Posted on 12/30/2011 7:07:29 PM PST by rzman21
Amen !shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachPsalm 1
What a place to start !
Blessed is the man who walks not
in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;2 but his delight is in the law of YHvH,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
I consider Timothy to be authoritative. And Timothy says that Tradition is authoritative. It makes sense because Scripture itself came out of Tradition, the two are not divided into neat compact boxes of ‘tradition’ and ‘not tradition’.
What deception? She put it together. You use her book. Then you tell people that Rome is the spawn of Satan?
Makes no sense to me.
And God’s word, which you have declared authoritative, says otherwise. It does not claim to be the one and final authority.
So I’m not sure what to say here. When you make unsupported claims as to what Scripture teaches, then you’ve undercut your own argument. If Scripture truly is the final authority, then you are bound to what she says.
If protestant traditions are the final authority, then you are free to contradict scripture as you do here, by ignoring verses you don’t like.
Clearly protestant tradition, ie, “Rome is the spawn of Satan > scripture.
“Rome didn’t write the scriptures....what nonsense is that!!”
The Apostles wrote them, did they not. And Peter was the first pope, ergo the Apostles were Catholic.
Therefore, yes, the Church did write the bible, and you happily use her book (minus a few books that you don’t like).
I guess the question for me is why?
“Again, the OT was written well before the RCC ever came into existence to its claims of writing Scripture are proved false from the get go. There’s no reason to trust them any further on their claims of writing the NT when it so patently obvious that their claim to writing the OT is so easily falsified.”
So the only part of Scripture that is authoritative is the OT?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
First place to start at is here, with the 21 ecumenical councils.
Bound up in Trent is the confirmation of the Canon, so Scripture as defined is considered to be infalliable.
+Ineffabilius Deus “1854” on the Immaculate Conception
+Munificentissimus Deus “1950” on the Assumption of Mary
There may be others as well. I am not the right person to ask this question, so I am pinging the others to correct and add to this list.
Remember that Papal infalliability is just a subset of the infalliability of the magisterium. This is why infalliability is pretty much just all the general councils with a few exceptions.
The major disputes between branches of Christianity are for the most part dictated by the list of the ecumenical councils that are considered valid. Different branches recognise different ones.
Also, infalliability applies only to teachings of dogma, not of disciplinary decisions. Matters outside of this sphere are not part of infalliability even if they are part of the Council.
Peace + Blessings.
“And of course we did not receive Jesus by eating a cracker”
So why do you eat one?
BK, context again; my charge was that there is no infallible list of all infallible teachings (or of all CFs), to which you asserted there was and unless you can provide THAT then the varied compilations of teachings which you and other fallible men, while useful, will not do.
Remember that Papal infalliability is just a subset of the infalliability of the magisterium. This is why infalliability is pretty much just all the general councils with a few exceptions.
I was aware of PI, and if by "general" you mean only ecumenical councils (not regional) speaking to universally on F+M then that is correct. But while that relates to Trent providing the first indisputable infallible canon, it does not provide an infallible list of all infallible decrees. And thus the number can differ from one source to another.
“If you want an understanding of how the Magisterium practically works, ask a random group of Catholics to define this”
Why would I do this, rather than asking for instruction from the magisterium to answer this questions correctly the first time?
“and how many infallible teachings there are, among others things, and you will get different answers.”
Well, for sure, but I’m not quite sure how polling the laity is evidence of anything other than the fact that the extent of infalliability is not the same as understanding how the magisterium works. I agree with you wholeheartedly, that this is one of the most important questions, and it’s one that I had to go through when I became Catholic.
The list that I gave you has all the major doctrinal issues, there may be a few others, which is why I’ve asked those with more experience to look over the list.
“as no one can point you an infallible list of all infallible statements.”
Balderdash.
“And relative little is provided infallibly, most especially on Bible texts.”
Trent defines the infalliable Canon.
“Seventy percent of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist.”
What do you think my calling is? I agree with you wholeheartedly that the instruction is not as good as it ought to be. Even in my RCIA class I had to go to an exceptionally good bishop before I finally got what I really needed. And even then it took considerable study on my own to understand what I needed to understand.
