A compelling non-Catholic argument

[protestantman]

Protestantman, I believe that you are not posting with an intent to be anti-Catholic. And I believe that you believe that you can come here and impart your personal interpretation of the Scripture to make us “stronger” by having us adopt your personal interpretation of Scripture.

But let me give you a little advice (not meant to be anti-anything), the Catholics on CAF will not find you authoritative. We have a 2,000 year history of understanding and implementing Holy Revelation which has never changed and we believe to the depth of our soul is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Every day, we dialogue with people like you who believe that you have found a new insight which is the Truth. Protestantman, we have heard all of these arguments and frankly we find them lacking.

This being said, I welcome you to CAF. As you said on another thread, I also think that we do need to understand those things that unite us. Most importantly, we all believe that Jesus Christ is God, He came among us to teach and preach us the “Way, the Life and the Truth”, and that He is our Savior.

But sometimes threads focus on our differences. The conversation will sometimes come across to someone new to CAF like you as strident and unwielding. Actually, it is just a symptom of communication of strongly held and developed thought.

Because you are new, think of yourself joining a “classroom” where the participants have been together for years and have a similar base of knowledge. Because you have missed many of the previous conversations, you need to “catch up.”

After reading your posts (in this thread and others), it indicates a heart that is not crass or mean-spirited or bigoted, I want you to stick around and not become disheartened. So, I’m going to give you some advice.

Be careful how you say things like “I strongly implore you to pray about this and recieve an answer from God, rather than answer based on the stance of the church.” This implies that the person is just parrotting the teaching of the Church and has not prayed over it. Protestantman, you are quoting jmcrae here. This person is well known on CAF as a prayerful and thoughful person. Your reception will be better if you don’t imply that you have a corner on prayer and thoughtful study of Scripture. We will assume the same of you. Just make your point and ask your questions.

You make a statement that we should dialogue such that we find the Truth that exists in the middle. Catholics will not find such idea of compromising on the Truth as possible. It doesn’t mean we can’t dialogue and find common ground. But we believe that there is one Truth and it is Jesus Christ. It is not possible in His nature to hold multiple contradicting positions. For a Catholic, when we hear “compromise in the middle” we hear just a new new contradicting unTruth formed in an effort to reduce division. We see too much division today. We don’t want a new iteration of division. We believe there is just one Truth for which we are called to find and follow with our body, mind, will, reason, and soul.

Final piece of advice. Don’t quote Scripture and say “it clearly says” this or that especially if it already evident that we have a different understanding. My suggestion is to just quote the Scripture and give your interpretation. It is much more condusive to dialogue and makes us more open to hear what and why you saying what you are as well as to get a better more thoughtful response on the Catholic view. Minds may not be changed but both will gain more understanding.

OK. Final, final comment Authority is a fundamental component of Catholicism. It is intricately weaved throughout our Faith. We believe that this Authority is ordained directly by Christ. If you attempt to subsitute yourself for this authority, the conversation will be less fruitful.

Don’t get me wrong Protestantman. We would love to dialogue with you. You may teach us something. We hope that we might do the same for you. You have a good spirit and disposition. You would be a great addition to CAF. Look forward to seeing you around.

When I say to pray and meditate as opposed to just interpreting the churches doctrine, I am merely adhearing to Pauls teachings. Paul commanded that regardless of his teachings, that we should search the scriptures to verify everything he said. Should we not do the same today. I say it not to imply that you do not, but merely to repeat this teaching.

Also, do you believe that the Catholic church needs to be streangthened? Has God revealed the scripture in its entirety to the Catholic church? Do you believe that in order to be first in Christs eyes, you must be a servant to the others?

Why do you say that in the eyes of the church I do not have authority? Yes Jesus did give authority to Peter in Matthew 16. Important note, in the origional greek text, Christ called Peter, Petros(pebble), and then later called him Petra(rock). In Matthew, Christ told Peter that he would build the church on that rock. But, does God not also say that if Christ is in me and I in him, does that not speak enough of my authority? God gave Christ full authority. If Christ is in me, how do I not have authority?
In 1 corinthians 4 it says that “Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithfull.” That said, the Pope is not justified because he is the pope, he must prove faithfull. And who can know how God has judged whether or not a man is faithfull?
I agree in full that it was wrong for the body of Christ to seperate into Factions. But, was Martin Luther wrong to oppose the teaching of the church? God says that we CANNOT judge that untill he returns and reveals his motives.

