Exposing the Baptist "Trail"

First, let's look at a common "chart" often used to
support the Trail of Blood (hereafter ToB):

http://www.exchangedlife.com/trail_of_blood.htm


(Click on chart to see a bigger image)

Let us now quote Mr. Carroll:
} The purpose of this book and chart is to show
} according to History that Baptists have an
} unbroken line of churches since Christ and have
} fulfilled His prophecy -- "I WILL BUILD MY
} CHURCH AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT
} PREVAIL AGAINST IT."

Clearly Mr. Carroll is claiming an "unbroken
line of churches since Christ," and we will
demonstrate this is a lie, at least as it
relates to the Baptist churches. There were
no "Baptist" churches in the Early Church.

} The horizontal lines at the bottom have between
} them the nicknames given to Baptists during the
} passing years and ages -- Novations (sic),
} Montanists, Paulicians and Waldenses.

Why are ANY of these heresies considered "Baptists?"
PURELY for the reason that they didn't baptize
infants!? Well, let's look and see, shall we?

1) Novatians. Novatus, a schismatic Catholic priest,
named himself a pope - becoming an anti-pope.[1] So
do you really claim Novatianism as part of the
Baptist heritage? No, you really wouldn't if you
REALLY looked at history objectively. So, there's
one lie, and we still have a "hole" from the time
of Christ and the Apostles, now up into the 3rd
century.

2) Montanists. "The sect was founded by a prophet,
Montanus, and two prophetesses, Maximilla and
Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla." [2] Montanists
believed that their prophets superceded and fulfilled
the doctrines of the Apostles, do Baptists believe
their doctrines "supercede" those of the Apostles? [3]
I don't think so. Montanists believed in ecstatic
prophecying and speaking in tongues, there may be
some Baptists who accept this, but most do not.
They emphasized chastity and even forbade marriage,
now does THAT sound like a Baptist practice? No,
it does not. So, we have yet another lie from Mr.
Carroll.

The Montanists and the Novatians existed about the
same time - so we've not really progressed in time
at all in naming these two cults.

3) Paulicians. A cult which actually came out of
another heresy, that of Manichaeism. Let's look
at what the CE says about them: "They rejected
the Old Testament; there was no Incarnation,
Christ was an angel sent into the world by God,
his real mother was the heavenly Jerusalem. His
work consisted only in his teaching; to believe
in him saves men from judgment. The true baptism
and Eucharist consist in hearing his word, as in
John, iv, 10. But many Paulicians, nevertheless,
let their children be baptized by the Catholic
clergy." [4] Uh, oh, they let their children be
baptized by the Catholics! Does that sound like
a "Baptist" church to you? It doesn't to me!
They reject the Old Testament and the Incarnation?
Which Baptists do you know who do this? This cult
doesn't even practice adult baptism - so why does
Mr. Carroll even bother to list them? Is it
solely because they were rejected by the Catholic
Church? It certainly seems so - but nonetheless,
we have another lie from Mr. Carroll, for these
people certainly were NOT "Baptists!" We've also
expanded the "hole" for the Paulicians did not
come into existence until the mid 7th century.
We're up to some 600 years after Jesus Christ,
and still no sign of a "Baptist" church.

4) Waldenses. This cult did not begin until the
late 12th century, named after the founder, Peter
Waldo. In the early years of their cult, one
would have had great difficulty differentiating
them from Roman Catholics. They adhered to the
Seven Sacraments, said Mass and offered prayers
and alms for the dead. [5] Does THAT sound like
a "Baptist" church to you? It sure doesn't to
me!

So, in the four groups Mr. Carroll names by name,
NONE of them can be classified as "Baptists" in
ANY sense of the way Baptists today see themselves.
In fact, I'd venture to guess if ANY of these
cults co-existed with modern Baptists, they'd be
condemned for what they taught and believed.

