What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

Nah, it wasn’t a financial thing. It was an effort to avoid what ended up happening…the splintering and re-splintering of Christianity with conflicting and contradictory interpretations.

In Christ,
Nancy

Sorry, I happen to think their motives were far from pure. Given the historical facts of the Catholic Church and their role in the world - especially in the political realm - the actions have spoken louder than any words. Of course, you know I mean no disrespect, but that is my opinion based on the historical records.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

Disagreements happen. They happened in Acts 15. The difference between Catholics and Protestants in this regard is that Catholic have an authority to whom they can appeal for assurance that there is no error being taught. Protestants are each, individually, their own authorities so truth becomes whatever the individual believes it is.

Disagreements within sects aren’t the problem. It’s the disagreement among sects that is. Please see post # 48.

In Christ,
Nancy

Having an “authority” to whom you can appeal does not equal truth. You can appeal to the authority, but if the authority is corrupt - what good does your appeal for assurance of error do you? This is the problem. We are the only ones responsible for our own souls - we all have individual responsibility for our own lives. I trust myself rather than a complete stranger.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Having an “authority” to whom you can appeal does not equal truth. You can appeal to the authority, but if the authority is corrupt - what good does your appeal for assurance of error do you? This is the problem. We are the only ones responsible for our own souls - we all have individual responsibility for our own lives. I trust myself rather than a complete stranger.

Jesus did not promise his Church that he would keep its members sinless. In fact, he specifically told his church, “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!” (Luke 17:1). And, sure enough, we see in the New Testament many rebukes to sin delivered to various Christians and even to elders in the Church and apostles (including Peter himself [Galatians 2:11]). This being so, the Church has always had to face the reality that she is a communion of sinners before she is a communion of saints. In addition to this, Jesus warns us (in the parable of the wheat and the tares) that the good wheat grows along with the weeds until the end of time and (in the parable of the net) that the bad fish as well as the good get caught in the Church and are not sorted out till the end of time (see Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43; 47-50). So the reality is not that the Church “became corrupt”. The reality is that the Church is a community of sinners that is slowly being made holy and which must always, in this world, struggle against the effects of sin in her members. It is precisely because we can only win this struggle with the help of Jesus that he promised to be with the Church till the end.

-Mark Shea

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Given the historical facts of the Catholic Church and their role in the world - especially in the political realm - the actions have spoken louder than any words. Of course, you know I mean no disrespect, but that is my opinion based on the historical records.

The Protestant Inquisition - “Reformation” Intolerance and Persecution

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM

 

[Church_Militant]

ahimsaman72:

Having an “authority” to whom you can appeal does not equal truth. You can appeal to the authority, but if the authority is corrupt - what good does your appeal for assurance of error do you? This is the problem. We are the only ones responsible for our own souls - we all have individual responsibility for our own lives. I trust myself rather than a complete stranger.

Are you implying that said authority IS corrupt?
I would say that you lack the faith to trust in the divinely appointed authority that Christ himself founded & promised to protect & preserve. The authority DOES equal truth IF it is the one that Christ made His promise to. Every other Christian denom was founded by men…Catholicism was founded by Jesus himself & all the debate in the world won’t change the fact that the doctrines of the reformers are alien to the original Christian church. There is NO historic evidence of any “great apostasy” that some folks allege. Reform was a good idea…look at guys like Francis of Asissi. Now THAT’s reform! Truth is truth, regardless of the foibles of human beings along the way. I am Catholic not because all the people around me are angelic but because I recognize the truth of its doctrines. :bible1:

BTW…Ever hear of the “Know nothings”?

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp
“To struggle with the issues is to open yourself up to the possibility that you are wrong. If you don’t do this, you cannot truly struggle.”

I totally agree. I know that I have a very great possiblity of being wrong. That is why I constantly evaluate my own position. This not to say that I doubt what I believe is true, it is just that I want to be intellectually honest. I am constantly reading and rereading positions on both sides, as well as the primary sources. Not only that but I refuse to just limit my contact with people to only those that agree with me. My closest and dearest friends are Evangelicals and I work at a prodominantly Evangelical bookstore. I constantly have to be on guard and be ready to provide a response when someone questions my beliefs.

“Come on . . . this is not what I said. I would not mischaraterize you all this way. Maybe before Vatican II, but not now.”

I did not think this was a mischaracterization. I just wanted to address the fact that Catholics are encouraged to think for themselves, but that thinking should be properly formed and informed.

