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

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

This is where your hermeneutics comes into play. And this is what I am talking about by using a common sense hermeneutic (not impying by any means that you do not have common sense ).

Here is what you have to ask yourself:

1. Who’s denial is brought most prominently to the attention of the reader? Of course it is Peter.
2. Why did the author give the details of the three denials followed by the three affirmations?
3. 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).
   
   Isn’t this at least conceivable to you?
   
   Michael

1. 
   Hi Michael!
   
   It absolute can be both and I submit to you that it is both. Although rather than say that Peter had “unquestioned authority” I’d put it another way. He was the guy who, when there was a disagreement about what Jesus taught or meant, had the final say. When a final say becomes necessary the holy Spirit makes sure that Peter doesn’t get it wrong if, in fact, Peter decides to give a final say at all. Someone HAD to have the authoritative final say when disagreements rose or the Church would split apart.
   
   Preconceived theology is never being read into it because the theology existed for decades before any of it was written down and for centuries before Christians knew which of the masses of writings were the inspired word of God.
   
   Anyone who fails to acknowledge that Christian teachings HAD to exist before scripture has to be the one forcing preconceived notions on the text. Since scripture is Christian teaching in written for the teachings HAD to exist first, as of course, they did.
   
   In Christ,
   Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

This is where your hermeneutics comes into play. And this is what I am talking about by using a common sense hermeneutic (not impying by any means that you do not have common sense ).

Here is what you have to ask yourself:

1. Who’s denial is brought most prominently to the attention of the reader? Of course it is Peter.
2. Why did the author give the details of the three denials followed by the three affirmations?
3. 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).
   
   Isn’t this at least conceivable to you?
   
   Michael

1. 
   Hi Michael!
   
   It absolute can be both and I submit to you that it is both. Although rather than say that Peter had “unquestioned authority” I’d put it another way. He was the guy who, when there was a disagreement about what Jesus taught or meant, had the final say. When a final say becomes necessary the holy Spirit makes sure that Peter doesn’t get it wrong if, in fact, Peter decides to give a final say at all. Someone HAD to have the authoritative final say when disagreements rose or the Church would split apart.
   
   Preconceived theology is never being read into it because the theology existed for decades before any of it was written down and for centuries before Christians knew which of the masses of writings were the inspired word of God.
   
   Anyone who fails to acknowledge that Christian teachings HAD to exist before scripture has to be the one forcing preconceived notions on the text. Since scripture is Christian teaching in written form the teachings HAD to exist first, as of course, they did.
   
   In Christ,
   Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

MrS:

know the Truth.

Thinking of converting… that means God is opening your eyes. Don’t shut them to a Truth because it is difficult to live - being a sincere Catholic is the hardest thing to do. But know that if you choose to walk away because the words are difficult to understand, Jesus will let you…and await your return.

QUOTE]

Proverbs3:5

Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own understanding;

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

Here is something that summarizes my thought so far: I just read this on another post:

Question asked: “Does it say in the Bible than only the Church can interpret scripture correctly?”

Question answered by Catholic: "No, it does not. Anyone lead by the Holy Spirit can interpret correctly.

[Then listen to this] “The bible does say that the church (magisterial authority) will infallibly interpret scripture.
[How do we know this?] “Jesus said: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (mt,16:18; mt,18:18)”
he also said: he who rejects, you rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me”

[The conclusion] “This power to infallibly interpret and guide the flock of Christ has been passed on through ordination from the apostles to their successors all the way till today is this necessary?” [Did I miss the clear connection?]

Wow! That is a lot to get out of this verse. More than I could ever get. An entire system is being built on this? Infallible Popes, succession of Peter, and the magisterium? Respectfully . . . come on. And even more respectfully . . . give me a break.

I ask you if any unbiased reader would really interpret it this way? Could you really get the RC ecclesiological worldview out of this? Would you interpret it this way if you did not already believe that the Church was infallible? Really! Read these passages again. Would you?

Forgive me if I display a little sarcasm here. I just thought that it might help you to understand how uncanny this idea is becoming. It seems to be like I have suspected, you really don’t have any justification for the system outside the system itself. It is an entire system that seems to be built on question begging arguments. All the Scripture references you use to justify the RC system of authority would take an interpretation that would have to be forced on to the text to make it say what you want it to. It is pure eisegesis (reading your theology back into the text rather than deriving your theology from the text).

