Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[EvangelCatholic]

Originally Posted by **Novocastrian **
I ought to be more nuanced, but I’m not sure I’m being unfair. What PRM is claiming is quite similar to the claims that EvangelCatholic makes regarding the relationship between Rome and the Lutherans. That is, emphasising points of genuine doctrinal closeness (which is in itself admirable, and for which I commend him) to the extent that differences are unduly ignored. This is bad history and bad theology.

It may be bad history, but that doesn’t make it bad theology. That is to say, even if EvangelCatholic’s version of Lutheranism is out of the mainstream of historic Lutheranism, that doesn’t make it a mistaken position. EC just needs to be clearer on the ways in which historic Lutheranism doesn’t support that position. (I am putting this forward tentatively and not as a serious criticism of EC’s posts. But the Finnish interpretation of Luther and/or the approach of someone like David Yeago is, in my opinion, historically flawed while being theologically praiseworthy. Much the same would be true of the Anglo-Catholic movement in Anglicanism.)

Edwin

Appreciate the comments from both of you. Ecumenism is my primary interest; how it all comes together is less a concern for me.

Aside from my enthusiasm I don’t think the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue is an attempt at reductionism. The Augsburg Confession/ Book of Concord have been the Lutheran position in these discussions with Rome and acknowledged by both participants as a “Catholic” expression of the faith. So I don’t beleive my interpretation varies at all with these Lutheran teachings.

There are, however issues with what the Confessions don’t address.

Honesty in our dialogue on the Augsburg Confession also compels us to admit that there are still open questions and unresolved problems, among them the following:
� The Confessio Augustana does not adopt a position on the number of the sacraments, the papacy, or on certain aspects of the episcopal order and the church’s teaching office.
� The Confessio Augustana naturally makes no mention of dogmas which have only been promulgated since 1530: the primacy of jurisdiction and the infallibility of the Pope (1870); the gracious preservation of the Virgin Mary from original sin (1854) and her bodily assumption into heaven (1950).

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int…onechrist.html

 

[Porknpie]

Too often what I hear is an insistence that the Church or Mary should be praised, and God gets crowded out of the picture.

Not sure what you hear and from whom. Good that your are on CAF. No Catholic crowds out God. Quite the opposite, we receive God at every Catholic Mass in the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of our Savior Jesus Christ…and have been doing so for 2,000 years. Mary, his Mother, is of course due a certain amount of honor and respect. She is after all, the Mother Of God. But always remember, Mary always, 100% always, call us to her Son. To follow and listen to him. She makes it clear, “do whatever he tells you.”

Faith comes by hearing, yet it is the gift of God.

Quiet true. Catholics profess we are saved by grace, through faith, working in love. It is a gift of God.

 

[JRKH]

When Catholics insist the Church decides it has the right to usurp the role of the Holy Spirit, there is a problem.

This is not Church teaching nor have I ever heard a Catholic suggest such a thing.
The belief is that the Church works under the protection of the Holy Spirit and exercises the authority granted to her by Christ Himself as recorded in Scripture.

If you believe the Scriptures are inspired ONLY because the Church says so, there is a problem.

I understand what you are saying - but again I must ask in all sincerity - - -which Scriptures? 66 books? 73 books? 88 books? Whatever “scriptures” the spirit tells you are inspired?
I don’t mean this to be flippant…I’m quite serious.
Spirits must be tested…Can you do this in isolation or should it be done in a group - a church? What Spirit led to the removal of books from the canon that had been accepted for 1000 years?
These are serious questions for anyone professing Sola Scriptura to ponder.

God Himself speaks, and you don’t believe Him without the Church’s blessing. That puts such a person in the role of someone who heard Jesus preach and then asked the Sanhedrin for verification.

Not a very good analogy. A better analogy might be someone who hears Christ speak and then goes to the Apostles for verification or clarification. Not unlike what Paul did when he went and laid his teachings before the Apostles to be sure he was not “running in vain”.