And even then, there is just so much stuff.
“In those posts, you can see that Catholic apologists disagree with each other when they interpret the Bible.”
Well of course they do. Just like protestants do. That there exists disagreement does not change what is true.
“Then there are the big issues, like evolution.”
Well, evolution is not a doctrinal issue. It’s not something that we are bound on. My personal belief is that the current scientific understanding is wrong, that species do not form from other species. We have exactly zero instances where such has been observed.
But, that’s a scientific belief, not one from scripture. Biology is really a primitive science.
“You would think Catholic theologians could at least be unified on Luther and the Reformation. Some say Luther was sent by Satan, others think he wasn’t such a bad guy.”
I don’t like Luther because of how he treated the Reformers that disagreed with him. But you have to understand, he was a Priest. He was invited to Trent. Most of what he taught was accepted by the Church and incorporated into the Church.
The Church does not treat Luther as it’s mortal enemy. That’s something I’m not sure is clear. There have been many scismatics. See Arius for one. See Nestorius for one, some of whom still exist, still teach and still preach just as they did 1400 years ago.
What is Rome to make of the followers of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc? Let alone of the more recent branches?
“yet apparently may be received back with no required repentance.”
I’m not sure why that’s so puzzling. If Luther had repented, he too would have been welcomed back. We are not privy to all that went on behind the scenes.
“while interpretations of ecclesiam nulla salus statements still vary.”
Extra ecclesium nulla salus is contrary to what the Church teaches. We had this discussion earlier. Yes, the Feeneyites dispute it but the Church rejects it, citing Romans which shows that God is sovereign, even over his Church.
“Rome assures its members that “the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error,”
See, this is the problem. Someone picks up a book with Nihil Obstat and picks out a statement and then goes and say, “the Church teaches X!”.
Nihil Obstat is a ‘negative’ proclamation. It’s important to understand that ‘free of error’, does not mean ‘proclaims what the Church teaches’, or even ‘the Church has a definitive opinion on this issue’.
“Such responses are hardly worth replying to.”
You are simply asserting your opinion. You look at a passage and argue “it appears to me” as X.
“If submission to infallible decrees is not based on the premise that the sacred magisterium is infallible when speaking universally on faith and morals, then you have not the mind of a Roman Catholic.”
As I said, this is controversial? No, it’s not controversial. Calling such ‘formuliac etc’, is merely your distaste for the teaching.
“Rome may claim such, but assurance of her decrees does not rest upon it, and Rome can autocratically define evidence as supporting her.”
“Because what you chose to refer to, contrary to the context, is not infallible “decrees,” but things not strictly doctrinal. But the premise of assured infallibility is what is behind Rome’s claim to supremacy.”
But infalliability comes from Christ’s pronouncement to Peter. You are asserting that it’s circular, while dismissing the core of the argument, that the Church argues that their authority comes from Christ, through Peter.
This isn’t controversial either, it’s right there in the Catechism. Frankly, for someone arguing that he can’t understand what it is Catholics teach, most of your answers are right there, in the Catechism. I should know! I got pretty familiar reading it as a protestant and then finding out I’d been lied to about what the Church actually teaches.
The interesting thing is how I came about to read the Catechism in the first place. For one, I applied the principle “in order to know what the church teaches as true, I must consult the Church teachings, not what others who are opposed to the Church have to say”.
“But the assured infallibility premise is the main issue.”
Then you’ll have to take it up with the Gospels.
“he evidences some credentials as an apologist for Rome.”
It should be self-evident who I favor. :)
“rejecting the other Catholics when they oppose you.”
You misunderstood what I said. I said, that, “right as it is”, I believe it to be insufficient to convince evangelicals.
This is a prudential argument. I agree that Keating is correct in what he teaches, I just think there are better ways to go about it. I think, ultimately, the best evidence in favor of infalliability comes from Matthew and what the Gospels teach of the office provided to Peter. If you can explain apostolic succession, you should be able to get to magesterial infalliability.
But this is just a personal opinion. I’m sure Mr. Keating would have other arguments himself.
