Great article! Loving this series.

So where is part 1?

Dan, Click on Mark’s name in red at the top and his other articles will come up. You will see Part 1. Click on Read More.

The immaculate conception is nowhere taught in the scriptures. The RCC have invented this for the purpose of providing a ” sinless womb ” for Christ to be conceived in. But if this is a requirement to be able to bring forth something sinless, then also Mary`s mother had to be immaculately conceived to be able to bring forth Mary sinless. And the same with the mother of Mary´s mother and so on. And you are caught in an infinite regression. God was able to conceive Jesus sinless in Mary ´s womb apart from herself being sinless, and there simply isn´t any such thing as a sinful womb any more than a sinful stomach or a sinful muscle. You cannot use the bible to prove that Mary was sinless for the reason that she is not ” caught in sin redhanded ” . As a member of the human race she also must be a sinner, but of course she lived as a holy woman as other women in the Bible who is said to be holy. Take f.ex Simeon ( Luke 2:25 ) who is said to be ” just and devout “.. and the holy spirit was upon him..” can I prove that he still was a sinner from the Bible? NO!  So can I conclude that he was sinless then? Of course not - that´s silly. And so it is whith several persons in the Bible. Everyone is a sinner by default as sure as they have been born of ordinary humans. I have not read any scripture telling me that Mary was conceived by the holy spirit. And if there is no teaching on that in the scriptures, I prefer that you don´t make it up. At least I won´t believe you. It is not clever at all.

Dear Arne, even Protestants agree on that doctrine, like Luther. Biblically speaking, you are away from the environment Scripture provides. JW´s don´t accept trinity because they can´t find it in the Bible, and will not bileive Catholic Church. Your point is equal! Please, think with Scriptures!

What does speculation accomplish now that the dogma was officially defined in 1854?  Are there no unsettled issues that we need to address?

Gledson , Does ” the environment scripture provides ” make any difference as to whether is written in the scriptures or not? That´silly. Am I , or anyone not capable of reading what is written there? The fact is that you cannot prove your position by the scriptures. Show me one scripture to actually support ” the immaculate conception”. Then we can talk about ” thinking with the Scripture” . The word ” trinity ” wasn´t known until late 3rd century, this is also one unprovable dogma. You certainly cannot prove one unprovable dogma by invoking another even more unprovable. Your house is built on sand!

Bob:

The purpose of this series is to demonstrate that belief in the Immaculate Conception is reasonable and in accordance with the biblical witness.  Not everybody understands this.

Show me one scripture to actually support ” the immaculate conception”.

“Kaire, Kecharitomene!”

You should really read the whole series.  Also, you should abandon the human tradition of sola scriptura since you don’t really believe it (except when you need it to support some anti-Catholic reading of Scripture).

Arne, it is not infinite regression at all. Mary did not need her mother’s womb to be immaculate. Mary was saved from Original Sin by Jesus because God can and does do what He chooses to do. He is God after all. Do you not believe God has the power to create a sinless creature? Jesus, because He was/is God had to have an immaculate womb for himself, free from sin, but Mary did not need that to be conceived without original sin. She was a human creature after all.

Joan 62, what I have understood the reason why you proclaim Mary holy and sinless , is the ” need to ” have a sinless womb for the saviour not to be defiled . Isn´t that correct? So if then a sinless Mary is needed to bring forth Jesus, then also a sinless mother of Mary is needed to bring forth a sinless Mary. But if , in fact ,this is a misunderstanding, then why proclaim that Mary is sinless since there is no actual need for it, nor such claim in the scripture?. Nor is it needed by any standard of human reasoning unless there is some kind of tradition that someone wants us to believe in. But that is not ” thinking with scripture ,” is it?

Arne:

Short answer: no.  God needs nothing.  He could have become incarnate by any means he chose.  The immaculate conception is believed because the apostolic witness and the memory of the Church is that Mary was, in fact, sinless.  *Why* God chose to make her so and how she got that way is what the dogma explains.  It has to do, not with the “needs” of God, but with the notion of fittingness.  The reason it is a dogma is because, as we shall see, it exalts Christ’s power to save.

Arne, I believe Mark answered your question.

I read the first installment of this subject, and in part two, I have an objection to the observations that those casting doubt on the Immaculate Conception are trying to prove Mary was “sinful”.

The Blessed Mother was “filled with grace”, and she was very special, even exemplary.  But to institute an entire dogma based around Mary’s spiritual state is, to me, over the top.  I just cannot see it was ever needed.

Regarding Jesus having died, like Adam died:
It was Jesus’ human Body that indeed suffered and died.  But He rose, in His Divine Resurrection Body, on the 3rd day, and that is key.  Adam stayed dead.  No other human being has ever been dead for 3 days, and then rose (through the power of the Holy Spirit) and lived again, even showing Himself to 500 people at the same time, and even eating with people, in His Resurrection Body.

About Jesus being circumsized on the 8th day, it was because Jesus was born under the Law, and it was to identify Himself as being a Jew, and under the Abrahamic covenant.

About Mary being considered “sinful” because she did not know where Jesus was, when He stayed in the temple, at age 12 to teach and listen to the elders, that’s not sin: it’s just that human beings are not omniscient, a trait (all-knowing) that is only for God to have. There were lots of things Mary did not know, and it’s written that she “pondered them in her heart”, mulling over the meaning of everything that was happening.  That is admirable, and it is an example for all of us to do too, when it comes to things of God.

Even Jesus said He did not know things, when He was in His human Body, and He said, “That is for the Father to know…”  Jesus veiled His divinity, for a period of time, and although He was indeed in essence 100% God and 100% Man, He had to grow, as do we all, and He had to learn.
Of course, after the Resurrection and Ascension, Jesus knows all, as He is the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit points us to Jesus, through His word.  That’s all over the New Testament letters.

I’m re-reading 2 Peter & 1 John, for the Year of Faith.  Pope Benedict suggested that everyone read the Bible, in order to grow in our faith.  I’m taking him up on it, and starting with the shorter letters, so I can savor the doctrines each contains.

Joan62, I have cause to believe that St Anne was barren, and therefore a miraculous intervention was necessary for her to conceive.

Bob:

Bearing in mind, as ever, that this notion forms absolutely no part of the Church’s public revelation WHICH IS WHAT IS UNDER DISCUSSION HERE—not your favorite private revelations and pious legends.

Bob - where specifically did you get that information?  I ask, because we have an obligation as Christians, a very serious duty, to speak and share matters with each other that we know are 100% true. No hearsay.

People read these blogs, and then tell others too, perhaps impressionable people.  If we are not certain of a source on a topic, YOUR own revelations (Bob Rowland’s) can turn into a new doctrine in 50 years.  When people hear something enough, it becomes true for them, even if it isn’t.  That should be of great concern to you. 

While that’s not bad if the hearsay is about good ways to avoid pests in the garden, or personal hygiene tips, when it comes to God, what we write and say MUST be accurate.  Souls are at stake, and we can lead people astray.

Frankly, the more I hear and read about Catholics and their ever-growing lists of beliefs, the more I see the need for Fr. Martin Luther having begun his Reformation.  I can understand & appreciate where he got “Sola Scriptura”.  With God’s Word as the only credible source (like the Bereans that double-checked Paul) we avoid Bob Rowland’s musings and private revelations that become Spiritual Urban Legends.  If it’s between God & Bob, I choose God.

why is it so hard for people to beleive in the Mother of God A virgin.the only thing I can say if I was the KIng and creator of the World, and you talked about Mom I would give you nothing.

Terah:

And the more you blithely dismiss the Church’s teaching because some guy ina combox is enthusiastic about a private revelation, the more you demonstrate the need to learn what the Church teaches and why it distinguishes between public and private revelation.  You are, ironically, just like Bob.  You make no distinction between the Church’s public revelation and claims of private revelation.  The only difference is that Bob chooses to buy everything and try to make others do so too and you choose to reject the Church’s public revelation and pick and choose what you happen to like while having no idea beyond your own idiosyncratic opinion why you do so.

Luther, by the way, believed in the Immaculate Conception.

“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin”
- Martin Luther’s Sermon “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527.
“She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.
- Martin Luther’s Little Prayer Book, 1522.

Instead of ignorantly and reflexively regurgitating whatever an American Evangelical might say after 20 minutes of glancing at the New Testament, consider the possibility that the Church doesn’t just make stuff up and actually has real grounds for considering this to be apostolic teaching.

Mark - those are very interesting quotes attributed to Luther.  Thanks for sharing them.  Perhaps it is a knee-jerk reaction for me to go overboard in the other direction now, especially because to me, Rome seems to have majored in the minors, for a long time.

Frankly, it does seem like they (and others, bishops in other countries that have apparitions they’ve approved or those they’re disputing) have made stuff up.

I have seen and heard a lot (not just from comboxes).  It’s the seeing Mary in a tree, or another place.  I question it all now.  I always ask myself, “How does this honor God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit?” whenever I hear things.  As I said, it’s become a reflex to be like the Bereans.

To respond to David: I don’t think anyone on this blog is rejecting the prophecy that Mary was indeed a virgin.  David, are you thinking the Immaculate Conception is when Jesus was conceived?  Of course, Mary was indeed a virgin at Jesus’ conception, and Jesus’ Father was and is, God.
This blog is about when Mary was conceived.  Anyone that questions the virgin birth of Jesus is not Christian, or he/she is badly misguided.