God uses men. God uses the Church. But in the end it is God at work, and the focus must be there.

Amen

Give Him, not the Church, the glory.

In proper proportion one can do both…God first - God’s Church second.

Too often what I hear is an insistence that the Church or Mary should be praised, and God gets crowded out of the picture.

That would be a personal problem and not Church teaching. Giving due honor to the Church (which is God’s instrument) or to Mary (the Mother of our Savior) should NEVER crowd out God

You guys should be agreeing with me on this. Faith comes by hearing, yet it is the gift of God.

I have no problem agreeing with this. But Scripture tells us to test the spirits…to act in communion…to be of one mind…one voice…to avoid dissension…to tell it to the church and to listen to the church…

This is what Scripture says…Do you believe Scripture?

I have no problem admitting that the Catholic Church has her share of issues that are deep and difficult. Likewise I have no desire in this conversation to try to convert you or particularly to defend the Catholic Church. You have real problems with the Catholic Church and I see that clearly - fair enough.
So -** for the sake of discussion **- let’s say the Catholic Church got a lot of things wrong and the reformation was fully justified.
So - taking off my “Catholic hat” and putting on a SS hat, let us consider what NT Scripture says…and compare that to the “protestant model”.
Scripture calls for unity. Jesus tells us to listen the the Church. Jesus wants us to be one as He and the Father are one. Paul wrote in at least 6 places that we should be united. When a serious doctrinal issue came up the communities did not go their separate ways, but instead went to council and resolved the matter.

All I ask is that you look at what Scripture says - and compare that to the fruits of the protestant reformation.
Has the reformation produced greater unity? Greater understanding? Greater commonality in interpretation of the Gospel?

Peace
James

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Where did I say that it was a matter of feelings at all?

Your posts do come as they are. AWM doesn’t think so, but I see them as Edwin does.

Part of the cryptic and symbolic nature of language, and the compression necessary to post here, is that complex reflections and realizations get compressed.

And tone, yes.

‘Did I hear God rightly?’ is everyone’s question. Insisting that one cannot know, or that it is always some ‘burning in the bosom’ (not my phrase, not my experience,not even close) that God speaks, indicates a curious lack of faith. Can and does God speak to the individual believer? We all say yes, even these Catholics who are hoping God will speak individually to each Protestant and tell them to join up with the Church of Rome.

No one is arguing that God speaks to us. What we argue is: Who, When, Where and How did God revealed what is considered to be Scriptures?

You have not addressed this issue.

I guess we can add epistemology to my list of suggested topics. How do we know anything? If I get an impression or something I check it out.

Would you agree that faith without reason is credulity?

Over the years I have come to the realization that God did really speak to me, although I cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint the day or the time or the method or even the thought.

This process then is an affirmation of what the Church has already established of what is Scriptures.

We were not present in the first 5 centuries when other writings were also circulating: Clement I, Ignatius Epistles, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Paul’s 3rd letter to the Corinthians, Epistle of Barnabas, and who knows what else.

You have the benefit of Church history and Church Councils that have helped us not to stray into other writings that are not to be considered in the same [breath] as those who are Scriptures.

Whether we like it or not, the Bible is developed doctrine. No prophet is known to have spoken directly from God in regards to the list of books. The Church and the men of the Church have. Because the Church is the Body of Christ. Not just an institution.

Intellectually that stinks, because I like everything laid out in syllogistic perfection with comments at the appropriate place, but that’s not how life works. It makes sense to me that God spoke, and spoke clearly enough for me to know it was Him.

That’s fine, but what we have is affirmation of what is already declared by the Church. We don’t have a new revelation of what the canon is.

Following on, you will ask, what translation? Why not the 73 book canon instead of the 66 book? What about the end of Mark and the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery? At that level, I don’t know in the same way. God spoke and these are the translations from the inspired autographs. We try to do the best we can in being as faithful as we can in representing it as well as we can in English so that we can learn of Him. Somehow He works in that process, although we can expect mistakes along the way. Yet none of the textual deviations in the Greek New Testament manuscripts in their thousands requires a change in doctrine. God is actively involved in the transmission of His Word and in the reception of it by each of us.

