Where to begin?

[Solus_Christus]

The Shepherd of Hermas, for one. The Didache was another.

I am pretty sure the Didache was not seriously considered for canonicity. The Shepherd of Hermas actually was considered for canonicity, but its message is not congruent with the rest of NT Scripture and was thus rejected. One doesn’t need to be infallible to recognize an incongruency.

There were hundreds of these letters. Only 22 of them ended up in the New Testament.

There were hundreds of letters from the apostles? If so, I should expect they would have been preserved even if they were not considered to be inspired Scripture. Do we have them today? If these letters were forgeries, on the other hand, then I expect their circulation among the churches would have been short-lived.

 

[Solus_Christus]

So then you do admit that your pastor’s interpretations MAY be incorrect. Good!

If that is the case, what makes you think by going back into the Bible yourself you can come up with the correct interpretation?

Yes, I admit it. My pastor’s interpretation may be incorrect. But at a high level there are two possibilities:

1. The incorrect interpretation involves a matter that is not essential, in which case he may teach the wrong thing and I may even believe the wrong thing but it does not affect our salvation.
2. The incorrect interpretation involves a matter that is essential, in which case it will be clearly conveyed in the Bible and the pastor should be confronted. Yes, it could lead to the pastor leaving the church, me leaving the church for another church (provided it is a sufficiently grave mistake he is making that subverts the Gospel - I do not believe church shopping or drifting is pleasing to God), or in the worst case a church split. Since, using an objective reading of the Bible, there is no necessity that the Church be visible, I accept this last outcome as unfortunate but necessary.

 

[Solus_Christus]

What I am saying, and what you totally fail to understand, is that Sacred Tradition came well before the New Testament was completely written and canonized by the Catholic Church.

Which part(s) of Tradition precisely? That is what I have been challenging Randy to provide for me. Perhaps you can help us with this question.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Solus Christus,

Perhaps you missed the above posts reprinted for you for your convenience. :tiphat:

Yes, I am a bit behind. Thank you for your gracious response. I asked the question, however, because you seem to be implying that exegesis is a tradition. Exegesis means nothing more than reading the meaning out of the text. I would not call that tradition, but rather common sense.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Ah, so if Evangelical Christians are not free to interpret Scriptures however they please, as you say, then what about the above admission you have made? What if you disagree with your pastor regarding an interpretation? Who decides which is the correct interpretation?

Yes, I admit I need an interpreter, but I do not (or should not) rely on any traditions of men. God be praised forevermore, Paul says I have one in the Holy Spirit: “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 2:13-16) So to the extent that I rely on the Holy Spirit and to which the Holy Spirit enlightens me, I can be made to understand God’s Word.

I can say from previous experience that incorrect understandings I once had about Scripture were changed by the Holy Spirit. There are many things I still do not understand and I am certain there are many things about which I am still wrong and therefore must walk humbly before my God. Nevertheless, as I look to God he prods me with His Holy Spirit and leads me into maturity in my understanding. I will never understand everything this side of Heaven, but I trust the Holy Spirit is enabling me with those things I do need to know when I need to know them.

Luther, to his credit, acknowledged that by making the Scriptures available to the masses it would open the floodgates and heretics would abound. Still he deemed it worth the while if it meant the common believer would have access to God’s Word. Yes, there are a plethora of Protestant denominations, and that is unfortunate. Given what we know about the Adversary it should not surprise us if there are many counterfeits. There are many who distort the Word God because they are arrogant and do not rely on the Holy Spirit. I, as a Protestant, should look to God and His leading lest I fall into the same errors. I am not infallible, but God and His Spirit are. If I have faith in God and I am among His children, I can be “sure of this, that he who began a good work in [me] will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (Phillipians 1:6). Not having a visible and audible interpreter may seem a bit frightening to a Catholic, but I would exhort: “Taste and see that the Lord is good!” Place your faith directly in God!

And, by the way, don’t most Evangelicals hail from liberal Protestant denominations?

There appears to be a misunderstanding of the term “evangelical.” No, liberal Protestant denominations are NOT evangelical, but rather the antithesis.

 

[Solus_Christus]

They are excommunicated, automatically.

They cannot return to the Sacraments without the permission of their Bishop - this goes not only for anyone who has an abortion, but also for anyone who performs an abortion, and anyone who by any action facilitated or encouraged the abortion - for example, by driving the patient to the clinic, providing money for the purpose of procuring the abortion, by telling the patient or in any way indicating to the patient that if she gave birth to the child, she would become homeless or lose her job or her place in school, or if they signed any paperwork approving of it, or worked for an abortion clinic, even if only as a janitor or book keeper.