Terah:

What you don’t seem to understand is that the Bereans were not sola scriptura Protestants.  If they had been they would never have listened to St. Paul—*because what he said was not written*.  What Paul did was give them the tools to see Scripture in a new way.  The Church’s tradition does the same thing.  Seriously: go to Amazon and find a used copy of my book <a href=“http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0879738510/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&c>By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition</a>.  Until you understand how the Church reads its Bible through the lens of Sacred Tradition that comes from the apostles (not from the Church just making stuff up) you will be powerless to tell the difference between non-essential stuff like private revelation and genuine (albeit non crystal clear in Scripture) apostolic Tradition.  You already accept some Sacred Tradition without realizing it.  That’s how you know which books belong in the Bible, and that monogamy is the only valid form of Christian marriage, and that life is sacred from conception, and that God is a Trinity, and that public revelation closed with the death of the apostles.  None of this is clear on the basis of Scripture alone.  But since Protestantism retains these aspected of apostolic Tradition, they are imagined to be the “clear teaching of Scripture”.

Learn to tell the difference between claims of private revelation and what the Church teaches is part of public revelation.

This is not to say all claims of private revelation are false.  Some private revelation claims are legit.  But they are not binding on your conscience (unless, of course, you know that God is speaking to you and you feel bound in consience to obey him).  But they are *never* part of the public revelation.  So while the Church has concluded that, say, the apparitions at Fatima are “worthy of belief” that simply means a Catholic *may* have a devotion to them.  He does not *have* to.  But the Immaculate Conception is part of the deposit of faith, according to the Church.  It is part of the Tradition the apostles handed down to us and the Church says it is an essential part.  So we are bound in obedience to Holy Church to believe it (the Church to whom Jesus said, “He who listens to you listens to me”).  Our task as Catholics is to try to understand what the Church is teaching, particularly when she says, “This is really crucial”.  The Church does not say a claim that Mary is appearing in a water stain is really crucial.  So it is rubbish to claim the Church does.  Try to learn what the Church *does* say and why she says it.  That is the mature approach to the Faith.

Bob Rowland: “Joan62, I have cause to believe that St Anne was barren, and therefore a miraculous intervention was necessary for her to conceive.”

That has nothing to do with claiming that St. Anne had to be immaculate in order to conceive a child that was conceived immaculately. St. Anne was not immaculate.

Terah Mark is referring to The Mystical City of God by Venerable Mother Mary of Agreda, Spain.  It is reputed to be the autobiography of the Holy Family dictated to Mother Mary by Almighty God and Mary. Church Approbations officially teach that this revelation contains no error and is worthy of belief I believe, but I have never said anyone else had to believe it. I expect the same consideration allowing me to believe it. This four volume document is promoted by the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima, now the World Apostolate of Fatima an organization that I have been associated with for over 47 years.  This stature of this private revelation was confirmed by a very public miracle announced by Our Lady of Fatima three months before it occurred.  I assure you the Church has approved this evidence of the power God concedes to His Blessed Mother. I don’t know whether Mark accepts this or not, but it seems to me that he has some vendetta against all private revelation. I have never accepted one that has not been approved by the Church.  Read the document yourself before you make a judgment against it.  I beleive you would appreciate it as much as I have the last 35 years or so.

Terah,
I realize that I am being snippy, but I am angry, righteously angry I believe, and I am getting very tired of you and Casting Crowns’ proud arrogance, claiming to be so faithful, while at the same time you do not believe much of what the Catholic Church gives us and teaches us, for our own spiritual growth and salvation. You ridicule things the Church does, ie: “But to institute an entire dogma based around Mary’s spiritual state is, to me, over the top.  I just cannot see it was ever needed.” as if you know better than the leaders of the Church given to us by God, successors of the apostles. As if you should have been consulted in the matter. What hubris! That authority was not given to you or me. What makes it worse, is that when Mark, myself, or others try to correct your misconceptions, you ignore it and continue in your error. And that, my dear, is where you go wrong. As fellow Catholics it is our business to correct each other and admonish when necessary. But to ignore continued warnings from your brothers and sisters in Christ, is a mistake.

You are right joan62. What I said did not claim St. Anne was immaculate, only that the coneption was.

For that matter, there is no mention in either Matthew or Luke of the names of the parents of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  The names Joachim and Anne are attributable to Tradition.
TeaPot562

Mark Shea: The ” sola scriptura ” might be a somewhat difficult notion. Maybe you can say that Paul ” did give them tools to see scripture in a new way “. But that is not the same as you say in the following sentence: ” the church ´s tradition does the same thing “. What Paul essentially did was to show them what the scripture REALLY said ,and that what they said really had its fulfillment in the fact that Jesus actually was the promised Messiah. He just pointed with his finger on the Bible ( here it´s OT) verses and said: see what is written here, and see if it´s not true that it is fulfilleld to the point in Jesus! He didn´t tell them any additional information outside of scripture to mold their understanding or bias their thinking. That´s the big difference. Jesus himself was most severe in his condemnation of the Jew´s tradition, both oral and written. Forget about Luther, no one has ever taught and lived ” sola scriptura ” more fundamentally than Jesus himself.”  The scriptures cannot be broken” . he said ,and Paul also taught that ” IN US you must learn not to go beyond things which are written “( 1 Cor 4: 6 ). I do agree that our understanding can be clouded by what we think is written, and by what our teachers says is the best interpretation of some passages. And then upon rereading ,and being given new perspectives you can be able to see things in a different way. That´s part of growing in understanding. But then what we are talking about is to understand the Scriptures in the way they were intended to be understood. But still: the requirement is that you or anyone must be able to point his very finger to the actual words in the Bible that tells us so and so. I do believe that Jesus is the Messiah because you are able to point your finger to the very verses that he fulfilled these scriptures with his life. But I cannot believe f.ex. in the ” perpetual virginity of Mary ” - not because I stubbornly resist it against scriptural evidence, but, because it is absolutely lacking. And your traditions has no authority whatsoever.

TeaPot562.  Joachim and Anne are mentioned in the Gospel of St James that is not included in the Bible, and in the private revelation that I mentioned earlier.

Arne Roaldsnes: How wrong you are, Mark’s traditions have the authority of the Church Jesus built. If you desire salvation, I would recommend that you believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Maligning the Mother of God is anathema.

Bob Rowland : never is tradition anything to be reckoned in the scriptures. Jesus himself was quite antagonistic to such an argument. And nor did Paul invoke a parcel of tradition to help him interpret the right way. Either it was written or not. And what was not written could by no means be given any authority. The perpetual virginity isn´t to be found in the scriptures. this has nothing to do with ” maligning ” Mary. If she was a virgin or not is simply not important. She is by no means any less godly or holy if she lived with her husband. This notion is a catholic misconception. An it must be a severe misunderstanding that anyone dare to pronounce me anathema for stating my opinion on the matter. This will give power to the notion that catholics, when they have no arguments, they anathematize people. This is disappointing. Can you ever try to find any substance to your claim that I must believe in the virginity to be saved? You are way off!

You are a consummate fool Arne.  The Roman Catholic Church has authority over the scriptures.  Mary is the only perfect creature ever created by God. You will surely see who is way off.  I sincerely hope you find out before you face judgment. The Church is my argument.

@Bob Rowland:  Referring to Arne as a consumate “fool” is narrow thinking.  Arne has laid forth a position many Christians believe, albeit non-Catholic.  It is not disparaging nor trashing the Blessed Mother to hold a view different than yours.  Indeed, Mary is to be honored and reverenced for her unique and special role in salvation history.  To advance a position or attribute belief without any foundation is always open to discussion.  What becomes annoying is that when any discussion is presented contrary to Catholic doctrine, the protagonist is universally assailed with the usual condemnation of “You hate Mary, You hate Catholics, You hate the Church, You are your own Pope, You are an anathema, You are a heretic” -and so on.  If one looks at the argument of the Immaculate Conception, there are other viewpoints to consider as well.  Another view is the Immaculate Conception is how Jesus was conceived in the womb by the Holy Spirit.  It does not necessarily correlate Mary herself was sinless.  And why should that matter?  Still, ask yourself how would Mary being a sinful woman like every other human change or impact the value equation?  It truly doesn’t.  Would God be thwarted by this?  He is sovereign after all.  The end result is that the incarnate Savior was still conceived without sin by the Holy Spirit—and of a virgin (Mary) **as prophesy foretold.**  Jesus, the Son of God died for our sins and rose again that all who believe on Him would have eternal life.  That—-is what matters.

Mark… don’t know what I have enjoyed more about reading your recent articles and the comments:

#1)  The honest explanations of some of your own past viewpoints and struggles with some of these Catholic teachings prior to your conversion…or…

#2)  Waiting to see how our old Catholic friend Bob Rowland will somehow *successfully* find yet another comical way to keep interjecting Mary of Agreda’s writings into the threads over-and-over again regardless of what anyone says.  (You got to admire his persistence, if nothing else.  God Bless you Bob.  LOL)...or…

#3)  Anticipating another silly and protestant-type post from our precious and famous so-called Catholic (?) Terah James.  (I mean, hey, let’s get serious… LOL) ...or…

#4)  Just watching for the obvious new (or old) ‘sola scriptura’ devotee to post and attempt to once again explain/preach to us apparently *ignorant* Catholics that some of our beliefs/teachings aren’t easily and *clearly* found in scripture so they have absolutely no valid Christian basis or merit, etc…etc.

In any case… I’m sure many of your *serious* readers are benefiting from your recent articles.  So keep up the good work.

And, btw, thanks for your recent *police* effort here.  It has obviously de-motivated the juvenile repeat offenders and has definitely kept recent threads here from being so easily ruined and/or hijacked. 

And…of course… I would also like to take the time to especially thank #2, #3, and #4 above for all their silly and/or comical posts.  It has certainly provided much entertainment and many laughs.  Thanks so-o-o much people.  LOL

Arne, sola scriptura results in nothing more than the individual believer’s personal opinion in direct contradiction of St. Peter’s admonition, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” 2 Peter 1:20. Sola scriptura leads invariably to what St. Peter describes in 2Pt 3:15b-16, “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

Scripture condemns HUMAN tradition: “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition… and not according to Christ”, Colossians 2:8.

