There cannot be a valid interpretation of Scripture that conflicts with an established Catholic interpretation of that Scripture.
The only way evidence would conflict with the Catholic church’s interpretation is if the evidence is handled in an inappropriate manner (decontextualized. etc.).
Now I am as annoyed as the postmodernists about claims to genuine objectivity or interpretive neutrality, but what you are essentially saying is that the church’s claims do not require any sort of outside verification. Now that’s problematic, fundamentally because (as theologians in all camps have been pointing out for decades) the church’s claims are NOT merely theological; they are, in fact, historical.
It’s one thing, for example, to interpret the bible’s and the apostles’ claims about Jesus’ death and resurrection as allegories referring to the soul’s ascent from the lower realm to the higher, but as soon as you start asserting that Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles, died, and rose physically 2,000 years ago, you are making historical claims.
If we knew nothing else about history, and if we had only the church’s teaching (and not it’s Bible or the writings of its Early church fathers) about its origins, then I could understand the unwillingness to submit to objective verification - such verification would be impossible! However, we know a lot about the classical world; we know a lot (compared to even Christians 1900 years ago) about Second Temple Judaism; and we know a lot about the milieu and writings of the church fathers.
And the problem is, at the end of the day, I cannot arrive at the church’s claims about its own authority or the authoritative status of its interpretations from the evidence itself. Period.
For me, that’s a big problem. That’s the most fundamental reason why I am not Catholic - despite the fact that I would love to be able to trust someone else to tell me what to believe, the disparity between the Catholic church’s claims about its origins, authority, and interpretations and the evidence of Second Temple Jewish, Greco-Roman, and even Early Church contexts is simply too great.
The Catholic church’s claims are NOT supported by the historical data. I could never arrive at the unique authority of the Catholic church from the historical data alone. As you have admitted, I have to accept ITS assumptions about what constitutes valid interpretation, valid methods inquiry, etc., assumptions all formulated by the church to maintain and preserve it, NEVER to refine or reform it.
In my opinion, there is something wrong with that.
Remove that letter “r” from the end of the word in the first closing quote tag of your post Chris.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< And the problem is, at the end of the day, I cannot arrive at the church’s claims about its own authority or the authoritative status of its interpretations from the evidence itself. Period. >>>[/quote] This has been my cry forever. I would LOVE to be Catholic. I mean that. On the biblical evidence alone it is however not possible for me to do so. This is why this Romans 2 thing is so important. Of the proposed interpretations among non mentally deranged students of scripture throughout history, the Roman Catholic one is THE one that is simply not possible. Unless Rome is granted a license allowing monumentally capricious special pleading unheard of in the absolute whole of recorded history. That is to say: “There is absolutely NO reason to believe this says what we say it does and every reason to believe it says something else, but it can’t say something else because we said so and God said everything we say goes. Where did God say that? In the rest of the literature that we also say says we are commissioned to say that it says that we are so commissioned.” See? That is not sarcasm. That IS the actual state of affairs as it exists in truth in the Catholic religion. If I’m the only one divinely ordained to interpret the roadmap, I could have somebody going from Albuquerque to Flagstaff through Anchorage AND convinced it was a shortcut.
Fair enough fellas. I’ll reserve the lightheartedly sneering Catholic (Big C) for times when it has relevance to the discussion immediately at hand. It was meant to be grating, but I’m overdoing it.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Chris, this is what I’m reading…
There cannot be a valid interpretation of Scripture that conflicts with an established Catholic interpretation of that Scripture.
The only way evidence would conflict with the Catholic church’s interpretation is if the evidence is handled in an inappropriate manner (decontextualized. etc.).
Now I am as annoyed as the postmodernists about claims to genuine objectivity or interpretive neutrality, but what you are essentially saying is that the church’s claims do not require any sort of outside verification. Now that’s problematic, fundamentally because (as theologians in all camps have been pointing out for decades) the church’s claims are NOT merely theological; they are, in fact, historical.
It’s one thing, for example, to interpret the bible’s and the apostles’ claims about Jesus’ death and resurrection as allegories referring to the soul’s ascent from the lower realm to the higher, but as soon as you start asserting that Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles, died, and rose physically 2,000 years ago, you are making historical claims.