To whom did God give the list of books?

 

[Contarini]

Where did I say that it was a matter of feelings at all?

You didn’t. You didn’t say what it was a matter of.

I said “feelings or intuition” in order to cover as much ground as possible. “Feeling” can mean a lot of things, after all.

Part of the cryptic and symbolic nature of language, and the compression necessary to post here, is that complex reflections and realizations get compressed.

Agreed.

‘Did I hear God rightly?’ is everyone’s question. Insisting that one cannot know, or that it is always some ‘burning in the bosom’ (not my phrase, not my experience,not even close) that God speaks, indicates a curious lack of faith. Can and does God speak to the individual believer? We all say yes, even these Catholics who are hoping God will speak individually to each Protestant and tell them to join up with the Church of Rome.

Right. But I have to discern that God is in fact speaking. No one is denying that God speaks to people. That’s a straw man. But you’re claiming that you don’t have to trust the Church for the Canon because “God told you” that the 66 books of Scripture are inspired. And I think it’s reasonable to ask you to specify a bit why you’re so sure that God told you this. To accuse anyone who asks such a question of a “lack of faith” or of denying that God can speak is unreasonable. The question isn’t whether God speaks, but how, in this particular case, you are so certain that you have heard Him correctly, to the point that if anyone questions your conclusions you say they are questioning God.

You have asked that question: how do I know? I guess we can add epistemology to my list of suggested topics. How do we know anything? If I get an impression or something I check it out. Over the years I have come to the realization that God did really speak to me, although I cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint the day or the time or the method or even the thought. Intellectually that stinks, because I like everything laid out in syllogistic perfection with comments at the appropriate place, but that’s not how life works. It makes sense to me that God spoke, and spoke clearly enough for me to know it was Him.

I am actually in a good deal of sympathy with your account. I agree that we can’t necessarily lay out the grounds for our beliefs in syllogistic fashion. (William Abraham writes well about this in his Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion.) But the specific circumstances of this discussion are that you said Protestants didn’t trust the Catholic Church for anything, ever. Catholics reasonably pointed out that you trusted the Church for the canon (at least the NT canon). You responded that no, you had that directly from God. Now when asked just what that means, you essentially say that you can’t specify any reason you have for believing that God has spoken to you on this matter.

When we have good reasons for believing something, the problem is usually that we have too many reasons, not too few. When asked why I have concluded that the Catholic Church is correct in its fundamental claims, I have trouble answering. But the trouble is in knowing just where to start. I would not simply respond, “Because God told me so” (although I have, in fact, come to believe quite firmly that God is calling me to be Catholic, and I would never take such a disruptive step at this point in my life for any lesser reason). That just pushes back the answer one fairly obvious step. Presumably we do anything in matters of faith because we believe God has told us to do so. That doesn’t excuse us from having some reasons for believing this.

Without a strong degree of confidence in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the early Church, I see no sufficient reason why anyone would accept the 27-book NT canon. I can see why a person might well accept a large part of that canon, but not in its precise contours.

Where did you get that from? If the Bible is God’s Word, then every book in it is it also.

Obviously, by definition. The question, again, is how you know that the Bible ought to have that particular shape without having confidence in the historic Church as an entity with divine authority and the promise of being guided by the Spirit into all truth.

I had, if you wish to call it so, a ‘witness of the Spirit’.

I’m happy to substitute your own chosen language for describing how you know God is speaking to you, as soon as you share that language with me.

Now I have faith.

Which is to say that you choose to believe. But presumably you aren’t a fideist–you don’t just choose because you choose because you choose.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

When Catholics insist the Church decides it has the right to usurp the role of the Holy Spirit, there is a problem. If you believe the Scriptures are inspired ONLY because the Church says so, there is a problem.

