You can't have it both ways.

[guanophore]

Very disrespectful to poke fun at our terminology of implements which is the bread and wine before receiving them by faith at which time they become the body and blood of Jesus.

Ok. Perhaps you can give me a source for this term, so that I can grow in my respect. I am not sure what the problem is comparing bread and wine to a knife and fork. They are all objects, and do not hold within themselves anything inherintly sacred.

It seems like you are saying you believe the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus because yoyu believe that they are before you consume them, is that right?

So if I am sitting next to you, and I don’t believe they become the Body and Blood, then they don’t become that for me, though they will for you?

 

[guanophore]

So, in a nutshell, just fallible church leaders fallibly interpreting the infallible word of God?

The Scripture cannot be properly described as "infallible’ because this term applies to actions. Books do not act of themselves. The scriptures are considered inspired, and inerrant, but the gift of infallibility belongs to the Church. Actions only include the possibliity of error (fallibility). Actions involve movements of the intellect and will, discernment, and the ability to take responsibility. Scripture does not have these traits - only person’s do.

This is why it is inappropriate to try to force the Scriptures into the position of “authority”. The exercise of authority is something that requires persons. Books cannot act, since they don’t have intellect, will, and ability to take responsibility for the consequence of one’s actions.

Could fallible men, who were not actual apostles of Jesus Christ, but disciples of one of the apostles, such as Luke, Mark, Barnabas, Timothy and Titus, teach infallibly and infallibly interpret Jesus’ infallible word?

I have heard my separated brethren say all kinds of things about SS, including that Scripture is a “fallible collection of infallible books”. Som of our Reformed brethren do not want to have the discussion at all, so they just stipulate that an infallible canon exists.
They refuse to have any discusssion about where it came from. They try to start with “well be both agree on the canon…”

 

[guanophore]

You are not relaying the account correctly. Acts 15:24 "Since we heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling you souls,"

Fisrt, if this had been a church that Paul founded, he would have settled the dispute like is recorded in his other letters.

Since it was founded from Judea, and the Judaizers were from Judea, they had to go there for the answer because the Judaizers would not submit to Paul.

And what evidence do you have that the Judiazers would not submit to Paul?

You are correct that the way Jesus set things up, disputes are to go “to the Church”. This begins with the local authorities, and if not resolved, continues up the chain of authority until it reaches the successor of Peter. This was the case with the ordination of women, for example.

This action became Scripture so that it could be the example down through the ages.

Yes, but what is the example? Do you think the intent is to show that the Judiazers would not submit to Paul?

Paul used the Scriptures back then to resolve the dispute that Jesus was the messiah to the Jews, see Acts 28:23 It was in their Scripture that the just shall live by faith.

Yes, scripture us useful in teaching. However, His authority did not come from the Scriptures, but from Christ, thorugh the Church.

 If the Judaizers would have submitted to Paul, he could have used their Scriptures to settle the dispute, see Hebrews for examples of ot scriptures.

It is true that the Scriptures can be used to settle disputes, and the Church has done this since the beginning. However, the settlement of the dispute is the responsibility of the Church, and her authorized teachers. Books cannot settle disputes, however Holy they may be.

Scripture contains all that is necessary to come to faith in Jesus and to live as a disciple.

Understanding that you are not trying to be hostile and anti-catholic, it is my duty to point out that you have forwarded an anti-Catholic doctrine here. This doctrine was formed during the Reformation to justify the rejection of the Church founded by Christ, and the authorities that were representing it to the designers of this doctrine.

It represents a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

It also makes Jesus’ creation of the Church unnecessary.

It is God’s Word and as such it carries God’s authority, for He says He watches over His Word to perform it.

The Holy Scriptures are certainly authoritative, but the exercise of authority belongs to persons, because it requires an act of the will, which the scriptures does not have.

I find it curious that you are able to accep that God will watch over His Word to perform it in the Scriptures, but you think He is too weak or disinterested to do this for the Word He placed in the Church.

If the pope to Luther would have listened to Scripture the break probably would not have happened.

