You can't have it both ways.

[gtrenewed]

Gtrenewed, why would Paul say to Tim, the following?

2 Tim 2:2 - And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Why wouldn’t Paul say something like:

Sacred scripture is the Christians one and only rule of faith for teaching and no church authority is required to teach others; simply defer to the bible alone for elucidation?

Paul did say to Tim:

All Scripture is God-breathed** and is useful for teaching,** rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…but he still tells Tim:

2 Tim 2:2 - And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Why the need for these teachers? Take it right to scripture as per sola scriptura, I thought?

Scripture provides for teachers and the teachers teach from Scriptures.

Of course in the beginnig there was oral teaching which became written teaching which became Scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit.

All I am saying is that whatever the place in the body of Christ, today it is Scripture, the Word of God, that is the final arbiter, the final authority.

Whether we get it right or get it wrong, Jesus will judge. Scripture tells us that whatever we do to do it in faith. Faith is in Jesus and Jesus alone for He alone is our mediator. Faith is not an institution, or organization although many people respond so if asked their faith. Jesus is the Word made flesh and if we stand on the Word, we can stand before Him.

 

[joe370]

Dok, if the SS advocate is right and the bible is all sufficient for deriving error free truth, then why are there still thousands upon thousands of sermons being preached and bible studies being led all over the world, if further explanation, elucidation, of the all sufficient bible, isn’t necessary? No need for catholic teachers/pastors or protestant teachers/pastors if the bible is the Christians sole source of truth - I thought?

 

[joe370]

3]Scripture provides for teachers and the teachers teach from Scriptures.

Of course in the beginnig there was oral teaching which became written teaching which became Scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit.

So teachers are required? Maybe we are getting somewhere. Are these teachers today, still entrusted with the authority to teach from the infallible word of God? If so, then where can I go to find these teachers who teach from scripture, with authority? Please don’t say the universal church, for the universal church, according to most non-Catholics, is comprised of all isolated, autonomous churches, be it catholic, eastern orthodox, Anglican or protestant.

All I am saying is that whatever the place in the body of Christ, today it is Scripture, the Word of God, that is the final arbiter, the final authority.

Scripture does not interpret scripture; people interpret scripture. People are the final authority, not scripture - right? Is it your opinion that no one today, can infallibly interpret the infallible word of God? If yes then scripture, providing for teachers, and the teachers teaching from scripture, are not teaching infallibly, but fallibly???

 

[Dokimas]

Hey Dokimas, Paul was telling those early Christians to hold to traditions taught, not just in his written letters (what would be called the New Testament) - but also given orally. What were these, is the common question from SS advocates? How can they be known? Perhaps through the preservation of the church.

Or, they were eventually committed to scripture, ending the need to stand firm these traditions? If they were eventually committed to scripture thereby ending the need to hold fast to these traditions then where does Paul reveal this truth? I am told by SS advocates: if it’s not in the bible it’s not to be believed. As far as I can tell, Paul’s command to stand firm and hold to the traditions which those early Christians were taught, whether** by word **of mouth or by letter, was never revoked due to the supposed fact that these oral traditions were all safely committed to scripture. If they were eventually committed to scripture then please identity these traditions that were eventually committed to scripture and the passages that support the supposed fact that the following command was to be rejected once those traditions were committed to scripture:

*So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
*

Where does God reveal that the teachings you hold dear that aren’t found in Scripture are from Him? Isn’t it through the teaching of the CC? Kind of self serving from my point of view, a very human trait as I well know through PERSONAL experience (one of my many faults).

 

[Dokimas]

Dok, if the SS advocate is right and the bible is all sufficient for deriving error free truth, then why are there still thousands upon thousands of sermons being preached and bible studies being led all over the world, if further explanation, elucidation, of the all sufficient bible, isn’t necessary? No need for catholic teachers/pastors or protestant teachers/pastors if the bible is the Christians sole source of truth - I thought?

I’m sure you think you stumped me. I really think you know the answer and the answer is NOT that SS must be untrue.

 

[1holycatholic]

Scripture provides for teachers and the teachers teach from Scriptures.

Of course in the beginnig there was oral teaching which became written teaching which became Scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit.

All I am saying is that whatever the place in the body of Christ, today it is Scripture, the Word of God, that is the final arbiter, the final authority.

Whether we get it right or get it wrong, Jesus will judge. Scripture tells us that whatever we do to do it in faith. Faith is in Jesus and Jesus alone for He alone is our mediator. Faith is not an institution, or organization although many people respond so if asked their faith. Jesus is the Word made flesh and if we stand on the Word, we can stand before Him.