I agree with that. What I’m saying is that I would not accept the 27-book canon of the NT as a matter of faith without the Church’s authority. If I did not have other reasons for trusting the Church in the first place, and in the second place for believing that God does indeed speak through Scripture, I certainly would not just blindly trust the Church.

God Himself speaks, and you don’t believe Him without the Church’s blessing.

The problem here is that you are treating God and the Church as distinct, but God and your own personal judgment as identical. When you come to believe something firmly, you say that God has spoken. When the Church speaks, you don’t accept that this may be how God is speaking to you.

Edwin

 

[Tomyris]

No, there are many problems here. One is that my posts “are what they are”: a snapshot in time of my thinking, necessarily leaving out huge amounts of data and always of course assuming that others bring to the table the equipment to understand what I am saying, and what I mean, which can be two separate things. I didn’t lay out how I came to my position, partly because it is frankly a crisscross of rabbit trails leading in a particular direction and it’s not done. You should also recognize the similarity with the WCF, although rearticulated and somewhat modified, especially leaving out various things. I’m not writing a thesis here. Nor am I a particularly good writer, or thinker.

Another problem is that what I have written has been reactive against a perception that Catholics here are requiring someone to believe something ONLY because the Catholic Church teaches it as true. Unless a priest or bishop is involved, it’s suspicious. God is not allowed to move without permission from the Church Authorities? That is my impression of what some people are saying: I am not allowed to trust the Scriptures unless the Church tells me these are trustworthy. This endorsement they seem to require shifts the authority to that of the Catholic Church being greater than the authority of God: He is theirs, not in the sense that they are dependent on Him, but rather they trot Him out at times to do things for them. I see this reversal in the statement that ‘I only believe the Scriptures because the Catholic Church tells me they are trustworthy’. Not because God can talk to me - He is no longer allowed to, He can only speak through the Church - but the Church thrusts itself so completely between the believer and God that there is no longer any relationship between the believer and God. If I want to talk to God, I should talk to the priest, and the priest will talk to God and come back with an answer? That’s Mosaic, not New Testament, where we are all now priests and the veil has been torn.

 

[Denise1957]

Another problem is that what I have written has been reactive against a perception that Catholics here are requiring someone to believe something ONLY because the Catholic Church teaches it as true. Unless a priest or bishop is involved, it’s suspicious. God is not allowed to move without permission from the Church Authorities? That is my impression of what some people are saying: I am not allowed to trust the Scriptures unless the Church tells me these are trustworthy. This endorsement they seem to require shifts the authority to that of the Catholic Church being greater than the authority of God: He is theirs, not in the sense that they are dependent on Him, but rather they trot Him out at times to do things for them. I see this reversal in the statement that ‘I only believe the Scriptures because the Catholic Church tells me they are trustworthy’. Not because God can talk to me - He is no longer allowed to, He can only speak through the Church - but the Church thrusts itself so completely between the believer and God that there is no longer any relationship between the believer and God. If I want to talk to God, I should talk to the priest, and the priest will talk to God and come back with an answer? That’s Mosaic, not New Testament, where we are all now priests and the veil has been torn.

Regarding what you mention above about there not being any relationship between the believer and God, and if you want to talk to God, then you should talk to a priest and the priest will come back with an answer, well, what do you mean by “relationship,” exactly?

We Catholics have a personal relationship with God. Very personal. We pray, we receive the sacraments, we read scripture and other religious things. What other sort of relationship are you referring to? I’m not trying to be difficult; I’d just like to understand.

 

[Tomyris]

Regarding what you mention above about there not being any relationship between the believer and God, and if you want to talk to God, then you should talk to a priest and the priest will come back with an answer, well, what do you mean by “relationship,” exactly?

We Catholics have a personal relationship with God. Very personal. We pray, we receive the sacraments, we read scripture and other religious things. What other sort of relationship are you referring to? I’m not trying to be difficult; I’d just like to understand.

