Virgin Mary

J C

katydid wrote: »

Ok

Are you 'high church' Katy?

Jellybaby1

LordSutch wrote: »

Yes, I should have prefaced my comments in relation to the Church of Ireland (low Church) as opposed to those Anglicans who are of the 'High Church' variety of Protestants who walk a fine line between Protestantism & Catholicism (minus the Roman prefix), for although they follow many of the same practises as the RC Church, they are not in union with the Pope/Rome, hence they are not Roman Catholics!

Not all Church of Ireland are 'low Church', I have recently met a couple of CoI clergy who seem to be very (Roman) Catholic in their preaching and because of that they have lost some parishioners. It perplexes me that they can straddle two horses at the same time and not think of the consequences. So do CoI High Church clergy pray the Rosary, or pray to Mary?

LordSutch

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

...So do CoI High Church clergy pray the Rosary, or pray to Mary?

I wouldn't have thought so.

Peregrinus

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Not all Church of Ireland are 'low Church', I have recently met a couple of CoI clergy who seem to be very (Roman) Catholic in their preaching and because of that they have lost some parishioners. It perplexes me that they can straddle two horses at the same time and not think of the consequences. So do CoI High Church clergy pray the Rosary, or pray to Mary?

The whole point of Anglicanism is that it "straddles two horses at the one time"; it aims to affirm both Protestantism and Catholicism.

In a sense, all or virtually all, Christian traditions affirm Catholicism; it's right there in the Nicene Creed (". . . one holy catholic and apostolic church . . .") which most of them use.

The more protestant Protestants, so to speak, tend to find the catholicity, or universality, of the church in baptism, and in shared faith in Jesus Christ. We are all united by a common baptism, and by faith in Jesus Christ, and that is all the unity the universal, or catholic, church requires.

Whereas the more catholic protestants say, no, there's a bit more than that. They put a greater value on organisational, institutional unity, on shared ministry, on shared eucharist, etc, etc.

Anglicanism is a broach church, so you'll find Anglicans who tend more to the protestant, or "low church", view, and those who tend more to the catholic, or "high church" view. And this can vary from place to place; in some places Anglicanism tends to be predominantly of the low church variety (the Sydney Anglicans, in Australia, are stereotypically very low church); in others the high church tendency is more visible. The Church of England has always had good representations of both tendencies; the Church of Ireland has historically leaned more towards the low end of the spectrum, but there has always been room for high church Anglicans.

hinault

lazybones32 wrote: »

...and the holy Spirit? Don't forget Him because He has much to say to you too.

If it's okay to marvel at God's creation; sunrise, sunset, mountains, lakes, me, etc; then it must be okay to marvel at the people He has blessed in a singular fashion.
Praising Mary for what God has done for her and through her is a scriptural notion and when Mary was praised, she returned the praise to God threefold. She is a creature, like the rest of us, but has been blessed in a way no other human ever was or ever will be.

God asked Mary to consent to fulfill His will.

Mary consented to God's will and therefore her place is truly unique, as ordained through God.

Arguably Mary is the Ark of the Covenant.

LordSutch

hinault wrote: »

Arguably Mary is the Ark of the Covenant.

The Ark of the Covenant (Hebrew: אָרוֹן הַבְּרִית‎‎ ʾĀrôn Habbərît, modern pron. Aron haBrit), also known as the Ark of the Testimony, is a gold-covered wooden chest described in the Book of Exodus as containing the two stone tablets of the Ten Commandments.

Details >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant

Peregrinus

Yes, we know. But there's a long tradition in Christianity of seeing figures/events/concepts in the Old Testament as prefiguring figures/events/concepts in the New. Sometimes this is explicit in the New Testament - the sacrifice of Christ is explicitly stated to be the "new covenant" in Luke 22, for example, and Paul discusses this at some length in Hebrews. But even where such connections are not explicit in scripture, Christians have not been slow to make them - e.g. Mary as the new Eve, Christ as the new Adam (both from Irenaeus).

Right. If Christ is the new Covenant then it's not a stretch to see Mary, the theotokos or God-bearer, as the ark of that covenant. This connection isn't absolutely explicit in scripture, but it's as good as. There's a passage in Revelations, starting at 11:19, where our witness sees God's temple in heaven being opened, "and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant". Immediately there's a storm, lightning, an earthquake and a hailstorm, and when the dust clears our witness now sees not the ark but "a woman clothed with the sun" who is pregnant and in labour. She gives birth to a male child who, we are told, will rule all the nations. We don't have any difficulty identifying who the child represents, do we? And from that we can work out who the woman in labour might stand for, and the parallel with the ark is fairly heavily pointed to. The image of Mary as the new Ark is explicit in the writing of the Church Fathers, going back at least to Athanasius of Alexandria.

LordSutch

This is all news to me!

Honestly, that the Virgin Mary is actually the Ark of the Covenant is a totally different story to anything I've ever heard before. Excuse me if I hesitate to swallow this new (to me) version.

Is this standard RC teaching? Or is it a new theory or what? As an Anglican in the C of I, it certainly doesn't fit with our Christian teaching.

hinault

LordSutch wrote: »

This is all news to me!

Honestly, that the Virgin Mary is actually the Ark of the Covenant is a totally different story to anything I've ever heard before. Excuse me if I hesitate to swallow this new (to me) version.

Is this standard RC teaching? Or is it a new theory or what? As an Anglican in the C of I, it certainly doesn't fit with our Christian teaching.

It's not an article of faith required of every catholic, if that is your question.

Peregrinus's post gives an accurate explanation.

lazybones32

The Ark of the Covenant contained:
- The word of God written in stone
- Manna, the bread from Heaven
- Aaron's rod, a symbol of authority, a tool used to guide the flock and also endowed with supernatural power over the elements and it was the one that sprouted new growth without the intervention of Man.

The Ark of the New Covenant contained:
- The word of God made flesh
- Manna, the real bread from Heaven.
- Need I reprint the parallels?

Peregrinus

LordSutch wrote: »

This is all news to me!

Honestly, that the Virgin Mary is actually the Ark of the Covenant is a totally different story to anything I've ever heard before. Excuse me if I hesitate to swallow this new (to me) version.

No, she's not actually the Ark of the Covenant. The actual Ark, as you point out, was a wooden box covered with gold.

The point is that the Ark can be seen as prefiguring Mary, and referring to her as the new Ark calls attention to this, and to her signficance.

LordSutch wrote: »

Is this standard RC teaching? Or is it a new theory or what? As an Anglican in the C of I, it certainly doesn't fit with our Christian teaching.

Nothing new about it, and not at all foreign to Anglicanism. It was a common way of speaking of the Virgin and her significance from very early on in the Western church. It's older, if I'm not mistaken, than the "Mother of God" language, which Anglicans (and Protestants generally) don't object to, and I don't think it's a figure of speech that is used to express anything that Anglicans would reject.

