Dairygirl's Large/Influential Church Theory

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 19 2004, 02:18 PM']But I have some questions regarding what you said.
[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 19 2004, 06:25 AM']If it is a divine gift of grace, it follows that it is certain, for God is its author and source, and He can neither deceive nor be deceived. Clearly, if it is simply an unaided human act, it can be in error; but divine faith is certain because it has its origin in God Himself, and in fact it must be certain by definition for that very reason. To say that the faith once delivered to the saints could be mistaken is the same as attributing error to Almighty God, for He is the source of that faith.[/quote]
I'm not sure what you mean by certain. Do you mean they are not doubting or they can only have a sure faith if they have faith in the truth?[/quote]
By [i]certain[/i], I mean that one cannot have any doubts whatsoever in assenting to the truths of the faith, because in doubting one would be doubting God and not man, and that would be a sin. A man accepts the doctrines of the faith, not because they make sense to him as purely rational propositions; rather, he accepts them simply because God has revealed them.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 19 2004, 02:18 PM'][quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 19 2004, 06:25 AM']To say that the faith once delivered to the saints could be mistaken is the same as attributing error to Almighty God, for He is the source of that faith.[/quote]
First, would God give certitude/faith to someone who is not christian? If he did, wouldn't that be an error according to you? (I may be misunderstanding you)[/quote]
Divine faith is Christian faith. Now could a person who is invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church make an act of divine faith? Yes, that is possible, for it must always be borne in mind that Christ alone is the savior of humanity, and so anyone who is saved is saved by Him, that is, by His grace which necessarily flows to humanity through His holy Catholic Church.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 19 2004, 02:18 PM']Also, I'm not saying it was mistaken, I'm saying the Catholic Church misinterprets past events.
I still think we should look to Rome, but not if it's going to go into error and claim to be the true church etc.[/quote]
So far you haven't proven that the Church of Rome, as you call it, is in error; but your own statements about the nature of faith are problematic, because you appear to be advocating a form of the Pelagian heresy. Moreover, if the Catholic Church is not the true Church, which one is? Only the Catholic Church goes back to the very beginning of the Christian era. Certainly none of the Reformation Churches qualifies, for they don't even believe many of the doctrines held as sacred during the first 1,500 years of the Church's existence. There is no way that one can claim that the Lutheran doctrines of [i]sola fide[/i] and [i]sola scriptura[/i] are ancient beliefs of the Church, because no one prior to 1517 AD accepted them.

God bless,
Todd

[dairygirl4u2c]

bump

[dairygirl4u2c]

this was an interesting thread.

it strikes at the heart of my beefs with the CC. (this and the "no salvation outside..." seeming contradiction but that's beside hte point)

any new ideas?

Edited October 23, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1407819' date='Oct 23 2007, 09:46 AM']this was an interesting thread.

it strikes at the heart of my beefs with the CC. this and the "no salvation outside..." seeming contradiction.

any new ideas?[/quote]

There was a whole thread revisiting the dogma of no salvation outside of the Church, many contributed heavily to it. Perhaps you could clearly explain point by point what beefs you have.

God bless

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]if you look at all those early church writings, even the ones from clement, and read them in the spirit of a unifying church, not necessarily in any way infallible, you'll see a different way to interpret history. ie just a unifying and persuasive authority.

the only possibly convincing quotes are from firmilian and cyprian. firmilian was not a believer, but in fact a non-believer in the autority of rome. cyprian... there's the cyprianic theory that said that the church was suppose to be one, but that doesn't necessarily imply what catholics say it does. i do know cardinal newman talks about the cyprianic theory briefly in that sense before he became catholic. see the next set of quotes for the context.

Newman said the alternative unifying thory is a formidable belief. he said the chruch grew like an acorn tree. whether it grew through God's power into what it is now, or by man's power, he said early history could be interpreted either way. the reason he was saying this is because people were dissing the chuch because the early text is so ambiguos, and he wanted them to realize the organic nature of the church: even if it were true, it's not gonna just spring up; if you were Peter, you wouldn't just say hey i'm infallible, watch out; it's be more natural (if it were true, i'm sure he had a time coming to grips with what it was... and i'm not even sure, even if the chruch is true,, whether he would have to even know (or did know) the extent of his power) Newman was resistant of hte first vaitcan council to vote yea on infallibilty because of ehse historical difficulties, as he put it, even though he himself believed in it. he was afraid of how outsiders would take the catholic church.

when i look at the question of whether hte orthodox broke away or who did. i see it exemplified by the pope steven (or was it victor?) controversy where the guy said said to the pope who excommunicated his people "in excommunicating us from you, you've excommunicated yourself from all". again, it goes back to how you take the pope's assertion to excommunicate. (remember too that many of the bishops back then were called "pope") it's all a matter of perspective.

lastly, not only could the dissenters at vatican I dissent, the orthodox can remain separate precisely because this ambiguity. it's not that they aren't aware of the quotes you provide from catholic.com.....[/quote]

[quote]Here's Victor and Stephen info, two most notable events early on...


