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

[Catholic4aReasn]

Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
Sure it does. The Magesterium gives us a sure standard against which to measure our understanding of scripture.

Question begging and pragmatics are not convincing to me. I am sorry.
Thanks for your continued desire to dialogue.

Michael

What is the question this begs? How does this qualify as “pragmatics”?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi Michael!

Your example of “no salvation outside the Church” is a good one. As the state of Christianity changed the teaching was restated (not changed) in such a way as to make clearer the meaning. Those who, for example, understand it to mean that anyone who is not a member of the Catholic Church cannot be saved have made up their minds not to accept what the Church has taught on the issue. They are not being forced to decided between conflicting teachings on the matter.

How do you know that your interpretation is correct and their isn’t?

These statements seem pretty clear to me:

Pope Innocent III, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). "We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Unam Sanctam, 1302).

Pope Eugene IV, (Bull Cantate Domino, 1441) “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

I guess it just comes down to your interpretation. Right?

I have spoken with a few individual Protestants who told me that they, themselves, are infallible interpreters of scripture. Thing is, they held conflicting interpretations. Go figure.

I have spoken to both crazy RCs and Protestants. Neither of us wants to identify with the exception do we? Come on . . . it is not like you to be unfair like this.

There are no divisions. There is one body of teaching. Individuals are choosing for themselves whether or not to accept the Church’s teaching.

I could say the same thing and it would sound nice. Here listen to this:

There are no divisions. There is one body of teaching. Individuals are choosing for themselves whether or not to accept the Bible’s teaching

You interpret the Magisterium and have your divisions, we interpret the Bible and have our division. I am still not seeing the difference.

Hopefully in the Love of Him,

Michael

 

[Sarah_Jane]

What was the author’s intent with this passage:

1. 
   *]to affirm Peter as the head of the church with unquestioned authority. And that this authority was to be passed on to successors? That would be reading something into the authors intent that just cannot be found unless you place it there yourself. With this hermeneutic you can make the Scriptures say just about anything.
   *]to illustrate a basic principle that even when people fail, even to the point of weakness in denying of Christ because of outside pressure, God’s grace is there. And that God uses us in spit of our sinful past.

1. 
   Jesus chose St. Peter for to feed His sheep. St. Peter needed God’s grace to feed the sheep.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

You obviously have not done much translating. I have. All the time. All translating involves interpretation; it is sometimes very difficult to make decisions about the translation because there could be multiple meanings. But, in the end, you have to make up your mind based on the evidence. As you have said, the Magisterium does not translate, so they leave the interpretation decision in the hands of the trained individuals. I like that. You need to recognize this** (if, indeed, the Magisterium does not translate your scriptures; if they don’t, your system fails from the beginning).**

I hope you see the force of this. Again, not absolutely conclusive, but, to me, very hard to explain if it is true (but nobody seems to know).

Michael

Hi Michael!

In order for one to properly understand scripture one must first be the one to translate it? From the original language? This seems to shut out the “common man” as the vase majority of “commom men” don’t have the ability to translate scripture.

If this isn’t what you’re saying please clarify.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
*Hi Michael!

How do you believe that the Church functions in the world today as the pillar (upholder) and bulwark (protector and defender) of the truth?
*

You bet:

I believe that the Church represents Christ–though imperfectly.
I also believe that the Church represents Truth–though imperfectly.

Do you see the connection. There is not a necessary infallibility of the Church just because we represent the Truth any more than there is a necessary perfection just because we represent the love of Christ.

Can’t you see this connection at all? I recieve this arguement all the time on this site, and no one seems to see the connection. Am I just an idiot? This seems very clear.

But again, I have the freedom to question the system . . . you don’t, since the very questioning of the system would be a denial of it (although this is not true, but I think some of you think it is). I just don’t find very many people who truly have stuggled with these issues without letting their presuppositions dictate the outcome of their studies.

Please forgive me if this sounds offensive or if I am speaking out of line. You can call me anytime. I am just trying to be candid right now.

