DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay,

These things have happened because these various denominations have abandoned the Scripture as their ultimate authority not because they embrace it. They pay lip service to God's Word, but do not live by it, much like the Catholic Church does on various other issues. Just goes to prove to me that we are not to trust the institutions of man, but we are to trust wholly in God and His Word.

In Christ,

Thomas

Posted by: Thomas at September 23, 2004 5:19 PM

Jay,

It's funny that when the Catholic chuch makes a mistake you are quick to say it is only a few.
But you are willing to Paint Protestants with a broad brush for the practices of a few..

We should be able to prove our points and promote
our beliefs with out putting down our opponents
for what they believe.

All denominations have traditions apart from scripture. Protestants are not against Oral tradition or against tradition in general as long as it does not promote some new doctrine not supported by scripture or by the oral traditions of the Apostles..

As I have said in previous posts, I believe such
doctrines like purgatory and the immaculate conception of Mary are contrary to the Scripture
taken as a whole and with the traditions of the
apostles. These doctrines did not become OFFICIAL
Church dogma until many centuries after Jesus and the apostles.

You choose to interpret Matthew 16:19 as making the church bullet proof from any doctrinal error.
But that is not what the verse says or even implies. You believe that interpretation because the Catholic church teaches that is what it means. Fine, if that is what you want to believe but you will not concede that their might be another interptetaion from yours.

You never answer this simple question, if the Roman Catholic church can not make any Doctrinal errors then why did Jesus and Paul warn about false teachers in the church. If the Catholic church is the Only true church then these teachers and teachings would have to be within that church. Since according to the Catholic church the Protestant churches are not legitamate. So if the the Catholic church is the only valid church then it only makes sense that the warnings were about teachers and teachings in that church ..

Simply, Why make all of those warnings if the church could NOT fall into error ? It is ILOGICAL to make a warning against something that could NEVER happen ??? Why would Jesus contradict Himself ? That would be what He is doing if on the one hand He said that the church was protected from error and then turned around and warned that church to beware of error in that church ..

Why was Jesus rebuking six of the seven churches in Revelation if they were not making mistakes..?
Mistakes are Errors ...

If Jesus was saying that the Church could NOT
fall into error in Matt 16:19. Then explain
2 Peter 2:1, Matthew 24:24-25, 2 Corinthians 11:12-14, Matthew 7:15,1 John 4:1-4, 2 Timothy 4:3-5, Those are but of a few verses that warn
against false teachers and false teachings.

Let's agree that there are imperfect people in
all churches and not condemn a whole church for the actions or unscriptural beliefs of a few.

Your Brother In Christ,

Clem

Posted by: Clem at September 23, 2004 7:18 PM

Thomas...

Where and/or when has the Catholic Church ever "paid lip service to God's Word" but not lived by it...

And please note I reference the Catholic Church (i.e.; Her teachings etc...) and not individuals within the Catholic Church.

Also, you said, "These things have happened because these various denominations have abandoned the Scripture as their ultimate authority not because they embrace it..."

Yet these denominations all say that what they teach is directly from God's Word and from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. How do you know that these denominations are incorrect, and yours is correct in matters of faith and morals? Maybe the Holy Spirit has guided them to develop the teachings they now hold to be true (i.e.; teachings on contraception, homosexuality, etc.). But you say that it is the Holy Spirit who is telling you that your denomination is correct. HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Also, as Jay mentions, until 1930, all denominations taught that contraception was condemned by God. Now almost all denominations not only accept it, but see it as the responsible thing for married couples to do. How is it possible that something that could be condemned as immoral for 1930 years suddenly become moral? Does God change His moral laws? Or is it that people turn away from the moral laws of God so that they can do things their own way? Which is it?

For a very enlightening discussion on this very topic, I urge you to check out "Julie the Protestant's" site at www.julietheprotestant.blogspot.com. Scroll down to the entry from July 22, 2004 entitled, "Tom's Topics Round 2: Pick your Poison!". Please take a look at it, and read all the comments. Let me know of your thoughts.

God bless,
Nickie.

Posted by: Nickie at September 23, 2004 8:03 PM

Hi Thomas;

Sorry, the website is actually:
http://julietheprotestant.blogspot.com

Nickie.

Posted by: Nickie at September 23, 2004 9:46 PM

Nickie,

You wanted some examples of the Church paying lip service to the Scripture. Oh boy! I didn't really want to go here, but let's see . . . The Marian Doctrines. The Doctrine of Infallibility of the Catholic Church. The Doctrine of Salvation as Faith plus Works. The Doctrine of Purgatory. The practice of Patron Saints. The veneration of "holy" items. ie idol worship. The Sale of Indulgences. The practice of discouraging the reading and dissemination of Scripture. The Crusades. The Inquisition. The continual adding to the gospel of Christ. The treatment of the Jews throughout the Church’s history . . . Shall I go on?

How do I know that my interpretation is the correct one? I study Scripture and pray and then study some more. I seek to understand the culture in which Scripture was written and the overall message of each writing. I use sound hermeneutics. I read books from others whom I respect who use sound hermeneutics and who have lived and live lives of exemplary service to God’s kingdom. I ask opinions of others who I respect. After all of this, if it is not clear from Scripture or in my mind, I make a decision that I believe that God is leading me to make. I may very well be wrong, and I may have to answer to God for that wrong decision, but it is my decision to make. I do not close my eyes and hope and trust that a bunch of fallible men in Rome are dictating to me what the correct interpretation of the Scripture is, especially when by the plain reading of Scripture it is readily apparent to me that it says the exact opposite of their interpretation.

As far as Protestant denominations stating that contraception was ok after the 1930’s. First I’d like to say that I do not base my faith in fallen institutions. So the fact that a many denomination flip-flopped on this issue or others doesn’t faze me, or my faith, as it seems to faze others. Nor do I blindly follow a particular denomination’s beliefs. My faith solidly rest on the atoning work of Christ as presented in the Word of God. Secondly, I believe that history or consistency does not necessarily equate to truth. If that were so, we would still be under the old mosaic covenant, and the Church would still be saying mass in Latin. Thirdly, there are very good solid arguments on both sides of this issue, so to just dismiss contraception as evil because we have always believed it to be without actually thinking about the issue is just plan being ignorant. Fourthly, the way I view it natural family planning is contraception no matter how you or the Church want to characterize it. So we are really splitting hairs here no matter on which side of the fence you fall. I’d like to see someone do research to see if the endorsement of NFP has always been the Catholic position. I highly doubt it. Fifthly, call me arrogant, but yes I do believe that people can be wrong about an issue for close to 2000 years. Many people including the Church thought that the sun rotated around the earth for 1500 years. (This was deemed by those people a religious issue “a matter of faith and morals” in case you say it was not.) So my thinking is not such a large leap.

I hope that I have answered your questions. By making this list above, I am not seeking a defense of the various Catholic doctrines, as that has been addressed ad infinium ad nausium elsewhere already on this blog. So please don’t go there. You asked. I answered. Let’s leave it at that.

In Christ,

Thomas

Posted by: Thomas at September 23, 2004 10:57 PM

Clem--

"The Church," and individual clergy within it are two different things.

The Church, in terms of the teaching authority which cannot err, is defined as the successor of Peter singly or the bishops in union with the pope as a whole teaching and/or defining the Truth of God as they were charged to do by Christ himself.

For space sake I'll not get into the Biblical proof for what I just said in this comment...

One difference between Catholicism and all Protestants is that Protestants are like the U.S. Army -- a Church of One. You may agree on certain things with other Protestants, but, in essence, Truth in your life comes down to you and your Bible and what you perceive God is confirming in your heart.

Catholicism, on the other hand, is an Institution which is greater than the individuals which make it up at any given point in history. The Institution promotes and protects Truth -- a Truth which was True before the current individuals were around and will be True once we're all gone.

Will individual priests and bishops teach untruth at times? Yes. Does that scandalize the entire Church? Nope. Why? Because of what I said, the Church is more than any one ego-maniacal (or simply errant) cleric. The teachings of any individual layman, priest, or bishop, can be tested against the consistent teaching of the Church since the time of Christ -- even on matters which Protestants wrongly assume to be recent innovations like Mary's Immaculate Conception (which was expounded by Augustine in terms that suggest it was an old, no-brainer Truth).

No one ever said that the Catholic Church consisted in every single priest and bishop always and at all times teaching Truth. The Church consists in the Institution -- that is, the official teaching emanating from Rome whether via the Magisterium or the bishops of the world in communion with the Successor of Peter -- teaching Truth.

And that Institutional teaching of Truth is what we were guaranteed the Holy Spirit would not allow us to muck up.

Posted by: Crowe at September 23, 2004 11:03 PM

Thomas--

You have a sorely, sorely, distorted view of soooo many things Catholic that comments on this thread wouldn't do justice to them. We'll have to start from the beginning...

You believe the Bible is the Word of God...

Why?

Posted by: Crowe at September 23, 2004 11:06 PM

I'll let all our Protestant brethren in on my general angle here so there is no mystery...

1) Protestants have no basis upon which to quote the Bible as inerrant because they deny the authority upon which that inerrancy was established (the Catholic hierarchy as successors of the Apostles)

2) It is not the Catholics who pay lipservice to Scripture, Catholics are the only ones to read and pay attention to the WHOLE BOOK rather than a few pull quotes that suit our purposes.

So, Thomas, now you know what my thesis is and my basis for asking the question I left off with last time.

Posted by: Crowe at September 23, 2004 11:19 PM

Crowe and all,

With apologies to Joe for lifting some of his language, I present to you why I believe that the Scripture is inspired by God. Critic it as you may.

1. I believe in the historical accuracy of the New Testament. It accurately describes what Jesus and his immediate followers taught and the events of their lives. I believe that there is sufficient evidence that the New Testament was written by the various authors who claimed authorship.

2. Based on the plain reading of the historical New Testament, Jesus claimed that he was the Son of God, that he had come to redeem the world, that he had the power to forgive sins etc. He was not just a misunderstood good man. Either He was who he said he was or he was a lunatic or a liar. I choose to believe that Jesus is who he said he was. I acknowledge that my beliefs while based upon historic facts and reason are a statement of faith.