If we knew nothing else about history, and if we had only the church’s teaching (and not it’s Bible or the writings of its Early church fathers) about its origins, then I could understand the unwillingness to submit to objective verification - such verification would be impossible! However, we know a lot about the classical world; we know a lot (compared to even Christians 1900 years ago) about Second Temple Judaism; and we know a lot about the milieu and writings of the church fathers.
And the problem is, at the end of the day, I cannot arrive at the church’s claims about its own authority or the authoritative status of its interpretations from the evidence itself. Period.
For me, that’s a big problem. That’s the most fundamental reason why I am not Catholic - despite the fact that I would love to be able to trust someone else to tell me what to believe, the disparity between the Catholic church’s claims about its origins, authority, and interpretations and the evidence of Second Temple Jewish, Greco-Roman, and even Early Church contexts is simply too great.
The Catholic church’s claims are NOT supported by the historical data. I could never arrive at the unique authority of the Catholic church from the historical data alone. As you have admitted, I have to accept ITS assumptions about what constitutes valid interpretation, valid methods inquiry, etc., assumptions all formulated by the church to maintain and preserve it, NEVER to refine or reform it.
In my opinion, there is something wrong with that. [/quote]
What claims are you referring to and in what way are they evidentiary disputed? I think it’s important to establish what you are talking about specifically.
For the record Pat. I would love to be able to see you participate in this. Without profanity and hysterical accusations of people who disagree with you being Manson and Hitler would be even better. All I ever wanted was to have a reasoned substantive discussion with you.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Chris, this is what I’m reading…
There cannot be a valid interpretation of Scripture that conflicts with an established Catholic interpretation of that Scripture.
The only way evidence would conflict with the Catholic church’s interpretation is if the evidence is handled in an inappropriate manner (decontextualized. etc.).
Now I am as annoyed as the postmodernists about claims to genuine objectivity or interpretive neutrality, but what you are essentially saying is that the church’s claims do not require any sort of outside verification. Now that’s problematic, fundamentally because (as theologians in all camps have been pointing out for decades) the church’s claims are NOT merely theological; they are, in fact, historical.
It’s one thing, for example, to interpret the bible’s and the apostles’ claims about Jesus’ death and resurrection as allegories referring to the soul’s ascent from the lower realm to the higher, but as soon as you start asserting that Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles, died, and rose physically 2,000 years ago, you are making historical claims.
If we knew nothing else about history, and if we had only the church’s teaching (and not it’s Bible or the writings of its Early church fathers) about its origins, then I could understand the unwillingness to submit to objective verification - such verification would be impossible! However, we know a lot about the classical world; we know a lot (compared to even Christians 1900 years ago) about Second Temple Judaism; and we know a lot about the milieu and writings of the church fathers.
And the problem is, at the end of the day, I cannot arrive at the church’s claims about its own authority or the authoritative status of its interpretations from the evidence itself. Period.
For me, that’s a big problem. That’s the most fundamental reason why I am not Catholic - despite the fact that I would love to be able to trust someone else to tell me what to believe, the disparity between the Catholic church’s claims about its origins, authority, and interpretations and the evidence of Second Temple Jewish, Greco-Roman, and even Early Church contexts is simply too great.
The Catholic church’s claims are NOT supported by the historical data. I could never arrive at the unique authority of the Catholic church from the historical data alone. As you have admitted, I have to accept ITS assumptions about what constitutes valid interpretation, valid methods inquiry, etc., assumptions all formulated by the church to maintain and preserve it, NEVER to refine or reform it.
In my opinion, there is something wrong with that. [/quote]
What claims are you referring to and in what way are they evidentiary disputed? I think it’s important to establish what you are talking about specifically.[/quote]
That’s fair, bud. Specificity is important. That being said, my problem (and I think Tirib’s too) with what Chris is arguing lies at the presuppositional level, and I’ve dealt with (and will, God willing, continue to deal with) specifics in the Catholic Q&A and elsewhere, so I don’t want to diverge from the current conversation by bringing up individual points again right now. THIS discussion (which will hopefully come around to Romans 2 soon) is about how evidence is treated.