It's not a figure of speech much used by Anglicans, I grant you. But that's not the same thing as Anglicans rejecting it.

LordSutch

As regards imagery I'll think I'll stick with the image of the Ark of the covenant as a gold covered wooden box, and Mary as the earthly mother of Jesus, otherwise it will wreck my head :-)

kieranwaldron

Safehands wrote: »

I believe that the culture of the day was very much focussed on consummation. But why would any person or organisation have a problem with this whole issue? I think that the waters have been muddied and that a few "scholars" introduced this ridiculous concept because it fitted a "pure" image of Mary. Jesus had brothers. The bible tells us so. Scholars can interpret this simple fact so that it appears that they were in fact, cousins or some other relative, in order to preserve the "ever virgin" myth. There is nothing wrong with Mary and Joseph having a very normal marriage. It never mentions Mary or Joseph going to the Loo, but are we to read from that that they did not because it is somehow, dirty?

I agree with the reasoning in the above comment completely; the perpetual virginity of Mary is a created image and not biblical at all.

.........

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I agree with the reasoning in the above comment completely; the perpetual virginity of Mary is a created image and not biblical at all.

More soap boxing. That's a claim you have failed to prove on your other thread, or answer any of the questions you were asked.
There's also a mega thread where all this has been dealt with before and that is also being ignored.

Safehands

......... wrote: »

More soap boxing. That's a claim you have failed to prove on your other thread, or answer any of the questions you were asked.
There's also a mega thread where all this has been dealt with before and that is also being ignored.

Prove? How can you prove Mary was a perpetual virgin? Don't be silly. If Jesus had brothers then she couldn't be, could she?

.........

Safehands wrote: »

Prove? How can you prove Mary was a perpetual virgin? Don't be silly. If Jesus had brothers then she couldn't be, could she?

It's a belief, like the rest of Christianity.
It's very likely that Jesus was Mary's only son, because the issue of 'brothers', among the many other reasons to believe so, if you had bothered to read the thread before soapboxing again, was already discussed.

Absolam

Safehands wrote: »

Prove? How can you prove Mary was a perpetual virgin? Don't be silly. If Jesus had brothers then she couldn't be, could she?

In fairness, the claim wasn't that Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin, it was that "the perpetual virginity of Mary is a created image and not biblical at all". That her perpetual virginity has a Biblical basis, theological or literal, is something that has obviously now been discussed at length, but it does seem the Bible doesn't explicitly rule it out. Haven't you participated in the discussions about Jesus's 'brothers' earlier on?

kieranwaldron

......... wrote: »

More soap boxing. That's a claim you have failed to prove on your other thread, or answer any of the questions you were asked.
There's also a mega thread where all this has been dealt with before and that is also being ignored.

Your claim that I haven't answered questions on the perpetual virginity of Mary isn't true. To substantiate your claim list out the questions that I haven't answered and post them to this site.

.........

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Your claim that I haven't answered questions on the perpetual virginity of Mary isn't true. To substantiate your claim list out the questions that I haven't answered and post them to this site.

Do you know what poster I was replying to, and which thread you are on ? why are you not using the correct thread where I have provided them ?

antiskeptic

keiranwaldron wrote:

In reply to your comments, I do not accept that I am using " slivers of scriptural evidence " in support of my views on the status of the Bible;

I made the point about interpreting not being the same as adding and subtracting in our other discussion. The same applies here. You have to interpret.

I agree the whole apostolic succession gig is bereft of biblical support. It would be comical if it wasn't so tragic that RC's try to extract so much from such a paltry amount of scriptural 'evidence'. But then again, it's understandable - the whole edifice kinds of stands on apostolic succession, doesn't it.

My point is that you need to hold a strong position before casting unto those you find weak. So when someone quotes a bit of a verse and says that confirms their position, well, they do no other than RC does with apostolic succession from scripture.

.........

antiskeptic wrote: »

I made the point about interpreting not being the same as adding and subtracting in our other discussion. The same applies here. You have to interpret.

I agree the whole apostolic succession gig is bereft of biblical support. It would be comical if it wasn't so tragic that RC's try to extract so much from such a paltry amount of scriptural 'evidence'. But then again, it's understandable - the whole edifice kinds of stands on apostolic succession, doesn't it.

My point is that you need to hold a strong position before casting unto those you find weak. So when someone quotes a bit of a verse and says that confirms their position, well, they do no other than RC does with apostolic succession from scripture.

And what evidence from scripture do you have there was no apostolic succession and no passing on of authentic interpretation, just self appointment as an authority on interpretation whatever way suits you most from Atheist to Jehovah Witnesses to the Westboro Baptists to Branch Davidians ?

antiskeptic

......... wrote: »

And what evidence from scripture do you have there was no apostolic succession and no passing on of authentic interpretation,

You've heard the expression "remarkable claims require remarkable evidence". The same applies here: big doctrines require big scriptural support. There simply isn't for a.s.

I reject the notion of building doctrines on a few words here or there. That's a sure fire way to make scripture say anything you want.

just self appointment as an authority on interpretation whatever way suits you most from Atheist to Jehovah Witnesses to the Westboro Baptists to Branch Davidians ?

Ironically, it's taking a couple of words then ballooning them into a doctrine which characterises the JW's et al. Scripturally A.S. is no different.

I'll point out again your standing in a glass house throwing stones when it comes to self-appointment.

It is you who has decided the claims of the RC church are authoritative. Which makes you the ultimate authority for what you believe. That you authorize the RC church to do your interpreting for you doesn't alter who it is that sits on the throne of your belief system.

Absolam

......... wrote:

Abolsom - But you said there job is to enforce doctrine worldwide, and that what they're saying is in line with the doctrinal view. Which surely makes it relevant?

Actually, kieranwaldron said it was their job to enforce doctrine. My point was indeed that such a notion would make their views relevant, rather than irrelevant as kieranwaldron claimed.

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

I agree the whole apostolic succession gig is bereft of biblical support. It would be comical if it wasn't so tragic that RC's try to extract so much from such a paltry amount of scriptural 'evidence'. But then again, it's understandable - the whole edifice kinds of stands on apostolic succession, doesn't it.

Well, maybe.

But doesn't scripture itself stand on apostolic succession? Or, at least, on tradition, as expressed through a church organised on the principle of apostolic succession?

How do we know that this text is scriptural, that text not? As we know, this was a subject of much discussion and prolonged discernment by the church, a discussion resumed (on both sides) during the Reformation. And it seems to me that unless we are prepared to accept the discernment of the church on this question as authoritative, we don't have any scripture. We have, at best, texts that might be scriptural, or that some people choose to regard as scriptural.