BUT!!! Scripture does NOT condemn apostolic traditions whether by WORD OF MOUTH or in writing: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to THE TRADITIONS WHICH YOU WERE TAUGHT BY US, either by WORD OF MOUTH or by letter”, 2 Thessalonians 2:15. “I commend you because you remember me in everything and MAINTAIN THE TRADITIONS EVEN AS I DELIVERED THEM TO YOU”, 1 Corinthians 11:2; and “Now we command you, brethren, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from brethren who is living in idleness and not in accord with THE TRADITIONS THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM US” 2 Thessalonians 3:6. And Scripture supports the authority of St. Peter and the other apostles: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”, Matthew 16:19; 18:18.

Just because some modern evangelical translations remove the word “tradition” from these passages does not remove that word from the Greek manuscripts.

Ed, I agree completely! New Catholic, great comment!

Bob Rowland: thanks for your splendid demonstration of Catholic Christian love.! According to the Bible you are guilty for the Sanhedrin.Then New Catholic: it is good that you acknowledge that the Bible condemns human tradition, which of course it does. So did also Jesus. The problem comes with how you define catholic tradition: is it human or divine. If divine it should be incorporated in the scriptures, if not it should be discarded. If it is not in the scriptures the church has actually failed in giving us all the oracles of God., which it otherwise boasts. But I suspect that what you call the tradition of the church has its origin from humans and can not be looked upon as inspired and therefore has no weight in argument. Because as you said: God condemns human tradition! And how can you prove that your tradition is anything else than human? You try to tell me that Paul had left a body of tradition with the believers that he didn´t cover in his letters? that absolutely unfounded . OF course he did convey the same in his letters as he said by mouth. To hold fex that he privately taught the perpetual virginity as an important dogma, and then never at all mentioned it in his letters is at best wishful thinking. It simply doesn´t stand to reason. They were to heed his teaching ” either by word of mouth or by letter” This is actually a proof that what he spoke was the exact same as he wrote.!

Arne, Christ established a Church with ordained leadership to whom He delegated the authority to establish doctrine (bind and loose) and to forgive or retain sin (see comment above for references) and gave the apostles “a kingdom” (Luke 22:29). Christ elevates the apostolic office so greatly that rejecting the apostolic message is described as “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”(Lk 10:16).
Nowhere in Scripture does Scripture state that Christ established a book as final authority. Scripture does not claim sola scriptura. Rather, St. Paul declares where authority and truth reside: “I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth”(1Tm 3:14b-15). “THE HOUSEHOLD OF GOD, which is THE CHURCH… THE PILLAR AND BULWARK OF TRUTH”. Nothing similar is ever said of Scripture.
Arne, there is a single two-thousand-year-old Catholic Church based on the three legged stool of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Authority. Based on sola scriptura there are tens-of-thousands of contradictory denominations that range from the anything-goes-Anglican/Episcopal to the just-Jesus-and-me-evangelical to the entirely heretical Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons.
Should one believe the consistent teaching of the one church that is demonstrably the historical church Christ established or accept the new/false gospels of the upstarts that are no more than five hundred years old; some no older than a year; no longer teach all that the reformers taught (including the Immaculate Conception held to by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli & Bullinger); and now range from barely orthodox to utterly heretical.

Casting Crowns:  You do not know what you are talking about.  The Immaculate conception does not refer to the conception of Jesus (that’s the Virgin Birth) but to the conception of Mary and her preservation from all sin both original and actual.  The entire purpose of this series is to show a) that this is in fact apostolic belief and b) that it does matter.  Instead of making ignorant pronouncements that simply regurgitate Evangelical boilerplate, attempt the daring project of thinking you might be wrong and that the Catholic Church has, in fact, given a lot of thought to this.

@Mark, you’ve still laid no foundation regarding the ultimate relevance.  Messiah was not dependent upon the virgin being preserved from eternity past.  And how is your salvation or mine conditional upon this belief?

While it is amusing for me to see how many ways Bob Rowland can find to insert his private revelation hypothesis, I find it funny too, that he finds so many people that he considers a “consummate fool”.  I’ve come to understand that anyone that does not agree with private revelation would be considered a consummate fool, and that would be maybe 95% of NC Register readers?

Mark Shea - I was just curious, where would we find out about your background, in particular, I wonder if you’re a convert, if so, from what faith, or a revert?  Life-long Catholic?  Just wondering.

Terah:

I’m a convert.  I entered the Church in 1987, having been first a garage band suburban pagan and then an Evangelical non-denominational Christian.  Every question and doubt you can possibly have about Catholic Marian doctrine and devotion I’ve already had.  That’s why I wrote about Mary in my book Mary, Mother of the Son.  You can find out more about me and my work here.  Unfortunately the Mary book is currently out of print (you might be able to find used copies of it on Amazon—it’s a trilogy).  I will be re-releasing it next year through Marytown press as a single volume.

My friend won the bet.  She guessed you were a convert.  Thank you for answering - I’ll tell her.

My friend is a life-long Catholic, raised in a Catholic home on both sides, for generations.  She had Catholic elementary school, high school, etc., spending only about the last 20 years reading the Bible.

She told me after she finished reading the Bible for the first time, cover to cover, she remembered thinking, “Why didn’t they teach me this?”  Much of it was news to her.  Not the Bible stories, that she knew well, but the doctrines.  It was all new to her.

For some reason, she never left the Catholic church.  In fact, she was a great influence on why I came to the Catholic church, from a non-Catholic, but actively Christian home.  I had other reasons for becoming Catholic (prior to the Catholic church making the news so much) and her influence was only a part of it.  So it’s only been more recently that I’ve been questioning certain doctrines, & asking “why” about things.

I can and do talk with her about anything regarding the faith, but she said when she tries to talk about it with other Catholics, life-long Catholic adults, like her, even after Sunday Mass, they just don’t care to know more about their faith.  They don’t want to talk about it.  They’re not phased, one way or the other.  They don’t get angry.  They have no passion about it.  They are just blase about God.  They look at her like there’s something wrong with her for caring about her faith, and about wanting to know more, or to question, and to try to live her faith.

She said it’s as if they are doing God a favor, by showing up at Mass on Sunday. They give what they feel is fair to the church in terms of money, help out at the school, contribute to the Infants Layette Drive, and the Christmas Giving Tree, the annual Lenten effort that a nun organizes.  But getting to know more about God and our faith and our doctrine?  Phooey on it.  Most don’t care.

She told me only two segments of Catholics care greatly: converts and reverts.  She said they are passionate about what the church teaches, enough to almost be brutal about it, saying things that can be cutting and demeaning to other people, while battling to prove their points on a blog with anyone that sounds like they have an idea about doctrines that are unlike their own.  Even questioning a doctrine or asking how some belief came about can set them off.  Her observation about converts and reverts being the most passionate among Catholics intrigued me. Thanks!

Casting crowns:

In your extreme hurry to ignorantly dismiss something you cannot be bothered to understand, you are not paying attention to the structure of the argument. There are two questions in dealing with every dogmatic teaching of the Church.  First: is this true?  Is there in fact reason in the tradition to believe X is so (in this case, X is the Immaculate Conception).  Does it contradict or dovetail with what we know from the deposit of faith?  That is currently what is under consideration: does the Immaculate Conception contradict the apostolic witness or does it harmonize with it.  My argument, so far, is that it harmonizes with it and therefore cannot be blithely dismissed.

Now, in addition to the question of whether the Immaculate conception harmonizes with what we know from apostolic tradition there is a second question: why is this a dogma? There are any number of things we might say about Mary that are true and in harmony with apostolic tradition.  Mary had red blood.  Mary drank water.  Mary breathed oxygen.  Mary ate food.  These things are true and gibe with apostolic tradition both written and unwritten, but they don’t matter. And so the Church has never had a dogma concerning Mary’s red blood, etc. However, in a few cases (four to be precise) the Church says there are true statements about Mary that *do* matter.  The Immaculate Conception is one of them.  Why this dogma matters is a question we will get to in coming weeks.  But at present, the question is simply: does the dogma harmonize with apostolic tradition as it has come down to us from the apostles and is answering various arguments and claims that it does not.  Please, therefore, have patience, Casting Crowns, and instead of impatiently dismissing the argument out of hand with all the normal shallow canards that any Evangelical makes without a movement of the gray matter, consider the possibility that there may be something here worth considering.  You may discover, to your surprise, that the Catholic Church in fact knows what it is talking about.

Terah: I am glad you find me amusing,  I recall only calling one person a fool on this blog. I think that issue might still be open to conjecture. We will find out how many consummate fools there are in America tomorrow when we see how many vote for Obama. I don’t really care whether anyone else believes private revelation or not. That is their loss, not mine. I belong to an organization of at least 15 million people who believe as I do.  How many supporters do you have?

The scary thing, Mark, is that Casting Crowns is not an Evangelical Protestant. He/She has claimed to be Catholic. It’s one thing for Protestants to debate/argue with us regarding Catholicism. It’s rather disheartening when it is a fellow Catholic who doesn’t realize just how Protestant their thinking is.

Terah:

Here is how your assessment sounds.  Cradle Catholics who don’t live up to your standards are ignorant and smug and don’t care about their faith as truly faithful Catholic like you do.  However, converts who care enough to know their faith and not simply accept it when you declare something you don’t understand to be a stupid waste of time are mean and are not truly loving Catholics like you are. 

Conclusion: You are the model Catholic, dedicated to Jesus, but able to blow off all that dumb stuff the Church teaches that doesn’t interest you and not mean like those converts and reverts who get all bent out of shape over stupid stuff like the dogmas of the Church you find personally uninteresting.  The center of the Catholic Church and the measure of everybody else is… you.

Sorry, but that’s how your very self-serving assessment sounds.  I think a wiser and more charitable approach is to assume that the average Catholic is trying to live their faith as best they can and that their failure to measure up to your standards is probably a function of your judging them.