3. Due to Christ's claims and my belief in those claims, I believe that Christ had supreme authority over all creation.

4. Based upon the historic Bible, Christ clearly gave the Apostles the authority and the duty to preach the Gospel. Christ also commissioned Paul as an apostle and gave him authority to preach the Gospel.

5. Because of this authority and because of their close proximity to Christ as his direct followers, when these men were preaching the Gospel or teaching matters of faith and morals their words were inspired by God and infallible. Preaching and teaching can be done either orally or through the written word.

6. The apostles clearly wrote the books of the New Testament with the authority given to them.

7. Thus every book in the New Testament with the exception of Mark, Luke, Acts, James, and Jude (the non apostolic books) are clearly inspired scripture.

8. The non apostolic books are written by the contemporaries and associates of the apostles, and these men were recognized as great leaders in the early church. Since the non apostolic writers were contemporaries of the apostles, and because there is a tremendous harmony in the teachings between the apostolic writings and the non apostolic writings, I believe that these writings are also inspired.

9. By the end of the apostolic age, around 100 AD, these letters and books were widely disseminated among the various churches throughout Christendom. All early Christians believed that most of the existing New Testament was divinely inspired, most early Christians believed that all the writings that make up the existing New Testament were inspired.

10. At an early counsel of the church, these books were officially recognized by the catholic or universal church as it existed at the time as "canonical", or the rule and standard which all of the church's teachings and practices would be measured. They discovered, recognized and received the divinely inspired books by using much the same criteria and rules as I have used above. They did not flip a coin or choose lots and trust God's divine providence, but studied the evidence before them to reasonably choose which books would be considered. By creating this Cannon, they did not have the ability to cause a particular fallible or uninspired writing to suddenly become inspired or infallible, nor did they claim this ability. They merely officially recognized what was already the nature of these writings.

11. Christ and the New Testament writers clearly viewed the Old Testament as divinely inspired and infallible. Because of my belief in who Christ is, I too believe the Old Testament is divinely inspired.

12. I believe that the term "Scriptures" referred to by Christ and the Apostles included all the books of the present Old Testament, but did not include the Apocratha. Although Christ and the New Testament writers quoted liberally from the Old Testament, not once did they refer to the Apocratha writings. Most of the first century Jews at the time the New Testament was being written did not accept the Apocratha as Scripture. The Jews today do not accept the Apocratha as Scripture.

13. God in the past has preserved His teachings and worked His will through the written word. There is no reason to assume that He would not continue to do so.

14. From the preeminence that Christ placed on the written word and the disdain He had for the oral traditions of His day, I have reasonably concluded that He never intended nor was it His will to leave the church without some form of written scripture in which to guide it, and with only oral tradition which can easily be corrupted.

15. The Good News of the Bible has miraculously changed the lives of millions of people throughout history from living in self centered unrighteousness and given them hope and a reason to live selfless righteous lives working together toward the kingdom of God. It has caused man to have a closer relationship with God. Whenever the good news of the Gospel as found in Scriptures has been preached to a new people group a light enters that region and peoples lives are changed.

Based on the above statements, I have reasonably concluded that the books that make up the Bible are a fallible grouping of infallible books which are inspired by God. Or in other words the Bible is not an authorized collection of books, but a collection of authorized books. In stating all of this I do not rely on any one statement above, but taken as a whole they present overwhelming evidence that it is true.

I hope I answered your question. I'm sure that it will not be adequate enough for most of you, but for me it is.

In Christ,

Thomas

Posted by: Thomas at September 24, 2004 10:33 AM

Crowe,

The immaculate conception was not made official
church doctrine until 1854 (Source the Catholic
encyclopedia on line) Why did it take 1900 years
for the church to make this an official doctrine if this was so important? The selling of Indulgences was a sanctioned church practice, is that scriptural or apostolic? Can we buy God's favor?

On this blog two verses are consistantly quoted
over and over as proof that the doctrine of the Catholic church is Bullet proof and can not err.
Matthew 16:19. The RCC interprets the gates of hell not prevailing against the church to mean that their doctrines could not be in error. Is that what the verse says OR is that what the church reads into the verse ?

And the second verse :1 Timothy 3:14-16
14 These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 16 And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory

This also is interpteted to mean that the church
could not err. "The church of the Living God the Pillar and ground of truth" to mean that the church could not err. For space sake I will not
post all the scriptues but there are many warning about false teachers and false teachings in the Church (2 Peter 2:1) The rest are a few posts back in this forum..

It is illogical and contradicting, if Jesus was
inferring that He would keep the church from error in those two verses and then in other verses to warn against False teachers and False teachings in the church. Why would you need to warn about error if the church could not fall into error. That is a contradiction. I don't think Jesus Contradicts Himself, that would make
HIS words NOT credible.

You say that Catholocism is an Institution.
The definition of the word church in original language of the text defines Church as "Called Out" or a group

The church that Jesus started was NOT an institution but a living body, of Which He is the head and we are the members or parts of that body.

You say that Protestants have no basis to claim
the bible since the Catholic church put it together. That church takes credit for something
they did not author but merely put together in one book. Catholics want to ignore their Jewish
roots. The fact is the early church was created by a JEW and His disciples were all JEWS.

When they quoted scripture they were again quoting from a book written under the inspiration of God by Moses and the prophets who
were all Jews... The New testiment is a record of Christ's time here and instructions for the church. Christ was a Jew.

So the bible is a Jewish book written by mostly
Jewish God inspired authors. Jesus wasn't a Christian or a Catholic, He was a Jew.. What
was His instruction to the apostles, even Paul.
Go preach to the Jew first and then to the uttermost parts of the World..

At the counsels where the contents of the bible
were debated, Most of the OT was agreed upon.
The books in question were the books of the NT.
The Only part the Catholic church played in the creation of the bible was choosing for the most
part what books should become the NT.

But to claim that the Bible is a Catholic Creation is a little disingenuos and misleading.

I submitt that the true church of Jesus and the Apostles was High Jacked and compromised by
Constantine and early church fathers who were influenced by pagan practices which were incorported into the Apostolic church and finally became the Roman Catholic Church...

The Marian doctrines, purgatory, the selling of indulgences the crusades and the inquisition are
but a few of the doctrines and practices I am sure Jesus and the apostles never envisioned for the church Christ commissioned.

Would Jesus or the apostles advocate paying money to gain a spot in heaven ? Would they approve of spreading the Gospel using force or
coersion as went on during the crusades and the
Spanish inquisition?

Did Jesus or the Apostles ever say or write one
word about venerating and praying to Mary?

The obvious answer to all of those questions is
NO.. Yet you criticize Protestants for Holding the bible up as the cheif source of God's Wisdom and God's Truth.

The RCC quotes and I believe misquotes scriptures
when it suites their purposes and falls back Not on Apostolic Tradition but on Church Father and other church traditions when they can not reconcile a teaching with the bible.

Let's face it Catholics and Protestants use the
bible to justify their beliefs and teachings.

You would disqualify Protestants from using the
bible as a source because they didn't assemble it. Does that fact make the contents of that book
any less true ???

Either it is Truth for everyone or it is NOT...
It can't be just truth for Catholics and not
Protestants just because they don't belong to your group.. By dennying Protestants Gods word
you are some how saying that it is not true.

If it's not a valid source for them then it can
not be a valid source for the Catholic church either.. It's a book that was writtemn almost entirely by Jews... The Catholics don't have any
legitamate claim to it either, because Jews
wrote it...

The simple truth is that it is God's word and it
is there for ANYONE who wants to use it and believe it..

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Posted by: Clem at September 24, 2004 11:48 AM

Clem,
The selling of indulgences was never defined as Church doctrine, nice try. It was done by men who were making an error, but not as an "official" church practice.

Also, the immaculate conception didn't have to be defined until some heretic came along and said it wasn't so. Just like the doctrine that Christ was fully human and fully God wasn't necessary until the Arian heresy.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at September 24, 2004 2:08 PM

Jay,

"The selling of indulgences was never defined as Church doctrine, nice try. It was done by men who were making an error, but not as an "official" church practice."

Fine Jay, but at the same token, protestant churches do not make an official doctrine out of contraception. You have to look at this equally. If a church does not condemn contraception...they then approve it. Just like the RCC did not condemn sales of indulgences at one time in history. Therefore at some time in history...while not made "official"...they approved sales of indulgences. You can't argue this. The concept is the same. It was a practice that was done by the RCC. A practice done in error.

God Bless

Posted by: Jeff at September 24, 2004 3:01 PM

Clem and Thomas;

There is ample ample ample evidence for every one of the Church's doctrines which you dispute. If you don't believe me, I suggest you start truly and objectively studying each one and why the Church teaches it. You will find indisputable arguements basic on logic and reason (not emotion or exegetical gymnastics) for each and every one of them.

Do you believe that somehow you know more about the theology, philosophy, and history (to name but a few) of Christianity than a Church that has been studying it for 2000 years?

Please understand when you argue your points that YOU and YOUR personal interpretation of the Bible and of church history are up against the intense intellectual study of over 2000 years. Some of the most intellectual minds in history (Augustine, Aquinas, etc...) have delved into aspects of theology and philosophy that you (or I for that matter) wouldn't even know to think about.

I myself am only coming to learn of the incredible depth and richness of Catholic teaching and theology. IT IS IMMENSE!! And the more I find, the more I realize how absolutely microscopic is my knowledge on such topics. And I know that Catholic teaching and theology is based on 2000 years of intellectual study using LOGIC and REASON, so I trust it, as God gave us the use of LOGIC and REASON in order to more fully come to know Him.

I think Crowe puts it very very well when he says, "Catholicism, is an Institution which is greater than the individuals which make it up at any given point in history. The Institution promotes and protects Truth -- a Truth which was True before the current individuals were around and will be True once we're all gone."

Thomas....
Did you read the comments on that website I suggested you look at. I'm afraid your arguements against contraception just don't cut it. Take a look.

God bless,
Nickie.

Posted by: Nickie at September 24, 2004 3:13 PM

Nickie,

Sir Isaac Newton was a great man, a highly intellectual individual who discovered for us many of the laws of physics. He was much more intelligent than any of us. He was admired by almost all and the study of physics grew because of him. Just as he stood on the shoulders of those that went before him, he too had many followers who expounded on his theories. People thought he had figured out how the universe worked.

