| Author |
 Topic  |
|
john654
USA
1285 Posts |
 Posted - 05/02/2009 : 09:50:10 AM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Algo[/i]
[br]Patti said:
quote:
Actually there is a great deal of unity amongst those who practice Sola Scriptura. Look at the comparison of these two communions. Both view Scripture and Justification "IDENTICALLY". Regarding Baptism, it is true that we Presbyterians disagree with our Baptistic Brethren on who are the recipients of the Sacrament/Ordinance. But we do not consider each other heretics.
http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html
Algo
Listen to yourself! You wouldn't answer my simple question I asked in a previously, maybe you will answer this simple, yes or no, question: Is the Holy Spirit God?
I'll be interested in your answer, "Whatever" it is.
John
I posted a song Marie Bellet performed at her concert at The Fathers of Mercy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkxj_Hf-dg&feature=channel_page |
Edited by - john654 on 05/02/2009 09:51:29 AM |
 |
|
|
rr1213
4459 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2009 : 10:23:51 AM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Algo[/i]
[br]Patti said:
quote:
"On the other hand, disunity and multiplication of denominations is a very visible sign that sola scriptura is not a viable model for the Church. The "invisible Church" idea sounds nice in theory but Christ said all sorts of things that indicated He founded a visible Church on Peter and the Twelve."
Actually there is a great deal of unity amongst those who practice Sola Scriptura. Look at the comparison of these two communions. Both view Scripture and Justification identically. Regarding Baptism, it is true that we Presbyterians disagree with our Baptistic Brethren on who are the recipients of the Sacrament/Ordinance. But we do not consider each other heretics.
http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html
Algo
Protestants do have a degree of unity in reference to the five solas. Once you get beyond that, however, doctrinal differences are legion. Those differences used to matter to Protestants, but in the modern ecumenical world they are just "papered over" through the device of calling them "non-essentials". |
|
|
|
Tim Buley
USA
148 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2009 : 6:27:39 PM
|
This is an interesting article
"Moreover, even if we could arrive at an accurate tally for Protestant denominations (20,000?), we still could not blame the whole of that number on Sola Scriptura. Some of these churches share substantial unity in faith, even if they are juridically independent (perhaps due to geography). And much of the disunity of faith within Protestantism, at least in the developed world, stems from efforts to subordinate the authority of Scripture (e.g., to various sexual perversions). In reality, if every Protestant denomination were serious and consistent in affirming and applying the rule of Sola Scriptura, the spectrum of Protestant belief would be significantly narrower. It bears emphasizing: the only thing for which we can directly blame Sola Scriptura is the extent to which it fails to provide unity in true faith and morals to those who sincerely adhere to it, e.g., "orthodox" Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Campbellites, etc."
From a catholic blog http://www.pugiofidei.com/unsound.htm
Tim Buley
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
|
|
|
rr1213
4459 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2009 : 6:50:32 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tim Buley[/i]
[br]This is an interesting article
"Moreover, even if we could arrive at an accurate tally for Protestant denominations (20,000?), we still could not blame the whole of that number on Sola Scriptura. Some of these churches share substantial unity in faith, even if they are juridically independent (perhaps due to geography). And much of the disunity of faith within Protestantism, at least in the developed world, stems from efforts to subordinate the authority of Scripture (e.g., to various sexual perversions). In reality, if every Protestant denomination were serious and consistent in affirming and applying the rule of Sola Scriptura, the spectrum of Protestant belief would be significantly narrower. It bears emphasizing: the only thing for which we can directly blame Sola Scriptura is the extent to which it fails to provide unity in true faith and morals to those who sincerely adhere to it, e.g., "orthodox" Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Campbellites, etc."
From a catholic blog http://www.pugiofidei.com/unsound.htm
Tim Buley
Simul Justus Et Peccator
Ok. For the moment, let's forget deviant liberal revisionism within the Protestant communities. Let us focus only on what could be describe as "orthodox" Protestantism, i.e., orthodox Lutheranism, orthodox Anglicanism, orthodox Calvinism, etc.
Where does this narrowed focus leave us? Staring at a multitude of contradictory different beliefs held by the Protestant communities as a matter of doctrine. Baptism---regenerative as believed by the Lutherans or simply symbolic as believed by most other Protestants? Infant baptism, permitted as recognized by Methodists, Calvinists and Lutherans or precluded as practiced by the AnaBaptists? Immerision, pouring, or sprinkling? The Eucharist--the Real Presence in, with and under the consecrated host as recognized by Lutherans or merely symbolic as held by the Baptists? Or is it limited to a spiritual presence as the Calvinists say? What about the Methodists? Does anyone actually understand how the Methodists approach the Eucharist and what they believe? What about the role of predestination and free will in God's plan of salvation? Is free will for the elect excluded as the Lutherans and Calvinists believe or does it play an important part in the equation as asserted by the Methodists? What about Church governance? Bishops? Presbyterian government? Congregational? Let's turn to the End Times....nah, I don't even understand the multitude of Protestant takes on the Apocalpse so I'm not even going to try...... |
|
|
|
artsippo
USA
5257 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2009 : 7:24:58 PM
|
It is always easy for thsoe of us with true Catholic Unity to see the Pandemonium of warring Protestant sects and feel smug. Then in a counter-offensive out Sepbreth retort that they ARE TOO unified, so there!
We need a reality check.
Protestantism is a disunified mass of dissenters who agree on only a few things:
1) They dislike Catholicism and Orthodoxy
2) They think that the so-called 'reformation' must have been a good idea
3) They like certain slogans even though they do not really agree on how to interpret them (Sola Scripture, Sola Fide, etc)
4) Everyone should do what is right in their own eyes with regard to Christian profession, but anyone who does not agree with "us" may or may not be saved
5) The "Church" is a nebulous enitity whose members may not know each other
6)Some non-Catholic people who claim to be Christians are really not and these Protestants call those religions 'cults'
7) They think Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and a host of other first and second generation so-called "reformers" were true religious leaders
Once you get beyond these basics, they agree on very little. And despite the pretentions of some people on this board, many denominations have serious doubts about the salvation of anyone outside of their narrow understanding of the Chrisitan faith.
For the Catholics we have all the necesary marks of unity but there are many people who are not truly professing the Catholic faith but who pretend they do. We need to imporve our educational and social programs for Catholics to present a counter-cultural alternative. We should be more unifed than we are and we need to feel less smug about ourselves.
