here … I just read your post on the “Apostasy vs. Apostolic Succession” thread.
I think you make some valid points, both on that thread and on this one, but I don’t believe they show what you think they show. Specifically, I see your arguments (the ones that are not-entirely-off-base) as showing that abuse can happen (and has happened), rather than showing that there’s something intrinsically wrong with the Catholic Church.
I agree.
Not trying to be difficult here, but I don’t know which Pope Victor you’re talking about.
Victor I-I’ll give you the 1913 view of him before I toss in my 2 cents
newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm
and the Easter controversy newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm
(as a forewarning, I don’t care for Victor and certainly don’t consider him a saint, so my view of his differs substantially)
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
I would say that I include examples of Catholics doing what I’m discussing in order to avoid the charge that I’m creating straw men or purely hypothetical situations as some charge (there I go againI think you’re reading more into my comment than I intended. I was not suggesting that the only Catholics you should quote are the members of the Magisterium (i.e. the Bishops). As a matter of fact, I think I was the one who first mentioned Scott Hahn, who isn’t a Bishop (or a Priest for that matter).
But I don’t attach much weight to just “I heard a Catholic say Y”. I once heard a Protestant ask someone: How can you be a Christian and not know who Jack Chick is? That Protestant is a “living epistle” of experience within Protestantism, correct? And yet (somehow) I don’t think it would be fair for me to draw conclusions about Protestantism as a whole, based on that one person’s attitude.
Well, you might think of it this way: if you’ve heard one Catholic say Y, that still leaves 999,999,999 Catholics that you haven’t heard say Y.
… Speaking of Dr. Hahn brings me to something else I’ve been meaning to get to: Ch 5 of Scott and Kimberly Hahn’s book Rome Sweet Home, and the question of “a fallible collection of infallible documents”.
First let me say that you’re probably going to be disappointed if you’re looking for a straight theological treatment. Hahn mostly just reports what was said in his discussion with Dr. Gerstner (in keeping with the style of the book as a whole).
With that in mind, I don’t have any special power of insight into Dr. Hahn’s mind but here’s my own take on it: The question isn’t just whether “a fallible collection of infallible documents” is right or not (keep in mind that we certainly did have “a fallible collection of infallible documents” up until the year 393 or so); the point, I think, is that Dr. Hahn as a Protestant (albeit one who was pretty close to “poping”) found “a fallible collection of infallible documents” to be unsatisfactory. For me, reading Rome Sweet Home as a Catholic, I don’t have the same kind of problem with the possibility of “a fallible collection of infallible documents”, simply because Catholics don’t compartmentalize “fallible” and “infallible” the way that Protestants do.
)I am not saying that if one or more Catholics says or does something that it becomes the official teaching of the church. I am saying that in some cases the Church needs to recognize that its words or actions have had causitive effects on its members.
I don’t accept the ecclesiology put forth by some on CAF the constantly redefines the Church from sentence to sentence to suit what the writer’s current needs are. Stating “the church is over a billion members” and then stating “the church teaches” and then if an example of one of those teachers is given where they’ve erred “oh that’s him, not the Church” one finally ends up with a church with no members to protect its purity.
As for the Hahn comments-Rome Sweet Home is a book I’ve read a number of times-it’s very well written and the story is engaging. That said, while I find there is a great deal of emotional struggle to the story, I find the intellectual struggle somewhat less rigourous.
Hahn very early in the narrative accepts the Catholic intellectual framework for the discussion of the question of authority. That and some emotional experiences with the Rosary and Mass seem to have been the catalyst for his conversion. The question of the Orthodox vs Catholic view of authority in the early church is almost completely glossed over in his account.
As to the specific discussion with Gerstner-the evidence for the canon is much like the spiral argument for authority that has been proposed in this thread by some Catholics. There was a good deal of historical evidence regarding the authorship of the NT books that the various local assemblies drew on in choosing which they would read-I therefore trust the local assemblies’ comments as historical data rather than infallible pronouncement. On that basis as well as a belief in God preserving His Word (funny no Catholic has picked up my argument asking them how the OT was preserved for the Jews without an infallible authority
) I accept that what has come to me is God’s Word. F. F. Bruce’s The Canon is probably one of the best books on this topic.Thoughts?
- Status