Catholic Confusion ,or, Who are the Faithful

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
No, one need only look to the offical teachings of the Church to determine whether one conforms or not. It is not what I say or think.

You are suggesting that groups who use nonauthoratative standards are correct in thinking that they are conforming. That is where your arguement fails.

Your word games are not as subtle as you might think them to be.

The problem is that the official teachings of the Roman Church are being interpreted differently by different groups within it.
One group interprets statements such as the following to mean exactly what it says and another group interprets it as something else.

It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only Ark of Salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the Flood. It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church! You must indeed see to it that the faithful have fixed firmly in their minds the absolute necessity of the Catholic faith for attaining salvation. Protestantism is the Great Revolt against God. - Pope Pius IX

 

[Bible-belted]

Trying,

Than you for once again illustrating my point, though you still don't seem to grasp it.

"Thinking does not make."

No it does not. Not for them, and not for you either. That's the point.

"No, one need only look to the offical teachings of the Church to determine whether one conforms or not. It is not what I say or think."

One group of RCs looks at those official teachings and sees that they conform and you don't conform. Likewise you look at them and you see that you conform and others don't.

Who is right? no one knows.

"You are suggesting that groups who use nonauthoratative standards are correct in thinking that they are conforming. That is where your arguement fails.

Your word games are not as subtle as you might think them to be."

This is where you show yourself unable to grasp the point. How do you knwo they are NOT correct in what they think?

You think you are right and they wrong. They think they are right and you wrong. you both claim to be the true and faithful RCs.

Once again you illustrate my point, and prove it.

And btw, I am not trying to be subtle at all. I think it is obvious that your appeal to an objective standard is bogus. You and the rad trads, and the feneyites, and the rest all claim to adhere to the same RC Church teachings and claim to be the faithful.

When it comes down to it, you could say that the tradds, or the feeneyites, etc. are not the faithful becuase they don't conmform to the standard. but that really means that they don't conform to your interpretation of the standard. And they could say the same about you. There is no objectivity there, your tprotests to the contrary notwithstanding.

Again thanks for proving my point. I recommend you not continue to dig in your heels and therby dig yourself deeper into the epitomological hole.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Latreia:
Trying,

Than you for once again illustrating my point, though you still don't seem to grasp it.

"Thinking does not make."

No it does not. Not for them, and not for you either. That's the point.

"No, one need only look to the offical teachings of the Church to determine whether one conforms or not. It is not what I say or think."

One group of RCs looks at those official teachings and sees that they conform and you don't conform. Likewise you look at them and you see that you conform and others don't.

Who is right? no one knows.

"You are suggesting that groups who use nonauthoratative standards are correct in thinking that they are conforming. That is where your arguement fails.

Your word games are not as subtle as you might think them to be."

This is where you show yourself unable to grasp the point. How do you knwo they are NOT correct in what they think?

You think you are right and they wrong. They think they are right and you wrong. you both claim to be the true and faithful RCs.

Once again you illustrate my point, and prove it.

And btw, I am not trying to be subtle at all. I think it is obvious that your appeal to an objective standard is bogus. You and the rad trads, and the feneyites, and the rest all claim to adhere to the same RC Church teachings and claim to be the faithful.

When it comes down to it, you could say that the tradds, or the feeneyites, etc. are not the faithful becuase they don't conmform to the standard. but that really means that they don't conform to your interpretation of the standard. And they could say the same about you. There is no objectivity there, your tprotests to the contrary notwithstanding.

Again thanks for proving my point. I recommend you not continue to dig in your heels and therby dig yourself deeper into the epitomological hole.

Are you willing to apply this same logic to Scripture?

Anyone who says Scripture is their authority is actually saying they are their own authority.

 

[Bible-belted]

"Are you willing to apply this same logic to Scripture?

Anyone who says Scripture is their authority is actually saying they are their own authority."

Do you concede that the unity RCs claim is a sham since you all claim to be the faithful and you don't agree?

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Are you willing to apply this same logic to Scripture?