I read recently that roughly one quarter of Sola Scriptura Evangelical Protestants now accept abortion based on the Bible as their final authority.

That’s right, abortion.

Since you consider the Bible as the final authority just as they do, who are you to say they’re wrong?

 

[JugglingReferee]

I’m thinking a Catholic forum probably isn’t the best place to get a lot of protestant answers on this. Not all protestants believe in it either. I have a friend who has a masters degree in old testament studies from an ivy league who wants to teach at a protestant seminary and he thinks it is silly to try and reconcile the idea of Sola Scripture with the history of scripture and so did most of his, also protestant, professors.

These people just haven’t accepted the truth in the CC yet. Some of them don’t want, possibly out of pride or saving face.

 

[gtrenewed]

Indeed I would be! However, I did not say there was no unity in Scripture. I said that applying verses that are referring to the book or letter in which they are written to other books that may not even have existed at the time is a hermeneutical error.

From God’s perspective they existed simultaneously.

Really? Can you please explain how this is evident?

You said I could not use Scripture from one book to another because they were written at different times. This would only be true if man wrote them. God wrote them so they were finished before time began. Man was an instrument, God the author.

Did you think your Bible just dropped out of the sky, fully formed.

To infer that is not rational, let’s keep it rational.

Yes. Having lost the central element of worship in spirit and in truth, the Scriptures are the next best thing.
Why do you call it “liturgy”?

I have the heart of worship, Jesus, by faith. And when I gather with others in the name of Jesus, He is in our midst.

Memorial is the means established by God by which we worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. The core of our spiritual worship is in the Eucharist, which is anamnesis. It finds it’s roots in the Passover, which was also an anamnesis.

“Therefore, I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” Rom 12:1-2

You are new here, so you may not realize yet that it is not a good idea to try to read minds, hearts, and souls over the internet. You really have no idea what he is “missing”. This is a speculation on your part, and an erroneous one.

I first came here in 2004, I just limit my posts.
Scripture says that out of the mouth the heart speaks. I assume that you write what is on your mind/soul. By deduction, this is reading not mind-reading.
Why must you use sarcasm and not just discourse?

How are these opposed to one another? We still see it as the Real Presence by faith.
But, for the record, there is no such thing as “ritual of transubstantiation”.

I can receive bread and wine implements as the body and blood directly by faith.
You must have a priest say specific words at a specific time in order to make your implements into the body and blood. That is why bells were rung at that precise time. That is a ritual and that is transubstatiation.

And, for the record, the presence of the priest brings us as a community into His Sacrifice. People are not unable to “tap into it” if the priest is not present. On the contrary, there are more communion services at the local parish here with no priest present than there are Masses.

This is a little deceptive because you cannot receive a wafer that has not undergone transubstantiation. So that communion service uses wafers already changed by a priest sometime before.

Apparently you see the Divine Liturgy as something other than partaking of what is freely offered by grace as a free gift? It sounds like your experience of being Roman Catholic was pretty miserable.

I see it complicated by always having to have someone between the believer and Jesus. That is the way the old covenant worked. Scripture says that was made obsolete by Jesus. I can take bread and wine and remember Jesus as the mediator of the new covenant in is His Blood and by the stripes on His Body and as I partake of these implements, I receive His Body and Blood.
It seemed I always had to look through someone else in order to see Jesus as a RC.
I was always calling on someone else to intercede for me to Jesus when Scripture says we can boldly come to the throne of grace, directly to Jesus.
For example, the priest stands in for Jesus at confession.

Yes, this is something we have in common. The OT priestly class does not exist in the New. However, unlike yourself, we see that shadow fulfilled (not abolished) in Christ, who is our sacrifice and our High Priest.

I agree with that. I disagree with men being priests today who stands in for Jesus to offer a sacrifice on an altar. This priesthood is a later invention than the first disciples. I see the Jewish customs all over the RCC. In Scripture, I don’t see that type of worship. In fact, each Gentile church community had there own distinctive gathering.

Both things are needed. If we did not understand the meaning of anamnesis, then the “rememberance” would have only very superficial meaning, as is the case among many of our separated brethren.

It is not anymore superficial than Scripture is superficial unless the recipient is superficial and we know every church community has wheat and tares.

And may God bless your journey also. You have a need that you are seeking to meet. I hope that CAF can serve in your benefit.