 

[jmcrae]

Why do you say that in the eyes of the church I do not have authority?

Because you have not been ordained via Apostolic Succession through the Bishop, by the laying on of hands.

Yes Jesus did give authority to Peter in Matthew 16. Important note, in the origional greek text, Christ called Peter, Petros(pebble), and then later called him Petra(rock).

The Greek is not the original; the Aramaic is. In the Aramaic, the word “Kephas” is used both times. If it were rendered literally into the English, it would read, “Thou art Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church.”

 

[jmcrae]

God gave Christ full authority. If Christ is in me, how do I not have authority?

What is your definition of authority? Would you say that all people have equal authority, and if so, what does that mean?

Could someone who is not my boss come into my office and put assignments into my in-box, and say that God has appointed him to be my boss, too?

Could someone who is not my father or mother (or someone who has formally been appointed to their role in their place) require that I attend their church, or forbid me from dating certain men? Could such a person claim to have been appointed to this role by God?

Could a government that is not my government, and not the government of my employer, require that I pay taxes to them? Could they claim to have been appointed by God?

Could someone who is not a police officer require me to pay a fine for violating a traffic regulation? If they were to claim that they had been appointed by God to collect traffic fines, what do you suppose would happen to them?

In the same way that these people are appointed in various ways to their stations of authority - ways that are public and obvious to all - Jesus appointed certain men to be in authority over others in His Church, and they in their turn passed on their authority to others, in the way that they had established for doing so, which is by the laying on of hands.

But someone who has no authority of his own cannot pass on authority to others, or take it for himself without it being given to him in the established way.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Protestantman: When I say to pray and meditate as opposed to just interpreting the churches doctrine, I am merely adhearing to Pauls teachings. Paul commanded that regardless of his teachings, that we should search the scriptures to verify everything he said. Should we not do the same today. I say it not to imply that you do not, but merely to repeat this teaching.

I know what you are trying to say but it doesn’t come off that way. The way you said it had an implication that you’ve done so and the other has not. If someone shows a knowledge of Scripture, it is better to assume that they have already done so. It will come off less condescending.

From Protestantman: Also, do you believe that the Catholic church needs to be streangthened? Has God revealed the scripture in its entirety to the Catholic church? Do you believe that in order to be first in Christs eyes, you must be a servant to the others?

I’m not sure I understand your question.

From Protestantman: Why do you say that in the eyes of the church I do not have authority?

I am saying that no Catholic will believe you have any interpretation of Scripture superior to the Church. This does not mean that your interpretation is faulty or conflicts with the Church or that your interpretation will not be correct. It is just that we will not accept your interpretation because you say so.

From Protestantman: Yes Jesus did give authority to Peter in Matthew 16. Important note, in the origional greek text, Christ called Peter, Petros(pebble), and then later called him Petra(rock). In Matthew, Christ told Peter that he would build the church on that rock. But, does God not also say that if Christ is in me and I in him, does that not speak enough of my authority? God gave Christ full authority. If Christ is in me, how do I not have authority?

Because we have no assurance that what you say is of Christ. In fact, because we are all sinners, it is entirely possible that what you say is not of God. There are a couple of Scripture Scholars here on CAF that will thunderously be able to crush any argument that you propose. This doesn’t make their interpretation/authority superior to yours. My point is that no Catholic will entrust their salvation to your interpretation of Scripture. Don’t take it personal. They won’t take mine either.

From Protestantman: In 1 corinthians 4 it says that “Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithfull.” That said, the Pope is not justified because he is the pope, he must prove faithfull. And who can know how God has judged whether or not a man is faithfull?

This is a really good question and deserves its own thread. For a beginning explanation of Catholic Teaching in this regard, I refer you to a previously referred section of the Catechism which describes the authority of the Pope.