I think you do. That’s why it seems odd that the other is being insisted on.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That’s Mosaic, not New Testament, where we are all now priests and the veil has been torn.

You are jumping into a different subject and have not addressed:

Who, When, Where and How did God revealed what is considered to be Scriptures?

But in regards to the priesthood.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

If we look at the whole of Scriptures, we can see different orders in Church Government.

We (those that are not ordained) are the laity. We are known as “saints” Romans 1:7). And yes, we are also a priesthood. We can look at a little more in 1st Peter here: 1 Peter 2:4-10. Where priesthood is mentioned twice. So yes we are a priesthood. But when we look at the rest of Scriptures, we see that there are orders in this priesthood.

We see the Deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and in Acts 6:3. So we see different responsibilities between the Deacons and the rest of the laity. However, the Deacons are still part of the laity because they come from them. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Deacons.

We see the Presbyters/Elders (Priests) in 1 Timothy 5:17, in Acts 14:23 and in Titus 1:5. This is not the same Levite Priesthood. This is a Priesthood under our High Priest - Jesus Christ. These Priests are charged to preaching and teaching, as indicated in 1 Tim 5:17 above. However, the Priests also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Priests. Or that the Deacons have the same responsibility as the Priest.

You see where this is going. Let’s continue.

We also see the Bishops (Overseers and also Elders at times) in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 and in Titus 1:7-9. The Bishops “oversee” the laity and the ordained (Deacons and Priests) in an assigned area. When we look at the Church’s 1st Council in Jerusalem in Acts 15, specifically verse 6 - we see that the non-ordained laity was not there to determine the Church’s direction - it was “The Apostles and the Elders”. The leadership of the Church. However, the Bishops also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibilities as the Bishops. Or that the Deacons and the Priests have the same responsibility as the Bishop.

And this order has been carried out since our Lord established His Church with the Apostles and the Apostles then established more of His Churches throughout the world.

When we read the Church Fathers this is incredibly clear and irrevocable.

So just because we are part of the priesthood - it does not mean that we have the same calling and responsibility of those who are ordained. There has been Church Order from the beginning.

 

[JRKH]

No, there are many problems here. One is that my posts “are what they are”: a snapshot in time of my thinking, necessarily leaving out huge amounts of data and always of course assuming that others bring to the table the equipment to understand what I am saying, and what I mean, which can be two separate things. I didn’t lay out how I came to my position, partly because it is frankly a crisscross of rabbit trails leading in a particular direction and it’s not done. You should also recognize the similarity with the WCF, although rearticulated and somewhat modified, especially leaving out various things. I’m not writing a thesis here. Nor am I a particularly good writer, or thinker.

Tomyris you have just described perfectly how I often feel in such conversations.
May I say that I think you have done an excellent job overall…it takes great courage and patience to juggle such complex conversations with multiple people.

Another problem is that what I have written has been reactive against a perception that Catholics here are requiring someone to believe something ONLY because the Catholic Church teaches it as true.

Yes one can get that impression - though I hope that you will recognize that we too are writing in much the same way that you describe in your opening paragraph.

Unless a priest or bishop is involved, it’s suspicious. God is not allowed to move without permission from the Church Authorities?

This is a false impression We do not believe such a thing…We DO believe that the Church does not act contrary to God and therefore the Church is trustworthy. Perhaps that is the better way to look at it.

That is my impression of what some people are saying: I am not allowed to trust the Scriptures unless the Church tells me these are trustworthy. This endorsement they seem to require shifts the authority to that of the Catholic Church being greater than the authority of God: He is theirs, not in the sense that they are dependent on Him, but rather they trot Him out at times to do things for them.

Not at all - the Church is the servant of God, not God’s master and she only wields the authority which was given to her by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself…as recorded in Scripture. That is the Catholic perspective.