Which is why the whole "scripture -v- tradition" argument seems to me to be sterile and, ultimately, self-defeating. If we accept certain texts as scriptural, we can only appeal to tradition to validate that (unless we are claming private revelation, I suppose). And if we appeal to tradition on that point, how can we a priori reject an appeal to tradition on any other point?

.........

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've heard the expression "remarkable claims require remarkable evidence".

I have. This logical fallacy is most often trotted out by Atheists in the form "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", which is in fact an extraordinary claim itself, that requires proof that only extraordinary evidence can prove an extraordinary claim, and ordinary evidence cannot.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The same applies here: big doctrines require big scriptural support. There simply isn't for a.s.

I reject the notion of building doctrines on a few words here or there. That's a sure fire way to make scripture say anything you want.

Ironically, it's taking a couple of words then ballooning them into a doctrine which characterises the JW's et al. Scripturally A.S. is no different.

I'll point out again your standing in a glass house throwing stones when it comes to self-appointment.

Most of what German Protestantism invented in 1500's, largely to suit national politics and power struggles at the time, is in fact built on the interpretation of a very few scant verses of scripture, which leaves your claims hoisted by it's own petard and machine gunning it's own glasshouse (to use your own style of phrase)

Ironically the doctrine of sola scriptura in particular, isn't anywhere to be found in scripture itself, and scripture actually warns against sola fide. - Never mind having the logical fallacy of having five self contradictory 'alones' to quote just a few of the many examples. We could of course go on all year swapping different interpretations of scripture and be no further.

It is you who has decided the claims of the RC church are authoritative. Which makes you the ultimate authority for what you believe. That you authorize the RC church to do your interpreting for you doesn't alter who it is that sits on the throne of your belief system.

Firstly, your claim fails, because everyone from criminals and lay people to 'freemen of the law', to solicitors, barristers, and professors of law can attempt to interpret legislation whatever way it suits them, but regardless of what they think, at the end of the day the only interpretation that is ever going to count is the one made by the state's appointed judges, bound on earth by them, because man is so unteachable. Now I can choose to recognise the judges authority on earth, or I can refuse to recognise the Irish courts or state, either way it'll make little difference to the outcome of the judgement bound on earth.

Secondly, you seem to be making the assumption that every practicing Catholic blindly follows the Church and has never done any research and questioning of their own. Now I'm sure there are some that don't, and that simple faith is to be envied, but I was a semi-lapsed Catholic, who decided to leave the Church, but before I did, I decided I was going to research the doctrines of the Catholic Church to refute them and therefore copper fasten to all an sundry my decision. To my great surprise, and somewhat consternation, the more I researched the actual doctrines of the church, and the actual reasons and basis for them, as opposed to the spin and misrepresentation of them, I found myself agreeing they were in fact sound.

Now if I had happened to have left the Church first, and join another one, as many do, and took other peoples word for what is Catholic doctrine and what isn't, if this forum and other like it are anything to go by, I would have remained ignorant of actual Catholic doctrine and it's basis.

I have no particular issue with any Protestant who simply believes Protestant doctrine and doesn't believe in Catholic doctrine they think they know, but I've found on these forums and anywhere suchlike, it's not a matter of simple disbelief, but a combination of ignorance of actual catholic doctrine and its basis, and shallow soapboxing of false claims and misrepresentations about what is actually Catholic doctrine.

As a life long seeker of the truth wherever it leads, I'd be quite happy to leave the Catholic Church the moment I'm presented with a credible properly researched argument that refutes actual Catholicism, but date I've seen nothing credible that stands up to scrutiny or further research. - And that ignores the indescribable life changing spiritual experiences with God and the Holy Spirit I've had in the Catholic Church since practicing my faith fully and partaking in all it's sacraments from the heart.

Anti - Sorry of the long reply, and I doubt we'll ever agree on much in this forum, but I can tell you are one of the more honest posters here with at least a grasp of the basic rules of logical argumentation and examination, and therefore worth the long reply. I think you'll be surprised where continuing to seek the truth wherever it may lead, will eventually lead you to . . . but that will have to be in your own good time. God bless.

antiskeptic

......... wrote: »

Most of what German Protestantism invented in 1500's, largely to suit national politics and power struggles at the time, is in fact built on the interpretation of a very few scant verses of scripture, which leaves your claims hoisted by it's own petard and machine gunning it's own glasshouse (to use your own style of phrase)

If one is wont to reject doctrine because the precise words aren't to be found anywhere in scripture (by faith and faith alone / bible alone / trinity / immortal soul (keiranwaldrons concern at present) then fair enough. Me? I look at thrust of the argument presented in the first half of Romans, see by faith alone .. in something more than a half a verse.

Ironically the doctrine of sola scriptura in particular, isn't anywhere to be found in scripture itself

The question is not so much whether it is scripture alone but whether there is scripture and something else. If one concludes (on assessment) that there is no something else then one is left with scripture alone. Scripture doesn't have to preclude the hundred and one additions that man might make (in the case man is inclined to tack something on)

(God dwells in me by his Holy Spirit (or course, scripture does help in that it describes what's going on, otherwise I might not know the source). So it's not just scripture alone in my case.)

We could of course go on all year swapping different interpretations of scripture and be no further.

We could. I suppose I'm interested in the substance of A.S. Does it extend beyond "upon this rock"?

Now I can choose to recognise the judges authority on earth, or I can refuse to recognise the Irish courts or state, either way it'll make little difference to the outcome of the judgement bound on earth.

You seem to be asserting the RC church is the God appointed authority and that I'm refusing to recognise it and will face the consequences. If so (and I'm open to supposing that's not what you're doing) then that would be begging the question wouldn't it? In our discussion, the authority of the RC church isn't established such that you could fail my point this way.

Secondly, you seem to be making the assumption that every practicing Catholic blindly follows the Church and has never done any research and questioning of their own. Now I'm sure there are some that don't, and that simple faith is to be envied, but I was a semi-lapsed Catholic, who decided to leave the Church, but before I did, I decided I was going to research the doctrines of the Catholic Church to refute them and therefore copper fasten to all an sundry my decision. To my great surprise, and somewhat consternation, the more I researched the actual doctrines of the church, and the actual reasons and basis for them, as opposed to the spin and misrepresentation of them, I found myself agreeing they were in fact sound.

Now if I had happened to have left the Church first, and join another one, as many do, and took other peoples word for what is Catholic doctrine and what isn't, if this forum and other like it are anything to go by, I would have remained ignorant of actual Catholic doctrine and it's basis.

Whether a person follows the church blindly or whether they do as you do, they are the ultimate authority of their belief.

Whether you buy a ready meal (either blindly or after careful consideration of the ingredients that go into it) or make things from scratch, it is you who is responsible for what you put into your body.

We're all self-appointed when it comes to the interpretations we come to believe in. There is no difference in ultimate responsibility (our own), just where it is we chose to obtain our food and the care/carelessness we put into choosing it.