Michael

Hi Michael!

It wasn’t offensive, but it didn’t answer the question.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

What is the question this begs? How does this qualify as “pragmatics”?

In Christ,
Nancy

Why is this question begging? Because, according to your reasoning (that I have pick up so far) the Church says that it is infallible because the infallible Church teaches it. But our debate is about the infallibility and authority of the Church. It assums the conclusion and makes a premise based upon the conclusion in order to prove the conclusion. It is also called circular arguements.

It would be like me saying to someone. “The Bible is true. How do I know? Because it says that it is.” This is irresponsible and I cannot see such arguments as having any validity.

What I mean by pragmatics is this: If it works it is true. RCs infallibility is necessary to unify the faith. The faith is unified under the infallibility of the Magisterium–therefore, it is true that the Church is infallibile. It is a pragmatic arguement, which does not disqualify it immediately, but for something as important as this, God needs to be more clear.

Hope that your day is going well,

Michael

 

[MrS]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi Michael!

The Church isn’t the authority because she says she is, she’s the authority because God said she is:

1 Tim. 3:15 But if I should be delayed, I have written so that you will know how people ought to act in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.**
**

Acts 15

---

---

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi Michael!

It wasn’t offensive, but it didn’t answer the question.

In Christ,
Nancy

It is the best I have. Sorry.

 

[dennisknapp]

Michael,
“Also, did you get what I said above your comment? There is no way to justify the system outside of pragmatics. And the pragmatics are not evern very convincing to me (although I understand them and sympathize with them.”

I am not asking a pragmatic question. I am seeking historical evidence.

My definition of an Evangelical is this: Some who believes in sola fide and sola scriptura, that baptism and communion are only symbols, and have no special grace attached to them. (I know some Protestants believe in a form of sacramentalism, but they are not truely in the Evangelical camp in my book.)

The reason I ask this is that we have differing interpretation of Scripture, regardless if mine is the Roman Catholic position, and need another test that can be verifible outside ourselves. I have chosen history.

So, what does history teach us regarding these things?

Back at you!

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
*The Magesterium aren’t translators, they are teachers.
*

I will repost this then:

You obviously have not done much translating. I have. All the time. All translating involves interpretation; it is sometimes very difficult to make decisions about the translation because there could be multiple meanings. But, in the end, you have to make up your mind based on the evidence. As you have said, the Magisterium does not translate, so they leave the interpretation decision in the hands of the trained individuals. I like that. You need to recognize this** (if, indeed, the Magisterium does not translate your scriptures; if they don’t, your system fails from the beginning).**

I hope you see the force of this. Again, not absolutely conclusive, but, to me, very hard to explain if it is true (but nobody seems to know).

Michael

Hi Michael!

God didn’t give the Magesterium of the Church the job of translating scripture from one language to another. He gave that job to others, people who are not guided to infallibility by the holy Spirit. Hence, there are many errors in translations.

However, God did give the Magesterium the job of teachings. When they are doing so, even using an imperfect text, they cannot err simply because the holy Spirit will not allow it.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

[/quote]

I agree, but is it the infallible authority.

It would be like me saying the Body of Christ (us) perfectly mirror Christ because the Bible says we are the Body of Christ (His expression here on the earth).

But this is loading the statement with more than it is meant to teach. Yes we are the Body of Christ, but we do not represent that body perfectly.

Yes the Church is the bulwark (what an archaic term BTW) of truth, but we do not represent that truth perfectly.

Do you see the connection?

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

It’s just an observation based on the posts I’ve seen since I’ve been here. The fear of hell is a driving force in keeping people in line. It’s explicitly stated, “outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation” (paraphrased). So, one knows when they leave - down to the gallows. Isn’t this true? Isn’t this what this statement (infallibly made) means? You leave - you suffer hell. That’s my understanding on it.

Peace…

No ahimsaman72, it’s not true. This is how misconceptions start circulating.

