toldailytopic: Church hierarchy: what is the proper biblical way that a church should

[Cruciform]

So if I read the scripture through this lens you speak of then non-sequiturs will actually seem to follow then I can come to conclusions not warranted from the scriptures I provide? Dude, hook me up with one of those lenses. I've always dreamed of turning my brain off and still being able to teach theology. Now if I could only get paid to do that . . .

Try to follow. The Bible was never intended to be interpeted apart from the teaching Tradition of the historic Church. In doing so, you're lacking tons of information necessary to properly understand the genuine meaning of the biblical texts. Only by interpreting Scripture according to the Church's Apostolic Tradition---as is intended---can one come to an accurate and orthodox comprehension of the intended meaning of the Bible. In short, your comments above only hold water if the 16th-century Protestant invention of sola scriptura (and it's related notion, the doctrine of private judgment) were actually true and, unfortunately for your assumptions, it simply is not.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Krsto]

As already posted:

"...your entire description of supposed Catholic teaching and discipleship is one gigantic straw man fallacy, and resembles the actual situation not one little bit."​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

So you are admitting to be somewhat of an extremist in your camp?

 

[Cruciform]

So you are admitting to be somewhat of an extremist in your camp?

Like yourself, I have no idea what you're talking about.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Krsto]

Try to follow. The Bible was never intended to be interpeted apart from the teaching Tradition of the historic Church. In doing so, you're lacking tons of information necessary to properly understand the genuine meaning of the biblical texts. Only by interpreting Scripture according to the Church's Apostolic Tradition---as is intended---can one come to an accurate and orthodox comprehension of the intended meaning of the Bible. In short, your comments above only hold water if the 16th-century Protestant invention of sola scriptura (and it's related notion, the doctrine of private judgment) were actually true and, unfortunately for your assumptions, it simply is not.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I'll take that to be a yes. I don't actually need to concern myself with the fact your church draws conclusions from scriptures that appear to be non sequiturs. I don't need to bother trying to have a rational discussion of the texts in front of me because it's already been figured out for me. I just need to read what your church says about it and believe it regardless of what my mind is telling me because my mind is not authoritative for me - that's what your magisterium is for - to do my thinking for me - so I can just turn off my mind, go with the flow, and be happy.

You might actually win a couple converts with a progam like that. Spare them the discomfort of having to find truth in that morass of subjectivism us Protestants call the church. That does have a certain appeal, I'll give you that.

 

[Cruciform]

I'll take that to be a yes. I don't actually need to concern myself with the fact your church draws conclusions from scriptures that appear to be non sequiturs. I don't need to bother trying to have a rational discussion of the texts in front of me because it's already been figured out for me. I just need to read what your church says about it and believe it regardless of what my mind is telling me because my mind is not authoritative for me...

Given that you insist upon interpreting Scripture apart from the Church's teaching Tradition---an approach never intended even by the biblical writers themselves---"your mind" simply does not have all the relevant information that it needs in order to arrive at an accurate understanding of the text's intended meaning. Certain things appear to be non sequiturs because you're refusing to take important pertinent information into account in your personal subjective interpretation of the written Word of God. Your approach to biblical interpretation leaves you with only partial knowledge by which to derive a proper meaning from Scripture. You've effectively tied your own hands, and have simply left yourself with a hopeless task.

...that's what your magisterium is for - to do my thinking for me - so I can just turn off my mind, go with the flow, and be happy.

Yet another complete straw man fallacy on your part. Simply and categorically a false statement. Catholics no more "turn off their minds" than Protestants do. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Krsto]

Given that you insist upon interpreting Scripture apart from the Church's teaching Tradition---an approach never intended even by the biblical writers themselves---"your mind" simply does not have all the relevant information that it needs in order to arrive at an accurate understanding of the text's intended meaning. Certain things appear to be non sequiturs because you're refusing to take important pertinent information into account in your personal subjective interpretation of the written Word of God. Your approach to biblical interpretation leaves you with only partial knowledge by which to derive a proper meaning from Scripture. You've effectively tied your own hands, and have simply left yourself with a hopeless task.


Yet another complete straw man fallacy on your part. Simply and categorically a false statement. Catholics no more "turn off their minds" than Protestants do. Try again.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

So then, if I take any one of those scriptures you quoted and read how your church interprets it then I should be fully convinced in my own mind that the conclusions you drew from that verse are indeed what the apostles intended? And then if I present to you further information than what you have been made aware of by your church then you will also be able to come to an informed interpretation, correct? This does work both ways, does it not?

Shall we put this theory to the test? Pick any one of those points you gave and provide all the info I need to come to the conclusion you drew then we can go from there.

 

[Cruciform]

So then, if I take any one of those scriptures you quoted and read how your church interprets it then I should be fully convinced in my own mind that the conclusions you drew from that verse are indeed what the apostles intended?

If you've interpreted the passage in line with the Church's authoritative teachings (dogmas), then you have interpreted it in an acceptable manner.

And then if I present to you further information than what you have been made aware of by your church then you will also be able to come to an informed interpretation, correct?

No, because you would not be presenting the infallible teaching of Christ's Church. In short, your information would not be the Word of God (Divine Revelation), which is comprised of both Scripture and Tradition.

Shall we put this theory to the test? Pick any one of those points you gave and provide all the info I need to come to the conclusion you drew then we can go from there.