Looking at the big picture, It is obvious to anyone with integrity that Protesnstism is a disparate groups of religions that are in discontinuity with historic Chirstianity ecclesiastically and doctrinally and that Protestants do not meet the standards for the Christian Church from the first millennium. It is clear that All forms of Proetsntism are false religions that are trying to APE true Christianity in some ways and 'improve on it' in others. Their so-called improvements have either been compromises with this-worldy values or extreme scruples way out of touch with either the Bible or Tradition.
Catholicism on the other hand has all the marks of authenticty historically, doctrinally, and ecclesiastically. IMHO, it is grossly DISHONEST for any Protestant to pretend otherwise.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
Edited by - artsippo on 05/04/2009 02:33:26 AM |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7387 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2009 : 10:06:41 PM
|
Tim,
Thank you for the article. You do realize that such was my point all along, right...that we shouldn't use that number but just say "many"? After all, even one more than one faith calling itself Christian is too many since there is One Lord, one altar, one Church, one Gospel, One Spirit drawing the elect to One Father. There is only One Way, Truth and Life in Our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Dave Armstrong debunked the denominational argument years ago. I agree that the number is wrongly calculated. I also agree that not every split is fully due to sola scriptura. However, if groups are following Scripture alone or using it as the sole infallible rule of faith, and it really is what God gave us as such, then Protestants should be growing closer together, developing more commonality, and keeping their doctrines pure. This simply isn't the case. Soon after the Reformation, Lutherans and Calvinists were attacking one another and other groups, such as the Anabaptists, fiercely, as ferociously as they'd attacked the Catholic Church.
Now, let's look at the point in your article about Sola Scriptura you cited: In reality, if every Protestant denomination were serious and consistent in affirming and applying the rule of Sola Scriptura, the spectrum of Protestant belief would be significantly narrower.
Since there is no single agreed-on definition as to what constitues Sola Scriptura and how to affirm and apply it at all, affirming and applying it consistently is virtually impossible. The authors of the article didn't even offer a definition as to what Sola Scriptura means in the sense they are using it. There is no single objective standard to which all groups agree beyond saying that the Scriptures are the only possible transmission for the Gospel and therefore any oral teaching is automatically inferior to the written teaching.
From that same article: Do not exaggerate the inadequacy of Sola Scriptura, as if it were not possible to understand the Bible at all without the Magisterium.
Since no Catholic apologist I know of believes this, this is an odd point to raise. The Church teaches that the Scriptures are materially sufficient to bring men to salvation. This point appears to be a caricature rather than a real position; then again, perhaps they are using a bit of hyperbole to make the point. It is true that the Scriptures contain all of the same truth as does Sacred Tradition, for the plain and simple reason that God is going to have as much opportunity made available as possible for the transmission of His Gospel. So, the Bible does contain all of the truth, and some of it is very obvious but not all of it is.
So, as a Dominican friar who preached to us at a retreat once said, why do some people insist that half a means of transmitting the Gospel is better than all of it? He said that Scripture alone makes no sense in view of Christ's mandate to His followers to go forth and preach the Gospel to all nations and baptize those who accept it. To preach means to proclaim and for fourteen centuries after Christ, when the printing press with movable type was finally invented by Johann Gutenberg, the main transmission mode for the Gospel was speech.
In essence, relying on the Bible is like reading a complex textbook without a teacher to guide the student in identifying what is essential to know. The student, if he is diligent and open to God's Will, will find truth in the Scriptures. It will take most people years, if not decades, to find the fullness of the Gospel message. And all along the way, they have no objective way to tell if they're on the right track.
In closing, the main reason I dismiss Sola Scriptura as an effective means to learn and understand about the Gospel is it simply isn't found in the Scriptures. Such an important idea should be in there for us to read for our edification and comprehension. The fact that it is nowhere found in Scripture is enough to identify that sola scriptura is definitely man-made and not from God.
But no worries; while I see Sola Scriptura as a problem for your faith, I do not ascribe to the 33K denominations, either.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
Edited by - Patti on 05/02/2009 10:09:04 PM |
|
|
|
MonFrere
USA
1213 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2009 : 1:43:00 PM
|
An interesting insight concerning Catholics and why they leave their faith. ALSO, in light of this I think it interesting that those who convert to the Catholic faith are very often "not drifting away from their faith" as the article states - but being more intensely drawn "TOWARD faith" that causes their conversion.; e.g. former evangelical leader and scholar - Francis Beckwith. MonFrere
PEW STUDY FINDS HIGH RETENTION RATE AMONG CATHOLICS, POINTS OUT CONCERN FOR DISAFFECTED YOUTH
WASHINGTON—A Pew Forum poll on Americans and their religious affiliation finds Catholics have one of the highest retention rates, 68 percent, among Christian churches when it comes to carrying the Catholic faith into adulthood.
It also found that a determining factor in whether or not one remains Catholic as an adult is whether or not the individual attended Mass as a child and teenager.
The study also found that the key reason people leave their church, Protestant or Catholic, is that “they just gradually drifted away from the faith.”
The study, “Faith in Flux: Changes in the Religious Affiliation in the U.S.,” was made public by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, April 27.
Pew also found that only 2-3 percent of those polled cited sexual abuse of children as a reason for leaving when asked in an open-ended question why they left. When people were asked to choose why they left from a list of possible reasons, the number jumped from 21 percent for Catholics who became Protestant and 27 percent for former Catholics who are now unaffiliated with any church. Other reasons for leaving the church, such as disagreement on doctrinal matters, figured much higher.
“The report highlights the importance of Mass attendance among children and teenagers,” said Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl of Washington, past chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Catechesis and next chairman of the Committee on Doctrine. “Adolescence is a critical time in religious development and, as the poll shows, what happens in the teen years has a long-lasting affect. We have to help young people and their parents appreciate the importance of going to weekly Mass so teenagers know Jesus is there for them now and always.“
Archbishop Wuerl said the poll showed the resilience of the Catholic faith, even in the face of something as horrific as the sexual abuse crisis.
“Catholics can separate the sins and human failings of individuals from the substance of the faith,” he said. “Sexual abuse of a child is a terrible sin and crime,” he said, “but most Catholic people, because of good personal experience with their priests in their parishes, recognize sex abuse by clergy as the aberration it is. They also look to the church’s 2,000-year history, which has seen the faith flourish despite some painful times.”
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
MonFrere
USA
1213 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2009 : 2:34:06 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Buley
In reality, if every Protestant denomination were serious and consistent in affirming and applying the rule of Sola Scriptura, the spectrum of Protestant belief would be significantly narrower.
