|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
RCC Gives Lip Service to God's Word The following is the continuation of a debate between Lou and Andrew over tradition and authority in the Catholic Church and their relationship to Scripture. Lou offers what might be understood as a circular argument, it goes nowhere. Part of the difficulty is that there is no hermeneutical middle-ground.
Lou writes:
Re: RESPONSE, part 1b Greetings, Andrew - Where shall I begin? Firstly, your defense of Roman Catholicism continues to be on the basis of Roman Catholicism, i.e., not via the Scriptures. Perhaps you can tell me what Roman Catholicism's definition of "living tradition" is. For it seems quite evident that "living tradition" is just a pious-sounding vehicle whereby sinful, worldy, power-hungry, unconverted prelates grant themselves license to twist, distort, and attempt to abrogate the Divine Word to suit their own purposes, to advance their own sinful and ambitious agenda, and to verily hold captive the souls of men. Secondly, the few Scriptures that you do cite in defense of our current subject fail miserably in substantiating your claim. Instead of gathering ALL the Scriptures regarding a given subject to obtain understanding, the Catholic Church will take an isolated verse of Scripture and take it out of context and build an entire creed out of it. And yourself and others of like mind, who evidently fail to accept their own accountability before God Almighty, bow before a fallible magisterium and fall for it - hook, line, and sinker. And lastly, this so-called "living tradition" is NOT in harmony with the Word of God and has no lawful place in Christian worship. Andrew responds: You progressively become more like your compatriot, Nicholas. You see in others the defects that are your own. Anyone is welcome to study the Scriptures I quote in their proper context. Indeed, much of my reservations about your remarks are that they defy the actual context and intentions of the authors. Further, no defense of Catholicism is properly served if the adoption of a faulty methodology as yours is adopted. As for the phrase, "living" tradition, the fact that you do not understand such a basic doctrinal terminology is proof that you are unqualified to act as an arbiter of Catholic truth and as a judge of souls. You condemn men devoted to Jesus Christ and to his people, calling them "sinful, worldly, power-hungry, unconverted prelates." May God have mercy on your soul for damning others. They would not return the favor and nor would I. I will pray for you and Nicholas, that your religion of hate and bigotry will not consume you. Lou writes: What, in your opinion or rather catholic church teaching is considered the "lesser elements" that can be "altered or abrogated entirely"? By what authority does the catholic church decide just what the "lesser elements" are and what can be abrogated??? Again 2 Timothy 3:16 declares that ALL SCRIPTURE contains ALL that the christian needs to be fully equipped. I never cease to be astonished with the arrogant presumption that dominates the minds of so-called men of God that constrain them to think that God's Word could be tampered with and that they possess the authority to formulate decisions as to what elements are worthy to be retained(if they be so fortunate), altered, or abrogated entirely! Clearly, catholicism has overstepped their bounds. Then again, the Scriptures that they deny FORETOLD of the development of such a haughty system which would dominate christendom for many centuries! Andrew responds: I suspect that not only Scripture, but also an angel from heaven would fail to convince you of the wrongs you perpetrate against the Church. You ask about the "lesser elements" that are not core teachings of Christianity. Some of the "lesser elements" we see altered in the bible itself-- regarding circumcision, Jewish dietary laws, the abbreviation of the ritual Agape meal, and the importance of the Eighth Day worship. Other changes in Christian teaching develop over time, as regarding the obedience of slaves and the role of women in the prayer assembly. Lou writes: I shall repeat. Any doctrine that is NOT in accord with the Holy Scriptures are NOT of God and the Bible emphatically states that "there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20. And there are loads of catholic tradition that fit quite well in this category. Andrew responds: You can say that sacred tradition is not in accord with Scripture all you want. But, it is still not true and you have failed to definitively prove your case. Further, you misunderstand Isaiah 8:20 and use it to death. I can repeat myself too, is that what you find significant? Lou writes: So, who possesses infallibility, the Catholic West or the Eastern Orthodox churches??? Which of the two regions are led by the Holy Spirit? Which one is correct? Both? No. Both can be wrong, though. And they are! Again: "To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20 Andrew responds: Again, for you it is always either/or. Catholics believe that they are the true Church established by Jesus Christ. However, Catholics recognize