“He also gave the authority to the apostles to write the NT. It all comes down to the Resurrection and Prophecy. Circular reasoning and question begging are misleading, irresponible, and destructive to base such important information in my opinion.”

Why not go a step further and believe that the apostles gave their Authority to their successors in order to safeguard the True Gospel throughout the ages until Christ comes again. This is the historical position is it not?

“I don’t think you want to assume of me and other Protestants that I don’t dig deep in history. Believe me, you don’t want to make that assumption with me.”

I am not making that assumption about you, Newman is. Although I do agree with him on this point. What I do assume, because I was guilty of it myself, is that you view history and historical data through a Evangelical lense, a lense that in fact did not exist until 400 year ago. Take John 3 for example, a Catholic and historical interpretation of this passage of being “born again” would refer to baptism (water and the Spirit). An Evangelical interpretation would render it as a regeneration of the spirit brought about by faith alone, and would interpret the “water” part as symbolic.

I do not go in for College football, but for your sake…GO SOONERS!!

 

[michaelp]

Michael, you’ve been saying a lot this thread about how Catholics do not all believe the same things either. There are different intrepretations of the CCC or other media Rome uses to communicate with Catholics.

There is a difference, though. If there is a significant difference in opinion about something in the CCC, we can expect that the Vatican will clear it up. We have a way to settle these matters.

As time goes on, people come up with new ideas and make new controversies. Within both Catholicism and Protestantism, new issues arise which leads to more and more differences of opinion. But, like I said, there is a force in Catholicism that works in the opposite direction. So while there will always be some difference of opinion among Catholics, I think it will be less than among Protestants.

I’ve only been disputing a small part of what you said; don’t think what I’ve written above is an attempt to disprove sola scriptura. There are a couple more general comments I want to make though:

Some of the differences that come up are probably unimportant in a sense because they are only theoretical, but I think some are important because they have implications for things we’re supposed to do (moral controversies that arise, for example).

That is a very good and helpful answer. I will think about this one. But I think you are right. And plus, I like your name. Thank you.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Youi all can just call me Michael!

Why not go a step further and believe that the apostles gave their Authority to their successors in order to safeguard the True Gospel throughout the ages until Christ comes again. This is the historical position is it not?

Dennis, believe me. I am really willing to if someone can show me from Scripture (I have already shown why this is an authority). Passages such a Matt. 16 do not cut it. You would have to have to read the RCs system into Christ’s statement to Peter.

Truthfully, I am willing to believe the system and submit to the Pope if there was anything clear or even remotely clear in Scripture. I just don’t see it. I am not too biased about Protestantism. I have no love for a system . . . believe me. Only one authority is justified as being infallible and that is Scripture. If God wanted us to set up the system that Rome has, He could have, indeed, should have been more clear. I understand Luther’s statement very much when he said that he is bound by reason and by the word of God.

At this point, the RC system is totally unjustified. If there is somethnig clear in Scripture about it, I would believe it. But everything that I read, militates against it. I mean, at least show Peter in acts somewhere giving his succession to another. That would not have been that hard. But it is neither clear by word or example, prescriptive or descritive, that the Pope is infallible.

You must understand. I will stand alone before God. I have to do so with a clear conscious.

I

am not making that assumption about you, Newman is. Although I do agree with him on this point. What I do assume, because I was guilty of it myself, is that you view history and historical data through a Evangelical lense, a lense that in fact did not exist until 400 year ago. Take John 3 for example, a Catholic and historical interpretation of this passage of being “born again” would refer to baptism (water and the Spirit). An Evangelical interpretation would render it as a regeneration of the spirit brought about by faith alone, and would interpret the “water” part as symbolic.

Believe me, I am immersed deeply in tradition and Church history. You have to stuggle with the fact that there are many people who know the history of the Church very well, and identify with alot of it as I do, but do not come to the conclusions of Rome and do not see so clearly what you see clearly.

I do not go in for College football, but for your sake…GO SOONERS!!

You the man!!

Have a great day,

Michael

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Wil Peregrin:

C4R, how do you know that your interpretation of the translations of Church documents is correct?

QUOTE]

I don’t. I don’t have the charism of infallibility.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[ahimsaman72]

Church Militant:

Are you implying that said authority IS corrupt?
I would say that you lack the faith to trust in the divinely appointed authority that Christ himself founded & promised to protect & preserve. The authority DOES equal truth IF it is the one that Christ made His promise to. Every other Christian denom was founded by men…Catholicism was founded by Jesus himself & all the debate in the world won’t change the fact that the doctrines of the reformers are alien to the original Christian church. There is NO historic evidence of any “great apostasy” that some folks allege. Reform was a good idea…look at guys like Francis of Asissi. Now THAT’s reform! Truth is truth, regardless of the foibles of human beings along the way. I am Catholic not because all the people around me are angelic but because I recognize the truth of its doctrines. :bible1:

BTW…Ever hear of the “Know nothings”?