This sound reasonable; but I do not agree. I think that this would question the sincerity of those who come to differing conclusions. Some truth goes beyond intellectual reasoning and people with genuine sincerity can differ. Honest mistakes/differences can easily emerge. This is the reason that sola scriptura cannot work - because the very best effort of men, even men possessing the Holy Spirit, cannot always come to the correct conclusion. A protection of the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary. Sola Scriptura is NOT SUFFICIENT to lead a Christian into all truth; the Church protected by the Holy Spirit IS "BECAUSE" it is a promise of Christ Himself.
MonFrere
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
MonFrere
USA
1213 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2009 : 12:09:03 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by rr1213
I have a different take on this problem. Despite the multitude of varieties of Protestantism, there are still some basic principles that they usually hold in common (especially the five solas). In other words, the term "Protestant" has a meaning in and of itself outside of the fact that such as person is in some way in opposition to the Catholic Church. In the example given above, I think that "dissident Catholics" is the better description.
For me the problem plays out this way. When there were great crises in the Church at the end of the crisis the truth was declared and a heresy was declared. There was no confusion as to what was orthodox belief.
When Protestant groups have a difference of belief; one group uses scripture and comes to one conclusion and the other group uses the scripture and comes to another conclusion. The group divides, and, at best, agrees to disagree and at worse declares each other heretics. Sola scriptura is not equipped to solve these disputes in doctrine. The tragedy is that in both sides there are sincere people believing a) they are right b) the other is wrong -- and NO ONE really knowing for sure.
Another tragedy, perhaps even greater, is that the Bible itself is put in a position that it was never intended to be - the "court of final arbitration". To look at the Bible in this way is wrong. As great a tool as a hammer is it cannot lay block in a straight line. The Bible is indeed the Word of God and as great as its words are they cannot in and of themselves determine truth - and this even with men lead by the Holy Spirit. The Protestant veneration of the Bible, while praiseworthy in itself, is looked upon to provide beyond it's orininal intention. In and of itself it CANNOT be used to decide which of two ideas is correct, if either are correct in the first place; nor can it decide "how far" an idea can be taken, nor can every possible theological question find a sufficient answer.
I mean I think every Protestant will admit to not knowing the will of God in their personal lives. Yet, you have the Spirit of God living in you. It would be so simple if God would just tell us what to do in our moments of indecision. Yet, often God doesn't come and speak to us with great clarity. We often make the best decision we can based on the best we can determine; but, if your life is like mine - sometimes our very best efforts can still lead us to a wrong, or an incomplete answer to our problem. Obviously, God wants us to participate in a struggle and a search. In this Catholics and Protestants are the same. So, why should it come as a surprise that Protestants come to differing conclusions concerning doctrine? It's not that they are somehow "bad Christians". When you cut yourselves off from the historic and apostolic faith you cut yourself off from the Church that was promised protection from error in all matters of faith and morals. And, in doing so, you have now included in your struggle in your life with God a struggle that you were never intended to face - the decision to find out on your own what was right and what was wrong concerning Christian doctrine. It's as if you ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge where you decided you would find out on your own what was right and what was wrong when you could have taken of the Tree of Life where these issues would have been revealed to you without the struggle. Jesus simply gave His Church the food of the Tree of Life concerning matters of faith and morals and then equipped with the truth are then told to struggle on in this life of faith, persevere to the end, and await the Kingdom of God in its fullness. IMO - the struggle is hard enough without having to determine the doctrinal issues on my own. It's a struggle God has never placed upon any one man and certainly not me. Knowing this gives me freedom to work on the tasks that God did place before me and believe me, my plate is full. Yet, having confidence that the doctrine I believe in is true - my path is clear and my help is abundant.
MonFrere
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
Ralph
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2009 : 11:46:33 AM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by MonFrere[/i]
Sola Scriptura is NOT SUFFICIENT to lead a Christian into all truth; the Church protected by the Holy Spirit IS "BECAUSE" it is a promise of Christ Himself.
I was wondering where the promise from Christ is to make the church sufficient and protected by the Holy Spirit to lead a Christian into all truth? Can you explain please.
Ralph |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7387 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2009 : 1:39:22 PM
|
Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17, where Isaiah made the prophecy of a sure way to follow the Lord and walk in His ways.
Acts 9:2, 18:26, 19:9,23; 22:4, 24:14,22, where the Church itself is referred to as "the Way" in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.
Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12, where Our Lord told the Apostles that the Spirit of the Father would speak through them.
Matt. 16:16-19, in which authority is given Peter to bind and loose in all matters. Peter is also given the keys as a symbol of special authority. In addition, the phrase "gates of hell" also means "powers of death", which indicates both protection of the Church's teaching from the introduction of error and that death itself will not remove the promised protection. When the Apostle died, his authority and protection from teaching error were passed on to his successors, the bishop of Rome. (The pronoun "you" in these verses is in the singular; later, all of the Apostles were given authority to bind and loose but not given the keys.
Matt. 18:15-19, where the rest of the Apostles are given the power to bind and loose as well as to settle disputes in the Church. The pronoun "you" in this section is in the plural.
Matt. 28:20, where Christ promised to remain with His Church until the end of time.
Luke 22:31-32, where Our Lord told Peter He would pray especially for him, so that when Peter turned back (presumably from his fearful denial) he could help strengthen the others by his faith.
John 11:51-52, not through any personal holiness of his own, but by virtue of his office, even Caiphas was able to prophesy infallibly. Infallibility is therefore not dependent on a human being but on God.
John 14:16, 26, where the Apostles are promised the protection of the Holy Spirit who will teach them everything and remain with them always. In light of Matthew, where Christ promised to remain with His Church until the end of time, this is easily the same sort of promise being given to the Church's authority to teach which death was not to interrupt.
John 16:12-13, when Christ said that He had much to tell the Apostles but they were not yet ready for everything. He then promised the Holy Spirit to guide His Church in all truth, which, in conjunction with His earlier promises on His ongoing constant presence and the Spirit's same type of protection, conveyed that this was to be with the Church and her teaching until the end of time.
Eph. 4:13-15, where Paul wrote of our maturing into Christ. This is an ongoing process for both the Church and the individual, and so points to the idea that our understanding of doctrine is ongoing and in need of the Spirit's guidance.
Acts 15:27-28, when the Apostles proclaimed a binding teaching on the Church by virtue of the knowledge that their teaching was protected by the Holy Spirit.
Eph. 3:9-10, in which Paul stated that the wisdom of God is revealed to even the angels not by Scripture but by the Church.