If I were to follow this method, I guess I would be dangerous with the Scriptures. I could make the Scriptures support anything that I want.

I can now understand why you would think interpretation is so difficult, since those whom you let do the interpreting for you get all of this out of such an obscure passage. They are seeing something no one can see on their own.

Could it be that they are seeing something that is just not there so that they can justify the system? You need to struggle with this possibility, just the same as I have struggled over the last couple of months with the possibility that the system is correct.

We all have a Gnostic tendency in us causing us to think that we have more “secret” information that someone else cannot have. Maybe this is the case with the Magisterium. In order to interpret the Scriptures this way, you would have to be Gnostic, or at least in relation to Origen. Just something to think about.

P.S. If I were you and if this is the case, I would be scared to interpret also.

 

[Pax]

Michaelp,

I have waded through this thread as quickly as my poor old eyes would allow. In doing so I hope I have not missed anything important. Moreover, I hope I have not misunderstood any of your points or comments. If I mistakenly attribute something to you in error I, hereby, apologize.

I sense from your comments that you feel that you have a good understanding of Church history, but I would suggest that your history could use some work. In one of your posts you made a comment to the effect that the RC system was created during the middle ages. This is a pretty silly remark at best. I would strongly suggest that you try reading the Early Church Fathers, the Didache, and later writings to see the continuity of Christian teaching preserved within the Catholic Church. Catholic teachings on baptism and the Holy Eucharist would be good ones for you to check into. The historical facts are clear. The early Christians that learned from the apostles share the same teachings taught by the Catholic Church today. Other Christian churches do not have these understandings. Even Luther shared the Catholic teaching on baptism. Ever since the reformation we have seen Christian teachings becoming more and more varied and at odds with one another. This has not happened in Catholic teaching. It remains unchanged.

I will give you a fine example of a 20th century change in Christian teaching that you can easily research. All Christian denominations taught that all forms of aritificial birth control were intrinsically evil and constituted serious sin until around 1930 when the Anglican Church broke ranks. From that time forward nearly every non-Catholic Christian Church has followed the Anglican lead and approves of artificial birth control. Now, I do not want to start a discussion of the teaching itself. Instead, I simply want you to consider the universal position of Christianity until 1930, and I want you to consider which Church still holds to the historical position. This is important because the Catholic Church has preserved the truth and teachings from the day of Pentecost and has not wavered in its historical positions.

You have made some contentions about eisegesis vs. exegesis. I believe you are far out on a limb in this regard when questioning the Catholic position. All of scripture is tied together. It is God’s grand tapestry. The verses in John concerning Peter’s three fold confession should not be isolated. While I agree with your understandings of the verses you cannot remove them from the other scriptures that pertain to Peter. His leadership is really beyond question and the three fold confession supports his leadership role.

cont. on next post:

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

Matthew 16:18-19 is a powerful set of verses particularly when understood in light of the following OT scriptures:

2 Kings 18: 17-18
And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rab-saris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great army unto Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller’s field. And when they had called to the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebnah the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder.

These verses show that Eliakim was the head of the household, or prime minister, for king Hezekiah. The office of prime minister was common in middle eastern kingdoms and was a routine part of the Davidic line of kings in Israel.

Isaiah 22: 20-22
And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: and I will cloth him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a throne of glory to his father’s house.

These verses show that Eliakim will be made head of the household, or prime minister, and indicate the authority bestowed on Eliakim. Notice that the key of the house of David is given to Eliakim and that he will be a father to his people.

Matthew 16: 18-19
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Notice the pattern in Jesus words when Jesus states that he will give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and how the words to bind and loose correspond to Isaiah’s terms to open and to shut. Jesus is drawing on the passages in Isaiah to describe the authority of Peter in the church (i.e. the kingdom of heaven on earth). Jesus leaves a prime minister to lead the church after he, Jesus, ascends into heaven. In Jewish culture and tradition the power to bind and loose especially in this context is significant. Also notice that the term Pope or Papa means father just as Eliakim was to be a father to his people.

 

[michaelp]

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner.KRISTIEMACHINE/Desktop/Slide1.JPG

This is the method I use to interpret and apply Scripture:

 

[BayCityRickL]

Wow, this thread is on fire! So many posts in such a short time.

On the matter of the number of protestant denominations in the U.S.:

I think that I have begun to understand the protestant/non-Catholic point of view: They simply reject the model of the Church that the Catholics embrace, i.e., a unified global Church.