Scripture says that iron sharpens iron. I use this forum to sharpen by beliefs which makes me a better disciple. So far, I have found a few knowledgeable and non-combative (that is personal attacks) RC’s. I try to eliminate the personal attacks, not always successful, in order to have a more thorough discourse. When challenged with a new thought, I withdraw to Scripture to understand my beliefs in light of that new thought. That is why I don’t have many posts for the number of years I have been signed up.

 

[guanophore]

Pope Eugenius and other popes said **living withing the Catholic Church **was necessary for salvation. He purposely excluded pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics.

INFALLIBLE TEACHING
In 1442 A.D, Pope Eugenius IV, 1442, at the Council of Florence, reaffirmed this truth.

You have to understand this within it’s historical context, Ron. There WERE NO PROTESTANTS when this was written. There were no ecclesial communities into which people were born and raised as Christians separated from the Catholic Church, as there are now.

Pope Eugenious is echoing the TEaching of the Apostles. the Church founded by Christ is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Those Apostles taught that there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved but Christ, and that heresy and schism are serious sins.

 

[simspt]

No, not circular. Spiral.


A Spiral Argument

“Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.”

Forgive my ignorance but how does the bible and its relationship to history lead to the conclusion of an infallible Church?
I understand that without the Church that has historical continuity with the first generations of Christians who followed Christ’s Apostles our knowledge of what the first followers of Christ believed would be much more limited or IMO trustworthy for example if say the gnostic material was found to be dated earlier than the synoptics and two churches catholic and gnostic or marcionites continued alongside each other to the present day. I believe in the resurrection as something that took place in space time therefore historical but I don’t see how arguing for the NTs documents and their relation to history supports the belief in infallibility.

 

[gtrenewed]

I read recently that roughly one quarter of Sola Scriptura Evangelical Protestants now accept abortion based on the Bible as their final authority.

That’s right, abortion.

Since you consider the Bible as the final authority just as they do, who are you to say they’re wrong?

Scripture tells us that in the first church one form of teaching came by prophesy. It also says that these teachings should be discerned.

Just because someone declares the Bible as the final authority and declares abortion ok; this does not nullify the first, nor verify the latter.

I am taking my Scriptural responsibility to declare this false teaching. If I don’t say they are wrong, how will they ever repent?

Can you really take the high road in this? There is a whole liberal segment of the RCC that supports abortion. These people attend mass and receive communion. What good is a human final authority if they don’t take action against these offenders. I would ask you why the RCC does not excommunicate RC politicians who support abortion?

There are wheat and tares, sheep and wolves in every church community.

 

[guanophore]

From God’s perspective they existed simultaneously.

Yes, of course! But it is not God’s perspective I am having an issue with. It is people, poorly educated about the Source of the NT, who think that the warning about “adding to the words of this book” applies to any other book but the one in which it appears.

You said I could not use Scripture from one book to another because they were written at different times.

No, I did not say that.

This would only be true if man wrote them. God wrote them so they were finished before time began. Man was an instrument, God the author.

How about we do this. How about I commend you to your myth that “scripture interprets scripture”.

To infer that is not rational, let's keep it rational.

It is equally irrational to deny that the Bible came from the Catholic Church.

I have the heart of worship, Jesus, by faith. And when I gather with others in the name of Jesus, He is in our midst.

I am sure you do the best you can with what you have.

Many of my separated brethren have a more devoted faith practice with the abbreviated version of the Gospel than Catholics who have the fullness and don’t know, or care!

I first came here in 2004, I just limit my posts.

Sorry, I meant new to the thread. I guess it is better you limit them, if your sentiment is so anti-catholic.

Scripture says that out of the mouth the heart speaks. I assume that you write what is on your mind/soul. By deduction, this is reading not mind-reading. Why must you use sarcasm and not just discourse?

Ok. It is clear that you feel entitled to read the posts, and judge the hearts of the writers. I was not being sarcastic. Your assessment really was erroneous.

I can receive bread and wine implements as the body and blood directly by faith.

Yes, you can. You can receive anything off your dining plate directly by faith. You can do the same at the cafeteria. You can believe whatever you want, and eat whatever you like.

You must have a priest say specific words at a specific time in order to make your implements into the body and blood.

We have no such “implements”.

That is why bells were rung at that precise time. That is a ritual and that is transubstatiation.

Yes, bells are part of a ritual, but that is not transubstantiation. It seems that you were very poorly catechized.

This is a little deceptive because you cannot receive a wafer that has not undergone transubstantiation.