1 Thess. 5:21; Paul instructs Christians to test everything and retain what is good. He does not indicate that Scripture is the standard against all must be tested but leaves clear the possibility of another infallible authority that can objectively tell truth from lie. There is only one Church since the time of the Apostles which has not changed teachings on faith amd morals since they walked the earth and it's none of the Protestant ones.
1 Tim. 3:15, where Paul called the Church "the pillar and foundation of [God's] truth". It cannot function in that role without God's protection over her teaching of that truth.
1 John 4:6; John stated that only those in authority of the Church are to be listened to in matters of Christian teaching due to the Spirit present in the Church's teachings and in the hearts of those who are being drawn by the Father to listen.
With special thanks to Scripture Catholic for the passages, which have been double-checked for relevance to the question.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
MonFrere
USA
1213 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2009 : 6:50:44 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ralph
Originally posted by MonFrere
Sola Scriptura is NOT SUFFICIENT to lead a Christian into all truth; the Church protected by the Holy Spirit IS "BECAUSE" it is a promise of Christ Himself.
RALPH REPLIES: I was wondering where the promise from Christ is to make the church sufficient and protected by the Holy Spirit to lead a Christian into all truth? Can you explain please.
Ralph - please don't miss my point. My point is made in the two sentence before the one your quote. They were .....
quote:
This is the reason that sola scriptura cannot work - because the very best effort of men, even men possessing the Holy Spirit, cannot always come to the correct conclusion. A protection of the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary.
MonFrere
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
|
Edited by - MonFrere on 05/04/2009 6:52:00 PM |
|
|
|
Ralph
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2009 : 7:10:47 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17, where Isaiah made the prophecy of a sure way to follow the Lord and walk in His ways.
Acts 9:2, 18:26, 19:9,23; 22:4, 24:14,22, where the Church itself is referred to as "the Way" in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.
Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12, where Our Lord told the Apostles that the Spirit of the Father would speak through them.
Matt. 16:16-19, in which authority is given Peter to bind and loose in all matters. Peter is also given the keys as a symbol of special authority. In addition, the phrase "gates of hell" also means "powers of death", which indicates both protection of the Church's teaching from the introduction of error and that death itself will not remove the promised protection. When the Apostle died, his authority and protection from teaching error were passed on to his successors, the bishop of Rome. (The pronoun "you" in these verses is in the singular; later, all of the Apostles were given authority to bind and loose but not given the keys.
Matt. 18:15-19, where the rest of the Apostles are given the power to bind and loose as well as to settle disputes in the Church. The pronoun "you" in this section is in the plural.
Matt. 28:20, where Christ promised to remain with His Church until the end of time.
Luke 22:31-32, where Our Lord told Peter He would pray especially for him, so that when Peter turned back (presumably from his fearful denial) he could help strengthen the others by his faith.
John 11:51-52, not through any personal holiness of his own, but by virtue of his office, even Caiphas was able to prophesy infallibly. Infallibility is therefore not dependent on a human being but on God.
John 14:16, 26, where the Apostles are promised the protection of the Holy Spirit who will teach them everything and remain with them always. In light of Matthew, where Christ promised to remain with His Church until the end of time, this is easily the same sort of promise being given to the Church's authority to teach which death was not to interrupt.
John 16:12-13, when Christ said that He had much to tell the Apostles but they were not yet ready for everything. He then promised the Holy Spirit to guide His Church in all truth, which, in conjunction with His earlier promises on His ongoing constant presence and the Spirit's same type of protection, conveyed that this was to be with the Church and her teaching until the end of time.
Eph. 4:13-15, where Paul wrote of our maturing into Christ. This is an ongoing process for both the Church and the individual, and so points to the idea that our understanding of doctrine is ongoing and in need of the Spirit's guidance.
Acts 15:27-28, when the Apostles proclaimed a binding teaching on the Church by virtue of the knowledge that their teaching was protected by the Holy Spirit.
Eph. 3:9-10, in which Paul stated that the wisdom of God is revealed to even the angels not by Scripture but by the Church.
1 Thess. 5:21; Paul instructs Christians to test everything and retain what is good. He does not indicate that Scripture is the standard against all must be tested but leaves clear the possibility of another infallible authority that can objectively tell truth from lie. There is only one Church since the time of the Apostles which has not changed teachings on faith amd morals since they walked the earth and it's none of the Protestant ones.
1 Tim. 3:15, where Paul called the Church "the pillar and foundation of [God's] truth". It cannot function in that role without God's protection over her teaching of that truth.
1 John 4:6; John stated that only those in authority of the Church are to be listened to in matters of Christian teaching due to the Spirit present in the Church's teachings and in the hearts of those who are being drawn by the Father to listen.
With special thanks to Scripture Catholic for the passages, which have been double-checked for relevance to the question.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.
The references you have listed clearly show the Apostles and directly or inderectly the "Church" is "sufficient...to lead a Christian into...truths. Which I have no issue with, of course as long as She is following and using the Bible. But I didn't read anything about a promise to protect the Church so She always leads a Christian into all truth. The very fact that the Catholic Church has been divided into other, as you would call them "sects", claiming to be the "Church" or part of the "Church" would prove that such a promise was not kept. Wouldn't it be true to assume that from the Catholic Churches position those who have broken away, from 1100ad to today have erred? If they are in error, promise broken. I am not trying to be argumenative or prove anyone wrong, I am just trying to understand this claim. I would love for it to be true, but I don't see such a promise in Scripture or it being kept through out Church history.
Also I thought it was interesting that you answered my question from the Scriptues Alone with out any thus says the Church or Tradition.
Thanks for the conversation
Ralph
|
|
|
|
Ralph
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2009 : 7:11:58 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by MonFrere[/i]
[br]quote:
Originally posted by Ralph
Originally posted by MonFrere
Sola Scriptura is NOT SUFFICIENT to lead a Christian into all truth; the Church protected by the Holy Spirit IS "BECAUSE" it is a promise of Christ Himself.
RALPH REPLIES: I was wondering where the promise from Christ is to make the church sufficient and protected by the Holy Spirit to lead a Christian into all truth? Can you explain please.
Ralph - please don't miss my point. My point is made in the two sentence before the one your quote. They were .....
quote:
This is the reason that sola scriptura cannot work - because the very best effort of men, even men possessing the Holy Spirit, cannot always come to the correct conclusion. A protection of the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary.
MonFrere
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
Neither Sola Scriptura nor the "Church" has kept men from error.
