It would be completely reasonable for the Sydney Anglican Diocese to have some rules about what can and can’t be promoted on its own website. If they wanted to turf out people promoting teachings that are incompatible with its message, I think that’s fair enough.

And I know that sometimes I’m one of them.

David McKay - 20 July 2008 08:17 PM

If they wanted to turf out people promoting teachings that are incompatible with its message, I think that’s fair enough.

That would be a terrible mistake (unless the forum rules are being ignored).

David
Surely the message of the Sydney Anglican Diocese is the spread of the Gospel not anti-Catholicism.  What is the point of the Anglican Diocese putting forth claims about Catholicism if Catholics cannot defend it.  That seems a little unfair

Donna on page 7 of this thread you will find this statement of mine.

As a Christian of (I hope) impeccable Calvinistic credentials, I wish God’s blessing upon World Youth Day. I wish to see the Catholic Church retain more of it’s young people and of course I wish that each one should understand that their acceptance with God has nothing to do with themselves but everything to do with the doing and dying of Jesus of Nazareth, God come clothed in human flesh raised to glory where He ever lives to intercede for His children whether Sydney Anglican, or that wonderful Coptic priest , Father Zakariah or every Youth Day attendee or an infralapsarian Calvinist such as myself.

May God bless all my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ and bring us all to glory, even Robert ian Williams!!

Allow me some latitude for irony in drawing attention to a Catholic invasion!

Donna, I am unconvinced by your explanation for veneration as applied to the Bible. However to pursue your point a little further, if by the verb, “to venerate” you mean to acknowledge (which is a notion encompassed by “to venerate") the Bible as the inerrant and sufficient Word of God, then I’m with you 100%.

David

Donna Green - 20 July 2008 07:41 PM

My observation is that Protestants claim to be bible-believing Christians, but in practice they use only those texts which are comfortable.

In all honesty, how comfortable are modern Roman Catholics with texts like these?

“I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.  I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.”

(Psalm 119:99,100)

“But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things....  But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”

(1 John 2:20,27)

It seems to me that the Psalmist is saying that by private, prayerful meditation on Scripture, allied to an earnest attempt to submit to it, he (and presumably any believer) could come to understand Scripture better than all his potential teachers, past or present.

But then, hey, I’m just using my private judgement to interpret the Psalm that way, so I could be wrong, right?  On the other hand, whenever anyone accepts the RC doctrine of the “wrong of private judgement”, they first have to use their own private judgement to come to that conclusion, so I suggest we at least shake hands on this ;) Bit like a parliament voting to pass a law to abolish itself by declaring itself an illegal legislature ;) ;)

I bring up this point because time and again on the forum, when a RC poster is challenged about this or that RC teaching, a large and early part of the response seems to be to refer back to a group of “ancients"/"teachers", as though we ourselves were under no obligation to do our own exegetical, hermeneutical and theological spadework.  As if all that was somehow entirely contracted out to the acknowledged “masters”.

I also refer to 1 John because, again the claim is repeatedly made that the Papal Magisterium is historically preserved from error by the Holy Spirit, whereas John appears to be saying that by the same Spirit individual Christians may be taught the basic truth of Christianity without outside human help.

David, as our posts crossed - why did you decide to include the word “infralapsarian” in your description?  Just seems very curious to introduce it in a context like this ;)

David
Not sure why you would not be convinced by my explanation on the use of the word of veneration.  Oh well.

Infralapsarian Calvin - take cover.  You could have some fellow protestants giving you a hammering on that one.

Dan
I am not uncomfortable with any scripture you could throw at me.  Not sure how these texts could make me uncomfortable.

1 John 2:20-: interesting you bring this scripture up.  Note that John was talking to people who already knew the truth.  “I write you, then, not because you do not know it...” This would suggest that they heard the word first.  They did not have to read it.  A case for oral tradition.

I didn’t seek the Church’s approval for my interpretation of this particular text.  We have freedom to read scripture and are encouraged to do so.

Donna Green - 20 July 2008 09:37 PM

Dan
I am not uncomfortable with any scripture you could throw at me.  Not sure how these texts could make me uncomfortable.

1 John 2:20-: interesting you bring this scripture up.  Note that John was talking to people who already knew the truth.  “I write you, then, not because you do not know it...” This would suggest that they heard the word first.  They did not have to read it.  A case for oral tradition.