I am sure that there are many things that could have been done differently on both sides to prevent the break, the faithful adherance to Scripture being one. The clerics against whom Luther was railing were corrupt, and were committing Simony, a grave sin. Looking at these men, the faithful could not see the face of Christ. Unfortunatly, Luther forgot that, although sinful men are always in need of reform, it is not our perogative to change the One Faith (doctrines) that were once and for all deposited with the saints.

The CCC says there were errors on both sides.

Yes. One of the most errors with the most serious consequences was the attempt to force the Scriptures into the role of authority. This has resulted in every individual believers becoming their own authority, and has demonstrated by the fruit of division how serious the error was.

If two Christians feel strongly about a certain scripture and disagree and belong to the same denomination, they appeal to that groups elders. If not in the same denomination there should dialogue, each must rigorously seek God for the answer with a humble heart and if they still disagree then go their own ways if they choose. Jesus will sort it out at the resurrection, if not before.

You are right, this is a good description of what happens.

But this is not what Jesus told us to do, is it. He wants no “denominations” and He wants disputes settled by the Church, in this age.

That is what is happening here. We disagree, we dialogue, and we say Good Night each convinced they are correct but we agree that Jesus is God, He suffered and died for our sins, was resurrected, and sits at the Father’s right hand. The rest we will find out in heaven.

You can wait, if you want. Catholics do not have to wait, because we have received His promise to the Church, that the HS would guide her into all Truth.

 

[joe370]

You are suffering from a misunderstanding here, gtren. It was not the Church that gave us all that poor catechesis, but false teachers (wolves among the sheep), the ignorant, the wayward, DEPARTING from the Teachings of the Church that were feeding us garbage. I had this same hangup too, until I studied the Teachings of the Church myself, and came to know that people in positions of authorithy and instruction were not following them.

Yes, there are error filled homilies, and RC communities that embrace liberalism and some pastors that teach error. However, this is not the same as the Church teaching error. She cannot teach error, because the HS prevents this. Individuals are only protected by this gift to the extent they remain in unity with her. When they depart from that unity,and begin to teach that which the Church does not, then they fall into error.

Yes, poor catechesis is a very serious problem. You can’t lay the sins of Judas, though, at the feet of Jesus. Jesus’ teaching was not wrong, just because Judas did not receive it.

Hey guanophore I know you were addressing gtren in post 950, but it kind of looked like you were quoting me, so I thought I would say something just in case someone misunderstands it.

 

[joe370]

The Scripture cannot be properly described as "infallible’ because this term applies to actions. Books do not act of themselves. The scriptures are considered inspired, and inerrant, but the gift of infallibility belongs to the Church. Actions only include the possibliity of error (fallibility). Actions involve movements of the intellect and will, discernment, and the ability to take responsibility. Scripture does not have these traits - only person’s do.

Technically, scripture is the inerrant word of God, but yes, I agree, these books do not act of themselves.They need an infallible interpreter and that interpreter is the CC.

This is why it is inappropriate to try to force the Scriptures into the position of “authority”. The exercise of authority is something that requires persons. Books cannot act, since they don’t have intellect, will, and ability to take responsibility for the consequence of one’s actions.

Couldn’t agree more. I am just attempting to better understand the sola scriptura position, for it is so utterly confusing to me.

I have heard my separated brethren say all kinds of things about SS, including that Scripture is a “fallible collection of infallible books”.

Actually I do agree with that logic, for the simple fact that every CC leader is fallible, but they can teach infallibly, as a church, due to the fact that the holy spirit is the source of their infallible truth, and has been since Pentecost and will continue to be until Jesus’ return. Sadly, most protestants believe that the CC claims to be infallible, or even impeccable, just generally speaking, which is so silly.

Some of our Reformed brethren do not want to have the discussion at all, so they just stipulate that an infallible canon exists.
They refuse to have any discusssion about where it came from. They try to start with “well be both agree on the canon…”

Very true…

 

[ron77nyc]

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.