That being said, though we've gone over 1100 years
in that statement from Mr. Carroll, his "chart"
does go back a bit earlier with another group, a
group called the Anabaptists. Even if we were to
grant him this cult - even HE documents them as
beginning in the late 4th century! (See the
chart). In the early years of the original
Anabaptists, the controversy was NOT over infant
baptism, but over who the valid minister of baptism
could be - e.g., could an heretic validly baptize?
LATER they'd debate over infant baptism. [6] The
term "anabaptists" literally means they RE-baptized
people because they considered the baptism by an
heretic to be invalid, thus the need for a convert
to be "rebaptized." The topic of baptizing infants
came several hundred years later, just prior to the
Protestant revolt. That being said, there is no
"unbroken line" for us to follow between the original
Anabaptists of the 3rd and 4th centuries, to the
more recent Anabaptists who come into light around
the 11th and 12th centuries. To claim THIS as an
"unbroken line" is just not honest - therefore, we
have just exposed yet ANOTHER "lie" from the ToB.

In summary, Mr. Carroll's "chart" is little more
than fantasy. The "red dots" which are supposed
to represent true "Baptist" churches are not
identified, but just apparently placed randomly
or even as if in a pattern, so as to allegedly
demonstrate an "unbroken line." I can get a
crayon out too and make a few more "red dots" on
that chart, and they would be as meaningful as
the ones Carroll has given us. In short, all we
have from the ToB, and especially this chart, is
fantasy of a church which co-existed along side
the Catholic Church since the time of the Apostles.
Mr. Carroll's statements are not supported, nor
are they supportable. It should be quite clear
to anyone who objectively looks at this "chart"
that there truly is no "Trail of Blood" giving
the Baptists an "unbroken line" back to the
Apostles. This is purely a weak attempt to
answer to the Catholic claim of an unbroken
line of succession all the way back to the
Apostles. Unlike Mr. Carroll's unsupported
claims though, Catholics can not only name the
churches - they can name the bishops who sit
in Apostolic succession from the Apostles.

That being said, whether or not you agree with
the Catholic position on Apostolic succession,
you CERTAINLY cannot honestly look at the ToB
and believe the stories and tall tales Mr.
Carroll would have you believe.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11138a.htm
[2] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanus
[4] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11583b.htm
[5] http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/sheldon/waldenses.html
[6] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01445b.htm

Happy Birthday!

I just heard, as I was listening to the Pope's Solemn Mass of Easter that today is his birthday!

Happy birthday Pope Benedict XVI!

Cafeteria Catholics - Come NEXT Week, Please!

Those of you who have heard of the "Easter Obligation" and believe that you, as a Catholic, are supposed to attend Mass at least once per year and if it be once per year that it be on Easter Sunday - are sorrily mistaken! Once per year you pack our pews with hypocrisy - and you're only fooling yourselves! It is the OBLIGATION of EVERY Catholic, under the penalty of MORTAL SIN to attend Mass on ALL Sundays AND Holy Days of Obligation. If you're NOT attending EVERY Sunday AND Holy Day, then you're in mortal sin - I certainly HOPE you do not approach the altar and receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord in the Eucharist! To do so only INCREASES your SIN - IF you have not first gone through the Sacrament of Penance (Confession) and SINCERELY confessed your sins AND sincerely resolved "to ammend my life and sin no more," (from the Act of Contrition, do you remember that?) meaning that you have resolved to NOT avoid Mass on Sundays anymore, and that you WILL be there EVERY Sunday AND on Holy Days of Obligation. IF you have done this, I welcome you back with open arms and unending rejoicing! IF you show this year with no intention of being there next week - why bother? You're NOT a practicing Catholic anymore - so who are you really fooling here?

What you've likely confused here is the requirement that every Catholic must participate in the Eucharist at least once during the Eastertide. Eastertide begins with the First Mass of Easter (during Easter Vigil) and ends at Pentecost. ONCE during that time you MUST participate in the Eucharist, and to do so if you have ANY mortal sin on your soul (like not attending Mass every Sunday and Holy Day) then you must FIRST participate in the Sacrament of Penance (Confession/Reconcilliation). So, if you have not gone to confession yet - why bother showing up for Mass this ONE TIME? You are morally forbidden from receiving the Eucharist and this "one time" attendance does NOT fulfill ANY requirement of Catholicism if it is only this "one time" per year. The requirement to participate in Eucharist at least once per year does NOT excuse anyone from attending Mass EVERY Sunday! What it REALLY is, is a requirement to get to Confession at least once per year! You still MUST attend Mass EVERY Sunday, even if you're in mortal sin - you just cannot receive the Eucharist until you've reconciled through the Sacrament of Penance. Again, IF your confession is valid, so is your contrition, and if you didn't MEAN IT when you resolved to ammend your life, then your confession is not valid and you still should NOT receive the Eucharist.

