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.
Getting redundant, little more to be said. Best to move on.
“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.
You may see so but you demonstrated nothing except the ability to ignore specification on one hand while making it into an unreason-able request on the other, which enables it to be denied:
“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.
Again, an infallible list — incapable of being in error — of all infallible statements to date would not prevent further ones from being added. Do you really think i am asking for a list of all infallible decrees that ever will be made? (You infer you are something of a teacher, but not a prophet.) That is an unreasonable misrepresentation.
“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.
Once again you continue to construe the argument to be that of proof rather than probability, while what cannot be proven/concluded due to lack of sufficient evidence is the positive that the texts at issue refer to family in the larger sense, though that in context the,
“Here you have Jesus brothers and sisters along with his own literal mother being referred to, while speaking in His own literal country in the narrow sense, that of Nazareth, and referring to His own house[oikia, rarely used in larger sense]. All these can be used in the larger or the spiritual sense, none of which is disallowed, but 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.
Rather, an English Protestant comments on a Greek Catholic book by examining the Greek which the Catholic contentiously focuses on as determinative, but which itself is inconclusive and so he looks at the context of a number of verses as to which is most determinative of the meaning.
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.
Sorry, it doesn’t work only your way. The same word used for the brethren of Christ is also used to refer to actual siblings a number of times, including along with the mention of a parent, (Mt. 4:21) as it does in describing brethren of Christ. (Mt. 12:46 ) Same book, same author, and context mainly determines meaning here. Yet we are to conclude that it must only have the meaning of being cousins? I allow that it can, but thou doth protest more than is warranted.
“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?
Why? What would quoting what the pope said on the P-V of Mary serve as to the issue, as it is not what the pope claims but warrant for it, for which scholarship is invoked, and your reliance and preoccupation upon what the pope “infallibly “ claims as if he were God is the real issue.
And as he can require assent of faith to his words as being assured infallible, even without manifesting the signs of an apostle, (2Cor. 12:12) then he find this fitting:
“..We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty...” — Pope Leo XIII, in Praeclara Gratulationis Publica” June 20, 1894 (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm) “Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law;” — PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, (On the Study of Holy Scripture), Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, dated November 18th, 1893.
“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 thus assurance of truth for the Roman Catholic rests upon what the assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) says, corporately or the pope himself. As said.
“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.
What you seem strangely adverse to doing so is looking at context and following the argument and understanding the point, which here was in regards to quoting Catholic authors on the Assumption having late and wanting support, and the real basis for why Roman Catholics believing something, and quoting the CCC or a pope here is only going give a statement on what Roman Catholics are to believe.
“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.
Once again you ignore context, even after being corrected here already. I already explained how the author...,
|
“is not referring to reason in defending the faith, or totally negating any need for reason, but reasons that if Rome states something as 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. That he obviously does not exclude the use of reason in defending the faith is seen by the author himself engaging in such, though this was not seen as the work of laymen.” |
“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.
If you paid attestation to the qualification (“Once he does [enter the Roman church] then..”) of the original statement, or actually went to the source which had a link, then you could have seen that it was not in reference to coming to faith in Rome, for which the author affirms the use of investigative reason, or defending the faith, which he is doing using reason, but that of determining justification for what Rome teaches as a condition for your belief, and while in Rome he will know truths he could not have known by reason alone. (Or so he comforts himself.) In that context,
Once he does so [enter the Roman church], he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason, like a lantern, at the door.
Therein he will learn many other truths that he never could have found out with reason alone, truths superior, but not contrary, to reason.
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.
That is not the argument of the apologist, seen if you examined his work a little, but as already explained,
|
His scope is limited, as evidently your reading is, as he does sanction reason being employed as regards converting to Rome, and his freedom from reason remarks as are regards finding merit for what Rome authoritatively teaches, and consistently seeking after truth rather than being convinced that he holds it. “The message of the Church is: these are God's words. As for what these words stand for, you are not to trust her, but Him. The foundation of divine belief is one thing; the motives of credibility are another.” (cp. XVIII) His position that a Catholic need not use reason to find warrant for what has Rome authoritatively teaches has evident merit, as you can indeed leave such reason at the door as regards seeking the basis for your belief in such things as the Assumption, for certitude rests upon papal decree that it is so. |
The latter issue was the context of my quote by him. And as your CCC will show you, “Motives of credibility” refers to reasons for faith, (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind". (156)
The basis for the infallible claim of Rome
“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.
Again, we go back to why one interpretation of Matthew is authoritative over the rest, which is because Rome defines herself as possessing assured infallibility, and invokes this to support her.
First page of the catechism on infalliability. You really should read the Catechism.
Why? Again the issue is not what Rome states, but what she effectively teaches. And I have lots of official material from Rome, but you need to read why it is challenged, rather than presenting CCC assertions as arguments, or supposing that assurance of doctrine for a Roman Catholic rests upon conclusive evidence from Scripture, as if they held to SS.