Let’s leave Protestants out of the equation for now. There were generations of Eastern Orthodox Christians. (Are they the schismatics he is referring to?) He excludes them from salvation. He also excludes Jews, Muslims, followers of Buddha and Confucius and pagans.

In 1442 A.D, Pope Eugenius IV, 1442, at the Council of Florence, reaffirmed this truth. "It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock…

The catechism says Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, followers of Buddha and Confucius and pagans can be saved if they “seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience.”

One says you have to be living within the Church to be saved. One says you don’t. There was no mention of an invisible church.

 

[1holycatholic]

There were generations of Eastern Orthodox Christians. (Are they the schismatics he is referring to?) He excludes them from salvation.
He also excludes Jews, Muslims, followers of Buddha and Confucius and pagans.

In 1442 A.D, Pope Eugenius IV, 1442, at the Council of Florence, reaffirmed this truth. "It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock…

The catechism says Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, followers of Buddha and Confucius and pagans can be saved if they “seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience.”

One says you have to be living within the Church to be saved. One says you don’t. There was no mention of an invisible church.

Paging Fr. Feeney to the heterodoxy phone…

 

[ron77nyc]

Paging Fr. Feeney to the heterodoxy phone…

I’m not saying I agree with Fr. Feeney but the Church for many centuries did teach Feeneyism. What else do you call this?

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is **absolutely necessary **for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

 

[1holycatholic]

I’m not saying I agree with Fr. Feeney but the Church for many centuries did teach Feeneyism. What else do you call this?

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is **absolutely necessary **for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

What is the historical context of that statement?

The Church has never taught Feenyism.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas, perhaps you could show me what I am missing regarding the following:

The following NT passages demonstrate that the New Testament authors** drew on oral Tradition ** as they expounded the Christian faith. How do you reconcile the following with the idea that we must find all of our doctrine in written Scripture? **The authors of the New Testament draw on oral Tradition in addition to Old Testament Scripture. **In several instances, they explicitly cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine which violates sola scriptura. Not only does this observation undermine the practice of sola scriptura, but it lends positive support to the Catholic position of Scripture and Tradition as parallel conduits through which God brings us his revelation.

We find passages in the New Testament in which oral Tradition is cited in support of doctrine. For the apostles, oral Tradition was trustworthy when formulating and developing elements of the Christian faith:

Matthew 2:23

Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, “that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” (Matt. 2:23) - All scholars admit that the phrase “He shall be called a Nazarene” is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that the Holy Family fulfilled this prophecy, which had been passed on “by the prophets.” Matthew is drawing on oral Tradition for this saying. If this is the case, it is significant that he places this prophecy on the same level as ones he attributes to specific authors of the Old Testament. This is an example of God’s own Word being passed on via oral Tradition and not through written Scripture.

 

[1holycatholic]

From Barnes NT Notes:

Q: What authority do Barnes NT notes have?

A: None.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas, perhaps you could show me what I am missing regarding the following:

The following NT passages demonstrate that the New Testament authors** drew on oral Tradition ** as they expounded the Christian faith. How do you reconcile the following with the idea that we must find all of our doctrine in written Scripture? **The authors of the New Testament draw on oral Tradition in addition to Old Testament Scripture. **In several instances, they explicitly cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine which violates sola scriptura. Not only does this observation undermine the practice of sola scriptura, but it lends positive support to the Catholic position of Scripture and Tradition as parallel conduits through which God brings us his revelation.

We find passages in the New Testament in which oral Tradition is cited in support of doctrine. For the apostles, oral Tradition was trustworthy when formulating and developing elements of the Christian faith:

Matthew 2:23

Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, “that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” (Matt. 2:23) - All scholars admit that the phrase “He shall be called a Nazarene” is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that the Holy Family fulfilled this prophecy, which had been passed on “by the prophets.” Matthew is drawing on oral Tradition for this saying. If this is the case, it is significant that he places this prophecy on the same level as ones he attributes to specific authors of the Old Testament. This is an example of God’s own Word being passed on via oral Tradition and not through written Scripture.

