RCC/Protestant Divisions

[RickD]

Let me just say that I have no problem saying that the catholic church, is the one true church. My problem is when someone says the Catholic church is the one true church. There is a difference. By it's definition, catholic means all that belong to the true, universal church of Jesus Christ. And I have no disagreement with anyone who says that is, and has always been the true church. The Catholic Church, as an entity, with the pope as its final authority, is not that same church, IMO. Do you understand what I mean?

[Byblos]

Rick, are we having a conversation here or just snide remarks?

Byblos, there was no snideness intended. My point was that what you've been saying all along. The Catholic church recognizes the Infallibility of the pope, as the ultimate authority, when it comes to interpretation of scripture, correct. That is where the disagreement lies, and I really don't see any way to escape that. Catholics hold to the pope as the final authority, and non-Catholics do not recognize his authority. How can Catholics and non-Catholics come to agreement here?
Correct me if I'm not accurate here. In your belief, the pope is the final authority. In non-Catholic Christians beliefs, the pope was not, and is not the final authority.

Okay, sorry, I may have jumped the gun there.

Rick, before we even talk about the pope and his claim of infallibility and all that, I am referring to the church councils that decided on what constituted scripture. My contention is that these councils were able to determine what is inspired and what isn't by the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit which was granted to the church, not to individuals. THAT is where infallibility starts, with the church, not with any pope. Every time you pick up your Bible and start reading it you are implicitly acknowledging this fact.

[RickD]

Rick, are we having a conversation here or just snide remarks?

Byblos, there was no snideness intended. My point was that what you've been saying all along. The Catholic church recognizes the Infallibility of the pope, as the ultimate authority, when it comes to interpretation of scripture, correct. That is where the disagreement lies, and I really don't see any way to escape that. Catholics hold to the pope as the final authority, and non-Catholics do not recognize his authority. How can Catholics and non-Catholics come to agreement here?
Correct me if I'm not accurate here. In your belief, the pope is the final authority. In non-Catholic Christians beliefs, the pope was not, and is not the final authority.

Okay, sorry, I may have jumped the gun there.

Rick, before we even talk about the pope and his claim of infallibility and all that, I am referring to the church councils that decided on what constituted scripture. My contention is that these councils were able to determine what is inspired and what isn't by the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit which was granted to the church, not to individuals. THAT is where infallibility starts, with the church, not with any pope. Every time you pick up your Bible and start reading it you are implicitly acknowledging this fact.

I'm not sure what you mean here, Byblos. How was the Holy Spirit granted to the church, not to individuals? Is this Holy Spirit a different Holy Spirit, than the Holy Spirit indwelling those that believe?

[Byblos]

I'm not sure what you mean here, Byblos. How was the Holy Spirit granted to the church, not to individuals? Is this Holy Spirit a different Holy Spirit, than the Holy Spirit indwelling those that believe?

By virtue of the church being proclaimed THE pillar of truth, Rick. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in individuals is to conform us to the image of Christ and aide us in fellowship with the Lord, not to proclaim us pillars of truth(s) (as evidenced by the many different interpretations).

[RickD]

I'm not sure what you mean here, Byblos. How was the Holy Spirit granted to the church, not to individuals? Is this Holy Spirit a different Holy Spirit, than the Holy Spirit indwelling those that believe?

By virtue of the church being proclaimed THE pillar of truth, Rick. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in individuals is to conform us to the image of Christ and aide us in fellowship with the Lord, not to proclaim us pillars of truth(s) (as evidenced by the many different interpretations).

Sorry, Byblos. I'm not getting this. I must be a little slow today. Where are you getting this from, so I can see it, and try to understand what you're saying? Can you show me some reference from scripture, or another source that shows the Holy Spirit was granted to a certain church, or "the" church, proclaiming it as THE pillar of truth, please?

[Kurieuo]

I've read many different interpretations for Mathhew 16:18 all to to try to avoid the implication that Peter (which actually means rock) is the visible church upon which Christ intends to build his earthly church. A visible church on earth most certainly does NOT negate Christ's role as the bridegroom to his bride (the universal church).

Byblos, isn't this where the difference lies, between what Catholics believe about the succession of popes from Peter, and what non-Catholic Christians believe? It comes down to biblical interpretation, correct?

It's actually a matter of authority since it was the church who compiled what we now call scripture. How did the early church know which is scripture and which isn't? So no, before biblical interpretation comes into the picture, the issue of what constitutes scripture must be answered first and, more importantly, by what authority did this entity that decided what constitutes scripture was actually able to do so.

Actually, it wasn't any church or group of people who formed Scripture.

The NT is comprised of writings that had come to be accepted by early Christians. This is the reason why the current books were accepted as authoritative; many books had already gained widespread acceptance amongst Christians. The New Testament became canonised not because someone or a council decided upon it, but rather it is because the books which comprise it amongst other things had gained such wide acceptance within Christianity. One theologian, Morwenna Ludlow, summarises the situation in these words:

With regard to most books it was a question of [the church] explaining why it had what it had, rather than deciding on what it should have. No council sat down to choose the texts according to some pre-established set of criteria, just as a selection committee might decide on the sort of person they want to fill a post, before interviewing the candidates. Rather, there is some sense in which the canon chose (or formed) the Church, rather than the Church chose (or formed) the canon. [W]hat seems to be happenin is that the Church is formulating reason or explanations for why it has what it had, not criteria for choosing what it should have in the future. (Morwenna Ludlow, "'Criteria of Canonicity' and the Early Church" in John Barton and Michael Wolter (eds), Die Einheit der Schrift and die Vielfalt des Kanons /The Unity of the Scripture and the Diversity of the Canon (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 69-93)

This position is not just my own, but was taught in an Introduction to Theology and endorsed across the board by Catholic, Anglican and Uniting lecturers.