I see this reversal in the statement that ‘I only believe the Scriptures because the Catholic Church tells me they are trustworthy’.

If one believes as I have shared above, then one does not find this statement to be at all problematic. I trust the Church BECAUSE I trust God who gave teh Church her authority. Buy obeying the Church I am obeying Christ.

Not because God can talk to me - He is no longer allowed to, He can only speak through the Church - but the Church thrusts itself so completely between the believer and God that there is no longer any relationship between the believer and God. If I want to talk to God, I should talk to the priest, and the priest will talk to God and come back with an answer? That’s Mosaic, not New Testament, where we are all now priests and the veil has been torn.

This is not Catholic theology. We are taught to pray to God directly each day. We listen for and to God in our hearts (I have had two very direct communications from God myself). The separation you perceive and describe above is simply NOT a part of Catholic teaching.
What individuals think, say or do…that is another matter.

Peace
James

 

[Denise1957]

I think you do. That’s why it seems odd that the other is being insisted on.

Thanks. I’m beginning to realize how annoying it is to Protestants that we Catholics are so often referring to the authority of the Church. But regarding the reading of scripture, it’s not like we can’t think about or ponder what scripture means, or that we have to worry that we are not interpreting it the way the Church would. But we also don’t have to spend time reading to find out what the correct position on certain subjects would be.

And on important issues, it seems logical that God would not want a multiplicity of views due to different interpretations of Scripture and Tradition, which, it seems to me, would lead to confusion and disunity.

And I don’t think that God only works through the Catholic Church. He keeps his eye on everyone. How else would others convert to Catholicism, or to a Protestant church from, say, atheism, or something similar? (Though I think that our guardian angels also help with this). God has even worked through some pagans, such as emperor Constantine, who made it so that Catholics were no longer persecuted in the Roman Empire. And I think that there was a pagan named Clovis who also helped Christians a great deal, and who later converted (as did Constantine).

 

[PRmerger]

Another problem is that what I have written has been reactive against a perception that Catholics here are requiring someone to believe something ONLY because the Catholic Church teaches it as true.

Unless there is some OTHER way you can tell us how you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired?

How else do you know, Tomy, except that you accept the proclamation of the Catholic Church which told you it was theopneustos?

The “burning in the bosom” criterion is quite suspect and it sets you up to have a very difficult time arguing with a Muslim or Mormon that their texts also aren’t theopneusots.

IOW: there is NO OTHER WAY you can know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired…

except that…

you trust that the CC got it right.

 

[Contarini]

No, there are many problems here. One is that my posts “are what they are”: a snapshot in time of my thinking, necessarily leaving out huge amounts of data and always of course assuming that others bring to the table the equipment to understand what I am saying, and what I mean, which can be two separate things. I didn’t lay out how I came to my position, partly because it is frankly a crisscross of rabbit trails leading in a particular direction and it’s not done.

Very much true for my ideas as well

You should also recognize the similarity with the WCF, although rearticulated and somewhat modified, especially leaving out various things.

I did. That’s why I introduced “witness of the Spirit” language even though you didn’t use it. Of course, my own understanding of that language within the Reformed tradition may well be shaped by my own upbringing in the Wesleyan tradition.

I’m not writing a thesis here. Nor am I a particularly good writer, or thinker.

I find you one of the more interesting and articulate folks on this forum. I think you are not doing yourself justice

Another problem is that what I have written has been reactive against a perception that Catholics here are requiring someone to believe something ONLY because the Catholic Church teaches it as true. Unless a priest or bishop is involved, it’s suspicious. God is not allowed to move without permission from the Church Authorities? That is my impression of what some people are saying:

I also hear people saying this, and I have huge problems with it as well. That is not what I am saying.

I am not allowed to trust the Scriptures unless the Church tells me these are trustworthy.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. What I am saying, rather, is that in trusting the Scriptures you are trusting the Church. In accepting the 27-book NT canon you are accepting perhaps the most fundamental decision of the early Catholic Church. So the question is, how can you express a general attitude of mistrust for the Catholic Church? (Of course, this raises the question of whether the early Catholic Church is the same thing as the “Catholic Church” that exists today in the form of the Roman Communion.)