“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.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. While this is what you are taught, that is superficial and in error. That interpretation of Matthew has no authority unless Rome says it does. We cannot even have assurance of doctrine except by submission to Rome. And as said, assurance of the infallibility of Rome's infallible decrees is not and cannot be dependent upon conclusive evidence from Scripture, else they be Protestant and hold that Scripture is supreme. Rather, Rome decides what is Truth, and infallibly defined herself as being infallible when speaking according to her infallibly defined scope and subject-based criteria, and thus her own decree that she is assured infallible, is infallible, among other decrees. And the catechism implicitly depends upon this premise.
Certainty she must have some basis for her claim, but as Catholics argue, anyone can invoke texts to support themselves, and what makes Rome’s interpretation of Mt. 16 indisputable is her infallible definition of it. If indeed she has infallibly defined it thusly, as it is interpreted that the reasons behind an infallible decrees are not necessarily actually infallible themselves.
...the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached. Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility>True meaning of infallibility; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10430a.htm
Cardinal Avery Dulles pointed out in Magisterium (Sapientia, 2007, p. 66): “Strictly speaking, infallibility is a property of the Magisterium in its activity of teaching, not a property of magisterial statements.”
Ludwig Ott: Commenting on Pius IX’s papal bull Ineffabilis, that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, said “The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” — Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200. ttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm:
Roman Catholic theologian, Johann Mohler: "Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined." [Source: Johann Adam Mohler, Symbolism: Exposition of the doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolic Writings, trans James Burton Robertson (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1997), p.296].
Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: . . the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church — not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/our-faliable-interperation-6035/
And you will not get into this depth out of the CCC, which is why theologians and apologists have other books as well.
A question on the canon
“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?
Yes it does deviate from the standard 66 book canon of wholly inspired Scripture commonly historically held by Protestants.
In Luther's prefaces to James, Jude and the Revelation, from the first edition of his New Testament (Luther's Works, vol 35 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), pp. 395-399) we see he,
rejected James: “I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.” though he included them in his translation, which also included the apocrypha.
Thus contrary to your polemic, a Catholic recently vehemently argued against Luther's rejecting James, as if it impugned our faith.
And Revelation: “they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep. .
But Luther's rejection of these does not mean he did not include them in his translation, and thus some may think he held them as inspired Scripture, which he did not, and as he did also did with the apocrypha (in a separate section as in ages past), but this not make them inspired Scripture.
“In terms of order, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation come last in Luther’s New Testament because of his negative estimate of their apostolicity. In a catalogue of “The Books of the New Testament” which followed immediately upon his Preface to the New Testament… Luther regularly listed these four—without numbers—at the bottom of a list in which he named the other twenty-three books, in the order in which they still appear in English Bibles, and numbered them consecutively from 1–23… a procedure identical to that with which he also listed the books of the Apocrypha
Likewise the Apocrypha:
The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’
It also should be understood that as with early church fathers, Luther was working his way through his theology and the canonization of Scripture. Also of note is that the words “canon” and “Scripture” could be used less formally sometimes than they would be later on. (And it would not be until the year of Luther's death that Trent presented its finalized canon.) The canon which Protestantism came to hold is that of the ancient 39 book Old Testament and the 27 book New Testament canon. Which, like authoritative Old Testament writings by time of Christ, came to be accepted due to their qualities and other Divine attestation through the consensus of the faithful, without a purportedly infallible conciliar decree. The page to see on Luther's canon is here.
► By what authority doest thou these things
“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.
The real basis for authority has been the decent argument along, and much was written to you on this in a recent past exchange, which will only be summed up here
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.
This is exactly right. But why he gave them to Peter was not because Peter had the right formal decent of office, but along with the 10 other true apostles, he had Abrahamic type faith in the Messiah, the Son of God, the spiritual Rock that followed Israel, which the Scriptures promised. “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.“ (Jn. 1:45) And which faith constitutes a true Jew, not lineage. (Rm. 2:28,29)
The Jewish office was not perpetual even though the nation had promises of continuance and had a magisterium which sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2), but God can preserve truth and fulfill such promises by raising up others from with the formal magisterium office to reprove it and replace it if need be. And just as God can raise up stones to be children of Abraham, (Mt. 3:9) so he can raise up stones to continue to build his Church, who like Peter effectually confess Jesus is Lord, the Rock upon which the church is built, and who ordain others after that essential faith.