Ralph |
Edited by - Ralph on 05/04/2009 7:16:08 PM |
|
|
|
MonFrere
USA
1213 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2009 : 7:52:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ralph
The references you have listed clearly show the Apostles and directly or inderectly the "Church" is "sufficient...to lead a Christian into...truths. Which I have no issue with, of course as long as She is following and using the Bible. But I didn't read anything about a promise to protect the Church so She always leads a Christian into all truth.
Ralph,
Don't you see your inconsistency here? You have absolutely no fear in believing in sola scriptura -- even though there are scores - dozens - hundreds - thousands (you choose) of Protestant denominations saying they also believe in sola scriptura and "have the Bible figured out correctly".
Yet, in your quote above, even though you see in the scriptures that the Church is sufficient to lead one to salvation, you have a great trepidation in believing in the Church. You ALWAYS add the qualifier IF it follows scripture.
If the first Church, the apostolic Church, the Catholic Church (the Church that saw God's promise to Jew and Gentile as equal, therefore "universal" or "catholic") the Church that actually wrote the scripture; certainly their interpretation should be proven to be sound. Shouldn't THAT INTERPRETATION be authoritative? Shouldn't the words of the earliest Church fathers of the last first and early second century be considered authoritative; especially since they had no canon and were the words of the early Church - in other words they had no canon of scripture to appeal to - their words (the "not yet" NT scriptures) were authoritative BECAUSE THEY WERE APOSTOLIC - NOT because they were scripture. THEY certainly had no fear of either Church OR Scripture -- both were perfectly at peace with each other - as is the Catholic Church today BTW.
What I want to believe in is what the apostles believed in. I believe this to be a better witness that Scripture itself (uninterpreted) - because, as you know, people can interprete scripture incorrectly. Since this is true I MUST SEARCH OUT WHAT THE APOSTLES BELIEVED - what the Church believed in the beginning - I must accept this whether I believe it or not - my view of scripture or any Church that came after the apostolic witness is automatically suspect. What is not suspect is the witness of the Apostolic Church.
My view is to be very suspect of various interpretations of scripture that are not apostolic in origin. Once I found the apostolic witness to be the witness of the Catholic Church - whether I believed with every point of doctrine or not - I was compelled to believe in THAT WITNESS - and what THEY said about the Bible was THE AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION. The historical witness is enormous - the apostolic church is the Catholic Church.
MonFrere
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
|
Edited by - MonFrere on 05/04/2009 9:43:19 PM |
|
|
|
MonFrere
USA
1213 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2009 : 7:54:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ralph
Neither Sola Scriptura nor the "Church" has kept men from error.
Then you are drifting alone at sea all alone with no tools greater than your own fallen nature. God provided you with much better.
MonFrere
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7387 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2009 : 8:20:48 PM
|
quote:
The very fact that the Catholic Church has been divided into other, as you would call them "sects", claiming to be the "Church" or part of the "Church" would prove that such a promise was not kept.
No, there is only one Church that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome; the rest are schismatic, heretical, or both. As for leading the Church in all truth, Our Lord specifically used that phrase when speaking to the Apostles when He promised to send the Holy Spirit to them when He'd gone home to His Father. He didn't promise to send the Holy Spirit to each as an individual but to the group as a whole.
That does not preclude the possibility that the Holy Spirit can and does work outside of the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, only that His Presence is constant within her.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7387 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2009 : 8:26:43 PM
|
quote:
Also I thought it was interesting that you answered my question from the Scriptues Alone with out any thus says the Church or Tradition.
I did that out of consideration for what you consider authoritative. There is plenty of Traditional and historical evidence for the Holy Spirit guarding the Church's doctrines, but I'd figured that "wouldn't count", so to speak, to someone who has placed the Bible in the place of the Church.
As for fruits of the Catholic faith, I suggest getting a copy of Dr. Thomas Woods' How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. It may be available at a library. Another good one is Henry Graham's Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church. That one is available online for free:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
Dr. Graham's book does have a polemical feel due to his attempting to answer critics from his time frame of about a hundred years ago. Please try to ignore that and just read the historical data he provided.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
Edited by - Patti on 05/04/2009 8:41:53 PM |
|
|
|
Ralph
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 11:08:33 AM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by MonFrere[/i]
[br]quote:
Originally posted by Ralph
The references you have listed clearly show the Apostles and directly or inderectly the "Church" is "sufficient...to lead a Christian into...truths. Which I have no issue with, of course as long as She is following and using the Bible. But I didn't read anything about a promise to protect the Church so She always leads a Christian into all truth.
Ralph,
Don't you see your inconsistency here? You have absolutely no fear in believing in sola scriptura -- even though there are scores - dozens - hundreds - thousands (you choose) of Protestant denominations saying they also believe in sola scriptura and "have the Bible figured out correctly".
Yet, in your quote above, even though you see in the scriptures that the Church is sufficient to lead one to salvation, you have a great trepidation in believing in the Church. You ALWAYS add the qualifier IF it follows scripture.
If the first Church, the apostolic Church, the Catholic Church (the Church that saw God's promise to Jew and Gentile as equal, therefore "universal" or "catholic") the Church that actually wrote the scripture; certainly their interpretation should be proven to be sound. Shouldn't THAT INTERPRETATION be authoritative? Shouldn't the words of the earliest Church fathers of the last first and early second century be considered authoritative; especially since they had no canon and were the words of the early Church - in other words they had no canon of scripture to appeal to - their words (the "not yet" NT scriptures) were authoritative BECAUSE THEY WERE APOSTOLIC - NOT because they were scripture. THEY certainly had no fear of either Church OR Scripture -- both were perfectly at peace with each other - as is the Catholic Church today BTW.
What I want to believe in is what the apostles believed in. I believe this to be a better witness that Scripture itself (uninterpreted) - because, as you know, people can interprete scripture incorrectly. Since this is true I MUST SEARCH OUT WHAT THE APOSTLES BELIEVED - what the Church believed in the beginning - I must accept this whether I believe it or not - my view of scripture or any Church that came after the apostolic witness is automatically suspect. What is not suspect is the witness of the Apostolic Church.
My view is to be very suspect of various interpretations of scripture that are not apostolic in origin. Once I found the apostolic witness to be the witness of the Catholic Church - whether I believed with every point of doctrine or not - I was compelled to believe in THAT WITNESS - and what THEY said about the Bible was THE AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION. The historical witness is enormous - the apostolic church is the Catholic Church.