The only problem was . . . he was wrong.

Please, please, please get this. I believe that we owe a great deal of debt to the early church fathers and their theology for who we are as Christians. We stand upon their shoulders for certain. But to just assume that because they came before us they were automatically right in every aspect of their thinking is a fallacy. Just as it was a fallacy to assume that Newton had it all figured out. The early church fathers were fallen men. They were not infallible in their thinking. They were a product of their time as much as we are. They allowed their culture to influence them in ways they probably didn’t even realize. So while I read everything that they teach with respect, I do not just assume that they were right. I test what they wrote as I do anyone's writing against what I know to be true from the Scripture and against everything else that I have learned.

I do not want to sound arrogant here when I say I study the Scriptures and apply my understanding of it to my life. As I will be held accountable for how I live my life based on my understanding. And to some degree I will also be held accountable for everyone else I am in authority over. I read and apply with fear and trembling. So it is not something to be done lightly, nor is it something to so with preconceived motives.

With great freedom comes great responsibility, and I agree a lot of Protestants (and I have been guilty myself) come at Scripture thinking “How can I use Scripture to prove my point or justify my lifestyle?” instead of letting the plain reading of Scripture just speak to them and adjusting their lifestyle to suit Scripture. I think that this is where we get all kinds of whacky beliefs. Those people will be held accountable for their actions. Just as we all will. For as Romans 1:20 says we all already know what the right thing to do is. How? Because it is written on our heart, and because of this we are all without excuse.

I hope that this helps. I honestly do not believe that I will convince any of you, that I am right. I debate here to sharpen my iron, to see if I have come at Scripture with preconceived notions and to expose them, and hopefully root them out. I have never had to defend my belief on many of these issues and it is good for me to develop "the reason for the faith that is in me" as Paul would put it. I hope that you all too have an open mind, and will not think that just because someone once said it 1500 years ago that it must be true.

In Christ,

Thomas

P.S. I breezed through the website. I may look into it closer, but it didn’t seem to me that they presented anything new or unique to the discussion. Believe me; both I and my wife have researched the issue very thoroughly.

Posted by: Thomas at September 24, 2004 4:53 PM

Thomas;

Where in what I wrote did I say that I thought all of these theologians and Fathers were infallible? I never claim that because I don't believe that.

But I do believe that the ongoing study and growth in understanding in matters of Faith does lead to conclusions that cannot be denied. (These include many of the teachings of the Church which aren't explicitly in the Bible, but which Protestants believe e.g.; the Dual Nature of Christ, the Doctrine of the Trinity, etc...)Hence, when this happens, in accordance with Church history and Tradition, the Church declares something of doctrine.

Take your physics example. I am undoubtedly not a physicist, but I do know that the idea and understanding of the Law of Universal Gravitation developed over time (notice I said the idea and understanding developed over time - the Law of Gravitation was always true, it just took time for humans to learn about and understand it) ...some had it, others did not, others were close....but the study and review of what was known and what was postulated lead to (for one) the development of the Equation of the Universal Law of Gravitation. Now physicists rely on what Newton (and others) discovered to pursue further understanding of the laws of physics.

This is exactly how the Church works in matters of Truth. Theologians and philosophers study and go over something until they come up with an answer that cannot be disputed logically. The Church doesn't make up Truth, just as Newton didn't make up the Universal Law of Gravitation. The Truth was always there, it just took time for humans to learn about it and understand it.

God bless,
Nickie.

Posted by: Nickie at September 24, 2004 6:08 PM

Nickie,

Did Jesus say upon this Rock I build my Insritution? The church is made up of people non theologians. The apostle Paul admittedly was a very educated man, But Peter and most of the other apostles were blue colar guys. They weren't theologians.. Jesus Picked them, he could have chosen the Saducees or the Pharisees who were educated men well versed in the law but He didn't... I wonder why ?

What tradition or scripture approved of selling
indugences ??? Just because you do something for
2000 years does not mean the practice is right?
Longevity doesn't equal truth...

The Jews are an a very intelligent people. They had 2000 years of history before the church. God
spoke to them directly through Moses. He gave
them the prophets and the law and the OT and yet the group as a whole didn't recognize their Messiah. 2000 year later most still don't recognize their Messiah.

You don't need to be a theologian to or highly educated to be a Christian. All that is required is Child like faith and a willingness to follow Jesus.

I really want to get away from putting down someone elses beliefs to make mine better..
I disagree with many of the RCC's doctrines which were in my last post. But if it works for you and others and makes sense to you and others
that's great... This whole forum (BLOG) lends itself to an us against them scenario.

Who is the one at the root of division and Pride.
Why it's that Angel of Light Satan...

We have Jesus in common. We have the Body and Blood of Christ in common... Most Protestants are Pro Life, Against the Sin of Homosexuality,
and pro Family.. Yet we spend time trying to prove which denomination is the true church ?

I am sure that Satan is very happy with all the
discord among Christians.. I wish we could get back to the Joy and the simplicity of the first century church instead of the Institutions that have been built on both sides of the debate ...

I don't understand why both sides can't just state their position and let the reader decide ?
My posts may be considered combative but that is only because of my impression that if your post is not in line with the Institution your opinion is automatically wrong..

Your Brother In Christ,

Clem

Posted by: Clem at September 24, 2004 6:43 PM

Clem;

I never said that one had to be a theologian to be a Christian. All I'm saying is that there is ample evidence and study for the Truths that the Catholic Church teaches. Please don't put words into my mouth.

You keep repeating this idea of selling indulgences as evidence that the Catholic Church is wrong. The Church as a whole never sanctioned the selling of indulgences. Did some members of the Church sell indulgences? Yes. But it was never declared doctrine of the Church. Your arguement would be equal to saying that because there are some within the Church today who promote and support abortion, that the Church is pro-abortion and is therefore errant. This is not the case. The Church HAS NEVER and WILL NEVER sanction abortion, just as the Church HAS NEVER and WILL NEVER officially sanction the selling of indulgences. But there are those within the Church who deny it's teachings and do things the way they want to. Do you see the difference Clem?

This blog doesn't necessarily have to promote an "us against them" mentality. The reason this blog is here is that Jay, Joe, Dave, Krista, Danny, and Maria have discovered the Truth of the Catholic Church, and want to share their incredible discovery with others(and when one comes to know the immense richness and Truth of the Catholic Church, I mean INCREDIBLE). And when one does begin to understand what the Catholic Church is truly all about, there is no going back. Everything suddenly makes sense. Everything. And suddenly you realize that you are a part of God's family...complete with a Father, a mother, brothers and sisters in Christ (those who are still living on earth, and those who have already met God in heaven). IT IS AMAZING and MIND-BLOWING and you want to share it with everyone (hence, I'm sure, the sub-title of the blog: Holding the Candle of Truth out to the WORLD)

I appreciate, Clem, that you don't understand the teachings of the Catholic Church. Your postings clearly indicate that. Your faith in Christ is admirable, and I know you love God and want to serve Him. All we are trying to do here, Clem, is to clear up the obvious misunderstandings you (and others)have about the Church ...to help you to see that there is ample reason for why the Church teaches what it does. We could go around and around in circles, Clem, all day and all night, but when it comes down to it, those of us who are Catholic and understand our Faith will never go back on it. We have found a pearl of great price, and just as so many of those who lived before us, would be willing to die for it.

In Christ,
Nickie

Posted by: Nickie at September 24, 2004 7:27 PM

was unable to get to a computer most of the day..

Thomas-- I will say that is one of the most thought-out defenses of the Canon from a non-Catholic perspective that I have ever seen. Usually I get invective and irrational statements when i ask that. Bravo.

But yes, I do have some issues.

I'll make as brief a comment as I can on each of your points, according to your numbering:

1) Few of them actually claimed authorship for themselves. Most were attributed and we're far from sure who wrote Hebrews.

2) No argument.

3) No argument.

4) No argument.

5) Your conclusion "they were obviously inspired" does not follow from your "because" statement. I don't see anything in Tradition or Scripture that says anything about being Inspired. I agree with the point, but argue that you have no basis upon which to make it. I'll get into this more below.

6) For the most part, the Apostles didn't write anything. They passed on oral tradition that was recorded by someone else at a later date. The transmission, or handing on, or "Tradition" of their words was protected by the Holy Spirit as part of the "Gates of Hades not prevailing" though. Again, this is a point which you have no basis to make -- again more below.

7) Not from what you've presented so far. You seem to have made a jump somewhere from "historically accurate" and "written by someone close to Christ" to "Divinely Inspired" but you make no case as to why that jump is inevitable.

8) What about the Didache? The Acts of Peter? The Gospel of Peter? The Gospel of Thomas? The Sheperd of Hermas? The Letters of Clement? Those are all books contemporary to the Apostles and their immediate followers, why were their writings, which also have much, much harmony in teaching with the Apostolic writings, not included in the Canon? Have you studied them to give a good account of why not?

9) Have you ever seen the large number of differing Canons which circulated through the first 4 centuries until the canon was set down? There are no two lists the same, and there certainly was no agreement at the end of the first century since most the writings weren't actually written down yet. John's Gospel was less than 10 years old, Paul's writings were by and large still confined to the local churches to whom they had been written, etc. And I'll repeat, there definitely was not general agreement on the New Testament list in 100 -- there wasn't even general agreement in 350.

