Where to begin?

[jmcrae]

For anybody reading, I meant to put “yes” for the first question in the 5th comparison between Ishtar and Mary. They did indeed worship Ishtar. My mistake…

Anyway, back to your response.

Yeah… I completely screwed it up. Not surprisingly… Huge brain fart.

Thanks for noticing that and clearing it up!

The point still stands, right?

Your point was actually very well made.

 

[Prieldedi]

For anybody reading, I meant to put “yes” for the first question in the 5th comparison between Ishtar and Mary. They did indeed worship Ishtar. My mistake…

Anyway, back to your response.

Yeah… I completely screwed it up. Not surprisingly… Huge brain fart.

Thanks for noticing that and clearing it up!

The point still stands, right?

All of them!

 

[Lampo]

I will be glad to oblige as soon as you produce a passage that declares Christians must await word from the Sacred Magisterium before deciding what to believe.

Your premise is false. Where in Scripture does it say that to be considered Christian it must be found in Scripture?

 

[Lampo]

“The fundamentalists are funny enough, and the funniest thing about them is their name. For, whatever else the fundamentalist is, he is not fundamental. He is content with the bare letter of Scripture—the translation of a translation, coming down to him by the tradition of a tradition—without venturing to ask for its original authority.” ~G.K. Chesterton

 

[Solus_Christus]

I understand from your previous posts that you believe that the Holy Spirit guides every person when reading Scriptures.

That is not true. Only those who have the Holy Spirit (i.e. Christians) can expect to be guided by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14). Secondly, Christians must be attentive to the Holy Spirit. If our heart and motives are not right, we will not hear the Holy Spirit.

In the example you provided, the Ethiopian was not yet a Christian, so of course he did not have the Holy Spirit to guide him.

Who’s really preaching “other” gospel?

The Gospel message is that Christ lived to satisfy God’s righteousness and died to save us from our sins thereby reconciling us to God. Our discussion of hermeneutics is not another Gospel provided we do not deny that basic truth. Therefore, your statement is not applicable.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Christus
The Holy Spirit is the real and final authority.

How do you come to that conclusion?

The context of my statement is that the Holy Spirit is the real and final authority when it comes to the true meaning of the Scriptures. I come to that conclusion by the simple fact that the Holy Spirit is the Author of the Scriptures (2 Peter 1:21).

 

[Solus_Christus]

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

Do they not accept the Nicene Creed then?

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?

Sorry, I am not making the connection between your question and what I had written. What passage are you discussing here?

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

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

Go back and read what I wrote. You are effectively denying the virgin birth with this statement. Yes, Jesus was fully God and fully man - that is not being questioned. What I am saying is that the incarnation was not the ascension in reverse.

 

[Solus_Christus]

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

You are miscontruing my statement, and I suspect you know it.

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

Just to be clear, you hope that up in Heaven others will come up to you and tell you that you are their only hope? That all graces are dispensed by your hand alone? If that is truly your ambition, then you are setting yourself up against Christ.

 

[Solus_Christus]

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.

That is because there are many churches who call themselves Christian which are not. “And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” (2 Corinthians 11:14-15)

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.

There is no such thing. The Church split in 1054. Thereafter there was the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox churches. A more sure guide would be to compare the various teachings of the many extant churches against God’s Holy Word, which is the measuring rod against which everything will be judged.

 

[pablope]

That is not true. Only those who have the Holy Spirit (i.e. Christians) can expect to be guided by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14). Secondly, Christians must be attentive to the Holy Spirit. If our heart and motives are not right, we will not hear the Holy Spirit.

In the example you provided, the Ethiopian was not yet a Christian, so of course he did not have the Holy Spirit to guide him.

The Gospel message is that Christ lived to satisfy God’s righteousness and died to save us from our sins thereby reconciling us to God. Our discussion of hermeneutics is not another Gospel provided we do not deny that basic truth. Therefore, your statement is not applicable.

