Where to begin?

[Tomster]

Solus,

“The earnest Protestant who goes directly to the Bible for his beliefs is brought into immediate contact with the Holy Spirit, and can take the ideas that his reading conveys to him personally as the direct teaching of the Holy Spirit to himself, and the individual inquirer can . . . be SURE [emph. mine] of extracting from the Scripture text the intended meaning of its divine author.” - Martin Luther

There you have it. Straight from Dr. Luther’s mouth (his own oral tradition) which was passed on in written form.

Can you see the flawed reasoning he exhibited when he promulgated this doctrine? Can you see how it lead to a multiplicity of fallible opinions and creeds in Protestantism, all of them based on the Bible?

Be that as it may.

Give us your list of essentials from the Bible please.

Solus,

I understand that you are trying to reply to everyone.

Care to reply to the above?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am trying to work my way from older post to newer posts since I am so far behind, but Tomster is clamoring for a response, so I will oblige:

No, I am sure they would employ sophistry to exhonerate their position. The Bible, however, is unambiguous concerning this:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2:12)

I’ll play devil’s advocate here…

Okay. Paul did not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.

Does that necessarily mean that God views things the same way?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are being very disingenuous here. Would you dare (or even think) to say to a fellow Christian (even if he were a good Christian) “I am going to ‘praise thee in heaven’”

Wow. We praise athletes for their accomplishments all the time. What is wrong with thinking that those who have “run the race” here on earth most worthily will be held in high esteem in heaven?

or “all thy servants who call upon thee for aid in death are saved”

Since Mary has access to her Son (and the prayers of the righteous availeth much), those who call upon her for assistance are sure to receive it from Him. Duh.

or “thou art the refuge of the abandoned”

What mother does not care for those entrusted to her. Jesus entrusted the Church to her at the foot of His cross.

or “thou art my only hope”

Understood properly, that Mary does nothing apart from Jesus, this is acceptable. However, I concede that this is pushing the edge of the envelope into a prose that I would not choose personally. Happy?

or “all graces are dispensed by your hand alone”?

Mary As Mediatrix
By Steve Ray
blog.catholicconvert.com

 

[Prieldedi]

The Holy Spirit is the real and final authority.

I understand from your previous posts that you believe that the Holy Spirit guides every person when reading Scriptures. Yet Scripture shows us that’s not the case:

Acts 8:
26 An angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south towards the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza, the desert road.”
27 So he set out and it happened that an Ethiopian was passing along that way. He was an official in charge of the treasury of the queen of the Ethiopians; he had come on pilgrimage to Jerusalem
28 and was on his way home. He was sitting in his carriage and reading the prophet Isaiah.
29 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and catch up with that carriage.”
30 So Philip ran up and heard the man reading the prophet Isaiah; and he asked, “Do you really understand what you are reading?” The Ethiopian replied,
31 “How can I, unless someone explains it to me?” He then invited Philip to get in and sit beside him.

The above passage presents us with a scenario in which the Holy Spirit DIDN’T speak to the person reading the Scriptures. In fact, He spoke to the person NOT READING Scriptures. The Ethiopian was doing what every Protestant is asked to do: open Scriptures, read it and the Holy Spirit will come to guide you, period. But the Holy Spirit acted in a completely different way from what Protestants claim He does.

This is a no brainer and needs no interpretation: the Holy Spirit DIDN’T speak to this individual while he was reading the Scriptures, he received NO GUIDANCE from the Holy Spirit. Then, why do Protestants teach something that goes completely against what Scripture teaches?

I present to you your own quote from Scripture:

Galatians 1:8, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

Who’s really preaching “other” gospel?

 

[Lampo]

The Holy Spirit is the real and final authority.

How do you come to that conclusion?

 

[Solus_Christus]

Randy,

I have enjoyed our discussions and have learned a good bit along the way. I am genuinely pleased that you have decided to continue the dialogue. I apologize for having offended, and will do my best not to offend again, up to and including refraining from attempts at humor if you so wish. Having said that, I will pick up where I left off (which is far behind everyone else)…

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?

