I
Ignatius
Guest
Incorrect; they follow men who also chose #3.michaelp:
**
And the JWs and Mormans use 2. I guess that if we were to use the guilt by association argument, let be safe and choose 1!
- Status
P
Philthy
Guest
Thanks for underlining that because “outside the church there is no salvation” is by no means non-essential to Protestants and all other non-catholic.
michaelp:
Fortunately if there is any confusion we Catholics have a living Church whom we can dialogue with to resolve any questions we have. NO need to rely on fixed statements from the past that we don’t fully understand despite the best of our intentions. You know where Im going with this don’t you…
michaelp:
I would call that spin. Here let me restate it: There is so much disunity among Protestants that they agree that there are only 5 essential truths - namely the 5 solas and that all other disagreements represent non-essentials.
So lets look at this great agreement:
Sola Scriptura
Soli Deo Gloria
- Scriptures alone are our rule of life and faith.
Unfortunately they are not written like rules at all. And therefore much debate and disagreement arises, evolves, disintigrates, re-emerges and starts all over again. So you can agree that the scriptures are the “rule book” while still disagreeing on what the rules actually are - not particularly impressive.
Sola Fide
- Everything is to be done only for the glory of God.
This is good, solid Catholic doctrine. Feels good - I don’t like disagreeing so much!
Solo Christo- Salvation is by Christ alone.
Again good solid Catholic doctrine.
Sola Gratia- Salvation is by grace of God alone.
I think were still in agreement
con’d
- Salvation is by faith alone.
If you agree that faith apart from works is dead and that you yourself know your own faith best through the good works it produces in you then we have something to agree on. If you think that “faith alone” is simply an awareness, intellectual assent, or immaterial element that does not, of necessity, produce results in life generally characterized as “love” then oh well, so much for happy endings!
P
Philthy
Guest
But no one is bound to believe it either way and no one has the authority to declare it as truth so what difference does it make? Who knows what Protestants will think 100 years from now.Significantly, this unity is not forced, but an act of “free will.” In other words, this unity is more significant and real, IMHO, since Protestant don’t have any necessary obligation to these five solas. Would you rather have forced unity, or people who study the individual issues and come to a unity based upon a unified concensus of the clarity of Scripture? You cannot claim this.
michaelp:
michaelp:
Now who’s being subjective? Where’s the list of non-essentials in the bible?
Free to disagree on or incapable of agreeing on due to the lack of clarity of Scripture? How do you know the difference? Let me guess: we start with the “doctrine” of the clarity of Scripture and then anytime serious disagreement occurs we can then conclude that it must be a non-essential since God wouldnt leave anything important unclear in his word…
The most essential issue in Evangelicalism is Perseverence of the Saints. But most in the scholarly evangelical world agree on this as well, even though they may articulate it differently.
Every christian who studies diligently does not claim to be Evangelical or Catholic: studying Scripture diligently has not brought theological unity. Everyone is made in the image of God. Most people, however, do not recognize God’s voice when they hear it. Usually because it involves a sacrifice they are not prepared to make.
What about the many interpretations of the infallible statements of the Magisterium. If you were to go to your local bishop to ask for an answer, could you get infallibility?
On the need for Baptism? Yup
On the benefits of Baptizing infants? Yup
On the Real Presence? Yup
On the irrelevance to Catholics of the “no salvation outside the Church”? Yup
On the sinfulness of adultery, fornication, homosexuality, abortion, divorce, artificial contraception? Yup,yup,yup,yup,yup
Not much practical good. You have to interpret the statements of the infallible Magisterium.
Michael
Completely practical. Only theologians have trouble with interpretation, and its not on practical stuff…
Blessings,
Phil
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
http://www.catholicmission.org/pope1.jpg
And Here is the rock:thumbsup:
And Here is the rock:thumbsup:
M
michaelp
Guest
Kinda, at least in theory. You can call you local bishop and get his “opinion” on the issue if there is some ambiguity, but he cannot speak infallibly on his own, right?
Therefore, unless you have the power to convene a council or have the Pope’s home phone number (that is if he is willing to make a personal ex cathedra statement to you–and I doubt that he will since he has only made 2 according to most here on this thread–but there is alot of disagreement about that as well
), then you have to rely upon the authority of your local bishop or priest to make a fallible interpretation of your infallible Magisterium. And, as we have seen on other threads, the opinions of the local Priests and Bishops have often varied.You may, but I have been in your circles and I have been in mine and there is much more unity in my opinion. But that is just among those who are Evangelicals, not simply non-Catholics.
