Question about Catholicism and the Pope

[12th Doctor]

The point I was trying to make, though clumsily, is that we know there where real teachings of Jesus floating around that were not specifically recorded in the gospels.  The record is not 100% complete.  And, as I have said, all of this is, in fact, based on tradition.

If the New Testament is lacking teaching required for salvation, would you say the same of the Old Testament?  Surely God didn't give us less perfect scripture than he gave Moses and Prophets prior to Christ.

So, (unless you say the Old Testament is more complete in its salvational teachings under the old covenant than the New Testament is under the new covenant) who filled in the gaps for those living during old covenant times?  You've already agreed the teachings of the Old Testament church leadership were not infallible, yet there there were still many who were saved.

So, how did people of the old testament lead righteous lives if necessary teachings were missing from Old Testament scripture?

OT scripture was not codified, even by Jewish authorities until after the death of Christ.  The only existing list we have of Jewish scripture from before that time period makes no claim to be definitive (contrary to what Protestants believe, and base their elimination Maccabees et al, upon).  The Church Fathers had to agree to the OT canon as well as the NT canon.  We know the the NT (including Christ himself) quotes from "scripture" that is not in our Bibles.  In fact, Jesus quotes directly from Enoch, which is obviously not in our Bible.

The argument that there was a definitive OT scripture itself is a fallacy.  Scripture as they thought of it would have included multiple books that we have no knowledge of.  And you twisted the entire concept of my argument about the OT Church.  Whether or not that Church was fallible has no bearing on the issue.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

So, how did people of the old testament lead righteous lives if necessary teachings were missing from Old Testament scripture?

Because, unlike the Gospels and the rest of the Christian Bible, the Hebrew Bible is divinely inspired.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The point I was trying to make, though clumsily, is that we know there where real teachings of Jesus floating around that were not specifically recorded in the gospels.  The record is not 100% complete.  And, as I have said, all of this is, in fact, based on tradition.

If the New Testament is lacking teaching required for salvation, would you say the same of the Old Testament?  Surely God didn't give us less perfect scripture than he gave Moses and Prophets prior to Christ.

So, (unless you say the Old Testament is more complete in its salvational teachings under the old covenant than the New Testament is under the new covenant) who filled in the gaps for those living during old covenant times?  You've already agreed the teachings of the Old Testament church leadership were not infallible, yet there there were still many who were saved.

So, how did people of the old testament lead righteous lives if necessary teachings were missing from Old Testament scripture?

OT scripture was not codified, even by Jewish authorities until after the death of Christ.  The only existing list we have of Jewish scripture from before that time period makes no claim to be definitive (contrary to what Protestants believe, and base their elimination Maccabees et al, upon).  The Church Fathers had to agree to the OT canon as well as the NT canon.  We know the the NT (including Christ himself) quotes from "scripture" that is not in our Bibles.  In fact, Jesus quotes directly from Enoch, which is obviously not in our Bible.

The argument that there was a definitive OT scripture itself is a fallacy.  Scripture as they thought of it would have included multiple books that we have no knowledge of.  And you twisted the entire concept of my argument about the OT Church.  Whether or not that Church was fallible has no bearing on the issue.

fine...but you have to agree that God's will was still discernable to pre-Jesus Israelites living under such an "undefined" old testament system (no defined canon, no infallible church leadership)...they still had to discern FOR THEMSELVES what to follow and what not to follow, and yet many were still saved.

Agreed?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

One question I have about how the Catholics view the Pope.  Mind you, I'm not trying to be critical, I'm just curious.  Do the Catholics view the Pope as a sinless, inerrant person?  or do they view him just like any other mortal, sinful man just with a lot more respect?

I heard one answer from a Baptist in Sunday School last Sunday morning (August 17), but I wanted to hear from the mouths of Catholics before deciding if its true or not.

The latter. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

[Keystone Phil]

One question I have about how the Catholics view the Pope.  Mind you, I'm not trying to be critical, I'm just curious.  Do the Catholics view the Pope as a sinless, inerrant person?  or do they view him just like any other mortal, sinful man just with a lot more respect?

I heard one answer from a Baptist in Sunday School last Sunday morning (August 17), but I wanted to hear from the mouths of Catholics before deciding if its true or not.

