That’s good. I think that any Evangelical who points the finger at the Catholic Church would find three of his own fingers pointing back at himself or the Evangelical Churches. There is, sad to say, a great deal of heresy seen on TV by pastors claiming to be teachers appointed by God. I’m just wondering whether some authorities in the Catholic Church is subject to the same lack of moral judgment as some authorities in the Evangelical churches.
Perhaps you are right. But let’s think it through to be sure. First question: Do you think a cause is the same thing as it’s effect? or do you think (as i do) that the thing caused cannot possibly be the same as that which causes it?
OK, let’s imagine i’m all alone, except for my friend Wilson the Volleyball, on a deserted island. You stop me if you think anything i say sounds unreasonable.I honestly don’t think you’d even get started. After reading a few pages you’d say, 'Where in the #### did these guys get this stuff and go play volleyball.I don’t think the concepts would even exist on the palette of ideas available for human consideration today if not for the revelation of Christ at the beginning and then the hammering out and carrying and spreading of these doctrines down through the centuries.
I believe that we’re saved in community and that the faith and testimonies of millions of people over the centuries are part and parcel the reason why we 1) even have the book 2) we continue to take Christianity seriously. No, I don’t believe we’d hammer out the doctrines we have today based on scripture alone. We may discern the voice of God in that book-I believe that many would-but much of the specifics of His revelation and will would be quite hazy. Today, we never read the bible in isolation or the privacy of our own minds. The (name removed by moderator)ut of 2 millennia of theology including that of the Reformers up to this day is all back in there somewhere offering its notions.
I didn’t ask what you believed. I asked what was wrong with Soc’s thinking process thus far, other than the fact that he is having a dialog with a volleyball.
The desire of the islander to know is a proper response to our innate need for truth-answers to the questions of our existence, etc, and the logic isn’t bad but would a person even seriously consider the claims in the bible to begin with if not for the ones who initially spread the word, facing martyrdom, and expanded its influence throughout the world, along with the rest of us who continue to believe in and spread the faith? If many others around you didn’t already take the message seriously, could you? For that matter, if not for the Jewish faith and its initial revelation of God on the pages of history rather than the pages of a book only, would we even have a sufficient concept of God from which to consider the idea of His fathering a child-a pretty strange concept to begin with no matter the perspective we look from. Would we take seriously claims of death and resurrections? I tend to doubt it. And remember that by the 4th century it looked like the whole world would become Arian and even after the Church denounced it and produced the doctrine of the Trinity at Nicea. much of the world remained Arian for quite some time.I didn’t ask what you believed. I asked what was wrong with Soc’s thinking process thus far, other than the fact that he is having a dialog with a volleyball.
Yes, extremely good point! No, i don’t think one would believe the gospel accounts of the Bible any more than one would believe the stories of Hercules, the son of Zeus. It’s the context of ancient history that gives the Bible authenticity.
Well, an Evangelical pastor to whom i used to listen on the radio by the name of Steve Brown used to quote Mother Teresa as saying, “Once you see truth, you can’t unsee it!” And the same pastor also frequently said, “The truth is still the truth, even if no one believes it. And a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.” And even if it is true that most so-called Christians in the 4th century believed as the Jehovah’s Witnesses do today, i’m sure there would be a minority who read the Bibles themselves and came to a different conclusion. The biblical text is simply to clear on the teaching that Jesus is God that i’m convinced that anyone reading it carefully, and thoughtfully, and with an open mind, would not come to any other conclusion.
I don’t think the entire bible is ambiguous, just difficult enough to understand that we need help, not only from the Magisterium but also from the sensus fidelium, the sense of the faithful, an understanding of the faith which progressively develops within a believer over time and contributes to the existence and circulation of that faith. The asking, seeking, and knocking remain our part to do, but we’re not spoon fed anymore than a person who’s hearing the word preached from a non-Catholic pulpit, Sunday school, or book of theology. I have to stress that, while we gain nothing until we approach God with child-like openness and humility, for an adult, the Catholic faith has to “take hold”-he can’t force himself to believe but rather must come into agreement with the teachings in mature fashion or else it’s not real faith at all.
Dear Soc,P7:
Yes, i think i understand what you are saying. But at the moment, i’m more interested in why you believe than what you believe. You said, a post or three ago, that the reason why you believe Christ gave the Keys only to Peter was because He was speaking only to Peter. Yet Christ was also speaking only to Peter when He gave him the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 16. Binding and loosing, you now tell me, belongs not only to Peter, but to all of the Apostles. So the fact that Jesus was speaking only to Peter in Matthew 16 does not demonstrate that only Peter could bind and loose. Why, then, do you still think that Christ speaking only to Peter is a good reason to believe that only Peter had the Keys? If binding and loosing belong to all, the Keys must belong to all, too. Or do you have another reason to believe only Peter received the keys?
in answering your question about binding and loosing I tried to carefully consider Matthew 18 as well as Matthew 16.the scriptural datum is that the “binding and loosing” power is granted to the group of the Apostles and to the person of Peter.