MonFrere
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
I don't see the early church in the same way you do. The Scriptures New Testament was written from around 60-90. All the apostles are around durring most of this time, John durring all of this time and the Old Testament was very activly used. The Church Fathers are valuable to see how they understood what was written but they can't be as authoratative as Scripture. The Church has to follow the Scripture not the other way around. My point continues to be that what you claim Sola Scriptura does not do, Chruch authority does not do either
Ralph |
|
|
|
Ralph
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 11:11:02 AM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by MonFrere[/i]
[br]quote:
Originally posted by Ralph
Neither Sola Scriptura nor the "Church" has kept men from error.
Then you are drifting alone at sea all alone with no tools greater than your own fallen nature. God provided you with much better.
MonFrere
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
Yes He did. Its the Holy Spirit to protect the individual. But to assume protection from error over all people who claim to be part of the body of Christ, the Church is just not found in Scripture nor has your church accomplished it.
Ralph |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7387 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 12:24:09 PM
|
quote:
But to assume protection from error over all people who claim to be part of the body of Christ, the Church is just not found in Scripture nor has your church accomplished it.
Who claimed that? You don't understand infallibility from the Catholic perspective if you believe this is what the Church teaches.
"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25)
For a clear explanation of the doctrine, here is a short article:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
artsippo
USA
5257 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 2:04:29 PM
|
Forget it, Ralph. How could "the Holy Spirit {protect} the individual" from error? What nonsense! If that were the case then ALL Christians enlightened by God would agree on everything. We don't. Such a claim is not only a formula for anarchy, it is logically absurd. Never in the history of God's walk with his people whether in the Synagogue or the Church has the individual been given the right to do what is right in his own eyes.
The Bible says:
quote:
Mat 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Mat 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Mat 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
It is Jesus himself who gave the Catholic Church to his Apostles to rule and it is he who told them to wield power in the community with authority including the power of censure.
The authority in the Church does not come from the opinions of mere men. It was given to us by Jesus through the Holy Spirit:
quote:
Mat 10:16 “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
Mat 10:17 Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues,
Mat 10:18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles.
Mat 10:19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour.
Mat 10:20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you."
Mat 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
Mat 16:14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
Mat 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.”
Jhn 14:16 “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor,to be with you forever,
Jhn 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be among you."
Jhn 14:24 “Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.
Jhn 14:25 These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you.
Jhn 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."
Jhn 15:26 But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;
Jhn 15:27 and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning.
Jhn 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
2Ti 1:2 To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord...
2Ti 1:6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;
2Pe 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
2Pe 1:18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
2Pe 1:19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
2Pe 1:20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
2Pe 1:21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
The teaching of Scripture tells us that when the Church's Apostolic ministers bear witness to the world, it is not not they who speak but the Holy Spirit who speaks through them. This power was granted first to St. Peter to "bind and loose" within the community but also to the Church itself so that there is no need to appeal to an 'infallible' Papal statement to command our obedience. The ordinary teaching authority of priess and Bishops is sufficient with the Pope being the ultimate court of appeals.
We are further taught that the Holy Spirit will not just help us remember what Jesus said, but that he will lead us to ALL TRUTH and that the witness of this Spirit will be different from that of the Apostles themselves who will have their own witness in Scripture and tradition.
This gift of God was given to St. Timothy himself a bishop when St. Paul laid hands on him in ordination.
And as Pope St. Peter says in his Second Papal Encyclical this power makes the prophetic word (i.e., the Bible) more sure. We do well to pay attention to it because the revelation of God is not from personal interpretation but men moved by the Holy Spirit speak from God. That is what we have in the Magisterium.
So we Catholics have all that God promised to his Church. Protestantism is left denying that anyone has any authority to speak definitively and thus it makes void the word of God.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
Edited by - artsippo on 05/05/2009 4:29:59 PM |
|
|
|
Ralph
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 07:22:35 AM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]quote:
But to assume protection from error over all people who claim to be part of the body of Christ, the Church is just not found in Scripture nor has your church accomplished it.
Who claimed that? You don't understand infallibility from the Catholic perspective if you believe this is what the Church teaches.
"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25)
For a clear explanation of the doctrine, here is a short article:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.
Let me see if I understand. The Catholic Church claims infallability only among certain people, ecumenical council, bishops maintaining the bond of unity among themselves with Peter’s successor? But it doesn't maintain that bond of unity, "promised by Jesus through the Holy Spirit, would extend out side that circle? Thats why the promise to protect the unity of the Catholic Church can be maintained even though some indidual Catholics, Catholic priests, Bishops do not hold to the same doctrines?
Ralph |
Edited by - Ralph on 05/06/2009 07:24:34 AM |
|
|
|
john654
USA
1285 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 07:57:37 AM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Ralph[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]quote:
But to assume protection from error over all people who claim to be part of the body of Christ, the Church is just not found in Scripture nor has your church accomplished it.
Who claimed that? You don't understand infallibility from the Catholic perspective if you believe this is what the Church teaches.
"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25)
For a clear explanation of the doctrine, here is a short article:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.
Let me see if I understand. The Catholic Church claims infallability only among certain people, ecumenical council, bishops maintaining the bond of unity among themselves with Peter’s successor? But it doesn't maintain that bond of unity, "promised by Jesus through the Holy Spirit, would extend out side that circle? Thats why the promise to protect the unity of the Catholic Church can be maintained even though some indidual Catholics, Catholic priests, Bishops do not hold to the same doctrines?
Ralph
Yes, I think that you are beginning to understand. Just don't mis-quote Jesus, who is God, He said that He would send the Holy Spirit who would lead the Church in "ALL TRUTH". Some indivdual Catholics, Catholic priests, Bishops, who do not hold to the same doctrines are "Protesting Christians"/Protestants. They protest against the word of God. Like you, that's the problem. The Church is a family! Keep up the good work, Ralph, and open your heart to the fuillness of truth.
John
I posted a song Marie Bellet performed at her concert at The Fathers of Mercy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkxj_Hf-dg&feature=channel_page |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7387 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 09:46:37 AM
|
quote:
Let me see if I understand. The Catholic Church claims infallability only among certain people, ecumenical council, bishops maintaining the bond of unity among themselves with Peter’s successor? But it doesn't maintain that bond of unity, "promised by Jesus through the Holy Spirit, would extend out side that circle? Thats why the promise to protect the unity of the Catholic Church can be maintained even though some indidual Catholics, Catholic priests, Bishops do not hold to the same doctrines?