Unlike the the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the idea of the Trinity is quite clear in Scripture. Consider the following example: In the Nicene Creed, we say “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” To arrive at this statement, the Council of Nicea did not have to infer anything or develop any sort of elaborate extra-biblical dogma. In fact, the idea did not originate in that council, but rather from Jesus Himself, who said: “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me” (John 15:22)

Grasping at Straws: John 6:63

This seems like a reasonable explanation to me. Yes, Jesus frequently spoke in spiritual terms. In fact, his disciples confronted Him at one point to understand why He did this, and He told them: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” (Matthew 13:11) I actually had never thought that Christ was referring to His own flesh in the John 6:63 passage.

My reason for asking the question was along a different line: A very similar incident occurred when Nicodemus met with Jesus. During the course of that conversation Jesus said something very much akin to John 6:63 when He said: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit…If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:6,12) Now, why does the RCC insist on a literal interpretation of John 6:56, but not John 3:3? The obvious answer is that a literal interpretation of John 3:3 is impossible, but then, short of a miracle so is 6:56. We have another scenario here where the RCC must be inconsistent in its interpretations in order to arrive at its dogmas.

In both John 3:3 and 6:56, Christ is using physical terms to convey spiritual realities. If we recognize this, then we can be consistent in the way we interpret both passages.

Another example is found in our passage in John 6. The Jews actually had two problems with what Christ was telling them. Their other objection had to do with Christ saying he had come down from Heaven. The Jews grumbled about this as well saying: “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Christ is not saying that He literally, physically, descended from Heaven, which would be to deny that He was born of Mary. Rather, He is indicating that He was sent of the Father (verse 57). These two things (that He is the bread of life and that he came down from heaven) are intimately tied together in this passage. In order to arrive at the RCC interpretation it is necessary to rip these two things apart and treat them in very different ways.

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.

This is spot-on. FWIW I agree 100%.

 

[Solus_Christus]

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.

You and Randy are both Catholics and yet you provided me with different answers. I believe their is unity among you, I am not questioning that, but I would like to point out that there is not uniformity.

On a separate note, I must not completely understand what you are saying because I would actually tend to agree with you. I do believe there is spiritual benefit to partaking of communion. But if that benefit is purely spiritual, then why is it necessary for a physical transformation of the elements?

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

Randy’s contention is that the passage did not speak of the Lord’s Supper. Are you agreeing with me?

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.

That statement alone does not necessitate a visible church. There are many ways in which individuals can be said to be in unity or “one.” As an example, in the aftermath of the earthquakes in Haiti there were many organizations which arrived to help the people in their plight. Though these people came from different organizations it would be valid to say that they were unified or “one” in their efforts to help the people of Haiti.

 

[Solus_Christus]

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.

I am incredulous. If this were the case, then why all the hubub when one bishop decides to deny a politician communion? No, all of the debate thus far has been whether or not these politicians should be denied communion. Excommunication, a much larger issue, has not even been a topic of discussion as far as I have seen.

Can anyone provide substance to jmcrae’s claim?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

I have enjoyed our discussions and have learned a good bit along the way. I am genuinely pleased that you have decided to continue the dialogue. I apologize for having offended, and will do my best not to offend again, up to and including refraining from attempts at humor if you so wish. Having said that, I will pick up where I left off (which is far behind everyone else)…

Unlike the the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the idea of the Trinity is quite clear in Scripture. Consider the following example: In the Nicene Creed, we say “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” To arrive at this statement, the Council of Nicea did not have to infer anything or develop any sort of elaborate extra-biblical dogma. In fact, the idea did not originate in that council, but rather from Jesus Himself, who said: “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me” (John 15:22)

Concerning the filioque, clearly the Orthodox disagree with you and with me on this. They do not think it is so clear at all.

Concerning reconciliation, when Jesus told the Apostles to forgive sins, did He also give them the ability to read minds? Or did they have to hear the sins in order to forgive them?

This seems like a reasonable explanation to me. Yes, Jesus frequently spoke in spiritual terms. In fact, his disciples confronted Him at one point to understand why He did this, and He told them: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” (Matthew 13:11) I actually had never thought that Christ was referring to His own flesh in the John 6:63 passage.