Sure you can. The seminarians do this, and those who are practicing for first communion,

So that communion service uses wafers already changed by a priest sometime before.

Yes. My point is that the Eucharist is valid, even if the priest is not able to be there. Do you think the “priest changes” the bread and wine by himself?

I see it complicated by always having to have someone between the believer and Jesus.

This is a common misperception among anti-Catholics. It seems like it is difficult for some people to see other people acting in the person of Christ. It is a good thing that the first members of the Church did not have this disbelieving hostility, or there would be no Church today. On the contrary, they saw the Apostles exercising the priestly ministry of Christ acting in the Person of Christ (He who hears you, hears Me).

That is the way the old covenant worked. Scripture says that was made obsolete by Jesus.

No, gtren. Only the ordinances of the Law were obsolete. Jesus fulfilled the rest in Himself. What we see as shadow in the OT is fulfilled in the NT. In the Church founded by Christ, there is a High Priest, a minsterial priest, and a priestly people.

 

[guanophore]

I can take bread and wine and remember Jesus as the mediator of the new covenant in is His Blood and by the stripes on His Body and as I partake of these implements, I receive His Body and Blood.

You have freedom of religion, and you can believe whatever you like. I guess someone could eat their knife and fork also, and believe it is the Body and Blood of Christ. Unfortunately, believing these implements are Jesus does not make it so.

It seemed I always had to look through someone else in order to see Jesus as a RC.

I am sure it seemed that way. It seemed that way to me too, once. And I really could not see very well, because I did not have very many saintly Catholics to look through!

Yes. People that don’t have a right relationship with Jesus often see the saints as “layers between” instead of part of the communion of saints who facilitate our commuion with Christ.

For example, the priest stands in for Jesus at confession.

When you say “stand in”, does that mean you don’t believe Jesus is present through the priest?

. I disagree with men being priests today who stands in for Jesus to offer a sacrifice on an altar. This priesthood is a later invention than the first disciples.

No, gtren, it is not a “later invention”. The NT priesthood started in the upper room, when Jesus taught the Apostles to offer the sacrifice of His Own Body and Blood. You have been misled by anti -Catholic teaching.

I see the Jewish customs all over the RCC. In Scripture, don’t see that type of worship. In fact, each Gentile church community had there own distinctive gathering.

Is there something about the gathering of distinctive communities that is contrary to Jewish customs? Is not the Scripture clear that Paul went first to the synagogues in every city, to offer the Gospel to the Jews? Do you think these synagogues spread throughout the Roman Empire were lacking in Jewish custom? Do you think they were not distinctive communites? Honestly, sometimes I cannot understand you at all!

It is not anymore superficial than Scripture is superficial unless the recipient is superficial and we know every church community has wheat and tares.

Well, you are right. Some people have a very superficial understanding of Scripture, as well as Eucharist. Some think it is “just a symbol”. Some people’s understanding of Scripture is so deficient that they do not even see Jesus ordaining His Apostles to offer a sacrifice in the upper room!

 Scripture says that iron sharpens iron. I use this forum to sharpen by beliefs which makes me a better disciple.

Good for you!

There sure is a lot of clanging iron around here, no doubt.

 

[guanophore]

Forgive my ignorance but how does the bible and its relationship to history lead to the conclusion of an infallible Church? :confused:

This is a great question, and the reason we are having this discussion. the Bible and History both attest to the infallible Church. I will stipulate, though, that not everyone reaches this “conclusion”. This is the most unbiased, theologically, and historically accurate conclusion, but many people that read scripture come to opposite conclusion.

As far as history, many of our separated brethren are afraid to get into the history of their family, because it becomes abundantly clear that the Early Church was Catholic. This is, in fact, what permanently ruined by “Protesting”. I took a class in seminary on historical theology. When I read the documents of the early Church, I learned they were undeniably Catholic.

I understand that without the Church that has historical continuity with the first generations of Christians who followed Christ's Apostles our knowledge of what the first followers of Christ  believed would be much more limited or IMO trustworthy for example if say the gnostic material was found to be dated earlier than the synoptics and two churches catholic and gnostic or marcionites continued alongside each other to the present day.

What you are giving as an example here is one of the testimonies of the infallibility of the Church. The reason that the Church is not now gnostic or Marcionite, Arian, Nestorian, etc. is because Jesus kept His promise to send the HS, who would lead the Church into “all Truth”.

I believe in the resurrection as something that took place in space time therefore historical but I don’t see how arguing for the NTs documents and their relation to history supports the belief in infallibility.

