The Los Angeles Times continues to demonstrate that it is simply unable to reliably provide truthful information about the Catholic faith. A June 27, 2008, book review in the Los Angeles Times, by staffer William Lobdell, falsely claims,
The concept of papal infallibility wasn't introduced until 1870, and the only infallible statement issued by a pope was in 1950 when Pius XII declared that Mary, upon her death, was assumed bodily into heaven.
There are two significant errors in this one sentence. First: Lobdell is wrong that the "concept of papal infallibility wasn't introduced until 1870." Although the doctrine was not formally defined until 1870 at the First Vatican Council, its "concept" (as Lobdell would say) can be traced back to the earliest years of the Church. For example, in 256 A.D., Cyprian of Carthage wrote, "Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come." The roots of papal infallibility are found in Scripture. (Among other passages, see Matt. 16:17-19, John 21:15–17, and 1 Tim. 3-15.) (Great resources: "Papal Infallibility" and "How to Argue for Papal Infallibility" at Catholic Answers.)
Patrick Madrid, from his excellent book, Pope Fiction, helpfully informs us:
Papal infallibility wasn't "invented" in 1870, any more than the doctrine of the Trinity was "invented" in A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicea. That was when the Church determined it should be formally defined, so as to eliminate any ambiguity or error about what, exactly, the doctrine meant. (p. 135)
Second: Lobdell is wrong that "the only infallible statement issued by a pope was in 1950" by Pope Pius XII. At least two have been issued. In a 1993 address on this very topic, Pope John Paul II cited an 1854 statement by Pius IX in addition to the 1950 statement by Pius XII. Catholic scholars cite additional ones. In 1985, a Catholic theologian identified seven ex cathedra documents, the earliest being from the fifth century (source).
The Times owes its readers some corrections ... again.
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+
Previous:
Clueless on Catholicism IV: More Dishonest, Error-Laden Articles From LAT
Clueless on Catholicism (III): Errors, Poor Information Mar L.A. Times Op-Ed On Condoms
Clueless on Catholicism (Again): LA Times Touts Women 'Ordination'
Clueless on Catholicism (and More) at the Los Angeles Times
See also this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Removed w/apologies. I
June 30, 2008 - 05:34 ET by tracheostomy→ Forgiven Trach
June 30, 2008 - 07:09 ET by Cool ArrowAs long as a promise is not spoken ex cathedra, it is not binding. And at some later date you can reveal to us those things you consider infallible.
But let your yea be yea and your nay be nay.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
. . .
June 30, 2008 - 15:00 ET by tracheostomyCool Arrow: And at some later date you can reveal to us those things you consider infallible.
LOL! And 40+ posts later, here you go.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Well, some people truly do
June 30, 2008 - 09:19 ET by futbolisgreat1Well, some people truly do not understand the teachings/doctriness and do not know the history of the Roman Catholic Church. While otherss purposedly distort these on purpose to try to do as much harm to Her as possible.
For All Have Sinned
June 30, 2008 - 09:21 ET by bradbenj5952The scripture cannot be used for papal infallibility, "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23 This "doctrine" is not from the scripture. Even Peter himself was a sinner as are all decendents of Adam. Only our Lord Jesus Christ was without sin and hence the only worthy sacrifice for us. You can argue all you want about when papal infallibility was invented, but it was invented.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Bradbenj5952, "You can
June 30, 2008 - 09:29 ET by futbolisgreat1Bradbenj5952,
"You can argue all you want about when papal infallibility was invented, but it was invented."
Well, you are free to have your opinion, how ever wrong it is.
You do not understand papal infallibility, by no means does it mean that St. Peter and the rest of the Popes are not sinners.
I would urge you to go to the links that the author of the article above put up. They actually give you an answer to your misunderstanding.
No Misunderstanding Here
June 30, 2008 - 09:41 ET by bradbenj5952The so-called, "speaking in ex cathedra" is also an invention to dupe those who don't actually read their Bibles - but want to feel religious - that the pope can somehow "speak infallibly" even when he is fallible, especially when what they say in many instances contradicts scripture. Futbol, you can keep your pope and the liturgy of the RCC and I'll keep my faith in Jesus Christ and the inerrancy of scripture. I need no other revelation than scripture.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Bradbenj5952,Well, your
June 30, 2008 - 10:06 ET by futbolisgreat1Bradbenj5952,
Well, your dislike for the Church is obvious. You do not understand infallibility. If you did, you would not be making such ignorant comments about it.
it only contradicts your version of scripture or how you interpret scripture. You are not infallible, so your interpretation of scripture, can and is wrong. Your pride is showing. Disobedience and pride, the sins of Lucifer.
You still have not done any reading on this. The Pope doesn't speak infallibility. You are speaking nonsense about that which you obviously do not understand.