Anyone who says Scripture is their authority is actually saying they are their own authority.

Are you willing to apply your logic to Catholic authority? According to your logic, anyone claiming that the Roman church is their authority is actually saying that they are their own authority because they are interpreting the words of Rome.

It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only Ark of Salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the Flood. It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church! You must indeed see to it that the faithful have fixed firmly in their minds the absolute necessity of the Catholic faith for attaining salvation. Protestantism is the Great Revolt against God. - Pope Pius IX

One statement, multiple interpretations.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Latreia:
[QB]"Are you willing to apply this same logic to Scripture?

Anyone who says Scripture is their authority is actually saying they are their own authority."

Do you concede that the unity RCs claim is a sham since you all claim to be the faithful and you don't agree?

Do I concede? No. The teachings of the Church are definitively defined. One must merely look to the definitive statement.

You on the other hand, follow a system whereby every one interprets Scripture for themselves.

It's your logic, not mine. It is for you to concede, not me.

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Latreia:
[QB]"Are you willing to apply this same logic to Scripture?

Anyone who says Scripture is their authority is actually saying they are their own authority."

Do you concede that the unity RCs claim is a sham since you all claim to be the faithful and you don't agree?

Do I concede? No. The teachings of the Church are definitively defined. One must merely look to the definitive statement.

You on the other hand, follow a system whereby every one interprets Scripture for themselves.

It's your logic, not mine. It is for you to concede, not me.</font>[/QUOTE]You follow a system whereby every one interprets the statements of the church of Rome for themselves. Better to stick to the Word of God than the word of Rome.

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Are you willing to apply this same logic to Scripture?

Anyone who says Scripture is their authority is actually saying they are their own authority.

and ...

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Do I concede? No. The teachings of the Church are definitively defined. One must merely look to the definitive statement.

You on the other hand, follow a system whereby every one interprets Scripture for themselves.

It's your logic, not mine. It is for you to concede, not me.

I came in late..just reading it now. But I have one thing to add:

Game, set and match.

TTU, though you sometimes have some pretty good points that make me think, you have clearly 'lost' this debate. Latreia and Dualhunter have done a marvelous job. As a matter of fact, it would be silly to press this much further as it would show stubbornness instead of logic.

I guess this thread is about done then huh?

In Christ,
jason

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
Those saved before Christ, were ultimately saved by Christ because He paid the penalty of their sins.

This is a tangeant, and I realize that, but it's too good to pass up. You just provided ample evidence to show that the belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not against Scripture (regardless if it is explicit or not). Mary declared that Christ was her "savior," and indeed He is, but this is used as an argument that this means that Mary must have sinned to need a savior.

Now apply what you just said. Christ's death and resurrection purified and made Holy those who came before He was even born. Thus, I can just as easily say that Christ allowed Mary to enjoy this life without original sin before He came into being; it was still His work, and He was still her Savior. The work of His redemption for us was merely applied to her before it was completed, just as it was to those who had the hope of the Savior to come.

I don't expect a lot of responses here, nor do I want to argue. I simply wanted to point this out.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
Are you willing to apply your logic to Catholic authority? According to your logic, anyone claiming that the Roman church is their authority is actually saying that they are their own authority because they are interpreting the words of Rome.

No. Because I do not take a teaching of the Church and say, "this is symbolic", or "they really meant this word instead of the word they used", or "let's compare this to some other teaching and then develope some new meaning by way of some unique combining" and so on.

That is what is done with Scripture by Fundamentalists every day on this board alone. And by your system they get to be just as right as you claim to be (soul liberty).

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dualhunter:
Those saved before Christ, were ultimately saved by Christ because He paid the penalty of their sins.

This is a tangeant, and I realize that, but it's too good to pass up. You just provided ample evidence to show that the belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not against Scripture (regardless if it is explicit or not). Mary declared that Christ was her "savior," and indeed He is, but this is used as an argument that this means that Mary must have sinned to need a savior.