There’s nothing wrong with trying to understand the Church’s teaching.  St. Thomas did nothing but ask hard questions about the Faith.  But your typical habit is not to question the Faith in order to understand it but to reject the Church’s teaching as dumb.  You set yourself up, not as a disciple who is seeking instruction, but as a judge who stands in perpetual superiority to Holy Church and the entire deposit of Faith.  Your behavior on this thread has been typical.  You don’t care about the Immaculate Conception so out it it goes and the Church is stupid for teaching it.  That’s not the attitude of a disciple and it is emphatically not the attitude of somebody who believes Paul’s description of the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth.  Instead of treating everything in the deposit of Faith as up for grabs unless it personally appeals to Terah James, try learning to think with the Church by taking the leap of faith that Jesus really did entrust her, not you, with the deposit of faith and that it is She, not you, that has preserved it intact till now.  Try believing that the Holy Spirit really does guide the Church into all truth and that Jesus wasn’t kidding when he promised her he would be with he always, till the end o the age. 

The great fear in doing this, of course, is that what I am really saying is “Trust every Catholic to be a saint and every bishop to always be right.”  But that is not at all what I’m saying.  The great paradox of trusting in the Church’s gift of infallibility is that infallibility *assumes* that the Church is full of nothing but sinners, crooks, dunderheads, and fools.  Trusting the Church is infallible in defining a doctrine (like the Immaculate Conception) is trusting, not in men, but in the Holy Spirit.  It means you don’t have to keep reinventing the wheel and making ancient mistakes due to your failure to trust that God meant business when he said he would guide the Church.

Terah: for The record, I enjoyed your comments about converts and reverts. I am a covert of 1949 vintage. I belong firmly among those who are passionate about their faith. That might explain my calling someone a fool for discounting it. For that I do apologize.  Was your friend raised a Catholic, before or after the Second Vatican Council?  When I entered the Church, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen was the consummate evangelist with his program Life is Worth Living, and Catholics were very enthusiastic about their faith. It was after the council eschewed doctrine and discipline that interest began to decline. Belief in the Real Presence, the prime doctrine of our faith,is the most tragic victim of the “Spirit of Vatican II”.

[The scary thing, Mark, is that Casting Crowns is not an Evangelical Protestant. He/She has claimed to be Catholic. It’s one thing for Protestants to debate/argue with us regarding Catholicism. It’s rather disheartening when it is a fellow Catholic who doesn’t realize just how Protestant their thinking is.]

IMO… to assume that posters like Casting Crowns and Terah James are *really* Catholic just because they claim to be might be quite a *stretch* considering *all* their comments here @ NCRegister.

*Honesty* and *truthfulness* is certainly not a mandatory requirement to post on the web.

Just saying…[wink]

ED:

I disagree.  Given the dreadful state of catechesis in the US, it is quite possible for folks like Terah and Casting Crowns to believe in all sincerity that their deeply Protestant approach to the Faith is perfectly compatible with the faith.  The solution is not to read people out of the Church (unless you are a bishop empowered to do that) but to try to get them to understand what actual Catholic teaching is.

That’s fine Mark… you are certainly entitled to your opinion.  Right or wrong.

Ed, I have to agree with Mark’s analysis. They really do sincerely think that their understanding of the Catholic Faith is correct. At least that is what I have gleaned from their numerous posts. That they are so smug about it is what is so irritating.

New Catholic/sunday:  I think anyone can claim that the church one belongs to, holds a 2000 year history back to Jesus. All do that. It is not only a claim the RCC have an exclusive right to. And the mere stating it does´t prove anything as to its veracity. If you look closely at the Acts you will find something to make you wonder about the differences between the RCC ( and the protestant denominations also )and the apostolic church. In Acts you see them keep sabbath and the holy days of OT. There is no sunday keeping or Christmas or Easter. And no trinity which came along by the 3-4oo. So something has happened, and I would not be too sure that the RCC isn´t more of an aberration from the truth, rather than it´s support. And the true church - which one it might be , but it must be the true one,(the false one doesn´t do)- is never one who makes up doctrines on its own ( other than promoting the truth given through Jesus to his apostles in the beginning ) just supporting the truth that is there, defined in the scriptures ( ” thy word is truth “John 17:17 ). Jesus rebuked the traditions of the elders, and claimed an exclusive authority of the written word. So in effect he is the most strict teacher of Sola Scriptura. And what he passed on to his disciples was what he had received from the Father ,  not a new tradition ,but WORDS ” for the WORDS that you gave me, have I given them, and they have received THEM ...” ( John 17:8 ) And these words they passed on to their followers , not any mystical traditions apart from the words. Paul had the same attitude; as he never departed from what was written (Acts26:22 ) ( 1Cor4:6 ). The teachings from the apostles is though ( rightly understood ), I agree , also called a tradition ( the same word as the tradition of the elders that Jesus rebuked ). Maybe I also would accept that their collective body of understanding which was residing in the church, was something we could call a ” tradition “. But where we certainly disagree is when you as Catholics - as I understand it - claims an oral tradition apart from scripture that is elevated above the scriptures. It seems to me that this is what you imply when you cite 2 Thess 2:15. “hold to the traditions you were taught” ( also comp. 1. Cor 11:2). IF I have perceived this correctly, there is in your opinion a ” collection of tradition ” not included in the scriptures that the RCC presides over and this is given authority to mold and bias very much the understanding of the written word.  This simply cannot be true, because it is evident -from what I have written above, because the actual words were to be delivered on , and also from Paul´s own words i 2 Thess 2: 15: which you were taught wether by word of mouth or by letter from us” - that Paul doesn´t understand it the Catholic way when he uses this words. Rather these words from Paul is a proof that there is no difference in what he said and wrote. Which means that there was no “parcel of tradition” besides the scriptures which could be claimed to contain anything to be counted over the written words. So the true tradition is not one standing above the scriptures and biases their understanding, but is in effect the collection of the true understanding of the whole body of the written word, OT and NT. And that means that all our exegesis must be in absolute accord with what is the written word in every respect. That means that the tradition of - for example - the immaculate conception and the perpetual virginity of Mary must be discarded since it is not in the scriptures and as such is not part oft the true tradition. The first church had the full understanding of the scriptures and the gospel , and that was the ” true tradition”. We can only approach this true tradition by trying to understand the totality of the scriptures harmonized with each other. That´s what I believe is what Peter talks about when he guards against ” private or own interpretation ” ( 2 Pet 1:20 ). In this respect Catholics are right in a certain way : the interpretation must be ” kata holis ” - in” accordance with the whole “(picture) . But not in the meaning : according to the pope.

Is it possible that when one is reading a post, it may come across as smug, when it’s not intended that way?  I just write the way I talk, but my intention was not to sound like a know-it-all, or to be smug.  I am truly sorry, by having written anything that was interpreted like that.

To Bob Rowland: my friend that is a life=long Catholic remembers pre-Vatican II Masses, in Latin, when ladies covered their heads w/ veils, or even a Kleenex, if a hat/veil wasn’t handy.  I can’t imagine what that looked like, but she said women would affix a Kleenex with a Bobbie pin so it wouldn’t blow away.

She remembers when nuns wore special “habits”, and when there were “high Masses” and “low Masses”, with choirs and you could tell which was which by how many candles were on the altar.  She never stopped being Catholic and going to Mass, even after the post-Vatican II Mass, which she liked the best.

She still goes to Mass now, and says much of what lay people think is “new” is really the old liturgy “repackaged”, for a newer group of people.  I found that a few older people will admit that the “new” Mass is really the Old Mass brought back.  But most people that I’ve talked with stay quiet, going with the flow.  Please,I’m just sharing that as a fact.  I’m not judging it as good or bad.  I have no experience w/ any pre-Vatican II practices.

Terah:

Thanks for that.  No hard feelings.  God bless you.  And sorry for the harshness of my reply.

Terah: I think you would have appreciated the reverence at the Tridentine Mass. You could tell by their attire and actions that everyone there knew Jesus was truly there. Spirituality was lost with the Novus Ordo. Belief in the True Presence has sunk to an estimated 25 percent. On the way back from occupation duty in Japan after WWII, my ship went through the Panama Canal and we had liberty in Panama City.  I visited a famous Catholic cathedral there with a Catholic Shipmate.  It was the first time I had entered a Catholic Church, and I was enveloped and overwhelmed by what had to be the Real Presence of God that Catholics claim.  I could not speak, and could scarcely breathe. That is what led to my conversion. It really grieves me, that belief has fallen to such low estate after the council.

[Ed, I have to agree with Mark’s analysis.]

Hey, that’s fine Joanp62.  I understand. [sob]  ;(

BTW… I’m curious.  Which one of his books did Mark offer to send you *free* if you agreed with him?  Or… was it just his standard type bribe offer of lots of hard cold cash that you couldn’t refuse?  :)

Well, anyway, as for this old man… I’m just NOT willing to rule out ‘role-playing’ (playing a make-believe Catholic on a Catholic site) at this point.  Perhaps (?) in time we will know for sure.

So, in the meantime, let’s make a friendly wager: 

1)  If you’re right… I have to say a Hail Mary for you, Mark Shea, Casting Crowns, and Terah James.

2)  If you’re wrong… you have to say a Hail Mary for me, Casting Crowns, and Terah James.  But, MOST IMPORTANTLY, you will have to send Mark’s book and/or all that hard cold cash you received to me!!!

Okay?  Fair enough?  [wink]

I only send free stuff when people pay me for it.

[I only send free stuff when people pay me for it.]

Yes, of course.  No wonder you have become wealthier than Bill Gates!!!

Have you no guilt my friend???

ED, I’m sorry to say that I do not have any of Mark’s books. Not that I wouldn’t be interested. No money from him either. :) Hail Mary’s for all of us!