So, what you are saying, someone, who is not a Christian, will be not guided by the HS, when that person’s intention is to learn about God, about Jesus and his teaching on His own by reading the Bible? So, the HS will not open the seeds of Christ in the person because he is a Christian, and has no way of knowing otherwise?

 

[Solus_Christus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Christus
That statement alone does not necessitate a visible church.

Perhaps…but the following does:

The entire premise hinges on three verses about which there is a great debate. It is fascinating that from three verses the RCC extrapolates all of the following:

1. A hierarchical eccesial polity
2. Infallibility
3. A visible Church
4. Apostolic succession

Every single one of these is inferred from the text. And while they are touted as being of paramount importance by the RCC, they are nowhere stated explicitly. Amazing!

But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence

To the contrary, if the RCC ceased to exist tomorrow, there would still be a Church testifying to Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers

Abundant does not equal conclusive. Moreover, there are abundant reasons to question the abundant reasons provided. But, since we have gone around in a dozen circles on this, I digress.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do they not accept the Nicene Creed then?

They do not accept the filioque.

Sorry, I am not making the connection between your question and what I had written. What passage are you discussing here?

John 20:21-23
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

How could the apostles determine whether to forgive or not forgive someone’s sins without hearing (via oral confession) what those sins were and how contrite the person was? Or did Jesus give them the gift of mind-reading, also?

Go back and read what I wrote. You are effectively denying the virgin birth with this statement. Yes, Jesus was fully God and fully man - that is not being questioned. What I am saying is that the incarnation was not the ascension in reverse.

The second person of the Holy Trinity existed for all eternity. At the incarnation, He entered into the womb of Mary to be born as a man, Jesus. IOW, “he came down from heaven”. Jesus 1) is the bread of life and 2) did come down from heaven. Catholics do not have to treat these two ideas from John 6 differently as you stated in your post.

BTW, how does this deny the Virgin Birth???

 

[Solus_Christus]

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.

Not true. We all have a choice as to what we will believe. If you choose to believe teachings which contradict God’s Word, you will be held accountable for that choice.

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.

Yet if they command you to violate God’s law, say, requiring you to commit murder, you are obligated to disobey their commands. God will not hold guiltless those who do evil because they were instructed by others to do so. God is the ultimate authority, and His law is binding above all others.

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.

Ignatius said: “if [the Church] shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.” I think that statement speaks for itself. In modern parlance, he advocating the drinking of Kool Aid.

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.

Well, that is the boast anyway. Since it was conveniently communicated only orally, however, it amounts to nothing more than hearsay. The RCC certainly cannot prove that the body of teachings (minus some details) came directly from the apostles. It can only pronounce it dogmatically and insist that the laity accept it.

 

[Prieldedi]

That is not true. Only those who have the Holy Spirit (i.e. Christians) can expect to be guided by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14). Secondly, Christians must be attentive to the Holy Spirit. If our heart and motives are not right, we will not hear the Holy Spirit.

In the example you provided, the Ethiopian was not yet a Christian, so of course he did not have the Holy Spirit to guide him.

The Gospel message is that Christ lived to satisfy God’s righteousness and died to save us from our sins thereby reconciling us to God. Our discussion of hermeneutics is not another Gospel provided we do not deny that basic truth. Therefore, your statement is not applicable.

I meant every “Christian” person when reading Scriptures.

Anyway, I knew that was going to be your defense: the Holy Spirit only talks to Christians. But your premise is wrong because the Holy Spirit speaks to whom He deems appropriate at any moment in history.

Paul, who wasn’t a Christian and was not attentive to the Holy Spirit was contacted by God. His heart and motives were not right (he was helping in the killing of Christians), yet God talked to him. For that matter, the Ethiopian was a better man than Paul.

You mention “the Gospel message”, but you are diminishing the importance of “the Gospel messenger.”

“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

The messenger is very important in God’s plan. Jesus established a Church to preach His Gospel, His Church leaders were giving authority to avoid the works of God’s enemies messing with the Gospel message. With 40,000+ protestant/evangelical/nondenominational churches, all of them claiming to have the true message, the messenger really becomes relevant. This is why: what if instead of Philip the Ethiopian had been talking to one of the men from the Sanhedrin? Would the explanation had been the same? The guy from the Sanhedrin was going to give it his best shot, but he was going to fall short of the truth. In today’s scenario the protestant pastors are falling short of the truth.

You say that “Christ lived to satisfy God’s righteousness and died to save us from our sins thereby reconciling us to God.” But Jesus also said to the Apostles “for those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; for those whose sins you retain, they are retained”, (John 20:23). Who in your church hears or forgive sins?

Basic truth? Protestantism has rejected a big portion of it.

 

[jmcrae]

That is because there are many churches who call themselves Christian which are not. “And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” (2 Corinthians 11:14-15)

The standard of what is Christian rests in the Catholic Church. How close you are to the teachings of the Catholic Church is how close to being right you are. That’s how you know - not by reading the Bible, since everyone reads something different in the Bible - and not by how you feel, since everyone is led astray by their feelings.

There is no such thing. The Church split in 1054. Thereafter there was the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox churches.

And the Successor of Peter was in Rome, even in those days.

A more sure guide would be to compare the various teachings of the many extant churches against God’s Holy Word, which is the measuring rod against which everything will be judged.

We will be judged by the Word of God who is Jesus Christ, a person - not words printed on paper - not even if they are in the Bible. People can misinterpret the Bible, but on the Judgement Day it will be a Person - the Word of God - which is Jesus - who will be our Judge, and there will be no mistaking His Judgements - they will be final and they will not be subject to interpretation.

 

[jmcrae]

To the contrary, if the RCC ceased to exist tomorrow, there would still be a Church testifying to Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.

But no way to know whether that teaching is from the Apostles, or not. It would last maybe one generation before the Holy Tradition would be lost, and everyone would just believe whatever they want to believe, whether it is true or not, because there would be no more measuring stick by which to measure themselves.

 

[jmcrae]

The entire premise hinges on three verses about which there is a great debate. It is fascinating that from three verses the RCC extrapolates all of the following:

1. A hierarchical eccesial polity
2. Infallibility
3. A visible Church
4. Apostolic succession

Every single one of these is inferred from the text. And while they are touted as being of paramount importance by the RCC, they are nowhere stated explicitly. Amazing!

We see the hierarchy throughout the New Testament. It doesn’t state “there is a hierarchy,” like that, but we see the hierarchy at work on every page of the New Testament.

How did St. Paul have authority to write letters to all those various city churches (Dioceses)?

Answer: he was part of the hierarchy of the Church.

How did the Apostles have authority to write the Gospels and the Universal Epistles?

Answer: they were part of the hierarchy of the Church.

If they had had no authority, they would not have written anything down, nor would they have had it copied and sent out to every Church, because if they had not had the authority, then the Churches would not have received them - they would have said, Who are you? We have our own way of doing things, thank you.

They would have given no commandments and recounted no stories, if they hadn’t been in charge and responsible for doing that.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

The entire premise hinges on three verses about which there is a great debate. It is fascinating that from three verses the RCC extrapolates all of the following:

I take it you missed my criticism of your extrapolations. Ironically, it is the very thing you accuse us of doing. I stress the “extra-” part on you. You certainly do a lot of bobbing and weaving in order to get to your doctrines.

In any event, it is not just from 3 verses. There are a multitude of verses that support our claims.

1. A hierarchical eccesial polity

1. Nobody cares about your vocabulary. Just use normal words.
2. Keys. Bind/loose. They hear you/they hear me. They reject you/they reject me. Feed/tend my sheep.
3. The Church is right.

1. Infallibility

Yes, I can see why believing Jesus would actually keep His promise of not letting His Church be overcome by the power of death (cf. Mt 16:18) would be a big problem.

How did the power of death enter Creation? Through a lie and disobedience. How would the power of death manifest itself in the New Creation? Through lies and disobedience. Lucky for us, Jesus promised this would not happen.

Infallibility protects from being taught lies by anybody. This is the Holy Spirit’s doing. Jesus sent His Spirit to protect the Truth.