the ancient claims of the Orthodox Churches in the East as possessing a true priesthood and sacraments. Despite differences about the extent of papal authority (they consider him the FIRST among the other bishops, his equals), we recognize the presence and operation of the Holy Spirit in the churches of the East. We even acknowledge that in faith and baptism, God's Spirit is also present in Protestant churches. God acts where he wills. Lou writes: I'm neither Arian, nor am I in league with Nestorius. Are you a priest? I believe in and worship Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Word made flesh, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the ALMIGHTY! And how is it that the church councils that defended the the Lord's divinity and His unity as both God and man fail to defend His Word and His Law???? Andrew writes: Am I a priest? I am a member of that royal priesthood, that holy nation, a people set apart-- the Catholic Church. I believe in and worship Jesus Christ, eternal Son of the Living God, the Word made flesh, the Alpha and the Omega, the Almighty! I parrot your words back to you as fully my own. Strange, for a man who rejects creeds, you have just composed your own. The ancient councils did indeed defend our Lord's divinity and unity-- in doing so they succeeded in properly interpreting God's Word under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Lou writes: Councils served and will continue to serve their purposes in the church??? Yes, they continue to exalt their error and pass it off as truth. And I reject the catholic church councils and their teaching office, for they do NOT teach the Word of God. Andrew responds: You are so full of contradictions. Had it not been for the guidance of the Holy Spirits over the bishops in council, our understanding of the divinity and unity of Christ might have been lost. Indeed, I know a minister who told his congregation last Christmas that the Jesus who walked the earth was only a man and distinct from the Son of God in heaven. His program was carried on national television. Jehovah Witnesses deny Christ's divinity and eradicate the Trinity. There are many other cases of heresy, all because of a failure to acknowledge some elements of creedal mainline Christianity. It is possible to find the truth in the bible; however, it is also easy to get lost without the guidance of a teaching authority and an inherited faith understanding. Lou writes: Not at all. But for me to blindly accept the fallible decisions of catholic church councils which are opposed to the Word of God would isolate me from the fullness of the Gospel of Life! Andrew responds: Well, there you have it. You say it yourself. I ask, "Can you not see that such a move [against the proclamation of Catholicism] simply isolates you from the fullness of the Gospel of Life?" And you answer, "Not at all." You are mistaken about the Church. The fact that you say you see probably means that your sin remains. It is one thing to disagree with elements of Catholic-Christian teaching. It is quite another to misrepresent her and to deride her lawful pastors. Lou writes: I made no such contention! You are twisting my words as you do Scripture! I did not say that the Holy Spirit grants the gift of infalliblity to every child of God. Infallibility belongs ONLY TO GOD! But the GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT is given to EVERY child of God. Are you a child of God? Is the Holy Spirit indwelling you and guiding you? Or are you trusting to a fallible catholic magisterium? Andrew responds: "Your contention that the Holy Spirit grants the gift of infallibility to every 'child of God' is a misnomer." You tell me you do not assert this? If this is the case then we are wasting our time for certainly that is the thrust of your argument against the Magisterium. Your naïve view that the Scriptures interpret themselves does not wash with the evident praxis. The lesser gifts of the Spirit do not insure the individual believer of either infallibility or impeccability. Even saints have sometimes had erroneous opinions. In any case, my statement stands with this qualification: in actuality I suspect that you have narrowed infallible interpretation down to only ONE child of God, yourself. All hail Pope Lou! Would that make Nicholas part of your pseudo-magisterium? Alas, to follow either of you would be simply to trust in a "fallible lou/nicholas magisterium". Lou writes: You are confusing the guidance and authority of the Holy Spirit with the institution of catholicism, which is NOT the church established by Jesus Christ. My beliefs are not "fickle human opinions". My beliefs and convictions originate from and are in harmony with the Bible. My love and devotion to the Lord cause me to exalt Him, and His Word. The beliefs and doctrines of the catholic church pay mere lip service to God, while exalting and aggrandizing themselves! Andrew responds: There is no weight to your supposition that the Church founded by Christ is detached from the Catholic Church. Historical testimony and the experience of a billion plus believers say otherwise. While I can be sympathetic to