And there is no necessary obligation to adhere to the Five Solas as you say. I am perfectly free to disagree with any of them and feel no pressure at all to accept them. Unity becomes a reality when the theology is truly yours and not handed down to you.
Not saying that you, Phil, truly don’t believe every doctrine, but you catch my drift.
Sola Scriptura
- Scriptures alone are our rule of life and faith.
Unfortunately they are not written like rules at all. And therefore much debate and disagreement arises, evolves, disintigrates, re-emerges and starts all over again. So you can agree that the scriptures are the “rule book” while still disagreeing on what the rules actually are - not particularly impressive.
And, by the way, you believe in Scripture also. Pick up two Catholic commentaries and see how much they agree. Have you ever tried to do this? They don’t agree about Scripture any more than two Evangelical commentaries. Why? Because the Magisterium hardly ever interprets particular Scriptures–they don’t need to.
- Everything is to be done only for the glory of God.
This is good, solid Catholic doctrine. Feels good - I don’t like disagreeing so much!
- Salvation is by Christ alone.
Again good solid Catholic doctrine.
- Salvation is by grace of God alone.
I think were still in agreement
The point is that Evangelicals are united on these essential point and there is not a broad domain of interpretive freedom with them.
M
michaelp
Guest
- Salvation is by faith alone.
If you agree that faith apart from works is dead and that you yourself know your own faith best through the good works it produces in you then we have something to agree on. If you think that “faith alone” is simply an awareness, intellectual assent, or immaterial element that does not, of necessity, produce results in life generally characterized as “love” then oh well, so much for happy endings!
Again, the point, practically speaking the Magisterium is nice for the said unity of the Catholic church and I really wish the Evangelicals had more of a sense of this unitedness, but in actuality, like I said, I see Evangelicals as more united than Catholics. IMHO
Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
Where would you come up with something like this. How is a Protestant bound by these five solas. What binds them?
Evangelicals are the ones who are committed to these. But there is no evangelical community looking over their shoulder. They read the Scripture. The Scripture is clear. They believe the five solas and are by definition and evangelical.
Why wouldn’t you think God would be clear in His word about what is important. That would be a major Opps to write 1 Tim 3:15 and not be clear about it. That is why the unity among evangelicals is so great. We all come to it by our own free will (the free will thing is a different story
) based upon a reading of Scripture. No one tells us what to believe. We willingly submit to out Churches because of this conviction.Nor will it ever. Christ came to divide and unite.
We are in full agreement there Phil. You talk like an Evangelical many times.
(BTW: I am glad to talk to you about these things. You are so down to earth, curtious, and real. It is refreshing).
Only because it is so clear in the catechism. But you come to an evangelical and we will be united on this as well.
Good.
Agreed. But this is not an essential to Evangelicals (although there is 95% agreement).
That is not very kind to those of us outside the Church. We may want an answer from you, but you don’t have one.
Same with Evangelicals.
Phil, I am not saying that there is not tons of unity among Catholics and tons of clarity in the communication of the Magisterium. I am just saying that you, like Evangelicals have your ambiguities that create unofficial but real division in beliefs. You, therefore, in this respect are just the same as the Evangelicals, not having the objectivity that you so desperatly desire.
You have to interpret the Magisterium and you are imperfect. Does this make Catholicism wrong? NO! But is makes the arguments that Catholics use that they are the true church because of the unity out of touch with reality.
P
Pax
Guest
Michaelp,
We do not interpret the Magesterium in the way Protestants interpret scripture. The Magesterium provides the official teachings of the Church. Should there be an ambiguity because of some theologian’s question, it will be resolved by the Magesterium and not our personal interpretation. Nobody says that all of these things happen in an instant.
The protection of infallibility is limited to the scope of faith and morals and the Church’s teachings are generally quite clear. The Church’s teaching on “no salvation outside the Church” is also clear but it certainly is nuanced relative to the typical outsider’s understanding.
You contend that our support for infallibility is merely pragmatic. I believe that on another thread all of your points were well addressed. I pointed out for example that your contention that the Pope/Magesterium must somehow show signs and wonders in order to demonstrate that God has granted the charism of infallibility was not supported by scripture. I pointed out that the book of Judges makes it clear that miracles did not always accompany God’s appointed authority. You have once again raised this as an issue on this thread, but it cannot be supported.
I also posed something that I do not believe you have been able to answer. In Matthew 16:19 Jesus says to Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” You claim that this in no way points to infallibility. If that is so, then you need an “air-tight” explanation of how something decided on earth that is “wrong” could be ratified in heaven. Our doctrine of infallibility simply means that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from teaching falsely on matters of faith and morals. The power of this charism is a negative one, but it can be clearly seen time and again in history. The Nestorian heresy, among others, is a great case study that shows how serious the ramifications would be if the Church had erred.