From Protestantman: I agree in full that it was wrong for the body of Christ to seperate into Factions. But, was Martin Luther wrong to oppose the teaching of the church? God says that we CANNOT judge that untill he returns and reveals his motives.

While the Church believes that God has made good out of what Luther did, the Church emphatically teaches that what Luther did was wrong. Despite my love and respect for my Lutheran breathren, I believe so too.

 

[protestantman]

While the Church believes that God has made good out of what Luther did, the Church emphatically teaches that what Luther did was wrong. Despite my love and respect for my Lutheran breathren, I believe so too.

According to scripture, If Luther was acting under the authority of Christ, then who is any man to say that Luther was wrong? What were his Intentions? If you cannot say determine whether or not his intentions were holy or not(THE BIBLE CLEARLY SAYS THAT THAT IS CHRIST’S JOB ALONE) Then the Catholic church is wrong to judge him.

 

[jmcrae]

According to scripture, If Luther was acting under the authority of Christ, then who is any man to say that Luther was wrong?

In that case then, who was Luther to say that the Pope was wrong? Since it’s a lot more clear that the Pope was acting with Christ’s authority - not only was he a faithful Christian, he had also received the laying on of hands in Apostolic succession.

What were his Intentions? If you cannot say determine whether or not his intentions were holy or not(THE BIBLE CLEARLY SAYS THAT THAT IS CHRIST’S JOB ALONE) Then the Catholic church is wrong to judge him.

Logically, then, Luther was wrong to judge the Pope, for exactly the same reasons.

 

[protestantman]

To add, if he was wrong, then when Christ returns it will be made known. Consider that day. If Christ returns and it was True that Luther was only following Gods will? Remember Luther did not seperate from the church, he was seperated by the church. What sin did he commit?

 

[jmcrae]

To add, if he was wrong, then when Christ returns it will be made known. Consider that day. If Christ returns and it was True that Luther was only following Gods will? Remember Luther did not seperate from the church, he was seperated by the church. What sin did he commit?

Heresy, for one. Murder, for another. Read your history.

 

[Filius99993]

To add, if he was wrong, then when Christ returns it will be made known. Consider that day. If Christ returns and it was True that Luther was only following Gods will? Remember Luther did not seperate from the church, he was seperated by the church. What sin did he commit?

So, you’re saying that Luther had divine intervention? I’m sorry, but GIVE ME A BREAK! He separated himself from the Church the day he denied the Eucharist as the body of Christ, and the Church’s excommunication of Luther was only to make sure it was know officially. He made up these ideas on his own… which is why he had to cut out several books in the bibles (Tobit, to name one)- they didn’t agree with him.

 

[protestantman]

In that case then, who was Luther to say that the Pope was wrong? Since it’s a lot more clear that the Pope was acting with Christ’s authority - not only was he a faithful Christian, he had also received the laying on of hands in Apostolic succession.

Did Luther Judge the pope or did he merely disagree. Again you can not judge the Popes intentions either, so it is no more clear.

Logically, then, Luther was wrong to judge the Pope, for exactly the same reasons.

So its wrong to follow Gods will if it is against the pope?

I know that it is the teaching of the catholic church that the Popes teaching is infallable. I want to adress this, but first answer a question. How do you teach a child?

 

[jmcrae]

Did Luther Judge the pope or did he merely disagree. Again you can not judge the Popes intentions either, so it is no more clear.

True. And the best thing to do when things are not clear is to leave the authority where God has placed it.

Logically, then, Luther was wrong to judge the Pope, for exactly the same reasons.

So its wrong to follow Gods will if it is against the pope?

How do you know that God’s will was “against the pope”?

Are you receiving private messages from God, or what?

I know that it is the teaching of the catholic church that the Popes teaching is infallable. I want to adress this, but first answer a question. How do you teach a child?

Through repetition, and by beginning with the simplest principles, and building up from there. (Sounds, then words, then sentences, then the alphabet, and matching the letters to the sounds of language, then simple words, then simple sentences, then complex words, then complex sentences, then paragraphs, then short stories, then chapter books.)

What has that got to do with anything?