your "love and devotion" to the Lord, you castigate the faith of laity and ministers in the Catholic Church as "mere lip service to God" for personal exaltation and aggrandizement. I know the sincerity of my faith and that of the priests and bishops with whom I am associated. It is real. I have embraced a simple lifestyle and sacrificed much to better serve God and my fellow man. My friends and I do our best to follow the commandments and place our faith in Jesus Christ our Savior. We view the teachings of the Catholic Church and her sacraments as special ways in which we worship the Lord and allow the risen Christ to continue his ministry. I know a bishop who adds to his duties the task of cleaning bedpans for the terminally ill. A local priest chaplain washes and treats the feet of the homeless with medicative ointment and clean socks. We are not afraid to get our hands dirty in our work for the Lord. I would challenge you to turn away from your bigotry and embrace a ministry that would humble your boisterous spirit. Lou writes: Exactly my point! We are to "test the spirits". WE, it says. We do have a responsibility, a singular responsibility. The catholic church designates themselves to be the ecclesiastical parents of their flock They expect their flock to obey their teachings without question. God says, "test the spirits", the catholic church says, "NO,do what we tell you to." I think it best to follow God's way. Andrew responds: You agree that 1 John 4 refers to deception in spiritual circumstances that can be tested in reference to true Christian teaching. Thus, Catholics are not forbidden to "test the spirits". The Church's use of biblical scholars and others is proof that the Church does not demand BLIND obedience, as you assert. Indeed, Catholic moral theology, while stressing the need for proper formation, insists upon the freedom and centrality of the Christian conscience. We are obliged to follow what we believe to be true. However, if it should later be proven erroneous, then we would have the responsibility of forming our conscience accordingly. Here you misrepresent the Catholic stance. This is more evidence that you are not well versed enough in Catholic thinking to adequately offer a critique. Lou writes: The Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus. He would not contradict Him. He would not guide men to formulate doctrines that are contrary to His Word. The Holy Spirit has no part in Roman Catholicism. The many bitter fruits of Roman Catholicism have borne sharp witness to that fact for the last 1500 years. Andrew responds: You state: "The Holy Spirit has no part in Roman Catholicism." You make this statement without any qualification. You make a vague allusion to the "bitter fruit" of the last 1,500 years without acknowledging the wondrous works of God in his Church during that time and the 500 years prior. I am fearful that you blaspheme the Holy Spirit. This conversation goes around and around, and no ground is given on your side for mutual respect. Lou writes: You've got to be literally, totally, kidding me! My opinion? An "obscure verse"? Really, you've got to be kidding me! The Word of God as written in Isaiah 8:20 is verily a principle for which the child of God can measure and determine whether or not a doctrine is of God. Why did God inspire His Word? So that the catholic church can come along and pick and choose what will remain, what will be abrogated....etc? Evidently, your only guide to truth is the catholic magisterium. You've rejected the Word of God. You have placed yourself in abject spiritual poverty, my brother. I strongly urge you to get into His Word. At least try it out, prayerfully, without any bias. You just might be pleasantly surprised at the results. Although you might believe differently, I'm not out to bash catholics. I was one. My parents and siblings still are. Yes, I expose the errors of the SYSTEM - because it's leaders teach falsehood. Andrew responds: As for Isaiah 8:20, your use of it is rather peculiar, no kidding. I have not rejected God's Word as you claim, but you often fail to understand it. I talked about the text and you escape into things I do not need to know about your family history. As for bashing Catholics, again deny it all you will, that is what you do. You have called us a people merely giving "lip service to God" and "exalting and aggrandizing" ourselves. God's Word is whole and complete in the Catholic Church. Count the biblical books, you will notice that you are missing a few. Of course, you trust more in a late Jewish editor and the wayward monk, Martin Luther, than the early Christian community and the councils of Christ's shepherds. Lou writes: Gee, that's nice of the RCC to throw a little bone to the Word of God! Andrew responds: "The Catholic faith also teaches that saving
truth can be found in the Scriptures." Is such a statement a "little
bone" to God's Word? I think not. The Gospel is not given us
simply to win debates or arguments. The Word of God gives us the
saving message and person of Jesus Christ. Salvation is NEVER a "little
bone". We place our trust in the Savior who went to the cross.