In this thread you have been arguing as if you never heard all of the other arguments previously presented in the other thread. While I respect your views and how you articulate your perspective, I have yet to find your objections at all persuasive in light of scripture and history. Obviously, we have not persuaded you either.
I would place our contentions for the papacy in the context of Isaiah in reference to the prime minister, along with the hierarchical structure of Judaism, the reference by Jesus to Mose’s seat, the authority of the high priest, the primacy of Peter, the Council of Jerusalem, succession to the episcopy of Judas, the appointment of bishops by Paul, John, Peter, and Timothy as well as the statements of the early Church Fathers. Now contrast ithis information with your position and arguments for Sola Scriptura. Scripture, history, and common sense are against you.
We do not interpret the Magesterium in the way Protestants interpret scripture. The Magesterium provides the official teachings of the Church. Should there be an ambiguity because of some theologian’s question, it will be resolved by the Magesterium and not our personal interpretation. Nobody says that all of these things happen in an instant.
The protection of infallibility is limited to the scope of faith and morals and the Church’s teachings are generally quite clear. The Church’s teaching on “no salvation outside the Church” is also clear but it certainly is nuanced relative to the typical outsider’s understanding.
You contend that our support for infallibility is merely pragmatic. I believe that on another thread all of your points were well addressed. I pointed out for example that your contention that the Pope/Magesterium must somehow show signs and wonders in order to demonstrate that God has granted the charism of infallibility was not supported by scripture. I pointed out that the book of Judges makes it clear that miracles did not always accompany God’s appointed authority. You have once again raised this as an issue on this thread, but it cannot be supported.
I also posed something that I do not believe you have been able to answer. In Matthew 16:19 Jesus says to Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” You claim that this in no way points to infallibility. If that is so, then you need an “air-tight” explanation of how something decided on earth that is “wrong” could be ratified in heaven. Our doctrine of infallibility simply means that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from teaching falsely on matters of faith and morals. The power of this charism is a negative one, but it can be clearly seen time and again in history. The Nestorian heresy, among others, is a great case study that shows how serious the ramifications would be if the Church had erred.
In this thread you have been arguing as if you never heard all of the other arguments previously presented in the other thread. While I respect your views and how you articulate your perspective, I have yet to find your objections at all persuasive in light of scripture and history. Obviously, we have not persuaded you either.
I would place our contentions for the papacy in the context of Isaiah in reference to the prime minister, along with the hierarchical structure of Judaism, the reference by Jesus to Mose’s seat, the authority of the high priest, the primacy of Peter, the Council of Jerusalem, succession to the episcopy of Judas, the appointment of bishops by Paul, John, Peter, and Timothy as well as the statements of the early Church Fathers. Now contrast ithis information with your position and arguments for Sola Scriptura. Scripture, history, and common sense are against you.
M
michaelp
Guest
Yes we have been through all of this before, but I do appreciate you taking the time to post it again. My biggest problem does not have to do with the conclusions of this thread (that the Magisterium must be interpreted), but they still have to do with the justification of infallibile apostolic succession which, in my opinion, is not found in history until 11th century and certianly not found anywhere in Scripture (unless you read you theology into the text). But we have all, as you said, gone through this before.
I actually only resurrected this thread because someone on another thread kept wanting me to discuss this issue, I finally had to reopen it and then the person never came over here
.I do think that we have come to somewhat of a conclusion on this issue though.
Have a great night. Michael (Church Militant) is emailing me telling me to go to bed. I had better do so.
Michael
J
jphilapy
Guest
Hi Phil,
Protestant doctrine doesn’t teach that faith is best through good works, It teaches that faith is completely dead if there are no works. In otherwords Obedience and Faith are two sides of the same coin. You need both. There are however some protestants who appear to think differently.
The difference between catholicism and protestantism in this respect is where one is justified. Catholics teach that one is justified only after doing good works (apparently only justifed after a life of good works?). Protestants teach that one is justified at the point of “true” faith (that is, faith that is alive).
Jeff
J
jphilapy
Guest
Pax,
Is it correct to compare your magesterium to scripture? I mean shouldn’t you rather compare your magesterium to the pastors and elders of the protestant church?
I mean if you mean that you as an individual cannot interpret scripture, then how is that any different than a protestant denomination where the member is required to abide by the teaching of that denomination?