This certainly is not true universally. The scandal of it all is that there are a number of politicians who openly support abortion. While there are some bishops who should be commended in denying these individuals the eucharist, most are not excommunicated. Moreover, there are plenty who continue to receive the eucharist. There seems to be a remarkable lack of uniformity concerning the response to this challenge within the RCC.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Any Catholic with an open mind ought to ask him or herself why it was not until 1546 that the Aprocyphal books were formally ratified. Moreover, that Council only ratified 11 of the 15 Apocryphal books. Why is that?

Recently, many Protestant apologists have been attempting to discredit the deuterocanonical books of the Bible by claiming that it would not be possible for Luther to delete books from a canon that had not been finalized.

In a private email to me, Gary Michuta, author of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, wrote:
This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to take attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.
Even if something like the definition given at Trent happened before Luther, Luther would have rejected it as being in error and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of it any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.
However, what about the claim? Here is my two cents on the matter. After the first Christian to cause a major stir by attempting to reject the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha (St. Jerome), there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not affect the authority of the definition given. Usually Ecumenical Councils met to address something that has disturbed the universal Church. By the end of the fourth century, Jerome’s views had caused trouble mainly in North Africa. Regardless of their solemnity, these councils are the first to authoritatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was questioned by a bishop as to the canon, and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. This is the first Papal decision on the canon. There were a series of decrees attributed to Popes Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormisdas (266-523) that also reaffirmed the canon, as well. By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that Pope Innocent I’s letter on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.” To this, we could add that there are about a dozen local and regional councils (not to mention popes) during this period who issued decrees that quoted the Deutero’s to confirm doctrine and with the formal introduction normally given to Scripture showing that the issue was largely settled and that bishops throughout the world were confident in appealing to these texts to quiet heresies.
Probably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decree on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority, it is just as authoritative as the rest.
In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture, and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has not authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:
“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [Second Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, 251).
So Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later [namely] that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.
Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on to adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils, something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter had already been closed hundreds of years earlier. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Not at all. Rather, that what St. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, he learned from the Holy Tradition, as taught to him by word of mouth by the Apostles and other Christians. Not from reading books.

Paul seems to be very clear about how he came to his understanding of Christ’s person and work. See the first nine verses of chapter 2 of Galatians. He does not mention tradition, but we see instead something miraculous that could only have been brought about by God’s providence.

 

[jmcrae]

Mark is making a lot of unsubstantiated claims here. However, I would just ask one question: If it was unclear what constituted Scripture to the Jews during the time of Christ, how could Christ have repeatedly appealed to the Scriptures?

The same way that they do today. Keep in mind, the Jews as a whole don’t have a set canon of Scripture - but each Synagogue has its own Scriptorium, which contains the books that that particular community reads during their Synagogue service (which is the equivalent of our Liturgy of the Word).

Wouldn’t Christ have had to first ask the individuals He was addressing what was their conception of the Scriptures to understand the extent to which their consciences had been formed?

Not at all. Even if some members of his audience didn’t recognize some of His quotations as inspired Scripture, they would have still recognized the references. Most of his audience was working from the Book of Moses, which is only the first five books of what we consider to be the Old Testament. The writings of David and of Isaiah would have still been familiar to them, though.

As someone else has pointed out, the first formal canon of Jewish Scripture was formed at Jamnia in 90 AD, specifically to exclude everything that explicitly supported Jesus as the Messiah. In modern times, any given synagogue could be using anywhere from five to 107 different books in their canon of Scripture, because even the Council of Jamnia is not binding on all Jews - they don’t have a Pope, or a Magisterium, after all.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You yourself have pointed out how some things developed over time. I do not know by what century the Sacrament of Reconciliation developed to the point we recognize it today. And that is precisely the problem: We see a gradual development over time. This was, therefore, not a tradition handed down by the apostles or we would have expected it to be fully developed from the start and thus evident in Scripture. Because it was not fully developed from the start, however, the sacrament as we recognize it today is something concocted by the RCC, but to which the RCC attributes a divine origin.

I see. And since the doctrine of the Trinity was not fully developed until the fourth century, should we conclude that this is not apostolic, either?