Don't be afraid, click on the links provided by the author and please try to educate yourself. If you are 100% sure of your beliefs, reading the Catholic Answers webpages should not deter you from your strong conviction, right?
At least try to understand that which you attack before you attack it.
I do like how you just called over 1 billion people idiots who do not read the Bible. Why are so many so called Christians so full of arrogance, pride and hate. why, oh why?
How truly sad, my bretheren in Christ.
Interesting
June 30, 2008 - 10:49 ET by bradbenj5952You equate my speaking against what someone else believes "hate"! Can I, therefore, construe your disagreement with and speaking against what I believe "hate"? Because I disagree with the premise of this article you accuse me of "arrogance, pride and hate"! Can I, therefore, accuse you of "arrogance, pride and hate" because you disagree with me?
I believe the scripture only. I have no faith in man whether lay, bishop or pope. I am a sinner saved only by the grace of my Lord Jesus Christ and the sacrifice of him on Calvary's cross. I have no hate for you nor anyone who believes contrary, only concern for your souls. Only Jesus Christ saves! Solo Christo Salvo.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
bradben - Do you just sit at home with your bible?
June 30, 2008 - 11:21 ET by Dee BunkYou must not attend church - fine that's your right. Others don't believe they can figure it out on their own and do go to church. All churches have teachers.
The Catholic Church only uses scripture in matters of faith and morals.
Did you ever wonder why the Catholic church has the same faith and morals as Conservative Protestants? I'll tell you why - it's because they follow scripture.
They have different worship styles and different a hierarchy. Their hierarchy makes for a more consistent message. Protestants have many different quot;interpretations" Some Protestants get it right, some don't.
And who gets it right?
June 30, 2008 - 11:35 ET by bradbenj5952So those that "get it right" are those that agree with you? I'm really not trying to be argumentative, however, in all the arguments against what I've said not one actually uses scripture to refute. Scripture is several layers of "church fathers" and "interpretations" away from your understanding. You say you follow the scripture as intepreted by...you don't need someone to tell you what it means. Read much scripture and commentaries on scripture, but don't give more weight to commentary than to scripture.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Well according to you bradben everyone gets it right then
June 30, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Dee BunkYou are saying that these liberals Christians who advocate for abortion and Gay marriage get it right just because they read the scripture that way. I don't agree
Huh?
June 30, 2008 - 11:57 ET by bradbenj5952That certainly was a "left" turn (pun intended). After rereading what I wrote above, I didn't find anything of the kind. One only has to look at Soddom and Gomorrha, and read in the Psalms "before thou wast conceived in the womb, I knew thee" to know anyone claiming to believe the scripture cannot believe the things you said. If they believe that Soddomy and Murder are right, then they do not believe the scripture. It is as simple as that.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
No it's not that simple
June 30, 2008 - 12:01 ET by Dee Bunkthe bible does not mention abortion specifically. You are interpreting. I believe your interpretation is correct and it agrees with the Catholic Church. Liberals interpretation doesn't. Someone is wrong. Some are inspired by God and some are not.
bradbenj, You follow
June 30, 2008 - 12:10 ET by futbolisgreat1bradbenj,
You follow Scripture as interpreted by....Brad!
So, you are claiming that your interpreation of Scripture is infallible.
Furthermore, Dee Bunk made an excellent point, there are many things that all of us Christians agree on, example abortion.
You will not find anywhere in Scripture the words, "Abortion is wrong".
However, we all have interpreted certain passages in Scripture to conclude, rightly, that abortion is wrong.
Just because certain words are not in the Bible, as with abortion, it does not mean that the teaching is not in the Bible.
Fut,
June 30, 2008 - 18:10 ET by tracheostomyFut: bradbenj, You follow Scripture as interpreted by....Brad!
Strawman argument. Brad obviously interprets small portions of the Bible according to the greater whole.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
and how would you know that Trach?
July 1, 2008 - 09:25 ET by Dee Bunkbecause he's not a Catholic. Give me a break. Quit trashing religions that you don't understand. You do not understand Catholicism because it also obviously interprets small portions according to the greater whole.
brandbenj5952,1) There
June 30, 2008 - 11:53 ET by futbolisgreat1brandbenj5952,
1) There is no love or understanding in your words. They may not be hate, but they are certainly full of pride and arrogance.
2) If you have no faith in men, how then do you have faith in that your(a mere man) interpretation of Scripture is the right one?
3) And yes, I agree only Jesus Christ saves. No disagreement there. But that is what I am saying, you do not know the Church. How many Protestants constanly make this claim, that Catholics need the Church to be saved. no, no, no, no! We need Jesus Christ to be saved and Jesus Christ chose His Church as the path/road that leads to Salvation as the path that leads to Him. Get it?
bradbenj, with all due
June 30, 2008 - 10:19 ET by lotrbradbenj, with all due respect, according to your own words, you believe Scripture, written by a bunch of sinners, who were no doubt fallible, to be, nevertheless, "infallible."