You are contradicting yourself many times over. If you "advocate the Bible and the Bible ONLY" then you should add no commentary and enter in no debate for assuredly you do add and sometimes contradict the Scriptural testimony. Your tradition is that there is no tradition. Your personal magisterium insists that there is no magisterium. In other words, the bible speaks for itself as long as it speaks with YOUR VOICE. As for Jesus being a "'Bible-only' man," well, I would have to object to such a narrow interpretation of "the WORD MADE FLESH". The reference is to the incarnation. The pre-existent Word is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. He takes upon himself a complete human nature: body and soul. Yes, Jesus is made present in the PROCLAMATION of the Scriptures. Yes, Jesus is present in the assembly of the CHURCH. Yes, Jesus is present in his SACRAMENTS, particularly the Eucharist. And, yes, Jesus is present in us by GRACE that he might continue his meritorious works in each of us. You take the ripe grapes of the Christian dispensation and reduce them to withered raisins. Lou writes: I have not nor do I intend to form my own congregation. I'm simply sharing the truths of Scripture on this message board. Truths, to which none of the Roman Catholics that I've had any discussions with were able to refute Scripturally. Now, where's this great and marvellous cohesiveness in the catholic church??? They have plenty of internal troubles. Their clergy are at odds with eachother. Some priests are rebelling against the celibacy rule. Satanism is being practiced in the very Vatican. Pope JPII is doing NOTHING to erradicate this evil. Why? Because he has an agenda that's more important to him. And that is the strengthening of the geopolitical position of the Roman Catholic church in the world. Malichi Martin makes mention of this in his book, The Keys of This Blood. Very intereting book! This was re-affirmed just the other day on EWTN. The Vatican is a pit of evil. And neither the pope nor any of his cardinals and bishops have as their priority, the salvation of souls, but rather their priority is their ambition to strengthen their political position in the world. They are not united spiritually. They are like a failed marriage that just remains bonded for the outward show of it. Andrew responds: You quote Fr. Malachi Martin as the source for much of your information. You do know that he offers the Tridentine Mass daily? It is hard to believe that you would reject the Pope but put such confidence in a faithful priest [Jesuit] who writes somewhat sensational books. Maybe there is hope for you yet? There have always been differences of opinion in the Church; it is only that today they are more visible. Sin has also been ever present among her membership and clergy; are you without sin? I seem to remember a Judas in our Lord's band of priests, and a less than honest Peter. The formal teachings and the sacraments of the Church maintain her unity. Yes, there are defections and squabbles (as in the reformation) but the Church goes on. The Catholic Church is not a failed marriage as you suppose. Christ is her groom and he will never abandon her. You slur the Pope again, a man that has paid
the price of blood for his allegiance to the message of Christ and the
defense of human dignity. What have you done to better God's people?
He will go down as one of the great Popes. Reagan and Gorbachev have
admitted in writing that without Pope John Paul II, it is doubtful that
freedom would have come to the Communist Eastern Block and Russia.
