Sola Scriptura and Canon

phattonez said:

As did St. Peter.

Click to expand...

It is no surprise that Jesus forgave them both. To Thomas he said he was blessed for believing in what he saw. Thomas had an advantage none of us have, he lived with Jesus. He saw, witnessed and he believed. When Jesus says, blessed are those who believe without seeing, he means us, those who have never seen him, never been with him in the way that the apostles did and yet somehow, we still believe. That is not intended to say Thomas was wrong to challenge Jesus, quite the contrary. His most valuable testimony was that he tested it, with a skeptical mind, and still believed!

Manny said:

My interpretation is that both Thomas and Peter are human, and therefore fallible. Jesus is capable of forgiving them, but even so, this does not mean they became perfect afterwards. In fact, I don't doubt that they, being human will continue to make mistakes, even commit sins, throughout their lives. Each of us hopefully learns from the mistakes we make, seek forgiveness and redemption, and carry on. But at any time, we are always capable of failing again. It may only take some unusual circumstance to arise, even in old age, a crisis, the death of a loved one, or when we are faced with making an impossible choice and choose the lesser of two evils. Lesser perhaps but evil it still shall be. That is the dilemma of the human creature. And, that is precisely why we have Jesus.

Click to expand...

You are confusing infallibility with impeccability. I never stated that Peter would be incapable of making mistakes after the ascension. Far from it. However, when speaking authoritatively on matters of faith and morals, he was infallible. Remember the scene where JEsus tells his followers to listen to the Pharisees because they sit on the chair of Moses, but not to do as they do? That's where we get this idea from. In fact, ex cathedra means just that: from the chair.

To me, Jesus is the salvation. The church represents our faith and belief but it is not the salvation. One need only look at what the church has done, being run by fallible human beings. It's a shocking example of how humans are capable of turning something into its opposite, and believing in it all the same. I can't think of any worse kind of human being than the Borgia popes. That is not a logical successor of Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

Again, pointing out that atrocities have been committed does not prove that the Church lacks authority. Far from it. More interesting is the fact that these Borgia popes, as terrible as they were, never said anything authoritatively contrary to Catholic faith and morals. Don't you find that astounding?

Manny said:

It is no surprise that Jesus forgave them both. To Thomas he said he was blessed for believing in what he saw. Thomas had an advantage none of us have, he lived with Jesus. He saw, witnessed and he believed. When Jesus says, blessed are those who believe without seeing, he means us, those who have never seen him, never been with him in the way that the apostles did and yet somehow, we still believe. That is not intended to say Thomas was wrong to challenge Jesus, quite the contrary. His most valuable testimony was that he tested it, with a skeptical mind, and still believed!

Click to expand...

I fail to see where St. Thomas was praised for doubting and then believing only after seeing.

phattonez said:

You are confusing infallibility with impeccability. I never stated that Peter would be incapable of making mistakes after the ascension. Far from it. However, when speaking authoritatively on matters of faith and morals, he was infallible. Remember the scene where JEsus tells his followers to listen to the Pharisees because they sit on the chair of Moses, but not to do as they do? That's where we get this idea from. In fact, ex cathedra means just that: from the chair.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you pointed that out, I was just thinking about that the other day how Jesus acknowledges their hypocrisy yet still tells his followers to follow the words of the scribes and pharisees:

Matt. 23: 1-3 "1 After this, Jesus addressed himself to the multitudes, and to his disciples; 2 The scribes and Pharisees, he said, have established themselves in the place from which Moses used to teach; 3 do what they tell you, then, continue to observe what they tell you, but do not imitate their actions, for they tell you one thing and do another."

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that some non-catholics think that everyone needs to be perfect because it has never been that way and you don't need tradition to tell you that, the notion is littered throughout the bible.

phattonez said:

Again, pointing out that atrocities have been committed does not prove that the Church lacks authority. Far from it.

Click to expand...

To me it does. We could say that yes, they have "authority", self appointed, but regardless who has authority, if that authority is abused which it clearly has been, people will rebel against it. That is what happened in history, the source of protestantism as you well know. The same applies if any government becomes a tyranny, there comes a breaking point in which the people rise up to topple the power structure. No house can stand on a rotten foundation. A tree is known by its fruit, as the saying goes.

phattonez said:

More interesting is the fact that these Borgia popes, as terrible as they were, never said anything authoritatively contrary to Catholic faith and morals. Don't you find that astounding?

Click to expand...

The Borgia popes are just an example, as well you know. We have record of popes explicitly authorizing torture to extract confessions. Natural events such as bad weather were blamed on women, accused of being secretly in league with the devil. These and other papal utterances are, I believe, contrary to catholic faith and morals.

phattonez said:

I fail to see where St. Thomas was praised for doubting and then believing only after seeing.

Click to expand...

You asked my interpretation. It is my own, I admit, but not so different from that of other commentators. See for example the relevant chapter of Thomas Aquinas' commentary on the gospel of St. John.

Monserrat said:

I'm glad you pointed that out, I was just thinking about that the other day how Jesus acknowledges their hypocrisy yet still tells his followers to follow the words of the scribes and pharisees:

Matt. 23: 1-3 "1 After this, Jesus addressed himself to the multitudes, and to his disciples; 2 The scribes and Pharisees, he said, have established themselves in the place from which Moses used to teach; 3 do what they tell you, then, continue to observe what they tell you, but do not imitate their actions, for they tell you one thing and do another."

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that some non-catholics think that everyone needs to be perfect because it has never been that way and you don't need tradition to tell you that, the notion is littered throughout the bible.

Click to expand...

I agree, I enjoy having discussions such as these, hearing the opinions or ideas of other people, because it makes me look deeper into what is being discussed. And there is always something new and surprising when this happens!

Manny said:

To me it does. We could say that yes, they have "authority", self appointed, but regardless who has authority, if that authority is abused which it clearly has been, people will rebel against it. That is what happened in history, the source of protestantism as you well know. The same applies if any government becomes a tyranny, there comes a breaking point in which the people rise up to topple the power structure. No house can stand on a rotten foundation. A tree is known by its fruit, as the saying goes.

Click to expand...

And the fruit of the Catholic Church is Western Civilization. Historians totally overlook contributions in philosophy, education, medicine, science, etc., and only point out the atrocities of the past. So sure, by your fruits you will know them, but the fruits are hidden from everyday people.

The Borgia popes are just an example, as well you know. We have record of popes explicitly authorizing torture to extract confessions. Natural events such as bad weather were blamed on women, accused of being secretly in league with the devil. These and other papal utterances are, I believe, contrary to catholic faith and morals.

Click to expand...

They are not definitive declarations on faith and morals. Popes can and have acted contrary, but they cannot made definitive declarations contrary to the truth.

It's not as if infallibility ended when the Bible was finally written.

Manny said:

You asked my interpretation. It is my own, I admit, but not so different from that of other commentators. See for example the relevant chapter of Thomas Aquinas' commentary on the gospel of St. John.

Click to expand...

St. Thomas is not infallible, though. Plus I don't have his commentary around to read.