We might argue the pro's and con's of each way, but we can't look down on the other for being self-appointed.

I have no particular issue with any Protestant who simply believes Protestant doctrine and doesn't believe in Catholic doctrine they think they know, but I've found on these forums and anywhere suchlike, it's not a matter of simple disbelief, but a combination of ignorance of actual catholic doctrine and its basis, and shallow soapboxing of false claims and misrepresentations about what is actually Catholic doctrine.

I'm more post-denomination than I am Protestant. Sure, RC was rejected because of the smell I got from it and for it's inability to connect with me. But mainstream and not so mainstream Protestant and Evangelical churches are problematic too. There's a lot of groupthink going on and a tendency towards lack of ambition in the Christian task set by scripture. They can be "religious" in their own way. I plough my own furrow since all churches are going to be halted in their progression by these tendencies. That's not to say I can't go to a church and worship or go to a bible study. But I'm ultimately responsible for what I put into my body - so I'm not risking leaving it to anyone else.

As a life long seeker of the truth wherever it leads, I'd be quite happy to leave the Catholic Church the moment I'm presented with a credible properly researched argument that refutes actual Catholicism, but date I've seen nothing credible that stands up to scrutiny or further research. - And that ignores the indescribable life changing spiritual experiences with God and the Holy Spirit I've had in the Catholic Church since practicing my faith fully and partaking in all it's sacraments from the heart.

I don't think it matters too much which church you go to. None will have it all right and it is more an affair of the heart than anything else. God will meet people of right heart whereever they go. And I extend this to people who adhere to other faiths. Like, Abraham wasn't a Christian.

Anti - Sorry of the long reply, and I doubt we'll ever agree on much in this forum, but I can tell you are one of the more honest posters here with at least a grasp of the basic rules of logical argumentation and examination, and therefore worth the long reply. I think you'll be surprised where continuing to seek the truth wherever it may lead, will eventually lead you to . . . but that will have to be in your own good time. God bless.

And the Lord be with you too.

.........

antiskeptic wrote: »

If one is wont to reject doctrine because the precise words aren't to be found anywhere in scripture (by faith and faith alone / bible alone / trinity / immortal soul (keiranwaldrons concern at present) then fair enough. Me? I look at thrust of the argument presented in the first half of Romans, see by faith alone .. in something more than a half a verse.

Thing is I've read Romans many times, and cannot find what Protestantism finds in it, no matter how I try to bend it. I suppose that's personal interpretation again.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question is not so much whether it is scripture alone but whether there is scripture and something else. If one concludes (on assessment) that there is no something else then one is left with scripture alone. Scripture doesn't have to preclude the hundred and one additions that man might make (in the case man is inclined to tack something on)

(God dwells in me by his Holy Spirit (or course, scripture does help in that it describes what's going on, otherwise I might not know the source). So it's not just scripture alone in my case.)

I'm pretty sure the holy spirit does dwell within you, but it also dwells within some other people as well and stirs the heart like nothing else I've ever experienced.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We could. I suppose I'm interested in the substance of A.S. Does it extend beyond "upon this rock"?

Yes throughout the NT, from Christ choosing the apostles to the laying on hands to how the apostles selected and confirmed the 72, they were not just self selected and self appointed it was bilateral, the whole of the new testament leads me in that direction.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seem to be asserting the RC church is the God appointed authority and that I'm refusing to recognise it and will face the consequences. If so (and I'm open to supposing that's not what you're doing) then that would be begging the question wouldn't it? In our discussion, the authority of the RC church isn't established such that you could fail my point this way.

You are going to have to get past the paisleyite "ROMAN" Catholic sectarianism to see anything (not a dig at you btw, and in fairness hard to avoid, as much non Catholic theology has been contaminated / infected /derailed by it, much to it's determent and that of Christianity as a whole). Properly used, RCC merely refers to the diocese of Rome and it's Bishop - first among equals, not the wider Latin Church/Rite in the West along with the Eastern Catholic Church that forms the Catholic Church. To answer your question, No, after my study of scripture, early and later Christian history and all of the Church councils, I believe that the whole Catholic (i.e. Universal) Church, and all it's episcopate, in communion with Saint Peter's successor is. The Pope cannot decide one jot of doctrine without them and never could. (Papal infallibility a small part of this, is completely misunderstood/misrepresented, and not just by anti-Catholics). From that study of scripture and the Church councils and what they discussed and indeed rowed heavily about, what they concluded, and WHY, and its volume of collective knowledge and spirit, that's how I personally came to decide/realised/learn the Catholic (Universal) Church did have in fact have authentic authoritative interpretation, I followed the truth wherever it lead me, and I didn't care what Church it lead to me to or none. Ironically it lead me back to the Church I was looking to leave.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whether a person follows the church blindly or whether they do as you do, they are the ultimate authority of their belief.

Whether you buy a ready meal (either blindly or after careful consideration of the ingredients that go into it) or make things from scratch, it is you who is responsible for what you put into your body.

We're all self-appointed when it comes to the interpretations we come to believe in. There is no difference in ultimate responsibility (our own), just where it is we chose to obtain our food and the care/carelessness we put into choosing it.

We might argue the pro's and con's of each way, but we can't look down on the other for being self-appointed.

I think you may be mistaking me for Hinualt. Saint Augustine I believe said you should follow your own informed conscience wherever it leads. If, in my search for truth, it happened to have lead me to any other Christian Church or none, rather than back to the Church I was all set for leaving, then I would have been very happy to go there instead.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm more post-denomination than I am Protestant. Sure, RC was rejected because of the smell I got from it and for it's inability to connect with me. But mainstream and not so mainstream Protestant and Evangelical churches are problematic too. There's a lot of groupthink going on and a tendency towards lack of ambition in the Christian task set by scripture. They can be "religious" in their own way. I plough my own furrow since all churches are going to be halted in their progression by these tendencies. That's not to say I can't go to a church and worship or go to a bible study. But I'm ultimately responsible for what I put into my body - so I'm not risking leaving it to anyone else.

I'm not really the Church type of person myself, so I can understand your sentiment. Only a few people in any of the Church's denominations seem to believe and pray from the heart. Few are willing to look for the pearl of great price, never mind sell all when they do find it. You can spot the few that have found it . . and sold everything for it, a mile away.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't think it matters too much which church you go to. None will have it all right and it is more an affair of the heart than anything else. God will meet people of right heart whereever they go. And I extend this to people who adhere to other faiths. Like, Abraham wasn't a Christian.

If Churches are merely about people and the things they do, then you are correct they are all full of the same type of people, with the same type of failings over and over, from earliest days of Judaism to Christianity. Thanks be to God, my search for him/truth and the utter gravity of the divine heart, led me past people.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And the Lord be with you too.