“you do not look at linked material”
Given how I destroyed CW’s argument by fully quoting his linked material, I cannot see why you would make this already proven claim to be false.
But hey, go ahead. Tell porkies about what you link to and see if I catch it. :)
“If you want more from popes on the changeability of Rome i will look forward to providing such.”
I’m not sure what’s your ultimate goal here. You seem to believe that if you can show that person x and person y disagrees that this somehow contradicts what the magesterium teaches.
Again, the magisterium works in unity, not as individuals, and I am not certain that you understand this. If you did, then I suspect you would not be engaging in this tactic.
“BK, context again; my charge was that there is no infallible list of all infallible teachings”
There’s more then enough to read through the afternoon on what I provided.
“to which you asserted there was”
I asserted that there was a list, not that said list was, in itself, infalliable.
Nor could it be.
If there was an infalliable list of infalliable teachings, then it would contradict the teaching that the Pope can speak ex-cathedra. Becuase the list would take precedent over anything that the Pope would say. No list is complete, ergo no list could be infalliable.
“But while that relates to Trent providing the first indisputable infallible canon”
Trent provides the first infalliable declaration of the Canon. The canon itself dates to the late 4th century. Again, this is something we see. Infalliable declarations do not proceed teachings, the teachings follow first and are later (usually much later), declared to be infalliable. The Church had been using this canon from the 4th onward.
Which is why you consider only the OT to be authoritative?
lololol
Right here anyone with half a brain would recognize the RCC for the brazen racket it really is.
Absolutely pathetic. No wonder they scorn the word of God. They think it leads to "serious spiritual harm."
And yet they trust a bunch of old men in dresses whose inclinations run toward molesting young boys.
This paragraph from the RCC encyclopedia is worth keeping. Next time it's brought up, it's sure to be denied.
Following up on the other post.
“Take some time?”
daniel1212 -
If your disagreements touch something that I don’t already have prepared, then I have to put it together for you. Most of what you brought up isn’t anything special.
This is a good question that takes time to prepare. Plus I have to answer 5 other people. So sorry that you had to wait.
“Are are you going to get the pope to convene an ecumenical council and provide one?”
Again, I demonstrated why an infalliable list contradicts infalliability.
“trying to provide a non-infallible list, which only confirms my statement that there is none”
Any list provided would be wholly correct, yet it could not be infalliable simply because there are teachings known today that while they are not infalliable, may become so later.
“The burden is more on proving it is not a close relationship”
Can’t prove a negative. Lacking sufficient evidence, we cannot conclude a close relationship between the two.
“most natural reading is that of His own family and household.”
An English Protestant commentates on a Greek Catholic book, and concludes that his opinion coincides with the ‘most natural reading’, not by consulting the Greek, but rather, citing the english.
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. Adelphoi is used to refer to the brethren of Christ. Same book, same author. Yet here we are to conclude that it has the special meaning of stating that they are biological brothers? No. Families, back then, are not what we consider families to be today.
“Which means nothing when you are attempt to show warrant for submission to the pope, and in which case reasons are not needed.”
You quote everyone but the Pope. Why is that? If I want to understand what the Catholic church teaches, why would I selectively cite people other than him?
“That is my point, which you are missing, that assurance of truth for the Roman Catholic rests upon what the assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) says, even though that is quite limited.”
One person does not equate with the infalliable magisterium, with the exception of the Pope.
“And in response, i may invoke approved Catholic works as having more weight than you, and writings from Catholics based upon their merits, and as not being biased against Rome”
Again, you keep missing the point. What one Catholic author writes is not indication that this is what the magisterium teaches. You could cite the Catechism, but you seem strangely adverse to doing so.
“Truth then you need not find sanction for it by such reason as you used in coming to submit to Rome, but only need to give assent.”
To convert you need to give assent, for everything that the Church teaches, and to commit to defending what the Church teaches. So this objection falls. Assent is not sufficient. You have to demonstrate understanding of what the Church teaches.
“This is about negating the need of fallible human reason to determine doctrinal truth rather than relying on Rome to do so”
This begs the question. A convert must first be convinced that magisterial infalliability is in fact TRUE before they would be willing to concede that they teach doctrinal truth.
