Saturday, April 25, 2009

Reginald Tries Again

I was glad to see that Reginald took another shot at the issue of important Roman Catholic bishops publicly going wildly wrong on doctrine (link). Unfortunately, he still doesn't quite get it.

First, he argues that fallibility of bishops does indeed explain why they sometimes get doctrine wildly wrong. No doubt. Again, no one suggested otherwise.

Then he goes on to say that "He seems furthermore not to understand that the gift of infallibility is a gift of the Holy Spirit." (bold in original) I do understand that this is the claim that is made, but there are two issues with this:

1) There's no reason to believe councils of bishops like Zollitsch are the kinds of councils that would have such a gift (even if any councils would).

2) If anything that is not infallibly taught by Reginald's church could be wildly wrong because it is fallible then Reginald is imprudent in not limiting his acceptance of his church's doctrines to those things infallibly defined (assuming he could somehow figure out what those things were - which is a job in itself).

But the more important bottom line is that we see that Reginald is just taking his church's say-so on faith. He not only swallows the wild errors of Zollitsch but of the Arians as well (he says so himself). It's no big deal to him that what he views as his church is not preserved from gross heresies. He doesn't think this is a problem, because he doesn't realize its implications.

He doesn't see that it may be that a heresy (or bundle of them) has actually prevailed in the church of Rome and that he is an heretical sect rather than being in a Catholic church (notice the important difference in this case between "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic").

Notice what he says: "But the gift of infallibility doesn't work like that. It extends to the college of bishops under certain conditions, and to the Pope under certain conditions." (again, the bold is his) As usual, he's missing the point (as though we don't know that his church's position is that the college of bishops isn't always infallible and that the pope isn't always infallible). But his comment is actually revealing in the point that it raises: what are these conditions and where did they come from?

We know where the conditions for the pope's infallibility came from (Vatican I), but what about the conditions for the college of bishops (this issue is a sort of logical precursor, since Vatican I was a council). Was it decided by a previous council? By a previous pope? Or is it just something that Reginald read from some fallible source that might be pulling a Zollitsch or an Arius.

Is Rome's claim to authority simply a circle - "we are authoritative because we say so" - or is Reginald willing to admit that he doesn't rely on a circular argument but on faith in his church itself (a misplaced faith if Zollitsch is any indicator). I guess we'll see.

-TurretinFan

4 comments:

steve said...

The church of Rome is the one true church...but no one is minding the store! It's a very odd combination, to say the least.

natamllc said...

Without much commentary, I would say, "see here", this is why I am a 5 Sola guy and no longer a follower of the RCC and their teachings:::>

"....2) If anything that is not infallibly taught by Reginald's church could be wildly wrong because it is fallible then Reginald is imprudent in not limiting his acceptance of his church's doctrines to those things infallibly defined (assuming he could somehow figure out what those things were - which is a job in itself)...."

What is a "disciple" of the RCC all about? Is the "teachings" of the RCC and the papists a republication of the Scriptures, like the Prophets, Psalms, Gospels and Epistles?

No, in no way are they!

Here is why:

Luk 24:25 And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.


Bunk! Bunk I say, with all do respect, seeing we, the sons of Adam's race, are to be committed to doing these things during our lifetimes:

Rom 13:7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Rom 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

What is most troubling to me, of it all, the teachings of the RCC and where those teachings lead its followers, is not what followed that admonition above given to the True Catholic Church, from Paul's writings at Romans 13:7-10. Here is what you do not gain from being a follower of the RCC:

Rom 13:11 Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.
Rom 13:12 The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.
Rom 13:13 Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy.
Rom 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

The very tenet of Paul, here, is being and has been, from the beginning of the RCC, and their rules, undermined!

Undermined? Yes, undermined!!

How can both, the RCC and the True Catholic Church, do what Scripture teaches us in Romans 13 and become like what the RCC really leads us to become, that is, become idolaters? We cannot. We cannot do both! It's either the RCC and their man made rules or it's the Rule of the Law of Righteousness gained through a life of living the Life God on earth with Jesus Christ wants us to live!

Here is what an idolater becomes like:

Psa 115:3 Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.
Psa 115:4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands.
Psa 115:5 They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see.
Psa 115:6 They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell.
Psa 115:7 They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat.
Psa 115:8 Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them.

Here is what a True Believer becomes like while living with Christ on earth:

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

John Bugay said...

Steve said: The church of Rome is the one true church...but no one is minding the store!Yeah, but they've got this perfect "teaching" (see the Catechism) -- and at such times when it needs "interpretation," the Magisterium is there for it!

Turretinfan said...

Mr. Bugay,

You wrote: "Yeah, but they've got this perfect "teaching" (see the Catechism)"

It's worth noting that the Catechism itself is not infallible. Given that Reginald (and others) tends to dismiss the teachings of prominent bishops as being part of the fallible magisterium, he can hardly then turn aroud and appeal to a different part of the fallible magisterium as though it were necessarily right. If individual bishops (because they are fallible) can be widely and grossly wrong, then (by the same rationale) so can the CCC.

You continued: "-- and at such times when it needs "interpretation," the Magisterium is there for it!"

What's interesting is (1) how frequently and diversly doctrines and documents are interpreted "fallibly" and (2) how rarely anything is infallibly defined/interpreted.

Apparently, things almost never need to be infallibly interpreted/defined.

-TurretinFan