It is not formal decent which establishes spiritual authority, even though that is a normal confirmation of true man of God, but true men of God, like the writings of Scripture, are such even without confirmation of those whose office should recognize such. The scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses seat but they had a real problem with John the Baptist, whose his Divinely established authority Jesus invoked when challenged as to what authority he did things by. (Mk. 11:28ff) And “for the decision of their Scribes, or "Soferim" (Josephus, σοπισταί; N. T., γραμματεἴς), consisting originally of Aaronites, Levites, and common Israelites, they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law... (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees)
And thus Christ who died outside the camp and the upstart Church was established upon rejection by those who supposed a continuance of formal office and based on their interpretation of Scripture, while the means of establishment of the claims of Christ and the apostles was by conformism to Scripture, which they abundantly referenced as the supreme transcendent material authority, and the manner of attestation it reveals truth being given, which the apostles uniquely evidenced more than others. (2Cor. 12:12)
Rome's presumption is like that of the Pharisees, which overall manifests more of an outward form of Godliness and of the Christian church, and though no doubt some simple regenerated souls are therein, most therein do not testify to having experienced manifest regeneration by faith in the word of truth, but the only day of salvation they can point to is when they were sprinkled as infants upon proxy faith, and their expressed hope of salvation is typically largely based on the power of Rome and their own merit .
Outside this form are the majority of believers who are rejected by the priestly Pharisees as having no right to official authority, and while imperfect, including in form, yet they believe the gospel which effects conviction of their damned and destitute state, and which compels true heartfelt repentance and faith, resulting in manifest regeneration. And which happened to me as a Catholic at age 25, though raised devoutly, and then (remaining 6 years therein), i realized the vast difference between institutionalized faith Catholic or Protestant, and that of the church of the living God. And thanks be to God for His enduring mercy.
“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....
And,
neither the “pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)
All God-inspired teaching is infallible, being Divine revelation, but it is held that not all infallible teaching is inspired, but which is only held to be the authentic interpreter of Divine revelation.
However, you cannot be Divinely inspired without being infallible, otherwise Scripture could be in error, and the authority of the apostles depended upon inspired Scripture, while being an instrument and steward of Divine revelation does not make you the assured infallible interpreters of it, or effectively supreme over it, which you would know if you read not the catechism (which you do not even bother to properly reference), but which the Scriptures show.
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.
Again you are repeating the same refuted arguments, as here, ignoring the fact that mere claims are a poor or argument and not proofs. As said, the claim that Rome's magisterium and the Tradition she channels cannot contradict Scripture rests upon the premise of the assured infallibility of Rome, which she infallibly defines Tradition and Scripture as giving her. She can universally declare doctrine on faith and morals without invoking one text and it would still be considered infallible.
► Back to the Bible
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.
OK, that's it. Why should i need to time and again patiently correcting your seeming knee jerk denials or tendency to ignore explanations, context or words. and resulting in misrepresentations, the latter of which you engage in again here?
On this subject, first you state, Evidence would be nice in response to my assertion that “even the Bible was restricted (and even banned in some places),” completely ignoring the nice blue hot link, and then construe me as saying that you presently cannot go and get a bible and read it anytime I wish? To which i point out that my qualifying word was “was,” yet you still come back and present me as arguing that Catholics are forbidden to read Scripture! Really!
|
and even the Bible was restricted” Evidence would be nice. What do you mean “evidence would be nice” in response to “even the Bible was restricted.” You did this before, resulting in my posting great lengths to any already long post, and evidence that you do not go linked material. Perhaps you do not recognize hot linked words, but when you see an underlined word (usually blue) that makes your cursor turn into a hand, then if you click on it with your mouse it will take you to another page. Are you saying that I cannot go and get a bible and read it anytime I wish? You are gravely mistaken if you believe that is the case. We are encouraged to reflect upon scripture whenever possible. Are you saying that my qualifying word “was” means it is still is? << |
If you actually went to the linked page then you would see that i actually document the modern position that Rome encourages Bible reading (can't beat em, join em).
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.
Come on BK. An objection based on a basic statement and due to your failure to move your finger for the details. What desperate objection will be next? The results of your overly contentious bent is going to end up getting you ignored. I simply said “even the Bible was restricted (and even banned in some places)” — not universally banned or as an immutable law, in which i case i would not have used WAS! — and instead i carefully provided a link for the detailed and balanced substantiation. And in which i quote popes and councils and provide history as both restricting free access to the Bible as well as favoring it.
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.
Again, here i also distinctly said that WAS, which means past tense! What kind of permission you would have needed would be relative to your position and prowess.
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.
I am glad, not sorry you say that, but there are two schools on the sufficiency issue in Roman Catholicism, both of which leave Rome as supreme. I will add that Scripture as materially sufficient includes providing for additional writings of this class being added until these ceased, as well providing for the church, which the Old Testament provides for. And even the instruments of its writing were subject to it, and did not always understand what they wrote. (1Pt. 1:11; 2Pt. cf. 1:20,21)
Frankly, the Church respects Sacred Scripture more than anybody else.
The devil also greatly respects Sacred Scripture for its power to expose him and degrade his rule, and if not working to restrict free access to Scripture, he raises up those who presume an anointing which makes them worthy of requiring implicit assent as effectively supreme over Scripture, or to degrade the Scriptures to being much that of folk tales and fables and the work of later editorialists. Cults work the former and liberals the latter, and Rome works both. And despite lofty pronouncements, the practical effect of her Roman-intensive ethos is to overall produce relative lethargy in reading Scripture, compared with her evangelical counterpart.
The END.
A good short read, even if a little dry.