Today is my last day

[Ben Kenobi]

No, if you truly believe there ought to be only one church then you ought to drive straight and hard for the very center of truth, without fail. There should be no tolerance for evil and corruption within. Didn't Jesus say it were better that a millstone were tied to the neck and cast into the sea rather than causing one child to stumble? The millstone is poetic license to convey the gravity of the offense. The RCC has taken the position that it is better for entire generations to stumble while they deliberate for centuries.

Yes, it is very true that it is better to have a millstone tied around your neck, than to encourage anyone to sin. The statement inspires caution rather than blindly forging ahead, for to draw others into sin through innovation is just as bad as to fall into corruption. The one is not better than the other.

In the world of modern politics we call that "spin." Coming four centuries late does not mystically make the decision "more success[ful]."

How many more hundreds of millions would have been in the scope of effect had the RCC adopted the vernacular in the sixteenth century? How many hundreds of millions above that had they not wandered into that error in the first place? To pretend otherwise is fiction.

What error? The error of holding masses in Latin?

You are right that coming 4 centuries later does not make the design intrinsically more successful, however, many of the errors committed by Luther can be better understood and avoided. The very fact that the Catholic church has chosen to adopt the principle of saying mass in the vernacular is a substantial endorsement of Luther, and should be celebrated rather than spat upon for being 'too late'.

You have missed the point. The source of the corruption is in all of us, from the Pope to the lowest servant. The changes that introduced falsehoods had already happened centuries before Luther. Only change could bring the church back to the truth. Just because opinion has held over time does not mean that opinion is truth, only that the system has not changed and therefore remains in error.

Very true, as sinful people we cannot purify ourselves from sin and corruption. Regardless of how the church progresses, there will always be the human element of sin present. Change cannot bring the church back to truth in it's entirety, it can only restore the vector.

Secondly, there have been changes instituted by Luther that have introduced falsehoods into the church that were not present there before. The first being salvation through faith alone and not through the grace of God. Another would be the concept that justification merely covers over our sins, it does not remove them.

No doctrine issued ex cathedra has ever been acknowledged as error. This is a greater perversion of truth than the errors themselves.

How so? Every church has beliefs that must be accepted in order to be a member. Why should the declarations of the Catholic church be any less valid than the others?

[Ben Kenobi]

The "authority vested in the Laity" so spoken is empty rhetoric. The Laity have no authority, in the RCC, to reject or amend the teachings of the church. The Laity have no authority to remove corruption from within the ranks of the priesthood.

And a shepherd without a flock is hardly a shepherd. The authority of the laity is the strongest deterrant against the abuse by the priests, since the laity can bring the abuse to the forefront. They do not have a vested interest to shelter the abuse, rather they wish to expose the errors.

The second check, in requiring priests to change doctrines is not a flaw, but rather a check against abuses by the laity. Neither the priests nor the laity is to be an authority unto itself.

Exactly my point, they cannot. The parenthetic statement is my summation of how the RCC subjugates scripture to Tradition, the result of the error of denying the authority of scripture.

Actually, my question was for your definition of tradition, and not your interpretation of what the Catholic church believes.

The need for tradition (small "t") is that scripture is necessarily terse. For example, the authors of the Gospels cannot be expected to explain the cultural basis for certain statements and practices reflected in their testimonies. Only as new cultures are exposed to or emerge from the old can comparisons arise.

Christianity transcends culture, as the doctrines of Christianity are applicable across cultures, rather than being subject to them.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are some issues that are matters of conscience. To believe that Rome (or anyone else) can "settle" a matter of conscience for all or none is inherently oppressive.

Very true. The real question is whether an article is an article of doctrine that ought to be accepted by all members of a church, or a matter of conscience. The fact that some issues are matters of conscience does not deny the fact that some things are not matters of conscience.

There is no difference between the ordination of women and the marriage of priests. Scripture is clear that women are not to be ordained and that forbidding marriage is a false teaching. If there were abuses among the clergy the solution was to discipline the clergy, not to forbid marriage.

Was the celibacy of the priesthood instituted solely to correct the abuses, or is there a greater principle involved? That's the real question here. Don't you remember where Apostle Paul teaches that the one who is unmarried is free to devote himself to God, while the one who is married has his attention divided?

I have seen many married pastors, while wonderful fellows, face a far lesser burden than any Catholic priest, with respect to their parishioners. They could not bear the same load, because they are unable to devote the same amout of time to their office.

If there were one of the four that stands out it would be birth control. It is the only issue of my four examples that is entirely a matter of conscience in parallel with pacifism.

Why? The acceptance of birth control by Christians is a very recent innovation. It distorts Christian conceptions of what marriage involves, and changes the relationship between a husband and a wife. The union of a man and a woman should not be hindered through birth control, as you are withholding yourself from your wife.