To restate my point, the Catholic church claims an interpretive hegemony over the sacred texts. While the church allows divergent opinions on the meaning of many texts (so long as they are not shown to impinge on defining doctrines), the church also considers its interpretations of certain texts as normative and authoritative (such as, it would seem, Romans 2:14-16). However, since meaning is context-bound, as soon as you determine the meaning of a particular text without sufficient consideration of its function in the context of a work, you automatically predetermine the meaning of other passages throughout the book.
That’s a problem. It’s one thing to argue from context what a particular passage means. If, however, you “authoritatively” claim that a particular passage means X without taking that passage’s function in its context into account, you automatically (1) decontextualize that passage and (2) force the surrounding context to be read in light of that passage. Consequently, since that one passage becomes the given, the rest of the text is not permitted to disagree with it. Suddenly, the text becomes silent; it merely parrots the beliefs of those charged with authoritative interpretation. That means that the text can NEVER be used to question the existing power structure - as long as those in charge claim special interpretive authority, the text can only mean what they want it to mean.
Those within the Catholic church might be fine with that. I, however, standing on the outside of that body, would like a reason to come in. I would like to see from the evidence that the claims of those in power (the bishops) are supported by the evidence, that they aren’t just cooking the books, so to speak. But the evidence does not support their claims.
Here’s a major claim… The distinctive beliefs and practices (Eucharist as sacrifice; penance; veneration of saints, etc.) of Roman Catholicism are apostolic in origin (i.e., derived from the apostles).
I have found no solid evidence to that effect. In fact, there is considerable evidence instead that such distinctive beliefs arose as a direct result of (1) the sensed (though often unspoken) power vacuum created by the deaths of the apostles, (2) the shift in the church’s constituency from largely Jewish to predominantly Gentile, and (3) the rise of Gentiles educated in Greek and Roman schools to church leadership.
DISCLAIMER: My statements about power structures and the leadership of the Catholic church were NOT meant to attribute nefarious motives to church leaders. I can say nothing about their motives; I would, in fact, assume that the vast majority of those in power seek only to protect what they believe to be the truth. This does not, however, disprove the existence of just such power structures as I have discussed.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< THIS discussion (which will hopefully come around to Romans 2 soon) is about how evidence is treated. >>>[/quote]The delay has been at least in large part my fault though I have been overwhelmed with offline responsibilities. Being an election year has had some of my time tied up here in that regard as well.
Those within the Catholic church might be fine with that. I, however, standing on the outside of that body, would like a reason to come in.
[/quote]
Why?
[/quote]
This question is really surprising. This isn’t about “religion” for me, Sloth. This is about truth. This is about how to rightly understand and please God. Unity is presented throughout the New Testament as an essential goal for the people of God, as something all of us should strive for, and as something pleasing to God.
The Roman Catholic church (NOT the Protestant denominations) refuses unity. I don’t fault the church for that, per se; I understand that it is a necessary corollary of many of the church’s claims. Regardless, the fact remains that it is the episcopacy’s claim to unique authority that ultimately stands in the way of unity.
I (along with a significant number of other Protestants) would have no problem joining the Catholic church IF the church did not demand that we accept doctrines that are inconsistent with what we consider to be a historically and contextually sensitive reading of Scripture. The Roman Catholic church, however, demands that, before we can receive communion, we accept the legitimacy of views which we may deem inconsistent with a historically and contextually sensitive reading of Scripture.
And the fact is, if the Catholic church really is correct in its claims that (for those not “invincibly ignorant”) unity with the true church is necessary to please God, I don’t want to be an agent of disunity. The problem is that the church’s claims to its authority (and, by implication, the authority of its distinctive beliefs) are not, in my estimation (based on what I know of Scripture and history), convincing.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< This is about how to rightly understand and please God. >>>[/quote]If I could be persuaded that Catholic doctrine and practice were pleasing to God I’d buy a rosary, a sacred heart, a Madonna statue and Catholic ESV tomorrow. (Too late tonight). I’d enroll in the very first RCIA available and go to mass and take communion at the first possible opportunity while worshiping the eucharist with full latria. I would then make it my life’s mission to surrender my every gifting to the conversion of as many people as I could into communion with the bishop of Rome and the body over which he exercises unquestioned headship. I would defend and proclaim the gospel according to Rome every chance I got and would welcome all comers. Charitable or not. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Unity is presented throughout the New Testament as an essential goal for the people of God, as something all of us should strive for, and as something pleasing to God. >>>[/quote] It is indeed, as is personal holiness. Neither of which are achievable to the degree we would like this side of the resurrection. See this pic. It is the prayer walk we had in Detroit. People from a few hundred churches and a wiiiiide range of theological traditions. Many I profoundly disagree with. I was in the front running a video camera for our Church. All joining hands to pray for our city and each other that the Jesus we all love would do a mighty work and show Himself glorious in redeeming our sick and rotting Detroit. THAT is unity. I prayed with and for people I never saw before in my life and they with and for me. We’re family. When you get a big circle of believers hand in hand all lifting high praise, supplication and adoration to and for our God, everybody’s the same. The police report was glowing. Huge crowd, no arrests, NO INCIDENTS of any kind. We thanked our police and prayed with them too. It was a tremendous testimony of the love, power and majesty of the living God who was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.