Not sure of the significance of that distinction at a time when most people couldn’t read ;)

Donna Green - 20 July 2008 09:37 PM

I didn’t seek the Church’s approval for my interpretation of this particular text.  We have freedom to read scripture and are encouraged to do so.

Glad you have some freedom, at least on texts not involving articles of faith and morals necessary to salvation, I hope.  However the interpretation of Malachi 1:11 surely falls in that class of non-essentials, yet even there Robert’s first instinct was to go to what the early fathers said about it.  Hence my point.  Does the Magisterium really aim to micromanage all Catholics’ interpretations of every text of Scripture?  Hope not.

I mean, when it comes to preparing sermons, aren’t we told to do our own homework first and only then turn to commentators for the difficult bits?

Dan
1.  If most people couldn’t read, doesn’t the doctrine of sola scriptura seem a little impractical.  Could you not see me point.  The early Church relied on the oral tradition (preaching) not on the written word.  Even if they all could read, the early Church would have relied on the teachings of the Apostles.

2.  No the Catholic Church does not aim to micromanage individual interpretation of scripture.

3.  Why are you allowed the privilege of going to commentary for the ‘difficult bits’ but you slam Catholics for going to early Church history for their interpretation.

4.  Not sure what your point re Malachi 1:11 is. 

As for texts or passages which are uncomfortable.  I could list a couple that would make many protestants very uncomfortable.

With my body I thee worship… straight out of the 1662 Book ofCommon P rayer wedding service. 1662.Is that idolatry..you have to look beyond the nuance of the words.

No the Catholic Church has not pronounced infallibly on the meaning of every verse in the Bible. Mother Church told us they are there for a purpose, and all are inspired.

There are about 8 verses which have been so infallibly designated as to what their meaning is.

However other verses like baptism for the dead etc, are still the subject of speculation...other than they we know they were not part of the deposit of faith Furthermore the Bible contains uninspired statements...like Gamiel’s test of true spirituality ..ie it must be true if it succeeds...by that tolen Islam is true! However we know that Gamiel said it, and it was recorded correctly..it is there by teh power of inspiration but it is not God truth...no more than Herod’s historical words to seek out and kil the first born..or the lustful words of Potipher’s wife.

As for prying for the dead being taken from Mormonism! The Mormon church was statred in 1830, and we have inscriptions on the catacommbs in Rome pre-dating that by at least 1770 years!

I could list a couple that would make many protestants very uncomfortable.

Please do. We should always be willing to be corrected and rebuked by God and his word.

Danni
“Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you”. See John’s gospel

1Tim 3:15: The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Phil 2:12 - ..work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

Matt 19 - regarding divorce.  Note that Jesus gives permission for divorce (only for unfaithfulness) but does not give permission for re-marriage. 

That’s a start

How should any of that make a protestant uncomfortable?

Dannii
I have many protestant friends.  They are uncomfortable with these texts and cannot reconcile their beliefs with what these scriptures say.

Protestants do not believe in the real presence of Christ at Holy Communion.  The common belief is that the bread and wine are symbols.  They help you remember Him.  I don’t need bread and wine to remember what Jesus has done for me.  But when Jesus commands us to something, we need to do it.  “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you”.  Why did so many leave on Him saying these words.  They were horrified.  Surely Jesus would have said “come on, I didn’t mean literally, I just meant they represent my flesh and blood”.  Why would He let so many go from Him.  Jesus said 12 times he was the bread that came down from heaven; 4 times they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood”.

Jesus says His “flesh is for the life of the world, and my flesh is meat indeed”.

Paul also believed in the Eucharist.  Cor 11:26-30.  “So it is the Lord’s death that you are heralding, whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, until he comes.  And therefore, if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord’s body and blood.”

If this command was merely to be understood as a memorial, why would you be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of our Lord.  Seems a little harsh to me.

St Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of John) said “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again”. St Ignatius, Epistula ad Smyrnaeos 6, 2.
There are numerous very early church writings on this doctrine.

Hi everyone,

Unfortunately, with my current business and family commitments I have not had the opportunity to participate fully in this thread.

But I must say that it it is one of the most industrious threads I have ever seen here:

The erection (and knocking over) of strawmen has been proceeding at a furious pace.

8-)
Grace & peace,
Terry