Lotr, Excellent
June 30, 2008 - 10:22 ET by futbolisgreat1Lotr,
Excellent point!
If we use brandbenj argument against papal infallibility, then Scripture is also wrong since it was written by fallible sinners.
football
June 30, 2008 - 10:49 ET by lotrI think we are in agreement, particularly when it comes to overt, incessant anti-Catholic media bias. Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, is the target of media slander. Echoing what you have said elsewhere, it is sad that other orthodox Christians can't even acknowledge that, but rather cling to Triumphalism, perhaps themselves influenced by the MSM spin.
Lotr, I have lived a lot
June 30, 2008 - 11:06 ET by futbolisgreat1Lotr,
I have lived a lot of my life either in Caracas, Venezuela or Chicago, IL. Thus, i have always found myself defending my Faith against atheists, and so called Liberal Chirsitians (an oxymoron). It was very, very hateful at times the attacks that came from these groups.
However, just recently I moved to a more Conservative and Christian suburb of Chicago. Today, I find myself defending my Faith against Conservative "Christians" whose attacks are as hateful and in some instances more so than what I found in Chicago.
The media bias is sad, the Liberal attacks are sad, the atheist attacks are sad, but in a sense expected and understandable. But when I see the hate, arrogance and pride displayed by so called Christians against the RCC, that's when it is really disheartening.
lotr, I believe you are
June 30, 2008 - 16:11 ET by mjglotr, I believe you are correct. I have never seen any other religion much maligned as Catholicism by the media. They don't understand anything about it so they spin it into a bad thing. I'd like to see them try that with the 2 other major religions. They think that the Church won't defend itself, but they are very wrong in assuming that. I as a member will defend the church. I view their attacks as personal and it has made me despise them even more.
mjg, in a certain sense, the
June 30, 2008 - 18:57 ET by lotrmjg, in a certain sense, the attacks are personal, given that religious faith is a deeply personal thing. Also, for what it's worth, it really is Christianity that the media maligns; Catholicism is targeted specifically only because it is the largest, most global and organized, Christian "denomination." But make no mistake (and may all those debating here take heed): Leftist ideologues wish for the downfall of all orthodox Christianity, whether that be "conservative" Catholics or Bible-believing Evangelicals. We would do best to support one another, rather than tear each other down.
Sinners Yes
June 30, 2008 - 10:37 ET by bradbenj5952Of course the scripture was written by sinners moved by the Holy Ghost, however, the book of Revelations clearly states that the revelation from God was complete and anyone adding to it would be subject to its plagues, Revelations 22:18; ergo, any "revelation" from anyone after the Book of Revelations and the last living Apostle John is not from God; ergo, anyone claiming to have "new" revelation from God cannot be speaking with God's voice and must be speaking with another's voice. It is as simple as that.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
OK, so we agree then that
June 30, 2008 - 10:43 ET by lotrOK, so we agree then that "sinners" can nevertheless be moved by the Holy Ghost and speak (or write) infallibly?
Also, it may come as a surprise to you to know that no Pope has "added" to Scripture since the New Testament canon was formalized centuries after the death of the last Apostle.
bradbenj - the Catholic Church does not add scripture
June 30, 2008 - 11:01 ET by Dee BunkTheir whole structure is aimed at preventing the addition or deletion of scripture. They have never added to or deleted any scripture .
Dee Bunk, Exactly!! The
June 30, 2008 - 11:14 ET by futbolisgreat1Dee Bunk,
Exactly!! The RCC, despite some Protestant's claims, has not added anything new to Scripture.
Furthermore, if we go with Brand's claim that Church can't be infallible when it comes to teaching Scripture, then how does he know that his interpretation of Scripture is correct?
There is a huge flaw in this Protestant argument.
They all claim that Papal infalliblity is incorrect, yet they go right ahead and interpret the Bible, unless they are willing to claim that their interpretation is infallible, then they can and are wrong too, right?
There HAS to be infallibility when it comes to teaching Scripture. St. Paul, St. Peter, the Apostles had it. If God chose no other after these great Saints to be infallible, how dare then do we interpret Scripture? We can't and shouldn't, right?
Brandbenj and Protestants would have to claim infallibility in order to claim that their interpretation of Scripture is the right one. In order for them to point at the Church and claim that Her teachings are wrong and fallible. If they don't and they do not believe in current sinners being inspired by the Holy Spirit, then their interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Period, end of story, it is that simple.
I agree fut - except for maybe one thing
June 30, 2008 - 11:53 ET by Dee BunkI do think that Protestants can get it right also. There is just a lot more danger because there are so many different interpretations and denominations that don't get it right. A Protestant has to be much more careful when listening to their teachers. There is no structure for consistency and the chance for error and even deceit is much greater.
Fut,
June 30, 2008 - 14:50 ET by tracheostomyFut: There HAS to be infallibility when it comes to teaching Scripture.