I (along with a significant number of other Protestants) would have no problem joining the Catholic church IF the church did not demand that we accept doctrines that are inconsistent with what we consider to be a historically and contextually sensitive reading of Scripture. The Roman Catholic church, however, demands that, before we can receive communion, we accept the legitimacy of views which we may deem inconsistent with a historically and contextually sensitive reading of Scripture. [/quote]
So then don’t join. You’ve heard the arguments, I’m sure, and rejected them. We’ve now got, what, Catholic Q&A 3 (since Romans 2 never actually showed up) with this thread? If you really haven’t heard them (our arguments for what we believe/do), there’s Catholic apologetics and resources to be found all over the web. I imagine you’ve made use of them, only to reject at least some of the claims/teachings.
Look, we don’t want unity. Not your kind, anyways. If you want unity with the Church, there’s RCIA. Couldn’t recommend it more. When I went through it was fantastic! Otherwise, I wouldn’t worry so much about the Catholic church unifying itself with protestant churches. That will never happen. There’s no kumbaya coming down the pipeline. Well, not in THAT kind of way. Be good friends and neighbors, absolutely! But the kind of unity you’ve described? No thanks.
@Sloth:
Is it possible and what would happen IF you were to be confronted with an instance of an authoritative Catholic interpretation of scripture you were certain was wrong? Is that possible and what would happen? Have you concluded out of hand in an a-priori fashion that no matter what you’re shown, the Catholic interpretation MUST be correct because it’s Catholic? I’m just asking and I do not want to fight with you some more.
I (along with a significant number of other Protestants) would have no problem joining the Catholic church IF the church did not demand that we accept doctrines that are inconsistent with what we consider to be a historically and contextually sensitive reading of Scripture. The Roman Catholic church, however, demands that, before we can receive communion, we accept the legitimacy of views which we may deem inconsistent with a historically and contextually sensitive reading of Scripture. [/quote]
So then don’t join. You’ve heard the arguments, I’m sure, and rejected them. We’ve now got, what, Catholic Q&A 3 (since Romans 2 never actually showed up) with this thread? If you really haven’t heard them (our arguments for what we believe/do), there’s Catholic apologetics and resources to be found all over the web. I imagine you’ve made use of them, only to reject at least some of the claims/teachings.
Look, we don’t want unity. Not your kind, anyways. If you want unity with the Church, there’s RCIA. Couldn’t recommend it more. When I went through it was fantastic! Otherwise, I wouldn’t worry so much about the Catholic church unifying itself with protestant churches. That will never happen. There’s no kumbaya coming down the pipeline. Well, not in THAT kind of way. Be good friends and neighbors, absolutely! But the kind of unity you’ve described? No thanks.[/quote]
First of all, I don’t think all Catholics are as jaded about or disinterested in the possibility of unity as you are, Sloth.
Secondly, the pursuit of truth entails a willingness to ALWAYS subject one’s current beliefs to scrutiny. If you bring forth an argument or a piece of historical information that clearly disproves my beliefs at a given point at time, I will GLADLY rethink those beliefs. It’s that simple. That means giving Roman Catholics an ear as well, especially because we both seek to follow Jesus and derive from the very same roots.
First of all, I don’t think all Catholics are as jaded about or disinterested in the possibility of unity as you are, Sloth.[/quote]
Just the Catholic ones. We’re Catholics, not some hippie unity church. That is, not just another Sunday option, with different window dressing, for when you get bored of your present ‘worship atmosphere.’