Non-Catholics who pour over the Bible for answers, see only a Church where it grows up in separate places and had different leadership – which is to say, they don’t see a “Vatican” in the Bible.

This is a very straightforward outcome of the reformation, with the protestants rejecting the very idea of a Vatican-style Church. They feel united, instead, by the Bible, however varied their interpretations may be.

Protestants “shop” for a church, and freely plug-into and plug-out of a church according to their convictions and experience.

Catholics are just not on that ‘wavelength’ to begin with. The reformation revolt (heresy) is alive and well.

 

[PaulDupre]

michaelp:

Oh, ok. Thanks.

Hey, by the way, don’t you love these faces? You can say something mean and then put a smiley face and it is not so mean anymore .

ROTF! My mom (an authentic Southern belle) says that you can say anything to anybody, so long as you add “bless your heart”.

i.e.: “You’re a lousy rotten thieving son of a bitch, bless your heart!”

God bless you for a good laugh,
Paul

 

[Church_Militant]

michaelp:

Ignatius was also a premillennialist. Is the RC church premil? Or does it just pick and choose what out of Church history you agree with. Hey, there is no shame in this. We do it.

Michael

What does ROME say?

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

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?

Nope. Pope Innocent’s statement was made at a time when all Christians were Catholic Christians. To be Christians was to be in union with the pope. This was an authoritative statement, not an infallible statement. The same is true of Pope Eugene’s statement. It was issued in the form of a papal bull, which is makes it authoritative but not infallible.

The Church has since, in light of the current situation in Christianity, reworded her teaching:

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **

CCC#[846](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/846.htm’) How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

This is where a thorough understanding if papal infallibility comes in handy.

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.

I didn’t think I was being unfair. Sorry to have come across that way.

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.

One does not interpret the Magesterium. I’m not sure how to help you understand that. The Magesterium teaches. If they don’t teach something understandably they try to reword. The pope and various bishops are coming out with documents all the time in an attempt to better educate the faithful of the church. As I mentioned in our discussion on infallibility, the holy Spirit doesn’t inspire anyone on HOW to best teach or word something, just that what they DO teach will be free from error.

With the bible as your final authority you have no one to whom to appeal to settle disagreements. One person’s interpertation and another whose completely contradicts it are equally true. If a Catholic has questions or disagreements with another Catholic he has an authority to whom to turn to give a definitive answer. If the answer is not understood that authority can clarify until it is. That authority can interpret scripture in light of new situations and times and cultures. The bible can’t do that.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Michaelp,

I sense from your comments that you feel that you have a good understanding of Church history, but I would suggest that your history could use some work. In one of your posts you made a comment to the effect that the RC system was created during the middle ages. This is a pretty silly remark at best. I would strongly suggest that you try reading the Early Church Fathers, the Didache, and later writings to see the continuity of Christian teaching preserved within the Catholic Church.

Believe me, I do read Church history. I simply don’t see the same things that you do. I have three full sets of the Nicene Church Fathers (all of them). One hard edition. Two on Logos. I even have the Catholic version!!! I have literally hundreds of books in Church history. I majored in NT and minored in Church history at Dallas Theological Seminary. I am possibly going back for my Dr in early Church history because I love it so. I just don’t see what you see. We all wear our tainted glasses to look through.

As I have said many times,

“We all walk through the garden of Church history and choose the flowers that we like best” --John Hannah

Admition of this is the first step to truly study Church history in my opinion.

So please do not assume that I don’t read church history.

You have made some contentions about eisegesis vs. exegesis. I believe you are far out on a limb in this regard when questioning the Catholic position. All of scripture is tied together. It is God’s grand tapestry. The verses in John concerning Peter’s three fold confession should not be isolated. While I agree with your understandings of the verses you cannot remove them from the other scriptures that pertain to Peter. His leadership is really beyond question and the three fold confession supports his leadership role.

How would the larger context of Scripture lead you to think that the original readers of the Gospel of John would have interpreted John 21 to say that Peter was to be the infallible head of the Church and would pass on this infallibility. Please, explain. Remember, I believe in the Analogy of Scripture (Scripture interprets Scripture).

Look forward to it.

 

[michaelp]

Church Militant:

What does ROME say?

You don’ see this as circular?

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

cont. from prior post

Matthew 16:18-19 is a powerful set of verses particularly when understood in light of the following OT scriptures:

2 Kings 18: 17-18
And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rab-saris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great army unto Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller’s field. And when they had called to the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebnah the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder.