Question: What did Jesus mean in John 6:63 when He said: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

Grasping at Straws: John 6:63

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)

These words were spoken by Jesus shortly after delivering his teaching on the Eucharist, and some people claim that they indicate that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said, “the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man”. Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to natural man. Man is a tripartite being composed of Spirit, Soul (or mind) and Body/Flesh. Our flesh is that created, corruptible part of us; the spirit is that which is capable of relating to God and receiving his revelation, and the mind/soul is the union of spirit and body. Here are some scriptures that illustrate this:

“Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit, soul and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being nephesh – soul].” (Genesis 2:7) (dust is the body, breath of life - pneuma - is the spirit, living being is the soul).

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing” otherwise his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many Protestants cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their flesh instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.

 

[jmcrae]

Question: What did Jesus mean in John 6:63 when He said: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

He means that the Eucharist is not food for the body (thus, St. Paul’s correction to the Corinthians, in 1 Corinthians 11, when they were turning it into a kind of banquet or Church supper) but rather, it is food for the soul - it unites Christ’s spirit with our spirit.

This statement completely ignores the context. Read the chapter in its entirety. Paul is confronting the Corinthian church about the way in which it observes the Lord’s Supper.

Right, because they were turning it into a kind of banquet, with people taking too much, and people getting drunk.

Just to set the record straight, is your belief that God “promised to build a single, visible, infallible Church led by His own royal steward, Peter?” something you believe based solely on the evidence, or is your belief primarily rooted in faith?

John 17 - “Let them be one.” Jesus leaves no room in this lesson for churches to take off in their own direction, or to get out from under the leadership that He has established and set up their own system of governance. He was not visualizing 90,000 different denominations all claiming to be Christian.

 

[jmcrae]

This certainly is not true universally. The scandal of it all is that there are a number of politicians who openly support abortion. While there are some bishops who should be commended in denying these individuals the eucharist, most are not excommunicated.

Actually, they are - the excommunication is automatic - nobody has to make any kind of public announcement about it - and if they are receiving Holy Communion, they are adding sacrilege to sacrilege.

Their Bishops shouldn’t have to explain it to them as if they were five years old; it’s not really his problem if they choose to send themselves to Hell, once, twice, or thirty times over.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, which is it? Because if it is something that developed over time, then clearly it was not something handed down by the apostles via oral tradition. If it was understood by the apostles, then Mr. Boncore’s explanation does not hold water and his portrayal of the Council of Jerusalem is a sham.

If we are speaking here of whether Peter was the head of the Church, then, yes, it was understood and taught by the Apostles. The Council of Jerusalem provides evidence of this.

1. If it is by way of these figurative keys that binding and loosing occurs (according to your own words), AND
2. Christ gave this power to all of his disciples (Matthew 18:18), THEN
3. Does it not stand to reason that the other disciples also have these keys?

You have already said you disagree with the logic and quoted others which take the same stance. I am not looking for agreement, however, but rather how you have determined the logic to be flawed that led to your disagreement. In other words, is your disagreement based purely on the disagreement of others or is your disagreement based on reason?

I think this is simple enough. I do not hold that Peter had the authority to bind and loose by virtue of his having the keys. Indeed, Matthew 18 clearly tells us that all of the apostles had this authority. (This actually tells us more about their infallibility as apostles than it does about Peter’s position.)

Instead, Peter held the keys as the symbol of his position as the royal steward in the kingdom that Jesus re-established as the heir to the Davidic throne.

Peter – The Royal Steward

Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”. In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22)

In the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, and the successors of Peter have taken his place in the eternal office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter. Peter has received authority from Jesus to speak in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

In closing, let me add that while all the apostles were individually infallible when teaching formally on matters of faith and morals, only Peter held the office that exists in perpetuity. Thus, only Peter’s successor (who likewise holds the keys) is individually infallible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peradventure one day the Pope released a document teaching about some doctrinal matter, but it was not deemed to be ex cathedra. Let’s say even the Pope stated it should not be taken as being received as ex cathedra. But the Catholic faithful joyfully accept and read the document. Now, what if the document contained a subtle but destructive heresy? Is it possible that large portions of the Church could be led astray in this scenario?

The RCC argument is that the charism of infallibility is specifically intended to keep the Church from going astray. My difficulty is that the requirements of ex cathedra seem to limit the scope to the point that infallibility does not really protect the Church.

I think, Randy, it would help me and our discussion if you can help me to understand what Catholics understand to be the body of infallible teaching (which, I assume would be all declarations made ex cathedra?). Everyone on this forum keeps telling me I misunderstand the charism, so let’s just get this nailed down once and for all. I do not want your personal ideas, mind you, but rather the official Church teaching on this matter.