My reason for asking the question was along a different line: A very similar incident occurred when Nicodemus met with Jesus. During the course of that conversation Jesus said something very much akin to John 6:63 when He said: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit…If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:6,12) Now, why does the RCC insist on a literal interpretation of John 6:56, but not John 3:3? The obvious answer is that a literal interpretation of John 3:3 is impossible, but then, short of a miracle so is 6:56. We have another scenario here where the RCC must be inconsistent in its interpretations in order to arrive at its dogmas.

Not at all. In John 6, Jesus is speaking of his own flesh and blood in a literal way. In John 3, being born again does literally mean being born of the Spirit, but it does not mean entering the womb again.

In both John 3:3 and 6:56, Christ is using physical terms to convey spiritual realities. If we recognize this, then we can be consistent in the way we interpret both passages.

In John 3, Jesus corrects Nicodemus’ literal interpretation. In John 6, He lets the crowd walk away because no correction is possible - they knew He was speakinig literally and rejected His words. Nothing more could be done.

Another example is found in our passage in John 6. The Jews actually had two problems with what Christ was telling them. Their other objection had to do with Christ saying he had come down from Heaven. The Jews grumbled about this as well saying: “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Christ is not saying that He literally, physically, descended from Heaven, which would be to deny that He was born of Mary. Rather, He is indicating that He was sent of the Father (verse 57).

This is incorrect. Jesus was fully man and fully God. As God, yes, He had “come down from heaven” at the Incarnation.

These two things (that He is the bread of life and that he came down from heaven) are intimately tied together in this passage. In order to arrive at the RCC interpretation it is necessary to rip these two things apart and treat them in very different ways.

Now that I explained that Jesus DID come down from heaven, you can see that there is no difficulty for Catholics.

This is spot-on. FWIW I agree 100%.

Hey…I got something right!

 

[jmcrae]

This sounds like a blatant excuse to me. The so-called “artist” which placed a crucifix in a jar of urine and called it “art” can call it whatever he wants, but in the end it is grotesque. Likewise, words which attribute Christ’s glory to someone else can be called poetry, but in the end it too is grotesque.

Wow. What a terrible thing with which to compare Jesus’ Mother.

You are being very disingenuous here. Would you dare (or even think) to say to a fellow Christian (even if he were a good Christian) “I am going to ‘praise thee in heaven’” or “all thy servants who call upon thee for aid in death are saved” or “thou art the refuge of the abandoned” or “thou art my only hope” or “all graces are dispensed by your hand alone”? Are these words true of every (or for that matter, any) good Christian?

I hope that all of these things will be true of all of us, in the end.

To listen to modern day Evangelicals, anybody would think that when we go to Heaven, we will be dressed in rags instead of with crowns of gold, and instead of being free to go and to do where ever and what ever we want, we will have our arms and legs tied up, and instead of being able to pray for one another for the Divine assistance, our mouths will be gagged.

Quite honestly, I prefer the Catholic Heaven, in which we all help in the Divine commission to bring the whole world to Jesus. It seems like a worthwhile way to spend Eternity.

 

[jmcrae]

That statement alone does not necessitate a visible church. There are many ways in which individuals can be said to be in unity or “one.” As an example, in the aftermath of the earthquakes in Haiti there were many organizations which arrived to help the people in their plight. Though these people came from different organizations it would be valid to say that they were unified or “one” in their efforts to help the people of Haiti.

If all of the churches that call themselves Christian were doing and teaching the same things, or even striving for the same goals, there would be merit to this idea.

However, the various different churches don’t, in fact, teach or do the same things, and in many cases, they do opposite things, and have opposite goals from one another.

The heart is deceitful above all things; therefore, we cannot rely on our own understanding to be able to figure out which church is correct - we are just as likely to be deceived as anyone else, and clearly, a lot of people are being deceived.

What we have to do, then, is figure out which of them is the one established by Christ and the Apostles, by looking at which one has existed in every generation from 33 AD until now (since we know from Christ’s promise that it can never fail), and choose to follow that one.

 

[jmcrae]

I am incredulous. If this were the case, then why all the hubub when one bishop decides to deny a politician communion?

The politician shouldn’t be going forward in the first place - and in most cases, they don’t. (Most of them don’t even attend Mass on Sundays, so it isn’t even an issue.) When they do, the media loves to make a big deal out of it, to make it seem like “the big bad Church” is doing something mean to someone.

