The War Erupting and Expanding Within Catholicism.

BJ Bear

Well-known member
The custom presented in the Scriptures is that the apostles were the leaders of the Church.
I can understand why that myopic dogma is attractive to those trying to change the topic, but it is just a story. The only type of Apostolic succession which matters is one of doctrine. For example, even including the Apostles, no one gets to preach another gospel than the one previously revealed, etc.
Scripture is complete to serve as the Norm. But Scripture is a divine collection of books that requires a divinely authorized teacher.
The one Teacher turns all to His word. Those that serve as teachers within the church point all to the one Teacher.
Scripture is sufficient to serve as a Norm in the proper hands. It is difficult to use Scripture as a Norm if one does not know how to properly use it.
The sinfulness of man is a common malady.
Certainly many things are clear in the Scriptures, such that an individual could use them to refute error, etc. Not all things are clear, however, and this is why we need a divinely authorized teacher in the form of the Church--with clear leaders with clearly defined roles.
The person and work of Christ for all men is clear. Secondary matters which are obscured by time, culture, and language do not benefit the faithful when story tellers try to pass off their guesses as truth.
What is ambiguous about it? ONLY Scripture is infallible. That is one of the essential claims of Sola Scriptura.
If you assert that only Scripture is infallible then that excludes the Roman Pope from ever being infallible.
Tradition can pass on the Gospel, but it is not infallible.
That assertion acknowledges that councils are also fallible.
The Church teaches the Gospel but is not infallible. Only Scripture is infallible. And this sounds good on paper. The problem with this is that it makes the Faith unstable.
That is a false statement as the faith once delivered to the saints doesn't change.
It makes the Faith beholden to scholarship.
That is the premise of the story tellers.
What the Church believes in one period, the Church might not believe in another period because scholarship may come along and say "You know, based on recent discoveries, or based on recent blah, blah, blah, we have found that the Scriptures actually teach X instead of Y."
That is the basis of the "development" of doctrine, a tool of the story tellers.
Note that this is actually happening in many liberal Protestant sects today. "
One set of story tellers is no better than another set of story tellers.
The point is that without a divinely authorized teacher, the Scriptures are beholden to the whims of scholarship.
Only to those who mistake the stories of the story tellers for the truth.
The Church is the pillar of Truth; Scriptures are the Truth, the Church upholds them.
That isn't the context of the passage. The truth referred to is Christ, see verse sixteen. Christ in us, the church of the living God, is a consequence of the truth given to sinful men rather than the other way around. It is also not a statement of identity.
The Protestant reformers didn't realize this, but we are seeing the fruits today of what happens when you dispense with the authority of the Church.
That is a story based upon a misinterpretation, see above.
1) The Catholic claim is not "The Scriptures are unintelligible without the Church." The Catholic claim is not "The Scriptures are unclear."
See the first and second decrees of the fourth session of the council of Trent. The only difference between the scriptures are unclear and the false claim you make below is that anything other than a Papal assertion is defined as twisting Scripture
The Catholic claim is that the Scriptures are a divine collection of books that require a divinely authorized teacher.
What happened to baptism? Have the baptized been united with Christ or not? Do you know of a more divinely authorized teacher than Christ? In Him is the forgiveness of sins rather than a personal or corporate infallibility apart from Him.
2) Not everything in the Scriptures are as clear as we might like them to be.
The well catechized echo the Scriptures rather than make up stories or repeat the stories of others.
For example: Scripture does not clearly condemn abortion.
This is true of secondary matters.
Agreed. The problem isn't that we disagree here. The problem is that we disagree on what "The Gospel" is.
That is only because some people find it necessary to deny that the Gospel in the narrow sense, the person and work of Christ for all men, is by definition objective true good news to and for all men. They find it necessary to deny that to give their stories of maybe this or maybe that a facade of believability.
For Protestants, the essence of the Gospel, the heart of the Gospel is Justification by Faith alone.
What matters is what Scripture says rather than stories about categories which don't exist in reality.
For Catholics, the heart of the Gospel, the essence of the Gospel is the Incarnation of God.
If that were true then what you write next regarding the devotion of saints and intercession of saints wouldn't follow. What happened to baptism?
This is why we have a sacramental system, devotion to the saints, intercession of the saints, and basically everything that makes the Catholic Church Catholic.The problem is that Protestants conflate
Since the Roman Pope is not God breathed, and since their is no promise of an infallible Roman Pope the Roman Pope is not infallible at any time or in any circumstance.
However, the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth.
Baptism.
Church definitions are not inspired, but they are infallible.
That is a story based upon a misinterpretation, see above.
God graces the Church with the gift of infallibility in order for it to be the pillar and bulwark of Truth.
Again, see 1 Tim 3.
The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and this ensures that what the Church teaches is true.
That is more story telling, at best it is only Papal dogma.
Something need not be inspired in order for it to be true.
It cannot be contrary to or contradict what is inspired and be true.
Think of it like this:
Speculation on speculation isn't helpful.
Now, extend this logic to everything the Church teaches.
That is just another story. That is like someone saying, "Although I've confused verbs with nouns and prepositions with numbers what I said is true because I said it after thinking about it."
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
@romishpopishorganist

"
This helps us to also understand the difference between inspiration and infallibility: when something is inspired, both the process and the result are infallible. When something is infallible, only the result is guaranteed. The process used to reach the result is not guaranteed.
This mistakenly assumes sinful men can know when something is infallible apart from it also being inspired.
Hence, to say that the Scriptures are inspired and infallible, we are saying that the process in which the Scripters were penned---was itself infallible as was the result.
Ok.
When we say that the Church is infallible but not inspired, we are saying that the process by which the Church uses to reach an end result is fallible and flawed, the result itself, however is infallible because God is guides the Church.
God promises the forgiveness of sun's in Him rather than infallibility apart from Him.
Correct; but the Church herself is not above the Scriptures. The Church herself, however, is above the individual when it comes to teaching the Scriptures. The Church is a lesser authority than the Scriptures, but a greater authority than the individual.
The one Teacher teaches all. Whether all listen equally well is a separate issue.
Thus when we speak of the Rule of Faith we make a distinction between the Proximate Rule of Faith and the Remote Rule of Faith.
This is just story telling. What happened to baptism?
I will end it there since I have written quite a lot.
Ya, that was a lot. I picked some things out to respond to but I could have more easily replied with the simple question, "What happened to baptism?" By that I am referring to the scriptural teaching of baptism rather than Papal dogma regarding baptism.

BTW, because of length there was a whole lot of snipping going on.
 
Top