[quote]Secondly, the pursuit of truth entails a willingness to ALWAYS subject one’s current beliefs to scrutiny. If you bring forth an argument or a piece of historical information that clearly disproves my beliefs at a given point at time, I will GLADLY rethink those beliefs. It’s that simple. That means giving Roman Catholics an ear as well, especially because we both seek to follow Jesus and derive from the very same roots.
[/quote]
What are we on, Q&A 3?
4, maybe?
I mean, that’s what this thread quickly became. You’ve pursued the truth. Here, and outside of PWI (you seem to be a reader). You’ve informed yourself, yet still rejected the Catholic Church. Well, there you go. Put it in God’s hands now. If my disinterest in your desire for unity offends, we’ll I’m sorry you choose to be offended. However, the Church, instituted by Christ, isn’t here to move into communion with the people of the world. But to bring 'em into communion with itself (and therefore Christ).
Tailoring the Church, so that protestants might feel comfortable with it as a different flavor of protestantism–like going to a steak house instead of a Chinese restaurant–is not an option. We’re not kidding around about all the ‘Catholicish stuff.’ It’s not like that ‘stuff’ is our red bandanas to your blue. Our jerseys, in answer to your jerseys. It IS us. Be friendly, be neighborly. Enjoy.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I thought this thread was going to be about Romans 2.
Three pages into it now and I’m still waiting. [/quote]
Romans 2:13-14 ESV[quote]14-For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15-They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them[/quote] Go ahead. What is Paul saying here? I admittedly, for the first time have been considering an alternative to the interpretation that I have long held on this, which, along with offline responsibilities, has delayed my ability to go forward as effectively as I really want to be able to. So. Tell us. What does Paul mean and why do you think so? The interpretation of these two verses has vaaaast global implication for literally billions of people. Dearest Christopher posted a link to this http://www.almostnotcatholic.com/2012/06/myth-busters-catholicism-teaches.html which is what got this ball rolling. I have just submitted another response to Brent, who has invited me to stay and thereby obligated me to “good” behavior while there. I’ll do my best. I have not answered him yet as to why I asked the pending question the way I did. No slight to anyone else, but KK will probably be the only one who sees what I see there.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Chris, this is what I’m reading…
There cannot be a valid interpretation of Scripture that conflicts with an established Catholic interpretation of that Scripture.
The only way evidence would conflict with the Catholic church’s interpretation is if the evidence is handled in an inappropriate manner (decontextualized. etc.).
Now I am as annoyed as the postmodernists about claims to genuine objectivity or interpretive neutrality, but what you are essentially saying is that the church’s claims do not require any sort of outside verification. Now that’s problematic, fundamentally because (as theologians in all camps have been pointing out for decades) the church’s claims are NOT merely theological; they are, in fact, historical.
It’s one thing, for example, to interpret the bible’s and the apostles’ claims about Jesus’ death and resurrection as allegories referring to the soul’s ascent from the lower realm to the higher, but as soon as you start asserting that Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles, died, and rose physically 2,000 years ago, you are making historical claims.
If we knew nothing else about history, and if we had only the church’s teaching (and not it’s Bible or the writings of its Early church fathers) about its origins, then I could understand the unwillingness to submit to objective verification - such verification would be impossible! However, we know a lot about the classical world; we know a lot (compared to even Christians 1900 years ago) about Second Temple Judaism; and we know a lot about the milieu and writings of the church fathers.
And the problem is, at the end of the day, I cannot arrive at the church’s claims about its own authority or the authoritative status of its interpretations from the evidence itself. Period.
For me, that’s a big problem. That’s the most fundamental reason why I am not Catholic - despite the fact that I would love to be able to trust someone else to tell me what to believe, the disparity between the Catholic church’s claims about its origins, authority, and interpretations and the evidence of Second Temple Jewish, Greco-Roman, and even Early Church contexts is simply too great.
The Catholic church’s claims are NOT supported by the historical data. I could never arrive at the unique authority of the Catholic church from the historical data alone. As you have admitted, I have to accept ITS assumptions about what constitutes valid interpretation, valid methods inquiry, etc., assumptions all formulated by the church to maintain and preserve it, NEVER to refine or reform it.