Arne, There are two separate Christian traditions (and only two) that can claim to be 2,000 years old; Catholic and Orthodox. There are no Protestant denominations (not a single one) that can claim anything more than 5oo years duration. Upon closer analysis, most, if not all Protestant denominations have evolved by discarding Sacred Tradition, orthodox doctrine and, most recently, have been discarding Biblical truths. While this blog does not allow for an exhaustive study of the historical developments of the Church and the denominations, history does count for something. My comments, while general, are historically accurate.
One of the most important elements of Sacred Tradition is the establishment of Sacred Scripture. As a Protestant, I used to hold to some vague, illogical idea that Scripture (Old & New Testaments) were always available to all believers. That is, the Jews walked around with Old Testaments and the early Christians had New and Old Testament Bibles. They didn’t. The Bible as we know it did not exist until the fourth century, (history again).
You are correct that the Church of Acts still celebrated Jewish holidays, didn’t have the doctrine of the Trinity, didn’t have the doctrine of Christ (one person/two natures), still worshipped in the Temple and only had the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Coming from a sola scriptura perspective, which is a later (fifteenth/sixteenth century) development, makes it difficult to recognize that the Church Magisterium (the bishops and pope) have Biblically verifiable authority to establish doctrine and practices.
The same Magisterium that gave us the authoritative canon of Scripture also gave us all the necessary doctrines and the very early established day of Sunday and is the source of the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. What is remarkable is that all of Catholic/Orthodox doctrine and practices are implicit or explicit in St. Ignatius of Antioch’s writings dated @ AD 110. St. Justin Martyr describes the Mass in AD 160; these traditions are not new.
Your comment suggests that you recognize that there is both Scriptural and oral tradition but you seem to suggest that the oral tradition is only the Scriptural tradition before it was written down; in effect, the NT in oral form. That is not a reasonable conclusion since St. Paul makes it clear that he writes only because he cannot come and teach them directly (1Tm 3:14a). His usual instruction was in person and oral, not written. If all the apostolic teaching is what we have in Scripture, these guys were pretty quiet for the thirty to sixty years they were on this planet after Christ ascended to heaven. Or is it reasonable to suggest that the apostles, like modern politicians, memorized a screed and repeated it over and over again wherever they preached?
Christ established a Church with an authoritative administration. He did not establish a Bible. As mentioned earlier, the one Church still teaches the same thing as it did in the first/second century (see writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Clement of Rome).
I did not state that Sacred Tradition supersedes Scripture. Sacred Tradition stands as one pillar of the faith, Scripture as another and the Magisterium as the apostolic interpretive authority. None can contradict the other. That is a pretty high and complex standard to maintain and stands opposed to what is evident in the Protestant world where there is contradiction on many issues even within the same theological school of thought, let alone contradiction with Scripture; Saved by faith alone contradicts James 2:24.

NewCatholic, thanks for your well written and gentle comment. Could it not be held by a Lutheran, f.ex ,that he also can follow the tradition of his church back to Jesus? Luther was a catholic monk, and his purpose was only to reform certain aspects of the church´s practice. Then the schism ensued. But won´t it be able to defend that Lutheran traditions also can be followed back to the schism, and further down the path together with the RCC?
Enough of that. You are right when you maintain that the first believers did´t walk around with the scriptures in their back pockets, so to speak. But you draw a wrong conclusion from it. The first believers, and the apostles were Jewish ,and they did´t need to have a copy in their pocket, because they had it in their brain and heart! A Jewish boy knew the scripture by heart from early age!This is what Paul refers to about Timothy: he knew the scriptures from childhood! And the heathen who was interested, heard the scriptures read in the synagogues every sabbath, and as the story of the Bereans shows: the scriptures were available for them, at least( and I think for anyone who would care for it ) , so that they could read them ” daily “. This is of course the OT which is what is called ” the scriptures ” all trough the NT. This is actually the oracles of God in the main. The NT is a historical testimony to the life and teachings of Jesus, and in addition mainly a comment on the OT.
Paul certainly wanted to, I assume, to speak to people - may be rather than write. Certainly there was in the first 20 -60 years of the church only an oral tradition about Jesus and the early story of the church. Then we have the gospels and acts ,and the apostles wrote letters to their churches.In Luke 1 we see this very well demonstrated. Here he refers to what he maintains to be very trustworthy oral teaching or tradition from the eyewitnesses. But he actually do not just refer what they told him , he does also his own enquiries from the very beginning. This he writes down so that Theophilus may be able to read it for himself( so here is another support for the availability of written material ) so that he may be absolutely convinced of its veracity. So what he in effect does, is to pass on the oral tradition in writing, and in addition he has double checked it all to the contemporary available sources. As John writes, if all should be written which could be written about what Jesus taught and learnt, then the world would not be able to contain it! So clearly, not everything is written from the oral tradition, but we must have reason to believe that we have the essentials .
It is also interesting to see how Paul practices this in 2 Tim. 3:14-17.First he refers to what Timothy had learnt from him, and he uses himself as a witness to the truthfulness by referring to “whom he had learnt it from “. So then the case is settled? ” you see Timothy, since I am the great apostle Paul, everything I tell you you must be accepted without any doubt ?” No, he doesn´t so. He in effect asked him to check up what he had learnt from Paul to the Scriptures ,that it was correct. He could do that since he from ” childhood knew the scriptures ” and actually: Paul was only the servant who pointed to the scriptures so that Timothy could understand them : it was ” the scriptures ( not Paul , not the church , not the pope ) that could make him wise unto salvation ...” This is OT, and actually Paul says that even these scriptures contains in themselves enough instruction for the perfection of the man of God!
As with the case with Jesus, a lot more about the Apostles teaching and doing could have been written down, but I think we can be reasonably sure that we have the essentials. Also because the essentials actually already is   contained in the OT. The pastoral letters is mainly a commentary to this. The apostles didn´t use 3o years or whatever repeating silly manmade creeds or make a big body of oral tradition that is left out of the scriptures,  that should later sieve out into the church via its self professed channels . There is no rationality in assuming that there were new truth coming up that would overturn the truths they practiced in the Acts.  They used these years preaching the WORD for the anyone. That is what you see Paul do even in his late years in Rome: Acts 28:23: He apparently wrote some letters, but apart from that he used his time, not to make oral traditions, but ” he testified about the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus out of the law of Moses and the prophets from early morning to late evening”

NewCatholic: I wrote you a lengthier answer to this yesterday. I got amessage that it was considered Spam, and was being processed. Maybe that is still so. We will wait and see.

Arne, I do not think such could be held by a Lutheran or any other Protestant denomination. Firstly, a simple internet search will demonstrate that even Lutherans are sorely divided. Secondly, Luther created a schism in the Church against Biblical admonitions to be one, to maintain unity (Jn 10:16, 17:11, 21-22; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10, 3:3, 10:17, 11:18, 12:13, 25: Gal 5:20; Eph 4:3, 13; Phil 2:2; Col 2:2; 1 Pet 3:8; Heb 2:11) and avoid divisions (Jn 10:16, 17:11, 21-22; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10, 3:3, 10:17, 11:18, 12:13, 25: Gal 5:20; Eph 4:3, 13; Phil 2:2; Col 2:2; 1 Pet 3:8; Heb 2:11). Christ’s prayer for all of us who are not apostles is that we may be one as he and the father are one so that the world may know the father sent him (Jn 17:20-26). The apostle John clearly spells out what it means to leave the one Church, “even now many antichrists have come.  This is how we know it is the last hour.  They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us.  For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us” (1Jn 2:18b-19). That is a very powerful declaration. To be part of the Body of Christ requires remaining within the Church. Luther, Calvin et al left the Church causing schism. There is no question but what some of their teachings were correct as affirmed by the Council of Trent but some is anti-biblical and heretical.
You mention that in effect Luke does write down oral tradition. We agree on that but you seem to take an either/or approach regarding Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture; i.e., once something is written it becomes all that is necessary. As mentioned before, if sola scriptura is God’s intended channel for truth, why are there so many divisions in the Protestant world? And, although there was a time when I would have claimed that all Protestants agreed on essentials, why are those divisions even in regard to essential aspects of the faith? After more than fifty years as an evangelical, I know that claim to be false. Just compare Arminianism versus Calvinism and Lutheranism. If Calvinism and Lutheranism are correct then the Arminian believers are just overly scrupulous but spiritually safe-and-secure-for-eternity. If Arminianism is correct subscribers to Calvinism and Lutheranism are at risk of eternal damnation. Catholic teaching is a both/and teaching that does at times clearly recognize a mystery that is humanly inexplicable (i.e., there is both predestination and free will). In contrast to Protestantism, after two thousand years, there is still one Church with the same teaching, though with more fully developed dogma that is absolutely consistent with Scripture. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church with an open mind and a dictionary close at hand to help understand the terminology, rather than the way I used to read it with a hypercritical Protestant perspective that rejected everything Catholic out of hand. If you obtain the unabridged version, you will be utterly amazed by how much Scripture is dealt with. There is none of the proof-texting of Protestantism. Instead, there is comprehensive analysis of every aspect of every concept.
Back to your response, if you consider three points regarding Acts 15:22-24, “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers.  With them they sent the following letter… We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.” Firstly, notice that those who caused consternation in Antioch “went out from us without our authorization”.
Even in the immediate aftermath of the ascension of Christ, Magisterial authority was required for teaching the faith (not for personal witnessing) but certainly for teaching. Secondly, Luke is recording the first Church Council and first written encyclical. To the believers at Antioch the letter is only confirmation of the previous teaching of St. Paul. The witness by others, Judas and Silas, is to affirm that the writing is indeed from the Council at Jerusalem. For those at Antioch, the entirety of the New Testament (so to speak) is that short letter (Acts 15:22-29). (As a silly aside, maybe, based on the principle of sola scriptura, the Antiochians would have been justified to reject all the later “additions” to what they knew to be the “original” writings of the apostles. Thirdly, note that an authoritative council was called including the apostles and presbyters (Acts 15:6) who then made a decision based on what “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). Note, there is no appeal to “the Scriptures”. The first Magisterium made a decision based on the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit (an early instance of infallible teaching by the Magisterium).
Again, Arne, if the principle of sola scriptura is the key to understanding Scripture, why has the Holy Spirit failed so demonstrably as is evidenced by tens-of-thousands of contradictory denominations? Or, is it possible that the Holy Spirit has succeeded remarkably despite all the heretics, bad priests, immoral bishops, evil emperors, corrupt popes and me by maintaining one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that is present in every country, every culture, every race, every ethnic group and every socio-economic community on the face of the earth?