Again, a convert must be convinced through reason that the Church is correct. Arguing that they ‘dump their reason’ when converting to the Church, and ‘find their reason’ when they convert away from the Church are baseless.
“required implicit assent of faith to an office of men based upon the premise of assured infallibility.”
Again, we go back to Matthew. The Church argues that the Church has the authority, because of Apostolic succession and the authority given to Peter. It does not argue that the source of infalliability stems from itself, but from Christ.
First page of the catechism on infalliability. You really should read the Catechism.
“Refuted before. As expressed before, your reasoning is superficial, for as said, Rome can claim she has warrant from Scripture, or at least is not contradicting it, but that is not the basis for assurance that she has spoken infallibly.”
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I keep returning back to Matthew. The premise of Infalliability derives from the promises of Christ to Peter. Arguing otherwise, simply ignores what the Church truly teaches.
Read the Catechism.
“Once again, we do not follow Luther’s canon”
Does your canon deviate from Luther’s? Yes or no. Who is we and how does your canon deviate from his?
“to those who sat in the seat of Moses as being infallible, rather than the spiritual authority of these upstart followers of the Nazarene being established in dissent from them, in conformity to Scriptural and its means of attestation, to the glory of God.”
Finally. Now we get to a decent argument. Why do you think Christ told Peter - “I give YOU the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven”. He was replacing those who sat in the seat of Moses. If Christ had given his spiritual authority to those who sat in the seat of Moses, then he would not have given the Keys to Peter.
“In contrast, if Catholic faith depends upon the weight of Scriptural warrant then it makes Catholics to be as Protestants”
The Church came first, and the authority of the Apostles stems from inspiration, not infalliability. Something you would know if you read the Catechism....
Scripture cannot contradict tradition, and tradition cannot contradict scripture. Just as God’s blessings in inspiring the Gospel writers is not contradicted by the infalliability of the magisterium in confirming the Canon.
I’m snipping the rest. You just keep repeating yourself, ad nauseaum.
Let me ask you a question daniel?
Do you believe that any of your argument that Catholics are forbidden to read scripture has any appeal to anyone? Really? Do you think that anyone is going to take what you say at face value as applicable to the Church today.
You did not say that you were providing historical evidence of disciplinary (not doctrinal decrees), limited to some of the laity (and not others), decrees which are no longer in force today.
As for my office, yes I do teach and yes I am of the laity for me to do my work, I have to consult scripture. So if you contend that the Church today holds this to be true, then I’m not sure what to think of you or your experience.
Sorry to say, but the Church does affirm that Scripture is true, does affirm that Scripture is sufficient (something I don’t see you arguing against anything), argues that Scripture is infalliable, and moreover, argues that you can’t rip out books because you don’t like them.
Frankly, the Church respects Sacred Scripture more than anybody else.
Then you deny Timothy.
Which is why our salvation is secure in what He did for us. By believing He took ALL our sin upon Himself, and died for that sin in our stead, and that His sacrifice on our behalf satisfied the penalty for our sin, God was able to raise Him. Just as we will be raised one day. It is the faith OF CHRIST that saves us. We KNOW that His sacrifice was enough for a Holy, Just God. And we KNOW that God WILL raise us from the dead, because of Christ's finished work. That is our salvation. AND our ETERNAL SECURITY.
"KNOWING that a man is NOT justified by the works of the law, but BY THE FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST, evn we have believed IN Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the FAITH OF CHRIST, and not by the works of the law: for BY the WORKS OF THE LAW shall NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED." Gal. 2:16.
THIS is why we can say with ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE that we KNOW WE ARE SAVED. The FAITH OF CHRIST tells us so. And PROVES to us that His faith to be raised from the dead is our faith to be raised from the dead. Because of His finished work on our behalf.
PAID IN FULL.
Are we talking about the seven CHURCHES of Revelation, 6 out of 7 which God condemned? Is that what the Catholics are trying to take credit for, that their Church was condemned by God from the start (at least 6/7 percent of it)? ;O)
Umm, “you’re out of your element, Harley!” ;)
No, sorry. I’m not sure to what you’re referring. You’ll have to walk me back through it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.