In my opinion, there is something wrong with that. [/quote]
What claims are you referring to and in what way are they evidentiary disputed? I think it’s important to establish what you are talking about specifically.[/quote]
That’s fair, bud. Specificity is important. That being said, my problem (and I think Tirib’s too) with what Chris is arguing lies at the presuppositional level, and I’ve dealt with (and will, God willing, continue to deal with) specifics in the Catholic Q&A and elsewhere, so I don’t want to diverge from the current conversation by bringing up individual points again right now. THIS discussion (which will hopefully come around to Romans 2 soon) is about how evidence is treated.
To restate my point, the Catholic church claims an interpretive hegemony over the sacred texts. While the church allows divergent opinions on the meaning of many texts (so long as they are not shown to impinge on defining doctrines), the church also considers its interpretations of certain texts as normative and authoritative (such as, it would seem, Romans 2:14-16). However, since meaning is context-bound, as soon as you determine the meaning of a particular text without sufficient consideration of its function in the context of a work, you automatically predetermine the meaning of other passages throughout the book.
[/quote]
Well certainly you would think the church would make an authoritative claim over it’s interpretation of scripture, like every other church. You cannot go to any church and say anything you want about scripture. Indeed, many claims have been made on the basis of scripture and have varied wildly and gone so far as the patently false. In order for any church to maintain it’s structure, you have to set limits on the interpretation of scripture. You cannot say the scripture says just anything, you yourself just stated that the scripture must be in context with in the greater work and it’s relations to other pieces as well. That is a limitation on scriptural interpretation, and dare I say an authoritative stance. The Catholic Church holds that very same opinion. Problem, obviously, is that isn’t a single road approach. If it were simply that easy, there would be only one interpretation of scripture and dare I say one single church. If it were simply a matter of a contextual approach then everybody should have come to the same conclusions. If sola scriptura worked, then there should have still been only one church. For the Bible is a single work. But it’s not that simple.
Further the church has to place limitations on scriptural interpretation.Imagine the chaos for instance, if one person claims the true presence in the Eucharist and another doesn’t, with in the same institution? It flat wouldn’t work.
Further, can you say your interpretation is correct and another is correct and another is correct but yet another is not without an authoritative stance?
I don’t think you would find the churches interpretations very far from your own, if at all, if you really looked. I dare say 99% of the time, I am sure you would be in agreement.
That’s precisely why you have 36,000 protestant denominations. Different denominations have different takes on scripture. But more than that, what’s really happening there, is that many denominations favor one part of scripture over the other parts which is a skewed view. The churches take on scripture is like what you stated it should be, it’s taken with in the context of the work, the time, audience, purpose, and it’s relations to the other works are all to be considered.
Further, you can disagree with it all you want, what you cannot do is teach an alternative as a Catholic teaching.
What contrary evidence do you have to that? It is clear in the epistles that the apostles had people in training, Titus, Timothy, Linus, etc. Though the apostles kinda thought the end was going to happen in their life times, they were not so shortsighted as to not have the ministry be continued by others and pass alone the apostolic authority. Jesus certainly gave the apostles the authority and certainly gave them the right to pass it along to whom ever they deemed worthy. So in that respect the passing on of apostolic authority was established in the scriptures. I sincerely doubt the apostles were remiss in passing it along.
I am curious as to what evidence you may have that this did not occur? It’s a rather big statement on many levels. It is by this authority the Biblical cannon was assembled, including the books that should be, excluding those that should not be. If that authority didn’t exist, then the supposed ‘lost books’ have as much value as the included books.
As to the above quote, that’s not only a Catholic tenet, it’s scriptural. 1 Cor 10:16-17 clearly show the celebration of the Eucharist in apostolic times. Does not 1 Cor 11:24 speak directly to what it is? It’s not the church who established the blood of the New Covenant, it was Jesus. It was the apostles who were being obedient. It’s the apostles who passed along the traditions. If you have evidence that they did not, I’d like to see it. For it’s clear to me that the epistles of Timothy and Titus are the passing of the torch of proclaiming Christ, to follow the traditions that the apostles them selves set up.
I want to see the evidence against this.