These verses show that Eliakim was the head of the household, or prime minister, for king Hezekiah. The office of prime minister was common in middle eastern kingdoms and was a routine part of the Davidic line of kings in Israel.

Isaiah 22: 20-22
And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: and I will cloth him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a throne of glory to his father’s house.

These verses show that Eliakim will be made head of the household, or prime minister, and indicate the authority bestowed on Eliakim. Notice that the key of the house of David is given to Eliakim and that he will be a father to his people.

Matthew 16: 18-19
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Notice the pattern in Jesus words when Jesus states that he will give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and how the words to bind and loose correspond to Isaiah’s terms to open and to shut. Jesus is drawing on the passages in Isaiah to describe the authority of Peter in the church (i.e. the kingdom of heaven on earth). Jesus leaves a prime minister to lead the church after he, Jesus, ascends into heaven. In Jewish culture and tradition the power to bind and loose especially in this context is significant. Also notice that the term Pope or Papa means father just as Eliakim was to be a father to his people.

Wow! How can you be sure of this interpretation? You are not part of the Magisterium are you?

Are you really saying that this is the exegetical way you come to this conclusion? You see things that are just not there.

If Peter is the fulfillment of these Prophecies, why doesn’t Matt draw attention to this? He is writing to the Jewish nation to show how the person, words and works of Christ are a fillfillment of the Old Testament system. He goes out of his way to say “This fullfilled” so and so, so that the Jew would know the connection with the Old Testament. His whole purpose was to make the connection evident to those whom he was writing. He does this more than any of the other Gospel writers. He has more quotes from the OT than anyone.

Why didn’t he say in Matt. 16 this fullfills the passages you just used to justify the Roman Papacy. Big mistake? Oversight? Or could it be that it is just not true.

Exegesis has to take into account all of this and make these decisions. To find these to justify a system to which you already describe is eisegesis. If I were to use this method, I could prove just about anything. You have to take the Scripture in its original context and then derive your theology, not the other way around.

Hope you see where I am coming from. Nice system, but not justified,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

BayCityRickL:

Wow, this thread is on fire! So many posts in such a short time.

On the matter of the number of protestant denominations in the U.S.:

I think that I have begun to understand the protestant/non-Catholic point of view: They simply reject the model of the Church that the Catholics embrace, i.e., a unified global Church.

Non-Catholics who pour over the Bible for answers, see only a Church where it grows up in separate places and had different leadership – which is to say, they don’t see a “Vatican” in the Bible.

This is a very straightforward outcome of the reformation, with the protestants rejecting the very idea of a Vatican-style Church. They feel united, instead, by the Bible, however varied their interpretations may be.

Protestants “shop” for a church, and freely plug-into and plug-out of a church according to their convictions and experience.

Catholics are just not on that ‘wavelength’ to begin with. The reformation revolt (heresy) is alive and well.

Hey welcome. I would say your are correct . . . except for the last sentence of course

 

[Pax]

Michael,

I respectfully respond…in my opinion you are way over the top. You contend that a whole system has been built on certain passages of scripture. This is at best incomplete and certainly inaccurate. Jesus gave us the Church. Jesus vouches for the Church. Jesus would not leave us without a guide. Yes, scripture is an extremely important part of this, but it cannot stand alone. Paul speaks of his own authority within the Churches. While he upbraided Peter for his hypocrisy with the Judaizers, he still traveled to Jersusalem to confirm his teaching with Peter and James. Paul tells us that after meeting with them for many days they gave him the handshake of fellowship. He recognized their authority as “pillars.” Clearly, Paul was an extraordinary gift to the Church but Paul recognized authority as did all of the early Christians.

It is not every man and his bible. I have so many Christian friends that attend different non-Catholic churches and they all claim to go by the “bible alone” but they believe many different things. I have even heard them, when they disagree, remark one to another, “it is so clear…are you sure you’re reading the same bible I am?” They are of course reading the same King James bible but they don’t share the same understandings.

Is this confusion due to the Holy Spirit? I don’t think so. Is this confusion something that Jesus would have wanted? I don’t think so. In fact Jesus prays in John Chapter 17 for unity among the apostles, and then for unity among those that would believe the word of the apostles. In doing so, Jesus prays that the unity of the apostles, and the believers that would follow them, would be the same as the unity Jesus shares with the Father. This is no small prayer and Jesus is praying it for a reason. In His divine nature, Jesus knows what will happen. He knows there will be divisions. Paul warns about divisions and factions, and about errant and divisive doctrines.