Oh, I can only imagine what nonsense you were fed.  I am so tired of the misinformation campaign by evangelical leaders concerning the Catholic Church.

Of course we don't think he's sinless.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Can you imagine what it would be like if me and Phil were born in Northern Ireland?

[7,052,770]

If I lived in Northern Ireland, I would have joined a Catholic paramilitary group by now.

[12th Doctor]

If I lived in Northern Ireland, I would have joined a Catholic paramilitary group by now.

The modern IRA is a terrorist organization, Harry, and should be treated accordingly.

"A terrorist is a terrorist, even if he wears a green necktie and sings 'Danny Boy'".

[Јas]

If I lived in Northern Ireland, I would have joined a Catholic paramilitary group by now.

The modern IRA is a terrorist organization, Harry, and should be treated accordingly.

I don't think either your Government or the British Government agree with this statement any longer.

[12th Doctor]

If I lived in Northern Ireland, I would have joined a Catholic paramilitary group by now.

The modern IRA is a terrorist organization, Harry, and should be treated accordingly.

I don't think either your Government or the British Government agree with this statement any longer.

Meaning?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If I lived in Northern Ireland, I would have joined a Catholic paramilitary group by now.

The modern IRA is a terrorist organization, Harry, and should be treated accordingly.

I don't think either your Government or the British Government agree with this statement any longer.

Meaning?

Decommissioning

[Јas]

If I lived in Northern Ireland, I would have joined a Catholic paramilitary group by now.

The modern IRA is a terrorist organization, Harry, and should be treated accordingly.

I don't think either your Government or the British Government agree with this statement any longer.

Meaning?

The IRA no longer engage in terrorist activities. They have decommissioned their weapons and advocated political efforts at solving their grievances. The IRA is effectively defunct.

[12th Doctor]

If I lived in Northern Ireland, I would have joined a Catholic paramilitary group by now.

The modern IRA is a terrorist organization, Harry, and should be treated accordingly.

I don't think either your Government or the British Government agree with this statement any longer.

Meaning?

The IRA no longer engage in terrorist activities. They have decommissioned their weapons and advocated political efforts at solving their grievances. The IRA is effectively defunct.

I'm sure there are probably a few "holdouts" working out of a basement somewhere who believe in keeping the fight going.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If I lived in Northern Ireland, I would have joined a Catholic paramilitary group by now.

You mean you support massacring Protestant steel workers and blowing up bars and shopping malls in London? Come on.

If I lived in Northern Ireland, I would have joined a Catholic paramilitary group by now.

The modern IRA is a terrorist organization, Harry, and should be treated accordingly.

I don't think either your Government or the British Government agree with this statement any longer.

The US State Department does classify the Real IRA as a banned terrorist organization. I'm sure the British government has a similar designation.

[Јas]

If I lived in Northern Ireland, I would have joined a Catholic paramilitary group by now.

The modern IRA is a terrorist organization, Harry, and should be treated accordingly.

I don't think either your Government or the British Government agree with this statement any longer.

The US State Department does classify the Real IRA as a banned terrorist organization. I'm sure the British government has a similar designation.

Indeed they do. As does Ireland and the European Union. I was merely referring to the organisation most commonly referred to as the IRA (i.e. the Provisionals).

Those splinter groups that remain (all of which dwarfed in size compared to the Provisionals) lack any significant popular support and in many cases are clearly more concerned with criminality (drugs, smuggling, 'protection', etc.) than 'freedom fighting' and so might rightly be considered to be criminal gangs rather than terrorists.

[k-onmmunist]

If I lived in Northern Ireland, I would have joined a Catholic paramilitary group by now.

If killing women and children seems like fun to you, then I'm sure you'd fit in quite well -_-

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If I lived in Northern Ireland, I would have joined a Catholic paramilitary group by now.

The modern IRA is a terrorist organization, Harry, and should be treated accordingly.

I don't think either your Government or the British Government agree with this statement any longer.

The US State Department does classify the Real IRA as a banned terrorist organization. I'm sure the British government has a similar designation.

Indeed they do. As does Ireland and the European Union. I was merely referring to the organisation most commonly referred to as the IRA (i.e. the Provisionals).