So, if you THINK that you MUST merely attend Mass once per year - the "law" you've misunderstood gives you from Ash Wednesday to Pentecost. Do the rest of us a favor, don't hypocritically fill our pews on Easter Sunday! Come NEXT WEEK so my family and I actually have a place to sit on Easter - OK? While you're at it, try studying your Faith a little - and come to the realization that this once a year gig is NOT fulfilling ANYTHING. If that's ALL you're going to do - don't bother, you're just wasting your time and occupying space. Now again I repeat, if you're going to ammend your life and truly be sitting next to me next week and EVERY week, I welcome you back with open arms! I rejoice with the angels in heaven! If our churches were filled EVERY week, like they will be this Easter Sunday (tomorrow) then we'll be opening more churches (again) and having more Masses every Sunday to accomodate - THIS WE WELCOME!

In JMJ,
Scott
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com

Pope Calls for the Conversion of the Jews

In the March 15, 2006 General Audience of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI he said:

---

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

In coming weeks, our catechesis will focus on the mystery of Christ and the Church. Jesus willed to found his Church upon the Apostles, and it is through their witness that we continue to encounter him. The mission of the Apostles must be seen in the context of the mystery of communion of God’s People, spanning both the old and the new Covenant. Jesus’s entire ministry took place against the backdrop of Israel’s faith and hope, and was aimed at gathering into one the eschatological People of God. Far from a purely individualistic summons to conversion, his mission was directed to the establishment of the community of the new and eternal Covenant. Jesus’ conscious decision to choose the Twelve Apostles was a prophetic sign announcing the eschatological renewal of the twelve tribes of Israel, the dawn of salvation and the fulfilment of God’s promises. In the person of the Apostles, charged with the celebration of the Eucharist and the forgiveness of sins, the Church has been made the sign and instrument of the Kingdom of God in our midst. Christ can never be separated from the Church; through the Church he remains ever present in his people, and in a special way in the successors of the Apostles.

---

An interesting an bold calling for the conversion of the Jews, don't you think?

Scott<<<
A.C.T.S.

Million Dollar Baby - Anti-Catholic Propaganda

Interesting punching bag silhouette looks like a cross on a tabernacle.

Well, when this movie first came out, I did not go to it. I protested, based on what I had heard, that the ending was basically a political statement on euthanasia in opposition to the Catholic Church. I did not want to show my support, even tacitly, in buying a ticket to see it. Well, it was on TV last night on HBO (which we got for free for signing up with cable), so I watched it.


The biggest thing that offended me was the misrepresentation of the Church on this matter. The person was a quadriplegic on a ventilator who wanted to turn off the machine. Clint Eastwood's character, a Catholic, went to his priest to discuss the matter and his priest tells him he cannot do it. Therein lies the rub!  A permanent ventilator is considered to be an "extra-ordinary" means of support, and (I speak from experience here) it is NOT against Church teaching to remove extra-ordinary life support! So the big hype over euthanasia is based in a false dilemma! There WAS NO DILEMMA! There would have been nothing wrong with getting together with the medical staff and clergy and discussing the matter and allowing her to pass on naturally, without the extra-ordinary means of a ventilator. So Eastwood either didn't research this well enough, or deliberately was trying to represent the Church as the "bad guy" in this issue.


Now, I just wish I had seen the movie earlier to help raise the issue that it wasn't a valid issue which Eastwood made the climax of this propaganda! I guess I'm also appalled that I haven't heard this side of the story from other Catholics!  Perhaps the rest of Catholicism, like me, basically boycotted the movie, and we all missed the chance to expose the falsehood being portrayed there? (Sigh)


And to think, that movie won FOUR Academy Awards last year - and IT'S A FRAUD!


I would think even our Protestant friends would support the truth in this matter and step forward and acknowledge that what Eastwood did there truly didn't accurately represent the Catholic Church's position
in a case like that.


As I recall, it came out about the time the Terry Schiavo case was big news, but that case was NOT the same. Schiavo was not on a ventilator - she breathed on her own, and no machines were used to keep her alive.  All she had was a feeding tube, and basic food and water is not "extra-ordinary" and that is why the Church opposes withholding of such from a patient who can otherwise sustain themselves.