[Byblos]

Actually, it wasn't any church or group of people who formed Scripture.

The NT is comprised of writings that had come to be accepted by early Christians. This is the reason why the current books were accepted as authoritative; many books had already gained widespread acceptance amongst Christians. The New Testament became canonised not because someone or a council decided upon it, but rather it is because the books which comprise it amongst other things had gained such wide acceptance within Christianity. One theologian, Morwenna Ludlow, summarises the situation in these words:

With regard to most books it was a question of [the church] explaining why it had what it had, rather than deciding on what it should have. No council sat down to choose the texts according to some pre-established set of criteria, just as a selection committee might decide on the sort of person they want to fill a post, before interviewing the candidates. Rather, there is some sense in which the canon chose (or formed) the Church, rather than the Church chose (or formed) the canon. [W]hat seems to be happenin is that the Church is formulating reason or explanations for why it has what it had, not criteria for choosing what it should have in the future. (Morwenna Ludlow, "'Criteria of Canonicity' and the Early Church" in John Barton and Michael Wolter (eds), Die Einheit der Schrift and die Vielfalt des Kanons /The Unity of the Scripture and the Diversity of the Canon (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 69-93)

This position is not just my own, but was taught in an Introduction to Theology and endorsed across the board by Catholic, Anglican and Uniting lecturers.

So the NT was compiled by ad populum opinion? I think not. But to an extent, I do agree with part of what you quoted above:

Rather, there is some sense in which the canon chose (or formed) the Church, rather than the Church chose (or formed) the canon.

That smacks of divine intervention, doesn't it?

[Byblos]

I'm not sure what you mean here, Byblos. How was the Holy Spirit granted to the church, not to individuals? Is this Holy Spirit a different Holy Spirit, than the Holy Spirit indwelling those that believe?

By virtue of the church being proclaimed THE pillar of truth, Rick. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in individuals is to conform us to the image of Christ and aide us in fellowship with the Lord, not to proclaim us pillars of truth(s) (as evidenced by the many different interpretations).

Sorry, Byblos. I'm not getting this. I must be a little slow today. Where are you getting this from, so I can see it, and try to understand what you're saying? Can you show me some reference from scripture, or another source that shows the Holy Spirit was granted to a certain church, or "the" church, proclaiming it as THE pillar of truth, please?

1 Timothy 3:15.

[Kurieuo]

Don't we believe Scripture is divinely inspired afterall? However, I'm not sure whether I was clear. Scripture need not have required divine intervention to be hailed as the New Testiment canon. To use an odd source, which is normally not always accurate when representing Christian thinking:

• "Christian scholars assert that, when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen ... ment_canon)

While wikipedia is a poor source, there is reference to three other theologians who make the same point:

• ^ Ferguson, Everett. "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) p. 320
  ^ a b Metzger, Bruce (1987). The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origins, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon. pp. 237–238.
  ^ Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Canon of Scripture. Intervarsity Press. pp. 97.

You can disagree with it, but it is what history seems to be telling us about how the books of the NT came to be accepted as Scripture.

[RickD]

Byblos, I see the verse you posted from Timothy, but I don't see how that shows how the Holy Spirit is given corporately to the church, as opposed to individual believers. And, at the request of kurieuo, I'm keeping my end to trying to understand our differences here, not turn this into a debate.

[Byblos]

Byblos, I see the verse you posted from Timothy, but I don't see how that shows how the Holy Spirit is given corporately to the church, as opposed to individual believers. And, at the request of kurieuo, I'm keeping my end to trying to understand our differences here, not turn this into a debate.

Then read this link on infallibility in its entirety and you will understand (what I'm talking about).

[RickD]

Byblos, I see the verse you posted from Timothy, but I don't see how that shows how the Holy Spirit is given corporately to the church, as opposed to individual believers. And, at the request of kurieuo, I'm keeping my end to trying to understand our differences here, not turn this into a debate.

Then read this link on infallibility in its entirety and you will understand (what I'm talking about).

Thanks for the link, Byblos. It'll take some time for me to read and digest all of that. I'll read it when I get a chance, and I'll get back to you. I must go to work now, so I can bring home some bacon.

[RickD]

Byblos, I've attempted to read your link. I'm having a very difficult time reading it. I've tried three times, to read it, and for some reason, I cannot keep my attention on the article. This is puzzling me. I'll take a break, and try again later. Parts of it I can fully comprehend, while other parts, I can't even keep enough focus on, to completely read. Nevertheless, I'll try again later.

[Byblos]

Byblos, I've attempted to read your link. I'm having a very difficult time reading it. I've tried three times, to read it, and for some reason, I cannot keep my attention on the article. This is puzzling me. I'll take a break, and try again later. Parts of it I can fully comprehend, while other parts, I can't even keep enough focus on, to completely read. Nevertheless, I'll try again later.

Yeah, I know, it's not an easy read. Those Jesuits, they have to make everything philosophical and complicated.

[Bill McEnaney]

The Catholic Encyclopedia article is hard to read. But I can defend the Catholic Church's dogma about infallibility if the defense will help some people understand. Since we're not going to debate infallibility, I'll let you guys decide whether I'll argue for that dogma.