 

[Orionthehunter]

So its wrong to follow Gods will if it is against the pope?

No. We are always called to follow God’s will.

Can I ask you two questions? Do you understand the difference between infallible and impeccable as it relates to the Pope? Do you understand the difference between Catholic Teaching of Dogma, Morals and Doctrine and prudential teachings of the Church?

 

[protestantman]

God Bless you for you are my brother in Christ. I admire your knowledge of scripture and pray that I might be sharpened by your words.

True. And the best thing to do when things are not clear is to leave the authority where God has placed it.

Yes, and is that not Christ?

How do you know that God’s will was “against the pope”?

Are you receiving private messages from God, or what?

I am not saying that I know either way. It was more of a hypothetical question, since only Christ knows. I have recieved messages from God, just not about the pope

Through repetition, and by beginning with the simplest principles, and building up from there. (Sounds, then words, then sentences, then the alphabet, and matching the letters to the sounds of language, then simple words, then simple sentences, then complex words, then complex sentences, then paragraphs, then short stories, then chapter books.)

What has that got to do with anything?

I have a child that is a year old today. The only way for me to teach him is by my actions. Until he learns how to communicate he can only mimic my words, not learn from them, because he is not old enough to understand them. Is it not true that my actions teach him?

And please bear with me, I am going to explain fully.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Did Luther Judge the pope or did he merely disagree. Again you can not judge the Popes intentions either, so it is no more clear.

Logically, then, Luther was wrong to judge the Pope, for exactly the same reasons.

So its wrong to follow Gods will if it is against the pope?

I know that it is the teaching of the catholic church that the Popes teaching is infallable. I want to adress this, but first answer a question. How do you teach a child?

What is particularly ironic about Luther is that he was a person who absolutely believed in certain kinds of authority. But he felt authority should extend through the state rather than through the Church. Early in his monastic life as a monk Luther was redirected by his superiors toward an academic teaching when he developed an “excessive introspection” - he was a depressed man as well. Basically he “over studied” everything and went looking for problems. I believe Luther was probably a perfectionist and had a very idealistic view of life. But as well it looks like the man had a disturbed life (parental relation problems). He was a person who “questioned everything”. In essence Luther was a natural sort of rebel. I also think he was conflicted by his inner convictions for the state authority and an idealistic vision for The Church.

Most disturbing about Luther was that he was extremely anti-Jewish. The prevailing view among historians is that his anti-Jewish rhetoric contributed significantly to the development of antisemitism in Germany and in the 1930s and 1940s provided an ideal foundation for the National Socialist’s attacks on Jews. This tells me something about what his true inner spirit was. If he had spent as much time studying his own heart as he did in looking for problems and imperfection in The Church he likely would have been a much different man and reformed himself rather than attempted to usurp the Pope.

I also think that Luther was really a coincidental catalyst for revolution that just happened to come at the time that the printing press was making writings and books widely available to the people. That information distribution technology I think probably victimized Luther’s legitimate complaints to the Bishop. My theory is that secularists who wanted more autonomy from the authority of the Church and more power in the state governments used Luther as a wedge to seperate the Church from state. I think his thesis were hijacked by these elements who published them and made them widely available to other revolutionary forces. In a sense Luther was a victim to technology and got sucked into being a rebel leader against his original intentions. I think he then later got caught up in it to the point where pride and the feelings of being in a powerful position for change corrupted him.

**To answer your questions: **
Q: Did Luther Judge the pope or did he merely disagree?
A: Originally Luther decided to “enlighten” the Bishop (rather arrogant). His heart turned into open rebellion as he did not get the attention and response that he wanted. My theory is he himself was used by secular forces to become a rebel leader to usurp Church authority and give it back the state. At some point Luther caved into the role and corrupting power of being a rebel. He should have backed down when he saw the division that his original complaints caused and the wounds it was inflicting on The Church.

Q: So its wrong to follow God’s will if it is against the pope?
A: God has never asked any visionary or a saint of the church to go against the authority of the Church. God has always commanded that those receiving new visions or witnessing events to report them through their Bishops. When the Church has been slow to respond or when a particular aspect of revelation has not been properly acted on God has always followed up with additional signs or caused events to compel compliance. God never usurps Church authority - his pattern is to flow through it.