Correct, but the question is does that teaching extend outside of scripture. . .and if so, in what way?
Are the particular verses of scripture simply taught according to the whole scripture, or are there added teachings outside of scripture added in to "help" it out?
Fut: St. Paul, St. Peter, the Apostles had it. If God chose no other after these great Saints to be infallible, how dare then do we interpret Scripture? We can't and shouldn't, right?
You put a fork in the road for us here. Yes, the apostles were infallible, but only when they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Also, your premise hangs on the necessity of God to choose more apostles. "If God chose no other. . ." assumes that God did. However, Catholic Answers has a problem there.
This is the addition to Biblical teaching that you say isn't there. Succession is only assumed. It does not exist in scripture.
If Christ gives to one man, it is not assumed another man automatically comes afterward to receive what the first man did.
Divine grace is not a football for men to pass on down to one another.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trake: "Succession is
June 30, 2008 - 16:21 ET by lotrTrake:
"Succession is only assumed. It does not exist in scripture."
Matt. 23:1-3 (NIV):
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you."
Succession does exist in Scripture. Q.E.D.
Interception!
June 30, 2008 - 18:46 ET by tracheostomyThen Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you."
LOTR: Succession does exist in Scripture.
Your form of succession, or another kind entirely? Were the Pharisees stil a valid entity after the Resurrection? Why then did the Pharisees still oppose the church?
1. The statement of Jesus telling Jews to obey the authorities at the time automatically results in ----> What?
2. You omitted the rest of verse 3 onward.
3. Verse 4-12 also applies, including that thing Jesus said about "father." <-- And before you jump to conclusions based on any presuppositions, Jesus is forbidding undue titles of spiritual authority as if the source of your spiritual fatherhood were assumed. Every spiritual father does not have to be taken at face value. Same goes for teachers in the same passage.
4. The further argument to succession is only assumed following Christ and the apostles.
5. Jesus also argues that the Pharisees were not valid authorities themselves, for their law could not save. Thus, their authority was taken from them according to a completely different kind of succession. <-- God fired them.
Roman Catholic succession: From institutionally validated authority ---> to another of like kind. Both are presumed blessed of God as a heritage.
The succession spoken in Matt 23: A faulty but necessary authority is taken over by the King of Kings. Did he then give this complete authority over to anyone else? Where in the Bible does it say this? <--- This is bait. Don't take it. I'm two moves ahead.
This therefore does not assume that Jesus left an earthly theocracy.
And to do so denies the sovereign Christ who bought you.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
LOL
June 30, 2008 - 19:14 ET by lotrTrake, love the subject line. Also been meaning to tell you that I love your postscript. Both pretty funny, and demonstrate a certain sense of humor that I appreciate.
First, my "interception" was only in response to one of your comments. I've said it before, I'll say it again, I'm not here to convert you. But when I hear something that is untrue construed as a slight against Catholicism, well, then I try for the interception.
1. The verse I quote demonstrates that succession is not a concept foreign to the Gospel writers, nor to Christ Himself. I did not make any argument that it necessarily follows that the same goes for the Apostolic Succession (although there are apologists out there who make a strong case....).
2. Correct, I did, but that was only because they were irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Jesus went on to condemn the moral example of the Pharisees, but he most notably did not revoke their spiritual/teaching authority -- he affirmed it!
"And to do so denies the sovereign Christ who bought you."
I, and many, many others, beg to differ. And one thing I do know, and I think it's a point we'd both agree on: No one can judge the heart but God alone.
Judge the heart of God
June 30, 2008 - 19:21 ET by Cool ArrowWow! You really cut to the meat of the subject with that pearl of wisdom. And I mean it seriously.
When we embrace tradition that contradicts the Word of God, we are actually Judging God.
Like the angel said to John. "See thou do it not"
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Agreed. Therefore, true
June 30, 2008 - 20:05 ET by tracheostomyAgreed.
Therefore, true Christians do not deny all tradition (because some of it is under orders), but only deny those that contradict the tradition of the apostles of the Bible.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Lotr,
June 30, 2008 - 20:00 ET by tracheostomyLotr: First, my "interception" was only in response to one of your comments.
No. I'm sorry. I'm afraid you misunderstand. I intercepted the Bible that you tried to run away with.
Lotr: I've said it before, I'll say it again, I'm not here to convert you. But when I hear something that is untrue construed as a slight against Catholicism, well, then I try for the interception.
So do I. Therefore, we're both arguing as to what the truth is. BTW, my doctrine teaches me that I don't convert anyone. So you can be assured that you're quite safe. . .from me.
I think you're probably the first non-Protestant here that understands me.
Lotr: The verse I quote demonstrates that succession is not a concept foreign to the Gospel writers, nor to Christ Himself. I did not make any argument that it necessarily follows that the same goes for the Apostolic Succession (although there are apologists out there who make a strong case....).