How can they be an accurate and reliable collection of books, unless they were protected infallibly by the HS?

 

[gtrenewed]

So teachers are required?

 

[guanophore]

Scripture tells us that in the first church one form of teaching came by prophesy. It also says that these teachings should be discerned.

How do you define “prophesy”?

Just because someone declares the Bible as the final authority and declares abortion ok; this does not nullify the first, nor verify the latter.

We are in agreement on this point, but that was not the issue. The issue is, who is to arbitrate the dispute? Both parties are sincere Christians using the Bible as the final authority.

I am taking my Scriptural responsibility to declare this false teaching. If I don’t say they are wrong, how will they ever repent?

Forgive me, but I have not been able to find the verse that gives grrenewed “Scriptural responsibility”. Can you help me out? Also, can you show me where you are authorized to “declare false teaching”? You sound just like the Pope.

I do agree that if they don’t hear how wrong it is, they may never repent.

Can you really take the high road in this?

Yes, and I am glad you have done so also.

There is a whole liberal segment of the RCC that supports abortion. These people attend mass and receive communion.

Truth is not defined according to those who depart from it. Yes, there is a significant segment of the parishioners who are eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves. I hope you will join me in prayer for them, so that they will someday also make it to high ground.

What good is a human final authority if they don’t take action against these offenders.

What would you like the Bishop to do, burn them at the stake?

I would ask you why the RCC does not excommunicate RC politicians who support abortion?

There is no need. Their actions have resulted in self excommunication. The act in itself triggers the consequence.

There are wheat and tares, sheep and wolves in every church community.

Yes. I wonder why you are pointing at the tares in the Catholic community? You seem to want to pull out the weeds, or have us pull them out. Is that what Jesus said to do?

I think He directed the servants to attend to the log intheir own eyes, and to leave the tares until the harvest.

 

[guanophore]

Teachers are provided who teach from Scripture.

How are the teachers provided?

Why are they provided?

Scripture says we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, teacher is one of these gifts.

This is a point we all agree upon, however, you dodged the question. How are we to know which persons are gifted by God?

I have found that praying and asking Jesus where to find anything do with His Word works very well. I look to Jesus.

Indeed, and so do thousands of other very sincere and devoted Christians who have come to opposite conclusions from you. For example, on their “scriptural responsibility” they claim that abortion is not a sin.

The Holy Spirit leads us into understanding Scripture.

How did you come by this conclusion?

Remember, as a born again believer we are seeking to understand Scripture in order to grow as a disciple.

Amen.

The problem is that Scripture cannot be properly understood apart from the Faith that produced it.

When a teacher teaches it is incumbant on the recipient of that teaching to search the Scriptures to see if it is as they say it is, look up Berean in Acts for they were praised as being more noble for doing this.

No, gtren. YOu have misunderstood the Scriptures. What made the Bereans more noble was that they received the Apostolic Teaching with eagerness. This is the Teaching (residing in the Catholic Church) that you reject.

I agree that it is the duty of all Christians to study and show themselves approved, and that we should search the scriptures. This search, however, is to be done in the light of the Apostolic Teaching (Sacred Tradition). When the search is made apart from that, multiple conclusions always result, and some of them must be erroneous, as they are contradictory.

Scripture says that Jesus is the author and finisher of my faith, so I trust Him to lead and guide me successfully to Him.

Amen

He brought you here to CAF!

Again, I look to Jesus and not to man for I will stand alone before Jesus when I have to give account.

Actually, those men ordained by Christ to feed and care for your soul also have to give an account for you.

I consult man for counsel but ultimately it is on me but I am not alone for Jesus will not leave me or forsake me.

This is true, but His choice to be present to you is through His One Body, the Church. If you rebel against the authority under which He has placed you, then you rebel against HIm.

As an RC I heard many teachings that were not official RCC teaching but they were given nonetheless. Some were even new age teaching. So while you think you are taught infallibly, in practice you may not. In fact, there are those RC theologians who teach things that are not approved.

Indeed, there were 40 years of poor catechesis after Vatican II. Virtually an entire generation of Catholics floundering about. However, individual preachers and theologians are not the Source of the Catholic faith. They will give an account for departing from it, and will answer for all the souls that became confused (such as yours) because of the weeds they sowed among the wheat.

 

[simspt]

This is a great question, and the reason we are having this discussion. the Bible and History both attest to the infallible Church. I will stipulate, though, that not everyone reaches this “conclusion”. This is the most unbiased, theologically, and historically accurate conclusion, but many people that read scripture come to opposite conclusion.

