How Many Mediators?

[david01]

So, what was the purpose of establishing a canon of revealed scripture, if not to determine what God has said? It is not unlike the EOC stance that we know where the church is, but don't know where it isn't. We do know what is the Word of God. As for extrabilical Traditions and revelations, we can only examine them in light of the holy scriptures. That is one reason Christians have had no difficulty in rejecting other religions such as Islam and Mormonism which claim extrabiblical revelation.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Who is to say she isn't in Purgatory?

The same people that say there IS a Purgatory

 

[Catholic Christian]

So, what was the purpose of establishing a canon of revealed scripture, if not to determine what God has said? It is not unlike the EOC stance that we know where the church is, but don't know where it isn't. We do know what is the Word of God. As for extrabilical Traditions and revelations, we can only examine them in light of the holy scriptures. That is one reason Christians have had no difficulty in rejecting other religions such as Islam and Mormonism which claim extrabiblical revelation.

To have a measure or norm of which books were authentically inspired and which were not. Hence the word "canon", from Greek kanon, meaning measuring rod, rule, akin to kánna cane

The Bible is the written word of God, but it is the Church which is the teacher, and authoritative interpreter of that word.

 

[Catholic Christian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JawnouQYtjE

 

[Technocrat2010]

So, what was the purpose of establishing a canon of revealed scripture, if not to determine what God has said?

The purpose of establishing the canon was for liturgical use, not to determine inspiration. That's why in some Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Bibles you will not find the book of Revelation. Not because they didn't see it as inspired, but because they didn't see it as canonical, or part of their liturgical use. That's the reason why St. Jerome argued against the deuterocanonicals - not because he didn't see them as inspired, but because in the Constantinople patriarchate they didn't use them in the liturgical canon. The Bible was meant to supplement the true source of the faith - that is, the Mass.

It is not unlike the EOC stance that we know where the church is, but don't know where it isn't. We do know what is the Word of God. As for extrabilical Traditions and revelations, we can only examine them in light of the holy scriptures. That is one reason Christians have had no difficulty in rejecting other religions such as Islam and Mormonism which claim extrabiblical revelation.

Where does it say we must examine them in light of the holy scriptures to verify their validity?

 

[david01]

Thanks for the entertaining video. It reminded of a fellow I knew of who attended a local RCC college in my home town. He was a sincere and devout member of the Church, as was his family. As a result, he decided to take a course in the Pauline epistles. As the course went along he realized that the priest who was giving the class was in significant contradiction to the text. After class one day he met with the priest to discuss these matters. The priest then asked him if he thought he could interpret the Bible on his own, to which he, innocently, said he could. Then the priest told him that, if so, he could not be a Catholic. After pondering that for a bit, he responded that well, if that were the case, he was not a Catholic. Subsequently, he left the RCC and joined a Protestant church.

The problem is not the Bible itself, but the arrogation of its interpretation to any church or body of theologians composed of fallible, human beings. By the way, in case you do not know, papal infallibility was not proclaimed a dogma until 1872. When extrablical material is elevated to the same level as that of inspired scripture, as is the case with certain sects, there is a significant problem. When the material comes into contradiction with the Bible itself, there is significant heresy.

 

[Technocrat2010]

The problem is not the Bible itself, but the arrogation of its interpretation to any church or body of theologians composed of fallible, human beings.

Is that somehow different from a single, fallible human being conducting private interpretation?

By the way, in case you do not know, papal infallibility was not proclaimed a dogma until 1872. When extrablical material is elevated to the same level as that of inspired scripture, as is the case with certain sects, there is a significant problem. When the material comes into contradiction with the Bible itself, there is significant heresy.

Please explain how papal infallibility contradicts the Bible.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Thanks for the entertaining video. It reminded of a fellow I knew of who attended a local RCC college in my home town. He was a sincere and devout member of the Church, as was his family. As a result, he decided to take a course in the Pauline epistles. As the course went along he realized that the priest who was giving the class was in significant contradiction to the text. After class one day he met with the priest to discuss these matters. The priest then asked him if he thought he could interpret the Bible on his own, to which he, innocently, said he could. Then the priest told him that, if so, he could not be a Catholic. After pondering that for a bit, he responded that well, if that were the case, he was not a Catholic. Subsequently, he left the RCC and joined a Protestant church.

The problem is not the Bible itself, but the arrogation of its interpretation to any church or body of theologians composed of fallible, human beings. By the way, in case you do not know, papal infallibility was not proclaimed a dogma until 1872. When extrablical material is elevated to the same level as that of inspired scripture, as is the case with certain sects, there is a significant problem. When the material comes into contradiction with the Bible itself, there is significant heresy.

I can't speak to what kind of teacher the priest was: They aren't infallible, and some of them are crackpots. (And thats coming from a by-the-book Catholic.) But, the Catholic Church's teaching is correct, and represents the consistant witness of 2000 years of Christianty

 

[Catholic Christian]

The problem is not the Bible itself, but the arrogation of its interpretation to any church or body of theologians composed of fallible, human beings. .

Don't forget that fallible human beings wrote that Bible, and fallible men decided the canon of the New Testament in the 4th century.

By accepting the New Testament, you have unwittingly accepted the fact that the Catholic bishops in union with Pope Damasus infallibly chose the books that belonged in there.


...Oh, and if you want to say that God did that, please do: God DID do that, THROUGH THE BISHOPS AND THE POPE, which is the essence of an infallible act.

 

[Gary51]

They aren't infallible,

That's for sure

and some of them are crackpots.

And that's for sure

But, the Catholic Church's teaching is correct,

Ummm... not so sure.

and represents the consistant witness of 2000 years of Christianty

Not according to Luther.

 

[david01]

And not according to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

 

[Catholic Christian]

And not according to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Not true: Regarding mediatorship, as it relates to Mary and the Saints, those churches are in complete agreement with the Catholic Church. It is Luther and protestantism which is the odd man out when it comes to this subject.

 

[mont974x4]

Being the "odd man out" doesn't make us wrong.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Being the "odd man out" doesn't make us wrong.

...it doesn't make you right either

 

[mont974x4]

Nope, but God is right and following what He actually says as opposed to what the pope says that He says certainly does make us right.

 

[Gary51]

...it doesn't make you right either

More right than you though!

 

[Technocrat2010]

Nope, but God is right and following what He actually says as opposed to what the pope says that He says certainly does make us right.

False dichotomy fallacy.

 

[Technocrat2010]

More right than you though!

Which, so far, you have not demonstrated. If you have, please direct us to the posts in which you did so.

 

[Gary51]

Which, so far, you have not demonstrated. If you have, please direct us to the posts in which you did so.

I'll direct you to a book called the bible, you will discover the truth there.

BTW, doesn't the result of the poll tell you something?

 

[Technocrat2010]

I'll direct you to a book called the bible, you will discover the truth there.

BTW, doesn't the result of the poll tell you somethig?

Thankfully I already beat you to it. From looking at the Bible, I fail to see how you have demonstrated your point. Please demonstrate how you are more "right" than we are.

The result of the Poll tells me nothing. If you are assuming it somehow validates your position, two points must be made - first, that would be an argumentam ad populam fallacy on your part, and second, out of the 2.1 billion Christians, only 28 have voted here. Hardly a representative figure.