C'mon Lo, you're jerking me around on the implied meaning of succession. Now you're abandoning the attack and claiming the mere concept of a succession.
In any case this is the difference between the promotion of a Naval officer to a full court martial. If you want to make that all "succession" then, be my guest.
Lotr: Correct, I did, but that was only because they were irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Jesus went on to condemn the moral example of the Pharisees, but he most notably did not revoke their spiritual/teaching authority -- he affirmed it!
Only at that single point in time. You're snapping a Polaroid on one event and then stretching it across the timeline of Christianity.
"And to do so denies the sovereign Christ who bought you."
Lotr: I, and many, many others, beg to differ. And one thing I do know, and I think it's a point we'd both agree on: No one can judge the heart but God alone.
You're free to escape on that. But not on the words "sovereign" and "bought."
Those terms are quite loaded, I agree.
Reformers chafe at any teaching or tradition that mitigates the sole sovereignty of Christ and the purchase that He paid with His own righteousness and none other.
If you acknowledge and accept this, then there really is no other need to argue, is there?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trake: "If you
June 30, 2008 - 20:41 ET by lotrTrake:
"If you acknowledge and accept this,"
Philipians 2:9-11 (NIV):
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
This I believe with my whole heart. And, for what it's worth, I trust the infallibility of Scripture, that comes down to us from the Apostles.
Understood.
June 30, 2008 - 21:01 ET by tracheostomySee? I'm not that contentious.
-PJ
Brandbenj5952, And you
June 30, 2008 - 11:01 ET by futbolisgreat1Brandbenj5952,
And you still do not understand papal infallibility. Papal infallibility doesn't mean that "new" revelations from God are being added by the Church.
To give you an example, the Church will argue, correctly, that papal infallibility is nothing new revealed. Rather, that through Scripture, God revealed to humans the infallibility of the Pope. Same with ALL Doctrines of the Church, they are all based on Scripture, not on new revelations.
You attack that which is obvious you do not understand, it is as simple as that.
You still have not bothered to go into the links given by the author of this forum.
And as lotr pointed out, you just contradicted yourself. First you claim that no sinner can be infallible. Now you claim the oppossite.
Yes, just like the writers of the Scripture were moved by Holy Spirit, so is the Pope moved by the Holy Spirit. However, more than moved, what the Holy Spirit does is PREVENT erroneous teachings, doctrines, faith from being taught by the Church.
but I am glad we are in agreement, sinners who are fallible can be inspired, moved by the Holy Spirit, thus making their teachings infallible.
I wonder if you are honest enough to take back your previous assertion that a sinners teachings, writings are always fallible.
What is Plain
June 30, 2008 - 11:13 ET by bradbenj5952So what you are saying is that you need someone else to tell you the meaning of something you can read and understand with your own eyes, mind and the help of the Holy Spirit? I need no mediation except that graciously provided for me by my Lord. I can read the scripture for myself; and I alone am responsible for myself thereto as to God.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Brandbenj5952, Now, this
June 30, 2008 - 11:33 ET by futbolisgreat1Brandbenj5952,
Now, this is a tiring argument against the Church.
So, are you saying that you are infallible? that your interpretation of Scripture is infallible? that your understanding of the Holy Scripture is infallible?
so, there is no papal infallibility, only brandbenj5952 infalliblity.
Furthermore, if we go with the old Prostestant believe that the Holy Spirit inspires us all when we read Scripture and that we are all teachers of Scripture, then how is the Pope wrong? isn't he being inspired just like you?
So, why are you right and the Pope wrong? Did you not just claim that we are all inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Or is it that only Protestant Christians are inspired by the Holy Spirit?
You are trying to have it both ways, and obviously, you can't.
and of course we can all understand what we read. I like your little jabs at insinuating others are idiots. Quite "Christian" of you.
But do you think you would have been able to understand Einstein's theory of relativity unless someone bothered to teach it and explain it to you first?
So, will you claim that you can understand God's words better than a mere humans?
bradbenj
June 30, 2008 - 11:43 ET by lotr"I can read the scripture for myself; and I alone am responsible for myself thereto as to God."
It may shock you to know that there is no conflict between this statement and Catholic Christianity. God is personal, and thus Scripture is personal. However, that said, God is also the Truth (John 14:6; Exod. 3:14), and therefore absolute and, because of His revelation, objectively (as well as subjectively) knowable.
Brandbenj5952, You
June 30, 2008 - 11:46 ET by futbolisgreat1Brandbenj5952,
You contradict yourself, Bradbenj.
On the one hand you claim that you have no faith in men. Then you go ahead and now claim that you rely only in your interpretation of the Bible as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Wait, I thought you had no faith in men. Do you only have faith in yourself, a mere man?