And with your spirit.

antiskeptic

......... wrote: »

Thing is I've read Romans many times, and cannot find what Protestantism finds in it, no matter how I try to bend it. I suppose that's personal interpretation again.

Hardly personal when a large swathe of Christianity sees the same thing.

I'm pretty sure the holy spirit does dwell within you, but it also dwells within some other people as well and stirs the heart like nothing else I've ever experienced.

Indeed.

I was making a point about sola scriptura. That one needn't have scripture declare s.s. in order for s.s. to be a valid position. What are your thoughts on that?

Yes throughout the NT, from Christ choosing the apostles to the laying on hands to how the apostles selected and confirmed the 72, they were not just self selected and self appointed it was bilateral, the whole of the new testament leads me in that direction.

I suppose we'll have to agree to differ. No offence intended but the edifice that is the RC church, along with it's history better resemble the Jewish temple organisation than it does the scent that Christ gave off. Certainly NT writings themselves don't give a clear indication that what is claimed about a.s. is indeed what was intended.

I feel it's a case of reverse engineering (surely he must have intended the apostolic ministry to carry on forever - such that the message wouldn't be lost)

You are going to have to get past the paisleyite "ROMAN" Catholic sectarianism to see anything (not a dig at you btw, and in fairness hard to avoid, as much non Catholic theology has been contaminated / infected /derailed by it, much to it's determent and that of Christianity as a whole). Properly used, RCC merely refers to the diocese of Rome and it's Bishop - first among equals, not the wider Latin Church/Rite in the West along with the Eastern Catholic Church that forms the Catholic Church. To answer your question, No, after my study of scripture, early and later Christian history and all of the Church councils, I believe that the whole Catholic (i.e. Universal) Church, and all it's episcopate, in communion with Saint Peter's successor is. The Pope cannot decide one jot of doctrine without them and never could. (Papal infallibility a small part of this, is completely misunderstood/misrepresented, and not just by anti-Catholics). From that study of scripture and the Church councils and what they discussed and indeed rowed heavily about, what they concluded, and WHY, and its volume of collective knowledge and spirit, that's how I personally came to decide/realised/learn the Catholic (Universal) Church did have in fact have authentic authoritative interpretation, I followed the truth wherever it lead me, and I didn't care what Church it lead to me to or none. Ironically it lead me back to the Church I was looking to leave.

Didn't C.S. Lewis say that he was the most reluctant convert in all of history - his investigations leading him in a direction he thought he didn't want to go. My own case isn't dissimiliar: I was rabidly anti-Christianity right up to the very point of being saved. The nearer I got (in retrospect) the more rabidly anti I became. Such is grace: stooping to pick up one who spits in it's face

My point was that you cannot fail my argument based on a something that isn't agreed between us. That'd be begging the question.. or something. The argument defended the slightly "look down the nose" view of "personal interpretation" which you express.

I think you may be mistaking me for Hinualt.

Hardly. Hinault and shades of hinault are two different animals

Saint Augustine I believe said you should follow your own informed conscience wherever it leads. If, in my search for truth, it happened to have lead me to any other Christian Church or none, rather than back to the Church I was all set for leaving, then I would have been very happy to go there instead.

Okay. If you are indeed the ultimate authority for what you believe (by whatever mechanism you employ to get you there) then what difference between us?

"Personal interpretation" is looked down upon oft times by RC's - when it's nothing more or less than what they do: working as best they know how to arrive at a destination called Truth.

I'm not really the Church type of person myself, so I can understand your sentiment. Only a few people in any of the Church's denominations seem to believe and pray from the heart. Few are willing to look for the pearl of great price, never mind sell all when they do find it. You can spot the few that have found it . . and sold everything for it, a mile away.

Post-church is a game of two halves. The first is to get out of what can be a neither hot nor cold environment. I recall C.S. Lewis (again) describing how the path to hell was a gentle slope, no bumps or hills, no sudden turns. This isn't to say lukewarm, comfortable-in-their-Christianity, unambitious churches are hell bound, but they are somewhat asleep at the wheel

The other half of the story is to replace church life with something else, such that you advance. This I haven't done. Let's call it my threading water phase :cool:

If Churches are merely about people and the things they do, then you are correct they are all full of the same type of people, with the same type of failings over and over, from earliest days of Judaism to Christianity. Thanks be to God, my search for him/truth and the utter gravity of the divine heart, led me past people.

It is indeed a grave matter. Joyful, hopeful, wonderous. But very grave at the same time. Perhaps I ought get the finger out..

.........

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hardly personal when a large swathe of Christianity sees the same thing.

I don't think that's unusual given there a couple of billion Christians.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was making a point about sola scriptura. That one needn't have scripture declare s.s. in order for s.s. to be a valid position. What are your thoughts on that?

Then that's not quite sola scriptura, quite a few sola scriptural Christians tell me that unless something is explicitly written in scripture it's not to be believed. They go a bit silent or try a diversion when asked where is the doctrine of sola scriptura, or when they are asked what does scripture say about faith alone, or when asked to explain how logically you can have having more than one sola.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I suppose we'll have to agree to differ.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

No offence intended but the edifice that is the RC church, along with it's history better resemble the Jewish temple organisation than it does the scent that Christ gave off.

The only thing you're offending by using such Paisleyism's is yourself. Christ spend quite a bit of time in his Father's house. There's 24 Churches that make up the Western and Eastern Catholic Churches, communion with Saint Peter's successor, including the Latin Church in west. Christians have followed pretty much the same format of worship since at least the Didache of the first Century.

Certainly NT writings themselves don't give a clear indication that what is claimed about a.s. is indeed what was intended.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I feel it's a case of reverse engineering (surely he must have intended the apostolic ministry to carry on forever - such that the message wouldn't be lost)

Indeed, how would survive if everyone in human history since the first century could just interpret scripture in any way it suited them ? How would law and order function today if there were no learned judges to rule on the centuries of the legal system, and every layperson, solicitor, and barrister could interpret the law any way they say fit, with no regard to any previous rulings ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Didn't C.S. Lewis say that he was the most reluctant convert in all of history - his investigations leading him in a direction he thought he didn't want to go. My own case isn't dissimiliar: I was rabidly anti-Christianity right up to the very point of being saved. The nearer I got (in retrospect) the more rabidly anti I became. Such is grace: stooping to pick up one who spits in it's face

Indeed and you'll probably be rabidly anti Catholic until the day your ready for solid food, and centuries of spiritually, Church councils, and consideration by theologians and saints much more qualified in both spirit and scripture than you or I.

antiskeptic wrote: »

My point was that you cannot fail my argument based on a something that isn't agreed between us. That'd be begging the question.. or something. The argument defended the slightly "look down the nose" view of "personal interpretation" which you express.