I can cite case after case of parishes in the former Soviet Union struggling to reestablish the concept of a family of sufficient size to support the growing elderly population, simply because so many have lost this concept of a family. I see this as a harbinger for the rest of the West.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, the issue has been addressed fully in Protestant churches by placing creeds and other secondary teachings on a lower level than scripture. Creeds and doctrines are merely tools to help the "modern" man understand in his own terms.

So this means the ecumenical creeds of Chalcedon and Nicaea are obsolete? What about the Trinity, which is not explicitly declared in scripture, but is in the Athanasian Creed? Would a different formulation of the Trinity that allowed for different conceptions of the trinity apart from the former creeds be acceptable?

Ultimately, the goal is for God to so shape the thinking of the man in alignment with scripture that he no longer needs the crutch of creed or doctrine to understand.

In the process you reinvent the wheel, and repeat work that has already been done centuries ago.

The very idea that a council can "decide" what scripture means in absolute terms would be laughable if it weren't so horribly dangerous. If God wanted the scriptures written in neo-Aristotelian terms He would have done so from the start. He did not, and all attempts to remold God and His Word to the thoughts of man are error.

Yet, the very crutch the protestant churches despise, they still find themselves clinging onto. Why not do away with all creeds altogether? The reason being that because they help us understand very difficult topics, in such a way that the teachings of the church can be properly understood.

The second risk I see, is the reintroduction of former errors, by churches that are unaware of history. Old issues such as the divinity of Christ, his nature and so on, will become issues again unless people have some familiarity with the creeds.

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem here is that it isn't an earthly family. No father has infallible authority, no mother is coredemptrix or comediatrix with Christ. The Pope is five thousand miles away. Mary is dead, by definition cut off from the world of the living.

And this is what I alluded to earlier. It is impossible to understand Catholic teachings of Mary, apart from those of the Saints. Catholics believe that just as Christ is very much risen, so have the saints of the church. They are not 'unconscious' in the grave, which is another innovation by Luther unsupported by scripture.

Secondly, Catholics do not teach that Mary is equal to Christ, or to the Holy Spirit, or to God the father, but rather is among the saints in heaven.

More importantly, the only scriptural relationship between believers here on earth is that of brotherhood. None is "more equal than others" to borrow a phrase. Jesus specifically intoned that on matters of authority and teaching we must not call anyone "Father" for we have but one Father in heaven. He is enough, one High Priest is enough, one Holy Spirit is enough. There are no job vacancies in the Godhead.

Yet Christ also says, I will call you Petra, rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whasoever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Just because Christ is our high priest, does not forgo priest of the order of Christ, an order from which all pastors also claim authority.

Secondly, does not Paul talk of differentiation in heaven between believers, as the work of each will be tested with fire? Those who's work stands the test will be given authority in heaven.

[Alexander's Horse]

*waits patiently for Ben to publish heretical remarks so I can report him*

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
*waits patiently for Ben to publish heretical remarks so I can report him*

Now you've lost the element of surprise, one the two several key tactics of the Spanish Inquisition. Now you'll have to rely on ruthlessness and your fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, it is very true that it is better to have a millstone tied around your neck, than to encourage anyone to sin. The statement inspires caution rather than blindly forging ahead, for to draw others into sin through innovation is just as bad as to fall into corruption. The one is not better than the other.

So you are saying that vernacular mass is sin? No, the "caution" was more due to political maneuvering rather than any concern that the gospel should be known and believed.

What error? The error of holding masses in Latin?

You are right that coming 4 centuries later does not make the design intrinsically more successful, however, many of the errors committed by Luther can be better understood and avoided. The very fact that the Catholic church has chosen to adopt the principle of saying mass in the vernacular is a substantial endorsement of Luther, and should be celebrated rather than spat upon for being 'too late'.

But that's what you said, that the reluctance of the RCC and late adoption of the vernacular had "more success" than Luther...

Yes, the whole Latin Mass was error. Origen and Jerome translated the NT and other works into Latin. This was a good thing. Then Bishop Ulfilas devised the Gothic alphabet for his translation of the gospels into Gothic (East Germanic) and later Germanic tongues were rendered in a modified Latin alphabet. The driving force was to present the gospel in the vernacular wherever it spread.

Then Rome decided it couldn't exert control if everybody was using their own vernacular and forced converts to attend Latin Mass. What did this accomplish? Nothing but the ignorance of the masses.

Very true, as sinful people we cannot purify ourselves from sin and corruption. Regardless of how the church progresses, there will always be the human element of sin present. Change cannot bring the church back to truth in it's entirety, it can only restore the vector.