You declare that living tradtion does not replace biblical testimony, but supplements it and helps to interpret it. The problem with that is that the Bible already declares it's total sufficiency. There can be NO inprovement to God's Word. The fact is, the RCC's living tradition, is not living, at all - it's dead formalism. But then again, can a better result be expected when an attempt is made on improving perfection (God's Word)? Andrew responds: You speak nonsense because you are not familiar with anything more than a grade school Catholicism-- or so it seems. The living tradition is far more than formalism. God's Word is not improved upon, as you mock, but rather there is a true development of doctrine from the seed planted by Christ and the apostles. Revelation ends with the death of the last apostle. But, the Church continues to reflect upon her saving faith. What would be recent developments of Catholic doctrine? Largely due to Fr. John Courtney Murray, the views regarding the relationship between the Church and State in the Vatican II documents would be a major one. Another would be the condemnation of slavery from the Pope and Holy Office going back before the Council of Trent. Today, the high ground is regarding human life in a culture of death. While most churches are silent regarding euthanasia, abortion, and infanticide, the Catholic Church has remained resolute on behalf of the Gospel of Life. Lou writes: Not so.What the catholic church did was make a trade, a very poor trade indeed. They traded the "precious" Word of God for their dead traditional "foolishness". Andrew responds: There was no trade for tradition in place of Scripture. The bible is alive and well in the Catholic Church. Lou writes: That is pure fiction. The catholic church has no relation with the apostles. None! The church that Jesus started was composed of the apostles and after the first century, it went downhill from there. The church in Rome increased in power and many heresies were gradually introduced and accepted into the church. So, Roman Catholicism is but an offshoot of the pure church founded by Jesus. Andrew responds: Apostolic succession in the Catholic Church is not a fiction; ancient lists and the testimony of Church fathers support it. You have offered nothing to dispute the claims except your fallible opinion. Catholicism is not an offshoot of the faith founded by Jesus, but is precisely his Church. Further, there is an intimate unity between the bishop who walks in the footsteps of the fisherman, Peter, and all the others. The Church is one. The Church in Jerusalem suffered terribly and the center of gravity moved with Peter and Paul to Rome. The Maronite (not Roman) Catholics are a rite in the true Church that traces its community back to the Jerusalem of the Apostles. They offer the Mass, not in Latin, but in Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke. They contend that the Virgin Mary composed one of their Eucharistic anaphoras. I have had the privilege of participating in their liturgy several times. While some of their customs and traditions are different, they accept the Pope and all that the Catholic Church teaches to be true. The Church started in Jerusalem did not die and have to be invented later. This would have to be your contention because there is no record of a church coming down to us through history holding YOUR many eccentric views. Lou writes: But that TRUE CHURCH is NOT Roman Catholicism!!! The early church had no extra-Biblical material. NONE! You are confusing the true chruch with the Roman Church. There's a big, big difference. Andrew responds: The early Church and her link to Catholicism are indeed supported by ancient testimony. Your denial of any extra-biblical material would even rule out the materials (like a list of Christ's sayings) that found inclusion in the Gospels. There is no confusion between the TRUE Church and Catholicism. Again, they are one and the same. Lou writes: Really?? Do you believe him?? Would you place it on an equal level with what has been revealed about Jesus in His Word?? I would hope not! The truth is that neither Roman Catholicism nor ANYBODY else can know the acts and words of Jesus that were NOT REVEALED in His Word. What has not been revealed about the acts and words of Jesus is not any insufficiency on the part of God, nor is it any license for Roman catholicism to forge extra-Biblical creeds in defense of their dead "living tradition". Andrew responds: You write: "Does Roman Catholicism attempt to discern the words and acts of Jesus that were not written? I don't believe so." How could you not know about the famous work of prayer, even offered by evangelical publishers (censoring out the eucharistic chapters) by Thomas a Kempis? Again and again, the gaps in your knowledge of Catholicism stagger me. Your response to my correction of your statement is again to create and either/or scenario. THE IMITATION OF CHRIST is a pious work of prayer that is useful in the Christian life but which does NOT replace the Scriptures. While there are biblical elements to many devotional works, the bible takes precedence as the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. However, any pious work becomes part of a spiritual tradition. Just as your Internet jargon might become if there are souls gullible enough to follow it. Lou writes: No, the teachings of Roman Catholicism are NOT the same as the teachings of the apostles. They are different. Different because with the partial truth that they do present, they have amalgamated much error and pagan superstition along with it. The apostles would NEVER have been part and parcel of doing such displeasing things to the Lord and corrupt His church. Andrew responds: You did again the very same thing that I offered warning about. "It always amazes me how anti-Catholics can explain away the bible when it does not fit in with their preconceived notions. Your