Hindsight is 20/20 - but "what if" we could have mobilized a push for the TRUTH about the Church's position on this prior to the Academy Awards? Could we have reduced the hype over the movie AND the anti-Catholic propaganda? That's something we should ALL keep in mind for the future.


In JMJ,
Scott<<<
A.C.T.S.

Fasting and Lent

Let us LIVE the Catholic life. Let us not hide our Light under a bushel basket! Do your penances in private - but when someone asks you about why you're not eating meat on Friday, gently explain to them that you do this in honor of Good Friday - and everytime you would have partaken in meat - it's a reminder to you of Christ's Ultimate Sacrifice in our behalf. I know most of us do this year-round, but during this time of year more attention is drawn to the Catholic "meatless Fridays."

After Lent is over, we can continue to use this as a witness to our fellow Catholics who might tell us, "Lent is over, you don't have to continue with abstinence from meat on Fridays..." and then you can (gently and charitably) remind them that the requirement of penance on Fridays is STILL a requirement for EVERY Catholic - even so-called Novus Ordo Catholics! We don't HAVE to continue observing the abstinence from meat, but it MUST be "something equivalent." If it has to be equivalent, why not just stick with meat?! Meatless Fridays and Friday Fish Fries used to be one of our identifying marks on our communities! It should be again. Encourage all Catholics to continue meatless Fridays year-round, unless a solemnity falls on a Friday.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