[quote]
DISCLAIMER: My statements about power structures and the leadership of the Catholic church were NOT meant to attribute nefarious motives to church leaders. I can say nothing about their motives; I would, in fact, assume that the vast majority of those in power seek only to protect what they believe to be the truth. This does not, however, disprove the existence of just such power structures as I have discussed. [/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So I picked up the gist of it from BC’s post. If what he’s said is even remotely accurate…
Tirib, I’m not taking you off ignore to see your reply, but it’s honestly time for you to seek a bit of help. And that’s not me being a smart-ass. If these events are true, as related here, then it’s time for you put the internet down and seek counseling. What has just been shared isn’t normal, healthy, and it’s rather worrisome. You’ve expressed troubles with addictions in the past, but it sounds to me you’ve replaced it with another.
More recently you’ve expressed some hardships with work, keeping your home, etc. You’ve come out if it…changed. You’re not the same person at all. You’re now obsessed with calling out Catholics, tracking them down, their friends down, and ‘taking the fight to them.’ Again, this is alarming behavior. I’m relieved to have stuck to my “no personal info” policy back when I was still taking your PM’s, despite your requests for e-mails and phone calls.
Put away your pride, your crusade, close out the browser, and start sorting out your thoughts and social skills. Get professional help. I honestly wish you the best of luck with it, and the courage to realize something has gone wrong.[/quote]
I don’t often agree with sloth, but… yeah. This.[/quote]
Well I am kinda surprised to see you in this thread. If you can suspend your disbelief perhaps for a little while and read the discussions, the good ones, I would be interested in your take as an outsider on whats going on in the discussions from time to time. Then you can see how bat-shit crazy we really are… No, seriously I would welcome your respectful insight if you wish to participate in any level. With KingKai on board there bound to be some good stuff, the boy knows his Bible…
Those within the Catholic church might be fine with that. I, however, standing on the outside of that body, would like a reason to come in.
[/quote]
Why?
[/quote]
This question is really surprising. This isn’t about “religion” for me, Sloth. This is about truth. This is about how to rightly understand and please God. Unity is presented throughout the New Testament as an essential goal for the people of God, as something all of us should strive for, and as something pleasing to God.
The Roman Catholic church (NOT the Protestant denominations) refuses unity. I don’t fault the church for that, per se; I understand that it is a necessary corollary of many of the church’s claims. Regardless, the fact remains that it is the episcopacy’s claim to unique authority that ultimately stands in the way of unity.
I (along with a significant number of other Protestants) would have no problem joining the Catholic church IF the church did not demand that we accept doctrines that are inconsistent with what we consider to be a historically and contextually sensitive reading of Scripture. The Roman Catholic church, however, demands that, before we can receive communion, we accept the legitimacy of views which we may deem inconsistent with a historically and contextually sensitive reading of Scripture.
And the fact is, if the Catholic church really is correct in its claims that (for those not “invincibly ignorant”) unity with the true church is necessary to please God, I don’t want to be an agent of disunity. The problem is that the church’s claims to its authority (and, by implication, the authority of its distinctive beliefs) are not, in my estimation (based on what I know of Scripture and history), convincing.[/quote]
Why would you want to join a church whose views you don’t believe in. Why do you want to receive the Eucharist?