There is no official list of ex cathedra pronouncements. That said, I do not think you will be helped at all by understanding the content of the Church’s teaching until you understand why the Church is in the position to teach in the first place. Without the why, you’ll merely reject the what.

However, if you really want the “official Church teaching on this matter”, then why not read the Church’s documents for yourself?

That way, you can be sure that you are not being misinformed by someone like me who may be inclined to inject personal opinion.

The Catechism (with a great search utility) is available here:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

And all Church documents are available here:

www.vatican.va

Have fun!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good point! We really need to try to be objective here. With this in mind, please tell me how an objective reading (i.e. sans the RCC’s eisegesis) of Matthew 16:17-19 proves infallibility. Remember, the objective reader would also be willing to include in his considerations Matthew 18:18,19!

I think I addressed this just a moment ago, but let me ask: am I artificially constrained to that single passage? Or am I permitted to build my case from all that we know on this topic from the NT?

I said the RCC’s reasoning, but I understand that as a Catholic you take it personally.

I have thicker skin than that.

I am not being rude, however, just challenging the reasoning. If the reasoning is not the impetus behind your acceptation of the Catholic interpretation, however, then tell me it is really based on faith and we will stop arguing about it.

Okay. God called me into the Catholic Church in 1979. By faith I accept that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, died upon a cross, rose again, and ascended into heaven. I accept that He founded a Church and left Peter in charge. Etc., etc.

I also happen to find all of that historically and biblically accurate and reasonable.

So, am I a member of the Catholic Church by faith or by reason?

Actually, that is precisely my contention. The Catholic believes he/she is placing their faith in God by relying on the RCC to teach them what to believe concerning God. The Catholic believes this because the RCC teaches them that this is God’s plan (and the RCC accuses Protestants of circular reasoning!).

I think you have proposed a false dichotomy. I could demonstrate for you why this is wrong if you are interested. Let me know.

But by trusting in this claim by the RCC, the Catholic is not placing his/her trust in God (since the RCC’s assertion is not revealed as true in His Word), but in the RCC.

That’s the assertion. To refute this, all I am asking is to be shown where God reveals this design advocated by the RCC in His Word. The passages produced in response have not accomplished this by any objective reading of the passages not to mention when considered within their associated contexts.

Maybe I’m just tired today, but I’m not sure I get what you’re saying. It’s your assertion that the Bible does not teach that the Catholic Church is the one true Church…or something like that. Is that about right? If not, could you give me a one-sentence position statement (yours or mine) that you want me to defend or refute?

Sheesh, I’m 500+ posts in a thread on exactly this issue with two other Protestants (whom you will love, btw). I hope I don’t have to replay the whole thing again.

Another question for you Randy: Do you believe there is a unifying theme in the Bible? If so, what is it?

One theme? Wow. Redemption of God’s people? Formation of the people of God?

I get the feeling if I don’t use the right buzzword, I’ll fail the quiz.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Coming from a Protestant background, please tell me what was it that led you to convert to catholicism. As a Protestant I see so many problems with the claims of the RCC, so I am genuinely interested to hear your conversion story. Were you predisposed toward the Catholic Church, or was it a hard fought struggle for you?

I grew up in North Carolina which has the smallest percentage of Catholics in the country or did when I was young (lots of folks have moved here from up north in recent years). Consequently, I was not predisposed to Catholicism - I was completely ignorant of it!

However, as I have learned later, one side of my entire family was Catholic until my Grandmother left the Church because her mother divorced and remarried apart from the Church and was refused burial in a Catholic cemetary. Well, adultery has its consequences. As a result my father was raised Episcopalian, but became Methodist after marrying my mother who is Baptist. The point of telling you all of that is to say that I suspect I have many Catholic relatives in heaven who were praying for me.

I was fortunate in that it was not a hard-fought struggle. When I was in college, God drew me to Himself and His Church, and I embraced them both.

Are there no concerns about the Church being led astray informally taught doctrines?

No. If you are aware of any informal errors that Catholics are being taught, please share them.

I hate to point out the obvious, but “quite good” is not synonymous with “the same.” Either there is uniformity or there is not. What you describe are similarities. Do the Orthodox believe in the infallibility of the Pope? No! Do they believe in the primacy of the Pope? No! There is not uniformity by any definition, else the Orthodox would cease to distinguish themselves and would subordinate their hierarchy to the Bishop of Rome. How can the RCC maintain that there is only one visible Church in one breath and then call the Orthodox church a true church in the next breath? This is a strange paradox. Is the Church of Christ only found in one visible institution or not? If I appear ignorant, then it is because I am confused by all of the double-talk.