I don't look down my nose at it, I like to read about biology, physics, medicine, and a wide range of subjects, but at the end of the day, when it comes to matter of importance, I'm no authority on any of them, and I'll have the wit to take heed of the doctors and surgeons in the world.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. If you are indeed the ultimate authority for what you believe (by whatever mechanism you employ to get you there) then what difference between us?

I was willing to get my hands dirty and look hard, past the people, you are not. (Granted trying to refute them and the centuries of knowledge and the centuries of council's discussions and rulings. . . bit presumptuous looking back, but it turned out to be very educational). My first mistake was thinking that scoundrels like the Borgia's and the Saints carried much the same weight in matters of faith, and had much the same influence on doctrine. None of the scandalous Popes or Power hungry political types ever managed to change or influence a single word of doctrine. Pretty miraculous given the fight between good and evil that has gone on inside the Church since the days of Judas, and still goes on today. The evil one continues to throw everything he has at the Catholic Church, and leaves the non Catholic ones alone. He always was more cunning than man though. But he won't prevail.

hinault

......... wrote: »

My first mistake was thinking that scoundrels like the Borgia's and the Saints carried much the same weight in matters of faith, and had much the same influence on doctrine. None of the scandalous Popes or Power hungry political types ever managed to change or influence a single word of doctrine. Pretty miraculous given the fight between good and evil that has gone on inside the Church since the days of Judas, and still goes on today. The evil one continues to throw everything he has at the Catholic Church, and leaves the non Catholic ones alone. He always was more cunning than man though. But he won't prevail.

You raise a very interesting point here, and a point which seldom is referred to.
What you allude to here is quite profound in reality.

The Church has existed, is existing, and will always exist throughout eternity.
The Church affirms this - and demonstrably the rock upon which the Church is built is immovable.

So much so that even if a scoundrel such as Borgia acquires the papacy that the affirmation of the church cannot ever change.

antiskeptic

......... wrote:

I don't think that's unusual given there a couple of billion Christians.

So what happens next? A chunk of the church sees one thing. Another chunk of the church sees another thing. Both sides can't be right.

What is going on?

Then that's not quite sola scriptura, quite a few sola scriptural Christians tell me that unless something is explicitly written in scripture it's not to be believed. They go a bit silent or try a diversion when asked where is the doctrine of sola scriptura, or when they are asked what does scripture say about faith alone, or when asked to explain how logically you can have having more than one sola.

It's sola scriptura by another, rationally arrived at route. So, you've encountered finally, a sola scripturalist who has an argument for their position

I don't agree something need be explicit in order to be believed and whatever about fundamentalists, many are happy to go with overall thrust of scripture rather than explicit declarations.

You can, for example, see a trend/thrust when it comes to those who are saved/see Christ for who he is. What is it about one person and not another that contributes to their salvation. What is the common denominator both in scripture and in life?

Well, all appear to be in desperate need, of one sort or another, and all recognize that about themselves (e.g. the thief on the cross). Thus is a mode of salvation obtained, without there being an explicit declaration on the matter. We can explain Abraham saved (sans Christianity), we can explain Christian countries, we can explain those of other religions and none. A common, single mode of salvation. Completely without the need for the RC church (or it's fudges on the question of "what about those who've never heard of Christ)

I'm not sure what the problem is with more than one sola. Scripture being the only authority regarding where it is we go for insight doesn't clash with faith being the only means by which we are saved.

The only thing you're offending by using such Paisleyism's is yourself. Christ spend quite a bit of time in his Father's house. There's 24 Churches that make up the Western and Eastern Catholic Churches, communion with Saint Peter's successor, including the Latin Church in west. Christians have followed pretty much the same format of worship since at least the Didache of the first Century.

I was going on the rather potted and appalling history of the church. Objectively horrific - which is not to say every member of it is tainted. Then there is the replication of OT Judaism: a priesthood between man and God whereas Christ replaced that with himself.

I'm not inclined to suppose great age an indicator of validity. The church was going off course from the start judging by scripture. You seem to building on a foundation of assumption: that what was done at the start and carried on confirms that the start was uncorrupted.

There is something very different about two or three gathered in his name and the structure seen since.

Certainly NT writings themselves don't give a clear indication that what is claimed about a.s. is indeed what was intended.

The "On this Rock-ists" won't be thanking you for that.

So, which basis for supposing a.s. We have Christ appointing apostles without there being succession indicated. We have the apostles (who are demonstrably non-infallible) replacing Judas upon which Christ appoints Paul. We don't know whether apostles can birth apostles, scripturally.

From whence then, the idea of a.s. in your mind. Longevity of an idea carries no merit in itself: something starting off crooked simply gets more crooked as time passes.

Indeed, how would survive if everyone in human history since the first century could just interpret scripture in any way it suited them?

That's one extreme. Another extreme would be for people to do as you do and follow what strikes them to be a good, natural .. but ultimately incorrect path. The path that can't but bring the corporate / politics / power.

Putting all your eggs in one basked (of interpretation) necessitates confidence that the basket is a sound one. That the church simply went the way it did + it seems like a good idea + lots of churches when in that direction ... does not satisfy me. Especially given scriptural indications of the churches ability to head off in the wrong direction.

You say the only alternative is for people to interpret any way that suits them. This does them a disservice and is another indicator that you haven't gotten the notion of your own supremacy in what you believe. You are supposing your own evaluation points: the church started this way / seems like a good idea / multiple churches add weight to veracity are sound and that anything else is people suiting themselves.

It would be better to suppose others genuinely seeking just as you are. And that they don't interpret scripture to suit themselves, rather to uncover what God might have to say.

You might suppose too that God might have a hand in things. Not so much to ensure that a person has a comprehensive, sound theology. But that they have revealed to them what they need for holiness, support, comfort, assurance.

I'd remind you that Christianity isn't the beginning of people being saved. God got along just fine before Christ ever came along and we can presume he can do so today. Not just with those who interpret themselves but those who have never heard of Jesus Christ.

I understand the good idea gig. But it's strikes me of man - not something that God is confined to operating by.

How would law and order function today if there were no learned judges to rule on the centuries of the legal system, and every layperson, solicitor, and barrister could interpret the law any way they say fit, with no regard to any previous rulings ?

See my points above about God and man. If there is no need for a priesthood anymore and the communing is directly between man and God then a man seeking God ought not worry. And a man who isn't seeking isn't fooled into thinking all is okay.

Have you no issue with the vast swathes of people who have absolutely no leaning towards things God other than they have a box ticked labelling them Catholic at a time when that was done on industrial scale? If it is the case that a person must be born again other than by infant baptism / communion / confirmation then the churches who hold as the RC church does are on a very sticky wicket. They might have massive numbers and an impressive corporate organisation. But their flock is but a tiny fraction of the total number of members.

