Second, for your argument to have solid import, you must demonstrate that official/infallible decrees/dogmas on faith and morals (my list, not yours) are somehow “unclear”.I replied:
So, on the one hand Scripture is unclear, but on the other (your list) is somehow "clear." How, David, is this NOT a case of you acting like a typical Catholic?DW:
Because Scripture IS cyrstal clear when one is armed with the proper ‘filter’.
By way of reply:
How does anybody know that Rome provides the proper filter? In order to know which filter is the right one, we must have some idea of what the right one must look like before you find it, or is it just one of those things you know when you see it, sort of like the right color of blue shoe that will match your purse? Where's the supporting argument?
Remember, Waltz says he is a seeker of the truth.
I have no culteral, monetary, family, or an other ‘externals’ one might postulate, to keep me a committed Papist—if I became convinced later today that the RCC was indeed a false Church, I leave it…David is waltzing his way through a search for "truth." Yesterday it was Mormonism (Edit: David informs us he was once an Arian), today it's Romanism. Apparently Mormonism (Edit Arianism) did provide the correct filter for Scripture for a time, but now Rome does, and not Protestantism broadly or a particular Protestant tradition more narrowly. He says he's committed to "truth," yet he is still seeking for the truth. How does he know what truth will look like if he needs to find the right filter for Scripture itself - God's own words, no less?
And he's still not answered us as to how exactly God's Word is clear but Magisterial statements are more clear. On the one hand, he attacks the perspicuity of Scripture but he doesn't seem to apply the same standard to Magisterial statements. How, exactly does this make him a atypical Catholic? So far, all he has done is demonstrate that his position cashes out no differently in substance than his fellow Roman Catholics on the internet.
Indeed, if we're going to start talking about the need for filters, then how does one filter Magisterial statements? What is the appropriate filter for them? Do we take the Magisterium's own standards to do that for granted? If so, then that's obviously circular. We are to filter the Magisterium with the Magisterium - one self appointed authority with the same authority. That invites a vicious regress. How do we confirm that is the right "filter?" If it takes Scripture to do that - yet Scripture's proper "filter" is the Magisterium, we've done nothing to change the argument.
Another possible solution is to try and parse out what is "infallible" and what isn't within a single Magiseterial statement, but that seems arbitrary. How exactly does one do that?
Zaphod wrote:
Whatever hermeneutic the Apostles used, it most certainly did not yield for them The Papacy, purgatory, indulgences, a mediatorial priesthood, Marian dogmas like the Assumption, Infallability, and other such Roman religious innovations.
That's an excellent observation. As a committed Papist who believes that Scripture requires the "proper filter" in order to be clear, then are we to conclude that the hermeneutic of Jesus and the Apostles is reflected in Magisterial teachings? If so, where is that supporting argument? How exactly do the dogmas listed above reflect the hermeneutic of the Apostles if any of them are to deduced from Scripture? If these can't be deduced from Scripture, isn't it reasonable to conclude, in that case, that Rome's "filter" does not reflect that hermeneutic, and if not, then which "filter" does?
Here is Rome's filter:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
"... theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition."
From Pope Pius XII, "Humani Generis," reflecting the same theme espoused by prior popes.
By the way, from the same source: Catholics do not have the right to pick and choose what they'll obey from among the papal encyclicals:
ReplyDelete"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."
Easy enough to get around - just don't pick and choose that particular teaching.
ReplyDeleteUNITY! THE EUCHARIST!
Hello Gene,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
>>David is waltzing his way through a search for "truth." Yesterday it was Mormonism, today it's Romanism.>>
Me: I have never been a Mormon (for the record, yet again, I was a 4th generation JW)…are you “lying”??? If not “lying” perhaps a bit too much “fuzz” on the brain???
“Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” (Matt. 7:3 – NRS)
“Wriggle” time anyone…
Look David, you can't expect to waltz in here and....
ReplyDeleteI didn't even have anything to say.
Me: I have never been a Mormon (for the record, yet again, I was a 4th generation JW)…are you “lying”??? If not “lying” perhaps a bit too much “fuzz” on the brain???
ReplyDeleteUnlike you, David, I can own my mistakes...
You were an Arian. Of course, there's a hairbreadth of difference between an Arian and a Mormon these days. So you were an Arian yesterday, a Romanist today...And this affects the rest of what was stated to you how, exactly?
Here is Rome's filter...
ReplyDeleteAnd what's the filter for the filter, and the filter's filter's filter...and so on?
Hey Gene,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
>> Unlike you, David, I can own my mistakes...>>
Me: Are you saying that I have never acknowledged “mistakes”, or are you merely saying that I am unwilling to acknowledge YOUR recent charge to me of “lying” (now expanded to three) ?
And, of course, you are owning up to the “mistake” that I pointed out to you, for it was patently, and unequivically false. Though, for the record, your statement: “Of course, there's a hairbreadth of difference between an Arian and a Mormon these days”, is not even close to being true:
Arianism – God the Father is the One and only Supreme God; Mormonism – God the Father is the Supreme God of this Universe, but this Father has a Father, who has a Father, who has a Father…
Arianism - nothing is co-eternal with God the Father; Mormonism – matter, the priesthood, and “intelligences” are co-eternal with Him.
Arianism – God through the Son created all things ex nihilo; Mormonism – God through with the Son and other high ranking pre-existent spirit children created ex materia.
Arianism – God the Father begot only one Son; Mormonism – God the Father (with a Heavenly Mother/s) begat millions of Sons and Daughters.
A “hairbeadth of diffence” ???
Grace and peace,
Fuzz-brain
Me: Are you saying that I have never acknowledged “mistakes”, or are you merely saying that I am unwilling to acknowledge YOUR recent charge to me of “lying” (now expanded to three)?
ReplyDeleteYou're unwilling to admit that you lied. Unlike you, I don't try to wriggle out of it by equivocation, by changing my story.
“Of course, there's a hairbreadth of difference between an Arian and a Mormon these days”, is not even close to being true:
In the context of my statement, it's VERY true, David, for one false religion is identical to another in the end - both are atheist, for the Bible knows of no distinctions between atheism and idolatry. In the context of what I stated to you, David, you have exchanged one filter for another and remained an idolater, all to search for truth...and failed answer any of the questions posed in this thread.
Thanks, David, for demonstrating you are a typical Catholic after all.