10) Here's the salient point. On what authority did those men at the councils of Carthage, Hippo and Rome in the 390's (that's where it happened, btw) presume to speak for God? After all, declaring in human terms a divine Truth -- the inspiration or lack thereof of a writing is a divine Truth -- is an act of supreme arrogance if one does not possess the authority to do so. So, by what authority did those men presume to speak for God? I'll tell you: by their special positions as the official successors of the Apostles. They were the bishops of the Catholic Church (yes, "catholic" means "universal," so when Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch used it in the first century as the accepted name of the Church Christ had founded he knew what he was saying, but I digress) as transmitted through the laying on of hands as Paul did to Timothy to make him a bishop as recorded in (I believe) his second letter to Timothy... It's what John did to Polycarp who laid hands on Irenaeus, etc, through to Augustine who received the authority from Ambrose, etc. The line of succession of bishops from the Apostles to the present day (that's today, 2004) is the unbroken connection we have to the time of Christ. And it was that authority upon which those men drew when they did the study of the books and declared that based on their human studies and much prayer, these books are Inspired and those aren't. And their decisions were accepted by the faithful -- even those who much disagreed -- because of their positions as bishops of the Catholic Church. The laying on of hands is where the authority derives. But you are correct, they didn't "make" them Inspired, they merely recognized the Truth.. just as they did with the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the Assumption in 1950... those things were True when they happened, we just didn't define them until later dates. This is all why i say you have no basis upon which to make the claims you do. There is no mere human test that can definitively and reliably result in the Truth of God. No merely scholarly study can be trusted. It requires something more: a divine teaching authority directly commissioned and protected by God. And that is what the Catholic Church means by "the Gates of Hades shall not prevail."

11) No argument there.

12) Actually, there is an instance where an apocryphal book is quoted in the New Testament. I'm lazy right now so I'm not going to look it up, but it's there. This is a more minor point. I don't have a doctrinal quibble with this point so it can pass.

13) Tell me, what did Christ write? What did he command be written? Nothing? So the single most significant episode in God's revelation of Truth to man included exactly zero writings? Then how can you say God did all that through the written word? God gave us the most significant revelation through the oral teaching and example of Christ. The Apostles passed it on orally and in practice. They wrote some stuff down, but belatedly, and even then, not all of them wrote. The writing came after the teaching. So preservation of some of the Truth certainly happened in writing, but you have no basis to say that all Truth is solely contained in the written word.

14) No offense, but I demand more than a "reasonable conclusion" on matters of the Truth of God. I'll repeat: there is no instance where Christ writes anything or commands things be written. So there is no reason to believe Christ intended for it all to be transmitted solely through writing. But He did clearly found a Church upon the Rock and gave the Holy Spirit to the Apostles who then appointed Bishops and others to help them in their work... and from that institution of bishops and elders came a definitive list of which books are Inspired. It certainly did not happen the other way around. That's historic fact.

15) Yes, when people are receptive to the Word of God their lives can certainly change. But that also is no proof for its Inspiration. C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Shakespears, and others have written books which have changed lives. Other First Century writings are just as good as those... and tell me, what's so "inspirational" about Philemon? It's three unremarkable paragraphs long, yet it's in there... so clearly something else is at play here aside from the good some people get out of it.

Also, don't forget that thousands of people, upon hearing the Word of God, reject it. It is not 100% effective in changing lives. And there are those who hear it, receive it, change their life for a time, but then revert to their old ways...

Bottom line, you have a good thought, but it's incomplete.

Posted by: Crowe at September 24, 2004 8:56 PM

Nickie,

So, do any protestant churches have an official document that approves contraception?? If so how do they make a doctrine official?

I ask because whether or nor it is made "official", the fact remained that it was practiced by the hierchy of the RCC. So whether or not it was made "official", the fact remains that the leaders of the RCC were in error.
The sale of indulgence was practiced by priests and bishops of the RCC. It does not matter if the doctrine "was not declared" or made "official", it was still a false practice that was done by the RCC.

God Bless

Posted by: Jeff at September 24, 2004 9:26 PM

Hi Jeff;

For a detailed explanation of all that the Church has officially declared as doctrine, please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Jeff, we all know there have been sinners within the Catholic Church. In fact, as we are all sinners, the Church on earth is made up entirely of sinners. But the Church itself, as Crowe puts it, "is an Institution which is greater than the individuals which make it up at any given point in history."

As I explained in a previous post, as an example, the Church officially teaches that abortion is (gravely) wrong. There are those individuals within the Church who don't agree with this teaching and go and do their own thing, but the Church has never, and will never, declare that abortion is acceptable. The same goes for all of the Church's official teachings.

Do you see the difference here Jeff? There is a BIG BIG difference. When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, He said, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against IT." Jesus did not say, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hades will not prevail against the individual members of my Church."

No surprise, there have been corrupt Popes in the history of the Church. Think for a minute how easy it would have been for such men to make a real mess of things. A Pope could have stated, "OK, it is now Church doctrine that all baptised members are to give 50% of all their property/money/children/whatever to the Pope." Or "It is now doctrine of the Church that all bishops are allowed up to 5 wives." Imagine where it could have gone from there. Yet none of these corrupt Popes ever did such a thing. They might have done crazy and horrible deeds as individuals, but the Church and it’s teachings stood through it under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

You see it does matter “if the doctrine "(is) declared" or made "official." That is how the Church is able to stand under the protection of the Holy Spirit and not teach anything contrary to Truth when it is made up of sinful and fallible human beings who do sinful and corrupt things.

Do you see the difference?

God bless,
Nickie.

Posted by: Nickie at September 25, 2004 12:40 AM

Hi Jeff--

You said...

"So, do any protestant churches have an official document that approves contraception?? If so how do they make a doctrine official?"

They don't "make a doctrine official." But they remove the guilt of sin from something by legitimizing it. They have no authority to speak for God, but they do declare, for those who subscribe to them, reasons why they randomly decide that after One Thousand, Nine Hundred, Thirty years of Christianity, (which includes Five Hundred Thirteen Years after the Reformation) Conraception was no longer a grievous sin amongst Christians.

No, they have no mechanism to build, but they certainly have a mechanism to tear down.

You said...

"I ask because whether or nor it is made "official", the fact remained that it was practiced by the hierchy of the RCC. So whether or not it was made "official", the fact remains that the leaders of the RCC were in error."

As I said in a previous post, actions of the hierarchy of the RCC and teachings of it are very different things. The question is not, nor ever has it been, whether an individual priest or bishop been perfect, but whether the Church, when rightly understood, taught in error. And the answer to that question is "no." Individual priests, deacons, bishops, even popes can be personally reprobate, but they never, never TAUGHT falsehood as Truth.

You said...

"The sale of indulgence was practiced by priests and bishops of the RCC. It does not matter if the doctrine "was not declared" or made "official", it was still a false practice that was done by the RCC."

Is this something you've researched or merely a talking point you've picked up in your anti-Catholic instruction? I won't and don't defend the selling of indulgences like I won't and don't defend the practices of many priests and bishops who did terrible things for which they will have to answer personally. But... "The RCC" never, as an institution, sold indulgences. No amount of conjecture by you makes the error of a few the accepted and intended practice of the whole. The selling of indulgences was wrong, but was never doctrinal. So the Authority of the Church was never invoked to support it, so the Church's full weight was never thrown behind it.

In Christ.

Posted by: Crowe at September 25, 2004 1:32 AM

Hi Thomas;

I would just like to make one change to something I said in my earlier post comparing Newton discovering the Law of Gravitation to how the Catholic Church determines Truth.

I said that "This is exactly how the Church works in matters of Truth."

I should have said "This is SIMILAR to how the Church works in matters of Truth." There are obvious differences which I am too tired to go into now. But the guidance of the Holy Spirit is one obvious difference I'll mention.

God bless,
Nickie.

Posted by: Nickie at September 25, 2004 3:55 AM

Crowe,

I have answered a question of yours, even if you consider it an incomplete one. I will flesh it out more for you when I have time. In the meantime please answer a question of mine.

What credible evidence can you give me that Christ ever commissioned the pope and the magisterium, the supposed successors of Peter and the apostles, to be infallible on matters of faith and morals?

I’m interested in hearing your response.

In Christ,

Thomas

Posted by: Thomas at September 25, 2004 7:53 AM

Nickie,

You stated: “This is [similar to] how the Church works in matters of Truth. Theologians and philosophers study and go over something until they come up with an answer that cannot be disputed logically. The Church doesn't make up Truth, just as Newton didn't make up the Universal Law of Gravitation. The Truth was always there, it just took time for humans to learn about it and understand it.”

And yet would you agree that if you come at an issue from a faulty premise you will get a faulty conclusion, no matter how good your logic is or how long you have studied the issue?

In Christ,

Thomas

Posted by: Thomas at September 25, 2004 8:02 AM

Nickie and Crowe,

So let me get this straight, I don't want to put
any words in your mouths. I hope I will articulate your position correctly .. Since for
some reason I can not copy and paiste from your
post I will try and summerize ..

{Did members of the Church sell indulgences Yes, but it was never an an official doctrine of the church and it was not sanctioned by the church.}

I hope I have captured your thoughts correctly?

From my point of view that is a convenient COP
OUT.. If the Pope is the head, he had the power
to excommunicate Priests or Bishops that were doing or teaching something contrary to the official teachings of the church.

Did the Pope or popes of the time that this was going on separate the wrong doers from the church? I honestly don't the answer to the that question but I am guessing this is not the case
since this was one of the issues Luther had with the church in his 95 point thesis that he nailed to the church door.

If the Church leadership took no action for wrong doing like this then they were complicent
in it. If they took no official action then they were as guilty as the wrong doers...

If something is Wrong it is wrong, to allow it to go on is just as wrong as doing the wrong..

What It SEEMS like you are saying is as long as
something is not official church doctrine,the church is off the hook and not responsible ? But if someone representing the Catholic church does something wrong and the church does nothing to discipline that member aren't they just as guilty and are they not approving of the practice even though the practice was not made an official doctrine?

What I am trying to say is it sounds like if the
church doesn't sanction or approve of something they hace no responsibility for what an official
of that church does?

For example if a priest or a Bishop were to come
out Pro Abortion. I would expect the Pope and other bishops to officially denounce that point of view and to discipline that Priest. If
that Priest or bishop refused to back down that
priest or bishop would be removed from their duties with the church and if they still refused to back down to be excommunicated....

Did this happen with Indulgences???? If not then
why not?

The church as a representative of Christ has the
Duty and an obligation to take every measure neccissary to show that it is against that wrong teaching and against out and out Sin and to take substantive measures to get that cancer out of the church.

As I said above, It is a COP OUT if there is Wrong doing or Wrong Doctrine being practiced or being taught in any church and that church does nothing tangible to correct the problem...

Since I don't know what the church actually did
regarding indulgences I can not make a condemnation but If they did not try to correct it then they were wrong ???