Now apply what you just said. Christ's death and resurrection purified and made Holy those who came before He was even born. Thus, I can just as easily say that Christ allowed Mary to enjoy this life without original sin before He came into being; it was still His work, and He was still her Savior. The work of His redemption for us was merely applied to her before it was completed, just as it was to those who had the hope of the Savior to come.

I don't expect a lot of responses here, nor do I want to argue. I simply wanted to point this out.</font>[/QUOTE]I never said anything about purification. God left the sins of the saints from before the death of Christ unpunished, knowing that He would provide a suitable sacrifice in the future. Now that Christ has come and has died, their sins are paid for in full.

trying2understand, I see you've avoided the example. The traditionalist are taking the statements by prior popes literally and without adding to them whereas you are not. You and they have a difference of interpretation on what various popes have said.

 

[GraceSaves]

DualHunter,

I never asked you to believe what I believe, merely I was using what you said as a way to explain something, even if for no other benefit than my own. Which is why I stated that it was a tangeant.

 

[Dualhunter]

You said I gave ample evidence for your beliefs and I just showed you that I did no such thing.

[ September 26, 2002, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Dualhunter ]

 

[Bible-belted]

"Do I concede? No. The teachings of the Church are definitively defined. One must merely look to the definitive statement."

And nto interpret? Not place your own subjectivity in the process? That's hilarious. It's also false. Your church's teachings are not so perspicuous as all that.

Face reality. Differnt groups within RCism "merely look to the definitive statement" and come to radically different conclusions. Who is right? You or them?

"You on the other hand, follow a system whereby every one interprets Scripture for themselves."

Not at all. Your ignorance of Sola Scriptura is showing.

"It's your logic, not mine. It is for you to concede, not me."

That is a very shallow response, partiularly in light of the fact that you don't understyand my logic. I am not making an authority argument here. I am making an epsitomological argument. Very differnet.

Alas you do not seem to understand what is being said. That's fine; I don't really expect you to accept that the RC unity you claim is asham, regardless of the facts, anymore than I would expect you to accept that the sky is blue of doing so were a contradiction of RC teaching.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
You said I gave ample evidence for your beliefs and I just showed you that I did no such thing.

In my view, it was ample, and after reading your responses, I still see it as ample.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Latreia:
And nto interpret? Not place your own subjectivity in the process? That's hilarious. It's also false. Your church's teachings are not so perspicuous as all that.

Let's perform a little exercise. For each one doctrine where Catholics do as you describe, I will show you five where Fundamentalists do the same.

Are you game? I am.

Not at all. Your ignorance of Sola Scriptura is showing.

I know, you a take a preset belief and then work backwards into Scripture to find a verse that you think supports your belief. (You get to pick the verse) then you compare it to other verses (that you again pick). Say that this word is really symbolic or it has some obsure special context or the author really meant to use this word instead or the translators made a mistake or the text was corrupted.... blah blah blah. Or go to an online bible search, pick a word at random, line all the occurances up and what do you know... a whole new belief is born!

Then top it off with claiming a special guidance by the Holy Spirit as proof that you can't be wrong.

The problem is all your sola scriptura buddies do the same thing and come up with different answers.

[ September 27, 2002, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Briguy]

Hey guys, I see we have taken the tone of this thread and brought it down quite a bit. Ron, you are starting to sound as you used to a few months ago. Don't go back to that even if you do get frustrated. There has been good points made by all. In Jesus we are all winners and there are no losers.

As a person who goes to a non-denominational church it goes without saying that evangelical Christians interpret scripture differently. I admit that is done all the time and on various levels. Some of the "biggys" (Moody, MaCarther, Stanley, etc...) have some areas that they disagree on, that is a fact. It seems that Catholics have a few areas as well, that seems clear from the discussion.

Ron, you will say that there is one doctrine and one interpretation established by the church and that is true. Perhaps what should be said is that some Catholics interpret the interpretations different. Is that better language to use. To say there is a degree of disunity in the CC is not a church breaking thing is it? If you agree in some unity problems does that destroy the CC in one sweep? Overall, do I wish there was more Christian unity? yes, but the fact that we disagree on some issues makes us dig into God's word more and that is a good thing.