Only the Catholic church provides the universal unchanging doctrines of the apostles. Yes, these doctrines are more fully developed over time but they otherwise remain unchanged. It is the Catholic Church that established the canon of scripture. It is the Catholic Church that defined the hypostatic union (i.e. Jesus having two natures in one person). It is the Church that defined the Trinity. It is the Church that has retained the correct and historical teaching on baptism. It is the Catholic Church that has “always” taught that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. And yes, in the full development of this doctrine the Church introduced the word “transubstantiation” in order to clarify this truth. Even Luther believed in the true presence but he redifined it as “consubstantiation” because he became his own authority.

There is much to learn here and it takes a lot of work and study.

Michael, I see substantial resistance in your posts but you still have an open mind that deserves to be fed. Study everything you can from orthodox Catholic authors and you will warm to the Church. You see before you the two thousand year old Catholic Church. You see before you Christianity in its fullness. You see before you something that could only exist after two thousand years by Divine Providence. You see before you a tremendously powerful work of Christ in our midst.

Search the Church’s teachings and really know the teachings of scripture and the Early Church Fathers. You will be startled by the beauty and power of God’s grace and you will hunger for the unity that can only be appreciated through recieving the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus in the Eucharist. The Catholic Church is your ultimate spiritual home this side of eternity.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

I agree, but is it the infallible authority.

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

Hi Michael!

No one claims that the Church represents the truth perfectly. As you’ve pointed out over and over, she doesn’t always present the truth in the most understandable terms. Popes haven’t always spoken up when they should have. But those things aren’t covered by the charism of infallibility. All the holy Spirit does is make sure that when the Church teaches officially on a matter of faith or morals something that is binding on all the faithful that what is taught is not wrong. That doesn’t mean that it will be clear. That doesn’t mean it will be said when it should be said or how it should be said or in the best was it could possibley be said.

The Church cannot funtion as the God-ordained upholder, protector and defender of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) if the possibility exists that what she is upholding, protecting and defending is, in fact, error.

I’m getting the idea that you think there’s far more to this infallibility things than there actually is.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

Nope. Pope Innocent’s statement was made at a time when all Christians were Catholic Christians. To be Christians was to be in union with the pope. This was an authoritative statement, not an infallible statement. The same is true of Pope Eugene’s statement. It was issued in the form of a papal bull, which is makes it authoritative but not infallible.

The Church has since, in light of the current situation in Christianity, reworded her teaching:

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **

CCC#846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

HOw do you know that your interpretation of this is correct. Go to the other threads and you will find that there are many interpretations of this. How do you know that yours is the right one?

One does not interpret the Magesterium. I’m not sure how to help you understand that. The Magesterium teaches.

All information must be by definition interpreted. People have their own cultures, languages, dialects, presuppositions, context, and experience that they bring with them to the information table. You need to study the aquisitions of knowledge a little before you make this statement. Everything must be interpreted and contextualized. Our brains are interpretation machines. Some interpretation is harder than others, but all things must be interpreted. Can’t you see this?

So, I ask you agian, how do you know that your interpretation of the Magisterium is THE correct one?

Ultimately, you must rely on the holy spirit using your common sense. Hey, that is the way that I interpret the Bible.

With the bible as your final authority you have no one to whom to appeal to settle disagreements.

But you don’t understand. This does not bother me THAT bad. Sure it would be nice to have a mediator that could help me interpret God’s will at every turn. But this is not the case. I don’t need to create a system to do this. The Bible speak clearly on the things that matter most. I have already discussed this many times.

Again, I appreciate you,

Michael

 

[Church_Militant]

michaelp:

In fact, one could make a better arguement contextually that Christ only said this to Peter three times *because he is the only one that needed to be restored since he denied Christ three times. *

Thanks for the insights.

I appreciate them from everyone . . .

Michael

But you, of all people should know that it is the custom of the writers and speakers of Christ’s day to repeat what they wanted to emphasize 3 times. The context doesn’t support your theory at all. It is more obvious that Jesus was building Kepha up to perform the job that he had chosen him for. As for your suppositon that what has evolved is not what was intended I would point out that it works…very well… and has remained faithful to Christ for over 2,000 years. Apostolic succession is scriptural, just as the priesthood in Judaism was successive (and authoritative, I might add).