I appreciate the fact that you actually read the material that is offered in response to your questions. Here’s something that addresses the issue you have just raised directly:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

 

[jmcrae]

One theme? Wow. Redemption of God’s people? Formation of the people of God?

I get the feeling if I don’t use the right buzzword, I’ll fail the quiz.

I always thought it was the story of the establishment of the Catholic Church, militant, suffering, and triumphant, beginning with one man and woman, a couple (Adam and Eve), continuing with a man and his wife and children (Noah and his family), a family, and then a tribe (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), and then a nation (David), and now with Jesus, the whole world, and Heaven, and purgatory.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, this pretty much settles it for me. The Orthodox church is not a “true church” after all. If it were, Peter’s successor would be able to exercise authority over the Orthodox church. Since the Orthodox church does not recognize the Pope’s authority over them, however, and since it is a separate visible institution, it must not be a “true church.” I sure hope that Lumen Gentium wasn’t pronounced ex cathedra!

Abundant reasons maybe, but certainly no conclusive reasons. Once again, it is all predicated on an acceptance of the elaborate interpretive framework erected around this passage by the RCC. If you take off your “Catholic glasses” and look at the passage objectively, these “abundant reasons” appear very questionable. I have already shown “abundant reasons” to doubt that the passage portends everything the RCC claims it does. A number of questions throw the RCC’s interpretation into doubt and still have not been answered. To name three of them:

1. If a special charism was being conferred on Peter in Matthew 16:18, then why was the same charism given to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18?

I answered this a moment ago, but I want to be sure that you know I’m responding to your direct questions. All of the Apostles were individually infallible. Only the successor of Peter is infallible today.

1. If this special charism, communicated clearly in the original Aramaic, was understood by the disciples, why did none of them acknowledge this charism at crucial junctures, like the Council in Jerusalem?

I’m not sure exactly how much was understood by the apostles themselves. This may reflect on me more than on them, but let’s assume it’s the latter since that advances your cause. Or does it?

Did the apostles fully understand infallibility? How about the Trinity? Or the hypostatic union?

Does their lack of understanding invalidate these doctrines? Or could it be that doctrine develops over time and that what begins as an acorn grows into a mighty oak?

Peter may not have seen the mature tree, but he held the kernel in his hand.

1. If the “rock” referred to in Matthew 16:18 was Peter, then why is Peter referred to in the second person whereas “this rock” is referred to in the third person?

Recall that Jesus was in Caesarea Phillipi with all of His disciples. I have always believed that Jesus spoke directly to Peter in the first portion of the sentence and turned to the other Apostles when speaking the latter. There are no stage directions contained in the Gospel, of course.

[Addressing Peter]“And I tell you that you are Kepha…”
[Turning to the others]“and upon this kepha I will build my church.”

Jesus flat out told them all that Peter was the man.

Whoops…there are those darned personal opinions again.

However, I have quotes from two dozen Protestant theologians who agree that Peter personally is the rock. You probably have some of them on your bookshelves…care to read them?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, I admit it. My pastor’s interpretation may be incorrect. But at a high level there are two possibilities:

1. The incorrect interpretation involves a matter that is not essential, in which case he may teach the wrong thing and I may even believe the wrong thing but it does not affect our salvation.

Does your denomination practice infant baptism? Is it essential? What happens when your pastor’s study leads him to the position opposite of your own?

1. The incorrect interpretation involves a matter that is essential, in which case it will be clearly conveyed in the Bible and the pastor should be confronted. Yes, it could lead to the pastor leaving the church, me leaving the church for another church (provided it is a sufficiently grave mistake he is making that subverts the Gospel - I do not believe church shopping or drifting is pleasing to God), or in the worst case a church split. Since, using an objective reading of the Bible, there is no necessity that the Church be visible, I accept this last outcome as unfortunate but necessary.

To the contrary, Jesus established a visible church, and this is demonstrated as follows:

In Matthew 16:17-19, Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Which part(s) of Tradition precisely? That is what I have been challenging Randy to provide for me. Perhaps you can help us with this question.

This is a bit confusing, but Tradition is composed of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

[81](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/81.htm’) "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] *Tradition *transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

[83](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/83.htm’) The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#83