Have you read where it is exlicitly stated “outside the Church there is no salvation” and the accompanying explanation? Do you know what that means? I’m thinkin’ not.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Church_Militant]

michaelp:

It says that it is true because the infallible Church teaches it. But our debate is about the infallibility and authority of the Church. It assums the conclusion and make a premise based upon the conclusion in order to prove the conclusion.

What I mean by pragmatics is this: If it works it is true. RCs infallibility is necessary to unify the faith. The faith is unified under the infallibility of the Magisterium–therefore, it is true that the Church is infallibile. It is a pragmatic arguement, which does not disqualify it immediately, but for something as important as this, God needs to be more clear.

Michael

YOU tell Him Michael!
(Kidding)
The concept of papal infallibilty is not so hard when taken in the context of the passages that it is built upon…Kepha the rock…binding & loosing…feed my lambs/sheep…strengthen your brothers…whose sins you shall forgive/retain…the gates of hell not prevailing against her, (Important because it promises that He will not allow the church to fall into error)…Paul’s reference to the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth…
This link is about this very thing and probably goes into it better than I can :yup:
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
See what you think Michael.
.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

How do you know that your interpretation is correct and their isn’t?

These statements seem pretty clear to me:

Pope Innocent III, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). "We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Unam Sanctam, 1302).

Pope Eugene IV, (Bull Cantate Domino, 1441) “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

I guess it just comes down to your interpretation. Right?

"Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom **extra ****Ecclesiam nullasalus ***–‘outside the Church there is no salvation’–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition and was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and in the Council of Florence (Decretum pro jacobitis, DS 1351).

The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. Lumen gentium, n. 14). **For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. n. 10). It is a ‘mysterious relationship’ **: myseterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her; it is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church founded by the Saviour.

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, co-operation, a yes to the divine gift: and this acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine Ecclesia nulla*salus ***–‘without the Church there is no salvation’: belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation."

Source : forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=343506&postcount=28

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

My definition of an Evangelical is this: Some who believes in sola fide and sola scriptura, that baptism and communion are only symbols, and have no special grace attached to them. (I know some Protestants believe in a form of sacramentalism, but they are not truely in the Evangelical camp in my book.)

Short answer: I can’t.

Long answer:

This is overly simplistic. Doctrines develop over time and are articulated in the midst of controversy.

Example (I think that this will help you understand where I am coming from):

1. Trinity (325): Before this time the majority of the Church believed in the eternal subordination of the Son or modalism. Neither you or I could find our Trinitarian theology before this time except in seed form (although there was alot of seed).
2. Hypostatic Union (451): Before this time people believed in a variety of heresies concerning the nature of Christ. Neither you or I could find our Christological theology before this time except in seed form (although there was alot of seed).
3. Atonement was made to God (1100): Before this time, the majority of the Church believed that the atonement was a price paid to Satan (or some form of this). Neither you or I could find our Soteriology before this time except in seed form (although there was alot of seed).
4. Scripture alone (1600): Before this time people often elevated tradition to the same level as Scripture. I could find our Soteriology before this time except in seed form (although there was alot of seed).

You see, neither of us could find our current articulation of theological beliefs before today. Doctrine is developed and articulated in time.

Although, I do believe that you would have more trouble finding elements of your tradition than I would since you have the Marian Doctrine and Papal infallibility (which both have very little seed!)

Do your doctrine historically, but start with an exegesis of Scripture. Be willing to part ways with history if need be.

semper reformana ("always reforming)

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

God didn’t give the Magesterium of the Church the job of translating scripture from one language to another. He gave that job to others, people who are not guided to infallibility by the holy Spirit. Hence, there are many errors in translations.

Wow! You do not give the most important and first job of interpretation to the Magisterium, but to regular lay folk? Wow! Well, I guess we are alot more alike than you think.

But here is the problem. You have an infallible Magisterium interpreting a fallible translation of the text. Now you have real problems.

