RedFan
Well-Known Member
So let's step back and see where we are.
@Peterlag compares the teachings of the Catholic Church to the Bible; sees discrepancies (real or imagined); and concludes that Catholicism is not faithful to Scripture. I am not faulting him for that conclusion (at least not here). But then he makes the further inference that
I am prepared to lay out the missing steps to see if they can be spanned -- not because I want to help @Peterlag make his case (he hasn't asked for my help, although he knows I am not Roman Catholic), but because it is a worthwhile exercise.
The first missing step is something I have alluded to in earlier posts: Why would Jesus Christ allow his Church to be co-opted in this way, for so many centuries? If Matt. 16:18 is to be believed, he promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church. So how could this corruption have happened?
The second missing step is also something I have alluded to earlier: Are we able to discount apostolic traditions that grew up along side the developing NT canon, simply because they didn't make their way into a writing later deemed canonical? If John 21:25 is to be believed, the four canonical gospels record a tiny fraction of what Jesus said and did during his earthly ministry with the apostles at his side. So why not allow for the validity of oral transmission of his other teachings?
The third missing step, and likely the most controversial, is whether we can allow for doctrines, rituals and practices not explicitly outlawed by Scripture to be instituted through the Church's teaching authority inherited from Jesus Christ's own authority? If Luke 10:16 is to be believed, those who hear the apostles hear Christ, and those who reject the apostles reject Christ. So why reject any teachings of the apostles, or those instructed by them -- in short, why reject the apostolic Church as a "magisterium" (to use the Catholic word)?
Reasonable minds can differ on the answers to these questions. The stridency, even vitriol, with which some posters attack the Catholics' answers to them is disheartening, and certainly an obstacle to rational discourse. I hope it improves.
(But I am guilty too. I myself find it almost impossible to engage with sola scriptura denizens on this site, so incredulous am I that anyone could ever hold to this galactically stupid tenet (from Luther, not from Paul). Perhaps this disqualifies me from the very debate I have just set up. So be it. I'll step aside, and let @Augustin56 and @Peterlag, and others of like mind, grapple with these missing steps in the argument.)
@Peterlag compares the teachings of the Catholic Church to the Bible; sees discrepancies (real or imagined); and concludes that Catholicism is not faithful to Scripture. I am not faulting him for that conclusion (at least not here). But then he makes the further inference that
Is this further inference a necessary corollary of the aforementioned discrepancies? Logically there are a number of steps to take before we can so conclude. @Peterlag hasn't made those strides yet. (Perhaps he doesn't think they are needed.)I think it boils down to this... God created one Church and the Catholics took it over early and corrupted it . . .
I am prepared to lay out the missing steps to see if they can be spanned -- not because I want to help @Peterlag make his case (he hasn't asked for my help, although he knows I am not Roman Catholic), but because it is a worthwhile exercise.
The first missing step is something I have alluded to in earlier posts: Why would Jesus Christ allow his Church to be co-opted in this way, for so many centuries? If Matt. 16:18 is to be believed, he promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church. So how could this corruption have happened?
The second missing step is also something I have alluded to earlier: Are we able to discount apostolic traditions that grew up along side the developing NT canon, simply because they didn't make their way into a writing later deemed canonical? If John 21:25 is to be believed, the four canonical gospels record a tiny fraction of what Jesus said and did during his earthly ministry with the apostles at his side. So why not allow for the validity of oral transmission of his other teachings?
The third missing step, and likely the most controversial, is whether we can allow for doctrines, rituals and practices not explicitly outlawed by Scripture to be instituted through the Church's teaching authority inherited from Jesus Christ's own authority? If Luke 10:16 is to be believed, those who hear the apostles hear Christ, and those who reject the apostles reject Christ. So why reject any teachings of the apostles, or those instructed by them -- in short, why reject the apostolic Church as a "magisterium" (to use the Catholic word)?
Reasonable minds can differ on the answers to these questions. The stridency, even vitriol, with which some posters attack the Catholics' answers to them is disheartening, and certainly an obstacle to rational discourse. I hope it improves.
(But I am guilty too. I myself find it almost impossible to engage with sola scriptura denizens on this site, so incredulous am I that anyone could ever hold to this galactically stupid tenet (from Luther, not from Paul). Perhaps this disqualifies me from the very debate I have just set up. So be it. I'll step aside, and let @Augustin56 and @Peterlag, and others of like mind, grapple with these missing steps in the argument.)