Matthew 23:2

Just before launching into a blistering denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus delivers this command to the crowds: “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.” (Matt. 23:2-3)

Although Jesus strongly indicts his opponents of hypocrisy for not following their own teaching, he nevertheless insists that the scribes and Pharisees hold a position of legitimate authority, which he characterizes as sitting “on Moses’ seat.” Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself and certainly that is not a bad thing - right? This verse about Moses’ chair illuminates why we say that the successor of Peter, when he gives a solemn teaching for the whole Church, is said to speak ex cathedra or “from the chair.”

1 Corinthians 10:4

Paul shows how Christian sacraments—baptism and the Eucharist—were prefigured in the Old Testament. He treats baptism first: “Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (vv. 1-2). Next he highlights the Eucharist, prefigured by the manna in the wilderness (John 6:26-40), and the water that God provided for Israel: “All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” (1 Cor. 10:4)

The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness.

Jude 9

Jude relates an altercation between Michael and Satan: “When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’” (Jude 9) This text provides another example of a New Testament author tapping oral Tradition to expound Christian doctrine. Jude speaks of the rebellious upstarts of his day, saying, “It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Here is a tradition, a prophetic revelation, which was passed on orally for millennia before being captured first in a non-inspired written document (1 Enoch) - and then in an inspired document (Jude). Did the writers of the New Testament ever regard oral tradition as divine revelation? This example more than any other shows that the answer to that is a resounding, Yes!

Paul taps into rabbinic tradition to supply the names, Jannes and Jambres, of the magicians who opposed Moses in Pharoah’s court. (2 Tim. 3:8) In the Old Testament, these individuals are anonymous. James tells us that because of Elijah’s prayer there was no rain in Israel for three years, but the Old Testament account of Elijah’s altercation with King Ahab says nothing of him praying.

The authors of the 4 gospels are also anonymous. It’s the second century tradition of the CC that puts a name to these books.

The teaching of the Bible and of the Church is that God’s Word comes to us both through the writings of the prophets and apostles and through the oral Traditions that they handed on, and these are preserved by the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Why would the authors of the New Testament draw on oral Tradition in addition to Old Testament Scripture, if in fact they were sola scriptura advocates?

You bring up good points. I’ll have to ponder them.

 

[Dokimas]

Q: What authority do Barnes NT notes have?

A: None.

So if the Holy Spirit helped the man with his notes, you could be speaking against the Holy Spirit.

But, thanks for your opinion.

 

[1holycatholic]

So if the Holy Spirit helped the man with his notes, you could be speaking against the Holy Spirit.

But, thanks for your opinion.

If the Holy Spirit helped him with his notes they wouldn’t conflict in any with the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The Holy Spirit did not help him with his notes.

 

[Dokimas]

If the Holy Spirit helped him with his notes they wouldn’t conflict in any with the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The Holy Spirit did not help him with his notes.

Thank you for taking the time to share your opinions.

 

[1holycatholic]

Thank you for taking the time to share your opinions.

He has no authority. That’s a fact, not an opinion.

 

[Dokimas]

He has no authority. That’s a fact, not an opinion.

So you’re speaking for the Holy Spirit? Careful.

 

[ron77nyc]

What is the historical context of that statement?

The Church has never taught Feenyism.

What does historical context have to do with it? If you want to be a Feeneyite you can be one and still be a Catholic. Just go to the Traditional Catholicism forum on CAF. There are plenty of Feeneyites there.

 

[1holycatholic]

What does historical context have to do with it? If you want to be a Feeneyite you can be one and still be a Catholic. Just go to the Traditional Catholicism forum on CAF. There are plenty of Feeneyites there.

If a Catholic was a Feeneyite then they’d be a Catholic in material or formal heresy. The Church has never taught Feeneyism.

Unam Sanctam does not teach Feeneyism, it reiterates Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

[ron77nyc]

If a Catholic was a Feeneyite then they’d be a Catholic in material or formal heresy.

Then they would be outside the Church seeking God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, trying in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience so they too could be saved according to the catechism.