Q: How do you teach a child?
A: BY EXAMPLE. Luther taught his followers (HIS children) to disobey or challenge all authority.

 

[CentralFLJames]

According to scripture, If Luther was acting under the authority of Christ, then who is any man to say that Luther was wrong? What were his Intentions? If you cannot say determine whether or not his intentions were holy or not(THE BIBLE CLEARLY SAYS THAT THAT IS CHRIST’S JOB ALONE) Then the Catholic church is wrong to judge him.

Outcomes are what are important - not intentions. Anyone who starts off to be a force for radical change becomes responsible for unintended consequences. Its why Conservatism and Liberalism are in constant tension.

What were Judas’ intentions when he betrayed Jesus? Some fiction writers say he did it to role play scripture as a sort of benevolent disobedience. Other’s say the did it because he was a secret member of the Jewish zealot organization and was pretending to go along as Christ’s follower to infiltrate and get information that he could use to trigger a Jewish uprising against the Romans. Others say he was just a man who caved into sin to betrayed his master - a master who he agreed to follow but later changed his mind.

I’d say that Judas’ actions in killing himself suggest that he knew he was wrong in his own eyes - irrespective of what his original intentions were or what he imagined his authority was.

BTW Luther was not a bishop and technically was under the authority of his religious order’s master and the bishop over him. He may have fell victim to his own excessive introspection (why the Catholic Church put him in academic work) in a very ironic way. Many do not think Luther intended a rebellion at all but to start internal dialog with his bishop. I think Luther was victimized by secularist who used his protest and the modern invention of the printing press to opportunistically start a rebellion to wrestle power and authority from the Church to the State under the old demogaugery of “power to the people”. It’s the same mindset that delivered us the scourge of Communism. Luther’s vanity and pride made him a perfect puppet to be used by secularist. Luther was a duped fool.

James

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, and is that not Christ?

Ultimately, yes, of course. But Christ is not present in human form on the earth, to be able to command in person, so He has left certain specific individuals in charge of His Church. Originally, these were Peter and the Apostles. When they came to the end of their lives, they appointed others to succeed them in their offices, and the line of succession has continued unbroken even until now - their modern-day successors are the Pope and the Bishops who are in union with the Pope.

No one has ever been given a clear, unmistakeable mandate from God to usurp or bypass the authority of these men, and in the absence of this, for the sake of our souls, we must assume that the authority given to these men by Christ through the Apostles is remaining with them, and has not been transferred elsewhere.

 

[protestantman]

I’d say that Judas’ actions in killing himself suggest that he knew he was wrong in his own eyes - irrespective of what his original intentions were or what he imagined his authority was.

The intentions of Judas are made clear. His intentions where not of Christ. Any intentions he had where irrelevent, because God hardened his heart, so that Christ could fulfill his purpous. Christ chose him intentionally for that purpose. Like Pharoh, God chose to harden Judas. It was out of Judas’s hands.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

The intentions of Judas are made clear. His intentions where not of Christ. Any intentions he had where irrelevent, because God hardened his heart, so that Christ could fulfill his purpous. Christ chose him intentionally for that purpose. Like Pharoh, God chose to harden Judas. It was out of Judas’s hands.

A favor to ask please. When you reply to my post and other’s please do so OUTSIDE the quote context or change color or bold etc. I know it is not your intention to do so but the way you reply you essentially put words in my mouth. If somone else replies in turn then my name is on your words and it gets very confusing to everyone real fast. Thanks.

So, if we take your interpretation of scripture (which is not without merit), from the eyes of a Catholic we can also believe something similar. May we assume that God hardened Luther’s heart or turned him over to his rebellious proclivity to force the Church to correct some abuses; while at the same time He pruned away those who were not loyal to the Church’s authority?

James

 

[protestantman]

Ultimately, yes, of course. But Christ is not present in human form on the earth, to be able to command in person, so He has left certain specific individuals in charge of His Church. Originally, these were Peter and the Apostles. When they came to the end of their lives, they appointed others to succeed them in their offices, and the line of succession has continued unbroken even until now - their modern-day successors are the Pope and the Bishops who are in union with the Pope.