Michael

 

[ahimsaman72]

michaelp:

How do you know that your interpretation is correct and their isn’t?

These statements seem pretty clear to me:

Pope Innocent III, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). "We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Unam Sanctam, 1302).

Pope Eugene IV, (Bull Cantate Domino, 1441) “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

I guess it just comes down to your interpretation. Right?

Michael

Thank you very much. Couldn’t find it - you supplied it. Pretty clear to me. You ain’t Roman Catholic - you ain’t got a prayer baby.

Peace…

 

[michaelp]

Church Militant:

YOU tell Him Michael!
(Kidding)
The concept of papal infallibilty is not so hard when taken in the context of the passages that it is built upon…Kepha the rock…binding & loosing…feed my lambs/sheep…strengthen your brothers…whose sins you shall forgive/retain…the gates of hell not prevailing against her, (Important because it promises that He will not allow the church to fall into error)…Paul’s reference to the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth…
This link is about this very thing and probably goes into it better than I can :yup:
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
See what you think Michael.
.

I am sorry, but you are reading things into the text to justify a theology you already have.

Read this concerning your interpretation of John to begin with and then we will move to an exegesis of Matt. (I know, you are not qualified, but since I am such a nice guy, I will walk you through it )

Here is what you have to ask yourself about Peter’s restoration? why is it recorded? What was the author’s intent with this passage?

1. 
   *]to affirm Peter as the head of the church with unquestioned authority. And that this authority was to be passed on to successors? That would be reading something into the authors intent that just cannot be found unless you place it there yourself. With this hermeneutic you can make the Scriptures say just about anything.
   *]to illustrate a basic principle that even when people fail, even to the point of weakness in denying of Christ because of outside pressure, God’s grace is there. And that God uses us in spit of our sinful past.
   
   Now which one do you believe? It can’t be both since the first is loaded with eisegesis (reading preconcieved theology into a text rather than drawing your theology from the text).

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

The 33,800 is a ridiculous number. Anybody can cook the books to make this appear true (taking IRS records as evidence for example).

Is 9,000 somehow better? worldchristiandatabase.org/wcd/about/denominationlist.asp

It’s undeniable that Catholics have a very low rate of conversion worldwide and that they are losing people fast.

Perhaps the research’s most striking feature is a growth rate of Catholicism around the world that significantly outpaces overall global growth. During the last 50 years, global population increased by 117 percent, while the Catholic population rose by 139 percent. Catholic population in Africa, however, grew 708 percent, while the total African population increased 313 percent. In Asia, Catholic population rose 278 percent, while the overall population growth was 104 percent. The only region where Catholic population growth rates lagged begind total population growth rates was in Europe, where population increased by 58 percent, while Catholics increased by just 32 percent.
www1.georgetown.edu/explore/news/?DocumentID=379

Weblog: Adult Converts to Catholicism Up 10 Percent
Compiled by Ted Olsen | posted 4/25/00
Catholicism experiencing boom among American adults
“Nationwide, the number of adults being baptized as Catholics is up by as much as 10 percent this year, and the number of Catholic adults who were baptized as infants but who are just now receiving First Communion and being confirmed is rising slightly faster,” reports The Boston Globe. Though the article doesn’t mention specific statistics, it says many of these converts are coming from Protestantism.
christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/117/22.0.html

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

"Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom **extra ****Ecclesiam nullasalus ***–‘outside the Church there is no salvation’–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition and was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and in the Council of Florence (Decretum pro jacobitis, DS 1351).

The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. Lumen gentium, n. 14). **For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. n. 10). It is a ‘mysterious relationship’ **: myseterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her; it is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church founded by the Saviour.

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, co-operation, a yes to the divine gift: and this acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine Ecclesia nulla*salus ***–‘without the Church there is no salvation’: belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation."

Source : forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=343506&postcount=28

Quoting from other sources does not help. I want YOU to think about it and respond.

Hope you do,
Michael