In Christ,

Clem

Posted by: Clem at September 25, 2004 12:02 PM

Nickie,

Clem basically said the same thing that I was going to say. The Pope and Bishops are who you consider to make up the RCC(the institution). This is what you said
"As I said in a previous post, actions of the hierarchy of the RCC and teachings of it are very different things. The question is not, nor ever has it been, whether an individual priest or bishop been perfect, but whether the Church, when rightly understood, taught in error. And the answer to that question is "no." Individual priests, deacons, bishops, even popes can be personally reprobate, but they never, never TAUGHT falsehood as Truth."

Clem is right in saying that this was not rebuked by higher authorities within the RCC. Whether or not it was not made official does not change the fact that it was still practiced.
It was a recognized practice. Not like little boys being molested by priests here and there. This was a recognized practice by the RCC hierchy (i.e. the pope and bishops) and by the RCC members. It was an accepted practice. A practice that RCC did not correct for a time. Thereby making the RCC in error at some point.
To say that it was not declared official is a cop out indeed.

God Bless

Posted by: Jeff at September 25, 2004 12:39 PM

Nickie and Crowe,

I would like to add my two cents in here as well. There is such a thing as a sin of omission. If one has the ability to right a wrong, and does not do so they are as guilty as the wrong doer.

If I see a small child drowning in a shallow fountain, I have the moral obligation to save that child. If I do nothing to save that child, it would be as if I was the one who actually threw the child in.

There are many instances throughout the Church's history where the church had the moral obligation to right a wrong and the ability to right that wrong, but they conveniently did not do so. The sale of indulgences is just one of many things. You cannot hide behind the statement of "We didn't actually authorize the wrong." No the Church just allowed the wrong to be continuously committed in the Church's name, when it could have easily put a stop to it.

By the way, what is the actual harm in selling indulgences? It seems to me to fit in nicely with the Church’s works based system of salvation and purgatory. Instead of running from the Church’s past, I think the Church should embrace it. It would be a good money maker . . . Ah! now I see why it was just winked at . . .

Sorry to be redundant.

In Christ,

Thomas

Posted by: Thomas at September 25, 2004 2:30 PM

Thomas,

Just thought I would add my two cents worth as well...

First, the Church did condemn the selling of indulgences, shortly after the Protestant Reformation began...So they didn't just turn the other way.

Second, the Church has and does embrace its past recognizing where "human" mistakes have been made (i.e. the selling of indulgences - not a matter of faith or morals, I might add) and asking for forgiveness and attempting to rectify the wrong.

Third, keep in mind Matthew 7:4-5:

Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is a log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Protestantism has far worst things, theologically and morally speaking, to deal with than the Catholic Church does. Protestants have compromised on divorce, birth control, in some denominations even abortion and homosexuality. On the other hand, despite all the "human shortcomings" of the Catholic Church, she has never waivered nor changed what she has believed. Definitely something that should be thought about. Of course, history isn't a problem for a church like yours Thomas since it has only been in existence for 15 years...but that's a whole issue in itself.

My final penny... Protestantism, as a whole, owes the world a big explanation of how it is not just another form of theological and moral relativism. I know many well-intended Protestants, all who sincerely read the Bible and live good lives, who believe different things, and I mean fundamental things like the purpose and function of Baptism, justification, even moral issues like birth control and divorce. All claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit when they interpret Sacred Scripture, all claim to have prayfully discerned what the Bible means. All unable to give me an explanation of the theological and moral waiverings of Protestantism. Some of them take the approach that ultimately we are all Christians and good people and that all that matters is that we believe in Jesus Christ, but that isn't in accord with Sacred Scripture. I always point them to John 17:20-23. Jesus CLEARLY says that our unity is the sign to world that God the Father has sent Him and loves us because He loves the Son. Yet, no reasonable explanation is given... Ultimately, the person who claims that he/she can read Sacred Scripture and definitely know what it means and what it doesn't makes themselves the "objective" authority and interpreter, thus making suspect all other interpreters who proceded them. Let me reemphasize that...if they have the ability to tell others that they interpret Scripture incorrectly they make themselves "the" authority, or better yet "the" objective and final authority. Again, something to think about. Personally, for me, Christianity loses all validity if the current state of affairs is alright, if the thousand of "Christian" denominations are in accord with the perfect will of God, because if it is then God, who all Christians claim divinely inspired Sacred Scripture, contradicts Himself. Just think about that....

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at September 25, 2004 5:42 PM

Thomas,

One more penny...your example you attempt to use in reference to the sin of ommission is inaccurate. Your levels of accountability are obviously incorrect as any court in this country or any other would reaffirm. The person who threw the child in the fountain attempting to drown the child would be guilty of murder or at least attempted murder whereas the bystander who did nothing would not...plain and simple. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a sin to let a person drown just that it is not equal to intentionally attempting to kill someone. Agreed?

Also, it is unfair to use a comparison like this when attempting to make a point about the Church's ommission in immediately addressing the selling of indulgences. One deals with taking of a human life while the other is simply a manifestation of wrongful greed. Again, something the Church did rectify, whereas the taking of a human life cannot be rectified once carried out, unless a miracle occurs.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at September 25, 2004 6:05 PM

Joe,

To your first point, why did the Church condemn the selling of indulgences AFTER the protestant reformation? I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

To your second point, I find it funny that whenever mistakes were made by the Catholic Church it is never in matters of faith and morals. It is always defined as something else. I suppose you can call it what you will.

To your third point, I will concede to your point that many Protestant organizations have also done some pretty foul things, but since my faith doesn't ride and fall on a falible institution, I can readily admit it. Unlike Catholics. See point two above.

To your last point, Please explain to me why Christ had to pray the prayer for unity? For under the Catholic system, if anyone didn't agree with the teachings of the Church then they were out of their ear. If they were out on there ear then they no longer were Christians. Under this system unity is automatic. It is unnecessary to even talk about it, let alone pray to God for it. You have taken a desire and prayer of Christ, and made it into a requirement. Further if you find the individual interpretation of Scripture so offensive, then I am still waiting for a Catholic exegesis of I Cor. 2:6-16. I would love to know the Church's take on it. For it seems to me very plain that we all have the mind of Christ so that we can indeed know the mind of God. Now whether we come at it with wrong motives and read into it things that are not there then we will be held accountable for that.

As to your second posting, I agree the crime is more severe, but the point is the same. I could use the same analogy for the inquisition which did result in deaths.

In Christ,

Thomas

PS I'm glad you are back.

Posted by: Thomas at September 25, 2004 8:58 PM

Thomas,

Thanks...I'm glad to be back.

To your first point, let's not lose sight of the real issue here. You claimed the Church never attempts to rectify situations where "human mistakes" have occurred. Your exact statement was:

There are many instances throughout the Church's history where the church had the moral obligation to right a wrong and the ability to right that wrong, but they conveniently did not do so. The sale of indulgences is just one of many things. You cannot hide behind the statement of "We didn't actually authorize the wrong." No the Church just allowed the wrong to be continuously committed in the Church's name, when it could have easily put a stop to it.

I just proved that this statement was false and inaccurate.

To your second point, its funny how the only mistakes within Catholicism that Protestants repeatedly point out aren't related to matters of faith and morals (i.e. the selling of indulgences, the Inquisition, etc.) All are misunderstood by Protestants, but remain their "staple" reasons for the Church's fallibility. How they reach this conclusion amazes me to this day. While matters like birth control, homosexuality, divorce, baptism, christian unity, etc. are most certainly matters of faith and morals.

To your third point, I don't know why you continually fail to see the fallibility of your whole argument is that you are willing to put your "full faith" in the Bible, a book which you claim to be infallible, that was given to you by an institution that you claim to be completely "fallible". You most likely will reply: "well I believe that the Holy Spirit protected the divine truth of the Bible down through the ages" but that still doesn't get around the fact that what you know about the Trinitarian God comes from the Bible which of itself could have been fallibly created by the "fallible" institution you insist on denying...

Fourth and final point, not so. Sin, mortal sin that is, cuts any person off, but that is why Christ gave the Church the Sacrament of Reconciliation. We can come to God in that sacrament and make our peace with Him and His Mystical Body, the Church, having our union with Him renewed and our sins forgiven. Also, are you trying to say that Jesus' prayer isn't His Will? The two cannot contradict one another.

I believe you mean 1 Cor 1: 6-16...let me know if these aren't the verses you meant to refer to. To St. Paul's words here the Church says Amen. Baptism is into Christ, therefore we belong to Him. The Church has taught this from the beginning. In fact this entire passage confirms what I have said above that UNITY IS NECESSARY. This is the ultimate point that St. Paul is making, that we are one in Christ. Here I have provided some of that wonderful Catholic exegesis that you were wanting:

St. Paul takes the Corinthians to task for the strife in their community--not, it seems, quarrels over matters of doctrine, but minor disagreements due to preferences for certain teachers. Even so, the Apostle is very much against factions, and he starts his letter by stressing that unity is essential to the Church.
He makes four points, as it were--an appeal (v. 10); a description of the state of affairs in Corinth (vv. 11-12); a doctrinal reflection: Christ cannot be divided (v. 13); and a summary of his (Paul's) ministry (vv. 14-17).
His appeal is virtually a warning: "I appeal to you by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." The Apostle only calls on the name of our Lord when he has very serious counsel to offer (cf. 1 Thess 4:1; 2 Thess 3:6); he makes it clear that it is a very grave matter ot put the unity of the Church at risk. Each of these groups in Corinth is appealing to whichever authority it prefers--without Paul, Apollos or Cephas having any say in the matter. Christ cannot be divided and therefore neither can the Church, Christ's body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-31).
Finally, St. Paul points out their feeble grounds for basing divisions on personal relationships: very few of them can claim to have been baptized by him, because his concentration has been on evangelization.
This entire passage is a defense of Church unity. Throughout the centuries the Church has confessed this truth of faith--from the Apostles' Creed ("I believe in the Holy Catholic Church") right down to the Creed of the People of God of Paul VI: "We believe that the Church which Christ founded and for which he prayed is indefectibly one in faith and in worship, and one in the communion of a single hierarchy" (no. 21).
- The Navarre Bible: Corinthians, Texts and Commentaries, pp. 41-42

Sound exegesis? Absolutely.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at September 26, 2004 1:41 AM

Crowe,

To continue our earlier conversation.