Jeff
P
Pax
Guest
Jeff,
I only make the connection concerning interpretation of magesterial documents/declarations and that of interpreting scipture because of the gambit run by Michaelp. You are correct in conceptually linking the Magesterium to Protestant elders and pastors. Both are teachers.
Catholics can and do interpret scripture as individuals. We do this within the limits of Church teaching. I cannot interpret scripture in ways that are contrary to official Church teaching. Frequently, Protestants do interpret scripture differently from the teachings of their denominations. This can be seen rather frequently if one listens to several pastors teaching on the same passages of scripture. I’ve had Methodists and former Methodists make this point about their own denomination. Apparently, Methodists pastors are allowed to exercise considerable freedom in this regard.
Evangelicals can believe in OSAS while others do not. Frequently, no one seems to mind. The claims made for the “End Times” are all over the place in Evangelical circles, yet each division proclaims its view as gospel and that all others are false teachings. Go figure.
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
For anyone interested, here is an interesting IRC dialogue from ACTS: Philosophical Discussion and “The Tactic”
It is somwhat cumbersome to follow, but it is an excellent study in the non-Catholic tactic of attempting to reduce all claims of authority to personal interpretation in order to divert attention from the enormous Scriptural, logical and historical difficulties inherent in the Protestant polemic. It is great because the Catholic apologist here stalwartly refuses to give in to it and stays focused on the basic issue: did Christ found a Church or did he not?
Scott
It is somwhat cumbersome to follow, but it is an excellent study in the non-Catholic tactic of attempting to reduce all claims of authority to personal interpretation in order to divert attention from the enormous Scriptural, logical and historical difficulties inherent in the Protestant polemic. It is great because the Catholic apologist here stalwartly refuses to give in to it and stays focused on the basic issue: did Christ found a Church or did he not?
Scott
P
Pax
Guest
Scott,
The discussion you referenced certainly focuses in on the difficulties encountered in these kinds of discussions. The evidence can be overwhelming but the heart must be receptive and open to the truth. Letting go of those things that we hold dear and “think” to be true is difficult at best, especially when it comes to matters of religious faith.
The discussion you referenced certainly focuses in on the difficulties encountered in these kinds of discussions. The evidence can be overwhelming but the heart must be receptive and open to the truth. Letting go of those things that we hold dear and “think” to be true is difficult at best, especially when it comes to matters of religious faith.
P
Pax
Guest
Michaelp,
I still want to hear your take on Matthew 16:19 where Jesus says, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Please explain how heaven can ratify something bound on earth if it is wrong. Nothing unclean or wrong occurs or can enter into heaven. Surely this passage does in fact point toward infallibility as held by the Catholic Church.
Moreover, in John 16:13 it says, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth;” There is a mechanism in place that precludes the Christian Church from teaching erroneous doctrines. In 1 John 2:19 we are told about false teachers and it says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.” This latter verse points out exactly what has happened with all heretical teachers. They left the Church and the apostolic authority vested therein. They left the Church and its teaching authority to proclaim their own doctrines and ideas. There is only one place that you will find the unified body of Christ from whence all others have separated. History confirms this in spades and that includes secular history.
This really is a slam dunk
I still want to hear your take on Matthew 16:19 where Jesus says, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Please explain how heaven can ratify something bound on earth if it is wrong. Nothing unclean or wrong occurs or can enter into heaven. Surely this passage does in fact point toward infallibility as held by the Catholic Church.
Moreover, in John 16:13 it says, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth;” There is a mechanism in place that precludes the Christian Church from teaching erroneous doctrines. In 1 John 2:19 we are told about false teachers and it says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.” This latter verse points out exactly what has happened with all heretical teachers. They left the Church and the apostolic authority vested therein. They left the Church and its teaching authority to proclaim their own doctrines and ideas. There is only one place that you will find the unified body of Christ from whence all others have separated. History confirms this in spades and that includes secular history.
This really is a slam dunk
M
michaelp
Guest
Michaelp,
How do you justify exegetically your jump from the Apostles being given this power to some unbroken succession of bishops with apostolic authority but who don’t have to show the signs of an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12)? This was spoken to the Apostles. There is no indication, explicity or implicitly, by decree or by example, that this authority was to be passed on.
This is why we believe the Scriptures are infallible, not the bishops today.
You seem to be reading your theology into this text. Any unbiased reader would never see infallible apostolic succession in Matt 16:19. Set aside your presuppositions and read it again.
BTW: I have no problem if God did things this way so I am not predisposed against it. It is just not there in the text.
Again, who was he talking to??? The apostles. If the Bishops of Rome want to claim apostolic authority, let them display apostolic authenticity. This is the safegaurd that God built in, no me.
