S
SteveG
Guest
fair enough.
- Status
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Sorry I got pulled away and could not complete my thoughts. Anyways, when I asked Bob why he believed that the Catholic Church was infallible and by what authority he came to that conclusion…. he quoted scripture.
As made apparent by the Priest’s e-mail, this was Bob’s interpretation of the verse. So in the end Bob, according to Bob’s argument, believes in the infallibility of the Catholic Church based on his interpretation of scripture.
Catholics need to be careful not to do such things when making accusations about authority.
As made apparent by the Priest’s e-mail, this was Bob’s interpretation of the verse. So in the end Bob, according to Bob’s argument, believes in the infallibility of the Catholic Church based on his interpretation of scripture.
Catholics need to be careful not to do such things when making accusations about authority.
I
II_Paradox_II
Guest
ok.
a few thoughts:
- I think I would disagree here. Ultimately everyone has to interpret their rule of faith. That is established and acts a bottleneck that every system must deal with. The primary difference is that you subscribe to system of authority that can add further infallible propositions to those already present. In that way the difference is quantitative, not qualitative. The scriptures give both outright and implied moral principles as well. At this point, you can argue one of a few ways: First is that the scriptures must be interpreted therefore I am stuck with relativism… but this then puts you back into the bottleneck of interpretation that your system cannot escape either. The second is that the scriptures do not give enough moral direction, which is seemingly where you are going. To this I would argue that you still have not established a case for qualitative relativism because of the interpretation issue so the most you can establish is quantative, that the scriptures don’t explicitly or implicitly address enough moral issues.
- I agree that the church is here to give moral guidance and it has authority (including excommunication) to do so. However, We are historically in a situation where there is not one church to offer guidance, but many. In that state the revelation itself must be consulted first with the consensus of the faithful being second in priority. If you argue, as you do, that the CC is the only church then your argument works better but I do not share many of the ecclesial presuppositions you share.
This seems to me to be more rhetorical flair than a credible argument. A few thoughts though:
The argument should be faithful protestants and catholics. Just as you argue that contracepting catholics are ignoring or misunderstanding catholic teaching, thus invalidating their disobediance to the rule of faith for evidentiary purposes, I can argue the same for protestants who sleep with their girlfriends. Serious people of faith show a remarkable moral similarity and show divergence typically in places where our authorities do not speak (again bringing in the quantative issue instead of qualitative). How many serious protestants do you know that get drunk every night, have three divorces or teach that abortion is normative for Christians? I would expect a similarly low number of deviant cases among faithful catholics in a similar way.
Yes, and the same argument can be made for the scriptures.
yes, it does.
ken
I
II_Paradox_II
Guest
It comes from a fascination I developed while studying in college. I found that many true things (or at least things we believe) had at the core of their definition a paradox or contradiction that we live with (such as the paradoxes inherent with predestination). Many people are uncomfortable with this, desiring perfectly rational systems, yet such problems are a source of interest to me. I chose the name to reflect this inclination.
ken
S
SteveG
Guest
I agree and understand. Personally, this isn’t how I came to the conclusion or would make the argument (not saying Bob did). But I’ve already stated some of my arguments in earlier posts. Thanks for clarifying.
T
Theodora
Guest
Bravo! Great post. You were searching and must have been open to the Light of the Holy Spirit. If only more of the other christian denominations could see and understand the inconcistencies of Sola Scriptura. I used to live in Europe 38 years ago. There were only Catholics and Protestant at that time. Then when I came to the U.S. and was confronted with so many missionaries of differenct christian and nonchristian denominations, I got confused. Instinctively I knew there could not possibly be so many different christian religious persuasions, all claiming to be the real deal. I started searching. “Seek and ye shall find.” I got all my answers I was looking for.
Theodora
Theodora
S
SteveG
Guest
II Paradox II:
II Paradox II:
II Paradox II:
II Paradox II:
Yes, agreed. But the rule of faith we follow is distinct from the doctrines of the faith. The difference here is that the Protestant Paradigm has no true bottleneck. Scripture simply can not act as an authority in the way you are suggesting. Scripture can be USED authoritatively, but it can not speak of it’s own accord. The bottleneck is each individual believer, of course using all the talents and knowledge at their disposal (in your case quite a lot in that regard), but still the individual believer in the end.
II Paradox II:
This is what I argue. I can not escape the reality of having to choose my authority, but the one I have adopted serves as a true bottleneck, your’s does not and can not serve such a function.
II Paradox II:
I can only say again. Revelation as found in the scripture can simply not be consulted in the manor you are suggesting. A book (inspired or not), begs for an interpreter.
II Paradox II:
I promise, I am not trying to engage in polemical commentary or rhetorical flair. I understand your point regarding such moral issues as in the example of fornication you give, and indeed there is great overlap. Yet on issues of faith, such as the meaning and form of baptism, the meaning and practice of the eucharist, etc. there a a multitude of voices coming from the protestant churches, and I can only assume all in good faith. These are not incidentels, and it defies the evidence around us to suggest that our diffenerences are largely only in areas where our respective authorities are silent.
S
SteveG
Guest
II Paradox II:
Awesome! I too love this idea of paradox. Have you ever read Chesterton? This IS his mode of writing. In particular, in his book Orthodoxy, he devotes a long discussion on this exact topic and what a scandal it is to the world when looking at Christianity (true man, and true God, how can that be?). I was actually wondering if you took the name in honor of him. If this is your inclination, you MUST read Chesteron.