Arne, I have responded to your comments and face the same quarentine as you. God Bless.

“but some is” should be “but some are”

NewCatholic08: thank you for your long and thorough answer. Our subject certainly divides in many ramifications, and it is difficult to give them all due attention. I do very well understand the wish to keep unity, and to have some kind of Magisterium / teaching authority. Most church organizations have that, I guess. The problem with the RCC is that they require ” a submission of intellect and will” to achieve the unity they desire. In my view ,that is not even allowable., and is in it´s very nature against religious freedom, and human rights. Yes, you get your order, but do you think the cost is reasonable? In my mind it is preferable to keep religious freedom even though it results i a Babylon.
The first magisterium made it´s decision on ” the direct guidance of the HS,” - yes, but not solely that. Before they draw their conclusion, there preceded a solid exposition of the Word. so their decision is not entirely apart from scripture, but fully in accordance with it. So whatever the Spirit moves them to, it is also grounded i their appreciation and understanding of the scriptures.
As for the Antiochians, I do not quite see your point. They did get some written instruction, but that doesn´t mean they would not concider any new instruction coming to them later on. But i am sure they would compare this to what they had. If new oral or written instructions came to them, they would have to consider it´s trustworthiness - does this come from the right apostles, or false ones?

Arne, I am sending a new response. Hope Mark doesn’t get sick of this. It is great to have a civil discussion.

Arne, (1) the apostles (the first magisterium) decided much re: dogma/doctrine. That dogma/doctrine may not be changed because truth is truth forever. (2) The earliest popes and bishops (the subsequent magisterium), in response to heresy, established more dogma/doctrine that is consistent with both Scripture and consistent with the earlier dogma/doctrine. Neither the earlier nor the later dogma/doctrine may be changed because truth is truth forever. (3) Later popes and bishops have less and less dogma/doctrine to establish because most has already been established. In effect, Peter had the most authority/influence on doctrine/dogma and each subsequent pope/magisterium had a decreasing arena of material to determine any additional dogma/doctrine. (4) Any dogmatic/doctrinal development is constrained by the truth that has already been established. E.g., maybe there is more explanation that can be added to the doctrine of the Trinity but there are no changes that may be made. God is One in Three. He isn’t and cannot be anything else. That is an absolute doctrine that must be adhered to in order to be correct; to be an orthodox Christian. Christ is all God and all Man; one person, two natures. Further explanations may be developed regarding how to understand that doctrine but that doctrine also is an absolute doctrine. To reject or change it in any way is heresy. (5) Every institution has basic dogma. A golf club has dogma: Golf must be played on a field with areas to drive and putt. Golf clubs are the instrument of force (not shotguns). Anyone who joins the club must adhere to those doctrines or they are not golfers; they are something else. The game can be nine or eighteen holes but it must be played by a certain set of rules. The Christian faith is the same. Buddha cannot be substituted for Christ. Baptism by the rising sun while in the nude cannot be substituted for water baptism. Sins cannot be redefined as psychological hang-ups and thus no longer sin. (6) So when you say the RCC “requires a submission of intellect and will” you are both accurate and inaccurate; Accurate in that the RCC requires a believer to believe what Christianity is and always has been; acceptance of dogma/doctrine; Inaccurate in that only approximately eight portions of Scripture have been defined as essential and the rest is open to discussion. As the examples above display, and I hope you are able to agree, there are things that cannot be changed without losing the faith. Arne, “submission of intellect and will” to the truth is the greatest of freedoms. It is not in the least humanly demeaning. (7) If it were not for Christianity (primarily Catholicism and Protestantism to a lesser extent; based on duration of existence) there would be no “religious freedom or human rights”. No other religion holds to religious freedom and human rights because no other religion recognizes free will. However, freedom of religion does not mean the individual or a group of individuals (a denomination) can change the rules and still be what they changed from. With great trepidation of stepping into it, (and please recognize that my examples certainly have great limitations), that is what is wrong with our modern society in regard to claims of gay marriage and transgender issues. Marriage is the basic unit to create and raise children as nature (and God) devised. Being able to do part of that (raise children only) does not signify marriage; it merely signifies child rearing. If I raise my niece, I am not her father; only her biological father is her father. If I adopt her I am only a father on paper; her biological father is still her father even if we feign fatherhood and daughterhood. A surgically created female or male is still gender of birth, and will continue to have the hormones of their birth gender unless artificial means are used to emulate the surgically selected exterior body form. Changing the rules (dogma/doctrine) like changing gender does not create what the label claims. “Christianity” without orthodox dogma, is not Christianity, it is something else. An individual with a gender change is still what they were; but only genetically. They now are something very different but not what they claim. (8) Believing Christ was the best man who ever lived but rejecting Church dogma/doctrine does not make one a Christian. Believing Christ is a good example to emulate while rejecting or being agnostic about his status in the Trinity, makes one a heretic. There must be basic dogma/doctrine or there is nothing to have faith in. With all due respect, the apostles and presbyters did not appeal to Scripture. Certainly their understanding of Scripture would come to bear on their decision but they in fact overruled Scripture since Scripture required circumcision of all who were believers in God. The Judaizers were actually Scriptural. Peter and the apostles and presbyters agreed to something very different. In fact, Paul later expounds on this in regard to the fact that like circumcision was the entrance into the Jewish faith, baptism was the entrance into Christianity. Now we have some Protestant faiths that reject baptism as necessary (they are Christianized but not fully Christian).
My point on the Antiochians was that if they behaved like modern Protestants who reject some or much of the dogmatic/doctrinal developments of the Church, they could have (speculation for a point only) rejected all later writings as superfluous to their basic code of Christianity: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell” (Acts 15:28-29). That short letter would be the extent of their NT. You say, “But I am sure they would compare this to what they had. If new oral or written instructions came to them, they would have to consider it´s trustworthiness - does this come from the right apostles, or false ones”.
I agree. That is exactly what the magisterium did in regard to establishing the canon of Scripture and establishing all doctrine. And, Scripture tells us the magisterium has the authority to do just that. Christ established a new priesthood (See how priest are prepared for ministry: Ex. 30:17-21 and Jn 13:5-14). Christ established a Church (Mt 16:18). Christ appointed Peter as the prime minister of his Kingdom (Mt 16:19). Christ gave Peter and the apostles (the first magisterium) authority to bind and loose, to forgive and retain sin (Mt 18:18). The newly emancipated magisterium (before Pentecost and at the sole discretion of Peter) added a new member to the magisterium to fill Judas’ chair (Acts 1:15-26). Christ said the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) would be with the apostles forever (Jn 14:16-17; “forever” means there will always be apostles). Christ declared that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth (Jn 16:13). Christ said that there was too much for him to tell the apostles before his ascension so the Holy Spirit would lead them to truths they were too weak to learn at that time (Jn 16:112-14). The Church has been faced by unique heresies over time that the magisterium was required to confront and correct. That is why the Holy Spirit guides the magisterium to teach what is correct. New eras bring new possibilities for faulty thinking. When the Protestant reformers sought to correct some errors in practice, they were well within the tradition of necessary reform of the Church. When they attempted to establish new doctrines (e.g., Luther’s “I could commit adultery 100 times a day and murder as many men and still be saved” or Calvin’s “double predestination”) they became heretical. When they split from the Church they became schismatics. There is only one true Church. I am so thrilled to be part of it.

NewCatholic: you are a wise man( if you are a man- Idon´t know since you use a pseudonym ) I do agree with you in many aspects. Certainly , true freedom is to do the will of God. But what would you do if you started to feel that your church didn´t hold the real truth on a question?  Then you have a problem. I have no problem to ” submit my intellect and will ” to God, as long as a I am convinced that the God presented to me actually is God, and not a false God. But put a man in between that says:” submit to me because I am Gods substitute”, then I would never pledged my submission. So if I am convinced , from my studying of the scripture, that the true church from the beginning kept the sabbath, and your church admits to having changed it, and if the first christians were true monotheists ( in a Jewish and Islamic understanding ) ,and your church admits that the trinity is a later added dogma and that there is absolutely no sign of a belief in a trinity in the scriptures? What do you do then.? This is basic teaching of your church, and I guess you cannot question these doctrines since you have pledged to ” submit your intellect and will ” to the pope and his magisterium. Isn´t that correct? Certainly, I am not suggesting that you are not able to reason and think logically, but still such submission is something that is rather unacceptable to me . It is understandable if one can be confident that God and the pope is interchangeable , but do you think so? Isn´t he still a man, and ” every man is a liar”?
Whatever you think about the Pope, I can find no such thinking in the Bible. We must submit totally to God ,but no human or human organization can have the right to our submission like this. Peter never uttered such a claim.
So you can contend that your church is the true church ( as all does ). But no one can justify such a claim merely by holding it. I see real divergences between your church and the church we see in Acts. Can you be absolutely sure that it is not actually an aberration from the original catholic church? Can you be sure that later added doctrines is not in opposition to the original?