Those splinter groups that remain (all of which dwarfed in size compared to the Provisionals) lack any significant popular support and in many cases are clearly more concerned with criminality (drugs, smuggling, 'protection', etc.) than 'freedom fighting' and so might rightly be considered to be criminal gangs rather than terrorists.

So you mean the Provisional IRA did have a ton of popular support while they were terrorists? And people wonder what my issue with Irish Catholics is?

[Јas]

If I lived in Northern Ireland, I would have joined a Catholic paramilitary group by now.

The modern IRA is a terrorist organization, Harry, and should be treated accordingly.

I don't think either your Government or the British Government agree with this statement any longer.

The US State Department does classify the Real IRA as a banned terrorist organization. I'm sure the British government has a similar designation.

Indeed they do. As does Ireland and the European Union. I was merely referring to the organisation most commonly referred to as the IRA (i.e. the Provisionals).

Those splinter groups that remain (all of which dwarfed in size compared to the Provisionals) lack any significant popular support and in many cases are clearly more concerned with criminality (drugs, smuggling, 'protection', etc.) than 'freedom fighting' and so might rightly be considered to be criminal gangs rather than terrorists.

So you mean the Provisional IRA did have a ton of popular support while they were terrorists?

'A ton'? No.
Popular support was certainly never anything close to a majority of Catholics, but it was sufficient enough for the group to organise and operate with reasonable effectiveness. The actual levels of support waxed and waned depending on circumstances and the perceived levels of injustice amongst the nationalist community towards the establishment. Just like support within Gaza for Hamas will have skyrocketed in recent weeks, so support for PIRA ballooned after events such as Bloody Sunday. A sense of the levels of support can be gleaned from the performance of Sinn Féin at various elections - something which grew most with their movement towards a political settlement addressing the nationaliast community's grievances.

And people wonder what my issue with Irish Catholics is?

I don't think so - you're simply a bigoted sectarian racist, is all.

[J. J.]

Super, two technical quibbles:

1.  Until 1917 there were "lay cardinals" that had minor holy orders, below that of deacon.

2.  We recently had a cardinal that was not a bishop, Avery Cardinal Dulles, son of John Foster Dulles.  He requested, because of age (he was over eighty when elevated), not to be elevated to the episcopate.  He died just over a month ago.

You are impeccably correct that when Paul wrote, there was no canon, and no Bible as we thing of it.

[7,052,770]

If I lived in Northern Ireland, I would have joined a Catholic paramilitary group by now.

I was being facetious of course, but I think that statement represents how I feel on Catholicism in general.  I will vehemently defend it against its detractors, and being part of the Catholic "team" is more important to me than believing all of the silly minor things that Soulty gets on my case about.  I do of course believe the overall important message.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

is this to say that Paul never picked up any teaching from anywhere else.  Well, that very well could be, but I don't think that is the point Paul is trying to make.  So again, here, as with all things, context is king.

I mean, write after this, Paul tells us about how he went to Jerusalem to speak to Peter, so I am sure there was some exchange of ideas, or else if would have been a really boring two weeks.

yet, the fact remains that Paul stated he went there to get acquainted with Peter.  Paul did NOT say that Peter taught him doctrine he did not already know.

Gal 1:16 "I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.  Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother."

in fact, even at the Jerusalem Council, Paul stated that James, Peter, and John added NOTHING to Paul's teaching:

Gal 2:6 "those men added nothing to my message"

so, all the scriptural evidence backs up Paul's claim:

Gal 1:11 "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

of course, none of this fits with the Catholic viewpoint that no one can interpret scripture without the help of a uninterrupted line of successors of Peter.

---

To claim, as you do, that “scripture states that the church is led by the Spirit of God, therefore the church must be inerrant because the Spirit of God is inerrant”…ignores the fact that every individual born of God is led by the Spirit of God:

Rom 8:14 “those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God”…Gal 5:18 “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.”

Certainly you are not going to state that every individual is inerrant simply because they are led by the Spirit of God.

---

As to your argument that the early church didn’t have the New Testament and therefore couldn’t function without inerrant leadership…

The early Church had the Old Testament and everything they taught could be verified using the Old Testament:

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

In fact, even though it is 2009, I do NOT hold any doctrines that do not have a basis within the Old Testament:

Acts 24:14 "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets"