Similar things could be said about others. The Mormons, for example, are often castigated for their stance against homosexual marriage and are hardly admired by the world at-large. Also, everytime the pope makes a visit to our shores I have observed that he is treated by the media like some sort of Hollywood star. This is a little bit different than what Bishop Sheen suggests.
Was the King of Babylon also the King of Israel?
What exactly do I “disagree” with?
I’m not sure how deism enters into it.
It sounds like you understand why the ideas of papal infallibility and an indefectible Sacred Magisterium are key to any discussion on church authority between Catholics and Protestants. If you are trying to clarify my original statement, however, I think you are off by quite a bit. The response is somewhat…unorthodox. The soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit? That does not sound theologically correct. It sounds more like you are confusing the Church with God. I hope I am stating the obvious when I say that they are two distinct entities.
The Church is the Body of Christ. The soul of His Body is the Holy Spirit. Remember, Christ’s humanity was generated by the Holy Spirit, from the DNA of Mary’s body. The Church (and especially the Sacraments) is His continuing physical self-expression in the world.
Not at all. To borrow from computer terminology, the Church is the “avatar” of God on earth - this is why we call it the Body of Christ. It mediates God’s word to us, in forms of communication that we can easily understand (rituals, doctrine, artistic expression, Scripture, …) - all of these things come from God.
Does an avatar have a soul, much less the soul of the person it represents? You and guanophore really need to think through the implications of what you are saying. The Holy Spirit is of the same essence of God the Father and Christ the Son. It is not of the same essence as the Church. The Holy Spirit may indwell His Church and His people individually, but those people still retain their soul and the Holy Spirit does not become their soul. This is logically untenable and theologically dangerous.
Yes, once again I need to be careful to differentiate between government (i.e. church discipline) and teaching authority of the church. Thanks for keeping me honest. I have in-view the latter of these.
The avatar says and does everything that the real person does and says. When you hear the avatar, you are hearing the person himself.
Well, as St. Cyprian pointed out in 258 AD (On the Unity of the Church ), the implication is that, He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother, and Let none think that the good can depart from the Church.
Please help me to reconcile what you just said with Romans 13:1: “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”
Does God micromanage? No, but He is sovereign over all things - He never has to resort to a Plan B. All things proceed according to His divine plan.You, however, are sounding like an Albigensian - does God micromanage every movement of every person? Is He responsible for their sins? Is God a puppet master who forces men and women to vote for a particular candidate, while deceiving them into thinking that they have free will?
[/quotes]Code:I am sure if we went down that road we would churn through a discussion that has been aired on this forum countless times before. But then again, do we really expect to come up with something novel here? Randy said there were no RCC teachings that give him pause. There are many teachings that give me pause, but that is expected, right? Likewise, you and Randy do not see any inconsistencies or errors in RCC teaching whereas there are a number of items I find troubling. If we did go down this path, we would probably need to start with some very clear and concise definitions in order to prevent any red herrings or straw men arguments, as you indicated could happen.
You are in the right place Solus! I think we do need to start a new thread, though. Maybe you could pick just one teaching that “gives pause”?
Solus Christus;7890030:
This is absolutely Catholic.I would like to preface my response by acknowledging I am certain I am not smarter than the Pope (as I am sure you would all agree
Jesus said: “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” (Matthew 11:25)
And then we have this: “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;” (1 Corinthians 1:27)
My point is simply this: We should not confuse “learned” for “impeccable in knowledge” (we probably all know of someone who came out of college more confused than they went in).
We have the fulness of what God has revealed to mankind only because He has taken the initiative to do so, and because He preserves it infallibly in His Church. Yes, we can use our God given intellect to study, and we should, but it is a matter of faith seeking understanding, knowing that who God IS lies way beyond the our puny minds to understand.
wisdom from God,** righteousness **and sanctification and redemption," (1 Corinthians 1:30)
This is not inconsistent with our understanding of holiness. Catholics don’t believe we achieve holiness apart from the Grace God.
I think you are right, though, that we have a different understanding of human nature. The Reformers, especially Calvin, departed from the Apostolic faith in this matter, so all those who have been influenced by Calvanism (as it appears you are) have a distorted notion about humanity.