use of logic runs backwards-- proposing that since you reject Catholic traditions-- they must in no way be found supported by Scripture." Lou writes: If those Protestant ministers were so HONEST and knew the Word of God, they would have NOTHING to do with Roman Catholicism who slaughtered THEIR ancestors for THEIR faith in the BOOK that they so twist! And I never said that ALL catholic claims are non-Biblical. But the RCC does NOT OBEY the Word in it's entirety. While not ALL catholic teaching is unBiblical, enough of it is to make them an unBIBLICAL church. And I agree with you that there are many catholics and protestants that love Christ and persue holiness. These dear people are surely better than the blind guides that are misleading them. The contradictory beliefs and opinions between catholics and protestants are not just a malady that's confined to the laity. It's the clergy of both camps that are just as confused. Catholics accept what they are taught by their priests, bishops, cardinals, the pope. Protestants accept what their respective pastors teach them. The leadership of both camps are equally guilty of teaching and propagating error. Many of the protestant sects are really not all that different from roman catholicism. The vast majority of them still hold on to the relics of popery to a greater or lesser degree. Add all of these together and you have all your disagreeing sects and doctrines. But it all points back to its roots in the MOTHER CHURCH. It's not the Holy Spirit's design that this situation prevails. But this is the CHOICE of God's professed people. He still has a people who adhere to ALL the truths of His Word. And ALL of those HONEST people that you speak about that love Christ and persue holiness are His and have lived up to ALL the light of truth that they have and they ARE saved. But the time is coming, when God will call ALL these honest people that love Christ and are pursuing holiness OUT of this confusion of spiritual Babylon, just before Jesus returns and they ALL will heed the call. I hope and pray that you are one of them! Andrew responds: You question the sincerity of Protestant ministers who associate with faithful Catholics and seek to qualify early misstatements that condemned all traditional Catholic claims as unbiblical. You reluctantly admit that there are some Catholics and Protestants that love Christ and pursue holiness, and yet you have already counted them as lost in the Church of the anti-Christ. I am absolutely convinced that if I were to deny the Catholic faith, I would betray Jesus and segregate myself from the gift of salvation. My study and prayer has reaffirmed this conviction, that Jesus Christ is God and my Savior, that I am a sinner in need of his mercy and healing, and that the Catholic Church is the new Israel and People of God established by him. I suppose this means, according to your view, that I am damned. Nevertheless, along with my sincere convictions, my faith is unassailed and my hope undaunted. Oh yes, I will pray for you, too. Lou writes: The same dilemna exists in the catholic church. What if the college of cardinals and the bishops and other high-ranking catholic officials are in disagreement over a specific issue. What if they don't agree with the pope? Do you think that they ALL listen to the pope? I know a few priests that don't. There were splits in the catholic church, ya know! At one time there were two or three popes ruling simultaneously. There will always be disagreements with the human element. The popes have not cornered the market on the Holy Spirt's guidance. They are a little totalitarian government where the king rules - like it or not. Any cohesiveness that the catholic chruch can claim is a cohesivness of error. Who needs that! The much safer and better way is God's way - all the way. Andrew responds: There are many Scriptures and views to which the Catholic Church has not given a definitive position. These are free for discussion among theologians and the rest of us alike. I suspect that you have a faulty appreciation of how the sources of revelation are analyzed in the Church. The infallibility of the Church requires many careful distinctions. The Church is not utterly against debate regarding religious questions. Councils are often filled with a great deal of such discussion. Practical decisions of the Church may not always be for the best-- this is not an infallible element. Many of the debates in the Church are of this type. Should we have Mass in Latin or English? How about altar girls? Is communion in the hand appropriate? Should nuns wear habits? The Magisterium of the Church is itself directed and limited by the Scriptures as understood in the life of the Church. Thus, NO priest, bishop, or Pope could teach that Jesus did not rise from the dead or some other serious matter. There is a required consistency to Church teaching that is required and followed. The lay people are involved, too. The universal SENSUS FIDELIUM also speaks to how the Church understands herself and the Word of God. John Henry Newman speaks about how the Catholic faithful maintained the true faith even when many of their shepherds had become Arian. The principle still holds. Thank God that the peculiar ideas of a few, even priests, does not constitute the definitive teaching and real unity of the Catholic Church. Lou writes: The Scriptures were available well BEFORE the catholic church set the cannon in the fourth century. Andrew responds: I will repeat my question. "How can
Christians see the Church simply arising from the Scriptures when it was
the early Church herself, inspired by the Spirit of God, that formulated
these writings and set the canon in the fourth century?" The argument
that they were set well before sidesteps the fact that even informal use
was still in the Catholic Church. Further, there were other documents
that had yet to be formally excluded from the inspired text.
|