Indeed and you'll probably be rabidly anti Catholic until the day your ready for solid food, and centuries of spiritually, Church councils, and consideration by theologians and saints much more qualified in both spirit and scripture than you or I.

Like I say, I'm not impressed by the centuries aspect of it - a crooked shoot isn't rendered a straight tree by mere age. Ought I turn to Judaism?


There are theologians and saints aplenty to offer intelligent, compelling views (given all believers are saints!). It is, as ever, a question for the individual to weigh up the evidence on offer and go in the direction they see fit. You have plumped for your choice for the reasons given. I find those reasons weak: compelling if looking at things from a man-perspective, but forgetting of the direct connection between man and God, one that circumvents the need for what would otherwise make for perfect sense.

I don't look down my nose at it,

But you do seem to persist in considering a strawman version of personal interpretation (one in which there are as many fundamentally different theologies as there are individuals). And you do seem to ignore that your own conclusions about where to find truth is a personally arrived at one.

I like to read about biology, physics, medicine, and a wide range of subjects, but at the end of the day, when it comes to matter of importance, I'm no authority on any of them, and I'll have the wit to take heed of the doctors and surgeons in the world.

But first you have to convince yourself that they are the authority. There is good reason to beware white coat syndrome. There are crap, ungifted doctors and surgeons around as in any other field in life. You have also got a profession influenced by pharma, influenced by conservatism which is closed to alternatives. I'm not dissing medicine in toto, but one does have to thread carefully and plough own furrow.

As ever, the question of whether the RC (or church as you describe it) is an authority at all. That is the very first question to be answered.

I was willing to get my hands dirty and look hard, past the people, you are not.

That's not quite true. Granted, the RC church wasn't going to be my first port of call but that's not entirely my fault. Just as was the case with sola scriptura, its a case of finding something that fits and automatically excluding (without necessarily going in depth into it) that which manifestly doesn't. Do I have to investigate every religion under the sun if once finding a supremely elegant solution?

A priesthood? Infant baptism? The church structure? They are understood as polar opposites to the New Testament scheme (does not the modern priesthood identikit, in essence, the Old Testament convenant?). I'm sure I've got caricatured versions of RC doctrine going, this largely because I'm more interested in ploughing a profitable furrow than better understanding one already considered hopelessly off the mark.

This is not to say that there aren't bona fide Christians in the Church. There will be, just as there is and isn't in all the other denominations. Thank God we are not saved by our theology!

Granted trying to refute them and the centuries of knowledge and the centuries of council's discussions and rulings. . . bit presumptuous looking back, but it turned out to be very educational).

They say your pathology informs your theology. I tend towards rebellion in any case - making it supremely difficult to swallow the idea of an argument from supposed authority (my modification). The authority is nowt until such time as it established itself. Starting position. And a no means unhealthy one.

The evil one continues to throw everything he has at the Catholic Church, and leaves the non Catholic ones alone.

Your having another hinault moment!! The Catholic church has brought it's current woes upon it's own head - the abuse scandal is hardly confined to a couple of satan-possessed priests.

And I can assure you that satan works against Christians everywhere. If sufficient number to call themselves a church, then into that church his tendrils will creep..

Unless *unthinkable* you're supposing Christians must be RC?



Question: you seem to suppose God in his necessity ensured a steady stream of apostles to keep His message alive and well down through the ages. Yet he doesn't seem to display much interest in the character of those who obtain to the highest position such that the church has such a potted history.

How is this harmonised?

.........

antiskeptic wrote: »

So what happens next? A chunk of the church sees one thing. Another chunk of the church sees another thing. Both sides can't be right.

What is going on?

Logically did you think everyone could be right ? Or just you ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's sola scriptura by another, rationally arrived at route. So, you've encountered finally, a sola scripturalist who has an argument for their position

I haven't seen your argument for it yet, but if you like to lay out each of your premises logically and state the conclusion that your claim follows from them, I might take a look at it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't agree something need be explicit in order to be believed and whatever about fundamentalists, many are happy to go with overall thrust of scripture rather than explicit declarations.

Or rather self contradictorily, when it comes Protestant claims they are happy to do so.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Well, all appear to be in desperate need, of one sort or another, and all recognize that about themselves (e.g. the thief on the cross). Thus is a mode of salvation obtained, without there being an explicit declaration on the matter. We can explain Abraham saved (sans Christianity), we can explain Christian countries, we can explain those of other religions and none. A common, single mode of salvation. Completely without the need for the RC church (or it's fudges on the question of "what about those who've never heard of Christ)

What so called fudge would that be ? The one where you assume the conclusion and then beg the question ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure what the problem is with more than one sola. Scripture being the only authority regarding where it is we go for insight doesn't clash with faith being the only means by which we are saved.

It doesn't pass even the basic rules of grammar, never mind logic. What about Christ alone ? What has man or scripture anything to do with it if it's Christ alone ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was going on the rather potted and appalling history of the church. Objectively horrific - which is not to say every member of it is tainted.

No, your're going on an ad hom about people, and the correct statistic is is very few members of the Church are or ever were "tainted".

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then there is the replication of OT Judaism: a priesthood between man and God whereas Christ replaced that with himself.

Two strawmen in one sentence ? not very impressive. Firstly, there is no one between man and God, secondly Christ appointed apostles and they in turn appointed successors.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not inclined to suppose great age an indicator of validity.

That's not what I posted.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The church was going off course from the start judging by scripture. You seem to building on a foundation of assumption: that what was done at the start and carried on confirms that the start was uncorrupted.

I afraid the only one going on assumption here is you. At what point do you claim it was corrupted ? And back up the claim with some substantive details please.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The "On this Rock-ists" won't be thanking you for that.

That was your own quote, I forgot to include in quotes.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So, which basis for supposing a.s. We have Christ appointing apostles without there being succession indicated. We have the apostles (who are demonstrably non-infallible) replacing Judas upon which Christ appoints Paul. We don't know whether apostles can birth apostles, scripturally.

Are you calming the apostles didn't lay on hands and appoint successors ? And that these people in turn couldn't ? That this should have been dumped for self appointment ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

From whence then, the idea of a.s. in your mind. Longevity of an idea carries no merit in itself: something starting off crooked simply gets more crooked as time passes.

Again, that's a stawman of my post, and again at what specific point and event did it go "crooked", and back up your claim with something substantive please.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Putting all your eggs in one basked (of interpretation) necessitates confidence that the basket is a sound one. That the church simply went the way it did + it seems like a good idea + lots of churches when in that direction ... does not satisfy me. Especially given scriptural indications of the churches ability to head off in the wrong direction.

The only one with the single basket with a Church of One, calming your personal interpretation is right and the collective Church's one is wrong, is you.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You say the only alternative is for people to interpret any way that suits them. This does them a disservice and is another indicator that you haven't gotten the notion of your own supremacy in what you believe. You are supposing your own evaluation points: the church started this way / seems like a good idea / multiple churches add weight to veracity are sound and that anything else is people suiting themselves.