1. You are correct. I should have said, I believe that there is sufficient evidence that the New Testament was written by the various authors who claimed or were ascribed authorship.

2-4 Since we agree here I will not address this.

5. My premise is this. A. Christ gave the apostles (When I say the apostles I include the Apostle Paul.) the duty to teach on matters of faith and morals. B. Christ gave the apostles authority to teach on matters of faith and morals. C. He gave the apostles the ability to teach on matters of faith and morals. Given this, I am confused as to why you think it is such a stretch to assume that when the apostles were teaching on matters of faith and morals they were doing it perfectly correct and without error and with Christ’s divine inspiration. Teaching can be done in at least two forms. Orally preaching or through the written word. We have the Apostles' written word. We do not have a tape recording of their spoken word, no matter how much you may wish that Tradition is such.

6. The Apostles wrote every book of the New Testament aside from Mark, Luke, Acts, James and Jude. How can you say that for the most part they never wrote a thing, but passed on their teachings? These oral teachings/Traditions may have been passed on, but how do you know that they were not later corrupted? Especially since we all know that men are fallible, and that their heart is desperately wicked. You have absolutely no basis to claim this other than a few verses that are far from clear. ie your “Gates of Hades”. What exactly does this mean? It could mean any number of things. It would take mental gymnastics to extrapolate that these Oral Traditions were protected by the Holy Spirit from this verse. There is in fact nothing written in the historical writing of the apostles which clearly states that the apostles believed that these oral traditions would be so protected. You assume you are correct in your interpretations. This is an assumption I do not make.

7. I think I have clarified my statement with the above.

8. I am not attempting to reinvent the wheel here. I fully admit that I have allowed the men that have gone before to do the heavy lifting for me. I rely on what they have found that in regards to the these other writings that there were either questions regarding the authorship or the subject matter or both.

9. I have never stated that there was 100% agreement on the canon. Nor do I doubt that there were fringe groups and gnostics who had formed many of their own canons. The real question is why it took so long for the church to authorize the canon if there was so much disagreement. This was an extremely important item to neglect for close to 300 years. Maybe its possible that there was no actual highly structured organization in which to make the decision until around the time the decision was made.

10. Call it arrogance if you wish, but to me it is simply not important what authority these counsels thought they had when they made the decision to accept certain writings. What is more important to me is how they made the decision. They made it by reason, logic and the evidence which they had at hand, not by some wild hocus pocus. Please keep in mind this is just one point among many why I believe the Bible is divinely inspired. It is not my only point as it would be for you. Thus for me there is no need for any divine authority to declare something divinely inspired, if based on the facts of the historic Bible I can come to this conclusion through logic and deductive reasoning and by the other evidence before me. I do not pin all my hopes in the inspired Scriptures on some false authority that the men 1600 years ago may or may not have believed that they had. With that said, I do believe that the Holy Spirit did indeed guide these men in forming the canon as I believe it guided them in forming many of the doctrines that I hold dear. And I am glad that someone finally on this blog has the guts to admit that the Church merely recognized the Truth of the inspiration of Scripture, and did not write nor cause the Scripture to be inspired.

12. And yet the only evidence for many of the doctrines which the Catholic Church has is based on these writings. So you had better defend this point.

13. You are right, we have no evidence that Christ wrote anything and commanded anything to be written down. And yet we do have a writing that encompasses all we need to know about the gospel and salvation. God’s ways are not our ways. God’s ways are not even the ways that the writers of Scripture intended when they wrote these throw away letters and articles for a chosen few. Yes the writing of the Gospels and Acts may have been an afterthought or it may have been a realization that "Hey everyone who knew anything firsthand about Christ’s ministry and the early church is dying, and we had better get this down in writing before they go so that we have an accurate record for future generations." But of course this whole notion would fly in the face of the whole infallible oral tradition idea. So why do you think that the Gospel writers even bothered writing the gospels down at all if they knew that the oral traditions would be protected by the Holy Spirit? It really didn’t lend anything to the equation as the oral tradition of the Church was more than adequate to the task, and not doing so would have eliminated all this future trouble with the whole Protestant heresy of Sola Scriptura that has arisen. (Maybe that was the reasoning behind the Church virtually disregarding the Scripture and discouraging its dissemination, study and reading for as long as it did. By the way, I find it interesting that it took a former formally trained Protestant minister to actually stand up and say "Hey we really need a resource for Catholics to understand the Scripture." You would have thought that this would have been done already, since the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years and all . . . But I disgress.) By the way I never claimed nor have I ever intimated that all Truth is solely contained in Scripture only that all truth claims should be measured by Scripture, and that what is contained in the Scripture is sufficient for our salvation.

14. Then it's a good thing that I am not attempting to convince you. (In the future I request that you please refrain from using the words like “I demand” they serve only to enflame passions, and do nothing to further the discussion, because when it comes right down to it, I really couldn't care less what you demand or don't demand.) Once again I have never stated that God has only spoken through the written word, only that he has indeed spoken through the written word, and that this written record is the best and most reliable evidence we have of what Christ and the Apostles actually believed and taught.

15. Once again I must reiterate that these points are to be taken as a whole. This particular point is just one more iron to throw into the fire. It was never intended to be the sole sum of the reason why I believe what I believe. And I would not expect that everyone who hears the word actually will believe it, as Christ’s words recorded in the Bible actually predicts this. (Matthew 13:1-23) Maybe I should add a point 16 . . .

I hope that this helps. It has helped me tremendously.

In Christ,

Thomas

PS This will be the last post for a while as I am once again neglecting my duties as a husband and father. I tell you this in case any of you think that in Joe's words "a [Catholic] has stumped me." Rather, this is becoming an obsession and I think that my wife is getting ready to kill me if I spend any more time here. Figuratively not literally . . .

Posted by: Thomas at September 26, 2004 1:47 AM

Joe,

One more post. The verses I meant were I Cor. 2:6-16. Especially verse 12. "We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us." and verse 16. "'For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?' [The Pope and the Magisterium?] But we have the mind of Christ." What does this exactly mean if not that we each have been given the gift of discernment as to what God's will is.

I would love to comment more on your post, but I can't . . . must sleep . . .

In Christ,

Thomas

Posted by: Thomas at September 26, 2004 2:03 AM

Joe,

I promise this is the last one. (I couldn't resist. What can I say I am obsessed.)

Your point one, so in each case the Catholic church moved to rectify the situation immediately after it became known to them? If they did not then my assersions stand. I never used the word never.

Under your third point please see mine and Crowe's posts above.

In Christ,

Thomas

PS As much as I would love to I truly can't do any more. Goodnight.

Posted by: Thomas at September 26, 2004 2:17 AM

Thomas,

Let me address your last comment first. Yes you did imply that the Church didn't rectify the mistakes. Read your comment above.

I'll reply to comments about 1 Cor 2:6-16 a little later. We are having family over today and I need to start cooking :-)

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at September 26, 2004 11:42 AM

Thomas & Joe,

Thomas,

Well put...

Joe,

I guess I need a definition of what the Catholic
church considers Faith and morals....

I would consider it immoral to sell indulgences.
The person is giving the buyer the impression that they can receive grace or a place in heaven by paying money. They believe it because a church official says it is so...

I don't know what you call that but I call it immoral. It's dishonest. It is theft because in reality the buyer gets nothing. It was a con game...

Now I know it doesn't go on anymore but it wasn't
corrected as Thomas said and you admitted until after the protestant reformation... I wonder if no one shined the light on it if it would still be going on.... ?

Also during WW II what tangible thing did the Church or the Pope do to prevent or condemn the
extermination of the Jews. I have read articles
that say very little if anything was done and the
Pope at the time did not come out publically against it.. I have read conflicting stories on
this. Catholics say the church did and others say they didn't. Who are we to believe?

Why did Pope John Paul II come out with an apology to the Jewish people not too long ago ?

It is well documented that the Jews were persecuted and blamned as a people by the church for the crucificion of Jesus. It is documented that Jewish people and their property were attacked after Passion plays were held ...

Why did it take over 50 years to reach out to the Jews in reconcilliation by Pope JP II ???

I think that Catholics on this BLOG should stop
using semantics and admit that the Institution
of the church has blown it Morally through out its history. I have just given two examples. One of which you admit was a wrong practice.(Indulgences)

As Thomas said, If there is wrongdoing going on
and we as people or if an Institution (A Church) fails to right that wrong until someone shames them into it, they are committing a sin of omission. Those sins are morally wrong... Or at least my definition of moral..

The perfect parable is of the good samaritan.
I know this parable has more then one application
but I think it fits here too.. The two Jewish
men that saw the man in need and did nothing and passed him by.. I think this illustrates that
if we see wrong and do nothing that makes us wrong too and a party to that wrong ...

I believe it has been stated on this blog that the church has not made any errors in Faith or
Morals... I think that I have shown one and possibly two instances where they were morally wrong and did nothing to correct that wrong until
much later ...

My purpose for pointing these things out is not
to tear down the Catholic church as it may appear. I am trying to point out that there is
NO Perfect Denomination or Institution..
They all have flaws ... I still attend mass and
receive communion. This blog is about the
Catholic Church and the apologists for the church try give the impression that the church does not err in matters of Morals and Faith...

I think myself and others have pointed out that the church has erred in matters of morals ...
How long was this problem with the priests swept under the Rug and hushed up?

That is a matter of Morals... When Paul and the
other apostles became aware of a problem in a local church they wrote letters and I am sure when they were there in person took steps to get
the wrong doing corrected....

This thing with the priests has been going on for 30 or 40 years and it wasn't until this sin
was hammered at in the press that the church formed a commission to study the problem. Before that the church paid out millions to the victims to hush it up ...

Tell me was hushing it up the Moral thing to do?
Weren't the Bishops involved a Part of the Institution? Doesn't what the Officials of an Institution do reflect directly on that institution and Shouldn't that Institution swifty
come out and correct that problem or should they pay hush money to cover it up ...

You make the point that these wrong doers are human and that humans are falible... So when a mistake is made the falible person is blammed.
But when they make a teaching on faith they somehow become infalible .... Jesus never said that His church (Which are Men& Women) would be infallible in matters of teachings.