As far as history, many of our separated brethren are afraid to get into the history of their family, because it becomes abundantly clear that the Early Church was Catholic. This is, in fact, what permanently ruined by “Protesting”. I took a class in seminary on historical theology. When I read the documents of the early Church, I learned they were undeniably Catholic.

What you are giving as an example here is one of the testimonies of the infallibility of the Church. The reason that the Church is not now gnostic or Marcionite, Arian, Nestorian, etc. is because Jesus kept His promise to send the HS, who would lead the Church into “all Truth”.

How can they be an accurate and reliable collection of books, unless they were protected infallibly by the HS?

I have faith that the CC is the Church Christ and his Apostles founded and the HS has guided and protected it. This is based on my readings of the early church and belief of being called by the HS to the church.

To my understanding admittedly limited is that The pope is infallible only on matters of faith and morals, and only when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, with the intention of speaking authoritatively on behalf of the whole church. Similar restrictions apply to the infallibility of church councils, their pronouncements are infallible only when they address matters of faith and morals and are intended to be authoritative statements of the teaching of the Church, and only when accepted as such by the pope. The infallible pronouncements are relatively few. Most church councils addressed matters of practice and pastoral care, rather than doctrinal definition (Vatican II falls into this category).

I also believe the NT writings the CC canonized gives accurate testimony of Christ handed down by the Apostles.

I guess i still dont see how accurate or not the NT is historically proves infallibility. In my mind this is a matter of faith, not blind faith but faith nonetheless, not proof which seems to be implied by the spiral argument. It actually reminds me of fundamentalist arguments i have heard trying to prove the inerrancy of scripture based on prophecy, archeology etc.
By the way I do accept the teaching of the church on this issue, just don’t understand this argument.

 

[guanophore]

I guess i still dont see how accurate or not the NT is historically proves infallibility. In my mind this is a matter of faith, not blind faith but faith nonetheless, not proof which seems to be implied by the spiral argument. It actually reminds me of fundamentalist arguments i have heard trying to prove the inerrancy of scripture based on prophecy, archeology etc.
By the way I do accept the teaching of the church on this issue, just don’t understand this argument.

Maybe I misunderstood your difficulty. I was trying to say that the NT itself is a product of that infallibility. The Catholic Church wrote, preserved, promulgated and canonized the Scriptures. The canon was not closed until 382 AD. The HS led the Church infallibly to accomplish all these things with Scripture.

As far as the gift for the Magesterim (sacred councils) and the Pope, we see the pattern in the book of Acts. The Council of Jerusalem is the first recorded example of how the gift if infalliblity functions in the church. This is the method that has been used from the beginning.

You are right, though. One must accept it by faith, and pray for understanding. Ultimately, like all of God’s gifts to us, it is a profound mystery that is beyond the scope of our limited humanity.

 

[gtrenewed]

How about we do this. How about I commend you to your myth that “scripture interprets scripture”.

I never said that - I said Scripture supports Scripture

It is equally irrational to deny that the Bible came from the Catholic Church.

The Bible comes from God through the first believers

I am sure you do the best you can with what you have.

You are very disrespectful

Sorry, I meant new to the thread. I guess it is better you limit them, if your sentiment is so anti-catholic.

I thought this forum was non-catholic religions. Why can’t we have a discourse here that presents a non-RCC viewpoint?

Ok. It is clear that you feel entitled to read the posts, and judge the hearts of the writers. I was not being sarcastic. Your assessment really was erroneous.

Why am I not entitled to read the posts? I am not judging anyone. I am just presenting my viewpoint.

Yes, you can. You can receive anything off your dining plate directly by faith. You can do the same at the cafeteria. You can believe whatever you want, and eat whatever you like.

For calling me a separated brethren, this is very disrespectful.

We have no such “implements”.

Sorry, protestant term for bread and wine prior to communion. You do have those.

Yes, bells are part of a ritual, but that is not transubstantiation. It seems that you were very poorly catechized.

The bells are rung at the moment that the host and wine become Christ according to transubstatiation and the liturgy of the mass. At least when I was an altar boy in the old latin mass that is what it meant.

This is a common misperception among anti-Catholics. It seems like it is difficult for some people to see other people acting in the person of Christ. It is a good thing that the first members of the Church did not have this disbelieving hostility,

Again, I am not anti-catholic nor hostile, I am presenting my viewpoint on this sub-forum on non-catholic religions, in response to posts that I believe need a response.