I might also add that even in modern times the Catholic Church has stood its ground on moral issues such as contraception, when all other denoms fell into acceptance beginning in 1930.

I would rather die than not be Catholic…regardless of all the debates and attacks, deceptions and misunderstandings…yeah & even the scandals…none of it is any worse than any of the rest of those so-called NT churches that I was part of. All the exegesis and soteriology, & eschatology don’t really mean much. I know truth when I hear it…I know the Holy Spirit when I encounter Him w/in me…and I know forgiveness that is in line w/ what Christ promised. The sacraments make more sense than anything that any other church offers and no one else does Communion scripturally…no one else has that miracle that Jesus promised & commanded taking place every Mass. The only way I can explain it to you is that it is very much like the way you felt the moment that you “received Jesus as your personal Lord & savior”…we receive Him into our hearts, souls, body and mind…our very being. THAT is the reality of the Eucharist that will keep me Catholic no matter what.

Regardless of my own inabilty to adequately explain all this to you, it’s all real. Hey…take it up w/Scott Hahn or Karl Keating! They handle it better than most of us on the forums do…we aren’t the ones you need to debate with…we’re still learning it all. Or at least I am…I know what I believe…but I can’t always get it accross to you guys as well as I’d like. It seems so incredibly simple to me…clear…that I can’t understand why you don’t see it too. :yawn: e

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Michael,

I respectfully respond…in my opinion you are way over the top. You contend that a whole system has been built on certain passages of scripture. This is at best incomplete and certainly inaccurate. Jesus gave us the Church. Jesus vouches for the Church. Jesus would not leave us without a guide. Yes, scripture is an extremely important part of this, but it cannot stand alone. Paul speaks of his own authority within the Churches. While he upbraided Peter for his hypocrisy with the Judaizers, he still traveled to Jersusalem to confirm his teaching with Peter and James. Paul tells us that after meeting with them for many days they gave him the handshake of fellowship. He recognized their authority as “pillars.” Clearly, Paul was an extraordinary gift to the Church but Paul recognized authority as did all of the early Christians.

But Peter and Paul went around raising the dead to substanitate their authority. Believe me, as I have posted before, I would follow the Pope if raised someone from the dead. Then there would be justification for me believing him. I REALLY WOULD.

Paul says that their are sign for someone who claims to have apostolic authority:

“The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with various signs and wonder in all perseverence.” (2 Cor 12:12)

It is not every man and his bible. I have so many Christian friends that attend different non-Catholic churches and they all claim to go by the “bible alone” but they believe many different things. I have even heard them, when they disagree, remark one to another, “it is so clear…are you sure you’re reading the same bible I am?” They are of course reading the same King James bible but they don’t share the same understandings.

This is a mischaraterization of sola scriptura. Read the post where I clarified it. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23902&highlight=michaelp
I do not believe that it is just me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit. I am held accoutable to the community of God, both alive and dead. Luther and Calvin agreed.

Is this confusion due to the Holy Spirit? I don’t think so. Is this confusion something that Jesus would have wanted? I don’t think so. In fact Jesus prays in John Chapter 17 for unity among the apostles, and then for unity among those that would believe the word of the apostles. In doing so, Jesus prays that the unity of the apostles, and the believers that would follow them, would be the same as the unity Jesus shares with the Father. This is no small prayer and Jesus is praying it for a reason. In His divine nature, Jesus knows what will happen. He knows there will be divisions. Paul warns about divisions and factions, and about errant and divisive doctrines.

But you assume that this is Creedal unity when I believe that it is ontological unity. In other words, we are united, all people of all time, by our identification with Christ when we were baptized into the Church and regenerated. We are united whether we like it or not. Now, this should express itself in creedal unity to some degree. But even you don’t demand absolute creedal unity. Do you? Evangelical Protestants are united. First by the ontological uniting, second by a common confession (we agree on about 95% of the issues. RCs maybe 96%. Not much difference.

I do wish that people were more aware of this, but I think their lack of awarness is not that there are so many disagreement, but because of the modernistic tendency towards individualization in the west.

Only the Catholic church provides the universal unchanging doctrines of the apostles.

Again, I am willing to believe this, but there is no justification.

There is much to learn here and it takes a lot of work and study.

Oh, boy, how I agree. I am learning alot from you right now.