I hear similar arguments from those who support quack medicine instead of conventional medicine. Or freemen of the law versus state law.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd remind you that Christianity isn't the beginning of people being saved. God got along just fine before Christ ever came along and we can presume he can do so today. Not just with those who interpret themselves but those who have never heard of Jesus Christ.

I understand the good idea gig. But it's strikes me of man - not something that God is confined to operating by.

I made no such claims, so I'm afraid your soap boxing straw manning again.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Have you no issue with the vast swathes of people who have absolutely no leaning towards things God other than they have a box ticked labelling them Catholic at a time when that was done on industrial scale? If it is the case that a person must be born again other than by infant baptism / communion / confirmation then the churches who hold as the RC church does are on a very sticky wicket. They might have massive numbers and an impressive corporate organisation. But their flock is but a tiny fraction of the total number of members.

Have you no issue with the swathes of non Catholic Christians who are only box tickers as well, or are you blind to them ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

But you do seem to persist in considering a strawman version of personal interpretation (one in which there are as many fundamentally different theologies as there are individuals). And you do seem to ignore that your own conclusions about where to find truth is a personally arrived at one.

Actually you are the one repeatedly straw manning my posts and / or Catholic theology. That's not my loss by the way, that's yours.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But first you have to convince yourself that they are the authority. There is good reason to beware white coat syndrome. There are crap, ungifted doctors and surgeons around as in any other field in life. You have also got a profession influenced by pharma, influenced by conservatism which is closed to alternatives. I'm not dissing medicine in toto, but one does have to thread carefully and plough own furrow.

Yes there are crap conventional doctors who don't practice conventional medicine in line with it's guidelines, but they are quite easy to spot. Putting your faith in quack medicine because of them is not a great solution.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm sure I've got caricatured versions of RC doctrine going, this largely because I'm more interested in ploughing a profitable furrow than better understanding one already considered hopelessly off the mark.

That's some understatement. Hmmm, spot any contradiction there ? At least you were honest enough there to admit you've got caricatured versions of "RC" doctrine going, but really is there any point in spending my time continuing a discussion with someone that does ? At this stage of reading your post, I think not, Especially when the weather is so good.

antiskeptic wrote: »

They say your pathology informs your theology. I tend towards rebellion in any case - making it supremely difficult to swallow the idea of an argument from supposed authority (my modification). The authority is nowt until such time as it established itself. Starting position. And a no means unhealthy one.

You don't know me or my background. I am one the most cynical, most human authority rejecting people there is. Thing is what carries me through is I couldn't care less about who or what is making an argument, but rather does what they claim stand up to careful study, logic and scrutiny.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your having another hinault moment!!

Are ad hominem and strawmen really the best you can do ? I thought on the surface, you appeared to offer more than the usual anti-Catholic sectarians / stawmanners that infest forums like this. This is getting tedious, I'm not really sure there is any point in continuing this discussion or spending any more time on it. In fact I think I'll let you have the precious last word / straw manning on your next post. Thing is though, you're just kidding yourself.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Question: you seem to suppose God in his necessity ensured a steady stream of apostles to keep His message alive and well down through the ages. Yet he doesn't seem to display much interest in the character of those who obtain to the highest position such that the church has such a potted history.

How is this harmonised?

1 in 12 of the apostles turned out to be a Judas. Out of the 266 Popes since Saint Peter, historians allege there have been about 10 truly corrupt / bad ones. Statically, that's not bad at all. And not one of them changed or got to influence a single dot of doctrine.

antiskeptic

......... wrote: »

Logically did you think everyone could be right ? Or just you ?

Logically, not all can be right. Logically, I (along with millions of others) can be right on matters which we share view and the RC church can be wrong. Logically I can be right where no one else shares my view (but I don't see that as probable)

What do you do with the fact that there are two very different views, each supported by many?

I haven't seen your argument for it yet, but if you like to lay out each of your premises logically and state the conclusion that your claim follows from them, I might take a look at it.

The argument has been presented: start with scripture > don't find anything in scripture which indicates scripture + and so, by default > remain with scripture only.

There is good reason (from scripture) to suppose that man would go spannering on things and form a Religion from Christianity. That is his ever-long bent.

Or rather self contradictorily, when it comes Protestant claims they are happy to do so.

Anyway, your point about what some s.s's do doesn't apply to by any means all. There is, in Protestantism, a propensity to simply follow what the leaders say, as in RC-ism. So you get "da Byble sayz it, ah buleeve it, dat settles it" mode of discussion.

What so called fudge would that be ? The one where you assume the conclusion and then beg the question ?

The fudge arises with a "we believe that God in his mercy will do what is right". Of course that need be said, because it's not tenable to condemn all but a very narrow group who can't be saved by the mechanism considered applicable by the RC church.

As in science, a theology is a good one when it accommodates the observations. When it doesn't / can't then it's not a good theology. What about those who've never heard of Christ? Well, surely God in his mercy...

I would be equally critical of "Protestant" theology's which suppose you must believe in your heart and confess with you mouth. What about those who never heard of Christ? What about Abraham?

It doesn't pass even the basic rules of grammar, never mind logic. What about Christ alone ? What has man or scripture anything to do with it if it's Christ alone ?

Scripture alone has to do with the only authoritative source for God's communication with man. Christ alone has to do with in whom salvation is to be found alone. Faith has to do with how this salvation in Christ is to be accessed alone. Three sola's can co-exist. No problem..

No, your're going on an ad hom about people, and the correct statistic is is very few members of the Church are or ever were "tainted".

The church is the people. Christ, a person, the cornerstone of. Very few indeed off the total, considerably more of those in a position of power.

Two strawmen in one sentence ? not very impressive. Firstly, there is no one between man and God, secondly Christ appointed apostles and they in turn appointed successors.

If you need someone for access to elements of God (the Eucharist, confession, marriage, interpretation, etc. etc) then you have someone necessarily between man and God. Just like the old testament priesthood. You might consider it justified by virtue of A.S. but it is there.

You seem to want your apostolic cake and eat it. God appoints apostles ongoing but they don't have any function in a between-man-and-God way. Is that what your saying?

That's not what I posted.

Okay. Can I take it you don't hold great age adding to validity?

I afraid the only one going on assumption here is you. At what point do you claim it was corrupted ? And back up the claim with some substantive details please.

We have scriptural evidence of the churches propensity to go off course. This prevents us from automatically assuming that decisions the early church takes (as to direction and set up) are correct.

That's the only point I'm making. If someone want to suppose the (early) church course the correct one, then the onus is on them to establish that - given scriptural evidence preventing this being simply assumed.


Oops gotta go, will get back to this later...