May I cut in and have this dance KK? Thank you. You can have him back in a minute =]
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Further, can you say your interpretation is correct and another is correct and another is correct but yet another is not without an authoritative stance? >>>[/quote]Nobody says that. There is only one actually correct interpretation of any passage of scripture and claiming absolute institutional authority from a source wherein that authority must be assumed in advance to see it there is the very textbook definition of internal question begging. [quote]pat wrote:<<< I don’t think you would find the churches interpretations very far from your own, if at all, if you really looked. I dare say 99% of the time, I am sure you would be in agreement. >>>[/quote]I think he already has, as have I though we thus far do not conclude identically from this.[quote]pat wrote:<<< That’s precisely why you have 36,000 protestant denominations. >>>[/quote]Catholics would do well to drop this kind of spurious and demonstrably manufactured misrepresentation. This number changes every time I read it somewhere anyway. It’s like this. Just off the top of my head. There are maybe a half dozen MAJOR theological schools around with some more minor variation within each. (like I say. off the top of my head) There is no more practical divergence among true historic protestants than there is among Roman Catholics. If you didn’t have me on ignore again, you’d see my post with thousands of people from all these denominations joining together in unity for the purpose of loving the city of Detroit in Jesus name.[quote]pat wrote:<<< Different denominations have different takes on scripture. But more than that, what’s really happening there, is that many denominations favor one part of scripture over the other parts which is a skewed view. >>>[/quote]Please see above.[quote]pat wrote:<<< The churches take on scripture is like what you stated it should be, it’s taken with in the context of the work, the time, audience, purpose, and it’s relations to the other works are all to be considered.>>>[/quote]But that’s precisely what your church does NOT do Pat. All vitriol aside. She just doesn’t.[quote]pat wrote:<<< Further, you can disagree with it all you want, what you cannot do is teach an alternative as a Catholic teaching. >>>[/quote]I would NEVER intentionally represent something as Catholic doctrine that wasn’t. I would though and do believe that many essential, distinctive Catholic doctrines are not only NOT taught in the bible, but that the bible actually opposes them if studied apart from the spiritually and intellectually despotic influence of the Papal power structure.[quote]pat wrote:<<< As to the above quote, that’s not only a Catholic tenet, it’s scriptural. 1 Cor 10:16-17 clearly show the celebration of the Eucharist in apostolic times. Does not 1 Cor 11:24 speak directly to what it is? It’s not the church who established the blood of the New Covenant, it was Jesus. It was the apostles who were being obedient. It’s the apostles who passed along the traditions. If you have evidence that they did not, I’d like to see it. For it’s clear to me that the epistles of Timothy and Titus are the passing of the torch of proclaiming Christ, to follow the traditions that the apostles them selves set up. I want to see the evidence against this. >>>[/quote]But Pat, those passages say nothing of real presence or transubstantiation. Nowhere in the new testament is this taught. I do not have time this minute to say why because I have to go out. Also. Of course the apostles were training up fellow servants and told those folks to in turn also train up more fellow servants. But NOT int he context of a perpetual, centrally administered ecclesiastical organization outside of which no gospel authority could exist. The authority was in THE GOSPEL, NOT the church in the way Rome today claims. IF the scriptures are allowed to speak first.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Chris, this is what I’m reading…
There cannot be a valid interpretation of Scripture that conflicts with an established Catholic interpretation of that Scripture.
The only way evidence would conflict with the Catholic church’s interpretation is if the evidence is handled in an inappropriate manner (decontextualized. etc.).
Now I am as annoyed as the postmodernists about claims to genuine objectivity or interpretive neutrality, but what you are essentially saying is that the church’s claims do not require any sort of outside verification. Now that’s problematic, fundamentally because (as theologians in all camps have been pointing out for decades) the church’s claims are NOT merely theological; they are, in fact, historical.[/quote]
Ok, I’m not sure how being annoyed has anything to do with anything.
[quote]It’s one thing, for example, to interpret the bible’s and the apostles’ claims about Jesus’ death and resurrection as allegories referring to the soul’s ascent from the lower realm to the higher, but as soon as you start asserting that Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles, died, and rose physically 2,000 years ago, you are making historical claims.
If we knew nothing else about history, and if we had only the church’s teaching (and not it’s Bible or the writings of its Early church fathers) about its origins, then I could understand the unwillingness to submit to objective verification - such verification would be impossible! However, we know a lot about the classical world; we know a lot (compared to even Christians 1900 years ago) about Second Temple Judaism; and we know a lot about the milieu and writings of the church fathers.[/quote]
Yes, and they all reconcile with the Church.
Well, I suppose that can be a problem. However, my problem is by what authority do you have to interpret scripture for yourself by methods you dictated or choose yourself? When did you receive divine revelation from God about such truths that are above reason?
For you?
No one tells me what to believe.
I haven’t seen it, and I’ve been trying to understand where you see the discrepancy.
How so?
Yes, as it was pointed out early on in my initial conversion by my buddy. Protestants take the Church from the Bible and Catholics take the Bible from the Church. Without understanding that, dialogue will always seem like we’re talking on different channels.
However, I have to point one thing…the Church has always refined and reformed itself, from within though (and sometimes with pressure from without). Even this day, the Church is cutting off the dead branches and renewing itself. I myself am in one of those organizations which is chief in the operation to do. To say that is not the case, well…IDK.
No, seriously I would welcome your respectful insight if you wish to participate in any level. With KingKai on board there bound to be some good stuff, the boy knows his Bible…