Furthermore, in order for you to come back and tell me that no, you are not relying in your interpretation of Scripture, but rather on what the Holy Spirit inspired you the interpretation is, you HAVE TO CLAIM infallibility.
your argument is completly flawed.
You can't claim to have the right interpretation of the Bible, unless you are willing to claim that your interpretation is infallible.
furthermore, you can't claim that all of us are inspired by the Holy Spirit when it comes to interpretation the Bible and then go right ahead and claim that the Popes interpretation is wrong. Since then your argument that we are all inspired by the Holy Spirit does not hold.
Either we are all inspired by the Holy Spirit, thus making the Popes' interpretations and teachings of the Bible correct, OR we are not all inspired by the Holy Spirit and this Protestant teaching is wrong. Pick one, but you can't have it both ways since it is contradictory. Let me know which one you pick.
I said not
June 30, 2008 - 12:06 ET by bradbenj5952This discussion is getting really interesting. I said not that my understanding of scripture is perfect, what I said is that I alone am responsible to know what it says and God who speaks to me through the scripture. If He says, "thou shalt not kill" and yet if I kill, then I am guilty of sin. If someone with some high sounding title tells me otherwise, and I do that which is forbidden in the scripture, then I am responsible for my sin, not the deceiver.
I know already that the above will incense some of you, nevertheless, the thing is true. No one can absolve you of your responsibility to find out for yourselves what God said and believe him, "and Abraham believed God, and it was counted for him for righteousness".
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
bradbanj
June 30, 2008 - 12:11 ET by lotrSee my above comment. Not incensed at all here.
The Catholic Church doesn't absolve anyone
June 30, 2008 - 12:14 ET by Dee BunkThey hold people responsible. You may be surprised to know that Catholics do own bibles and read them in private. Your arguments are 100% strawman arguments.
Dee Bunk, Exactly, just
June 30, 2008 - 12:29 ET by futbolisgreat1Dee Bunk,
Exactly, just yesterday, I went to Mass with my family and then guess what we did? A bit of Bible reading at home.
Would you look at that, a Catholic reading the Bible. Bradbendj, do not tell your Protestant friends, but millions, upon millions of Catholics read the Bible on a daily basis without a priest, Pope, Bishop over their shoulder telling them what each passage means. but do not tell this secret to any Protestant, ok? :-)
the only reason that Protestants like Bradbendj claim that Catholics do not read the Bible is because we do not agree with their interpretation of Scripture.
they rather call us lazy, dumb, etc then try to understand. They make false accusations since that is easier than taking the time to understand.
We can remind those who
June 30, 2008 - 15:10 ET by celatorWe can remind those who criticize us for ignoring or not "knowing" the Bible, that the Catholic Church covers the entire Bible (absent some of the VERY long genealogies) every three years during Mass (yearly Cycles A, B and C). One must include the daily Masses, of course, to complete the Cycles.
As you know, there are four formal readings from Scripture per Mass--the first reading, after the Gloria; the Psalm and response of the day, the second reading and the reading of that day's Gospel. Also, of course, there are the Biblical readings throughout the Mass (The Consecration etc.). I daresay we are far more familiar with the Bible than they think we are.
double
June 30, 2008 - 15:20 ET by celatordouble
June 30, 2008 - 12:34 ET by futbolisgreat1double
Dee, I agree with the
June 30, 2008 - 16:20 ET by mjgDee, I agree with the subject of holding people responsible it's in the scripture. I also read my bible a lot. As a matter of fact I keep 2 on my coffee table so if I run across something, I know just where to look for it.
Bradbenj5952, You are not
June 30, 2008 - 12:19 ET by futbolisgreat1Bradbenj5952,
You are not getting it!
How do you know that your interpretation is right? Unless you are willing to claim infallibility, how do you know you are right? You are avoding this question like the plague.
Furthermore, I agree! all Catholics agree. As a Roman Catholic, it is my duty and mine alone to find the Truth, to get to Salvation.
BradBenj: "If someone with some high sounding title tells me otherwise, and I do that which is forbidden in the scripture, then I am responsible for my sin, not the deceiver."
Futbol: Then you believe in a God that has no Mercy. You believe in a God that is not all Just. You only believe in a God of wrath.
If you are led astray by another individual, and it is not out of your own doing, out of your own ignorance, God is Just and Merciful enough to understand and know that your sin against Him was not done on purpose.
I as a father do not hold my son accountable for doing something wrong that he was never told it was wrong. Thus, are you saying that I as a human being, have more mercy than God? I truly hope not.
I guess then you believe that if a man is alone in an island. He never heard of Jesus Christ, he never heard of the Bible, that he can't be saved because there is no way possible for him to ever know Jesus Chirst, God.
This is a pretty cruel God you believe in.
Bradbenj: "I know already that the above will incense some of you, nevertheless, the thing is true."
Futbol: How can you make such an assertion unless you claim infalliblity?