I
II_Paradox_II
Guest
It is the perspective of Luther and Keirkegaard as well (Keirkegaard is one of my favorites, especially his ideas on interpretation… very interesting guy). If I get a chance I’ll read more of Cheesterton, however, as what I have read from him I enjoyed.Awesome! I too love this idea of paradox. Have you ever read Chesterton? This IS his mode of writing. In particular, in his book Orthodoxy, he devotes a long discussion on this exact topic and what a scandal it is to the world when looking at Christianity. If this is your inclination, you MUST read Chesteron.
BTW - I’ll get back to the other post later… no more time to post at the moment…
ken
S
Shibboleth
Guest
II Paradox II:
In college I went and heard an existential Jazz band that called themselves the EITHER ORchestra. I thought the name was very witty second only to the band by English majors called The Cunning Linguists.
Although I am not a huge fans of existentialists, not have I ever been even when I was agnostic, I have always been entertained by Keirkegaard. Just the thought of a Danish philosopher is enough to be entertaining.
In college I went and heard an existential Jazz band that called themselves the EITHER ORchestra. I thought the name was very witty second only to the band by English majors called The Cunning Linguists.
I
II_Paradox_II
Guest
I am not really a huge existentialist fan either (I remember calling Sartre a “whiner” in class once… even the teacher thought it was funny at the time). Keirkegaard is in somewhat of a different class from the broad group of them, however. His views, though related seem to have a much different tone. As for his writings on interpretation, I just found them to be very insightful, especially as they relate to the morality of interpretation, not just the mechanics of it.
heh… no comment…
ken
B
bob
Guest
I am shocked! You have expressed that you have not accepted 2000 years of Catholic church’s teaching but you are prepared to accpet a Catholic priest’s interpretation so long as it concurs with yours?
Do you also concur with the priest’s acceptance of the infallibility of the magisterium?
B
bob
Guest
You bet I would.
B
bob
Guest
I did not just expect any Protestant to show up - I replied to one who confesses in his public profile as converting to Lutheran.
B
bob
Guest
I did not just quote scripture - I gave you the link to the church’s stand on infallibility. The scripture was just the tip of the iceberg. I was not making acusations on authority I was calling on scripture for support on authority.
I am acusing that your authority has no support.
Don’t I hear some familiarity here where Sola Scripturists often quote at random from the bible and say that that’s authority?
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Not accept his interpretation but listen to his interpretation and weigh it against the possibilities. Just because someone is of a different Church than me does not mean that they are not more wise than I. I will listen to all who are willing to teach me and I will do it skeptically.I am shocked! You have expressed that you have not accepted 2000 years of Catholic church’s teaching but you are prepared to accpet a Catholic priest’s interpretation so long as it concurs with yours?
Do you also concur with the priest’s acceptance of the infallibility of the magisterium?
One need not only learn from the wisdom of others but also in the failure of those that are not wise. I forget who made the quote but they said:
“Humans are unique in the fact that they have the ability to learn from the failures of others, they are also unique in the fact that they constantly fail to do so.”
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Yes I am, I am converting to Lutheran from being agnostic. I have stopped rejecting God and he has directed me to the path that I currently walk. It may be that part of my hart is still hardened and that is why I have not accepted the Catholic Faith, but I am not so sure.I did not just expect any Protestant to show up - I replied to one who confesses in his public profile as converting to Lutheran.
C. S. Lewis on Salvation
“I was dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom of God, eyes darting left and right for some means of escape.”
So speak to me on these issues if you wish but remember that you are casting pearls before swine.
S
Shibboleth
Guest
It still comes down to, by what authority did you choose to accept the authority of the Catholic Church. If you say that the Catholic Churches’ authority made you accept the authority of the Catholic Church, then that is tautological. If you say that the Catholic Church was given its authority by God and this verse of scripture proves that – then you are relying on the Scriptures as your initial and hence ultimate authority.I did not just quote scripture - I gave you the link to the church’s stand on infallibility. The scripture was just the tip of the iceberg. I was not making acusations on authority I was calling on scripture for support on authority.
I am acusing that your authority has no support.
Don’t I hear some familiarity here where Sola Scripturists often quote at random from the bible and say that that’s authority?
If you say that God through his Grace has given you your faith and direction to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, then I have no argument other than he has done the same for me and my path.
B
bob
Guest
Ah! an open minded Lutheran-to-be. Perhaps you will be able to learn from this Vatican II document - Dei Verbum - Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
Some of the scripture quotes (cf. Matt. 28:19-20) I threw into the fray were referenced by this document. I did not pluck them out of the air to justify my arguments. Perhaps the Catholic priest who disagreed with my view may want to review this document too.
It is a masterpiece on why Sola Scriptura does not stand. Afterwards refresh yourself by returning to the begining of the thread started by RNRoberts.
God Bless
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
According to my Webster’s Dictionary, a homosexual is an individual with a sexual desire for those of the same sex as himself. And, according to my Strong’s Lexicon, arsenokoites, the word used in 1 Cor 6:9, means “one who lies with a male as with a female.” So, an arsenokoites is a homosexual who acts on his sexual desire for those of the same sex as himself, i.e., a practicing homosexual. So the word choice of the NAB translators seems correct.
- Status