Though Victor tried to change the stance of the churches of Asia Minor, and though he threatened to break fellowship with them if they didn’t change their stance, they ignored his threats. The church father and church historian Eusebius, in his church history (5:24), records part of a letter written to Victor by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Polycrates explains that he and other church leaders will maintain their stance on the celebration of Easter, and that they aren’t intimidated by Victor’s threats:
"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘we ought to obey God rather than man.’ "


As to Stephen and the rebaptism controvery with Firmilian and Cyprian:
I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).
How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24).[/quote]

Edited October 23, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

well i guess i'm just looking for hte "obviouslyists" to show why the CC is obviously true, and that only a mad man, and the orthodox i guess..... could see differently. or for hte more rational people who think it's pretty clear but aren't obviouslyists.

Edited October 23, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

or if an obviouslyist would say it's not obviously one way or the other, i think i'd be smitten.

[mortify]

(sorry about that, a glitch)

Edited October 24, 2007 by mortify

[mortify]

Well, what are your arguments against it, and how do you interpret the verses that support it?

[dairygirl4u2c]

the way i look at it. if "no salvation outside..." looks like a contradictoin, and there's no evidence from that time to back it up, i'd tend to defer to it bseing a contradiction, unless there's other evidence.

cue the early history stuff of this thread. even that stuff is not as clear as i'd think it'd be if the CC is true. cue all those quotes in my past post.

so all in all, it appears the CC contradicted, and insufficient evidence aside from that to say otehrwise.

as to the Peter verses etc. there are many ways to interpret them. why would i assume the CC's version is correct given the historical evidence as i just described? one way is to say that it was peter's confession of faith. one way is to say that Peter was simply given a role in a relationship, much like a pastor/priest. they are a leader, but not in an infallible sense. if this were the case, the role might have simply been for them as a group, as groups need leaders, but not beyond them, necessarily. or, if it was intended to go beyond them, then the CC excommunicated itself with all its claims, from the orthodox and others. (this is how it isn't whacked to say the church departed from where it was suppose to go. the pope would simply be in error from his true role, but he can still be respected etc. if you want to make that argument, as i'd suspect the orthodox might. )
it's easy to see how the CC could have grown man made into what it is now. cue newman's comments on development.

Edited October 24, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

see, an arrogant stephen could easily take his role as leader, whether it was an intended role or not, and start asserting that he is the leader and they should follow.
it's not necessarily the case that he was even exerting in an infallible sense, jsut that he was asserting in a leading sense. so, his exertion of power, which itself is claimed by catholics to be proof of the church, is not even necessarily an infallible way. but if not, it certainly paved the way for popes to start claiming more frivilous power.

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1408482' date='Oct 24 2007, 10:45 AM']the way i look at it. if "no salvation outside..." looks like a contradictoin, and there's no evidence from that time to back it up, i'd tend to defer to it bseing a contradiction, unless there's other evidence.[/quote]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here, do you mind rephrasing?


[quote]as to the Peter verses etc. there are many ways to interpret them.[/quote]

Ok, but what is your interpretation and why do you feel it is the best interpretation?

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1408490' date='Oct 24 2007, 10:53 AM']see, an arrogant stephen could easily take his role as leader, whether it was an intended role or not, and start asserting that he is the leader and they should follow.[/quote]

Have you read Apotheon's comments, posts #13 and #16 in particular?