Arne, When I pointed out,
“With all due respect, the apostles and presbyters did not appeal to Scripture. Certainly their understanding of Scripture would come to bear on their decision but they in fact overruled Scripture since Scripture required circumcision of all who were believers in God”, I am referring back to your comment,
“The first magisterium made it´s decision on ” the direct guidance of the HS,” - yes, but not solely that. Before they draw their conclusion, there preceded a solid exposition of the Word. so their decision is not entirely apart from scripture, but fully in accordance with it. So whatever the Spirit moves them to, it is also grounded i their appreciation and understanding of the scriptures.”
There is some referral to OT Scripture but not in regard to circumcision. That aspect of the decision is purely a determination of Peter and the other apostles and, it must be said, actually goes against the prevailing practice that converts to faith in the God of Abraham were required to undergo circumcision.

Please stop beating that poor dead horse.

Arne, I was born and raised as an anti-Catholic fundamentalist, evangelical Christian. I never dreamed of becoming a “pagan” Catholic. However, I was forced to reassess my faith repeatedly as denomination after denomination and congregation after congregation underwent gradual theological and moral disintegration throughout the entire Protestant world. What I mean by disintegration is, when I began to hear pastors tell us why we must understand Scripture to be saying something it just plainly wasn’t saying or entire denomination and congregations were beginning to officially subscribe to the world’s definition of morality. I sought the correct Protestant denomination. By correct, I mean the one that taught only that which was entirely consistent with Scripture. My qualifications are a bachelor’s in Biblical Studies from an evangelical college, a master’s in theology from an evangelical seminary and a Ph.D. in Psychology. To me it was like trying to do a jig-saw puzzle. I knew how some parts combined; some pieces formed combinations but without any clear impression of the big picture; and then some pieces began to give me worrisome information. Each time I ran up against some hurdle, the answer, based on what Scripture actually said rather than on what I had been indoctrinated to think Scripture said, turned out to sound sort of Catholic.
Protestants used to claim that Christ never said Peter was the rock on which he would build his Church - now, low and behold, Protestants have had to admit that Scripture does actually say that. But immediately, Protestants begin to claim that while Scripture does say those words… It doesn’t mean that!
Protestants used to claim that Luke 1 did not say, “Hail, full of grace…” - but now, low and behold, Protestants have had to admit that Luke actually does record the angel’s proclamation just that way (see F.F. Bruce). Of course, Protestants immediately began to claim that, “While it does say those words, it doesn’t mean that.” After many
similar instances I realized I needed to study the Catholic Church’s teaching. I did not read the Catechism; rather, I went and read the first and second century writings of the Church’s first, second and third generation of bishops; many of whom died rather gruesome deaths for the faith. What blew me away was the blatant Catholicism I encountered. What those students of Peter, Paul and the other apostles taught was Catholic and certainly not Protestant. I have now studied Catholic doctrine and discovered that in every instance regarding disagreement with Protestant doctrine, Catholic doctrine holds up as consistent with Scripture and Protestant doctrine collapses. As just one interesting point, virtually no Protestant denomination in my life (until very recently) ever even raised the issue of abortion. It was either ignored or viewed as a unpleasant necessary evil. In contrast, the Catholic Church has taught that abortion is an intrinsic evil since the time of the apostles (Didache 1st century). So looking back at the correctness of all of Catholic dogma and doctrine; being able to see how correct the official Church teaching has been throughout history; knowing the truth of the Real Presence; I have no problem accepting what the Church teaches. When I submit my will to two thousand years of correct teaching, that has not changed (other than by being more fully explained) I am accepting truth. I do not have any illusions that I can arrive at truth alone. Arriving at the truth will always require accepting what came before me. If it is “new truth” it has to be false. I trust the working of the Holy Spirit throughout history to lead Christ’s Church into all truth.
You mention that the Church of Acts kept the Jewish Sabbath (Fri-Sat) and Scripture had no sign of the Trinity but the RCC changed those things. Firstly, the change of the day of worship does violate Scripture if those who changed it did so with valid authority. Scripture supports that authority; the authority to bind and loose. And, Acts does contain the fact that worship occurred, “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread…” (Acts 20:7). Secondly, while the doctrine of the Trinity is not spelled out in explicit terms, Scripture certainly does contain reference to the Trinity. Christ said to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19).
I am with you on the submission part. I am congenitally independent (others would say rebellious). I inherited that delightful from Adam. Yet, to my chagrin, Scripture commands unity (see prior references) ; forbids divisions (see prior references) and commands me to submit to Church authorities (Heb. 13:17).

Sorry Bob, I sent in another response before your advice was received. But it is being reviewed as possible spam. I will stop. I promise. I think. If only the horse would just play dead for a minute or so.

Is Bob the moderator of this blog? If he knows every answer, why waist time and energy reading here?

The Catholic Church teaches every true answer, and I believe it. If you can’t believe the church, who will you believe? “For those who believe, no answer is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no answer is possible.”

Corrections: Firstly, the change of the day of worship does violate Scripture if those who changed it did so withOUT valid authority.

I inherited that delightful TRAIT from Adam.

Editing in this little box is quite a challenge.

No.  Bob is *not* the moderator of this blog and I don’t appreciate him dictating to others what may and may not be discussed.

Bob: There are lots of non-Catholics who read here and come to discuss the faith.  I prefer that those discussions happen in the hope they learn something about the faith.  Simply saying, “Shut up and believe it” is not how catechesis happens.  If you dislike the discussion, feel free not to participate.  But don’t tell others what cannot be discussed here.  Leave that to me.

What a pity my sincere apology was rejected.

I didn’t see an apology.  Maybe it went to a spam filter.  However, apology accepted.

I stand corrected,Mark, and I sincerely apologize.  I thought we were at an impasse, but that was before the interesting response by NewCatholic08.

NewCatholic, thanks again. I commend you on your credentials, which surely surpasses mine. I have no formal theological education, though I have a higher academic degree. But also you have a very upright and humble attitude which I appreciate.
I am, as you certainly have appreciated, not a stern defender of protestantism.  And I do see aslo the koind of desintegration in the protestant world that you describe. The fact that the prot. church here in my country, isn´t capable of standing up against abortion, gay marriage and othe moral question , is surely a reason several serious believers starts enquiring about the cath. chruch which actually have a voice in such matters.But I do appreciate the result of the reformation which gave us a religious and intellectual freedom that the middle ages lacked. ( some would try to negate that ) And it makes it possible for me to venture to ask intelligent questions about the doctrine of the trinity. If I am not totally misled ,this was , in times past, enough of a sin to be sought out by the inquisition headed by the Gregorian monks, and I might have cost me my life after a prolonged “physical treatment ” of rather unspeakable seriousness. How was it possible that a first rate physician like MIchael Servetus was burned alive in Geneva in 1553? He was sentenced to this cruel death for the offense of not believing in the trinity and child baptismal regeneration! This was done on the accusation of Jean Calvin( a protestant !) but he was sentenced to burning ( alive , of course ! )in a Roman Catholic court.
I understand that anyone who joins a church, does in the main accept the fundamental teachings of the church, and as such gives intellectual assent. And it is , of course , both natural and a duty to try to keep the unity. Questions that arises along the way can be settled in internal discussions to satisfaction. STill one is giving one´s intellectual consent and all is fine. But this is entirely different from what I mentioned above that ” a religious submission of intellect and will ...concerning faith and morals MUST be given”. If this was included in the statutes of a minor religious community, they would promptly be labeled a sect , and very explicitly be warned against. Not so when it comes to the RCC - it is simply too big and influential.
And there are also other statements in the Canon Law and Cahtecism that speak of , what I call , a totalitarian system.”“The Roman Pontiff by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ…has full, supreme and universal power over the whole church, a power he can always exercise unhindered .”Canon 882.
So I wonder , how you, or anyone who cherishes free thought, freedom of religion and speech, can go about this?
one is clearly admonished to ” obey your leaders and submit to their authority” Heb 13:17. In my view this is quite a different thing from the above. to submit to the authority of someone, is not the same as to ” submit ones intellect and will” to someone. Isn´t this what is said if Ignatius Loyola, the one who founded the Jesuits: ” if she ( the church )shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black…” Maybe you think this is the way it should be. To me, it is as far from the way of truth as it can be.