Our Lord made a specific promise to Peter by virtue of his office in Matthew 16 that He did not make to the other Apostles. They received a second promise from Christ in Matthew 18. However, the keys---an Old Testament symbol of God's authority---were given to Peter alone and he was also given Our Lord's promise that He would pray for Peter to strengthen his brethren in the faith. Was Our Lord excluding the others, or was He putting in place a special protection against the introduction of human corruption of the Gospel?
See also Acts 2:42, where it pointed out that it was the teaching of the Apostles that the Christians followed; Acts 5:13, where the early Christians did not dare to place themselves on the same level as their teachers; and Acts 15:24, where those who taught without mandate from Apostolic authority are not to be trusted and followed.
Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)
Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.
Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.
What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
Ralph
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 11:20:08 AM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by john654[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by Ralph[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]quote:
But to assume protection from error over all people who claim to be part of the body of Christ, the Church is just not found in Scripture nor has your church accomplished it.
Who claimed that? You don't understand infallibility from the Catholic perspective if you believe this is what the Church teaches.
"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25)
For a clear explanation of the doctrine, here is a short article:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.
Let me see if I understand. The Catholic Church claims infallability only among certain people, ecumenical council, bishops maintaining the bond of unity among themselves with Peter’s successor? But it doesn't maintain that bond of unity, "promised by Jesus through the Holy Spirit, would extend out side that circle? Thats why the promise to protect the unity of the Catholic Church can be maintained even though some indidual Catholics, Catholic priests, Bishops do not hold to the same doctrines?
Ralph
Yes, I think that you are beginning to understand. Just don't mis-quote Jesus, who is God, He said that He would send the Holy Spirit who would lead the Church in "ALL TRUTH". Some indivdual Catholics, Catholic priests, Bishops, who do not hold to the same doctrines are "Protesting Christians"/Protestants. They protest against the word of God. Like you, that's the problem. The Church is a family! Keep up the good work, Ralph, and open your heart to the fuillness of truth.
John
I posted a song Marie Bellet performed at her concert at The Fathers of Mercy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkxj_Hf-dg&feature=channel_page
I did not mis quote Jesus who is God because I was not quoting Him. I left out the "all" because their are many who would claim that quote as a contridiction. They would claim Jesus has not lead us into ALL truth in the area of Science, ie Galileo and on and on they would go, trying to give evidence we cannot trust the Bible. Not realizing that the Bible never intends to lead to "all" truth about every subject known to man.
I still do not see a Scripture verse that says the "Church" will be lead to "ALL" truth. Context of Jn 16:13 where the quote is found is to the Apostles, but I also believe this promise is implied to all those who have the Spirit of God. (For a few examples see 1 Cor 2:10-16 and Rom 8:5-8)
quote:
[i]Originally posted by john654[/i]
Some indivdual Catholics, Catholic priests, Bishops, who do not hold to the same doctrines are "Protesting Christians"/Protestants. They protest against the word of God. Like you, that's the problem.
My point is that the Catholic system has done no better at maintaining doctrinal unity among its members than Solo Scriptura has at maintaining unity among every person who claims to be a non Catholic Christian. There are many who would claim Sola Scriptura but with a little digging one would find they too, "protest against the word of God." Not all so called Bible believing Christians are in the Sola Scriptura camp. Putting us all in the same camp is like putting all those who claim to be Catholic, but protest, in your camp.
My point is your arguments against Sola Scriptura are not consistent and do not represent those who truly hold to it.
Ralph |
Edited by - Ralph on 05/06/2009 11:22:34 AM |
|
|
|
MonFrere
USA
1213 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 11:55:07 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ralph
My point is that the Catholic system has done no better at maintaining doctrinal unity among its members than Solo Scriptura has at maintaining unity among every person who claims to be a non Catholic Christian. ..... My point is your arguments against Sola Scriptura are not consistent and do not represent those who truly hold to it.
Not true. One can KNOW with certainty what Catholic doctrine is because we have authoritative documents (and actually many other criteria - Tradition, Scripture - etc.) There is no such thing in Protestantism. There is NO ONE who can speak for Protestantism - the "authority" as far as it goes, and as weak as it is, can only speak to that one particular demonination whose writing/authority it covers -- thus, all the various definitions of sola scriptura. The major problem that is the demise and the bane of Protestantism, is the strength of Catholicism - and that is legitimate and real authority. Protestants rebelled from authority and in doing so removed themselves from possessing any legitimate authority; thus the weakness of any true clout in their voice and their witness. They ONLY have authority when they speak THE TRUTH and in those cases when they speak against the Catholic Church they are speaking against the protected voice and witness of the Holy Spirit - Truth Itself.
MonFrere
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
Ralph
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 12:43:28 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by MonFrere[/i]
[br]quote:
Originally posted by Ralph
My point is that the Catholic system has done no better at maintaining doctrinal unity among its members than Solo Scriptura has at maintaining unity among every person who claims to be a non Catholic Christian. ..... My point is your arguments against Sola Scriptura are not consistent and do not represent those who truly hold to it.
Not true. One can KNOW with certainty what Catholic doctrine is because we have authoritative documents (and actually many other criteria - Tradition, Scripture - etc.) There is no such thing in Protestantism. There is NO ONE who can speak for Protestantism - the "authority" as far as it goes, and as weak as it is, can only speak to that one particular demonination whose writing/authority it covers -- thus, all the various definitions of sola scriptura. The major problem that is the demise and the bane of Protestantism, is the strength of Catholicism - and that is legitimate and real authority. Protestants rebelled from authority and in doing so removed themselves from possessing any legitimate authority; thus the weakness of any true clout in their voice and their witness. They ONLY have authority when they speak THE TRUTH and in those cases when they speak against the Catholic Church they are speaking against the protected voice and witness of the Holy Spirit - Truth Itself.
MonFrere
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
How can you say "not true" when you aggreed there are Catholics in the Catholic church protesting the Church and uless you excommunicate them, they are not leaving your pews or altars. |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7387 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 12:48:59 PM
|
quote:
My point is that the Catholic system has done no better at maintaining doctrinal unity among its members than Solo Scriptura has at maintaining unity among every person who claims to be a non Catholic Christian.
Point to one doctrine that is not consistently required by the Catholic Church to be accepted by all who are members of the Catholic Church. If you point to one member or a small group of members who do not accept it, that doesn't mean that it's optional.
quote:
There are many who would claim Sola Scriptura but with a little digging one would find they too, "protest against the word of God."
Who decides who in the Protestant system is protesting against the word of God"?
quote:
I left out the "all" because their are many who would claim that quote as a contridiction. They would claim Jesus has not lead us into ALL truth in the area of Science, ie Galileo and on and on they would go, trying to give evidence we cannot trust the Bible. Not realizing that the Bible never intends to lead to "all" truth about every subject known to man.