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes i did. rereading it, i appreciate how much they were wise posts. anachronistic perspectives etc. it's a good argument, but we still have to face the facts of what we read.

i admit there was hints at infalliblity in early cyprian. you have to admit there was resistance the whole time though with cyprian and firmilian etc.

bottomline, if there's evidence against the church, you can't say that bc of anachronistic theories that we should jsut brush it off. this all goes to the development stuff i quoted a couple posts back, about the acorn etc, and whether God or man made.
bottomline again, it's not clear. but, i think it'd be clearer than it is.

i base my interpretation on reason. i cannot assume the CC is true, to guide me in discerning whether the CC is true, when there is this much uncertainty. it begs the question, or something.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i was saying... there's no evidence to back up a lenient version of "no salvation outside..." from the 1000-1500 period. time periods before and after that do not count, other than to propose how they MIGHT be reconciable. the plain reading of them, as justice scalia would say (not intent, not that this is law) is that their is absolutely no salvation, which is ironically what the popes themselves said.
sorry i didn't make that clear.

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1409414' date='Oct 25 2007, 10:11 PM']i base my interpretation on reason. i cannot assume the CC is true, to guide me in discerning whether the CC is true, when there is this much uncertainty. it begs the question, or something.[/quote]

I don't know if your position is one of sola scriptura, but you seem to be saying scripture is not sufficient in explaining itself on this matter.

I'm curious as to what your reason tells you is the correct interpretation of Matthew 16, do you mind sharing?

Lastly, if you're saying you wont accept the doctrine of Infallibility because it's understanding has developed over the centuries, I'm curious as to why you accept the Bible. The Bible canon was not a well documented list of uniform books passed down since the beginning, in fact there was dispute and disagreements over what was considered inspired, ultimately a Church council settled the dispute. But even today there are scholars that say the whole history of the bible is uncertain, we don't know *for sure* that the apostle John wrote the Gospel of John, and so on. It's reported that the new testament writings were not even considered inspired among the early Christians, and that this developed as time passed. Now it would seem to be consistent you would have to reject the bible on this account, but you obviously don't. What's your comment on this?

[dairygirl4u2c]

if i were a believer in an infallible bible, i'd argue there are no contradictions in what's been developed, where as with the CC there are contradictions, apparently. it's not just that it developed, but how.
the bible is the formation of God acting at one time through his people. it could be that he's working through his people inteh CC still, but not necessarily. the bible, it would be argued, is just that important? how do i know? the bible says the bible is important, and that's what i just beleive, even though it does not disprove the CC.

but with that said, i tend to not believe the bible is infallible, just inspired. that's a long thread in itself. the people thought the bible books were worthy of inclusion, so they probably are. i read them with a critical eye, and don't necessarily reject nonbiblical books. reason and the spirit, as i see them, is all i can do.
i am not a typical protestant.

as i said. here is my interpretation of matthew 16, a reserved view.
[quote]as to the Peter verses etc. there are many ways to interpret them. why would i assume the CC's version is correct given the historical evidence as i just described? one way is to say that it was peter's confession of faith. one way is to say that Peter was simply given a role in a relationship, much like a pastor/priest. they are a leader, but not in an infallible sense. if this were the case, the role might have simply been for them as a group, as groups need leaders, but not beyond them, necessarily. or, if it was intended to go beyond them, then the CC excommunicated itself with all its claims, from the orthodox and others. (this is how it isn't whacked to say the church departed from where it was suppose to go. the pope would simply be in error from his true role, but he can still be respected etc. if you want to make that argument, as i'd suspect the orthodox might. )
it's easy to see how the CC could have grown man made into what it is now. cue newman's comments on development.[/quote]

i'd err on saying it was his confession of faith, the first person to confess faith, and from that the church was built. you start a church building with a single rock on the bottom. of course, techincally not all rocks are on top of that one, but don't be too techincal it's just an analogy.
how do i know for sure? i don't. that's life, but i'm okay with that. but for me, and others, to ask for more is being unrealistic.

Edited October 27, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1410101' date='Oct 27 2007, 11:15 AM']but with that said, i tend to not believe the bible is infallible, just inspired.[/quote]

If the bible contains non-truths, why do you believe it's inspired? How can God inspire something error prone?

[Winchester]

What necromancer dragged this thing back into the light?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]If the bible contains non-truths, why do you believe it's inspired? How can God inspire something error prone?[/quote]

the same way God works through any sinner. his people are inspired when they speak or act for him. that does not mean they do not say something wrong, or sinful even.
you can generally be inspired, but not be perfect.
works there, and with the bible.

good example. even priests and pastors are inspired when they bring sermons to the people. yet, you have to take what they say with a critical eye, cause they are sinners and human, prone to error, even when they are on fire and inspired. i look at the bible like that on fire and inspired preacher/priest.

Edited October 29, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c