Otherwise why would He warn against false teachings and false teachers ? You can not point out a scripture where He did promise infalibility.... Matthew 16:19 does not say it and 1 Timothy 3:15 does not say it.

1 Timothy 3:15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God , which is the church of the living God , the pillar and support of the truth. New American Standard Bible

Read what it says. It says the church of God is the Pillar and support of the Truth...

It does not say the Church IS the Truth but that it is the Pillar and Support of GOD's Truth.

God's Truth is what Jesus and the apostles proclaimed... There is a big differnce in how
the RCC defines this verse and how non catholics
define it ..

The church is all believers in Jesus , Not just the Catholic Church .. The teachings of GOD ARE
infalible.... God and the Institution of the RCC are NOT one in the same...

Please don't come back and Say I never said this or I am putting words in your mouth.. Just because it is not Posted directly, does not mean that it is not implied or inferred....

If I am not understanding what you are trying to say don't accuse me of Lying or putting words in your mouth.. Let me make it clear that my response to a post is my perception of what the person posting is saying in their post. I try to
quote directly but for some reason I can not cut
from a post and paiste it into my post to be more
accurate...

In Christ,

Clem

Posted by: Clem at September 26, 2004 12:16 PM

To Everyone: As a Catholic it seems this site is not what a average Catholic or Christian for that matter would do, arguing over traditions is what starts war. For those who argue against Catholicism, just leave, your not doing anyone here or yourself a service by blittering on. For those who argue for Catholicism, I ask why? Why deliberately attack the Protestants or others, no point, just stop. Jesus didn't go out and pound the belief into anyone. Sure we have made mistakes, get over it(For Both groups). And i also am a bit disguisted by how people carry on here, as far as im concerned no one here that speaks seems to carry on a Christian moral. For everyone, If you think Catholicism is a bunch of garbage and is full of lies, then anyone who has based their Christianity on Catholicism, is also full of lies. If it is a lie its still a lie, no matter how much revising you due to it, its still a lie. So again, get over it. And likewise for the Catholics here who may be against Judism, well if it wasn't for them we wouldn't be here either. So the lot of you grow up, find the simularities not the differences, isn't that what Pope John Paul has been practicing?

Posted by: Curious at September 27, 2004 10:45 AM

Curious,

I agree with you and I have posted on several occaisions that we should talk about what we have in common instead of trying to tear the other group down.

I will PREFACE this with the DISCLAIMER that
NO ONE HAS ACTUALLY Posted what I am about to
POST. It is MY PERCEPTION from various posts
of how some Catholics posting here feel about Protestants :

1.Lost and misguided.
2.Following error. (The Bible)
3. Not a part of the True church Jesus started.

I am not sure if Protestants are considered Christians and if they are I get the impression that they are going to have a harder time getting into heaven because they are not part of the One True Church...

I personally don't have a problem with Catholics.
If they Love Jesus and want to venerate Mary or
believe in Purgatory that's their business.

I just get this feeling that they feel they are
better then Protestants because their Institution (Chrch)Has ALL
the answers and Infallible in doctrine...

Just my Perception and my Perspective...

In Christ,

Clem

Posted by: Clem at September 27, 2004 4:31 PM

Clem you probably get that perception of Catholics because of this site and others like it, all the people i know, Atheists, Catholics and Protestants alike generally don't carry on like this, its more human nature that we disagree. In my town, of over 100 thousand people I know and met people from about 5-7 Catholics Parish's, and i have never known any of them to go around the city preaching and telling Protestants that they aren't in the true faith. And likewise i know Protestants and Athiests as well who, may not believe what I do, who DO NOT go around persecuting because i Believe in Jesus. Of course all groups will have the extremists, the people who have their own issue's, etc etc. But its almost like the media, people will gossip, someone says something, and its taken out of context. People also are weak at times and say things they dont mean, and then its the only thing that is remembered about them, even though they may have done alot of good in the past. So if you really want to know what a typical Catholic is like, just goto a church and find out what the people are like, half of which probably wouldn't even blink if there non-catholic amongst them. You will never find out what anyone is like simply by going online. And likewise for the Catholics, just go see what they do, you would probably find that the Anglican, and Luthern churches have more simularities than differences, I mean we all came from the same traditions originally, DUH!, whats next were going to start persecuting the Jews again for not believing in Jesus. Some advice for all, if your in a place of worship that is main goal is to badger another group for their beliefs your in the wrong place, get out! I tend to find a disturbing fact among people, we love to gossip and attack others with words, im sure we have all had verbal arguements with our own families. Just remember that next time you decide to post.

Posted by: Curious at September 27, 2004 9:44 PM

Curious, you don't make alot of sense to me. First, nobody is "pounding" a belief into anyone. Pounding seems to imply using force, but this is just an internet site and people are allowed to come and go, believe or not believe as they please. Also, your attitude of letting people whose Christianity is "based on lies" just be and find similarties with them seems kind of harsh. If someone is in error which would be the more Christian thing to do, to let them risk eternal salvation just so they will like you and be your friend while they keep following ideas and concepts that are not true, or to correct them and try to help them, at least giving them the options to accept or reject the the Truth. Also, you say that you do not know any Christians that go around town preaching their beliefs, but didn't Jesus tell his disciples to preach the gospel, and isn't that what the early members of the church were doing in Acts. You say to look for the simularities and not the differences but then why is the Bible full of so many letters correcting parishoners for not doing as they should? Why does Jesus correct the churches in Revelations? Also you should probally read what people write on here before you start to make your off the wall comments. You say some here hate Jews but I have been visiting this website for more than a year and have not once seen a anti-semetical post by any of the bloggers. You label the posters here as "extremist", and that might be the wrong word, but the people here do look deep into Scripture to find out what they should be doing, and after all, shouldn't everyone try to follow Jesus's teachings as close as possible because we are to, "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Posted by: Tom Ace at September 27, 2004 10:11 PM

Curious,
First, Clem is Catholic, believe it or not.

I've actually answered your question on our "Why we do this" post, but I'll answer it again here. The point is that true love for others involves bringing them closer to Christ. Would you agree? And the closest relationship we can develop to Christ can be found in the Eucharist. As Catholics, we have a pearl of great value; on this site we seek to share that pearl with others.

Simply allowing others to live without understanding the Eucharist isn't an option. Why? Because we actually care. I know, it's not very popular to care about others these days, but we do it anyway. You see, I'm a convert. And if others had never shown me, I would still be living without being a part of the Church Christ founded. I would be living without the Eucharist.

I understand firsthand the value of the "Great Commission," which is the command by Christ to share your faith with others. The Pope has called this a time of "New Evangelization" - which means we should be taking the truth of Christ to others. I hope you will love others enough to share how they can be truly filled with joy through the Eucharist.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at September 27, 2004 10:29 PM

Jay thats all were asking is that you respect others, you come off sounding very harsh and seeming "better than everyone else" Perhaps its just your words or maybee the internet medium were using. But taking the truth of Christ to others isn't about standing up on a soap box(not saying you do). Its about living the faith, helping others in need, volunteering, helping those who are looking for guidance. Being with the people for the people. This is all part of spreading the "good news". If along the way you need to speak up for the Glory of Gods' truth then so be it, but its far better to keep one's mouth shut at most times, and let your actions do the talking. You can agree or disagree with me on this, regardless it will be my last post. :))

Posted by: Curious at September 28, 2004 10:49 AM

Thomas,

Again, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I remain highly preoccupied with other things going on in my life right now as I've stated above.

In reference to 1 Cor 2:6-16, specifically verse 12 and verse 16. The Church has always taught that we can discern the meaning of Scripture by reading it prayfully, yet She also maintains that that interpretation must be consistant with the teachings of the Church.

God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. - 1 Cor: 2:10-12

Biblical Exegesis from the Navarre Bible:
10-12. "God has revealed to us through the Spirit": meaning the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Blessed Trinity, "which is from God" (v. 12) and knows the very depths of God (vv. 10-11). These words reveal to us the divinity of the Holy Spirit; knowing a person implies having intimacy with him; the Holy Spirit knows the depths of God because by nature he is God, equal to the Father and the Son (cf. Mt 11:25). "The Holy Spirit is equally God with the Father and the Son, equally omnipotent and eternal, infinitely perfect, the supreme good, infinitely wise, and of the same nature as the Father and the Son[...]. Scripture also attributes to him the power to sanctify, to vivify, to search the depths of God, to speak through the Prophets, and to be present in all places - all of which can be attributed to God alone" (St. Pius V Catechism, I, 9, 4).
Jesus had told his Apostles that "when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth" (Jn 16:13); and on the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit did open their minds to understand the truth revealed by Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit also acted in St. Paul, so that he had the same knowledge of Revelation as the other Apostles (cf. Gal 2:1-10). The same Spirit continues to act in the Church: "The Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of truth, because he proceeds from the Father, eternal Truth, and the Son, substantial truth, receives from each of them, along with his essence, all truth, which he then communicates to the Church, helping never to err" (Leo XIII, Divinum illud munus, 7).

Yet let's not stop here:

And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. - 1 Cor 2:13

Biblical Exegesis from the Navarre Bible:
13. The handing on of the faith calls for great care in the terminology used: "The Church, with the long labour of centuries and not without the help of the Holy Spirit, has established a rule of language and confirmed it with the authority of the Councils. This rule, which has more than once been the watchword and banner of orthodox faith, must be religiously preserved, and let no one presume to change it at his own pleasure or under the pretext of new science" (Paul VI, Mysterium fidei, 3).
The Church has always been concerned about this need to explain the deposit of faith accurately: "You have received gold," St. Vincent of Lerins comments, "let you therefore give gold. I do not want you to give one thing instead of another. I do not want you to be so shameless and deceptive that you give me lead or bronze in place of gold; I do not want something that looks like gold; I want pure gold" (Commonitorium, 22).

So as St. Paul clearly states he and the other Apostles impart the truth of the Spirit to the faithful, who possessing the Spirit, readily hear their instructions and teachings.