Arne, thank you for your discussion of these issues. Sorry Bob, I lied. It is such a change from the rather hostile style of some bloggers. I didn’t list my credentials to brag. I was merely trying to point out that I do have some training related to the issues and enough education to be able to think through complex issues. It amazes me that it took more than fifty years for me to finally recognize just how chaotic my Protestant doctrine truly was.
You seem to have a rather severe impression regarding the “totalitarian” qualities of the RCC that you believe denies individual “religious and intellectual freedom”. Be aware that much of what has been written about the RCC is written by patently hostile, anti-Catholic, Protestant authors; and today, there is also much material written by militant atheists that hold the RCC responsible for everything bad (maybe even climate change).
As a life-long Protestant, I used to accept all that negative information about the RCC without recognizing that Protestantism, beginning with Luther, began propagandizing against the RCC in order to create the possibility of practicing a “straw man” argument that paints Catholics as pagan, judgmental, imbecilic, unthinking pawns of totalitarian, evil popes; thus, allowing Protestants to always win any argument they raise. By painting the RCC doctrine in as exaggerated terms as possible, and then, by repeating the accusations perpetually, the falseness of such accusations (made for centuries) has become invisible to the casual observer. One example is the common belief in Protestant circles that Catholics “worship Mary and the Saints”. I believed that until I was asked by a RCC friend, “Why do Protestants ignore, demean and reject Mary?” My answer was that we would never “worship” Mary. His shocked expression and response that, “Catholics don’t worship Mary!!! We honor her just like the Bible tells us to do!!!” sent me, an evangelical who was becoming quite dissatisfied with the deterioration in the Protestant world, back to studying Scripture for what it actually says rather that reading Scripture through the filter of Protestant propagandistic thought.
When it is recognized that the dark ages left the known western world with no form of effective government and the only source of civil authority in existence was the universal Church, it is understandable why the Church became involved in civil authority. It is also important to keep in mind that it is invalid to evaluate ancient practices by modern standards. Also, modern standards in the western world directly reflect the development of moral standards based on the Judeo-Christian faith. The OT concept of “an eye for an eye” sounds shockingly primitive until it is recognized that, prior to that time the common practice was “a life for an eye”. Similarly, criminal justice practices of the Middle Ages seem very primitive to us moderns. However, if you study material about the Church during the Middle Ages, you will learn that the civil authorities were far more brutal that the Church authorities, even in Spain. You would also discover that accused often chose to be prosecuted by the Church precisely because of that fact. Furthermore, when one considers the number of actual inquisition deaths (rather than the propagandized numbers) the true persecution of “free thought” was reserved for Calvin’s police state in Switzerland and Luther’s Peasant revolts. Those historical developments (Calvin’s and Luther’s) resulted in more than 100,000 deaths.
You spoke as if you may not have ever been Protestant. If not, you may have no idea how Protestant ministers teach with their own private, personal, “papal” authority. There is no “papal” authority practiced by the RCC popes that even approaches the “papal’ totalitarianism practiced by Protestant ministers. The idea that Catholics have no intellectual freedom would be laughable if it were not so firmly believed by everyone who is not Catholic. As I mentioned before, every group needs clear doctrine. How can we join a group without subscribing to the minimal doctrine? How could one choose to be “Prochoice” but be against abortion? The RCC has basic doctrine. Those are doctrines that have been formulated by theologians for two thousand years. Virtually any “new” theological formulations regarding those specific topics are not actually new, rather they are just modern renditions of ancient heresies. E.g., Jehovah Witnesses are merely modern Arians. The modern Lutheran and Calvinist “once-saved-always-saved” is merely the old sin of presumption.
I cannot speak to the specifics of Michael Servetus, but suffice it to note that he was burned at the stake in Calvin’s police state by Calvinists, not by Catholics.
A cursory study of actual (rather than propagandized) RCC history demonstrates the most robust intellectual exploration. It is not an exaggeration to point out that Universities were invented by the RCC. Hospitals were invented by the RCC. Human rights have been promulgated by the RCC. The United States (where I live), was founded by Protestants fleeing, not RCC countries, but fleeing Protestant countries that were so totalitarian that persecution, even death, was meted out to those who disagreed with the powers to be. When Catholics emigrated to the U.S., they were persecuted by the majority Protestant population. We still have some laws on the books in many states that are solely anti-Catholic (i.e., the Blaine Amendment).
Again, I point out to you that there can be no stability if there is no authority. The authority of the pope is utterly constrained by what truths the Church has define in the past. Unlike the common misconception that the pope can declare anything and that all Catholics must robotically follow his lead, the pope cannot change doctrine, the pope cannot declare something to be true that contradicts Scripture or established doctrine. The pope cannot “order” believers to buy electric cars. The pope may only speak with authority when speaking about spiritual or doctrinal or moral matters; and only then, in a manner consistent with what has been previously established. Accepting the truths that have been defined frees us to explore even greater level of spiritual truths. History seems to give us every permutation of possibilities (the LGBTQ, fetal stem cell, redefinition of marriage issues are modern cases in point). To not recognize the truth of the clearly defined doctrines of the RCC – is to theology and doctrine – what refusal to recognize basic scientific principles would be to ongoing scientific study. One is left reinventing the wheel over and over and over. One is left arguing the validity of basic principles over and over and over.
Just like one can state definitive scientific facts regarding scientific findings based on the expertise of previous research, one can comfortably accept the basic theological truths established by literally thousands of theologians who have agreed with one another for two thousand years. Careful study of the development of doctrinal definition results, not in proof that Catholic theologians are slavish sycophants, but in the opposite impression. Catholic doctrine is the most robust, precise, universal system of thought, applicable across history, available to humanity. It is necessary, however, to distinguish between what the RCC formally teaches versus what some self-proclaimed Catholics or what most Protestants claim the Church to teach.

Mark, I submitted this same response a few days ago and am only re-submitting it because I fear I didn’t actually send it. If it is just tied up over the weekend, waiting to be cleared, then please don’t re-post this one. Thanks.
Arne, you seem to have a rather severe impression regarding the “totalitarian” qualities of the RCC that you consider as denying individual “religious and intellectual freedom”. Be aware that much of what has been written about the RCC is written by patently hostile, anti-Catholic Protestant authors; and today, there is also much material written by militant atheists that hold the RCC responsible for everything bad (maybe even climate change).
As a life-long Protestant, I used to accept all that negative information about the RCC without recognizing that Protestantism, beginning with Luther, began propagandizing against the RCC in order to create a “straw man” argument that allows Protestants to always win. By painting the RCC doctrine in as exaggerated terms as possible, and then, by repeating the accusations perpetually, the falseness of such accusations was invisible to the casual observer. One example is the common belief in Protestant circles that Catholics “worship Mary and the Saints”. I believed that until I was asked by a RCC friend why, “Why do Protestants ignore, demean and reject Mary?” My answer was that we would never “worship” Mary. His shocked expression and response that, “Catholics don’t worship Mary!!! We honor her just like the Bible tells us to do!!!” That comment sent me, an evangelical who was becoming quite dissatisfied with the deterioration in the Protestant world, back to studying Scripture for what it actually says rather that reading Scripture through the filter of Protestant propaganda.
When it is recognized that the dark ages left the known western world with no form of effective government and the only source of civil authority was the universal Church, it is understandable why the Church became involved in civil authority. It is also important to keep in mind that it is invalid to evaluate ancient practices by modern standards. That modern standard directly reflects the development of moral standards based on the Judeo-Christian faith. The OT concept of “an eye for an eye” sounds shockingly primitive until it is recognized that prior to that, the common practice was “a life for an eye”. In the same way, criminal justice practices of the Middle Ages, seems very primitive to us moderns. However, if you study material about the Church during the Middle Ages, you will learn that the civil authorities were far more brutal that the Church authorities, even in Spain. You would also discover that people often chose to be prosecuted by the Church precisely because of that fact. Furthermore, when one considers the number of actual inquisition deaths (rather than the propagandized numbers) the true persecution of “free thought” was reserved for Calvin’s police state in Switzerland and Luther’s Peasant revolts. Those historical developments (Calvin’s and Luther’s) resulted in 100,000 killed.
You spoke as if you may not have ever been Protestant. If not, you may have no idea how Protestant ministers teach with their own private, personal, “papal” authority. There is no “papal” authority practiced by the RCC pope like that of Protestant ministers. The idea that Catholics have no intellectual freedom would be laughable if it were not so firmly believed by everyone who is not Catholic. As I mentioned before, every group needs clear doctrine. How can we join a group without subscribing to the minimal doctrine? How could one choose to be “Prochoice” but be against abortion? The RCC has basic doctrine. Those are doctrines that have been formulated by theologians for two thousand years. Virtually any “new” theological formulations regarding those specific topics are not actually new, rather they are just modern renditions of ancient heresies. E.g., Jehovah Witnesses are merely modern Arians. Modern Lutheran and Calvinist “once-saved-always-saved” is merely the old sin of presumption.
I cannot speak to the specifics of Michael Servetus, but suffice it to note that he was burned at the stake in Calvin’s police state by Calvinists, not by Catholics.
A cursory study of actual (rather than propagandized) RCC history demonstrates the most robust intellectual exploration. It is not an exaggeration to point out that Universities were invented by the RCC. Hospitals were invented by the RCC. Human rights have been promulgated by the RCC. The United States (where I live), was founded by Protestants fleeing, not RCC countries, but fleeing Protestant countries that were so totalitarian that persecution, even death, was meted out to those who disagreed with the powers to be.
Again, I point out to you that there can be no stability if there is no authority. The authority of the pope is utterly constrained by what truths the Church has define in the past. Unlike the common misconception that the pope can declare anything and all Catholics must robotically follow his lead, the pope cannot change doctrine, the pope cannot declare something to be true that contradicts Scripture or established doctrine. The pope cannot “order” believers to buy electric cars. The pope may only speak with authority when speaking about spiritual or doctrinal or moral matters; and only then, in a manner consistent with what has been previously established. Accepting the truths that have been defined frees us to explore even greater level of spiritual truths. History seems to give us every permutation of possibilities (the LGBTQ, fetal stem cell, redefinition of marriage issues are cases in point). To not recognize the truth of the clearly defined doctrines of the RCC – is to theology and doctrine – what refusal to recognize basic scientific principles would be to ongoing scientific study. One is left reinventing the wheel over and over and over. One is left arguing the validity of basic principles over and over and over.
Just like one can state definitive facts regarding scientific findings based on the expertise of previous research, one can comfortably accept the basic theological truths established by literally thousands of theologians who have agreed with one another for two thousand years. Careful study of the development of doctrinal definition results, not in proof that Catholic theologians are slavish sycophants, but in the opposite impression. Catholic doctrine is the most robust, precise, universally applicable system of thought available to humanity. It is necessary, however, to distinguish between what the RCC formally teaches versus what some self-proclaimed Catholics or what most Protestants claim the Church to teach.

“Catholic doctrine is the most robust, precise, universally applicable system of thought available to humanity.” I would only add, “... in 400 BCE.” In 2012 BCE, I would expect any system of thought to at the very least be grounded in some observational methods, such as science.

Bill:

Why would you think such a silly thing?  Natural science (which is what you mean) is the measurement of the metrical properties of time, space, matter and energy.  It is, itself, grounded in a set of metaphysical and theological assumptions and is by no means an ultimate.  It’s a good tool for the precise and limited sphere in which it operates.  But it’s nonsense to talk as though it should be a ground for a metaphysic, much less a supernatural revelation concerning a God who absolutely transcends nature.