I am implying it - as regards to my own faith tradition or anyone else’s faith tradition. It was both hypothetical and real. I see it in the political, secular and religious arenas of life. Get a bunch of people together and you’ll just see how they act. They’ll come up with all kinds of things.

I really don’t trust any organization or group as containing truth, authority, justice, righteousness, etc. No group on earth is without error because all groups are made of people and people are corrupt - all sheep have gone astray. And those sheep apply to yesterday, today and till Christ comes.

You can say all day long that Christ founded Catholicism. That doesn’t make it true. You can say it was begun by Peter and Christ gave Peter the keys and built the church upon him. That doesn’t make it true. Christ knew how fallible men are. That’s why He built the church upon Himself - not a mere man. The same man you claim it was built on and use two verses of Scripture to back it up is the same man who Christ called Satan because he did not have the things of God in mind.

Peace…

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
*(CONTINUED)

No, the Bereans weren’t commended for checking scripture. The Bereans were said to be “more* fair-minded” than the Thessalonicans, who went Scripture too (Acts 17:2). Doing what the Thessaloicans did would make them equally fair-minded, not more so. Scripture says that what made them more fair-minded was the fact that they “received the word with all willingness”. NOT the written word of scripture, but the ORAL word of Paul…Tradition. What Paul was saying wasn’t in scripture, but Paul showed them where what he was preaching was consistent with the OT scriptures. This is a good thing, as all Christian teaching must be consitent with scripture. However, the idea that scripture is the test to use against those who create dissensions simply can’t be found in scripture. You didn’t get that idea from scripture, you got it from the “tradition” of those who taught you that it was so.

That’s incorrect. The Church has never once contradicted herself on official teachings of faith or morals. Not once in 2000 years. That’s what happens under the guidance of the holy Spirit. Of course there are going to be disagreements, we see that at the Council of Jerusalem. There was much debate which means there was much disagreement. But the disagreeing parties didn’t part ways and start their own churches,each teaching what they personally believed was true.They didn’t turn to the scriptures alone. They appealed to those who could render an authoritative decision on the matter, under the guidance of the holy Spirit. And that’s just what they did. Not because the bible alone said such and such, in fact when rendering their decision they didn’t appeal to scripture at all as their authority. In their letter they cited themselves, under the guidance of the holy Spirit, as the authority by which they made their decision.

So no, it’s not a false assumption that there cannot be disagreement, not on officially declared doctrine. Christians cannot claim that both “A” and “not A” are true and supported in scripture at the same time. That’s absolutely contrary to scripture.

I totally agree. God still protects His Church from officially teaching error, just like He’s done for 2000 years. That one’s a cinch for Him!

I am sorry Nancy, but every one of your interpretations suffers from eisegesis. You are trying to proves something you already believe. You are using the Scripture to do so. When used this way, the Scripture can be made to say anything you want.

Besides, I fail to see how you are qualified to interpret, much less argue these point. I would just stick to quoting the Magisterium if I were you.

You whole methodology is question begging (you really ought to study up on this). I have said this since the beginning, You already believe something, therefore you are going to do everything you can to make all of Scripture support it. I know, I know. I am glad that you have the confidence in your Magisterium that you do, but I don’t and with the way it seems they interpret Scripture, it baffles me that you do.

Oh, well, God is good and gracious to us both. At least we agree that Christ is the only way to heaven and that he is Lord.

Until next time . . .
Michael

Hi Michael!

To which portion of my response are you referring and on what do you base your comments? Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi Michael!

To which portion of my response are you referring and on what do you base your comments? Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy

Don’t remember. Good question.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

Don’t get me wrong Lisa, it is a nice system and might even be pragmatic if the traditions could agree, but there is no justification for it. If God actually expected me to follow by this elaborate of a system, He needs to be ALOT more clear. Matt. 16 just ain’t going to cut it.

Hi Michael!