The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. - 1 Cor 2:14-16

Biblical Exegesis from the Navarre Bible:
14-16. The original text says "psychikos". This is not easy to translate. Some versions say "natural man", others "animal man", which is literally what the New Vulgate says. What it means is the person who acts only by using his or her human faculties (intelligence and will) and who therefore can be wise only in the things of the world. The spiritual man is the Christian reborn by the grace of God; grace elevates his faculties to enable him to perform actions which have a supernatural value - acts of faith, hope, and charity. A person who is in the state of grace is able to perceive the things of God, because he carries with him the Spirit in his soul in grace, and he has Christ's mind, Christ's attitude. "We have no alternative", St. Josemaria Escriva teaches. "There are only two possible ways of living on this earth: either we live a supernatural life, or we live an animal life. And you and I can only live the life of God, a supernatural life" (Friends of God, 20).
St. John Chrysostom very graphically contrasts the capacity of the spiritual man and that of the unspiritual man as far as understanding God's plan of salvation is concerned: "He who has sight sees everything, including the person who has no sight; but the sightless person cannot see the things of the person who has sight. We Christians know what our own situation is, and we also know the situation of unbelievers; the unbelievers, however, do not understand ours. Like them we know - and we know better than they do - the nature of things present; unbelievers do not know the sublimity of things to come, whereas we already see what will some day become of the world, and what sinners will suffer, and the righteous enjoy" (Hom. on 1 Cor, 7, ad loc). And St. Thomas Aquinas: "A conscious person rightly perceives both that he is awake and the other person is asleep; but the person who is asleep cannot form a correct judgment concerning either himself or the one who is awake. Therefore, things are not the way they are seen by someone asleep: they are as they appear to be to a conscious person [...]. And so the Apostle says that 'the spiritual man judges all things': for a person whose understanding is enlightened and whose affections are regulated by the Holy Spirit forms correct judgments on particular matters to do with salvation. He who is unspiritual has a darkened understanding and disordered affection as far as spiritual things are concerned, and therefore the spiritual man cannot be judged by the unspiritual man, just as the sleeping person cannot judge the one who is awake" (Commentary on 1 Cor, ad loc).

In conclusion, I believe we both agree on the above definition of the "spiritual man", yet I maintain that this "spiritual man" understands that St. Paul also makes clear that it is the role of the bishops (the Apostles and their successors) to "interpret spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit" (1 Cor 2:13), as he also stated in 1 Cor 2:6-7. This same train of thought in St. Paul's writings in manifested elsewhere as well. For example, 2 Thess 2:15 and 1 Cor 11:2.

I hope this answers your questions.

God bless,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at October 22, 2004 12:42 PM

Joe,

I appreciate the time you took to post this. I think when it I boils down to it, we agree on and the verses you quote above support that the apostles did in fact teach without error on matters of faith and morals, otherwise we can’t be sure that even the Bible is truth. However, I just can’t make the leap and say that all the subsequent “successors” of the apostles had this same ability. I believe that the writings of the apostles are the only thing we can be absolutely certain are the actual teachings of the apostles. I believe that we (the magisterium, the Pope, the church fathers, the fathers of the reformation, and you and I today) all equally have the ability to know the mind of God through prayerful consideration, and by reading what the apostles wrote as our guide, with no one person having a better or more perfect revelation from God. I believe that we (the magisterium, the Pope, the church fathers, the fathers of the reformation, and you and I today) also can all equally, either not use this ability at all, or use it wrongly. I don’t believe that to properly seek the mind of God is a responsibility that we can give another (ie the magisterium) to do for us. It is hard work that we must do ourselves. To give it to another and wash our hands of it, as if this somehow absolves us of our responsibility, cannot be honoring to God. However, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel though either. People (including the magisterium, the Pope, the church fathers, the fathers of the reformation, and you and I today) can be a help to guide us on the path, but we must always be responsible enough to be wary that they can indeed guide us down the wrong path.

I truly believe that there is a lot of good that comes out of the Catholic Church, but I also think that its teachings tend to foster a lack of discipline in seeking the mind of God, because the Church teaches that Catholics don’t need to worry about it, for all of this has already inerrantly been done for you. All one must do is follow its lead. Even if it is true that the Church is infallible, there is a danger in this, as it leads to less than the fullest experience of knowing God. (I know that there are people who are exceptions to this, but I think as a general rule it holds up rather well.) This is just another reason why I do not believe that God ever intended for His church to be infallible.

In Christ,

Thomas

Posted by: Thomas at October 22, 2004 4:15 PM

Thomas,

That's fine. But keep in mind the one thing we keep reiteriating...you only know what the first bishops (the Apostles) said due to the fact that other bishops further down the historical line compiled and declared those "Sacred Scriptures" as such. I think this is the one thing you continually ignore...the Church enabled you to have that very Bible you attempt to use against her.

I also disagree with your second comment. I believe the Protestant belief of "once saved always saved" has done far greater harm. Catholics understand that we have no guarantees unless we daily seek to imitate Christ, regardless of what Kerry might say :-) I also believe that a sincere Catholic knows that the Church does not make it easier on us. We are mandated to live a sacramental life, it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to miss Sunday Mass, and the Church commands us to know the Scriptures. She has never said, "don't read the Bible, because we already did it for you". Just look at the biblical commentary I have provided above. We have a history to turn to, we can look at what the Fathers wrote down through the ages for insight and wisdom. The Church remains in constant meditation on the Word of God.

I think the mass division of Protestantism today is the manifestation of its true nature. In other words, personal interpretation can only lead to division and no one really has the right to tell another that they are wrong, especially if both parties have "genuinely prayed and meditated" on what they have read. I know many well-intended, spiritual Protestants who have very different beliefs. I'll remain true to history, to Scripture, and to the Church, a Church that has existed for over 2000 years.

Peace brother and may God continue to bless you and yours.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at October 22, 2004 9:17 PM

Joe,

You said, “That's fine. But keep in mind the one thing we keep reiteriating...you only know what the first bishops (the Apostles) said due to the fact that other bishops further down the historical line compiled and declared those "Sacred Scriptures" as such. I think this is the one thing you continually ignore...the Church enabled you to have that very Bible you attempt to use against her.”

I admit that a group of men that represented the leadership of the Catholic Church compiled the Bible, and for that I am deeply in their debt. I believe that they did a correct job in this compilation, not because of any authority they thought they had to declare something sacred, but because of how they complied it and who God is. They did not write the Bible. For that I have the Apostles and their immediate associates to thank. They also did not they make the Bible sacred. For that I have God to thank. No matter how much you wish to think otherwise, the writings of the New Testament stand independent from the authority of the Church.

You said, “I also disagree with your second comment. I believe the Protestant belief of "once saved always saved" has done far greater harm. Catholics understand that we have no guarantees unless we daily seek to imitate Christ, regardless of what Kerry might say :-)”

I agree that this doctrine is abused to the point of ridiculousness, much like the doctrine of confession and absolution in the Catholic Church. They are different sides of the same coin. One says it doesn’t matter what I do in this life because I am saved and going to heaven, the other says it doesn’t matter what I do in this life because all I have to do is confess it to a priest and say a few Hail Mary’s and I’m back in business. All of this is a result of man’s desire to live his life as he sees fit, do the bare minimum to get by in this life, and still be assured of his place in the next. Different means same mentality. This mentality, no matter what form it takes, is wrong, and God will not honor it.

You said “I also believe that a sincere Catholic knows that the Church does not make it easier on us. We are mandated to live a sacramental life, it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to miss Sunday Mass, and the Church commands us to know the Scriptures.”

And yet the Church still gives communion to people like Kerry. It still looks the other way when its members and even leaders do and teach things very contrary to Scripture and its own teaching. The “Official Teaching of the Church” doesn’t mean a whole lot when the practical everyday actions of the Church run completely contrary to it.

You said, “She has never said, "don't read the Bible, because we already did it for you".”

I beg to differ. Up until very recently the Church discouraged the faithful from reading the Scripture. And in most places in the world where the Catholic Church is the majority it is still this way.

You said, “Just look at the biblical commentary I have provided above. We have a history to turn to, we can look at what the Fathers wrote down through the ages for insight and wisdom. The Church remains in constant meditation on the Word of God.”

I believe that I am still a part of this tradition, and can still tap into this history. Fortunately for me I am not bound by its potential erroneous teachings, and can explore all the other great things that are being written by others outside the Church, like C. S. Lewis, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Frances Schaffer, Oswald Chambers, John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitcliff, and Charles Spurgeon etc. etc. that may run contrary to the Church's teachings. As well as Augustine, Thomas A Kempis, and Thomas Aquinas, etc. etc. from the Catholic side. Like I said we all stand on the shoulders of those that have gone before.

You said, “I think the mass division of Protestantism today is the manifestation of its true nature. In other words, personal interpretation can only lead to division and no one really has the right to tell another that they are wrong, especially if both parties have "genuinely prayed and meditated" on what they have read. I know many well-intended, spiritual Protestants who have very different beliefs.”

Each person whether Protestant or Catholic will be judged according to their beliefs as measured against the Truth. All we can do is come to a closer understanding of that Truth as best we can by using the greatest effort we can. You will not be able to use the Nuremberg defense on the Great Day of Judgment, “Well I just followed what the Church taught, and it’s their fault if I was wrong.”

You said “I'll remain true to history, to Scripture, and to the Church, a Church that has existed for over 2000 years.”

And I’ll remain true to history, to Scripture, and to the church, a church that has existed for over 2000 years.

In Christ,

Thomas

Posted by: Thomas at October 25, 2004 1:49 PM

Thomas,

As far as the claim to hold to a 2000 year tradition of history, Scripture and the Church you fall short first and foremost in your belief of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, second in the teaching of the Church Fathers in reference to the authority of the Church and the Papacy, and finally in Sacred Scripture as being the sole source of authority.

You are where you want to be, so stay there, but do not claim that you are being "faithful" to any particular tradition except your own.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at October 25, 2004 1:57 PM

Joe,

I never said anything about the "tradition" of history, and notice that I did not use a capital "c" when I typed church.

I will continue to search, study and make sure that my beliefs line up with the Truth as best I can. Pray that I do not so proud and hold so firmly to any belief, that I am not willing to give it up when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'll keep reading and posting here, and you may yet convince me . . . Most importantly I will continue to attempt to live what I believe, however imperfectly . . .

In Christ,

Thomas