Jesus left but sent the Holy Spirit to act in his place. The Holy Spirit is still among us.

No one has ever been given a clear, unmistakeable mandate from God to usurp or bypass the authority of these men, and in the absence of this, for the sake of our souls, we must assume that the authority given to these men by Christ through the Apostles is remaining with them, and has not been transferred elsewhere.

This is where I find the biggest problem with Papal authority. What you say is true, but likewise Christ never gave clear, unmistakeable authority over the other Apostles. Scripture never ever clearly makes that distinction. It is a possible interpretation, but nothing more. My problem is that despite the scriptures telling us not to quarrel over whether or not we follow Paul or Peter, the Catholic church makes a point to say they follow the succesion of Peter. Why? Why not say that we follow the succesion of Christ through the Apostles, not just Peter? Why has a single interpretation become Law? Paul called these kinds of dissagreements to be worldly and of no value. He also said the same of geneology. You trace your history back to Peter, but isn’t that the geneology of the body of Christ. What is our goal then. If I follow Paul’s teaching and you follow Peter’s, do we not recieve the same message. Why does it seem that the Catholic church puts as much importants on their tradition as they do the Holy scripture? Which has greater weight?

Peter was confronted by Paul, because Peters actions also led Barnabus and other Jews to sin. They sinned because Peter sinned. If Paul had not contested him, to what levels of sin would Peter have taken his followers? On the same principle, should we not contest the Pope if he fall into the same Pattern?

I want to say again that I am not striking out at your doctrine, merely yearning to have a deeper understanding of your doctrine. Sadly I had to bow out of the other thread, as it was begining to appear quarrelsome. I do not wish to see that happen here.

Much love Christian brother.

P.S. I have posted a new thread concerning Testimonies, and would be honored to hear yours.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3371693#post3371693

 

[Orionthehunter]

Jesus left but sent the Holy Spirit to act in his place. The Holy Spirit is still among us.

This is where I find the biggest problem with Papal authority. What you say is true, but likewise Christ never gave clear, unmistakeable authority over the other Apostles. Scripture never ever clearly makes that distinction. It is a possible interpretation, but nothing more. My problem is that despite the scriptures telling us not to quarrel over whether or not we follow Paul or Peter, the Catholic church makes a point to say they follow the succesion of Peter. Why? Why not say that we follow the succesion of Christ through the Apostles, not just Peter? Why has a single interpretation become Law? Paul called these kinds of dissagreements to be worldly and of no value. He also said the same of geneology. You trace your history back to Peter, but isn’t that the geneology of the body of Christ. What is our goal then. If I follow Paul’s teaching and you follow Peter’s, do we not recieve the same message. Why does it seem that the Catholic church puts as much importants on their tradition as they do the Holy scripture? Which has greater weight?

Peter was confronted by Paul, because Peters actions also led Barnabus and other Jews to sin. They sinned because Peter sinned. If Paul had not contested him, to what levels of sin would Peter have taken his followers? On the same principle, should we not contest the Pope if he fall into the same Pattern?

I want to say again that I am not striking out at your doctrine, merely yearning to have a deeper understanding of your doctrine. Sadly I had to bow out of the other thread, as it was begining to appear quarrelsome. I do not wish to see that happen here.

Much love Christian brother.

P.S. I have posted a new thread concerning Testimonies, and would be honored to hear yours.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3371693#post3371693

My friend, you still have yet to have read the reference in the Catechism I gave you before on Authority or you haven’t absorbed it yet as you still speak w/ some inaccuracies. For example, teaching authority really rests in the College of Bishops (ala Apostles) with the Pope (Peter) at the head.

I also discussed the end of Mathew about Christ being with us until the end of time. We take that literally and more than just in Spirit. You don’t have to agree but it would be helpful if your comments gave an indication that you had an accurate understanding of what we teach.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to admonish you. I just want you to have an accurate understanding of what we teach and the Catechism is a good source. Then at least we will be arguing with us both being in the same field.