There is a song that has a chorus that goes like this:

Let the walls come down
Let the walls come down
Let the walls that divide us and hide us come down,
If in Christ we agree, let us seek unity,
Let the walls come down

Brings a tear to your eye doesn't it?

OK, maybe just to my eye but it does make a good point and is a good goal for all of us.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Ron, you will say that there is one doctrine and one interpretation established by the church and that is true. Perhaps what should be said is that some Catholics interpret the interpretations different. Is that better language to use.

Brian, not in areas of doctrine. The Church is very clear in areas of beliefs that "must be held". If someone wishes to disagree with those doctrines, they place themselves outside of unity. It is as simple as that.

There are areas of belief which the Church allows "may be held" but are not requred to be held. This is where you may think there is disunity. If your parent says, "You may if you wish..." are you disobedient if you choose not to? No.

Another problem is that most non-Catholics have no idea of what constitutes an authoratative teaching by the Church.

BTW, Brian, my description of how Fundamentalists interpret Scripture is fairly accurate, is it not?

Ron

[ September 27, 2002, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Bible-belted]

"Let's perform a little exercise. For each one doctrine where Catholics do as you describe, I will show you five where Fundamentalists do the same."

We don't claim the unity you do. We claim that yours is no better than ours. By sayin this you implicitly concede my point. Thank You!

You are hardly in a [position to say how we arrive at Sola Scritpura guven that you do not actually know what it is. IOW I will consider the source when reading your words. And, considering the source, they aren't worth a bag of pucks.

"The problem is all your sola scriptura buddies do the same thing and come up with different answers."

This proves you know nothing of Sola Scriptura. Of course we come up with differing answers on a number of issues (though we agree on far more, and far mroe substantive issues, which you never talk about for some reason). But the problem is not with Scripture. If you had a single clue about the doctrine you'd know that.

Again, the point ios not that we are in a better position to you when it comes to subjectivity. It is that, contrary to your claim, you are not in a superior position to us.

We lose nothing byu condeding tha we differ. You lose everything.

Thank you again for conceding my point, though I am sure yo did so inadverdantly. The truth has away of getting out.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Latreia:
"Let's perform a little exercise. For each one doctrine where Catholics do as you describe, I will show you five where Fundamentalists do the same."

We don't claim the unity you do. We claim that yours is no better than ours. By sayin this you implicitly concede my point. Thank You!

No, it will merely serve to demonstrate that you can not find one example, that's all. No concession on my part at all. You assume victory far too readily.

You are hardly in a [position to say how we arrive at Sola Scritpura guven that you do not actually know what it is. IOW I will consider the source when reading your words. And, considering the source, they aren't worth a bag of pucks.

I observe it, as I described it, everyday on this board.

"The problem is all your sola scriptura buddies do the same thing and come up with different answers."

This proves you know nothing of Sola Scriptura. Of course we come up with differing answers on a number of issues (though we agree on far more, and far mroe substantive issues, which you never talk about for some reason). But the problem is not with Scripture. If you had a single clue about the doctrine you'd know that.

Really? Can you name even one such doctrine?

The Trinity... nope, Bible only folks don't all agree on that one.

The nature of Jesus... nope, Bible only folks don't agree on that one either.

Baptism... nope, Bible only folks don't agree on that one either.

Communion... nope, ditto.

Need I go on?

Again, the point ios not that we are in a better position to you when it comes to subjectivity. It is that, contrary to your claim, you are not in a superior position to us.

We lose nothing byu condeding tha we differ. You lose everything.

As is your usual style, you keep saying the same thing over and over without offering evidence. A single example would be a start.

Thank you again for conceding my point, though I am sure yo did so inadverdantly. The truth has away of getting out.

No concession. Just your rash assumptions.

[ September 27, 2002, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]