This endorsement they seem to require shifts the authority to that of the Catholic Church being greater than the authority of God:

That seems like an unreasonable accusation to me. You could just as well argue that conservative Protestants make the Bible greater than God I think that both the “conservative Catholic” and the “conservative Protestant” views of how God works are too limiting, but I believe that both Scripture and the Church are unique covenantal ways in which God has chosen to make Himself known, and we can’t get around either of them and still have a right understanding of and relationship with God.

He is theirs, not in the sense that they are dependent on Him, but rather they trot Him out at times to do things for them. I see this reversal in the statement that ‘I only believe the Scriptures because the Catholic Church tells me they are trustworthy’. Not because God can talk to me - He is no longer allowed to, He can only speak through the Church - but the Church thrusts itself so completely between the believer and God that there is no longer any relationship between the believer and God. If I want to talk to God, I should talk to the priest, and the priest will talk to God and come back with an answer? That’s Mosaic, not New Testament, where we are all now priests and the veil has been torn.

No, that’s not how it works. Lots of laypeople in the Catholic Church have heard from God. Sometimes they were encouraged by the hierarchy, and sometimes they weren’t. For that matter, I’m sure that Luther and the other Reformers were genuinely hearing from God too–I just don’t think they were entirely correct in how they interpreted what they were hearing. And that’s my objection to what you are saying–you create a false dichotomy in which any question about how we hear God’s voice means that God can’t really speak. We need the Church, not as something 'between us and God" but as the context in which we hear God’s voice.

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

Tomyris,
Was considering your last post(s) where you have described how you have gotten certain impressions from listening to Catholics here as CAF (and I assume elsewhere) and got to wondering…Let me see if I can share this clearly of if I muddle it all up.

I’m assuming certain beliefs on your so correct me if I get it wrong…
It is your belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and is totally trustworthy.
You further believe that one can properly understand the bible if it is read in the Spirit.
You believe that one does not need an outside authority for this. Just yourself, the Spirit and the Book.
The above does not discount the role of an ekkslesia (church) in learning and understanding, but the church does not trump the word (or your understanding of it).

Now - based on the above - and on your experience with others…
Is it possible for someone to listen to a different spirit and to misunderstand the inerrant word in the Bible? In other words is it possible for Satan to twist one’s understanding of Scripture?
If this occurs…and one is mislead by this spirit…would that negate the inerrancy of Scripture?

I assume for the purpose of this post, that your answer will be - “yes that the devil can do this” and that - "no it would not change that fact that the bible is inerrant.

Now - - -
The Catholic takes much the same approach to the teachings of the Church (which includes and is built on the Bible). That the teachings are inerrant because they come from God. Further we believe that one can properly understand the Church’s teachings if read in and with the Spirit of God.
Likewise, it is possible for another spirit to cause a person to NOT properly understand the teachings of the Church and the role of the Church in God’s plan.
However - such error on the part of an individual does not change the fact that the doctrinal teachings of the Church are inerrant.
We actually accept this as fact based on a combination of

1. The authority to bind and loose is granted to the Church in Scripture
2. That authority is thoroughly demonstrated in Scripture
3. The history of the development of the Church and her teachings over two millennium.
   and most important of all
4. Our desire to Listen to God, be obedient to him and to serve Him in His Church.

What I have tried to describe here are two very different paradigms - different world views - on the matter. Understanding these two paradigms might help us to more fully understand each other.

I welcome any feedback you care to offer.

Peace
James

 

[sennincatholic]

OP, Why shouldnt we talk about the reformation? Should we ignore the consequences?Or forget where we come from?Our history?