No, all of the debate thus far has been whether or not these politicians should be denied communion. Excommunication, a much larger issue, has not even been a topic of discussion as far as I have seen.

It’s the same debate, since excommunication simply means, they can’t receive Holy Communion.

It’s not like disfellowshipping. They are still Catholic - they are just not allowed, at the present time, to receive Holy Communion, until they make a public reversal of their policies.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Including my quote here just to help keep the thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Christus
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.

No, we are speaking here of whether the understanding of Peter’s charism of infallibility was fully understood by Peter and the other disciples.

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.

Let me say, in my own words, what I think you are saying. Then tell me where my misunderstanding is wrong. I think you are saying:

1. The keys are symbolic of power
2. The keys were only given to Peter
3. The keys have nothing to do with binding and loosing

Is this correct?

It sure feels like you are backpeddling here, but I will give you the benefit of a doubt and rack it up to my own misunderstanding.

If the keys have nothing to do with binding and loosing or, at least, are not the means by which the binding and loosing occurs, then why do you reference the passage from Isaiah where it talks about opening and shutting? Moreover, why does Christ reference the keys in Matthew 16:19 in conjunction with binding and loosing? What is the symbolic significance if not to open and close and bind and loose? Yes, the keys connote authority, but what is the privilege of that authority if not to use them in the opening and shutting and binding and loosing?

 

[Randy_Carson]

That statement alone does not necessitate a visible church.

Perhaps…but the following does:

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which 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.

 

[Solus_Christus]

There is no official list of ex cathedra pronouncements.

What!!!??? How are the Catholic faithful to know what are divine truths and what are the opinions of men? What good is the charism if it does not produce an infallible body of teachings to which the Church can refer? I guess I understand this charism even less than I thought. Please educate me.

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

Yikes! The scope of the Vatican website is huge. Trying to find something there could be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

 

[jmcrae]

What!!!??? How are the Catholic faithful to know what are divine truths and what are the opinions of men?

Easy - we don’t worry about it. They are in authority over us in any case - we have to do as they tell us, no matter what.

Policemen don’t have the charism of infallibility, but you still have to obey them.

Parents don’t have the charism of infallibility, but their children still have to obey them.

The writer of the Letter to the Hebrews tells us, “Obey your Bishops (in some translations, “overseers”) for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.” Hebrews 13:17

As Catholics, we don’t pick and choose what to obey, based on whether we think it is “of men” or not.

The charism of infallibility is not there so that we can pick and choose whether to be obedient or not.

The only people who worry about that sort of thing are specialized theologians who concern themselves with intricate distinctions - and Protestants.

What good is the charism if it does not produce an infallible body of teachings to which the Church can refer?

The body of teachings is the body of teachings. It came originally from the Apostles, and develops only in the details, and in the amount of explanation there is available - the substance has remained the same from the beginning.

Some things are matters of custom and can be changed when the circumstances warrant it (the language in which the Mass is said; the liturgical colours for each season of the Church year, laws of fasting, etc.) - the fact that they are matters of custom, and thus “man made” does not make them any less required for obedience - nobody could suddenly start decorating the Church in pink, or yellow, for the Season of Ordinary Time, as long as the rule says green.

 

[Solus_Christus]

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?

Absolutely. The more Scripture the better!

By faith I accept that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, died upon a cross, rose again, and ascended into heaven.

Yes, it is by faith. But this much, at least, is also a well-reasoned and informed faith. Let me explain what I mean using just one of many available examples: Non-believers often question whether the disciples did not just make up the resurrection. The Christian’s faith on this matter, however, is well-founded. Since the non-believer does not accept Scripture as authoritative we can point out, for example, that many of the apostles faced imprisonment and death for their convictions, and no one is willing to die to protect something they know to be a lie. In addition, the historicity of the resurrection is well attested to in the gospel accounts which are better preserved than any other historical documents such as, say, Homer’s Illiad. No one contests the legitimacy of the extent copies of the Illiad. For these reasons and many more, we have a well-reasoned faith in the historicity of Christ and His resurrection.

My question, then, is whether your faith in the RCC is also well-reasoned and, if so, on what basis can you answer in the affirmative?

=========================================================

In order to help maintain the thread, my quote:

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!).