First Friday
Lent 2006

Sola Scriptura Discussion from CathApol

Sola Scriptura

A discussion with Scott (BigScott) and Dave (Emanon)
January 5, 2006
[21:17] <BigScott> I just started reading White's book on SS
[21:17] <Emanon-> which book was that?
[21:19] <Emanon-> a new one?
[21:22] <Emanon-> not sure if I ever read one of his specifically on the topic
[21:24] <BigScott> sorry, phone call, back now
[21:27] <BigScott> White's book is from 2004, entitled "Scripture Alone"
[21:28] <BigScott> when I first started reading it, I couldn't believe what I was reading...
[21:28] <BigScott> it was so bad
[21:29] <BigScott> he goes into a bit more as I'm reading on... so I'll reserve judgment - but the opening "3 Arguments" were pathetic.
[21:30] <Emanon-> I just checked I don't have that book by White
[21:34] <Emanon-> but SS is ok by me
[21:35] Bible` [~Bible@203-59-101-231.dyn.iinet.net.au] has joined #CathApol
[21:36] <Emanon-> hi Bible
[21:36] <BigScott> bible is a bot
[21:37] <Emanon-> ok
[21:37] <BigScott> .drb luke 1:28
[21:37] <Bible`> BigScott, Luke 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. (Douay Rheims Bible)
[21:37] <Emanon-> What problem do you have with SS?
[21:37] <BigScott> I'm working on a book
[21:37] <BigScott> :-)
[21:37] <Emanon-> let us say your biggest problem with it?
[21:38] <BigScott> well... lemme pick one...
[21:38] <BigScott> 1) It's not scriptural
[21:38] <Emanon-> pick the major one
[21:38] <BigScott> it's unheard of until about the 16th century
[21:39] <Emanon-> You would say that the bible says to believe Bible + tradition?
[21:39] <BigScott> most of the ECF's that we refer to were "Latin" Fathers - yet not a single one of them used the Latin words "sola scriptura"
[21:40] <BigScott> I would say the Bible tells us that the Church is built upon the foundations of the Apostles.
[21:40] <BigScott> The Apostles were given the authority to lead the Church
[21:41] <BigScott> and their authority can be infallible
[21:41] <Emanon-> I agree with apostolic succession (probably a bit different from you though)....but I don't agree about the infallible part
[21:42] <BigScott> the infallible part is quite scripturally sound
[21:42] <BigScott> "whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven"
[21:43] <BigScott> unless error can be bound in heaven - they have infallible authority
[21:43] <Emanon-> bind and loosing I think refers to church membership & excommunication
[21:44] <BigScott> the Bible says "whatsoever" - not merely church membership and excommunication - in fact those things aren't even mentioned when that authority is given.
[21:44] <BigScott> .drb matt 16:19
[21:44] <Bible`> BigScott, Matthew 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Douay Rheims Bible)
[21:44] <BigScott> .drb matt 18:18
[21:44] <Bible`> BigScott, Matthew 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. (Douay Rheims Bible)
[21:44] <Emanon-> that would be to say, whatever that the church accepts as its members through faith alone in Christ remain so..but those that are 'loosed' or excommunicated by the valid body of Christ, can be considered not a true part of the body of Christ, i.e. lost
[21:45] <Emanon-> that's how I see it anyway
[21:45] <BigScott> even if we restricted it to that limited interpretation (I believe it can INCLUDE that interpretation, but is not limited to it) it's still "infallible"
[21:46] <BigScott> for that binding (and/or loosing) is in heaven as well
[21:46] <BigScott> can error be bound or loosed in heaven?
[21:46] <BigScott> even if we only apply it to church membership?
[21:46] <Emanon-> I think you are stretching 'binding' to include any statement any church official wants to make and I think that is a stretch
[21:47] <BigScott> well, aside from that (I think you're adding words to Scripture which aren't there) assuming your interpretation - can you answer the questions?
[21:47] <Emanon-> even applied to church membership in the RCC, I don't think anyone would claim that they know infallibly is anyone is saved
[21:48] <BigScott> so you're denying the Church has the authority to bind or loose?
[21:48] <Emanon-> so, regarding church membership or binding in RCC, infallibility is moot
[21:48] <Emanon-> no, I think it does
[21:48] <BigScott> you're not answering the questions
[21:49] <BigScott> <BigScott> can error be bound or loosed in heaven?
[21:49] <BigScott> <BigScott> even if we only apply it to church membership?
[21:49] <Emanon-> Yes, I think the Church has the authority to bind and loose
[21:49] <BigScott> is that binding and loosing so bound and loosed in heaven as well?
[21:50] <Emanon-> are you asking that if a church excommunicates someone that this implies infallibly that the individual is lost?
[21:51] <BigScott> no, I'm asking if "whatsoever" is bound by the Church is also bound in heaven?
[21:52] <BigScott> let's not assume "Catholic Church" just yet.
[21:52] <Emanon-> regarding human souls, I don't think the church in infallible in 'binding' them...that is, when we accept someone as a Christian based upon their profession of faith, sometimes we err and have to excommunicate them when they apostacise