Romans 14:12, "So then
June 30, 2008 - 12:49 ET by bradbenj5952Romans 14:12, "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." I am fallible, Romans 14:12 is not.
It has been a good discussion folks, but time for me to leave this thread. I hope any offense I have caused only pricks you to think.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
The Catholic church doesn't disagree with Romans 14:12
June 30, 2008 - 12:53 ET by Dee Bunkso again you have no point. Hopefully you will think about it.
Bradbenj5952, So no
June 30, 2008 - 13:19 ET by futbolisgreat1Bradbenj5952,
So no answer to the post below by Mustang before you leave? no....
i wonder, are you leaving this thread and thinking more about your fallacies about the Church?
I find it interesting that at no point did you bother to answer anyone's questions.
Furthermore, I find it interesting that you are leaving with out admitting that your believes of Church doctrine and teaching regarding infallibility are wrong.
Brad,
If you believe the Scriptures, why don't you follow this one?
Second Letter to the Thessalonians 2:15: "So
then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by
us, either by word of mouth or by letter" .
Also, if you are a "Bible alone" Christian, please provide the Scripture which says to follow the "Bible alone"? This should be simple, right?
Um, brandbenj5952 was
June 30, 2008 - 14:39 ET by tracheostomyUm, brandbenj5952 was trying to explain the concept of eisegesis as opposed to exegesis. He strongly hinted at it in a few posts.
You can read the Bible all day long and it doesn't matter if someone's interpreting it for you, or if you're interpreting it yourself, or if you're in church or out. In the end, there are always only two "interpretations" of scripture, exegetical and eisegetical.
I've repeated this numerous times in the past, and I noticed Brand's opponents never went there. Not once. They never even asked.
The only correct interpretation for popes, children, adults, Catholics, Protestants, etc. is an exegetical interpretation.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach: The only correct
June 30, 2008 - 15:23 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach: The only correct interpretation for popes, children, adults, Catholics, Protestants, etc. is an exegetical interpretation.
Futbol: And you know this PJ because you are infallible? You made an assertion, which I am not agreeing with or disagreeing. I am just point it out that you just claimed a Truth (which could be right or wrong). By you claiming this as a Truth you are making yourself infallible.
You are claiming that the ONLY way, THE correct way is an exegetical interpretation. How do you know? Are you infallible? if your are not, who told you this "Truth"? Is that person infallible?
Or
Is there a passage in the Bible that says, "The only way to read and understand the Bible is through an exegetical interpretation".
I thought all Truth came from the Bible? Where can I find this Truth of yours in the Bible?
If you are going to interpret Bible verses, who are you to interpret the words of God? If you claim that the Holy Spirit is inspiring you, then you are claiming infallibility. which we all know you deny.
Trach just made his own religious doctrine. Does he believe he is infallible?
If this "Truth" can't be found in the Bible, in Scripture, accoreding to Protestant teachings, this is NOT a Truth.
"Houston, we have a problem!"
Plus fut and Trach- I think that the Catholic church considers
June 30, 2008 - 15:56 ET by Dee Bunktheir interpretation to be exegetical. Theirs is exegetical of both tradition and scripture.
They believe all Protestants to have an exegesis interpretation that ignores traditions that were passed down.
Exegetic vs Eisegesis is still in the eye of the beholder. It's a circular argument that will never end.
Conservative Christians are made up of Conservative Catholics (those who follow the Pope) and Conservative Protestants. Liberal Christians are made of of Liberal Catholics (those who don't follow the Pope) and Liberal Protestants. There is a reason that the Catholics who disagree with the Pope are on the liberal spectrum with the liberal Protestants.
Most differences in Conservative Protestants and Conservative Catholics are based not on scripture interpretation but a recognition of tradition and authority that was not written down. These differences are mostly in ways of worship and not faith and morals.
Dee Bunk, I agree with
June 30, 2008 - 16:26 ET by futbolisgreat1Dee Bunk,
I agree with almost everything, except...A "Catholic" that disagrees with the Pope is not a Catholic.
Part of being a Catholic is not disagreeing with the Pope is matters of Faith and Doctrine. Of course in only these, you can disagree with the Pope all you want in science, math, english grammar, best soccer team, etc. But you cannot disagree with the Pope in matters of Faith and Moral. If you do, you are not a Catholic.
Dee my point with Trach was not about how to interpret the Bible, but rather, that he stated an absolute. Unless he is willing to claim, using his beliefs and that of other Protestants, that he has infallibility or that someone else does, he has no right to claim an absolute when it comes to a religious doctrine.
The interesting thing is, and this is something no Protestant will ever admit, is that they claim with their teachings that we are all infallible when it comes to Scripture interpretation. Of course, they then go on and claim that well, the Pope and the Church are not. Thus contradicting their earlier teaching. Then they move on and tell anyone that disagrees with them that their interpretation of the Bible is wrong, but using Protestant beliefs, how can my interpretation of the Bible be wrong, didn't they just tell me that we are all inspired by the Holy Spirit?