No, you still don't get it. You are still subscribing to this fiction that the Church is somehow immune and infallible no matter what corruption exists in the "human element."

The Church is the human element. They cannot be separated. The Godhead is the only element that is not fully human with all the flaws and foibles that engenders. To believe otherwise is deception of the highest order, comparable to the fall of Lucifer.

Secondly, there have been changes instituted by Luther that have introduced falsehoods into the church that were not present there before. The first being salvation through faith alone and not through the grace of God. Another would be the concept that justification merely covers over our sins, it does not remove them.

I can't imagine what definition of grace you are applying here. Certainly not Luther's.

Every church has beliefs that must be accepted in order to be a member. Why should the declarations of the Catholic church be any less valid than the others?

Most churches posit their teachings as interpretations of scriptures, not bodies of work elevated to equality with and de facto functionally superior to scripture.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
[A] shepherd without a flock is hardly a shepherd. The authority of the laity is the strongest deterrant against the abuse by the priests ...

No, that isn't authority. Anyone inside or outside the church can point out the obvious. The RC laity has no authority to suspend or remove a RC priest for sin or error.

The inherent error is in the RC doctrine creating Priests as an overclass, relegating the laymen to second class citizens in the kingdom of heaven.

Actually, my question was for your definition of tradition, and not your interpretation of what the Catholic church believes.

I answered in the paragraph you quoted next:
The need for tradition (small "t") is that scripture is necessarily terse. For example, the authors of the Gospels cannot be expected to explain the cultural basis for certain statements and practices reflected in their testimonies. Only as new cultures are exposed to or emerge from the old can comparisons arise.

For example, without understanding post-Exile Jewish tradition of the Seder you can't properly understand or interpret the things Jesus says and does in the Last Supper.

Had the Roman and Greek church stuck to Jewish tradition as both Jesus and the Apostles taught of Christianity instead of supplanting it with western philosophy there would be neither these errors nor these disputes.

If God wanted to base His church on western philosophy Jesus would have been born a gentile. God chose the Jews, shaped their history and culture, and used them as His intrument.

Christianity transcends culture, as the doctrines of Christianity are applicable across cultures, rather than being subject to them.

It does, but in general human understanding fares poorly in crossing cultural borders. True tradition explains the things that scripture assumes the reader understands. False tradition introduces things the scriptures never assumed nor permitted.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The real question is whether an article is an article of doctrine that ought to be accepted by all members of a church, or a matter of conscience. The fact that some issues are matters of conscience does not deny the fact that some things are not matters of conscience.

Was the celibacy of the priesthood instituted solely to correct the abuses, or is there a greater principle involved? That's the real question here. Don't you remember where Apostle Paul teaches that the one who is unmarried is free to devote himself to God, while the one who is married has his attention divided?

Paul prefaces the passage (I Cor 7:25ff) thus: "Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord: yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy. I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is..."

Paul makes it clear throughout that it is a conditional teaching and a matter of conscience. He also uses a key phrase "past the flower of youth" indicating the cultural penchant for marrying off daughters in their teen years rather than allowing them to mature and learn to serve God as an adult prior to marriage.

I have seen many married pastors, while wonderful fellows, face a far lesser burden than any Catholic priest, with respect to their parishioners. They could not bear the same load, because they are unable to devote the same amout of time to their office.

This is primarily because of the priestly overclass created in the RCC. In Protestant churches laymen assume many responsibilities that the RC priest cannot delegate to the second class citizens, the laity.

Furthermore, the RC priest is charged with manning the confessional. The RCC teaches that confession to a priest is a necessity. So the RC priest is burdened with "responsibilities" only Jesus our High Priest intended to carry.

Why? The acceptance of birth control by Christians is a very recent innovation. It distorts Christian conceptions of what marriage involves, and changes the relationship between a husband and a wife. The union of a man and a woman should not be hindered through birth control, as you are withholding yourself from your wife.

Not at all. Couples have used the "rhythm method" from the beginning. Only recently have materials been available to make workable prophylactics (latex condoms, hormone pills, etc) and thus there is no lengthy history of modern birth control.

I can cite case after case of parishes in the former Soviet Union struggling to reestablish the concept of a family of sufficient size to support the growing elderly population, simply because so many have lost this concept of a family. I see this as a harbinger for the rest of the West.

Yes, I concur that the industrialized nations have foolishly constricted their birth rates, and that there are economic consequences to follow. But does not contradict the fact that birth control is a matter of conscience!

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So this means the ecumenical creeds of Chalcedon and Nicaea are obsolete? What about the Trinity, which is not explicitly declared in scripture, but is in the Athanasian Creed? Would a different formulation of the Trinity that allowed for different conceptions of the trinity apart from the former creeds be acceptable?