[21:52] <Emanon-> apostasize
[21:53] <Emanon-> however its spelled
[22:06] <BigScott> so... even though you apply this authority solely to church membership - it doesn't apply?
[22:09] <Emanon-> it doens't apply infallibly...if you mean by that that we can say at each instant that any person on the formal roles of a church is absolutely saved
[22:09] <BigScott> so, let me get this straight....
[22:10] <BigScott> The Bible tells us that "whatsoever" they shall bind, shall be bound in heaven. You apply that solely to church membership, but when push comes to shove, it doesn't apply.
[22:10] <BigScott> it's not bound in heaven
[22:10] <BigScott> right?
[22:11] <BigScott> you asked for a "major" one - and I believe that exposes a major flaw right there.
[22:12] <Emanon-> yes, I don't think the church is infallible
[22:12] <BigScott> either the Church has authority to bind and/or loose - or it doesn't.
[22:12] <Emanon-> so you would be saying then that if one is a member of the RCC then they are absolutely saved?
[22:13] <BigScott> Remember, you said this too: <Emanon-> Yes, I think the Church has the authority to bind and loose
[22:13] <BigScott> No, I never said that
[22:14] <BigScott> do you stand by what you said earlier?
[22:14] <BigScott> 5<Emanon-> Yes, I think the Church has the authority to bind and loose
[22:15] <BigScott> ??
[22:15] <Emanon-> BigScott: so you do not apply the verse to binding or loosing souls in an eternal sense?
[22:16] <BigScott> You can just call me "Scott" "BigScott" is a nickname.
[22:16] <Emanon-> ok
[22:16] <BigScott> Your name is Dave, right?
[22:17] <BigScott> I'll answer your question, please answer mine too.
[22:17] <BigScott> I apply Matt 16:19 and 18:18 to "whatsoever" is bound by the Church.
[22:17] <Emanon-> while I could certainly stand to do some research on the particular passage in question as I haven't really studied it that much, as far as I know it does refer to binding and loosing regarding salvation...but only in the sense that the church and her ministries is the vehicle whereby we are saved, I don't think infallibility in this is implied
[22:18] <Emanon-> yes, Dave
[22:18] <Emanon-> are souls bound by the church?
[22:18] <BigScott> some are
[22:19] <BigScott> When the Church has infallibly named someone a "Saint" that is bound on earth and in heaven as well.
[22:19] <BigScott> The Church does not bind souls to hell - that's God's job.
[22:20] <Emanon-> so the vast majority of folks are not bound?
[22:20] <BigScott> for some the Church has recognized them as Saints - for whatever the reason (part of the "whatsoever") and those Saints are infallibly known by the Faithful as Saints in heaven.
[22:20] <BigScott> not by the Church.
[22:21] <Emanon-> ok
[22:21] <BigScott> they may recognize some for their example
[22:21] <BigScott> others for their miraculous lives
[22:21] <BigScott> but once bound on earth, it is bound in heaven... just as Scripture tells us.
[22:22] <BigScott> excommunication is not an infallible binding
[22:22] <Emanon-> how many 'Saints' are there?
[22:22] <BigScott> and an excommunicant can still be considered a Catholic, and still obliged to their "Sunday Obligation" etc.
[22:23] <Emanon-> I agree...they might repent and return (the purpose of the excommunication)
[22:23] <BigScott> an excommunicant cannot partake in the Sacraments, save the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, for they are not in "communion" with the Church.
[22:24] <BigScott> the "way back in" is through the Sacrament of Reconcilliation.
[22:24] <Emanon-> yes
[22:24] <BigScott> as for your question "how many saints are there" - I do not know, off-hand.
[22:24] <BigScott> but I'm sure there are many more than have been so declared/bound as such.
[22:24] <Emanon-> probably not more than 10,000 are there?
[22:25] <Emanon-> or a few thousand
[22:25] <BigScott> well, the "Holy Innocents" are not individually named, but are considered saints
[22:26] <Emanon-> who are hte holy innocents?
[22:28] <BigScott> those are the ones murdered by Herod.
[22:29] <BigScott> .drb matt 2:16
[22:29] <Bible`> BigScott, Matthew 2:16 Then Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry: and sending killed all the menchildren that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. (Douay Rheims Bible)
[22:30] <BigScott> the first martyrs for Christ
[22:32] <BigScott> back to your statement... "I don't think infallibility in this is implied"
[22:33] <BigScott> if it is bound on earth AND is bound in heaven - unless you believe error can be bound in heaven, infallibility is not only "implied" - it is explicitly stated.
[22:35] <BigScott> whatever you restrict the application of these verses to, infallibility is clearly stated.
[22:36] <Emanon-> well, in a sense it is infallible...but only in the sense that when the church truly accepts a true believer upon his profession of faith, then, as a true believer (elect), he is infallibly bound in heaven
