If that were totally true, we would not have received any letters from them. Those letters were all about contending for the faith. They were all about persevering in the truth. Why? because the truth was under attack. It was being challenged and if possible overtaken if the body of Christ would not take a stand.
Obviously there were early members of the “Church” who decided to collect the record directly from the eye-witnesses, especially when those leaders began to die off, whether by persecution or other.
But I think we know very little about that first collection of writings. The fight over these books went clear into the 4th. century if my memory serves me. Obviously there was debate and still is. Even today we can debate which books should be included and which shouldn’t. We debate how they should be interpreted and how not. But all of these things are not beyond the holy Spirit’s guidance for a people who want to know Him.
I am not sure where you get these ideas. Do you think that, because the CC considers your positions heretical, they have no respect for you as a person? There is no other body, religious or otherwise, that has examined and incorporated more ideas. Many of the most influential people were “non-Catholic thinkers”. The Western University system was developed by the CC. Persons aspiring to the priesthood are required to study philosophy, history, and literature.
Honestly when you belt out these blatant misconceptions it just makes it look like you are 1) ignorant of the facts and 2) deeply and hatefully prejudiced about Catholicism.
Perhaps your anger and resentment toward Catholicism is getting the better of you, tgG. You have now lowered yourself to calumny and detraction. You already know that this is not the teaching of the Church, and yet, you continue to spew this fabrication.
I suppose this may be true from your point of view, but from a Catholic point of view, having the inestimable gift of the fullness of the truth does not make one believer “superior” to another.
The role of the Bishop, tgG, is not a “pet doctrine”. It is the teaching of the Church. Your rejection of it will not make it disappear.
Certainly there was arrogance on both sides, defensiveness, and lack of flexibility. The Church did respond to Luther’s doctrinal concerns as if he was an actual equal thinker, even though he was not. They did admit to wrongs, and make corrections (see Counter Reformation) which are still in effect today. But I disagree, the political and economic issues of the day were driving this split, and even resolving the theological issues was too little too late.
Men are always in need of reform. The doctrines of Christ did not need reform, and changing them is what has continued the division.
It sounds like you don’t know the difference between a dogma and a doctrine.
Yes, the infallibility of the Church was preached first by Christ, and this gift has persisted through all the generations.
You are also right that the Church NEVER turns on a dime. This used to frustrate me too, until I realized that this is what protects her against modernism.
You don’t seem to know much about the Reformation history either, tgG. You don’t seem to realize that the Church did respond to Luther’s logic (or lack thereof). By that time, it was too late. The rebellion was in full swing, and nothing was going to stop it.
I agree! It is in our nature to think for ourselves. God made us this way. But to say that Catholics don’t have a choice is absurd. Everyone gets up every day and has a fresh day of choices to make. Catholics don’t need to follow Jesus and daily take up their cross any more than you do.We have the advantage that we are protected by the gift of infallibility when we are in unity with the Church, and that helps Catholics who might otherwise be on the fence, or tempted to stray from His One Body.
It is a huge blunder, one the CC does not make. The CC has the fullness of Truth, but recognizes that the HS works through and within other ecclesial communities as well.
John is using “us” to refer to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Those who depart from it do not have the confidence of this promise. The gift of infallibility can only be enjoyed by those who remain in unity with His One Body, the Church. Ignatius, who was a disciple of John, bears this out in his writings.
Yes, I agree. And that humility will always lead to unity.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. What you say here is the point I am trying to show you. We both agree that the early Church collected the writings and canonized them. The point you are missing is if the early Church wasn’t infallible then we have no way of knowing if they chose the correct books. How can a fallible Church canonize the Word of God?
That’s my point. If you are correct that the early Church was not infallible then it all falls apart. We have no way of knowing if we were given the truth or not. If Jesus didn’t leave us a visible shepherd, to speak for Him, than there is no way we can know if the Bible is the inspired Word of God or an elaborate scam.
Of course! The Truth is always under attack. We must always contend for the faith. But there is One Faith. All those who adhere to the One Faith will be in unity. The Truth is not hindered by those who choose to depart from it.
Yes, there was debate until 382, and the issue was settled until Luther decided that the Church’s decision on the canon did not suit his own theology, so he wanted certain books extracted to support his own position. But one of the consistent Sacred Traditions that is still received today by all Christians is the New Testament Canon.
Yes, but that is a separate issue. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura has led everyone to believe that they can, and should, interpret the scriptures according to how they best make sense to themselves. What has happened is that everyone has become their own Pope.
Definitely not. He is a rewarder of all who diligently seek Him:+1:.
There you go again guanophore, making pronouncements over the condition of my heart simply because you do not agree. It is a poor tactic.
No, … If there is such respect as you say, then when I bring up someone like William Tyndale, a scholarly bible translator who was well versed in four languages and probably one of the best Hebrew and Greek scholars of his day. Who also lived a godly life sacrificing it at the altar of the CC’s persecution with fire, the C response from this site was as if I was talking about a fool.
When I bring up Luther, who carried a Dr. of divinity in his day, who had his convictions over scripture, and willing to risk his life over those convictions, and who the Cardinals couldn’t out-reason … the response was the same, a man who lost his mind. A heretic.
So, when you belt out these quick responses guanophore please be considerate.
perfect example of iron sharpening iron…if only Nicodemus had such replies, to help fend off any thought of introspection of the reality of a new birth…isn’t it presumptuous to say because you’re a Catholic (or baptist etc) you are born again…I mean the rabbis and Pharisees all thought themselves to be sons of Abraham, and were practitioners of the one true faith of the time.
Not at all. Just commenting on how your posts come across.
I have no way of knowing your heart. All I can go on is what you have written. I am saying that what you have written indicates that you are 1) ignorant of the facts or 2) deeply and predjudically hateful against Catholicism.
Try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, tgG. I have great respect for Wm. Tyndale, his work, and his sacrifice. I am sure that God does as well. It is true that there are many Catholics that may not value his sacrifice, but try not to paint us all with the same brush, ok?
I think you have a very biased idea about Luther, tgG. He was trained in the CC, where he earned his doctorate, and was not by any means an intellectual progeny of his day… He was not a paragon of virtue, either, if you read his writings. The Cardinals were not making any effort to “out reason” him, as his assertions were not about reason, they were about authority. I do think that Luther has a very loose hold on his mind, and he was a heretic, but he also had a lot of balls. He asserted his own private interpretation consistently over and above what the Church taught.
Some of his complaints had merit, as was akowledged by the Church in the Counter Reformation.
If you can demonstrate to me that you have read your Luther, as I have, then we will have a basis for discussion.
Catholics believe that being saved is a lifelong process. We can be saved when we are Baptized and live according to the Commandments and take up our cross and follow our Lord. Of course we are sinners so when we do fall we go to confession and try again. It’s never a one and done thing.
If someone has a mortal or unrepented sin and has full knowledge of that sin and refuses to ask for forgiveness then yes they can lose their salvation. But we can also ask forgiveness until our dying breath.
No. I hear you. I am not. I would argue that today, Luther’s understanding was only at an infancy stage of development. Today’s reformed view surpasses that of Luther. But without him I am not sure reform would have come. And now that reform has drifted back in many ways.