At a basic level, the RCC teaches the doctrine of Original Sin, so we can at least agree at that level. If you have ever read St. Augustine’s Confessions, the Reformed view is congruent with Augustine’s description of his own sinful nature as a child.
I ask you Solus did you ever do any good before you were saved?
So I assume you are disagreeing with Paul here? That sure is what it sounds like.I ask you Solus did you ever do any good before you were saved?
Did you obey your parents? Why did you become a christian after hearing God’s word did you not seek God?
How many did you murder before you became a christian, how many times did you commit adultry,how much did you steal? you get the point.
You are sadly mistaken. Go to the Catholic Encyclopedia and look up “Original Sin.” This is pretty fundamental and worth your while to spend time trying to understand. The whole of Scripture refutes the idea that we are inherently good. If we were inherently good, then whence all the sin that surrounds us? And why the need for God to send His Son? Salvation is a free gift of God, but it was not free to obtain. God paid a very high price. There is a reason why He paid that price!
Your line of thought is very perplexing. Ultimately it was the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul’s words. So now you are indicting God Himself.
Which tradition? I did not mention a specific tradition. If you are going to make an argument, at least try and make it against something I have said.
James 2:10: “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”
Romans 5:13 says otherwise. There is still sin, it just is not “counted.” Does this ignorance exhonerate us? The very next verse makes it clear that it does not, because “death reigned from Adam to Moses.” Furthermore, Romans 1:18-20 discusses what is known as the Natural Law showing that no one is excused or exempted from God’s standards and judgement: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
I am not sure what makes you so sure you know better than Paul (or the Holy Spirit which inspired Paul for that matter). I suppose you could say I did good so long as you are content to use human standards. Unfortunately, appealing to human standards will not get you very far with God. This is actually the very fault of Israel, because they tried to establish their own righteousness instead of submitting to God’s righteousness. You can read all about it in Romans 10:3, not that you seem to have much use for Paul, but just in case.
“Cleansed” is the key word here, buddy. Thank you for reinforcing my point!
Solus Christus;7917448 [QUOTE said:
But you state none seek God. though shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
You state you didn’t seek God yet you still sought him. Of course you acted and sought God.Having been inclined by grace you resist and live a life of sin and denial, are you seeking God? No you are not.see above
May i ask what does not seeking God have to do with His love for us?
My mistake perhaps you should explain the purpose of the scripture you used The Gospel according to St.Matthew 15:6
Having not sinned by deed or thought are those thus guilty as your scriptural application?How are they not guilty if they are totally depraved?
And it is your claim that you seem to have to.
And whom are you to tell me what is in God’s word. please try to be a tad bit more respectful.
I am having a very difficult time communicating with you. I did not state that there are none who seek God, God said it! I am pointing to what God said because, of course, it is true. You are arguing (or at least it appears) that God is wrong and that man does seek God. I am speaking of unregenerate man here. Maybe that is where the confusion is (I hope!).
Huh??? It sure sounds like you are contradicting yourself here. I do not know what you are trying to say. Please clarify.
Quite a bit! It demonstrates that God’s love is not like our love. Human love tends to be conditional. God’s love is unconditional. God did not wait until we started to seek Him or stopped being sinners (if that were even possible) before He sent His Son.
Yes, Christ in this passage mentions a specific tradition, but I was not referring to that tradition. Christ’s statement (“So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.”) is much broader in scope. He says essentially the same thing in verse 3 of that chapter where He was referring to another tradition (hand washing). In other words, Christ’s statement was not made against that one tradition only.
Once again, it is not really clear to me what you are asking. To whom does “those” refer in your first question?
Do you not accept the RCC’s teaching on Original Sin and Natural Law? I get the distinct impression that you do not. Please clarify.
This is par for the course, fbl9. In this forum people quote Scripture. If you find that offensive, then you are in the wrong place.
As you wish.
I can understand why this definition of the Church would seem “unorthodox”. 500+ years ago, your spiritual ancestors broke away from orthodoxy, and have been drifting ever since. Of course, modern evangelicals, by and large do not realize this, and they think that the Catholic view is the one that is “off quite a bit”.
It is the same quandary the Church had to work out during the early heresies of Arianism, Nestorianism, Montanism , and Gnosticism. All these challenged the nature of Christ, and the Church had to further define the Apostolic faith in order to preserve the once for all deposit of faith.