[22:36] <Emanon-> so all the true believers are infallibly bound in heaven, put it that way
[22:36] <BigScott> you're changing the wording a bit though
[22:37] <Emanon-> the church errs, obviously since the discipline of excommunication exists
[22:37] <BigScott> you're making it the believers themselves doing the binding.
[22:37] <BigScott> that's not what the Scripture says.
[22:38] <BigScott> certainly there have been errors by men IN the Church - but none, I repeat, NONE of those errors have ever been infallibly bound.
[22:38] <BigScott> but back to the point...
[22:39] <BigScott> you have affirmed that the Church "in a sense" is infallible.
[22:39] <BigScott> so much for the Scriptures being the SOLE infallible source.
[22:40] <BigScott> for the Scriptures explicitly tell us that there is ANOTHER infallible source.
[22:40] <BigScott> "sola" scriptura is refuted.
[22:41] <BigScott> The definition White uses is "The Scriptures are the SOLE infallible rule of faith for the Church."
[22:42] <BigScott> maybe you don't agree with White there? That's OK too.
[22:42] <BigScott> :-)
[22:42] <Emanon-> well, of course, I am saying that the infallibility exists only to the extent that the reformed doctrine of election exists...so really, I'm just saying that God is infallible
[22:42] <Emanon-> I'd agree with White on that
[22:43] <BigScott> but you just denied what White professes/defines!
[22:43] <BigScott> 5<Emanon-> well, in a sense it is infallible...
[22:43] <BigScott> what is the "it" you're refering to?
[22:44] <BigScott> the subject we were discussing was the Church.
[22:45] <Emanon-> I'm saying that I agree with White that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith for the church
[22:46] <BigScott> White doesn't say that
[22:46] <Emanon-> add SOLE infallible
[22:46] <BigScott> He testifies that the Church has authority...
[22:46] <Emanon-> or whatever you said above
[22:46] <Emanon-> <BigScott> The definition White uses is "The Scriptures are the SOLE infallible rule of faith for the Church."
[22:47] <BigScott> but you affirmed "in a sense" the Church is also infallible.
[22:47] <BigScott> are you denying that now?
[22:49] <BigScott> It's OK to change your mind... but you pretty much invalidate Matt 16:19 and 18:18 if you do.
[22:50] <Emanon-> I was saying that the sense was only in that the binding is only infallible if the individual is elect
[22:51] <BigScott> right, so you invalidate Matt 16:19 and 18:18 - for it's not the Church which binds - but the individual by their own confession.
[22:52] <BigScott> Jesus told the Apostles, "Whatsoever YOU SHALL BIND..."
[22:52] <Emanon-> its God that binds, through the church....
[22:52] <BigScott> God (Jesus) gave that authority to these men.
[22:53] <Emanon-> God's binding in infallible (election), the church through which God's decision are made however is not itself infallible
[22:53] <Emanon-> else, there would be no such things as excommuniction
[22:54] <Emanon-> or reconciliation
[22:54] <BigScott> excommunication exists expressly because men fail
[22:54] <Emanon-> which are just ways of saying that the church is coming to recognize what God is doing in that individual
[22:54] <BigScott> reconcilliation exists expressly because men fail
[22:55] <Emanon-> but the churches have originally accepted them as believers
[22:55] <BigScott> regardless of the spin - the Church has been given this authority by God.
[22:55] <Emanon-> if they excommunicate, they have a change of heart regarding that individual
[22:56] <BigScott> excommunication happens when an individual has a change of heart - and the Church makes it clear this individual is not in communion with the Church.
[22:56] <BigScott> again, an excommunication is NOT an infallible statement.
[22:57] <BigScott> no one has been infallibly excommunicated.
[22:57] <Emanon-> I agree
[22:58] <Emanon-> or infallibly saved by church decree either, I would say
[22:58] <BigScott> the concept of excommunication and infallibility are not the same thing
[22:58] <Emanon-> we'd disagree on that
[22:58] <BigScott> but you just agreed with that!
[22:59] <BigScott> <BigScott> again, an excommunication is NOT an infallible statement.
[22:59] <BigScott> <BigScott> no one has been infallibly excommunicated.
[22:59] <BigScott> <Emanon-> I agree
[22:59] <BigScott> and I agree with you... <Emanon-> or infallibly saved by church decree either, I would say
[22:59] <Emanon-> I agree that no one has been infallibly excommunicated (declared by church statements to be reprobate)
[23:00] <BigScott> a person infallibly declared to be a saint is not saved BY that declaration - the declaration is a recognition by the Church of something that has already happened.
[23:01] <BigScott> St. Augustine has been recognized by the Church to be in heaven.
[23:01] <Emanon-> yes, I understand
[23:01] <BigScott> ok
[23:01] <Emanon-> I disagree, but I understand your viewpoint
[23:01] <BigScott> you disagree that St. Augustine is in heaven?
[23:02] <Emanon-> no, I think he is there
[23:03] <Emanon-> just that I cannot claim infallibility in that opinion