They argument is very, very flawed.
1) If we were all infallible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, when we interpret the Bible, we would all come to the same conclusions about the Bible. There aren't a few thousand Holy Spirits, there is only ONE. This ONE will not confuse the world by inspiring each individual to come to a different conclusion about the Bible. If this is the case, then you are claiming that God, The Holy Spirit, is not a perfect Being.
2) You can't claim we are all infallible, we are all inspired by the Holy Spirit, and then make the claim that the Pope is wrong in his interpretations of the Bible and that he is fallible. These statements contradict each other. It is either one or the other, not both.
if we are all infallibe (according to Protestant teachings and beliefs), if we are all inspiried by the Holy Spirit(once again according to Protestant beliefs and teachings), then the Church is correct. The Pope is infallible. Thus, he has every right (according to Protestant beliefs and teachings) to preach and teach the Word of God. (hey if you Protestants don't like it, then take your teachings back. I am just using your teachingss and taking them to their logical conclusion)
if the Pope is fallible, then the Protestant teaching and belief that we are all inspired by the Holy Spirit is wrong.
I am sure everyone can see the flaw in Protestant belief of infallibility, the Pope, etc.
It is as simple as this. :-)
Never say never again. . .
June 30, 2008 - 19:33 ET by tracheostomyFut: The interesting thing is, and this is something no Protestant will ever admit, is that they claim with their teachings that we are all infallible when it comes to Scripture interpretation.
Delivered.
Fut: If we were all infallible ["we," including you, me, the pope, and Dee], inspired by the Holy Spirit, when we interpret the Bible, we would all come to the same conclusions about the Bible.
Ah, you are absolutely correct!!!
Fut: There aren't a few thousand Holy Spirits, there is only ONE. This ONE will not confuse the world by inspiring each individual to come to a different conclusion about the Bible. If this is the case, then you are claiming that God, The Holy Spirit, is not a perfect Being.
Correct again!!!
*APPLAUSE*
Fut: You can't claim we are all infallible, we are all inspired by the Holy Spirit, and then make the claim that the Pope is wrong in his interpretations of the Bible and that he is fallible. These statements contradict each other. It is either one or the other, not both.
I'm not claiming we are all infallible. Where did this "we" come from?
Fut: if we are all infallibe (according to Protestant teachings and beliefs), if we are all inspiried by the Holy Spirit(once again according to Protestant beliefs and teachings), then the Church is correct. The Pope is infallible.
No, because you jumped from a Protestant to a Catholic. You're assuming Protestantism teaches that "we" all are inspired by the Holy Spirit.
What about the option of "none"? <--- Have you considered that?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Dee,
June 30, 2008 - 19:24 ET by tracheostomyDee: Theirs is exegetical of both tradition and scripture.
Uh-Oh.
Dee: They believe all Protestants to have an exegesis interpretation that ignores traditions that were passed down.
Where do you think tradition comes from Dee? Isn't tradition started upon some solid foundation of truth?
Dee: Exegetic vs Eisegesis is still in the eye of the beholder. It's a circular argument that will never end.
Trust me, it's not all subjective. It all turns somewhere at the crossroad of truth. PM sent.
Dee: Conservative Christians are made up of Conservative Catholics (those who follow the Pope) and Conservative Protestants. Liberal Christians are made of of Liberal Catholics (those who don't follow the Pope) and Liberal Protestants. There is a reason that the Catholics who disagree with the Pope are on the liberal spectrum with the liberal Protestants.
Owtch! What about the Tridentines? They're some of the most conservative Catholics I've ever met! Yet, they regard the chair of St. Peter as officially empty.
And if anyone still thinks I'm just "anti-Catholic" I've got enough posts arguing on behalf of the Tridentine mass to earn a Free Stinker Comprehensive List award!
Dee: Most differences in Conservative Protestants and Conservative Catholics are based not on scripture interpretation but a recognition of tradition and authority that was not written down. These differences are mostly in ways of worship and not faith and morals.
Roots Dee, roots. Remember when the law was given and when God gives instructions for when the little children ask "Why do you do this?" The parents are not instructed to state that it's all subjective, but just do it anyway.
Symbolism and tradition does not exist in and of itself. Symbols and traditions are indicatiors of a greater truth.
Therefore, when I see an image of Our Lady of Lourdes with the rosary, I do see what assertions to truth that the image is pointing to.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Houston, we are go with throttle up; all systems running smooth
June 30, 2008 - 19:03 ET by tracheostomyFut: [Trach: The only correct interpretation for popes, children, adults, Catholics, Protestants, etc. is an exegetical interpretation.] And you know this PJ because you are infallible?
Because A does not equal non-A in the same time and in the same place.
Because scrip