They are not absolute, neither are they obsolete. They are attempts to explain some important things in the vernacular. Another explanation may, in fact, be superior to them. In their day there were many who disagreed with them, and their establishment was a political action rather than some mythical Triumph Of Truth Over Heresy.

Ultimately, the goal is for God to so shape the thinking of the man in alignment with scripture that he no longer needs the crutch of creed or doctrine to understand.

In the process you reinvent the wheel, and repeat work that has already been done centuries ago.

Absolutely incorrect! The work must be repeated in each individual. That is the nature of Christianity. You must become mature in Christ. I must become mature in Christ. Reciting creeds doesn't cut it.

The very idea that a council can "decide" what scripture means in absolute terms would be laughable if it weren't so horribly dangerous. If God wanted the scriptures written in neo-Aristotelian terms He would have done so from the start. He did not, and all attempts to remold God and His Word to the thoughts of man are error.

Yet, the very crutch the protestant churches despise, they still find themselves clinging onto. Why not do away with all creeds altogether? The reason being that because they help us understand very difficult topics, in such a way that the teachings of the church can be properly understood.

The second risk I see, is the reintroduction of former errors, by churches that are unaware of history. Old issues such as the divinity of Christ, his nature and so on, will become issues again unless people have some familiarity with the creeds.

And you are alone in your wisdom? You have answered your own question. Creeds and doctrines are suitable guides but like the Mosaic Law their purpose is to lead us to Christ. Some individuals never get that far and duplicate the error of elevating creeds and such to the level of scripture. It is their loss.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And this is what I alluded to earlier. It is impossible to understand Catholic teachings of Mary, apart from those of the Saints. Catholics believe that just as Christ is very much risen, so have the saints of the church. They are not 'unconscious' in the grave, which is another innovation by Luther unsupported by scripture.

That RC teaching is error. Paul instructs us that the resurrection is yet to come, that those who have died will not rise until after those who are still alive have been transformed at Christ's Appearing. Christ the firstfruits, then we who remain, then the dead in Christ.

Now, whether Luther said the dead in Christ are unconscious in the grave I neither know nor care. The scriptures are available for all to study, some rightly and some less so.

Secondly, Catholics do not teach that Mary is equal to Christ, or to the Holy Spirit, or to God the father, but rather is among the saints in heaven.

Nice try, Ben. Mary is treated as a junior goddess, able to understand us better than Jesus, able to present our pleas to Jesus with her motherly influence better than we can, etc. Straight out of the Greco-Roman mythos of the Hero's Mother. Scripture says that we are to boldly present ourselves to our High Priest who is touched by our infirmities as one who suffered with us. Hide behind Mary's skirt if you like, but it will hinder you from seeing and hearing from God and open yourself to deception.

More importantly, the only scriptural relationship between believers here on earth is that of brotherhood. None is "more equal than others" to borrow a phrase. Jesus specifically intoned that on matters of authority and teaching we must not call anyone "Father" for we have but one Father in heaven. He is enough, one High Priest is enough, one Holy Spirit is enough. There are no job vacancies in the Godhead.

Yet Christ also says, I will call you Petra, rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whasoever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Ah, so Christ wasn't quite enough? The passage is about Peter's realization of Christ's identity. "I call you Petros" (a rock or small boulder), "and on this petra" (a large prominence or feature of landscape), blah blah blah. All we who see Christ as Lord and worship Him as Son of the living God are founded on that rock and have those keys.

Just because Christ is our high priest, does not forgo priest of the order of Christ, an order from which all pastors also claim authority.

Secondly, does not Paul talk of differentiation in heaven between believers, as the work of each will be tested with fire? Those who's work stands the test will be given authority in heaven.

All believers comprise a "nation of kings and priests" according to Peter himself. Paul says our work will be tested and our reward will be meted. No details beyond that are given, and I doubt we could rightly comprehend what that will be like.

[Alexander's Horse]

Saint Paul to Titus 3:9

But hold yourself aloof from foolish controversies and pedigrees and discussions and wrangling about the Law, for they are useless and vain.

[Straybow]

Ah, but it is Ben who is claiming the pedigree and wrangling about the Law, and I wouldn't call trying to save a friend from abominable Papist servitude a "foolish controversy."


I know many people who have escaped from Catholicism, and I'm mystified by anyone not born to it who craves its embrace.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Straybow
I know many people who have escaped from Catholicism, and I'm mystified by anyone not born to it who craves its embrace.

I wondered about the same too, until I discovered American protestantism.

[Straybow]

Tsk, tsk. 'Tisn't as bad as that. We're nothing like the TV preachers, for the most part.