I am with you. But what was the cause of them leaving. Why did they leave?? Was it because the disagreed about baptism, the nature of the Lord’s supper, the necessity of holy orders? No, it is because they denied the Gospel. Anyone who denies the Gospel in an Evangelical church will go out from us.
If you say so. But I fail to much strength is these arguments. They must have your presuppositions to exist. IMHO
Michael
J
jphilapy
Guest
Pax, You are making that apply to an institution, but doesn’t that apply to every single believer? Basically it is saying that everyone who is abiding in Christ will not be deceived.
Surely the anointing resides in each believer? So as long as we are following the Spirit we won’t be deceived. If you are deceieved then you are not following the Spirit because the Spirit does not deceive.
1Jo 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Likewise a similar statement elsewhere:
Mar 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Jeff
M
mtr01
Guest
Pax:
This seems like a good time to pull a Michael:
Matt 12:39: “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign”
michaelp:
But um, Michael, what about Matt 28:20 (which certainly is in the text):
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Are you suggesting that the Apostles would live until the consummation of the world (never die), or that Jesus was lying? How else would our Lord stay with the Apostles “until the consummation of the world” if it was not through their successors? Why would they even bother consecrating a successor to Judas in Acts 15 if Christ would not be with him?
michaelp:
, let them display apostolic authenticity. This is the safegaurd that God built in, no me.
You still want to see signs?
michaelp:
…and found his or her own church based on the authority of the Bible?
michaelp:
I don’t understand what your second sentence means. As for your third, I do believe it applies superabundantly to your argument as well.If you say so. But I fail to much strength is these arguments. They must have your presuppositions to exist. IMHO
Michael
M
mtr01
Guest
Re: John 16:13
jphilapy:
michaelp:
Which is it?
M
michaelp
Guest
michaelp:
I did not set this criteria, God did in Deut 13, 18 and it is evidenced in 2 Cor. 12:12. Even Christ is said to have lived up to this criteria in John 20. Notice that the signs that were written so that people may believe. The entire book of John presupposes that people should look to signs:This seems like a good time to pull a Michael
Matt 12:39: “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign”
**John 20:30-31 **30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
Luke gives the same testimony in Acts 1:3 and the “many convincing proofs.”
If your bishops showed the signs as evidenced by the normal working of someone who speaks on behalf of God, then I would believe. But they don’t. Peter continually raised the dead and healed the lame for all to see. So did Paul. Why? So that people would be convinced of their authority. This is precisely what Paul appeals to when others are claiming to speak on behalf of God–“let them show you a sign as I have” was his challenge. Read 2 Cor 12:12.
You are not arguing agianst me, but the criteria that God set up.
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
This really puzzles me how you could get infallible apostolic succession out of this. Respectfully, this would really take some severe eisegesis in order to say that Matthews intent in recording the great commission was to set up the Roman Catholic Magisterial institution.
This is commission to all Christians. How do I know? Because they are to go unto all the world and teach other to teach others. There is nothing that would qualify this passage as being limited to a Magisterial authority. The apostles are not to go to other bishops teaching them to teach other bishops, teaching them to teach other bishops . . . . This is to be the pattern of all Christians going unto all the world. Christ is with us until the consummation of the world.
The reason why we can say this has broader application is because of the object of the teaching (world) and the action (teaching them all that I commanded you–one of the commands was to teach). This is the disciple making process.
Because their had to be 12 representatives for some reason. I don’t know why, maybe to represent the 12 tribes and most certianly to fulfill a prophecy to fulfill Judas’ place. But this is hardly a prophecy that carries prescriptive perpetualness instructing that the office should be fullfilled every time an apostle dies–it was just about Judas.
One thing was certian is that Christ trained 12 to have the authority to take the Gospel to the world with apostolic authority. They proved this authority through signs and wonders (2 Cor 12:12). Something your magisterial authority somehow sidesteps.
And notice this (side bar), in the New Jerusalem these 12 are represented again. Even in the New Jerusalem, there will only be twelve. This is contray to your view since all the successors are like Matthius and there are more than 12 lines.
**Revelation 21:14 **14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them *were *the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
All in all, Acts chapter one is extremely weak if you are going to use that as an evidence of infallible apostolic succession. I do admit that it is your best shot (at least that I have heard), but it still must have heavy eisegesis to be read that way.
God requires it.
Maybe another JW or split from RC, but that should not bother us too bad. His sheep know His voice.
Um . . . . no it doesn’t . . . yes it does . . . no it doesn’t . . . yes it does ad infinitum.
Have a great day,
Michael
- Status