By the way, you believe in infallibility also. You just limit it to Scripture and nothing else.

1. A visible Church

1. Jesus Christ was visible.
2. The Church is His Body.
3. Therefore, His Church is visible.

Simple logic my friend. This is irrefutable. He also told us to be the light to the world. In my opinion, light is visible and the objects it lights up. I did not know anybody thought Christ’s Church would be invisible, since Christ and Christians are visible.

1. Apostolic succession

Jesus built a Church on the foundation of the Apostles (Rev. 21:14 I think). Let me make a simple little analogy.

When one builds something, they put things on the foundation and build from there. On brick on top of another brick on top of another brick. Those bricks are each supported by the one below and keep the structure.

The analogy is not perfect, but just imagine Jesus building that something and it will be. The bricks are the apostolic succession and the builder is Christ. Jesus said He would build a Church. Revelations 21:14 clearly states the Apostles are the foundation of Christ’s Church.

The Church is right.

Every single one of these is inferred from the text. And while they are touted as being of paramount importance by the RCC, they are nowhere stated explicitly. Amazing!

Ok, Mr. Hypocrite, Where does it teach Sola Scriptura explicitly?

The amazing thing here is your accusation. Stop denigrating us. You really only make yourself look an utter fool becuase you fail to see the complete picture. Even worse, you do it dishonestly.

To the contrary, if the RCC ceased to exist tomorrow, there would still be a Church testifying to Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.

And other false things like Faith Alone, Sola Scriptura, Rapture (if applicable), no Purgatory, etc…

Your statement bugs me though. Christ’s Church will not cease to exist.

I hope you start actually thinking about the accusations you put on us. I can and will reverse the accusation, but in a more rational, yet kind, way. I have no qualms showing you to be a hypocrite.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Not true. We all have a choice as to what we will believe. If you choose to believe teachings which contradict God’s Word, you will be held accountable for that choice.

Indeed.

God’s Word being both oral and written traditions.

Ignatius said: “if [the Church] shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.” I think that statement speaks for itself. In modern parlance, he advocating the drinking of Kool Aid.

Yes, it does speak for itself. I am pretty sure that was Ignatius’ intention. And he is absolutely right. How are we to understand without a teacher? Without an infallible teacher, that is?

There are things in Scripture that would be quite confusing were it not for the Church.

Well, that is the boast anyway. Since it was conveniently communicated only orally, however, it amounts to nothing more than hearsay.

A few things you must prove:

1. All the teachings of the Church are ONLY in Oral Traditions.
2. That it is only hearsay. Apparently, the Holy Spirit does not have the ability to protect the spoken Word of God.

Before you start, I will save you the time by saying that you cannot prove those. You can prove the contrary. We can and have definitively proven that all the doctrines of the Church are in Scriptures, implicitly or explicitly. Oral Traditions (Word of God) shed light on Scriptures to help us discern what is true, like the Eucharist and the Trinity, which are certainly hard teachings.

The RCC certainly cannot prove that the body of teachings (minus some details) came directly from the apostles. It can only pronounce it dogmatically and insist that the laity accept it.

All I have heard from you is the cry that the Church is wrong and such from you. There is not a lick of rational debate. Parker at least tried to give reason.

The RCC most certainly can prove Oral Traditions from the earliest Church Fathers.

You are really only denigrating yourself by your attempt at denigrating us. You have convincingly shown me that you are perilously ignorant of Catholic teachings and can neither demonstrate your side nor disprove our side.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

BTW, how does this deny the Virgin Birth???

I am curious also.

You said something about fully man and fully God and descended from Heaven to earth in the Incarnation. Then he responded that you “effectively deny the virgin birth”.

That is just dishonest and foolish to think a Catholic would be so foolish to say there was no virgin birth. And that is considering she is a Perpetual Virgin! Solus does not really like to think things through. That or he does and is dishonestly derided something in order to get us to believe him. His objections/rebuttals are not very coherent anyway.

But, I hope he answers you.