[23:03] <BigScott> I don't claim an infallible opinion, but I believe that the Church has so bound this on earth, so it is so bound in heaven.
[23:04] <Emanon-> yes, I understand
[23:04] <BigScott> so... did Jesus (God) give men this authority, or not?
[23:07] <Emanon-> he gave them the charge of running the church and admitting members into God's covenant and of excommunicting them if they come to think that they are apostates, but he did not give infallibility to any group of people or to an individual
[23:07] <BigScott> I'll take that as a "no"
[23:08] <BigScott> so... even if these men bind something on earth, it is NOT bound in heaven, right?
[23:09] <BigScott> get the eraser out and erase Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.
[23:09] <Emanon-> did he imbue any man with infallibility, no
[23:09] <BigScott> these verses explicitly state that "whatsoever" THEY bind on earth IS bound in heaven.
[23:10] <Emanon-> not infallibly, no
[23:10] <BigScott> so, they CAN bind it on earth - but they MIGHT be binding in error, thus error can be bound in heaven. (that's the logical end to your argument)
[23:10] <Emanon-> to the extent that true beleivers are meant in this 'binding' then I'd agree it is infallible...but we know that there are tares and wheats in the church
[23:12] <Emanon-> that's not the logical end of my argument....we see binding differently, that's all
[23:12] <BigScott> if it is bound on earth AND bound in heaven - either it's infallible OR error can be bound in heaven.
[23:13] <BigScott> you can't escape this.
[23:14] <Emanon-> but, as I said, I've never studied the passage as intensely as I should...
[23:14] <BigScott> I'll accept that for now...
[23:14] <BigScott> consider what I've said though...
[23:14] <BigScott> I believe there's a major hole there in sola scriptura.
[23:15] <BigScott> for if what I'm saying is correct - AND - we accept that error cannot be bound in heaven, then whatsoever they bind is infallibly bound.
[23:15] <Emanon-> well, SS is the presupposition of my faith...my faith would be like yours if Scripture+tradition were my apriori
[23:16] <BigScott> and we must remember, this charism of infallibility is not widely utilized.
[23:16] <Emanon-> by that last statement do you mean that the RCC does not make many infallible statements?
[23:17] <BigScott> yes
[23:17] <Emanon-> ok
[23:17] <BigScott> most Protestants, I feel, put too much emphasis on "infallibility"
[23:18] <BigScott> it's not utilized with every breath of the Church - and clearly there have been "errors" by men IN the Church, even popes.
[23:18] <Emanon-> they would be summed up in books like Denzinger & Ott, right...the infallible stuff
[23:19] <BigScott> not everything in Denzinger or Ott is infallible, but yes, those are good sources to "sum up" most infallible decrees.
[23:20] <Emanon-> how much of those compilations are infallible statements?
[23:20] <Emanon-> more than 50%?
[23:20] <BigScott> yes
[23:20] <Emanon-> 70%?
[23:20] <BigScott> where ever Ott clarifies with "de fide" that's an infallible teaching
[23:20] <BigScott> not his commentary, but the teaching that he comments on is.
[23:22] <Emanon-> ok, I see the 'de fides'
[23:22] <BigScott> I don't have mine in front of me... but I think there's also statements of "de cert" - which are not explicitly infallible, but have some "certitude"
[23:23] <BigScott> (they're close, but have not been infallibly "defined")
[23:23] <Emanon-> sent. certa.
[23:24] <Emanon-> almost infallible
[23:24] <BigScott> ;-) Thanks
[23:25] <Emanon-> God gives all innocent unbelievers sufficient grace to acheive eternal salvation
[23:25] <Emanon-> that would be a sent. certa. one
[23:26] <BigScott> right
[23:26] <BigScott> there can be discussion/debate on that one
[23:26] <Emanon-> wonder what sent.fidei proxima means?
[23:27] <BigScott> I believe the Latin abbreviations are explained either in the front or in an appendix
[23:27] <Emanon-> Despite men's sins God truly and earnestly desires he salvation of all men (sent. fidei proxima)
[23:28] <Emanon-> seems that would be defide, but guess not....God might not actually desire the salvation of all men
[23:29] <BigScott> A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.
[23:29] <Emanon-> yea, seems he ought to have that explained, can't find it
[23:30] <Emanon-> so, the reformed view might be true after all
[23:30] <BigScott> that's from Ott
[23:30] <BigScott> I found it online
[23:30] <Emanon-> yes, from Ott
[23:30] <BigScott> http://www.trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm
[23:34] <BigScott> I should get going... please do study up on Matt 16:19 and 18:18
[23:35] <BigScott> in Matt 16 Jesus is speaking solely to Peter, in 18 He's speaking to the Apostles as a group.
[23:35] <Emanon-> ok, I must be going too...night
[23:35] <Emanon-> thannks for the chat
[23:36] <BigScott> good night, and God bless.
[23:36] Emanon- [Emanon@69.7.101.28] has quit IRC (Quit: If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant.)
*** Log file closed: 1/5/2006 11:40:38 PM