One example would be the doctrine of Infant Baptism. Going by just "the Bible alone" (sola scriptura), some Christians have concluded that adult believers and their children should be baptized, while others have maintained that only adult believers should be Baptized. Protestantism as a whole has simply been unable to come to any sort of consensus or agreement on this essential point of Christian teaching (as an aspect of the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, and thus a part of the doctrine of salvation, this is indeed a central teaching of the faith). Which is it? How can this be definitively resolved?

The NT writers merely assumed a view of Baptism which had already been in operation in the Church for decades before a single word of the NT was ever penned. Thus, there is no systematic theology of Baptism in the NT. There are merely bits and pieces of a set of beliefs that were simply taken for granted as a given by the NT authors. So, then, how can we possibly know for sure what the apostles meant by their casual and situational references to Baptism?

For this necessary information, we turn to the Church's ancient and authoritative Tradition, which is often expressed in and through the voluminous writings of the early Church Fathers, as well as in the decrees of the Church's councils throughout history. Read in light of their testimony, the scattered passages in Scripture quickly come into sharp focus:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism_qa.html​

Conclusion: The Bible does indeed assume and teach the apostolic doctrine of Infant Baptism, just as the historic Church has maintained it down to our own day.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Try to follow. The Bible was never intended to be interpeted apart from the teaching Tradition of the historic Church. In doing so, you're lacking tons of information necessary to properly understand the genuine meaning of the biblical texts. Only by interpreting Scripture according to the Church's Apostolic Tradition---as is intended---can one come to an accurate and orthodox comprehension of the intended meaning of the Bible. In short, your comments above only hold water if the 16th-century Protestant invention of sola scriptura (and it's related notion, the doctrine of private judgment) were actually true and, unfortunately for your assumptions, it simply is not.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

What does the RCC teach about the doctrine of Hell? Does the RCC support any view that would be akin to the notion of annihilationism? Does the RCC teach any view of reincarnation? Panenthism? Pantheism?

AMR

 

[Cruciform]

What does the RCC teach about the doctrine of Hell?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines it this way (p. 881):

HELL: The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives.​

For more detailed info, see the Catechism, pars. 1033-1037.

Does the RCC support any view that would be akin to the notion of annihilationism? Does the RCC teach any view of reincarnation? Panenthism? Pantheism?

Although individual Catholic scholars have speculated on these points, the Catholic Church herself formally rejects each of them as a valid and true notion of God, his creation, and the afterlife. On reincarnation, for example:

"Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When the single course of our earthly life is completed, we shall not return to other earthly lives: 'It is appointed for men to die once' (Heb. 9:27). There is no 'reincarnation' after death" (Catechism, par. 1013).​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[chrysostom]

I hope AMR doesn't turn me in

 

[Krsto]

I hope AMR doesn't turn me in

I hope not, you appear to be one working within the RCC for reform? If so, my hat is off to you. God give you grace and wisdom.

 

[Cruciform]

I hope not, you appear to be one working within the RCC for reform? If so, my hat is off to you. God give you grace and wisdom.

Plenty of Catholics are working for genuine reform in the Church, and always have. However, such legitimate reforms do not involve the denial or rejection of formally-established doctrines, as some non-Catholics presume. This was the fundamental mistake made by Luther and company.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines it this way (p. 881):

HELL: The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives.​

For more detailed info, see the Catechism, pars. 1033-1037.


Although individual Catholic scholars have speculated on these points, the Catholic Church herself formally rejects each of them as a valid and true notion of God, his creation, and the afterlife. On reincarnation, for example:

"Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When the single course of our earthly life is completed, we shall not return to other earthly lives: 'It is appointed for men to die once' (Heb. 9:27). There is no 'reincarnation' after death" (Catechism, par. 1013).​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I hope AMR doesn't turn me in

Q.E.D.

Chrys: Beam. Eye. Remove it!

The Café Catholicism you exhibit is the very reason why reform is desperately needed within its confines. :squint:

AMR

 

[Krsto]

Plenty of Catholics are working for genuine reform in the Church, and always have. However, such legitimate reforms do not involve the denial or rejection of formally-established doctrines, as some non-Catholics presume. This was the fundamental mistake made by Luther and company.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Of course. Such fundamental mistakes lead to being burned at the stake. You don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[Krsto]

Originally Posted by Krsto:

So then, if I take any one of those scriptures you quoted and read how your church interprets it then I should be fully convinced in my own mind that the conclusions you drew from that verse are indeed what the apostles intended?

If you've interpreted the passage in line with the Church's authoritative teachings (dogmas), then you have interpreted it in an acceptable manner.

And after I have been given all the relevant info on a verse by your church and still conclude that your church is missing the mark then I should simply turn off my brain and accept the Catholic interpretation so that I know I will be interpreting it in an acceptable manner?

 

[Cruciform]

Of course. Such fundamental mistakes lead to being burned at the stake. You don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.

No, such fundamental mistakes result in formal theological heresy and spiritual destruction. You don't want to deny or reject the divinely-revealed truth of Jesus Christ.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

And after I have been given all the relevant info on a verse by your church and still conclude that your church is missing the mark then I should simply turn off my brain and accept the Catholic interpretation so that I know I will be interpreting it in an acceptable manner?

Let's say you're a 1st-century religious seeker, and you ask this question: "And after I have been given all the relevant info on a verse by the Apostolic Church, and still conclude that the apostles are missing the mark, then should I simply turn off my brain and accept the apostolic interpretation so that I know I will be interpreting it in an acceptable manner?" What do you think the 1st-century answer would be? (Hint: Lk. 10:16; 1 Jn. 4:6; cf. 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16.)



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+