This seem to be shifting from one topic to another. The Scriptures and the Church, for that matter, do not teach "all truth about every subject known to man". (Neither is the pope expected to be infallible in that way.) When John and other Catholics refer to "all truth", we mean all truth necessary for man to come to salvation in Christ the Lord.
In any event, Our Lord said to the Apostles (who represented the teaching authority of the Church): "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. [John 16:12-13]
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
MonFrere
USA
1213 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 12:53:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ralph
How can you say "not true" when you aggreed there are Catholics in the Catholic church protesting the Church and uless you excommunicate them, they are not leaving your pews or altars.
Because these rebels HAVE NO AUTHORITY!!
MonFrere
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
|
Edited by - MonFrere on 05/06/2009 2:00:13 PM |
|
|
|
Tim Buley
USA
148 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 2:23:53 PM
|
I am combining some quotes from two different threads of questions directed to me on this thread because they more to do with this than Mary.
"Patti - In essence, relying on the Bible is like reading a complex textbook without a teacher to guide the student in identifying what is essential to know. The student, if he is diligent and open to God's Will, will find truth in the Scriptures. It will take most people years, if not decades, to find the fullness of the Gospel message. And all along the way, they have no objective way to tell if they're on the right track.
In closing, the main reason I dismiss Sola Scriptura as an effective means to learn and understand about the Gospel is it simply isn't found in the Scriptures. Such an important idea should be in there for us to read for our edification and comprehension. The fact that it is nowhere found in Scripture is enough to identify that sola scriptura is definitely man-made and not from God."
That is why I never hear anybody ever argue or hold to a "nuda scriptura" My church has a confession of faith the B.O.C. in which we have the three creeds (Tradition) and guides to keep us inline with what scripture teaches and not falling into error. We however do not hold this to be infallible like the written word of God.
"Mofrere - Some truth goes beyond intellectual reasoning and people with genuine sincerity can differ. Honest mistakes/differences can easily emerge. This is the reason that sola scriptura cannot work - because the very best effort of men, even men possessing the Holy Spirit, cannot always come to the correct conclusion. A protection of the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary. Sola Scriptura is NOT SUFFICIENT to lead a Christian into all truth; the Church protected by the Holy Spirit IS "BECAUSE" it is a promise of Christ Himself."
Does this not happen within your church
"Art -
Now of course you can question whether you can trust me, but quite frankly that is trite. The teaching of the Catholic is public knowledge and any person of normal intelligence can find out what it is. Guys like Steve and I have studied these things for many years and you are probably better off talking to us than trying to read the stuff for yourself."
I think the point was missed I can read “I am lthe way, and mthe truth, and nthe life. No one comes to the Father except through me." And then I can read the Papal Bull Unam Sanctum and then I can read your catechism and be told that this is what was historically meant? That when a non-believer or atheist goes to heaven it is through the Son?.
that is why I doubted the ability of someone to portray what your church believes because it's meaning can develop fuller.
"rr1213 - Ok. For the moment, let's forget deviant liberal revisionism within the Protestant communities. Let us focus only on what could be describe as "orthodox" Protestantism, i.e., orthodox Lutheranism, orthodox Anglicanism, orthodox Calvinism, etc.
Where does this narrowed focus leave us?"
I brought the moral stuff up before not because I think it happens any more in your church than public schools or any where else man is but because the claim to be the visible church, lets than also look at doctrine and witness of the Gospel.
One can not in good conscience stay in a false unity with those you believe to be in error, by communing with those who hold differing views you are saying that you agree or are indifferent and perhaps are complicit in their error that may lead to damnation. Do a search and look at what happened at Assisi under Pope JP2 not the little stuff that your "Traditionalists" freak out about but the blatant universalism. How can one pray with another who doesn't believe in God? How are you not approving by doing this? Why would you let the tibetan buddhists place a bronze Idol on top the St. Peter Church's tabernacle, or let Indians smoke a peace pipe in front of your altar?
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7387 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 3:28:08 PM
|
quote:
Do a search and look at what happened at Assisi under Pope JP2 not the little stuff that your "Traditionalists" freak out about but the blatant universalism.
Our Lord went among the lost sheep of Israel and ate with tax collectors and prostitutes. The Apostles went among the pagans and preached the Good News of the Kingdom. Paul said that he would be all things to all men so that some may be saved.
I invite you to examine the Magisterial documents of the Church, particularly those written by Pope John Paul II, and find ONE STATEMENT that proves "universalism". Save yourself the bother; you won't find it. When the late pope went to pray with the lost, he was praying for them as well, and giving the world an example in line with that of the Savior and the Apostles: It isn't the sheep within the fold who need to be found but the lost who have strayed and are in danger.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7387 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 3:32:12 PM
|
quote:
Why would you let the tibetan buddhists place a bronze Idol on top the St. Peter Church's tabernacle, or let Indians smoke a peace pipe in front of your altar?
When and where did these things happen? What have you been reading?
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7387 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 3:41:08 PM
|
quote:
Do a search and look at what happened at Assisi under Pope JP2....
I took your advice and found this:
Yet, John Paul's initiative, this "spirit of Assisi," could be "misunderstood." How so? First of all, this or any such prayer meeting should not "lend itself to syncretist interpretation founded on a relativistic concept." And what is a "syncretist interpretation?" It means that what was going on was a filtering out of common beliefs or prayers acceptable to everyone while dropping what is distinctive of each particular religion. This result, which many in the parliament of religion school desire, is not what is going on here. John Paul II himself was very clear on this point. The representatives are not at Assisi to "negotiate our faith convictions." More importantly, the differences in religion cannot be settled if, as their purpose, all agree on a "common earthly project which would surpass them all." Nor could it be founded on the thesis that all religious beliefs are based on "relativism."
Benedict next affirms that he agrees with this position of his predecessor. Inter-religious dialogue is not based on a prior position that no religion is true. It has to be based on the position that the representatives of each religion hold what they maintain to be true. That is what there is to talk about on some common basis. If they cannot agree, they cannot agree. But they still might agree to pray together as a sign that they ought not to use religion for violence. "Like us Christians, they (other religious leaders) know that in prayer it is possible to have a special experience of God and to draw from it effective incentive for dedication to the cause of peace."
It's a good article at dispelling myths about the whole Assisi thing:
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/schall_assisi_oct06.asp
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7387 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What One Preacher Learned About "Scripture Alone"