:The evangelicals that you listen to are selectively reading 1Corinthians.
I think the effect is the same, however you describe it. To be saved, you must have faith and do good works. If you don’t do good works, you haven’t been saved. These statements mean the same thing to me, because they have the same results
FL
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
And i’m certain some ambiguities in Sacred Scripture are not merely apparent, but very real. The Real Presence of Christ is such a real ambiguity. The real meaning of the rock on which Christ said He would build His church is another. I think you agree. And i think i agree that i need an authority to show me which of the alternate interpretations of Christ’s words is the true interpretation.
FL
There are only three ways one can find something one reads:
- ]Ambiguous]Vague*]Clear
Are you saying the every doctrinal teaching in the Bible is either (1) or (2) and that nothing in the Bible is (3), and so an authority is required to understand the truth about these doctrines? Or do you think that some doctrinal teachings in the Bible are believed to be (3), but many who find them to be (3) actually are deceived (for they misunderstand), and so they need an authority to show them their deception?
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”
(Matthew 18:1-4)
I think Jesus is speaking of having a child-like attitude (one of trust in God) rather than a child-like intelligence (one lacking in sound reason). Perhaps you agree?
And i’m certain some ambiguities in Sacred Scripture are not merely apparent, but very real. The Real Presence of Christ is such a real ambiguity. The real meaning of the rock on which Christ said He would build His church is another. I think you agree. And i think i agree that i need an authority to show me which of the alternate interpretations of Christ’s words is the true interpretation.
I’d very much like to determine if the Catholic Church is that authority in which i should trust. Maybe this is the key that will unlock the mystery for me: Can you define for me what makes an authority a trustworthy one? What are the attributes, or qualities, of an authority i can trust?
Perhaps this will help you follow me so that you might be better prepared to show me any errors in logic i’ve made:
Regarding moral standing, i think we’ve demonstrated that today there is both good and bad on each side of the isle (Catholic or non-Catholic). Neither has a monopoly as a moral authority, for hypocrisy infects both, to some extent.
I’d be interested in looking at this, next. For this seems to be the strongest argument thus far for the Catholic view.
I’d also ask, “Can any of the Early Church Fathers claim that?” Can you demonstrate how to make the connection from Peter to his successors? It appears the Keys were given to him, or to him and the other Apostles, but i don’t see where Christ said He gave the same Keys to those who succeeded them.
We are talking about the founders now. St. Peter and his fellow Apostles, vs the founders fo the varous non-Catholic Christian sects. There really is no comparison in their relative moral authority, now is there?
The continuity of truth is always a strong argument for the Catholic views
When he gave the keys to Peter, it was natural for him to pass them on when he died, Does it make any sense at all for the Church to have been only commissioned for the life of St. Peter.
Agreed. And is there any comparison between Peter and the other Apostles and the Early Church Fathers? There really is no comparison, is there?
Perhaps you are correct. That remains for you to know, and for me to find out. Please tell me how you know.
I suppose that would depend on what God’s role for Peter was. If His role for Peter was that He would be an example for others to follow (as Abraham was an example for Jewish people to follow) then perhaps it does make sense. I suppose it would also depend on what the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are. What do you think is the meaning of the Key metaphor Jesus used?
No, nor does there need to be.
Follow the doctrinal thread from Scripture through the ECFs through the various councils up to the present. You can do that most easily by picking a particular doctrine and tracing back its history. The Catholic encyclopedia is a good resource because it will point you to the applicable writings for you to inspect on your own.
Haven’t we been through this in the previous thread of 1000+ posts. Peter and the church’s responsibility includes the guardianship of the truths of salvation and the administration of the life giving sacraments. It would make no sense for these things to stop abruptly after Peter’s death. That would have put Nero in control of the destiny of salvation, by giving him the opportunity to have Peter martyred and thus ending the church’s authority. As it is, the authority continued on through Peter’s successors. The Church’s role can not be stopped through human death.
Dear Soc,
thanks for the exposition.we know the gold star is regularly given to one pupil after another, not many at the same time and /orPetie was charged by the teacher to take care of the other pupils, including those with A+, if the teacher were to leave.......