Randy’s response:

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

I am not attempting to say that you cannot trust someone and trust God at the same time (i.e. I am not attempting to setup a dichotomy). I am saying a clear instruction from God (i.e. not requiring an extrapolated interpretation of Scripture) is needed to assure believers that all the RCC claims about itself is true. The reasons provided from Scripture up to this point involve extrapolations (i.e. the rock Jesus spoke of refers to Peter THEREFORE Jesus was saying that He was building His Church on Peter THEREFORE the Church is a visible Church THEREFORE Peter’s position had to be passed on via apostolic succession, etc. etc.). In fine, all of the RCC’s claims about itself are predicated on inferences made from Scripture. There are no explicit declarations in the Bible supporting these claims. Why is this?

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.

I would ask you to point me to the thread, but I am so far behind this thread at this point…

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.

Good, I am glad we both agree that there is a unifying theme to Scripture. I even think your attempts at stating that theme are agreeable. It sounds like you would also agree, then, that God desires, though is not in need of, fellowship/relationship with man. Do you agree?

 

[Solus_Christus]

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

Based on what you’ve told me (i.e. that the teachings which were delivered ex cathedra are not clearly delineated) I am at a loss to know what errors are formal and what errors are official.

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

I am not sure whether this was said in sarcasm, but if I missed something I apologize. That said…the RCC can be so long winded. Seeing as how I am so far behind in the thread, could you kindly point me to the most pertinent sections of the document to which you linked?

 

[jmcrae]

Absolutely. The more Scripture the better!

Yes, it is by faith. But this much, at least, is also a well-reasoned and informed faith. Let me explain what I mean using just one of many available examples: Non-believers often question whether the disciples did not just make up the resurrection. The Christian’s faith on this matter, however, is well-founded. Since the non-believer does not accept Scripture as authoritative we can point out, for example, that many of the apostles faced imprisonment and death for their convictions, and no one is willing to die to protect something they know to be a lie. In addition, the historicity of the resurrection is well attested to in the gospel accounts which are better preserved than any other historical documents such as, say, Homer’s Illiad. No one contests the legitimacy of the extent copies of the Illiad. For these reasons and many more, we have a well-reasoned faith in the historicity of Christ and His resurrection.

My question, then, is whether your faith in the RCC is also well-reasoned and, if so, on what basis can you answer in the affirmative?

My faith in the RCC (such that my faith is in the RCC - actually, I trust in Jesus, who gave me the RCC as a helper, along with the Bible, and the movement of the stars, and food and water, etc.) is based on the facts of history.

It is a historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead, as you have already pointed out - it is true because it really happened; not because it’s in the Bible. It got into the Bible because it really happened. Writing something in the Bible does not “cause” it to be true - things were written in the Bible because they already were true, and things not written in the Bible that are true, remain true, even though they aren’t in the Bible - such as the hierarchy of the Church.

I am not attempting to say that you cannot trust someone and trust God at the same time (i.e. I am not attempting to setup a dichotomy). I am saying a clear instruction from God (i.e. not requiring an extrapolated interpretation of Scripture) is needed to assure believers that all the RCC claims about itself is true. The reasons provided from Scripture up to this point involve extrapolations (i.e. the rock Jesus spoke of refers to Peter THEREFORE Jesus was saying that He was building His Church on Peter THEREFORE the Church is a visible Church THEREFORE Peter’s position had to be passed on via apostolic succession, etc. etc.). In fine, all of the RCC’s claims about itself are predicated on inferences made from Scripture. There are no explicit declarations in the Bible supporting these claims. Why is this?

Keep in mind that the Papacy was into its fourth generation before the first word was written down of any of the four Gospels. The Catholic faith doesn’t come from the Bible, but rather, the Bible comes from the Catholic faith. The people to whom the New Testament was first given, knew already about the Pope. They didn’t need it explicitly written down, any more than we need to know how often or when Jesus and the Apostles used the bathroom - we know that they did, and we don’t need it in writing.

 

[Solus_Christus]

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.

If you are suggesting that this belief (Peter’s infallibility) was not held at first but developed over time, then I would certainly agree with that. But if that is the case, then it stands to reason that this was not really a tradition passed down by the Apostles.