It’s really not elaborate at all but rather very simple. It’s pretty much what goes on in your own church but on a worldwide level. The pope, and his bishops when teaching in communion with him, are protected by the holy Spirit from ever officially teaching error to the entire Church worldwide on matter of faith and morals. Much like your pastor is the shepherd/teacher of the flock at your church, the pope is the shepherd/ teacher of the universal church.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Sarah_Jane]

The same man you claim it was built on and use two verses of Scripture to back it up is the same man who Christ called Satan because he did not have the things of God in mind.

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter Is the Rock

catholicoutlook.com/rock2.php

 

[dennisknapp]

Michael,

“Truthfully, I am willing to believe the system and submit to the Pope if there was anything clear or even remotely clear in Scripture. I just don’t see it. I am not too biased about Protestantism. I have no love for a system . . . believe me. Only one authority is justified as being infallible and that is Scripture. If God wanted us to set up the system that Rome has, He could have, indeed, should have been more clear. I understand Luther’s statement very much when he said that he is bound by reason and by the word of God.”

I think an analogy would be proper here.
Let’s say that what we are trying to do here is put together a historical puzzle. And let’s say that when this puzzle is finally put together it will reveal to us the solution to our disagreement. But what I see you saying before we start is, “we can only use half of the pieces.” All I am asking is where does the historical evidence point? Can you actually find your counterpart in the early Church? Show me an Evangelical in the early Church and I’ll give you 100 bucks. (100 buck may or may not be figurative, I am in school ya know)

Peace

 

[ahimsaman72]

Sarah Jane:

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter Is the Rock

catholicoutlook.com/rock2.php

1. there are ten listed - out of thousands that believe otherwise
2. if they really believed that - they would be CATHOLIC!!!

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi Michael!

It’s really not elaborate at all but rather very simple. It’s pretty much what goes on in your own church but on a worldwide level. The pope, and his bishops when teaching in communion with him, are protected by the holy Spirit from ever officially teaching error to the entire Church worldwide on matter of faith and morals. Much like your pastor is the shepherd/teacher of the flock at your church, the pope is the shepherd/ teacher of the universal church.

In Christ,
Nancy

That is helpful and I do agree that local churches function simularly. It becomes elaborate simply by the addition of unquestioned authority and infallibility. And it becomes even more elaborate when decrees and doctrine are used to “clarify” Scripture to the point that it no longer finds support in Scripture (i.e. the eucharist imparting saving Grace, baptism removing just “original sin,” the Marian doctrines, asking the Saints to pray for you). In and of itself it may be simple, but what it produces becomes complex. That is why this is an issue of Authority first. And that is why the authority must be CLEARLY justified by Scripture.

That is what I believe that God should have been more clear on.

Also, there is not a mandate in Scriture as to how to structure a local church or the Church in general (except for spiritual gifts). It is more descriptive than prescriptive. God gives alot of freedom in these matters.

Believe me, I would be the first to admit that the Church needs to find a unifying factor. I don’t think that a confession in the Scripture as the word of God has done it–ever. But this does not justify the creation of the RC system. It was pragmatically created in the middle ages and find greater elaboration today.

Believe me, if the Pope and the Bishop did not claim infallibility, I would not have as much trouble.

Thanks again for sticking in there. I appreciate your kind tone and attempt to understand me as I attemt to understand you.

Michael

 

[Sarah_Jane]

1) there are ten listed - out of thousands that believe otherwise
2) if they really believed that - they would be CATHOLIC!!!

You can check these references by yourself if you wish.

 

[michaelp]

Sarah Jane:

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter Is the Rock

catholicoutlook.com/rock2.php

Actually, I don’t have a problem with Peter being the rock. This is exegetically justifiable. (Although hardly certian). But, even if this is granted, this is far from creating the system that RC creates from this. Just by saying Peter, you are a Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church, you automatically get infallibility, succession, and the like? Come on . . . that is reading alot into the text.

Ephesians 2 says that the Church was built upon the Apostles (including Peter) and Christ as the cornerstone. I believe this. Without them, their confession unto death, their missions, their testomony to the truth which was eventually recorded in Scripture, we would hardly have the Church as we have it today. To to make the jump form this statement in Matt 16 to the Magisterium is too big of a leap of faith to take for me.

Michael

 

[ahimsaman72]

Sarah Jane:

You can check these references by yourself if you wish.

I don’t deny the references at all. My point is that these are 10 people that are speaking only for themselves. The rest of their “brethren” (which numbers in the thousands) do not believe this. So, showing 10 out of 10,000? doesn’t show much.

And, if they sincerely believe that - they should by all means convert to Catholicism who along with Mormons are the only ones who believe in Peter’s papal succession.