 

[PRmerger]

Not because God can talk to me - He is no longer allowed to, He can only speak through the Church - but the Church thrusts itself so completely between the believer and God that there is no longer any relationship between the believer and God. If I want to talk to God, I should talk to the priest, and the priest will talk to God and come back with an answer? That’s Mosaic, not New Testament, where we are all now priests and the veil has been torn.

Dearest friend, I know that you are aware that many Catholics have a rich prayer life, and talk to God, without the aid of a priest.

Saying that you trust in the authority of the CC each and every time you quote from the NT is NOT the same thing as saying, “You therefore cannot talk to God except through a priest.”

Point that cannot be refuted is this: you cannot stand by your statement here:

For Protestants one of the loudest lessons of history is that Catholic leadership simply cannot be trusted. Ever. For anything. Period.

while also professing that what St. Paul said as inspired here:

We should also recognize in Paul’s argument in Romans 14 that Christians will have disagreements on beliefs and practices and love one another.

Either you have to say that you trust the Catholic leadership, at least as it applies to discerning that Romans is theopneustos…

OR

You have to say that you read and prayed over each of the 27 books of the NT and discerned, ON YOUR OWN, and God spoke to you, somehow, and told you that each of those books is indeed the inspired Word of God.

(Not to mention, you would have to claim that you read and prayed over the over 400 other early Christian texts and God spoke to you, somehow, and told you that those books are NOT inspired.)

 

[Tomyris]

D…

I see that as false choices, as I described above. I wonder if you read my previous posts, and if you did, if it registered. If you had you wouldn’t have thought what you just posted would be something I would see as a dichotomy.

This, from the Westminster Confession of Faith, expresses where I am at very well:

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]

In case anyone is looking, the above is not in the Catholic Catechism.

I think JRKH put it aptly when he said we have different ways of looking at the world. We are strangers in paradigms.

The number of books in the Bible can be determined once we can agree on how we are to determine that. Until then the argument is premature.

 

[Denise1957]

I see that as false choices, as I described above. I wonder if you read my previous posts, and if you did, if it registered. If you had you wouldn’t have thought what you just posted would be something I would see as a dichotomy.

This, from the Westminster Confession of Faith, expresses where I am at very well:

In case anyone is looking, the above is not in the Catholic Catechism.

I think JRKH put it aptly when he said we have different ways of looking at the world. We are strangers in paradigms.

The number of books in the Bible can be determined once we can agree on how we are to determine that. Until then the argument is premature.

In looking at X in the Westminster confession, it’s interesting that Scripture is to be the final determinate in all religious matters. Jesus never wrote anything down, and he did not tell his Apostles to write anything down. Jesus taught verbally. It’s odd that given this fact, that Scripture alone is the final determinate, rather than Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium as in the CC. The latter just makes more sense, IMO.

 

[JRKH]

I see that as false choices, as I described above. I wonder if you read my previous posts, and if you did, if it registered. If you had you wouldn’t have thought what you just posted would be something I would see as a dichotomy.

This, from the Westminster Confession of Faith, expresses where I am at very well:

In case anyone is looking, the above is not in the Catholic Catechism.

I think JRKH put it aptly when he said we have different ways of looking at the world. We are strangers in paradigms.

The number of books in the Bible can be determined once we can agree on how we are to determine that. Until then the argument is premature.

Thank you for sharing that portion of the Westminster confessions. Very helpful.

If I may observe - and then ask…
The sections you cited above speak of the “Holy Spirit” being of supreme importance in this matter. Something that every Catholic would agree with. The confessions, number X says that it is the Holy Spirit, speaking through scripture that is the supreme judge.
A fair enough and I might add very sound position to take. I would even say that it is not at all “un-Catholic”.
That said - I ask the following in all sincerity and hope you will answer this question.
What do you do when two sincere Christians come to opposing viewpoints on a matter considered by at least one of them to be important to one’s salvation, and both are certain that they are guided by the Holy Spirit?
Is there Scriptural guidance on how to handle this?

peace
James